Skeptical

Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic

When I went to college, it was to study Biochemistry and Environmental Sciences. Back in those days, it was understood that we were, geologically speaking, due for an Ice Age “any day now”.

Within ten years, this changed: Over time, “Global Cooling” became “Global Warming”.

More time passed. It soon became apparent that the planet was neither warming nor cooling; some parts of the globe were getting cooler, other parts were getting warmer. So the Scientific Community, presumably in a bid to not sound like idiots, coined the term “Climate Change”, which has the advantage of meaning … whatever you want it to mean (see also “Hope and Change”).

Before we go any further, it must be said that I accept that there is such a thing as Climate Change. Planet Earth is not a static system. As we speak, the force of the Indian Subcontinent driving into the underbelly of Asia is driving the Himalayan mountains ever higher. And the world’s largest island, Australia, is charging around the globe looking for some unsuspecting continent onto which it can disgorge its cargo of Kangaroos, Koala Bears, Duck-Billed Platypuses… and some of the most dangerous and venomous insects in the world. So some places are getting warmer, some are getting cooler.

What I remain unconvinced about is Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), the idea that humans are single-handedly ruining the planet. I “deny” nothing, but I am skeptical, for a great many reasons. So if you call me a “Climate change denier“, I will call you a “Climate Change Alarmist“. I prefer the terms “Climate Change Believer” and “Climate Change Skeptic/Agnostic“. I appreciate that others will not like these terms, with their religious overtones, but the “Consensus” claims of the Alarmists, along with their eschatological panic, make them look a lot like religious zealots.

So yes, climate change is a thing. No sensible person will dispute that. The salient questions are:

  • Are we causing it?
  • How did we cause it?
  • How can we fix it?

Are we causing Climate Change?

Here are some thoughts on the subject:

  • Two thousand years ago, the Romans grew grapes in London. That no longer happens.
  • Between the 14th and the 19th centuries, Europe experienced a “Little Ice Age”. The river Thames froze over many times. That no longer happens either, and has not happened at all in the last two hundred years.
  • So England was cooling, and warming, for centuries, long before industrialization came along.
  • My utility bill tells me the average temperature during the past month, along with the average temperature for the same month last year. In the vast majority of cases, this year has been colder than last year.

Climate Change Alarmists are convinced that unless we change our ways quickly, bad things will happen. However, they cannot agree on what that change will be. We cannot trust the weatherman to tell us what the weather will be a week from now, but they expect us to believe that they know what the climate will be a thousand years from now.

How did we cause it?

The accepted answer from the Climate Change community is “Greenhouse Gases” There are two major greenhouse gases: CO2 and Methane.

CO2 is emitted by emission from burning fossil fuels and also by plants in sunlight. Fossil fuels, however, are not born equal; they range from clean-burning (in terms of CO2 emissions) Natural Gas, to the relatively “dirty” Coal (in the past thirty years, the percentage of power generated from coal has dropped from 57% to 37% in the U.S.).

Methane is a far worse “greenhouse gas” by a factor of about 30 (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140327111724.htm) is found mostly generated mostly by natural seepage. Our main contribution is cow flatulence.

Can we fix it?

If ACC is true, There is only one way that works, and that is de-industrialization on a massive scale; no more motor cars, no more power plants, no more civilization; we and go back to living in tents and caves, dying young, and reducing ourselves to a third-world lifestyle. Women will die in childbirth, men will die in battle. Life will return to its natural l state: “Nasty, brutish, and short”. Well sign me up!
Assuming that this is not an option, what else is to be done?

  1. Build Nuclear Power Stations. They don’t emit greenhouse gases. Wind-generated power won’t be enough, and Geothermal power, while a viable future option, isn’t there yet.
  2. Give up eating beef.
  3. Buying a hybrid or electric car won’t help. All this does is move the pollution from the vehicle’s exhaust pipe to a power-plant. See #1
  4. International agreements like the Paris Climate Accords are a farce; China and India refused to sign up, and they are among the world’s biggest polluters. Yet when Donald Trump abandoned the accords, he was savaged by the press. I applaud him. No President should embark on a course of action that puts American businesses at a disadvantage.

Some will say things like “95% of scientists agree that ACC is real. That claim may be true, but should be taken with a grain of salt. What they fail to mention is that 100% of government research funding goes to defining and finding a solution to “The problem of Climate Change”. There is no money to be made in pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. It is impossible to make someone believe something if their paycheck depends on them not believing it.

Climate Change Alarmists’ predictions are inconsistent, and often hysterical.

  • In 2007, Al Gore predicted that the Arctic Polar Ice cap could be gone by 2014 . This has not happened, Not even close.
  • Back in the 1970s, and 1980s, there was much talk about the “Hole in the Ozone Layer”, ostensibly caused by CholoFluoroCarbons — or CFCs for short. As a result, CFCs were banned throughout the industrialized world, though it is still in use elsewhere. Within a decade, the hysteria subsided, and there is currently no evidence that there ever was a hole in the Ozone layer. No explanation or apology has ever been given by those who were spreading all of this panic, except for the “It-is-healing-really-really-fast” theory, which is not science. But we are supposed to trust them this time. This reminds me of the end-times claims given by many religious folks.

Conclusions:

I have yet to be convinced that Anthropogenic Climate Change is real.

For obvious reasons, cutting pollution is a good idea, as long as it does not interfere with progress or economic growth.

The Evidence Is Not Conclusive. Climate change “consensus” is not science.

  • Thirty years ago, eggs were good for you.
  • Twenty years ago, eggs were bad for you.
  • Ten years ago, egg yolks were bad for you, while egg whites were good for you.
  • In these enlightened days, eggs are good for you… again.

So much for “Scientific Consensus”

Next time you hear someone saying “We believe that climate change…” or “I believe in science“, remind them that science is not something that you believe in, it is something that you do. When you “believe” in science, something that many prominent atheists claim, you are actually making science your religion.

Advertisements

Dreadnought!

Anyone who has spent more than a couple of minutes reading my blog can tell, I like games.

That is not to say that I consider myself a “Gamer”, I have never owned a gaming console of any kind. However, I have been playing computer games since the early 1980s, which, I suppose, makes me something of an expert on the subject.

I recently discovered a rather nice game called Dreadnought.

In it, you get to fly and fight in multiplayer battles over land and in space. with a variety of ship types, including:

  • Corvette: Small, quick and fragile, but packs quite a wallop. A lot of fun to fly, once you have mastered the art of stealthy flying.
  • Tactical Cruiser: Provides support and healing to your team. Often the most-appreciated member of your squad.
  • Destroyer: Jack-of-all-trades. Fairly quick, Heavily-armed, but relatively fragile, and the ideal beginner ship.
  • Artillery Cruiser: Long range sniper, which rains down electric death from afar. Easy to kill, hates Corvettes.
  • Dreadnought: The big one. Heavy, slow, and bristling with offensive and defensive weaponry.

Battles take place in various space and planetary scenarios, and take place between two teams with eight players each.

There are several different types of battle, including:

  • Team Deathmatch: You get points for killing enemies. They get points for killing yours. First team to 100 points or a time limit wins.
  • Onslaught: Protect your Command ship from enemies while trying to take out theirs.
  • Proving Grounds: This is basically Team Deathmatch against AI enemies, with seven other AI NPCs backing you up.

A typical game takes 10-20 minutes. Getting killed is a minor inconvenience; you are back in the game in less than thirty seconds, and have the option of changing ships during your short hiatus.

The nice thing about this game is that is free to play, but shelling out some shekels will give you some neat stuff, but won’t make the game too easy to win, which is a problem with certain games I could mention.

Check out the video. If you like what you see, I’ll see you on the battlefield.

Wooly Thinking

I came across this story in Psychology today. The story is a few years old, but I am amazed at how deliberately misinformed, if not disingenuous, someone can be.

Is Marriage Worth the Trouble For Women? The benefits go mostly to men.

Let’s start at the very beginning:

A casual look at how marriage is represented in popular culture may lead one to conclude that ending up at the altar is the ultimate female desire.

It is. Men don’t fantasize about getting married. Women have been known to.

Wedding magazines are aimed almost exclusively at brides, not grooms.

They are. Women spend far more on magazines than do men. And nobody ever went broke telling women what they desperately wanted to hear.

Reality TV shows highlight Bridezillas, not Groomzillas, and The Bachelor, in which multiple women vie for a ring, is a ratings juggernaut.

They are. Men don’t watch reality TV. Look at the adverts; who are they aimed at?

The central attraction in the pageant of the average wedding is reserved for the bride’s dress, while the groom’s attire receives little billing.

Working as designed. Women will spend big money on fashion. Man is the only animal species where the female wears the plumage.

Pop culture queen Beyoncé herself has famously admonished men that if they like it, then they should put a ring on it.

And most girls look like Beyoncé… NOT! If did, I’m sure that you would have no shortage of suitors. This is a classic Apex Fallacy.

Proverbs 31 says “An excellent wife, who can find? Her value is greater than rubies”. Translation: Most women ain’t wife material.If he ain’t “putting a ring on it” it’s probably because you are unworthy.

Men, on the other hand, are often depicted as commitment phobic, having to be conned or whipped into marriage, or dragged to the altar against their deeply promiscuous nature, which abhors long-term monogamy.

Close but no cigar. Decades ago, women were far more chaste and feminine than they are now. They had the requisite skills that made them good wives. I would posit that feminism has caused women to behave like men, and men have rationally started behaving like boys. As women invaded colleges and the workplace en masse, taking up more and more traditional male spaces and, men have become increasingly sidelined, less educated, less affluent, less able to support a family. Women have also put off marriage into their late twenties and early thirties, denying marriage-minded men of the youth, beauty and fertility that they crave and would pay the ultimate price for.

Both women and men have inherently become both less marriage-minded, and less marriageable. But since the men are the deciders of commitment, when they balk, women, ever reluctant to admit their faults, are quick to portray them as marriage-averse. But I have seen too many women who want to be a bride, but not a wife. It’s not that we don’t want to marry; it’s that we don’t want to marry you.

The notion of a “midlife crisis,” during which men are bound to jettison their old wives for a new, younger trophy model is also a familiar cultural trope.

…while the notion of wives who get fat and bitchy, deny their husbands sex (it is estimated that 80% of ten-year-plus marriages are essentially sexless) while holding the specter of divorce-induced financial ruination over his head, remains safely ignored.

Oh, and the “trope” is generally untrue; very few men “trade in” for the very good reason that most men can’t afford it. Another Apex Fallacy, methinks. Seriously. How many of the divorces you know of follow this pattern?

Marriage, we have been led to believe, is a natural habitat for women, but a stifling cage for men. Thus goes the popular fantasy. However, in the real world of data, things shake out quite a bit differently.

We’ll see about that

First, confounding the view of marriage as the female heaven and haven is the fact that marriage actually appears to benefit men more than it does women.

Yes, marriage is good for men. And Divorce is an absolute bloody disaster. And the Divorce rate is 50%. If a man is going into a deal where there is a fifty-fifty chance of having his head taken off, there had better be some serious benefits for him. This obvious and incontrovertible fact seems to be lost on some psychologists, it seems.

Research has shown that the “marriage benefits”—the increases in health, wealth, and happiness that are often associated with the status—go disproportionately to men. Married men are better off than single men. Married women, on the other hand, are not better off than unmarried women.

Correlation, it is written, is not causation. Could it be that women are attracted to — and tend to marry — men who are healthy, wealthy and happy?

Second, in contrast to the myth that marriage is a woman’s ultimate and sacred fulfillment is the reality that roughly two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women… A recent AARP survey of 1147 men and women ages 40-79 who experienced a divorce in their 40s, 50s, or 60s, found that 66% of women said they initiated the split.

It is also true that the longer a couple have been married, the more ruination a departing wife can visit upon her husband. It is often pre-planned; in many cases the poor sap had no idea until she had him served with divorce papers.

The results revealed an intriguing pattern: As expected, women initiated roughly two thirds (69%) of the breakups in heterosexual marriages. However, the gendered trend in relationship breakups held only for marriages and not for other non-marital unions.

I have a theory on this. Women don’t generally dump men for nobody. Outside of marriage, they tend to delay dumping their boyfriends until they have another one primed and ready to go. But with marriage, there are cash-and-prizes that come with a divorce. In some cases, the husband ends up with all of the financial obligations of marriage with none of the benefits that go with it. The Government effectively becomes her new husband.

Moreover, women in marriages, but not in other relationships, reported lower levels of satisfaction.

This is bunk. Study after study has shown that married women report the highest level of happiness. If you don’t believe them, reality is only a glance away. Think of the most depressed, miserable and bitter women you know. Who are they? Feminists. Just kidding! They are usually unmarried, childless, over thirty, and without hope of having the life they desperately crave.

According to Rosenfeld, these data suggest that the tendency for women to initiate breakups is not an inherent feature of male-female relationships. Rather, it is a feature of male-female marriage.

Rubbish. It is a feature of profitability; you can’t divorce-rape a boyfriend. The real acid test for this theory would be to look at the separation rates for couples in a state of Common-Law marriage, where they are not actually married, but the State treats them as if they were. If my theory is correct, common-law wives will dump their husbands for cash-and-prizes with the same alacrity that married women do.

This finding appears to provide support for the notion that women experience the institution of marriage as oppressive, in large part because it emerged from and still carries the imprint of a system of female subjugation.

What mealy-mouthed, self-serving Psychobabble. The popularity of “Fifty Shades of grey” shows clearly that women love the ideas of submission and subjugation… as long as he has a six-pack, a helicopter, a yacht, and conspicuous good looks. Hypergamy (the female tendency for women to date/mate/marry “up”) means that women are inherently much harder to satisfy than are men.

At the end of the day, the accumulating data paint a picture of marriage as complex commerce in which women may often play a paradoxical role: They work harder for a smaller share of the benefits, which may explain why, while they may often be more eager to get into a marriage, they are often also more eager to get out.

Women get plenty of benefits from marriage, but they get those benefits later in life, when his earnings are are their highest, her looks are gone, and no other man is interested. In a word, it is security. But if she can get the same security in Divorce Court, it will be easier for her to bust out of the marriage in a manner not unlike that infamous scene in Alien.

Here in the enlightened West, women are also never satisfied: how many wives have you heard complain that their husbands do too much around the house? None! This tells us men that women’s expectations are fundamentally unreasonable.

Conclusion: Data on Marriage and Divorce is like data on Climate Change – highly subject to interpretation. This piece seems to be written from a standpoint of “marriage is a bad idea because subjugation, and women shouldn’t do it”. If that is your honest opinion, don’t get married, for your sanity, and the well-being of the poor sap you are going to divorce. For those who do want marriage, I have one simple word of advice:

Appreciate what you have. Or someone else will.

Says Who?

Ran across this piece recently: The United States of Sex: A Survey of 17,000 Women.

Takeaway: 79%of a sample of 17000 women, most aged 18-45, considered themselves sexy some or all of the time.

Are you nuts?

In a nation where 3 out of 4 women are overweight or obese, four out of five think that they are sexy? Ladies, what are you smoking?

Here’s one for the guys. Next time you are in a public place, look around. Count the women. Now estimate the percentage of them who you would describe as “Sexy”. I guarantee it won’t be 4 in 5. Probably more like 1 in 10. Almost all of them will be under 30. And none of them will be obese.

In related news: The average man thinks the average woman is average, but the average woman thinks the average man is ugly. So who is truly capable of being objective?

Moral: Self-praise is no recommendation.

Bullshot?

On a more jocular note… I saw this in a local store.

I cannot help but wonder if his signature isn’t his idea of a secret joke.

Either way, it’s the funniest thing I’ve seen all week.

Where have all the Good Men gone?

I haven’t put pen to paper — or fingers to keyboard — in many a moon. This was not, as one might expect, due to writer’s block. Quite the opposite. I have too many ideas, many of which were too raw or edgy or unfit for publication.

In recent years, there has been much talk about “The Marriage Strike”, an oft-repeated over-dramatization about the dearth of men who are ready, willing and able to marry. Naturally, the Lamestream Media blames the whole thing on men who are two cowardly to “man up” and “do their duty”. Young women complain that the men their age are not very masculine, and are more interested in Video Games than marriage. They have a point, but they are confusing the symptoms with the cause.

Fifty years ago, a man in his twenties with good prospects could easily find a young (late teens or early twenties), traditional wife who would bear and raise his children and take care of his house while he went out and bought home the proverbial bacon.

Nowadays, women are in the colleges and the workplace in greater numbers than men. They have their careers their autonomy and their lives. Those who are married often continue to work, even after the children are born.

Couples are marrying later; whether this is because men cannot make enough to support a wife and family in their twenties, or because women are delaying marriage because they want to play the field, I cannot say, though I think that it is a combination of both. However, I would point out that feminine beauty has a sell-by date, and the longer a woman waits, the less likely a man will want to pay full price for what’s left. And no less than Forbes Magazine seems to think that a career woman is a poor bet as a wife.

But that is another story for another time.

So why is it that the average man could support a family fifty years ago, but cannot do so now? Part of it is the changing global landscape, to be sure, but I have a theory. One of the reasons that wages are low is because supply outstrips demand. When more people are out looking for work, employers get picky and offer lower wages. So when you double the number of people seeking work, (as happens when women enter the workplace en masse), wages will inevitably go down. And assuming that women seek safe, stable, comfortable jobs (almost all of the Dirty, Difficult and Dangerous™ jobs are still done by men) and generally do not start businesses (too risky!), the entry of women into the workplace does not substantially change demand for employees. So wages go down.

There. I said it. Women in the workplace drives down wages. This is going to make people mad, so let me be clear. I am not against any woman entering the workforce. That is not the point of this post. But when all women are entering the workforce, someone’s gonna get displaced; any idea of who that might be? That’s right, men. And when men can’t find high-status, well-paid work, what is the consequence of that? They cannot support wives and families; all they can do is work a menial job and… play video games.

Agree? Disagree? Comments are welcome.

 

Don’t! Stop!

When booking a flight recently, I made the mistake of giving the airline my phone number. This is what happened:

  • First, they tell me to reply STOP to cancel.
  • Then when I do, they tell me to reply STOP * to cancel.
  • Then they tell me that I am opted out.
  • Then they tell me that they are sending messages again.

Good Grief!

Vega Conflict: Time Off

Recently. Kixeye introduced a new feature, called Time Tokens. These are usually given as prizes for events. They some in many shapes, flavors, and sizes:

Shapes: They are divided into ship and module tokens. The module tokens are divided into upgrade and refit tokens. They are rare. The ship tokens are divided into Build and Refit tokens. Refit tokens are rare. Most of the ones offered thus far have been ship build, which is of no help whatsoever to players who have empty hulls lying around.

Flavors: Ship tokens are then further divided by faction. There are tokens for Vega, VSec, Iron Star, Demon Corps, Xeno Division and A.X.I.S. Vega and VSec tokens are usually offered in Planet Strike events, Iron Star and Demon Corps tokens are usually available in Sector Strike, and Xeno and A.X.I.S. are usually available in Monthly and Alien events.

Sizes: Time tokens are currently available in the following sizes:

  • 1 hour
  • 4 hours
  • 8 hours
    12 hours
  • 24 hours (base only)

What’s wrong with Time Tokens?

  • All tokens have an expiry date: this can be as long as four days (for a 12-hour token) and as short as One Day (off a one-hour token). It is this last point that is most irksome. Too many ship build tokens expire because they were awarded in the middle of a multi-day refit.
  • Time tokens are excessively specialized: There are so many different “shapes” and “flavors” available that the chances of getting a particular type of token when you can actually use it is slim.

Taking all of the above into account, it is fairly obvious that unless you are about to build a specific ship, Time Tokens are next to useless. If you are in the middle of the wrong build or refit, your tokens will likely expire before you can use them.

Having said all that, here are a few tips to make Time Tokens more usable:

  • Keep your refits small: most items can be fitted in three days or less (one glaring exception is JumpDrives, which can take up to ten days to fit). Small refits lessen the possibility of having your Ship Factory tied up when a Build or Refit discount becomes available.
  • Build your ships “naked”: most ships can be built within a week (Exception: Carriers). the only time you should not build your ships naked is if there is a discount, or your tokens are enough to cover the extra items.
  • Check the Calendar and make sure that your ship factory is ready when the tokens are available.
  • Redeem your time tokens as late as possible: Most event stores close a day after the event ends. This will extend the time that your tokens can be used by up to an extra day, which is critical with the shorter-duration tokens.

Using Time Tokens properly

  • Calculate the total time tokens you have for a build. For a typical event, getting all the tokens for one ship will give you sixty hours – 2.5 days.
  • Calculate the time required for your build. Go into your Ship Factory and calculate the number of hours. Take off 10% for alliance help, and take off any discounts that may be on offer.
  • From the above two figures, you can calculate the amount of time you will need to complete the build after discounts, alliance help and Time Tokens have been used. If the build time is less than the tokens available, (for instance, a Condor or an Eagle), and you’re not going to use the tokens afterwards, add extra weapons/armor/specials until you have used up the tokens.#Start the build, but do not use the tokens yet! Once you have used the tokens you will not get them back if you cancel the build.
  • Wait until you have full alliance help, add your time tokens. Remember, once you have spent a time token it is gone.

Real Twaddle

Once in a while you see a video that is so full of crap that you cannot remain silent

 

This whole “Real Man™” thing is quite laughable, and is a creation of women.

Women dream of “finding that special someone” – and there is nothing wrong with that… but all too often they have a list of non-negotiable qualities (must be tall, handsome, confident, brave, bold, charming, adventurous, generous, honorable..), that said list only increases in length as they get older and their charms (and options) fade.

If that wasn’t bad enough, women are actively putting off marriage, effectively sacrificing it on the altar of career. Too many times they hit the big three-oh and — shock horror — find that not only can they not get the men that they want, but the ones they rejected in the past for the most trivial of reasons (“he’s too short” “his eyes are too close together”) are now off the market, or looking past them to younger, hotter, tighter models. What follows looks a lot like the five stage of grief: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Acceptance… and Cats. Don’t be that girl.

At the same time, the kind of men that they are looking for (fit, healthy and affluent) are starting to realize their value. What then follows is a game of musical chairs throughout their thirties and forties. By fifty, it is a bloodbath with dozens of women chasing each “eligible” man… only to find that he is chasing girls ten or even fifteen years younger.

So how does a girl marry once and for life? Here is my advice, based in observation and personal experience:

  1. Marry Young: These days, women are putting off marriage into their thirties, a point at which their most fertile and attractive years are behind them. And they are shocked to find that the men that they want don’t want them. Bottom line: Give us the best years of your life (your twenties, and anyone who is trying to tell you otherwise is either competition or is trying to sell you something), and we will give you the rest of ours.
  2. Be Chaste: Statistically speaking, a virgin bride has a 96% chance of reaching her tenth wedding anniversary. Add one pre-marriage sex partner and that probability drops to 76% (comparison: for a man to experience the same twenty-point drop, he has to have seventeen partners). Add nine more notches to her gun-belt and the probability of a ten-year marriage drops to 15%. Mathematics doesn’t care whether you like it or not.
  3. Grow your hair long: “You look so much nicer with your hair cut short”, said no man, ever. Yes, it is hard work, and yes, it is convenient — but then, so is growing old alone. Your move.
  4. Dress to impress…: Walk around the typical supermarket and you will see them out in force: young women wearing ugly shoes (crocs/uggs/flipflops), sweats, and that disgusting pineapple hairstyle that is the hallmark of the lazy woman. The good news is that with such low standards everywhere, it is easy to stand out: Proper shoes (with a heel) and a nice flowing dress. And for heaven’s sake, do something with your hair.
  5. …but don’t overdo it: Too many women confuse “sexy” and “beautiful”. If you dress like a stripper, don’t get annoyed when we treat you like one. A Real Man™ wants you to be his personal slut, so save the lingerie, booty shorts, tank tops and thongs for his eyes only.
  6. Don’t be fat: This is huge, if you’ll pardon the pun. Too many (about two-thirds) are overweight. Excess poundage in women kills attraction in men in the same way that shortness in men does for women.
  7. Be nice: Too many women confuse “strength” with being bold, brash, brassy, bossy or bitchy. Being able to belch, fart and cuss like a man may seem to work for a while, but it will drive the “Real Men™” away; to them, “Strong and Independent” looks a lot like “Annoying and Irritating”. Instead, concentrate on feminine strength. Kindness, respect, vulnerability… men are drawn to these. “If you want to attract a gentleman, behave like a lady“.
  8. Be Honest: Too many women try to become what the man wants. If you have to pretend to be the woman he wants to marry, the marriage will not work.
  9. Be Humble: Entitlement is another attraction killer. If you want a man who will lead you, be prepared to follow. If you want a man who is willing to die for you, be prepared to live for him.

A “Real Man™” won’t settle for leftovers. We want you at your best, and won’t settle for anything less. We want to be your first love, not your last resort.

Vega Conflict: Ship and Tech Guide, Middle Game

Tier 5: Iron Star and Demon Corps Ships and Technology.

The mid-game features the introduction of the heavy-hitters. They outclass their VSec counterparts, and paradoxically are often quicker to build and easier to mark up (which is why so many VSec ships are on the “avoid” list). ISC ships are generally more heavily-armored and durable, while DC hulls have less armor but pack more of a wallop, particularly when paired with the Infernal weapons (Gatling, Wave and Vector Torpedo) that are unique to Demon Corps.

As a general rule, ISC are better for farming and DC are better for PvP. As a general rule, you should outfit your DC ships with basic weapons (Nova/Manifold/Siege) initially, then upgrade to Infernal weapons on a piecemeal basis, as each level-III Infernal weapon takes 1-3 days to equip (exception: when you have a build discount, then you should build out as much as you possibly can).

From here on out, all of ships have high mass limits. From now on, you should only bother researching/farming the highest-caliber version of each technology (usually “III”), and don’t bother with I and II, unless you have leftover points or plan on retro-fitting them on your smaller ships.

Must-have ships:

  • Vigilante: Tough and resilient, this is the best mid-level farming Battleship in the game. Equip it with Nova Rays or Manifold missiles, and add Skirmish Armor III for best results.
  • Machete: While the stock “MaShitty” is no better than a Lance, marking up this baby gives you a shield and an extra weapon slot as well as a resistance slot. Once upgraded to Mk IV this is a very powerful and tough destroyer indeed. Siege Drivers and Binary Thrusters are best for basing, but Neutron Drivers are good all-rounders. Deflector shields are best for basing and farming.
  • Hellfire: Not as tough as the Vigilante, but far more dangerous in battle when flown with care. Pair with Infernal Weapons for added killing power.
  • Python: Since cutters are designed for close-in brawling, the ability to stay in the fight and soak up damage is paramount. If you are into cutters, this is the one. Equip with Nova Ray or Manifold Missiles, Metaphase III shielding… and as much Skirmish Armor as you can for survivability.
  • Heretic: Most high-level Cruisers have two shield slots, but not the Heretic; the designers sacrificed one of the shield slots for two extra armor slots, resulting in an incredibly tough hull. The downside is insane repair times; a fully-upgraded Mk V Heretic maxed out with Skirmish Armor III requires nearly five hours to repair, which means more than a day of repairs for a fleet.
  • Damocles: When equipped with iWaves and Iridium magnets, these are lethal against bases, and pretty good in PvP. Shame that this hull is so fragile when compared to the Machete.
  • Dominion: Far better than the Freyja, this was the primo Carrier for the better part of a year until the Paladin showed up.

Ships to avoid:

  • Basilisk: not as survivable as the Python cutter, and it is harder to mark-up.
  • Legion: A poorly-thought-out design that does not seem to have any real-world use. Part under-powered battleship, part under-powered carrier, this hull excels at neither.
  • Freyja: There is absolutely no reason to build one if you have the Dominion as the DC hull outclasses the Freyja in every way..
  • Tornado: Ostensibly the best Frigate in the game. Build them only if you love frigates, otherwise the Hurricane is good enough.

Must-have Tech:

  • Infernal weapons. Infernal Wave (iWave), Infernal Gatling(iGat) and Infernal Vector Torpedo (iVec) are amazing weapons. The downside is that they take ages to equip – up to three days for a iWave III. That’s twelve days to fully arm a Mk IV Damocles Destroyer.
  • Skirmish Armor is useful for Iron Star Hulls.
  • Armored Thrusters: Demon Corps ships have plenty of firepower, but sacrifice shielding. This helps to right that wrong.
  • Volatile Fuel is useful on battleships when using explosive weapons.

Tech to avoid:

  • Unstable Reactor: Also known as the “Suicide Drive”, this engine causes a massive explosion, equivalent to the ship’s armor when the ship is destroyed, which made it great for taking about enemy Bridges and Alien Harvesters. It was great when it first came out — particularly on Heretics, which carried an insane amount of armor and hence generated an equally insane explosion — then Kixeye nerfed it, reducing the power of the explosion… and it became a pointless waste of time:
  • Raider Squadron: High damage, but short range makes it useless as a carrier weapon.
  • Strike Shield: Recharging shields on cutters is a really bad idea unless you are really really good at micromanagement.
  • Targeting Computer: This allows battleships to engage multiple targets simultaneously. Ostensibly useful as an anti-squadron measure, it requires the battleship to be upgraded to at least Mk IV unless you want to sacrifice the engine, which is a really bad idea.
  • Electric Rails: Frigate only, Adds 40% weapon weight. Adds a stasis element. Of limited use.
  • Blister Rounds – use Volatile Fuel where possible instead.