Guided Ordinance (missiles and torpedos)

Galactic diplomacy with extreme prejudice.
Post Reply
User avatar
hargert
Posts: 999
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 4:38 pm

Post by hargert » Tue Aug 01, 2006 5:48 pm

As a side question are there any sensor upgrades that let you see weapon ranges on the sensor screen? Would make presise placement possible and let you know when the enemy has pulled out of range.

roy7
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:25 pm

Post by roy7 » Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:53 pm

hargert wrote:As a side question are there any sensor upgrades that let you see weapon ranges on the sensor screen? Would make presise placement possible and let you know when the enemy has pulled out of range.


I like that idea.

Can someone confirm if Integrated Sensors is needed for one ship to fire at an out of sensor range enemy seen by a different ship? I thought it was simply an improvement to the sensor view for the player, and didn't impact gameplay. It's an important thing to know for those of us who are big fans of super long range weapons. :)

User avatar
Major Diarrhia
Posts: 648
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:20 am

Post by Major Diarrhia » Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:59 pm

I have some missile question, sort of technical and artistic ideas. Why don't the nuke missiles blow up like nukes? They make an orange fire ball like a chemical explosive when they should be making a blinding flash of doom. I feel no sense of of awe when they go off and it's very disappointing. It doesn't even have to be truly blinding, but at least very bright, white, and it can have a nice orange glowing plasma left over from the vaporised remains of the targeted ship. It should also kick, hard, on impact, like the gauss weapons.

Why isn't the first nuke warhead a fusion warhead? Modern thermonuclear weapons are fission fusion fission warheads, or they're fission fusion warheads, I'm not sure which. A nuclear fission device compresses a sphere of hydrogen, causing a fusion reaction. Is the game's fusion warhead in fact a clean nuclear device, not requiring a fission device to compress the fusion material? If that's the case, then there shouldn't be nearly so much ecological damage when used against planets. I know, it's sort of silly asking these technical sounding things but I like my entertainment to be consistent, if not with reality, at least with it self.

Could Inter Planetary Ballistic Missiles be added to the game? They could be made like disposable missile buses. Individually they would be significantly cheaper than ships, since they don't have to carry people, weapons, or armor. They would only carry a warhead or missile rack. In the long run they would end up costing you more than normal ships and you wouldn't be able to control them after launch, as a safety measure so no one can hack them in flight to turn them against you. They could also have better range than normal ships, like a cross between the extended range hull and tanker hull. They could also have pretty high tactical speed.

User avatar
Elethiomel
Zuul Survivor
Zuul Survivor
Posts: 498
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:13 am

Post by Elethiomel » Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:15 pm

Major Diarrhia wrote:Could Inter Planetary Ballistic Missiles be added to the game? They could be made like disposable missile buses. Individually they would be significantly cheaper than ships, since they don't have to carry people, weapons, or armor. They would only carry a warhead or missile rack. In the long run they would end up costing you more than normal ships and you wouldn't be able to control them after launch, as a safety measure so no one can hack them in flight to turn them against you. They could also have better range than normal ships, like a cross between the extended range hull and tanker hull. They could also have pretty high tactical speed.


In the full game, humans have Node Missiles, which are like little kamikaze ships that cost 1 command point each.
A good signature is a concise and original summary of personality. This is not a good signature.

User avatar
Major Diarrhia
Posts: 648
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:20 am

Post by Major Diarrhia » Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:21 pm

Awesome, thanks. :)

User avatar
Arkalius
Posts: 441
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:06 am

Post by Arkalius » Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:42 pm

The fusion that takes place in hydrogen bombs is designed to set off an uncontrolled fission reaction; it does not contribute significanly to the destructive power of the weapon.

A fusion warhead would do damage by being essentially a tiny supernova.
-Arkalius

Check out my SotS2 tech tree java app!
For the SotS prime player, grab the original tech tree java app.

User avatar
ture
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:22 pm

Post by ture » Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:55 pm

Arkalius wrote:The fusion that takes place in hydrogen bombs is designed to set off an uncontrolled fission reaction; it does not contribute significanly to the destructive power of the weapon.


Nah, you´re a bit off there. In a hydrogen bomb, also known as a fusion bomb, you have a fission bomb that sparks a fusion process in the hydrogen. While fisson bombs are measured in kilotons, hydrogen bombs are measured in megatons.

Arkalius wrote:A fusion warhead would do damage by being essentially a tiny supernova.


