StarDestroyer.Net BBS

JBG wrote:the options are there to do most sorts of damage that you would want to to a small castle with small surrounding settlement and mine/forge works.

Not to detract from your point, but by human standards demonic castles should be quite impressive. This is partly due to the fact they're built to a demonic scale (and greater demons are pretty big), but mainly because demons can and do spend millenia building up a single fortification (Dis probably took tens of millenia to complete). Human castles (and monuments in general) usually have a construction window of decades at best; a very few get extended several times over a couple of centuries, but generally we're talking about two orders of magnitude less build time by laborers with much less strength and stamina.

Belial's 'palace' is actually a repurposed prison. My mental image of it is something like the Castel del Monte;



but three times the size and built out of carved adamantine blocks (essentially a dark brown, polluted form of sapphire). Assorted single-story outbuildings were tacked on at a later date, built on the cheap and much less sturdy. The surrounding settlement is much less impressive, with slate roofs on bronze rafters predominating due to the scarcity of wood.

Satan's palace is most likely a sprawling brass-paneled monstrosity (at least the size of the Forbidden City), designed to inspire and enhance fear and awe and built off and on for over a hundred millenia.

Assuming that the attacks aren't stopped for what ever reason, how long would it take for them to completely break down humanity's war economy? If Belial is going at one city per week, it seems possible that he could severly cripple the economy of a country like Britain or America with in a year or so. Is that a reasonable assessment? Would the loss of 48 cities be survivable?

If that were the case, then before long I suspect that we would be smart enough to disperse our industries further apart so that each individual attack is less crippling.

Mongoose wrote:Assuming that the attacks aren't stopped for what ever reason, how long would it take for them to completely break down humanity's war economy? If Belial is going at one city per week, it seems possible that he could severly cripple the economy of a country like Britain or America with in a year or so. Is that a reasonable assessment? Would the loss of 48 cities be survivable?

Depends on which 48 cities they take out.

Taking out the top 48 most important ports around the world would utterly devastate the global economy. Taking out a random sampling of 48 largish cities...would put a smallish dent but nothing crippling.


I was thinking that an interesting tactic for the demons might be to open many small lava-fountain portals instead of just a few big ones. Even one or two small lava fountains falling on a city could be quite damaging. I imagine the demons could open small lava-fountain portals with a lot less effort. And then there is the idea someone else mentioned...open ocean-fountain portals.

Starglider wrote:Not to detract from your point, but by human standards demonic castles should be quite impressive. This is partly due to the fact they're built to a demonic scale (and greater demons are pretty big), but mainly because demons can and do spend millenia building up a single fortification (Dis probably took tens of millenia to complete). Human castles (and monuments in general) usually have a construction window of decades at best; a very few get extended several times over a couple of centuries, but generally we're talking about two orders of magnitude less build time by laborers with much less strength and stamina.

Construction of very tall structures is limited by technology rather than time. Even in the 10% reduced gravity of Hell, their principal problem is going to be the same one our ancestors had: holding the structure up against its own weight. Giving them thousands of years to work on it won't change that fundamental limitation, which is primarily an engineering problem, for a society with almost no engineering know-how.

Darth Wong wrote:Construction of very tall structures is limited by technology rather than time.

Certainly, the peak of Demonic architecture won't surpass standard Roman engineering. Extremely thick lower walls and laboriously carved perfectly fitted blocks only help up to a point. Fortifications will however extend over a fair bit of land area compared to typical human castles, at least for demons with the troops to man such structures. Dis itself is something like twice the length of the Great Wall of China and appears to be a considerably more formidable fortification (not to mention a functional garrison city) for all that length.

Here's a dumb question, I'm not sure if its been asked or not.

What happens if two dead humans (fully regenerated) screw in hell? Is their kid dead too? Can they HAVE a kid? Is it some kind of super kid that has the strength and regenerative abilities of a dead person? Can it move between Hell and Earth freely?

Or for that matter, if two living humans cross over and screw, then have a kid in hell?

Or one living and one dead?!

Chris OFarrell wrote:Here's a dumb question, I'm not sure if its been asked or not.

What happens if two dead humans (fully regenerated) screw in hell? Is their kid dead too? Can they HAVE a kid? Is it some kind of super kid that has the strength and regenerative abilities of a dead person? Can it move between Hell and Earth freely?

Or for that matter, if two living humans cross over and screw, then have a kid in hell?

Or one living and one dead?!

That sounds like the premise of a mediocre anime...

On a more revelant note, it is highly improbable that 48 cities get razed. I would suspect only 2 or even 3 cities get flattened, and that's only if PFLH is extermely slow and/or incompetent.

Awesome fic, cannot wait for more!!!!!!!!!

It is still like crack....

Chris OFarrell wrote:Here's a dumb question, I'm not sure if its been asked or not.

What happens if two dead humans (fully regenerated) screw in hell? Is their kid dead too? Can they HAVE a kid? Is it some kind of super kid that has the strength and regenerative abilities of a dead person? Can it move between Hell and Earth freely?

Or for that matter, if two living humans cross over and screw, then have a kid in hell?

Or one living and one dead?!

Or if a live human screws a dead one for that matter. Honestly, I'm surprised this question went unasked so long. Especially on this board.

GIVE ME MORE ARMAGEDDON-FLAVORED DOPE, YOU BASTARD!

(Said in the nicest possible way!)

Chris OFarrell wrote:Here's a dumb question, I'm not sure if its been asked or not.

What happens if two dead humans (fully regenerated) screw in hell? Is their kid dead too? Can they HAVE a kid? Is it some kind of super kid that has the strength and regenerative abilities of a dead person? Can it move between Hell and Earth freely?

Or for that matter, if two living humans cross over and screw, then have a kid in hell?

Or one living and one dead?!

I was about to say that undead humans are sterile, on account of the whole demon rapes not resulting in babies, but the torture would cause miscarriages if there were any pregnancies anyway. Also I could see it as a way to harvest babies for consumption.

Likely if two living humans had a kid in hell, they'd have a normal baby.

The Vortex Empire wrote:Selling children as snacks? How do we deal with a culture like that after we defeat them?

It's somewhat less evil than eternally torturing those same children.

Starglider wrote:Certainly, the peak of Demonic architecture won't surpass standard Roman engineering.

Ouch.

It's my understanding that some medieval engineering was actually much more sophisticated than roman - flying butresses, gothic arches, very large and sophisticated vaulted ceilings, and so on. Of course, they tended to use that knowhow for cathedrals, not aqueducts...

NecronLord wrote:

The Vortex Empire wrote:Selling children as snacks? How do we deal with a culture like that after we defeat them?

It's somewhat less evil than eternally torturing those same children.

And I guess that explains the question of whether or not peoples get pregnants in hells. A Modest Answer!

NecronLord wrote:It's my understanding that some medieval engineering was actually much more sophisticated than roman - flying butresses, gothic arches, very large and sophisticated vaulted ceilings, and so on.

Yep, but none of that is terribly useful for building fortifications, and in any case gothic architecture appeared only in the last few centuries of the middle ages. The demons have probably had the same master artisans in charge of major construction for many millennia, and with the typical demonic attitude to change (not just 'bad', literally inconceivable), it isn't surprising that their architectural advancement has been slow to nonexistant.

Well, the TU-160 really only does nuclear strikes, primarily with its Kh-55 missiles. With 12 Kh-55 missiles at 200kt per missile, that's 2.4 megatons per bomber. I think a flight of six (there are only 35 of the things)

Actually of the 16 Tu-160s in service with the 37th Air Army, at least two have been upgraded with improved avionics packages and the ability to carry conventional weapons, including precision-guided conventional munitions and, of course, the Kh-555 CALCMski and Kh-101 (conventional) and Kh-102 (nuclear) ACMski.

For the purposes of Armageddon, only the Kh-555s are really in service at this time. Kh-101s have only been seen in test runs, hanging from the pylons of a Tu-95MS (the upgrade of all Tu-95MS16s to carry Kh-555s/Kh-101s/102s etc has already been completed). For what it's worth, Jane's stated (when they acquired picutres of the Kh-101 on the aforesaid Tu-95MSM)

The operational status of the Kh-101 is still not clear, although it is obviously in an advanced test and development stage and is probably available for use. Russian sources note that flights with the missile and the Tu-95MSM have been ongoing for over a year.

Really though, the 5,000km range Kh-101/102s aren't really necessary.

Starglider wrote:Yep, but none of that is terribly useful for building fortifications,

I'm honestly not sure how mid-medieval fortifications compare with iron age ones. I think it may be quite favourably, but I don't really have the evidence to draw a complete conclusion in the matter.

I haven't studied the history that much, but more complex architecture doesn't necessarily mean they had developed any new civil engineering principles. If anything, the public-works programs of the Romans seemed far more impressive than the medieval ones. The medievals build wonderful churches, but does that actually require innovation in engineering methods, compared to (for example) the Roman Coliseum?

Darth Wong wrote:I haven't studied the history that much, but more complex architecture doesn't necessarily mean they had developed any new civil engineering principles. If anything, the public-works programs of the Romans seemed far more impressive than the medieval ones. The medievals build wonderful churches, but does that actually require innovation in engineering methods, compared to (for example) the Roman Coliseum?

Yes, the flying buttresses system which makes the high vaulted roofs of medieval cathedrals possible required new technology. The Coliseum is big, but it does not enclose any really large, wide open interior areas. It’s a large scale application of existing smaller scale engineering.

The Romans might well have been able to figure out how to do flying buttresses if they’d thought about it, but they never did. However in terms of military fortifications, the Romans would be better off. Medieval castles had high stone walls filled internally with rubble; this is not a very strong defense against explosives. Roman walls tended to be lower and wider, and were construction of a heap of earth with the outer side faced with solid stone. Gunfire can smash down the stone facing easily enough, but even some fairly aircraft bombs would have a difficulty time actually blasting a decent breach through the mounded up earth.

None of this would actually matter much, but it’s interesting to think about. Certainly in WW2 there were several examples of some very old stone and earth forts being turned into very strong positions which were not easily taken. The same thing happened in Vietnam, particularly the old citadel at Hue, which withstood numerous Marine infantry-tank attacks until finally the walls were collapsed by one of the first uses of laser guided bombs as a close air support weapon. Modern weapons made castle and similar fortification structures obsolete in that they no longer offered sufficient protection for how much they cost, but that didn’t mean they couldn’t still offer a useful defense. Course the defenders also had modern weapons at the same time.

Sea Skimmer wrote:Medieval castles had high stone walls filled internally with rubble; this is not a very strong defense against explosives.

This is exactly what I was thinking of actually; most of the British castle ruins I've visited had mortared walls obviously filled with rubble, presumably because that's much, much cheaper to build than a two metre thickness of interlocked carved stone blocks. I wasn't sure if this holds for medieval castles in general so I didn't bring it up earlier, but if it does that should be a substantial advantage for time-is-no-object demon construction. OTOH Belial's palace in particular uses semi-crystalline material that's unpleasantly vulnerable to shattering and (presumably) spalling under explosive attack.

Certainly in WW2 there were several examples of some very old stone and earth forts being turned into very strong positions which were not easily taken.

The fighting in Burma in '45 comes to mind. The 14th Army found that they needed to use heavy artillery at virtual point blank range to breach the walls of some old forts.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:I haven't studied the history that much, but more complex architecture doesn't necessarily mean they had developed any new civil engineering principles. If anything, the public-works programs of the Romans seemed far more impressive than the medieval ones. The medievals build wonderful churches, but does that actually require innovation in engineering methods, compared to (for example) the Roman Coliseum?

Yes, the flying buttresses system which makes the high vaulted roofs of medieval cathedrals possible required new technology. The Coliseum is big, but it does not enclose any really large, wide open interior areas. It’s a large scale application of existing smaller scale engineering.

Well, the scale is actually an engineering innovation in itself, so I don't think I would downgrade the Coliseum so quickly. And flying buttresses seem like a pretty straight-forward extension of the arch concept, albeit modified for the particular aesthetic preferences of church builders.

The Romans might well have been able to figure out how to do flying buttresses if they’d thought about it, but they never did. However in terms of military fortifications, the Romans would be better off. Medieval castles had high stone walls filled internally with rubble; this is not a very strong defense against explosives. Roman walls tended to be lower and wider, and were construction of a heap of earth with the outer side faced with solid stone. Gunfire can smash down the stone facing easily enough, but even some fairly aircraft bombs would have a difficulty time actually blasting a decent breach through the mounded up earth.

Ah, very interesting. I didn't know that was how the Romans build fortified walls.

None of this would actually matter much, but it’s interesting to think about. Certainly in WW2 there were several examples of some very old stone and earth forts being turned into very strong positions which were not easily taken. The same thing happened in Vietnam, particularly the old citadel at Hue, which withstood numerous Marine infantry-tank attacks until finally the walls were collapsed by one of the first uses of laser guided bombs as a close air support weapon. Modern weapons made castle and similar fortification structures obsolete in that they no longer offered sufficient protection for how much they cost, but that didn’t mean they couldn’t still offer a useful defense. Course the defenders also had modern weapons at the same time.

Given the limitations of demon engineering, I would expect their millennia of improvements to spread their fortifications over very large areas, but at any given point, I imagine they would not be very strong. In fact, I have to wonder why they would even try to build walls strong enough to withstand heavy impacts, since they don't even appear to use catapults or ballista against each other. As long as the wall is proof against trident blasts and beasts ramming into it, I don't see why they would feel any need to make it tougher.

The design of Bladrick walls and minor forts are probably more driven towards controlling commerce and wandering humans then repelling armed assaults. That means they wont be anything too grand. However given a millennium of human slave labor even a small scale investment each year in fortifications could yield enormous returns. The walls of Dis could reasonably be built completely of solid stone blocks over a hundred feet tall within a time frame of a few hundred years. I don’t know if they actually did this, but anything ancient or medieval humanity has ever built should be easily matched in shear scale by the largest demon fortresses.

Darth Wong wrote: In fact, I have to wonder why they would even try to build walls strong enough to withstand heavy impacts, since they don't even appear to use catapults or ballista against each other. As long as the wall is proof against trident blasts and beasts ramming into it, I don't see why they would feel any need to make it tougher.

Remember a fortress isn't just a strongpoint against attack, its a statement of military power. It says to potential enemies, "this is what I can build, this is the effort I place in my defense, this is what you must overcome to defeat me." It's also a statement of political power "here I am, here I stay. Nothing you can conceivably build can worry me." It's also a statement of economic power, "look what I can afford; I am so rich i can build marvels like this. You are nothing in comparison."

Don't look on a fortress as a defense. Look on it as the lock that bars a route to power, a lock so obviously strong, nobody even tries to take the route it bars.