Quite. I was considering mod action on this, but nothing else in thread.

Well, it depends what you're thinking of. Changing text isn't hard if you don't mind breaking the voice acting.

The only team combat was in the SC-inspired game Timewarp (and Timewarp Light). UQM only has two ships at once, one from each side.

To a degree, yes.
I stopped reading Erfworld a while ago. Maybe I should start picking up again'

In the middle of book 3 it got weird, and then it stopped due to unspecified personal devastation on the part of the author.

Reminds me of luckamancy from Erfwworld, and in particular the Schlemiel Elves

That station was screwed anyway, so…

'Not so lucky for the rabbit', as it were

I don't like how the first paragraph there doesn't take into acount worker efficiency improvements even aside from automation or animal effort. if you're going to present a wrong argument, it helps to portray it as being wrong as you make it.

Suspected to smell like butt, anyway. They haven't tried.

They could also flip them over, which might help.

FWIW, I do read these. I'd love to play it… maybe I can get it onto one of the PCs in my family.

Why do you value being crushed into nonthinkingness?

I remember when you said, "Defending mortality is like begging me to kill you." With the implication that you weren't.

Also… the answer to your question would be, COMBAT TRAINING. ffs, dude (not you, the character)

A) Bosons don't stack. You're thinking of Fermions.  

We might not see any stacking of bosons in our 4 dimensional perspective of spacetime. But can't bosons be stacked in another 5th dimension that is hidden to us, and still appear to have the same location in our 4-dimensional perspective?

This is a very interesting question. The answer is, we can tell.

Suppose you have two identical bosons trapped in an infinitely deep square well; we'll label the two dimensions of this system X and Y. The state can be summarized by two quantum numbers - the number of half-wavelengths in the X direction, and the number of half-wavelengths in the Y direction. Suppose we can only actually see the first of these - we can only measure the number of half-wavelengths in the X direction.

The interesting bit is, even if we can't tell how many half-wavelengths the two bosons have in the Y direction, if they have the same number of half-wavelengths in the X direction, we can tell if they also have the same number of half-wavelengths in the Y direction - if they're in the exact same state in every dimension, that changes the statistics of any interactions.

So, adding a new dimension doesn't let you hide stacking where we can't see it. You might be able to go out of your way to create a janky theory which reproduces the effect at the cost of being much more complicated and not explaining anything new.

Ok. What about this?

A) Bosons don't stack. You're thinking of Fermions. 
B) GR predicts black holes without reference to QM. 
C) the scaling is wrong. That is, if it were stacking, then energy would be proportional to volume. It's proportional to radius.

No. Scale is firmly on the 'map' side of the 'map vs territory' distinction.

Even if there were a physical effect, it would be a property of the contents, not an independent dimension. ''Dimension' has a specific meaning, and scale doesn't fit it any better than temperature or magnetic field, neither of which are dimensions (if you are making a model, there is a specific way you can use a different kind of dimension to handle those quantities, but it's not what is meant by 'dimension' in the sense of physical dimensions).