Well, that depends on how you see things. A supernova is not fueled by hydrogen, but it is a fusion process none the less.
MoO3 fanboi ;)

User avatar
Major Diarrhia
Posts: 648
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:20 am

Post by Major Diarrhia » Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:40 pm

An H-Bomb can be 1,000 times more powerful than an atom bomb. It took forever but all I could find was seemingly contradictory information. In the article below it says that if the secondary reaction fission tamper is removed, half the total energy of the explosion will also be removed. But below that, it also says that the fusion reaction produces far more energy than the primary fission reaction.

Fortunately, both can be correct, the fission reaction just has to not create as much energy as the secondary fission reaction, with both, separately, creating far more energy than the primary fission reaction.

By what I can tell, a pure fusion bomb would be a neutron bomb. It might be weaker than a normal hydrogen bomb but not by much, it would still be in the megatons range. It will create huge levels of neutron radiation, so it will be great against heavily armored craft since it will just kill the crew instead of messing with destroying the hardware. It will also irradiate that hardware, making it too dangerous to reuse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teller-Ulam_design
Fusion, unlike fission, is relatively "clean"—it releases energy but no harmful radioactive products or large amounts of nuclear fallout. The fission reactions though, especially the last fission reaction, release a tremendous amount of fission products and fallout. If the last fission stage is omitted (by replacing the uranium tamper with one made of lead, for example), the overall explosive force is reduced by approximately half but the amount of fallout is relatively low.

In essence the Teller–Ulam configuration relies on at least two instances of "implosion" occurring: first, the conventional (chemical) explosives in the primary would compress the fissile core, resulting in a fission explosion many times more powerful than that which chemical explosives could achieve alone. Second, the radiation from the fissioning of the primary would be used to compress and ignite the secondary, resulting in a fusion explosion many times more powerful than the fission explosion alone. This chain of compression could be then continued with an arbitrary number of secondaries, and would end with the fissioning of the natural uranium tamper (something which could not normally be achieved without the neutron flux provided by the fusion reactions in the secondary). Such a design can be scaled up to an arbitrary strength, potentially to the level of a doomsday device (though usually such weapons are not more than a dozen megatons, which is generally considered enough to destroy even the largest practical targets).

User avatar
Wyvern
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:01 pm

Post by Wyvern » Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:18 am

Presumably since these ships loaf around in space ( full of nasty radiation ) the races have developed some rather good radiation shielding.

Nuclear explosions would also be less devastating due to the lack of a medium ( air ) in which to form shockwaves and other fun effects.
--------------------
Fhtagn?
Wyvern

User avatar
PiousFlea
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 8:54 pm

Post by PiousFlea » Sun Aug 06, 2006 1:36 pm

Nukes in an atmosphere are extremely devastating because of the fireball effect; the heat is enough to ignite the oxygen-containing atmosphere, and create an ensuing shockwave of superheated gas. It's the pressure of the shockwave that causes most of the damage - air pressure flattens buildings and . Same reason that meteor impacts are so devastating, the meteor doesn't have to hit you directly to do major damage.

For the same size of nuke, nukes in outer space are way less powerful as direct damage. There's no air to amplify their destructive power. The damage would have to come entirely from the heat and radiation. And one would presume a spaceship is pretty resistant to those.

It still is pretty unlikely that a 20 meter long object could survive a direct impact from a nuclear missile. That's when we call upon the principle of "game abstraction", which explains why a soldier in WW2 can get shot then regenerate all his HP by hiding behind cover for 10 seconds, or how you can only bring 40 men to fight a gigantic evil Old God.
Seek the truth
Behold the truth
Reveal the truth
That is the law and the whole of the law

User avatar
Agent
Ante Priore Wangum
Posts: 323
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 7:29 pm

Post by Agent » Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:41 am

Ï€ - This is pi. My sig is now irrational.
Image
The Iron Chef has the solution to the hiver menace.

User avatar
Mecron
Kerberos
Posts: 38715
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:26 pm

Post by Mecron » Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:43 am

also consider the scale of the ship missiles themselves...they are not much larger than an amraam. Just becuase it is an efficient nuke warhead, does not mean it is in the megaton range :wink:
Last edited by Mecron on Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Wyvern
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:01 pm

Post by Wyvern » Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:43 am

Agent wrote:I like missles.


LOL
--------------------
Fhtagn?
Wyvern

User avatar
Major Diarrhia
Posts: 648
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:20 am

Post by Major Diarrhia » Tue Aug 08, 2006 5:22 am

Agent wrote:I like missles.

My favorite sound file. :D

User avatar
Deianeira
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:09 am

Post by Deianeira » Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:50 am

How valuable are missiles in the late game? Do the advancements in PD (to counter them) and other weaponry (more damage) make them obsolete. Lets leave the planetary and defense sats out for a moment. Are they a viable weapon on cruisers and dreads? Or will you hardly see any?
What you do in life... echoes in eternity

Post Reply

Return to “The Weapons”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests