Ship size vs. weapons
 

Wouldn't be nice to have different levels of improvement for each ship size.

Let me explain, you research from escort I to dreadnought I ,then go to the next ship level escort II to dreadnought II , and so forth.

Each level of ship development will improve the ship's basic structure allowing the ship to carry heavier armour, improved weapons, improved sensors, shields, etc.

This way there will not always be a tendency that bigger is better. The reasearch of the components and ships go hand in hand in most cases. You never see later in the game a new race come along suprise you with their technology and blow your dreadnought off the map with a much smaller ship.

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

I like that idea!
Wouldn't it be a shock to see your BC destroyed by a frigate http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

i like that alot. what would probably be more effective and achieve the same thing though, is if we could research different types of mounts, instead of having all available. that way you could have an escort mount that would reduce mass of components by 25% or something. which would be rather slick with that 50% defensive bonus. im not sure you can have mounts be technology dependant though.

however, with entire new hull sizes you could do something like, allow more engines on a hull. maybe you could make a super basehip hull, tripple the number of engines and double the engines required per move. it could go ***3*** spaces, not including bonus move points.

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

Another great idea puke.
You may go for developing a big level 4 ship with level 1 weapons and I may go for the opposite. Think of the combinations. You would really have to adapt your strategy and tactics throughout the game!
I also like the idea of more prerequisite technologies being needed for some of the more powerful weapons/ships. Give me a reason to research Menson BLasters!

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

I love that idea man!! Email that to Aaron, he can probably figure out the best balance for improved hull types.

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

Concur .. like idea, was attempting similar approach but went via materials/construction route, i.e discovered new materials that allowed you to build new Versions of the ships with better specs. only thing didn't finish was AI usage mod'ng and new weapons wanted to bring in. ofcourse had to add in the large classes also, deathstar, assault wedge, battle stars, and planetoid sized ships and bases. did all this cause i hated running out of things to research. still haven't got it all working right (nor all the graphics done either) though in terms of play balance, weeks away from that if work allows. just a way to fill the void with more garbage ..

jsnider

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

An interesting idea. I often agree that its too easy to get to dreadnought tech. However, you can build these ships, but the weapons that go into them need to be updated as well. So even though you can build the dreaded DN, the weapons it cares are weak until researched out.

------------------
"We've made too many compromises already, too many retreats! They invade our space and we fall back -- they assimilate entire worlds and we fall back! Not again! The line must be drawn here -- this far, no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done!" -- Patric Stewart as Captain Picard
UCP/TCO Ship Yards

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

I'd LOVE to see an escort wipe the floor with a dreadnaught... sigh, one day...

------------------
Assume you have a 1kg squirrel
E=mc^2
E=1kg(3x10^8m/s)^2=9x10^16J
which, if I'm not mistaken, is equivilent to roughly a 50 megaton nuclear bomb.
Fear the squirrel.

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spoo:
I'd LOVE to see an escort wipe the floor with a dreadnaught... sigh, one day...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

give your race max defensive bonuses, throw on some ecm3 and a piece of stealth armor. nothing will hit that escort. sure one of them might not take out a dreadnaught, but if you can produce 10 in the time it takes the enemy to produce a dread, your escorts will take 'em out.

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

Or do what I did in my mod:
Reduce the targeting of larger mounts by -10 for each level and reduce combat sensors and ECM to 15/30/45. This way, the evasive capacities of smaller ships become much more valuable. The big, bad ships can still be used for the purpose for which they were used in WW1, WW2 and maybe even the Gulf War: to attack heavily fortified, but imobile positions (starbases, planets) and other big bad ships. However, they would have a harder time hitting small agile ships. The mod is quite realistic, balanced and leads to some interesting "Shark against Piranha" battles...

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

What I am looking for is not only advancements in weapons but in quality of the ship itself. The F-22 of today is smaller than a B-17 but there is nno comparison in ability

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

The problem here is that, unlike real life in WWI & WWII, the different sizes don't have different tactical roles in SE4. So, you would need to add more than just a series of improved hulls, or at any given level bigger would still be better.

To work like WWI/WWII, you would need three general size classes: capital ships (BB+), cruisers (CL, CA, w/BC sort of a hybrid)& escorts (DD-). Capital ships pound other capital ships at a distance, but have a hard time hitting small & fast & maueverable escorts with their main weapons (they mount secondary weapons for that purpose). Escorts have "guns" so small that they can't hurt capital ships. This requires more than just big shields on capital ships & small damage on escort "guns". You would need something like resolving each weapon shot separately and any hit below a certain % of the target's current shield strength does no shield damage. What escorts would have is a big damage, very short range, long reload time weapon that bigger ships can't use effectively (torpedoes, historically). So, they have to get in close, surviving fire on the way, to hurt capital ships. Cruisers screen your capital ships to try & kill the escorts before they get in range of the capital ships (your own escorts act defensively in this way as well), and act as "capital ships" in secondary theaters.

You could probably do most of that with mods. You would have some beginning level of all three categories right from the start, and they would just kleep getting bigger & better but at any level the roles are the same. The problem is that the tactical AI would probably have to be reprogrammed to fight that way.

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

Cool Idea.
I'd implement it under the present system as follows:
Escorts, Frigattes and Destroyers are 1 Engine per move, but 2 less Max Engines than now (i.e. 4).
All Cruisers are 2 Engines per move, with Max Engines of 6.
Battleships and Dreadnoughts are 3 Engines per move, with Max Engines of 6.
Ship Construction stays as is, and allows for the building of level 1 ships. It is also a prerequisite for advanced hulls as follows: (Examples for each 3 Category light, medium and heavy)
Escort Ships(New tech area)
-requires Ship Construction level 1
- 3 levels
level 1: Allows Escort Ship II (Cost: 20000)
Max of 5 Engines
50% Defence Bonus
Bonus Movement of 1
155 kT Size
level 2: Allows Escort Ship III (Cost: 40000)
Max of 6 Engines
60% Defence Bonus
Bonus Movement of 2
160 kT Size
level 3: Allows Escort Ship IV (Cost: 80000)
Max of 7 Engines
70% Defence Bonus
10% Offence Bonus
Bonus Movement of 3
170 kT Size
...
Cruisers (New tech area)
-requires Ship Construction level 5
- 3 levels
Level 1: Allow Cruiser II (Cost: 30000)
Max of 8 Engines
510 kT Size
Level 2: Cruiser III (Cost: 60000)
Max of 10 Engines
520 kT Size
Bonus Movement of 1
5% Defensive Bonus
5% Offensive Bonus
Level 3: Cruiser IV (Cost: 120000)
Max of 6 Engines
1 Engine per Move
Bonus Movement of 2
10% Defensive Bonus
10% Offensive Bonus
530 kT Size
...
Dreadnought(New tech area)
- requires Ship Construction level 8
- 3 levels
Level 1: Allows Dreadnought II (Cost: 40000)
Max of 9 Engines
5% Easier to hit
1025 kT Size
Level 2: Dreadnought III (Cost: 80000)
Max of 12 Engines
Bonus Movement of 1
1050 kT Size
Level 3: Dreadnought IV (Cost: 160000)
Max of 10 Engines
2 Engines per Move
Bonus Movement of 1
5% Bonus to hit
1075 kT Size
I wouldn't allow Baseships to be upgraded, but that's just me.
Hmm, cool. I think once the next patch is out I'll mod the tech and vehicle size files and see how it plays.

-Aegis

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

Here is what I think we should do to make ship classes more useful. Based on the theories that the larger the weapon, the less useful it is on a smaller ship, I think we should have to-hit penalties based on ship sizes. These would be assigned to the different mount sizes. For example, large mount weapons would have no to-hit modifier for hulls 300KT or greater, but once you start shooting at the smaller vessels, you get a 50% negative to-hit modifier. Huge mounts would get a -50% modifier on ships less than 600KT. Massive mounts would get a -50% modifier on ships less than 1000KT. This way, you must use appropriately sized weapons to attack different ship classes. Of course the AI would need a major overhaul with this, so it definitely would not be easily done.
Now, something that would be possible with this modification is to extend range bonuses to the larger mounts, but still have the best bonuses on the bases. This way, a Dreadnought with huge PPBs would outrange an escort with normal PPBs, but it would have a very hard time hitting that ship with its big guns.

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

pardon my humbuggieness, but: Bah.

perhaps huge mount projectile weapons would be harder to aim at fast moving small targets. energy or beam weapons would be about the same wither its large or small. you dont have to move the whole weapon mechanism to aim it, you just have to rotate a magnetic field or mirror or something. theoretically a higher power beam does not even need to have a wider focus, it could just be more concentrated.

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

Well, I think that the big guns can't keep up with juking and jiving little escorts, frigate or DD's. That's what secondary weapons are for. Who's gonna post a mod on this?

------------------
Elwood Bluze

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

Adding negative "to hit" modifiers to the larger mounts already pretty much does the job, especially if you also reduce the ability to compensate for them through combat sensors. CapShips will still carry large mounts because they are still extremely efficient against other large targets (other CapShips, bases and planmets) which have negative defense modifiers. If CapShips nevertheless carry normal mounts, these can be considered "secondary weapons".

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

Another thought along these lines would be to make the large mount guns fire slower. Maybe 2 turns for large, 3 turns for massive etc. This would give an incentive to build secondary guns.

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nitram Draw:
Another thought along these lines would be to make the large mount guns fire slower. Maybe 2 turns for large, 3 turns for massive etc. This would give an incentive to build secondary guns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

that would make alot more sense. you would have to up the damage numbers when you do that, but you would still want a smaller weapon since the larger one would waste its shot on a small ship when there might be bigger targets about. I do not think there is a way to make the use of such combinations work effectively in strategic combat without actually making extensive changes to the games code, but it would be a good mod for all the TAC players out there.

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nitram Draw:
Another thought along these lines would be to make the large mount guns fire slower. Maybe 2 turns for large, 3 turns for massive etc. This would give an incentive to build secondary guns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I made a similar request. One for a flag to alter reload times for weapon mounts. Basically, I wanted to make either rapid-fire or increase the reload times for some overloaded mounts...

...hey, you could always get some role-playing aspects and get stuck with a "lowest-bidder" mount. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif



------------------
--
"What do -you- want?" "I'd like to live -just- long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I would look up into your lifeless eyes and wave like this..." *waggle* "...can you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?"

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

In SE3, there was a "range attenuation" setting for each weapon. Now SE4 has an exact damage setting at each range so you have even more control of that. But the decreasing ACCURACY of all weapons per square range is the same. It's set in settings.txt for every single direct fire weapon in the game. This doesn't seem right to me. Some weapons ought to lose accuracy FASTER than others. A DUC is firing a solid projectile, for example, while the Meson BLaster and APB are firing atomic particles -- at least, according to their respective names though the fields they are researched in are called ENERGY weapons... http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif Anyway, particles can be accelerated close to the speed of light. A huge chunk of "depleted uranium" probably cannot without very advanced technology. By simple ballistics, the DUC ought to become less accurate much faster than the particle beam weapons but it has the SAME loss of accuracy. How about a seperate setting for each direct-fire weapon for accuracy lost PER SQUARE or range instead of the flat "to hit modifier" thing that we have now? And once you do that you could have a modifer in "mounts" to change it as weapons get larger. The combination of the two settings could allow for a good simulation of larger "ponderous" weapons vs. smaller weapons with quicker tracking.

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

Some basic points.

1) the smaller ships have a built in negative modifier to hit no matter what the weapon.

2) We have a time scale issue here. If you make larger mounts slower then you have to have the weapons that take more than 1 turn to relaod would take longer. Really screwing with the game mechanics.

3) larger weapons don't have to hit a small target to do damage. A 16" shell landing near a DD would usually do damage. Besides it was the inability to target the weapon that caused them to miss not the weapon it's self.

4) this is not a naval sim. Using wet navy rules just throws things out of whack.

------------------
Seawolf on the prowl

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

Just want to mention some things.
1) There is no such thing as ballistics in space (vacuum, no gravity effects). All standard weapons will travel straight until they hit something else. I believe the range of weapons in the game is taken to be a range at which most ships cannot easily dodge them, rather than the point at which the beam dissipates or the particle has gone astray, since the beam will never dissipate, nor will the particle go astray.
2) The comparisons with naval units are not totally valid, but they do have merit. The idea here is that the smaller ships can get to areas that make the bigger mounted weapons much less likely to hit them.
The field of fire of any weapon is always limited by ship design. The naval comparison notes that a PT boat can get under the field of fire of a BB's guns. In the same vein, it can get behind the ship, putting it beyond the reach of the forward guns.
So make a few assumptions that the larger mounts have areas where they cannot fire because A) the target is too close, or B) there is a field of fire area which a small ship can 'hide' in and not worry about the big guns being able to rotate/elevate to fire at them.
Perhaps more advanced design which would allow you to place guns with fields of fire would solve this problem. This way you could decide how many guns face forward and how many face rearward. If you happen to be running from your opponent, you would not be able to shoot your forward weapons.

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by apache:
Just want to mention some things.
1) There is no such thing as ballistics in space (vacuum, no gravity effects). All standard weapons will travel straight until they hit something else. I believe the range of weapons in the game is taken to be a range at which most ships cannot easily dodge them, rather than the point at which the beam dissipates or the particle has gone astray, since the beam will never dissipate, nor will the particle go astray.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

almost. there are balistics as far as internal ballistics and terminal ballistics are concerned, and they are darned near the same as those in atmosphere. as far as external ballistics go, space is mostly a vaccum, but there is a heck of alot of stuff floating arround in it. another thread discusses how many millions of TONs of particulate matter the earth runs into from space on a daily basis, and there certainly is some gravitational effect too. not enough to make a big change really, but the RANGES man. a range 4 weapon has a greater range than the diamater of a huge planet, which should be a couple hundred times the diamater of the earth, significantly far to be influenced by gravity. presumeably though, any super-technology targeting control could plot a fireing solution to account for any native gravity. and as for partical dissipation, not only does it depend on the microscopic stuff it runs into over a few million miles, but it would depend even heaver on the beam attenuation. the death ray will lose focus after a while.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by apache:
2) The comparisons with naval units are not totally valid, but they do have merit. The idea here is that the smaller ships can get to areas that make the bigger mounted weapons much less likely to hit them.
The field of fire of any weapon is always limited by ship design. The naval comparison notes that a PT boat can get under the field of fire of a BB's guns. In the same vein, it can get behind the ship, putting it beyond the reach of the forward guns.
So make a few assumptions that the larger mounts have areas where they cannot fire because A) the target is too close, or B) there is a field of fire area which a small ship can 'hide' in and not worry about the big guns being able to rotate/elevate to fire at them.
Perhaps more advanced design which would allow you to place guns with fields of fire would solve this problem. This way you could decide how many guns face forward and how many face rearward. If you happen to be running from your opponent, you would not be able to shoot your forward weapons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like this. but even tactical combat is not like a true space sim where velocities are significant, so facings would be a bit hard to modle without having velocity. maybe SE5 will have a feature for weapon mounts having a + or - to hit ships of a certain size (or of a certain defensive bonus)



[This message has been edited by Puke (edited 31 January 2001).]

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by apache:
1) There is no such thing as ballistics in space (vacuum, no gravity effects). All standard weapons will travel straight until they hit something else. I believe the range of weapons in the game is taken to be a range at which most ships cannot easily dodge them, rather than the point at which the beam dissipates or the particle has gone astray, since the beam will never dissipate, nor will the particle go astray.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Purely my opinion of course but, I'd always imagined that advanced, long-range, space based ballistics revolved around Navigation computers moving the ships in evasive patterns vs. Fire computers attempting to predict just where the target ship will be when the shells/beams arrive.

Depending on the range at which battles are fought, the delay between launching an attack, and it's arrival at the target could be measures in minutes, down to nothing. At 300,000 km (approx earth -&gt; moon distance) range, even beams travelling at light-speed will take about 1 sec to reach their target. A ship capable of accelerating at 30Gs could be 300m away from the original location by the time the beam arrives. Slower munitions such as DU shells and missiles would presumably take longer.

Cheers.

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

Yes, there sure are particles and gravity effects in space. However, both of these become much more irrelevant the farther you get from a gravity source.
The gravitational force is proportional to the distance from the gravity source, squared. Considering that nearly all combat takes place in empty sectors, or quite a few squares from a planet, we can ignore gravity effects. Also, based on the fact that gravity is totally ignored in the game, aside from black holes, weapons, and sensors, we can again figure that this kind of thing is not applicable to the game.
Now, particles are far and few between in space. You bet the Earth is hit by a lot of particles. But based on its size, and due to the fact that its a magnet, this is to be expected. However, atmospheric particles get much farther apart the farther from the earth they are. The Mean Free Path (MFP) between particles in the outer atmosphere at about 400 km can be on the order of 10m. This means that some object 9.9m wide could infact slip through any two particles completely unaffected as it flys around. Now note that the radius of the Earth is about 6000 km. So, we are talking less than a square away from the planet here, the particle density is so low that a small satellite can pass through it with very little atmospheric drag.
Now, the farther out you go, the less frequent particles are encountered. The truth is that any projectile weapon encountering these minute particles would have negligeable effects on the trajectory.
And beam attenuation is nonexistent unless it hits a significant amount of particles. In the atmosphere, beam attenuation is most severe, obviously, in the lower atmosphere, where the density is highest. However, in space, beam attenuation goes to approximately nil, because there are so few particles to actually run into. And even the particles that are encountered are not going to affect the beam enough over the distances encountered in space combat within the game.
Now, the reason there are ranges in the game is exactly for the reason BKrani said. By the time the beam/projectile gets there, the ship will have been able to move out of the way. But then again, a ship moving with 30 Gs of acceleration puts a force on the crew roughly equivalent to getting hit by a car going 70 mph. On the other hand, its safe to make the assumption that the propulsion systems in the game are based on non-inertial principles, so the crew would not feel a thing if the ship could move that fast.

[This message has been edited by apache (edited 31 January 2001).]

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by apache:
However, in space, beam attenuation goes to approximately nil, because there are so few particles to actually run into.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite - though I might be talking a cross angles to yourself. Over the distances we're referring to, beam weapons will probably spread a little. I'm not sure just what 'X'th century focusing techniques are like but it's highly unlikely that the focussing is 100% perfect. Over a few 100,000 kms, even at a tiny percentage of a degree misfocus, the beam will spread until it's inefectual - eventually. Otherwise anyone with a simple communications laser and a good aim could drill a hole through a planet on the other side of the universe - eventually.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>But then again, a ship moving with 30 Gs &lt;snip&gt; On the other hand, its safe to make the assumption that the propulsion systems in the game are based on non-inertial principles, so the crew would not feel a thing if the ship could move that fast. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn't thinking of non-inertial systems, inertial dampers or gravity polarisers. Though when we're talking future techs here so who knows... However, what I was thinking when I mentioned 30Gs was advanced G suits, auxillary blood pumps, drugs to promote conciousness etc. I suspect that 30Gs for short times with advanced medical techniques is about the limit of what HUMANS can endure force wise. Any more and we start to suffer serious internal tissue damage.

What other races might be able to withstand is anyones guess.

However, once you start to include non-inertial systems, then beam combat outside of the milisecond range becomes infeasible. Without acceleration limits, any ship could immediately accelerate out of the way of incomming fire (assuming they knew it was comming). Acutally, they could probably accelerate out of combat were this the case. Combat timeing would then likely become one of aiming & firing before the target can react. On that basis, I don't favour non-inertial ideas. Inertial dampers maybe. They imply a limit to what interia can be absorbed. And gravity polarisers work in proportion to whatever local gravity fields are around. All speculation anyway...

Cheers.

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BKrani:
...However, once you start to include non-inertial systems, then beam combat outside of the milisecond range becomes infeasible. Without acceleration limits, any ship could immediately accelerate out of the way of incomming fire (assuming they knew it was comming)...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, according to the Einstein there is no way they can know it is coming. Information cannot travel faster than light -- or it can cause all kinds of temporal paradoxes.

You can still try to predict what the enemy ship will do however, e.g. by observing its actions and trying to reverse-engineer its navigational software http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

Aub

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aub:
Information cannot travel faster than light -- or it can cause all kinds of temporal paradoxes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But don't forget that this is just a game... Repeat after me - 'Just a Game'!. Seriously (or at least, a little more seriously), in this simulation, we've got vessels traveling most of the way across a system in less than 0.1 of a year. Not to mention, traveling the vast distances between systems in a fraction of that time so there's probably some f.t.l. travel.

That said, I realised that what I said earlier was a little problematic. I mean, being able to tell that a beam weapon is incomming stretches the boundaries of belief a little.

Beam weapons (visible spectrum lasers that is) are relatively easy to defend against though. You just need a mirror finish. Proton and neutron beams are really particle weapons and probably move at a much slower speed (relatively). I acknowledge though that I'm not an expert, or even well read on the subject of these types of systems.

Cheers.

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

oh yeah, bring reason to super science. let me be the devils advocate for a sec here (like i really look for permission):

mirror finish will reflect all kinds of lasers.. but good luck having any kind of stealth with that. i remember some star trek quote from the klingons... "i respect the federation, who else has the balls to paint their war ships WHITE and put RUNNING LIGHTS on them." of course i also recall a quote from a Finnish sniper in WWII "I like fighting the Russians. They fight standing up." Gawd DARN, you have to respect the Fins, winter 1939-1940 saw saw some of the greatest heroism in the history of man.

i digress. as far as FTL information travel, we are doing it today (in the lab anyway) with intertangled pairs of photons and funkey quantum mechanics that I dont even pretend to understand. I am sure I can dredge up some links if anyone is interested. I dont think it invalidates Einstienean (spelling?) realitivity, but I think the way most people view realitivity is generally flawed. granted, matter acquires mass as it accelerates toward the speed of light, but FTL travel in the SEIV case involves neat fiction like space 'folding' or wormholes (covered in current understanding of quantum mechanics.. anyone familiar with the principals used in _CONTACT_?)

shoot, im rambling.. i will cut this short here.

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BKrani:
But don't forget that this is just a game... Repeat after me - 'Just a Game'!. ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

'Just a Game'. 'Just a Game'.

Ok, I realize that. But the calculations involving the distance from Earth to Moon and how much acceleration a human body can withstand sounded soooo serious! So I could not resist the temptation http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

On a more serious note, indeed, I strongly believe that each addition/modification in the game should be cosidered from the gameplay point of view first (what does it add to the game? does it throw the balance off?) and only then from the point of view of "realism" (whatever it is). People tend to forget that it's 'Just a Game' so often.

Aub

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aub:
'Just a Game'. 'Just a Game'.

People tend to forget that it's 'Just a Game' so often.

Aub<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

bah. games are how people choose to spend their time, and they embody a person's prefered Version of reality. take the game seriously if you will. but remember, everything else is 'just reality.' unless you are a serious freakin stoner, or some kind of enlightened monk, you cant very well choose your own reality. games, now, THAT you can choose.

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Puke:
mirror finish will reflect all kinds of lasers.. but good luck having any kind of stealth with that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At the distances we're likely to be at, it's not likely that anyone will be using light as the medium of choice for detection. More likely would be mass detection or ... Actually, I have no idea. But i think it's unlikely to be only light. a mirror finish would be unlikely to effect detection after a few thousand kms or so.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I remember some star trek quote from the klingons... "i respect the federation, who else has the balls to paint their war ships WHITE and put RUNNING LIGHTS on them."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oooh. I like it!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>i digress. as far as FTL information travel, we are doing it today (in the lab anyway) with intertangled pairs of photons and funkey quantum mechanics that I dont even pretend to understand. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd heard something about this but frankley, I have no idea if it's just wind, or there's some substance to these claims.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>FTL travel in the SEIV case involves neat fiction like space 'folding' or wormholes[/b]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My (limited) understanding of this type of travel is that it doesn't invalidate our current understanding of physics - it mereley bypasses it.

Cheers.

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aub:
On a more serious note, indeed, I strongly believe that each addition/modification in the game should be cosidered from the gameplay point of view first (what does it add to the game? does it throw the balance off?) and only then from the point of view of "realism<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wholehearted agreement here.

From a strategic or logic puzzle POV, game ballance is the king. Loosing that tends to kill the game. Now a good, balanced game, with a bit of flavour (wierd science, strange events, odd happenings) is all the better.

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aub:
Hmm, according to the Einstein there is no way they can know it is coming. Information cannot travel faster than light -- or it can cause all kinds of temporal paradoxes.
Aub<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speaking about temporal paradoxes what about a race that has event predictors http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif. We have temporal races in this game to get around these messy details.

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

Since all this tech stuff is above me let me address the fields of fire issue. In space a ship would be able to rotate in any direction so that all weapons can come to bear.

------------------
Seawolf on the prowl

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

Yep, a ship sure can turn to be able to fire all of its weapons at one target. But, it would take quite a while to do so if it had an inertial propulsion system. A dreadnought trying to aim its rear guns at an escort would have one hell of a hard time. But, again, I always assume a non inertial propulsion system in this game, so yes, they could turn pretty easily to engage with all weapons.
Now, as for Einstein's relativity, well, the fact is that this is all theoretical, not a proven fact. Just because the equations say its so does not mean the equations are valid. I will remind you that they said the exact same thing about the speed of sound, and were proven completely wrong. Yes, the equation used to calculate drag shows that as you approach the speed of sound, drag force goes to infinity. But in practice, there are more complicated effects that no one could predict until they tried and passed the speed of sound.
There is no proof that the light barrier is some ultimate all defeating universal property. The equation is actually identical to the drag equations of long ago. And think about it, if something actually were going faster than light, how could we possibly detect it?
Something else to note is that the speed of light is not a constant. It varies based on the medium it is actually travelling through. Information can definitely travel faster than light. It is possible to slow light down so much that you can actually walk faster than the beam of light.
Another property theoretically claimed by light is that it is massless. But then you have to ask yourself, how is it then affected by gravitational forces?
Now, on to the beam attenuation subject again, a laser beam will not attenuate or lose focus over a significant amount of distance in space. Right now, there are lasers with enough power to vaporize a bulldozer at 1000 yards. In space, you really would not want to get in the way, no matter how far away you are. Less powerful lasers can be used to transmit power to satellites for propulsion or simply powering a few systems on the satellite. This requires pinpoint accuracy by the laser, and it can be done. Now, yes, the beam will attenuate considerably though the atmosphere, but once it gets through the atmosphere, its rate of attenuation is approximately zero since there is nothing to cause attenuation.
Laser light is super focused, and no lenses are even used when making laser light. It is simply by the nature of the reaction itself that lasers are that focused. Also, a laser's power does not depend on how focused it is, it depends on how many photons are travelling in the beam. Basically this means that in the atmosphere, the laser light will attenuate severely as the photons are reflected off or absorbed into the air molecules. In a vacuum, there is nothing to diminish the power of the laser, and so the beam diameter at a long distance, though still almost exactly the same as it was when the laser beam was generated, will still be carrying the same amount of energy that it had when it left. What does it mean? It means that if you fire off a terrawatt of power in a laser in space, you can be sure a terrawatt is going to hit something (and probably blow it up since a terrawatt is a ridiculous amount of power).
Now, one other point to make, none of the beam weapons in the game are using light as their main energy form. They are all using subatomic particles. There is, sadly enough, no laser weapon in the game.
But yes, when it comes down to it, it is a game, and we are all nerds for even trying to explain it realistically.

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

What the else can you say after that post, but damn. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif Thanks apache I learned something new today. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Now, as for Einstein's relativity, well, the fact is that this is all theoretical, not a proven fact.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
snip etc.
Um... Drag increasing to infinity is slightly different to mass increasing to infinity. I believe that the increased mass effect has been shown through experimentation. Even if your spaceship managed to hit 99% light speed without hitting anything nasty (like a hydrogen atom) you will need an almost infinite force to accelerate that extra few metres per second. The answer to drag was to create very pointy things which brush aside the medium (air). The only way round lightspeed barrier is either a shortcut (wormhole or suchlike) or hyperdrive (something that pushes space out of the way, positive gravitational curvature generator or suchlike) Neither of these devices has been widely used in the real world.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> Laser light is super focussed<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Incorrect. Laser light is very high number of photons / cubic area with waveform 'in phase'. There is beam attenuation over distance because even the longest lasing chamber will not produce a completely cylindrical beam. Even a few moments of a degree of diVersion at the emitting end of your 3 mile long lasing chamber will produce a bit of attenuation. With a Terrawatt laser, it doesn't matter too much if you're shooting at something within say one Astronomical unit. Anything outside that distance and you end up with beam attenuation because of the sheer volume of emptiness you're shooting through. (1 particle per cubic km isn't much when you need to breathe, but it adds up to a lot over 4.2 light years)

It's just a game...it's just a game...Oh damnit, which part is just a game and which is reality....MEDIC!!

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

Well, after Barnacle Bill posted a link to Starfire homepage, I paid it a visit and there I found an explanation of the drive system used there. Since Starfire inspires SE series, that explanation might work here too.
To see explanation go here: http://www.starfiredesign.com/starfire

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

Again, I will say that relativity is unproven. Nothing manmade has ever traveled to any significant portion of the speed of light, and if you want to believe it as fact, thats fine, but the truth is that it has never been proven absolutly.
Yes, a laser does attenuate over distance, (I thought I already conceded that in my Last post), but over the tactical combat distances in the game, and in a total vacuum, attenuation is extremely small, almost negligeable, and you are still going to get 99.99999999999% of all the laser energy to the target since it will not likely encounter many particles to reflect a significant amount of energy within that distance.
Since most beam weapons don't reach out farther than a range of 8, and about 3 spaces seem to be the diameter of an earth-sized planet, we can assume that the range of those range 8 weapons is about 32000 kilometers (less than a tenth of the distance from the earth to the moon). I hope we can agree that over this distance, in a vacuum, beam attenuation of a megawatt (much less powerful than my previously mentioned terrawatt laser) or greater laser is going to be small, and probably will be able to damage/kill something quite easily.

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by apache:
Again, I will say that relativity is unproven. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is true in the sence that a quite a number of scientific discoveries fall into the Category of things that cannot be proven, only disproven. However, so many of our current (and provable) understandings of the universe around us are based on these unprovable theories now. It might be that at some time in the future, they are disproven - and a whole branch of human understanding comes crashing to the ground - but at the moment, they are largely agreed upon.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Nothing manmade has ever traveled to any significant portion of the speed of light. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Except man-made light. I understand that quite a few experiments were made measuring the effects of gravitational structures on the speed of light and the passing of time (two related issues).


However, I have to admit that I am not a physisist (I used to have a friend who worked with me in the accounts dept. as a general lackey - who was currently completing a doctorate in physics. Unfortunately we lost him to the SETI programme. Really) and can't fully comment on these ideas.

Cheers.

[This message has been edited by BKrani (edited 31 January 2001).]

[This message has been edited by BKrani (edited 31 January 2001).]

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by apache:
Again, I will say that relativity is unproven. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats why they call it a theory. All of science is theories none of it is proven as far as I know and is subject to change with new evidence. Relativity is a theory and so is gravity and molecular bonding. Its just the way we explain things that happen to fit the evidence that we so far have gathered. That is not to say some things aren't more likely to be true than others. Relativity is like all other theories subject to changes and additions as evidence is found from tests and the universe around us. I would not doubt that there are many things that we do not know about this area now. I know it will be tested from many angles many times in the future and more will be learned.

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

Yeah technically nothing can ever be proven. However, there comes a point at which numerous experiments and calculations, etc. consistantly fail to disprove a theory. At this point it becomes a law, and can readily be taken as fact. Gravity is one of those things. Newton's Laws are others.
However, Einstein's theory of relativity simply cannot be tested at this time. So it will stay a theory until disproven or numerous attempts to disprove it consistantly fail. My point is that it simply cannot even be experimented with, so it is a 'pure' theory, based only on mathematical equations.

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

______________
Again, I will say that relativity is unproven. Nothing manmade has ever traveled to any significant portion of the speed of light, and if you want to believe it as fact, thats fine, but the truth is that it has never been proven absolutly.
_______________

apache, how about particle accelerators ? proton beams travel there at 0.99 of speed of light and behave in a full and complete
accordance with the theory of relativity.
In fact, Einstein theory is probably the most proven theory in science right now, no doubt about that.

Cheers, Oleg.

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by apache:
But then again, a ship moving with 30 Gs of acceleration puts a force on the crew roughly equivalent to getting hit by a car going 70 mph. On the other hand, its safe to make the assumption that the propulsion systems in the game are based on non-inertial principles, so the crew would not feel a thing if the ship could move that fast<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, what BKrani was saying re: computers doing most of the work in combat makes me think he's going w/ a combat model similar to Haldman's (sp?) The Forever War; the crews of ships would go lay in funky acceleration creches, get pumped full of wierd chemicals, and spend several weeks in wet storage w/ an increased body mass/density (&lt;-???&lt;-I can't remember) while their computer jinxed the ship hither, thither, and yon to dodge all the fun treats the other guys' ship was throwing at it (while throwing its own junk back, of course).

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

I know there are experiments supporting special relativity. However, general relativity does not assume light is some ultimate speed, nor does it assume that it is a constant speed. Furthermore, there have been experiments in quantum mechanics that show quantum tunneling effects can move a particle faster than light speed. Also, there are some big problems with assuming that going faster than light speed results in going back in time. The big thing is how do you actually go back in time?
My final point is that just because 2+2=4 does not mean that 7-3 does not equal 4, nor does it mean that -i*4i does not also equal 4. My point is that just because the experiments support special relativity does not mean that they cannot support another different theory that is inherrently different than special relativity.

Re: Ship size vs. weapons
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ealbright:
Actually, what BKrani was &lt;snip&gt; makes me think he's going w/ a combat model similar to Haldman's (sp?) The Forever War<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I haven't actually read that one. Joe HGaldeman? maybe? What come probably a little closer is the Night's Dawn trilogy by Peter Hamilton. VERY good series - currently my favorite. A must read for believable high-tech cultures.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>the crews of ships would go lay in funky acceleration creches, get pumped full of wierd chemicals, and spend several weeks in wet storage while their computer jinxed the ship hither<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Absolutely!
Space Combat (IMO) is not the stately, gracefull process of our current naval combat (assuming of course that you have the option of accelerating at these levels). If pushing your body's limits that much further through high-G's improves your survival/offensive chances, then push as hard as you can. This opinion is largely based on what I've seen of modern day fighter combat. Pilots not only have to have split-second reflexes and keen analytical minds, but need to be enourmously fit to be able to withstand the forces their bodies are put through. I mean, they 'could' take it easy on them selves, but the pilot pulling 2Gs is likely to be run under by the pilot pulling 9Gs. For as long as the mind is a required component of the war engine, it's likely that the body enclosing that mind will be pushed to it's limit, and that the bodies G-limit is likely to be the main limiting factor in manuverability.