Concerning the three main weapon types

QQ to your hearts content and we'll take a look at its legitimacy.

Re: Concerning the three main weapon types

Postby PerfectDeath » Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:20 am

Kerbal Space Program often has players figure out ways to weaponize their space ships. Then if they want to simulate combat in space they have to do it in turn based battles as it is a single player game.
But that game has a lot of limitations as collision detection drains a lot of your computer's resources when you have too much within range.
Image
support@taitale.com - kickstarter@taitale.com
I try to be on our Steam Chat as often as possible.
PerfectDeath
User avatar
Lore Master
 
Posts: 1641
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:09 pm
Location: Everytime an infiltrator masterbates, Sypheria crashes the server.

Re: Concerning the three main weapon types

Postby Johnm81 » Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:22 pm

CollinDow wrote:For a great treatment of the various weapons systems of space combat, I recommend "The Lost Fleet" series by Jack Campbell. Combat at relativistic speeds kind of rends the brain, which, I'm sure, is why all the videos I've seen Novus AEterno go with the old standby of "stationary ships in space." Dealing with ship's orbits and the closing speeds involved would be a huge burden. If combat were Lost Fleet style, encounters between fleets would be milliseconds long, with vast amounts of damage from projectile and beam weapons, with hours between encounters.
Which I feel is the most realistic manner of space-fighting, but would be extremely difficult to do in a game.


Even if it wasn't difficult to do in game, would that really be the most 'realistic' manner of space fighting for the NA universe? As far as my very limited understanding of FTL in this game, its more like folding space and instantly traveling between two points.
Player Name: Mikros
ScydiS Alliance
Johnm81
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:44 pm

Re: Concerning the three main weapon types

Postby Sypheria » Wed Apr 23, 2014 2:06 am

Maybe it's the Endersverse multiple universe instant teleportation. :P
Sypheria
User avatar
Universe Architect
 
Posts: 4233
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:23 pm
Location: WinSock.h ln 458 #define AF_UNKNOWN1 20 /*Somebodys using this! */

Re: Concerning the three main weapon types

Postby CollinDow » Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:16 am

Johnm81 wrote:Even if it wasn't difficult to do in game, would that really be the most 'realistic' manner of space fighting for the NA universe? As far as my very limited understanding of FTL in this game, its more like folding space and instantly traveling between two points.

Regardless of your FTL abilities, basic orbital mechanics will still apply. You can be "at rest" to something in space, but to maintain station with another object either requires A) physical locking, B) extreme proximity and very fine station-keeping or C) very powerful and very fine station-keeping, which would, in time, destroy your orbit and either send you off into IP space or into the body you're orbiting.
Space is a game of ellipses. No matter what, we can't change that. You always orbit something. You can't just sit "still" in an absolute sense.
Therefore, whipping around in space at low fraction of C makes rather more sense than using up the dV to come to a relative rest next to your foe and pound on them. Especially since, unless we've all got reactionless drives, the mass of armor is prohibitive...and against, say, 100kg of depleted uranium moving at 0.1 C, pretty darned useless. The kinetic energy of our hypothetical projectile is 4.5x10^16 N. One Newton (N) is equivalent to the force required to push 1kg of something at 1m/s^2 acceleration. Therefore, our 4.5x10^16 N can accelerate 4.5x10^16 kilograms of material at 1m/s^2 (approx 3 feet per second.)
Think of it this way. The Atlas V has 1,270 kN. That's 1.27x10^6 N. Each time you add one to the exponent, you're multiplying your number by 10. So 1.0x10^1 is 10. 1.0x10^2 is 100. 1.0x10^3 is 1000, and so on and so forth. So our theoretical projectile has something like 3.5x10^10 more power than something which we use to put almost 20 metric tons of mass into orbit.
In fact, stopping to run through the numbers makes the whole concept of combat in space seem ridiculous...you'd need planet-sized ships in order to avoid getting your fleet pulped by a relativistic BB gun.
CollinDow
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 9:49 pm

Re: Concerning the three main weapon types

Postby Johnm81 » Tue Apr 29, 2014 8:26 am

CollinDow wrote:Regardless of your FTL abilities, basic orbital mechanics will still apply. You can be "at rest" to something in space, but to maintain station with another object either requires A) physical locking, B) extreme proximity and very fine station-keeping or C) very powerful and very fine station-keeping, which would, in time, destroy your orbit and either send you off into IP space or into the body you're orbiting.
Space is a game of ellipses. No matter what, we can't change that. You always orbit something. You can't just sit "still" in an absolute sense.
Therefore, whipping around in space at low fraction of C makes rather more sense than using up the dV to come to a relative rest next to your foe and pound on them. Especially since, unless we've all got reactionless drives, the mass of armor is prohibitive...and against, say, 100kg of depleted uranium moving at 0.1 C, pretty darned useless. The kinetic energy of our hypothetical projectile is 4.5x10^16 N. One Newton (N) is equivalent to the force required to push 1kg of something at 1m/s^2 acceleration. Therefore, our 4.5x10^16 N can accelerate 4.5x10^16 kilograms of material at 1m/s^2 (approx 3 feet per second.)
Think of it this way. The Atlas V has 1,270 kN. That's 1.27x10^6 N. Each time you add one to the exponent, you're multiplying your number by 10. So 1.0x10^1 is 10. 1.0x10^2 is 100. 1.0x10^3 is 1000, and so on and so forth. So our theoretical projectile has something like 3.5x10^10 more power than something which we use to put almost 20 metric tons of mass into orbit.
In fact, stopping to run through the numbers makes the whole concept of combat in space seem ridiculous...you'd need planet-sized ships in order to avoid getting your fleet pulped by a relativistic BB gun.



No, it is not regardless the FTL abilities or more to the point how FTL works in this universe. That is the crux of the matter. You can do all of those kinetic energy based force calculations but if FTL in this game is more akin to folding space the ships never achieve velocities near 0.1C needed relative to their point of reference in the universe.
Player Name: Mikros
ScydiS Alliance
Johnm81
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:44 pm

Re: Concerning the three main weapon types

Postby CollinDow » Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:00 pm

But we'll still be expelling projectiles at absurd speed. We have railguns already. Certainly they'll take advantage of that in the future, in space. So sitting still next to your opponent, making hits that could devastate cities easier, would be a poor decision.
Doesn't matter, regardless. Even if you just fold space to get next to your opponent, you'll need to expend dV to adjust your orbit so as to stay in contact with your foe and avoid such things as falling into the sun you are orbiting.
And, regardless, a system of play in which you have to worry about orbits and etc would be extremely difficult to actually build and play.
CollinDow
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 9:49 pm

Re: Concerning the three main weapon types

Postby Johnm81 » Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:45 pm

CollinDow wrote:But we'll still be expelling projectiles at absurd speed. We have railguns already. Certainly they'll take advantage of that in the future, in space. So sitting still next to your opponent, making hits that could devastate cities easier, would be a poor decision.
Doesn't matter, regardless. Even if you just fold space to get next to your opponent, you'll need to expend dV to adjust your orbit so as to stay in contact with your foe and avoid such things as falling into the sun you are orbiting.
And, regardless, a system of play in which you have to worry about orbits and etc would be extremely difficult to actually build and play.


So many assumptions you are making to force make-believe into the real world. Or more accurately forcing real world into the make-believe. How 'absurd' is the speed at which rail guns are in this pretend universe? How much of a hardened target are ships that stand toe to toe and duke it out? What would cook a city may not penetrate shields/armor for all we know.

At the end of the day we need to see this as what it is, a video game. Don't try to impose what is or isn't theoretically practical in the real world upon it as there are so many assumptions being made to mesh NA MMO and reality.
Player Name: Mikros
ScydiS Alliance
Johnm81
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:44 pm

Re: Concerning the three main weapon types

Postby CollinDow » Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:07 pm

Johnm81 wrote:So many assumptions you are making to force make-believe into the real world. Or more accurately forcing real world into the make-believe. How 'absurd' is the speed at which rail guns are in this pretend universe? How much of a hardened target are ships that stand toe to toe and duke it out? What would cook a city may not penetrate shields/armor for all we know.

At the end of the day we need to see this as what it is, a video game. Don't try to impose what is or isn't theoretically practical in the real world upon it as there are so many assumptions being made to mesh NA MMO and reality.

Of course, but in the absence of having the game to play it's enjoyable to think about it, and by extension, things of this nature in general.
CollinDow
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 9:49 pm

Re: Concerning the three main weapon types

Postby Johnm81 » Wed Apr 30, 2014 10:17 pm

CollinDow wrote:Of course, but in the absence of having the game to play it's enjoyable to think about it, and by extension, things of this nature in general.


More power to ya brother :)
Player Name: Mikros
ScydiS Alliance
Johnm81
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:44 pm

Re: Concerning the three main weapon types

Postby Biliboy » Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:43 am

I like the idea of having weapons with similar characteristics (ie, devastating close range, miss chance and/or damage reducing over range), but give the enemy fleet choices in how to defend.

Missiles would be countered with point defenses, beams with refractive armor, and kew's with reactive/hardened armor.

This way you can have a bit of a metagame in how to build your fleet's damage (with modifications, eg, bomb-pumped laser missiles, to throw off the enemy).
Biliboy
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:39 am

PreviousNext

Return to Balancing

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests