thoughts - the source of all problems and disbalances

Wanderer · #1 December 6th, 2002, 01:47 AM

1) If you're firing at something 1000s of km away, a small recoil & a little bit of torque and you'll miss by some way if you don't correct your aim.

2) 15" shells weighed a ton (literally) - you wouldn't be able to put many in a destroyer without slowing her to a crawl, and if you tried it you'd make a very pretty firework display if the enemy hit your unarmoured magazines...

IMO the mount system is good. If you want to have starships built like Napoleonic ships of the line with numerous rows of small guns, go ahead, but I think I'll be 'borrowing' the idea of giving large mounts a to-hit penalty.

*re-engaging lurking device*

Fyron · #2 December 6th, 2002, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimbob:

quote:
A destroyer is also not a very stable firing platform, which would mean that even if you could fire without capsizing (or even sail without capsizing)

But can one actually capsize in space?

He was talking about WWII ships, not space ships.

PvK · #3 December 6th, 2002, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:
Originally posted by jimbob:

quote:
A destroyer is also not a very stable firing platform, which would mean that even if you could fire without capsizing (or even sail without capsizing)

But can one actually capsize in space?
He was talking about WWII ships, not space ships.

Ya, I was, but while you couldn't capsize per se, you could have other problems if you apply a large force off-center - the ship could spin and tumble, which could be quite a problem for the people and equipment inside. Your stabilizer system would also be more challenged to deal with such. But, as I said a couple of times, the engineering problems and trade-offs might be somewhat different in space from those faced by sea vessels, but there would undoubtedly still be major effects of deploying massive weapons on small ships. It would be more interesting to model the effects rather than just disallow them, at least as far as they are still practical and not just a model of a bad idea.

It would be nice though to be able to mark unit sizes and mounts as obsolete, and filter the view. Otherwise, if you mod many interesting new types in, it can start to clutter the interface.

PvK

Phoenix-D · #4 December 6th, 2002, 11:36 PM

"It would be nice though to be able to mark unit sizes and mounts as obsolete, and filter the view. Otherwise, if you mod many interesting new types in, it can start to clutter the interface."

Same with mounts.

Phoenix-D

Gryphin · #5 December 7th, 2002, 06:20 AM

In terms of WWII
I have no idea how the enginerring would work. since they did not do it, I'm sure there was a reason.

In terms of Sci Fi
DUCs I imagined were using Linear Induction to propel the objects. I think it is also reffered to as GAUS weapon. I don't think there would be significant recoil from that. Nothing a ships systems could not adjust for. The same for "Light" based weapons.
When all is said and done, < insert Sci Fi explanation > and it works because the author said it works.

oleg · #6 December 7th, 2002, 04:42 PM

It does not matter how would you propell a shell - by expanding gases or EM field, recoil will be exactly the same. Nobody yet cancel Newton' third law.

Suicide Junkie · #7 December 7th, 2002, 05:54 PM

Oleg, your gun could fire two shells in opposite directions and end up recoilless.

Or it could have a really quick-acting thruster on the back to counteract the recoil, maybe along with a sliding mount to give the thruster more time to complete its job.

The trick is to dump the recoil force into some throwaway matter.