range?

Galactic diplomacy with extreme prejudice.
Azrael Ultima
Posts: 3052
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 3:20 am

Re: range?

Post by Azrael Ultima » Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:48 pm

mistervec wrote:Any weapons system that's capable of hitting a planetary surface from orbit is also capable of hitting an orbiting ship from the planet's surface, after all, and can be mounted on an orbital weapons platform relatively easily.

Dropping stuff from orbit would like to have a word with you. I'm pretty sure that doesn't work the other way around.
I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts.
The zeppelin of bluster Feldman excoriated Freddy with suddenly popped into a cloud of humility. (David Grand, The Disappearing Body, 2002)

User avatar
mistervec
Posts: 176
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:22 pm

Re: range?

Post by mistervec » Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:01 pm

Azrael Ultima wrote:Dropping stuff from orbit would like to have a word with you. I'm pretty sure that doesn't work the other way around.


This is technically correct and I happily concede this point! However, "dropping things from orbit" is a relatively low-damage sort of thing to do unless the thing being dropped is very large. Terminal velocity tends to limit the overall impact of that strategy. Hurling things from orbit, like mass driver rounds, is a different story. While I'm well aware of the fact that firing a mass driver round away from a massive body will decrease its velocity by quite a bit, I also posit that a ground-based weapons battery can be larger and be supported by a much more substantial power grid than a space-based one, evening things out.
This message brought to you by:

Mister Vec's Magical Space Haberdashery

"It is cold in the dark depths of space. Remember to wear a hat."

Inkvisitor
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:58 am

Re: range?

Post by Inkvisitor » Tue Oct 18, 2011 6:13 am

But, even assuming, that a planetary defense weapon could more easily access to civilian power system, thos energygrid is completely defenseless. And civilian grids are not designed to endure war conditions. Slow scaling up, low damage resistance, and in most case enought to kill 1 larger power station, and the whole grid suffer power shortage for days. Each planetary defense weapon needs its dedicated power source. Civilian puffer only for last case.

Jorgen_CAB
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 1:14 pm

Re: range?

Post by Jorgen_CAB » Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:30 am

I say that (speaking hypothetically) anything you fire from a planet into orbit will take an enormous amount of energy in comparison of just dropping bombs. Also, bombs are way more devastating inside an atmosphere than in space.

In reality, I believe, that most planetary defences would be situated in space not at the ground on planets. Any defences down at the planet would mainly defend military installations from ground invaders. A planet with no space defences would be at the mercy of any ships in orbit to bomb them to the stone age. It would only depend on the amount of ammunition those ships brought.

Any ground construction built to shoot at an orbiting (highly agile thing as a starship) would be much more efficient if up in space or at least in low orbit of the planet. Every construction on the ground will need its own power source anyway so you might as well put it in low orbit of the planet to make them more effective. They could be both automated and controlled from ground or space. No need for any personnel on these platforms so they would be quite durable and hard to take out in comparison with a real starship.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter...

User avatar
mistervec
Posts: 176
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:22 pm

Re: range?

Post by mistervec » Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:35 pm

As you can see here, a focus on what's "realistic" in space combat has already bogged down our conversation quite a bit. It would be even worse if it happened in the game, no?
This message brought to you by:

Mister Vec's Magical Space Haberdashery

"It is cold in the dark depths of space. Remember to wear a hat."

Torezu
Posts: 1748
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:06 pm

Re: range?

Post by Torezu » Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:49 pm

Inkvisitor wrote:But, even assuming, that a planetary defense weapon could more easily access to civilian power system, thos energygrid is completely defenseless. And civilian grids are not designed to endure war conditions. Slow scaling up, low damage resistance, and in most case enought to kill 1 larger power station, and the whole grid suffer power shortage for days. Each planetary defense weapon needs its dedicated power source. Civilian puffer only for last case.

It would be nice if the "Hardened Structures" tech could be applied on a per-planet basis, with say a few turns to install, and maybe several to remove (to provide a disincentive to just add it whenever you're under attack). I do understand why it's not per-planet in SotS1, though.

User avatar
moonsilver
Posts: 507
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:31 am

Re: range?

Post by moonsilver » Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:50 pm

not sure how old this thread is, the issue in realistic space combat is not range, but what u can see, with sensors. We have guns that can shoot 4 miles, but if u can't see what your shooting at, your not going to do much good with it.

Same realisticly applies to space, if u send out a pulse, as a sensor, u have to wait for it to come back, by the time it comes back the ship has moved, is no longer in that position but u could say it is sort of in this area, but it would highly inacurate to try and hit that entire area.

So its quite possible that science ficiton films although intentionally got it wrong, may have indavertenly got it right, afterall, with stealth technology and other things, looking out the window is probally the best chance u got of seeing something :).

Theres also accerlation factors for most weapons, if u are far awayk it means most weapons have more time to acceralte and do more damage. If your up close and in their face, the acceleration of there weapons becomes much slower has less impact on your armour. More likely to see a missle launched that seeing a missle after its launched, since it will be stealthed sort of or too small for effect.

