Landcruiser: American Civil War

No it isn't.

Projecting your knowledge into the past - and you have damn little knowledge regarding the engineering issues here other than what sounds "kewl" anyway - is what ISOTs and ASBs are all about.

.....

I'll caution you that reworking the TL to improve the capabilities of steam engines will have a myriad of knock on effects, effects which you'll need to take into account beyond "steam tanks".



But Don how can this be when in another thread you stated everything on this site is AH, including the Star Wars/Star Trek threads, the Zombie threads, the 40K board game threads and the video game based thread. Are all of those based on "plausible" changes to history?
 
Last edited:
Really? When? I mainly see him bitching.

Is "bitching" the word for things like this:

Don Lardo said:
This is going to seem odd, but low steam pressures don't directly limit the amount of horsepower produced. Horsepower is a function of steam pressure applied to piston surface area, so we can increase the horsepower produced by low steam pressure engines by increasing the size of the pistons in those engines. HMS Warrior's pistons, for example, were the size of a kitchen table and had a stroke measure in yards.

Those of you paying attention should now begin to realize how the low steam pressure-big piston relationship requires increases in engine size and how that increase negatively effects the "horsepower per weight" ratio.

We can produce more horsepower with low pressure steam engines if we make those steam engines larger but, by making them larger, we increase the weight of those engines and thus lose any horsepower gains.
now?

Because if so, I wish more people were bitchy. Even allowing for the tone being unpleasant.
 
Is "bitching" the word for things like this:

now?

Because if so, I wish more people were bitchy. Even allowing for the tone being unpleasant.

Nope I would not include that post in "bitching."

It's more about the ones where he loves pointing out the errors in people's story for no good reason other than attempting to draw attention to how smart he is and thereby attempting making them feel stupid.

Nor is it bitching to say this thread should be moved to another part of the forum. That is always open to debate. Sometimes authors don't pick the best areas to write their stories in.


It is "bitching" to endlessly lecture authors on how their work doesn't meet his standards.

If the author wants to write about steam tanks in the 1860, fine. If it's not up to your standards of acceptable realism just don't read it. You don't have to put the guy down for not being an engineer.
 
Last edited:
Nope I would not include that post in "bitching."

It's more about the ones where he loves pointing out the errors in people's story for no good reason other than attempting to draw attention to how smart he is and thereby attempting making them feel stupid.

Which posts are those?

Its not bitching to say this thread should be moved to another part of the site. That is always open to debate.


It is "bitching" to endlessly lecture authors on how their work doesn't meet his standards.

If the author wants to write about steam tanks in the 1860, fine. If it's not up to your standards of acceptable realism just don't read it. You don't have to put the guy down for not being an engineer.
God forbid, someone be advised to write plausible alternate history instead of "cool" ideas that have no founding whatsoever in what is actually feasible because the person proposing them doesn't know enough about the issues involved to recognize they exist, let alone address them. Isn't constructive criticism supposed to be about pointing to the holes in something and describing how it has more holes than an Irishman's pocket or a bad RPG plot?

Speaking as someone who finds implausible fantasy to be highly obnoxious and who loves the imagery of Steampunk.
 
God forbid, plausible alternate history instead of "cool" ideas that have no founding whatsoever in what is actually feasible because the person proposing them doesn't know enough about the issues involved to recognize they exist, let alone address them.

Speaking as someone who finds implausible fantasy to be highly obnoxious and who loves the imagery of Steampunk.

Would you really like to go through all the thread in the post-1900 area that have fall in to that area?

Like I said, no one is forcing anyone here to read a thread. You don't like it move on.

Really? That's great we have something in common, I dislike fantasy also. I wish my 17 year old son would find something else to read beside those stupid lord of the rings books.
 
Would you really like to go through all the thread in the post-1900 area that have fall in to that area?

No. Particularly since post-1900 interests me less than before-1900.

Doesn't mean that Sealions shouldn't be pointed out, though.

Like I said, no one is forcing anyone here to read a thread. You don't like it move on.
And this means that if you think some constructive criticism is in order you should just shut up? :rolleyes:

Really? That's great we have something in common, I dislike fantasy also. I wish my 17 year old son would find something else to read beside those stupid lord of the rings books.
I think you completely misread me there. I dislike implausible fantasy - such as Harrison's Ameriwank trilogy, which at best strains suspension of disbelief and at worst...

Its like Sealion, only without the Germans.

Not fantasy as a genre.

So my question is this. What's wrong with Don's posts again? Looking at this from the standpoint that constructive criticism has a purpose.
 

Hyperion

Banned
Mad Missouri, what suggestions do you have that might be of use for improving or fleshing out this timeline?

I don't think the premise is a bad idea, but I do feel that it could use some rework and revision. This in no way means that the principle idea of the timeline is bad, or that the author of the timeline is bad.

Seriously, what suggestions do you have?
 
So what tactical role do you see these vehicles fulfilling? They won't be able to keep up with cavalry units due to their low speed and mobility, correct? Will they be used to support infantry breakthroughs on relatively level ground? I should think it would be difficult to use them against heavily fortified positions, due to the thin armor and weaker weaponry neccessitated by weight constraints.
 
But Don how can this be when in another thread you stated everything on this site is AH, including the Star Wars/Star Trek threads, the Zombie threads, the 40K board game threads and the video game based thread. Are all of those based on "plausible" changes to history?


Nice try. :rolleyes:

I always point out that each forum on this site has it's own standards. Steampunk tanks fit quite nicely in the Writer's, ASB, and Books and Media fora and, without substantial PODs which are absent here, don't fit at all on the Before 1900 forum.

Each forum has it's own standards. Just as importantly, none of the fora are better or worse than the others. The fora are different, they're meant for different things. Nothing more.
 
Last edited:
Top