Poll: Space Combat
- Thread starter feather240
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There wouldn't be any small X-Wing style fighters, that makes no sense. It would be all about extreme long ranges I think, with various missiles (probably nukes) and kinetic weapons.
Kinetic.
The only limitation to kinetic weapons is speed. Or so a video I saw a few weeks ago said.
The only limitation to kinetic weapons is speed. Or so a video I saw a few weeks ago said.
I doubt we'll be in space long enough for it to matter anyway. We'll probably find out how to teleport objects from planet to planet (or from area of space to FAR distant area of space) or something, and all of the fictional tactics that have been postulated will be rendered moot.
Technology moves fast (like your mom), and the more we probe it the less serious the Universe tends to be about its rules (like your mom).
Technology moves fast (like your mom), and the more we probe it the less serious the Universe tends to be about its rules (like your mom).
Well, one thing's for sure. Lasers will never, ever work.
1) Heat. They would produce as much heat on your ship as your target's.
2) As the laser melts the enemy hull, then the little particles it makes block the laser.
3) Reflection. Chances are, the target's hull will be shiny, rendering your fancy laser useless.
1) Heat. They would produce as much heat on your ship as your target's.
2) As the laser melts the enemy hull, then the little particles it makes block the laser.
3) Reflection. Chances are, the target's hull will be shiny, rendering your fancy laser useless.
Heh.grimsprice said:
I don't think anyone is considering *manned* craft here.
All the weapons will have to be computer controlled anyway, to lead the target properly while aiming. A human cannot do this, since the relative speeds between the craft may be very high and the feedback will be late (and not visable by the eye).
It will only be poor cpus exploding in holy fucking space (and after that humans dying on the planet surface).
Thing with shrapnel is that, sure, you're more likely to hit the target, you're splitting the energy of your shot between multiple smaller projectiles, the majority of which you are expecting to miss with - it's a waste of energy. You'd do more damage more reliably by having faster single-round shots, imo.feather240 said:
Combat in space is more like a physics puzzle than it is in our atmosphere. The distances are titanic, the speeds can be huge, and it all boils down to who can deliver the most energy the fastest with the greatest accuracy without melting. By using buckshot you need to have MUCH more powerful weapons than your opponent because you're wasting a lot of each shot's energy, whereas using larger rounds focuses the shot's power onto a single point of carnage >
I just don't think that lasers would be practical compared to a mass driver. Using a mass driver you would just need to create an electric magnet, but with a laser you would end up creating a large amount of heat. When you reduce the power of the laser to deal with heating problems you would have to hold the laser onto the enemy ship until you manage to melt it.Wicky_42 said:Thing with shrapnel is that, sure, you're more likely to hit the target, you're splitting the energy of your shot between multiple smaller projectiles, the majority of which you are expecting to miss with - it's a waste of energy. You'd do more damage more reliably by having faster single-round shots, imo.feather240 said:
Combat in space is more like a physics puzzle than it is in our atmosphere. The distances are titanic, the speeds can be huge, and it all boils down to who can deliver the most energy the fastest with the greatest accuracy without melting. By using buckshot you need to have MUCH more powerful weapons than your opponent because you're wasting a lot of each shot's energy, whereas using larger rounds focuses the shot's power onto a single point of carnage >
The giant mass driver shotgun could have massive dispersal because it wouldn't slow down. If even a sliver hits you it could screw up your day.
An object impacting at 3 km/sec delivers kinetic energy equal to its mass in TNT.
? Rick Robinson's First Law of Space Combat
That means Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-***** in space!
? Unnamed Gunnery Chief in Mass Effect
Three kilometers per second would be trivial. "Generally speaking, mass drivers are practical for small objects at a few kilometers per second; for example 1 kg at 2.5km/s. Heavier objects go proportionally more slowly; and lighter objects may be projected at 20km/s or more."
Take half a kilogram of iron powder and watch the show.
Sources: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KineticWeaponsAreJustBetter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver
I'm pretty sure if you put Mass Effect and the newer Galactica together, you have a pretty realistic scenario.
Rail guns/coil guns, point defense batteries, and nukes.
Rail guns/coil guns, point defense batteries, and nukes.
I think we might start out with kinetic based weaponry like what they used in Battlestar Galactica, fingers crossed that we get Vipers to play with as well. From what they used in the show it's a mix of kinetic battery's, point defense weapons, missiles and nukes for both sides in that show.
I quite agree - as I said in my first post, the only place to stick lasers would be on celestial bodies, eg moons, where you have a huge amount of mass to absorb the energy. They'd be effective defensive deterrents, but you'd need some means of protecting them from distant bombardment as orbits are pretty predictable and kinetic range in space is effectively unlimited.feather240 said:[spoiler = snip][/spoiler]Wicky_42 said:Thing with shrapnel is that, sure, you're more likely to hit the target, you're splitting the energy of your shot between multiple smaller projectiles, the majority of which you are expecting to miss with - it's a waste of energy. You'd do more damage more reliably by having faster single-round shots, imo.feather240 said:
Combat in space is more like a physics puzzle than it is in our atmosphere. The distances are titanic, the speeds can be huge, and it all boils down to who can deliver the most energy the fastest with the greatest accuracy without melting. By using buckshot you need to have MUCH more powerful weapons than your opponent because you're wasting a lot of each shot's energy, whereas using larger rounds focuses the shot's power onto a single point of carnage >
I just don't think that lasers would be practical compared to a mass driver. ...
Try putting them on a closed system such as a space ship and you'd either need to have huge heat sinks eating up the ship's mass, really effective radiators (that could get shot off) or have tanks of coolant to flush away, a la Mechwarrior, in which case you've just limited the ammo for your lasers, which kinda defeats the point (unless you have some sort of external dispersal/reclaim system - was that in Mass Effect? Can't remember...). Otherwise everyone would melt, and no-one wants that.
Most likely a combination of Kinetic/Missile. Lasers are impractical in real life, especially when you can use a rail gun to propel a small object at incredible velocity without worrying about gravity or wind resistance, and any sort of Hull Breach is likely to cause catastrophic failure.
they say the best defense is a better offense so if i were to have a great offense against say someone not with ideology and they had the best defense, i would have to look at their defensive capabilities or imagine what they would be so here is a list of defenses
lasers: anti ballistic shooting down missiles guided or not
Shields: anti kinetic bouncing bullets etc..
speed: anti ramming cant ram you if they cant catch you
an army: anti boarding anti personnel etc..
so a good offense in this scenario is not typical to driving a tank into a parking lot
a)you would need stealth/camouflage exhibit signs or appearance to look friendly
b)intelligence for sabotage such as computer hacking
c)espionage for infiltrating a ship
d)science because....
you could find a new solar system with 5x the amount of earths so that you could launch some red matter into your enemy and wave bon voyage while you safely sip on a cold hard beer take a cold hard piss into the vacuum of space and not have to worry about contaminating the next world you visit.
but seriously combat in space its been done so many times the only good reason for such a poll is some entertainment on the part of the participants or if your a suspicious type like me i would have to think that someone is fishing for ideas. if you want an idea though here it is, take the kids who made the star wars mod to the battlefield game, give them a new theme and tell them Hoth and the death star was the best map anyone has ever played so much so it brought tears to your eyes when the servers disappeared and you reached for your grandmothers skirt, pay them a few dollars, tell them to take as much time it requires to make so that it is worthy of putting on your system without fear of blue screens of death flashbacks (FU too EA)and its a hit, shove that on a global map, space map few star systems every map fought and won gave you a peice of the pie to that globe or space.
oh and i am tired of the battlefield series make something else something i can wonder about and not have to relate to with humanly shame, games are for "escapist" entertainment not gentle reminders that this is really happening.... while you have fun doing it.
cheers!
lasers: anti ballistic shooting down missiles guided or not
Shields: anti kinetic bouncing bullets etc..
speed: anti ramming cant ram you if they cant catch you
an army: anti boarding anti personnel etc..
so a good offense in this scenario is not typical to driving a tank into a parking lot
a)you would need stealth/camouflage exhibit signs or appearance to look friendly
b)intelligence for sabotage such as computer hacking
c)espionage for infiltrating a ship
d)science because....
you could find a new solar system with 5x the amount of earths so that you could launch some red matter into your enemy and wave bon voyage while you safely sip on a cold hard beer take a cold hard piss into the vacuum of space and not have to worry about contaminating the next world you visit.
but seriously combat in space its been done so many times the only good reason for such a poll is some entertainment on the part of the participants or if your a suspicious type like me i would have to think that someone is fishing for ideas. if you want an idea though here it is, take the kids who made the star wars mod to the battlefield game, give them a new theme and tell them Hoth and the death star was the best map anyone has ever played so much so it brought tears to your eyes when the servers disappeared and you reached for your grandmothers skirt, pay them a few dollars, tell them to take as much time it requires to make so that it is worthy of putting on your system without fear of blue screens of death flashbacks (FU too EA)and its a hit, shove that on a global map, space map few star systems every map fought and won gave you a peice of the pie to that globe or space.
oh and i am tired of the battlefield series make something else something i can wonder about and not have to relate to with humanly shame, games are for "escapist" entertainment not gentle reminders that this is really happening.... while you have fun doing it.
cheers!
A combination of kinetic railguns for extreme ranges and missiles (either solid mass or fragmentation rather than high explosive) for shorter distances. Laser technology, if any is used, will most likely be restricted to point defense anti-missile systems. Also, I'm not certain on this one, but couldn't weaponry directing large amounts of gamma radiation at the target be used for killing the crew but leaving the ship intact to commandeer?
The power requirements would be extremely high, I'd imagine even the smallest ship would be shielded against just about any radiation known to man, and I'm pretty sure radioactive combat is prohibited as of today. When we get into space, who knows, but still.Kiefer13 said:
You have a point on the power requirements issue. However, wouldn't any anti-radiation shielding mostly be on the outer hull of the ship? In which case, couldn't the basic idea still work if a missile with a radiation emitting payload was fired into the ship? Though, I could see that possibly being ineffective due to the issues of how long it would take for such a device to irridiate the entire ship. No doubt once you'd used such a weapon once or twice the enemy would wise up and keep adequate supplies of protective gear around anyway. Given further thought, the only way to make it effective would be if you could somehow irridiate every area of the ship almost simultantiously, which would, if going with the missile idea, require much more missiles targeted at different areas of the ship, therefore rendering the idea pretty counter-productive if the intent is to take the ship relatively undamaged. So yeah, on further thought, probably a pointless idea.AccursedTheory said:
And yes, I am aware of the legal and ethical issues concerning radioactive weapons. I was merely talking hypothetically.