In world war 2, air pilots were taught to fly in formation not because it looked good, but because it was standard practice to jam raido signals, so u couldn't communicate, so they were taught to recognise what the lead plane was doing, if the lead plane broke formation it meant enemy attack and all followed suit, if they banked slowly u followed suit, simply no other way of communicating in a battle field.

If your sensors aree being jammed by a cnc ship communications are hjammed also, only way your going to know your shooting at the right ship is to look out the window and go, that thigns ugly probally a zuul ship, shoot it.

User avatar
Mecron
Kerberos
Posts: 38740
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:26 pm

Re: range?

Post by Mecron » Tue Oct 18, 2011 6:54 pm

tor it is per planet in sots2 :thumbsup:

User avatar
Starknight
Posts: 657
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:31 am

Re: range?

Post by Starknight » Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:17 pm

moonsilver wrote:not sure how old this thread is, the issue in realistic space combat is not range, but what u can see, with sensors. We have guns that can shoot 4 miles, but if u can't see what your shooting at, your not going to do much good with it.

Same realisticly applies to space, if u send out a pulse, as a sensor, u have to wait for it to come back, by the time it comes back the ship has moved, is no longer in that position but u could say it is sort of in this area, but it would highly inacurate to try and hit that entire area.


Umm, no. If they're using a venting (reaction) drive, you'll be able to see their drive flares from quite some distance. That gives you a number of things: by the luminosity, you know how much energy it is. That gives you the amount of thrust it produces, which, combined with their acceleration, gives you their mass. You also only need to observe them for a short time to know their vector (direction + velocity), which makes finding them again trivial. You can also look for their heat signature with an infrared scope; all ships need to vent heat into space or their crews will cook.

As far as waiting for 'sensor' (i.e., radar) pulses, yes, that happens. But we're talking light-speed here. Unless you're trying to find something at a distance greater than, say, Luna's orbit from Earth, you're not waiting that long. The distance traveled by any ship not going at fractional-c velocities isn't that great, so you'll have a reasonable idea of where they are.

So its quite possible that science ficiton films although intentionally got it wrong, may have indavertenly got it right, afterall, with stealth technology and other things, looking out the window is probally the best chance u got of seeing something :).


No, not really. The distances involved are too great. Trying to spot a 90m cruiser at distances of several kilometers, with uncertain lighting and no background with which to contrast it, using the Mk. I Eyeball? Not to mention that transparent sections on a ship invite easy laser criticals - after all, you don't have to go through armor if it can't intercept the energy you're sending through.

Theres also accerlation factors for most weapons, if u are far awayk it means most weapons have more time to acceralte and do more damage. If your up close and in their face, the acceleration of there weapons becomes much slower has less impact on your armour. More likely to see a missle launched that seeing a missle after its launched, since it will be stealthed sort of or too small for effect.


Missiles are the only accelerating weapons. And even they have a limited amount of delta-v they can apply, so they boost up to a specified velocity and then save their remaining delta-v for maneuvering in the approach phase. Everything else is light-speed (lasers/particle cannons) or constant velocity (guns and energy torpedoes).

In world war 2, air pilots were taught to fly in formation not because it looked good, but because it was standard practice to jam raido signals, so u couldn't communicate, so they were taught to recognise what the lead plane was doing, if the lead plane broke formation it meant enemy attack and all followed suit, if they banked slowly u followed suit, simply no other way of communicating in a battle field.

If your sensors aree being jammed by a cnc ship communications are hjammed also, only way your going to know your shooting at the right ship is to look out the window and go, that thigns ugly probally a zuul ship, shoot it.


You can't jam laser communication links without getting between the source and the receiver, or putting something opaque in the way. I know that would be my preferred method of squadron communications; difficult to intercept (and impossible to do so without letting the enemy know something's up) and almost impossible to jam. If your formation gets broken up by an enemy ship (say, cruisers attacking a dreadnaught), simply relay between the ones for which you do have LOS. Waiting a half-second for a reply (in extreme cases) isn't going to materially alter the outcome of the battle.
My Morrigi fleet-speed calculator for SotS Prime
The Holy Lands - Hivers vs. the infidel Liir (and others)
Currently working on getting my board game Dragon Raiders into final condition before going to Kickstarter...

remmon
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 12:40 am

Re: range?

Post by remmon » Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:37 pm

As noted, there is no real stealth in realistic space combat. The closest you can get to stealth is to sit very close to something that's about as hot as you are and even then, radar and optical imaging will probably pick you out quite easily. Weapons in such a fight will be either lasers or missiles depending on whether or not a laser equipped vessel can fire fast enough to reliably shoot down all the missiles a missile equipped ship of the same cost can lob. If it can, everyone will be using lasers primarily and fights will occur at ranges of a few light seconds at most. If they can't, everyone will be lobbing missiles from as far away as they possibly can while trying to avoid enemy missile attacks.

The former setup could be fun in a game, but the latter is unlikely to be very interesting. Either way combat will tend to have a lot of pyrrhic victories. SotS is not that kind of game though. Plenty of abstraction makes things much more interesting.

Jorgen_CAB
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 1:14 pm

Re: range?

Post by Jorgen_CAB » Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:57 am

I say that you could view the combat as both an abstraction and game balanced for fun both in one go. The scale of ranges and ship sizes are just that, abstractions. 2km in the game might be 200000km in reality, does it really matter?

Regarding sensors and jamming, there is always a way to jam communications and ways to hide from sensors. It is all about having the edge at some point be it technology or psychic abilities or what have you.

What I would like to know though are what ranges missiles will have. They should "realistically" only be restricted by sensor range, but I doubt it will work like that in the game though. It would also be nice if it is harder to detect different object in space.
So, detecting a missile would be much harder than detecting a ship. I mean, a missile would not emit allot of radiation while the travel to the target after the initial acceleration. Would be nice with stealth missiles that you might not detect until they are really close or even at all given poor sensor technology. :)

User avatar
moonsilver
Posts: 507
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:31 am

Re: range?

Post by moonsilver » Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:40 pm

You can jam laser commincation links. Use your imagination. like this.

A headlight when pointed at someone, causes them to not be able to see anything behind even if there is light bouncing of it, cos the headlight is too strong. Effectively jamming you. You could od the same with lasers, Just send out wideberth light as strong as a laser's communication link. but in all directions towards the one transmitting on the field. You will effectively blind the reciever.

Stealth is always possible, two forms of stealth, camouflauge trying to pretend tob e something your not. Or jamming, which is blinding someone, or make so much noise, they can't hear u tip toeing. Smoke screens? lets update that to solforce space age.
Launch giant flarees around your fleet which generate bursts of heat, these confuse missle guidence systems as well as sensors, since they can not pin point your exact location. its even in the game its called chaff tech. or dreadnought ecw section.

Even a book a read, where they deployed mine or missle type deveices which jammed signals and sent out false readings, to confuse ships, Think book was called reality dysfunction, tehy had like remote conttrolled missles which had their own ecm wars,

All of your shooting assumes that your sensor signal returns exact moment it was sent. this is what i mean. won't be slinging shots from one planet to the other planet. u would have to get close. if your between the moon and earth then your fairly close, in fact you could probalyl see eachother. But the distance is still huge, Light from the some takes about 4 mins to get to earth. granted the moons closer, but thats maybe 3 seconds to work with. How close do u have to be before it becomes less than a second?

ANyone good at maths? then again you could use projector systems, or light dispersal systems, Plenty of ideas u could use for stealth.

They could paint the ship in light absorbing paint, so it doesn't all glitter and shine like a disco ball. Even paint fake stars on its armour so it looks like a normal night sky. WHo knows, but i'm sure u can do stuff.

9 days to go :)

ZedF
Board Ninja
Board Ninja
Posts: 12607
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 7:13 pm

range?

Post by ZedF » Wed Oct 19, 2011 10:08 pm

That wouldn't really work; laser comm webs are very specific about what frequencies they are looking on and what directions they are looking in; to blind a laser comm link with a headlight effect you would have to be both familiar enough with the enemy comm system to know what you are jamming and in the right position to do anything about it -- which becomes pretty much impossible once you realize you are trying to jam a many-to-many comm link and would have to jam most or all the links at once and would thus have to do it from many directions at once.

About all you are doing is painting a sign on yourself saying 'shoot me!' ;)

As far as camouflage goes, that is very tough in space, since you can get a lot of very specific info about a ship by observing it's drive flare. A decoy basically has to have the same engine and mass as the ship it's trying to replicate or camouflage itself as, at which point you're 90% of the way to having 2 warships and might as well just go the extra 10% of the way and build 2 warships.

The best way to fool someone in space is not to try to disguise what or where your ship is, but instead disguise what your intentions are.
Zed's TARs (sample):
Fractious Allies -- Hiver vs. Hiver, with allies
Who Let The Bugs Out -- Hiver vs. Tarka and Zuul
Tarka Ascendant -- Tarka vs. Hiver and Zuul

Strategy & Tactics Forum Archive -- More posts on strategy, tactics, and TARs

Azrael Ultima
Posts: 3052
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 3:20 am

Re: range?

Post by Azrael Ultima » Wed Oct 19, 2011 10:26 pm

moonsilver wrote:How close do u have to be before it becomes less than a second?

Less than 299,782.458km. Or, c * 1s. What a surprise :P
I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts.
The zeppelin of bluster Feldman excoriated Freddy with suddenly popped into a cloud of humility. (David Grand, The Disappearing Body, 2002)

Jorgen_CAB
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 1:14 pm

Re: range?

Post by Jorgen_CAB » Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:57 am

Still, lasers would only be useful for close proximity communication. In a complete solar system you need other means of communication using nodespace or small wormholes for communications between fleet forces. After all, it takes more than a second for a beam of light to travel from earth to the moon. A second (or even fractions of it) in battle can be quite important when we are talking about automated computer system that needs to talk with each other and make life and death situations.

Since distances in the combat area can be very vast I say that laser technology is only useful by ships in the same formation. It is also hard to understand what other technologies can be invented that would make this method of communication dangerous or easy to jam or even obsolete in many ways.

Post Reply

Return to “The Weapons”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests