Mmhh, tricky to explain but...the object has a delay depending on shape. If you accelerate an object on 100% f it´s opposite of direction side, you just have the moment of inertia-delay through material what "be compressed"(what on too much acceleration would mean that your but drives through your cockpit). But here you have at last around 99% of used energy, and 1% of waste through inertia(beside the mass acceleration, what all objects have equal). If you accelerate the object just on 50%, you have the same inertia delay, and the lever delay of the not accelerated vectors. So you loose 1% inertia in "front direction" and another, for example, 5% right and left the thrust giving engine each. Here a sphere have much more of this "but", so it´s can´t use the thrust (that) efficinent.Yep, but i thought PR was allready translated in english, isne´t it? o.OA sphere has the smallest moment of inertia for a given mass. So the sphere is mathematically the most perfect form, not the best to get an specific result.Okay here we have an precedent - if on high speed, both forms can change ther nose´ direction and let ther engine burn to create a second acceleration vector. And while saying that the main engines are the most relevant to make such manouvers, it´s all depending on how many stress the structure can take. The sphere on such manouvers would be more stabile if the was moved irregular(enemy fire, asteroides etc.), but without that happenings, the spear is faster to tip, and so faster on acceleration(what is another point we´re still in discusion, but i must rely on my arguments - they unfortunaly build up on each other).About the rotation. Form and force here find a relation. if i accelerate an 1m sphere on each side to let it rotate, i had less efficiency as on a 10m pole, what is accelerated with the same power on the opposite sites ends. So here is no dis- or advantage, even the amount of usable firepower would be again 45%/75%.But i don´t say that spears don´t have disvantages, really, if i could choose what shape i want under my feet to cross space, i would want the sphere. It say that the constructors think they don´t need to fear pentration, and is more stabile on each single point(xD). Spears are always economise damage, and it for sure it needs less energy to kill a specific target on the ship. Here it´s the questions of relation aiming computers/weapon speed/general use of speed and manouvers. If we rely on a good balance of ECM/ECCM, and a fair need of guner skill versus manouvers(much better to wirte SciFi storys), the chance to get hit that precise vulnerable points is low. And in space you have a unestimatable amount of enemys and technologys, so for example the Posbis(above) - ther weapns kill shield instanly and hit with the power of a fat nuclear weapon. This weapons kill everything under the fat battleships-class with one hit, and just need a second for that 1500m-monsters. On a spear this weapon just had punched through a random point(gunner skill versus manouver skill), this damage could kill also, but the chance to survive is much higher.And for ships, designed for bigger warfare, suviving is important, and no designer would waste much thoughts for the single crewman or even the commander - at last the ship should drive and fight on.Btw. if i say spear, i think of a relation between a long shape and thickness. Depending on equipment, armor technology and such stuff.Hm, i would say all energy what is needet to make manouvers, including speed, is energy what could ba used the same way as for shields, so offensive and defensive use of eenrgy are always in relation to the other. Ship will use 100%, partition depending on incoming damage needs to reduced or if ther is time to make some new suns.For sure in a military it would have both types with less or more armor than a spheric ship, to fit in combat situations and be more flexible(as a whole combat group) as the same-build sphere ships PR has(with just armor thickens up with more size).That conic(like Star Destroyers of Star Wars)shape has some benefits, but is also basing on a feeling of superiority. In real eye -evel comabts, noonoe would let the ass undefended. So ther is a hole in the defense parameter i would fix. For sure...not if you´re a freggin old guy with megalomania and blue lightnings xDBut you´re right with a balancing what weapon aim in which direction is relevant. Assault weapons are aiming in front, while ship-combat weapons and defense will aim in all directions, with focus on those the tacticans think it would be the best position to the enemy what is exspectable.Firearcs. Don´t think so, even i understand the point. A weapon on a spheric construction may be much better protected from aimed fire as on a spear ship. Here again we would need a relation how important/balanced aiming and bombers are. Maybe it´s depending on ship general size if those things become an option. But beside this, the four weapon lines of a spear ship can rotate on turrets, so get an 360° arc with 100% high and maybe about 20-30% down(till the ships body is in the way). So they can focus and defocus it´s firearcs much better, and kill swarm tactics previously. The sphere has always a limited fire arc, even less if the range increases. Otherwise they would extend turrets to rise firearc to around 55%, but loose the hull protection for the weapons. Again i think depending on ships size. Most powerfull weapons would remain in the body(Turrets in halls of the sphere ships, like in PR shown, i don´t really like as idea).xD Yes, indeed. I´m also suprise...positivly suprised^^ I really like discussions at all, but most time those topics are popular used to declare social status instead of exchanging ideas and test own mind constructions. But i tend to get too overhanging if in writing rageSorry for that^^Da afterthought:Yes, absolute. It´s a point we can´t finaly fix on, cause it would need psychological and tactical information we don´t have. Basing of the PR-universe it´s quite eay to say, where the spheric ships make the most of the military after so many ships are forged/stolen/copyd from the Arkoniden(who are....i still told it - are not the smart middle of the universe...). So Perry not even could change the main ship design of it´s fleet even if he want. Too many enemys and to often situations, where even the whole fleet is much too small noumbered to make an result. So every little shuttle is needet, and every screwdriver what can build ships(and the automised industy would take the same amount of money and time to get exchanged). And in addition, an chance wouldn´t be more prepared for new and strange enemys from somewhere. So he´s: Keep maximised, keep economically, keep not tear too much for a thousend lost ships while a way is searched to hit bacl an new freakin´ enemy.And even this sounds heartless Perry in basic not is, he think like a military. Always searching the holy wonder weapon, but rely on the mass of sacrificially members of the (not-as-good-as-they-could-be)fleet.Often i see people(not you) making the mistake transfering our earth warfare into different situations like aliens and such. Here we know our enemy, we use most of the same weapons, use the same books to educate our officers and want the same ressources. All this can be obsolet in space(or SciFi at all). To be honest, we can´t do very much expect triend to reach most efficient economically, and decide as a race, how much moral and humanity we are willing to sacrifice to increase this amount of firepower we will have, if the big enemy approaches.I´m writing my own story to get all this thoughts out my head(unfortunally just in german, like you may have mentioned on my gramar xD), and really loving to show all the self-deception we humans(and for sure all similar aliens) like to have. Even today we can see how likely we accept the idea that the evil red enemy from behind the iron curtain don´t have technology over the AK74 and want to eat up the world, while we like to see military documentation about american technology. It´s not just about a media prejudice, we really want to hear the one side, but not the other. And i think this would be mark even the society of the future and/or of aliens. So ship designs will be most and first based on what we want to think what is most efficent, not what it really is.