Will we have our own MotherShips?

[Kamina]

I really want to have super battleships like Yamato or some kind of AircraftCarrier using space drones or space fighters, it must be cool if we add them in game

[debott]

I think the biggest available hull the the Titan. I am actually not sure whether it is as big as a mothership.

[gimmethegepgun]

Small, autonomous weapons that return to home aren't going to happen. They're completely unrealistic, because the DV requirements to do that are high and a small craft just can't carry enough while also being maneuverable enough to be worthwhile. If something leaves the ship under combat conditions, it's not coming back.

[Brother Santodes]

why?
sorry but a drone type ship weigh is nothing compared to the mother ship the DV of the drone is not an issue.

even a rocket has easily 14 DV and i doubt they have high end engines and are available very early.

the problem is the mother ship it get's really heavy to field weak "drones" instead of just putting a gun at the shipport.

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by Brother Santodes:

sorry but a drone type ship weigh is nothing compared to the mother ship the DV of the drone is not an issue.

The problem isn't the mother ship carrying that weight, the problem is the drone carrying that weight.

even a rocket has easily 14 DV and i doubt they have high end engines and are available very early.

A missile is FAR less complicated than a drone. It only needs the drive, the fuel, the warhead, sensors, a computer to tell it what to do, and the frame that holds these things together. A drone needs all of that except the warhead, plus weapons to fire, ammo for those weapons, and batteries of sufficient size to allow firing those weapons. A drone that returns (or is controlled remotely rather than running autonomously) ALSO needs communications equipment.
Every bit of mass you add to make these things happen makes it harder to accelerate, requiring a larger drive, and requires more fuel for the same amount of DV (which, due to the fundamental problem of rocketry, also increases mass, and thus reduces maneuverability and requires more fuel)

But let's say you DO have 14 kps of DV on this drone that returns to the mother ship. Okay, so well under half of that can be used to engage the enemy, because you need the other half in order to halt the relative velocity incurred by using that DV, plus more to accelerate towards the mother ship, which has likely taken on a vastly different heading in that time (which very well could put it on a course that even with all of its DV the drone could never catch it unless the mother ship spent its own DV to alter course to allow it to), plus more to decelerate and maneuver to dock again.

[Brother Santodes]

you have far more then 14 DV a low end rocket has 14 that burns normal rocket fuel stuff.
they have communication system too come on take this serious.
just for the sake of simplicity take a gunboat and leave it as is which is very unfair for the drone but it already proofs it is doable.

the question is just why?

and returning is also very easy. in fight small ships do insane DV wasteful moves but the relative DV to the rest of the fleet is still not much simply because they don't do that in one way so returning cost barely anything if you give it hours to do so.

[Ericus1]

Space fighters are actually already planned, but no firm timeline on when they will get implemented.

Initially they would be based at MC sites on Earth as hybrid air/space assets for LEO defense, and tech would then open up carrier modules on ships. There was actually a big discussion about them on the discord a couple months back. The devs already have the art assets they showed off that had everyone drooling like a dog being offered bacon.

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by debott:

I think the biggest available hull the the Titan. I am actually not sure whether it is as big as a mothership.

The Titan is MUCH smaller than alien Motherships. It's half the length, half the diameter half the base mass, has 4 Nose slots instead of 6, and 6 Hull slots instead of 16 (though it does have 8 Utility slots instead of 6).

[Brother Santodes]

Originally posted by Ericus1:

Space fighters are actually already planned, but no firm timeline on when they will get implemented.

Initially they would be based at MC sites on Earth as hybrid air/space assets for LEO defense, and tech would then open up carrier modules on ships. There was actually a big discussion about them on the discord a couple months back. The devs already have the art assets they showed off that had everyone drooling like a dog being offered bacon.

i don't see the carrier use yet but for space station this make a lot of sense.

just out ranging defense station was funny yes but also pretty stupid.

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by Brother Santodes:

you have far more then 14 DV a low end rocket has 14 that burns normal rocket fuel stuff.

The only human missile that has 14+ kps DV is the Antimatter missile, which uses a nuclear rocket, not chemical. And, of the 5 alien missiles, 2 of them have less than 14, and the highest DV is 22.18 kps. And you can, without all that much difficulty, outmaneuver these missiles to the extent that they have plenty of DV remaining but have no possible trajectory capable of reaching you any more.
Increasing the DV of the Hypergolic-fueled Anaconda missile to 14 kps from its current 3.76 kps would increase the missile mass by a factor of 23.8 from fuel alone (which also reduces the acceleration by the same factor, meaning you need a larger drive, which is more mass, so less DV, etc)
For a Hydrolox example, which is better than the Hypergolic example, bringing the Copperhead from its current 3.68 kps to 14 kps would increase its mass by a factor of 10.1, with the same spiel as above.

they have communication system too come on take this serious.

Why would a missile have a communications system? It doesn't need to report back to do its job.

just for the sake of simplicity take a gunboat and leave it as is which is very unfair for the drone but it already proofs it is doable.

The most massive missiles in the game are the human Torpedoes, which are 4.8t each (and, in each case, the vast majority of that mass is fuel).
The Gunship, with nothing whatsoever added to it, is 178t.
The lightest weapons in the game capable of being used against ships are the Light E-Beam and Light Ion Batteries, which are both 10t. The lightest kinetic weapon capable of being used against ships is the 40mm autocannon, at 25t +10kg per shot. The lightest magnetic weapon is the Light Coilgun mk3, at 40t + 10kg per shot. The lightest laser weapon capable of being used against ships is the 60cm IR Phaser battery, at 75t. None of these include the mass for power generation/storage. As you're probably aware, none of these weapons are good against ships because they just don't deal enough damage to function in that role. The 60cm and 40mm are for point defense, and the light coil is for saturating enemy point defense (and the particle weapons are just bad rn, and I doubt the bugfix will make the light T1 and T2 weapons be good, either)

So yes, as I said, tremendously increasing weight.

and returning is also very easy. in fight small ships do insane DV wasteful moves but the relative DV to the rest of the fleet is still not much simply because they don't do that in one way so returning cost barely anything if you give it hours to do so.

Those small ships that do insane wasteful maneuvers have a lot of DV, because "small" is relative. They're still orders of magnitude larger than missiles.

[Brother Santodes]

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

The only human missile that has 14+ kps DV is the Antimatter missile, which uses a nuclear rocket, not chemical. And, of the 5 alien missiles, 2 of them have less than 14, and the highest DV is 22.18 kps. And you can, without all that much difficulty, outmaneuver these missiles to the extent that they have plenty of DV remaining but have no possible trajectory capable of reaching you any more.
Increasing the DV of the Hypergolic-fueled Anaconda missile to 14 kps from its current 3.76 kps would increase the missile mass by a factor of 23.8 from fuel alone (which also reduces the acceleration by the same factor, meaning you need a larger drive, which is more mass, so less DV, etc)
For a Hydrolox example, which is better than the Hypergolic example, bringing the Copperhead from its current 3.68 kps to 14 kps would increase its mass by a factor of 10.1, with the same spiel as above.

a rocket works with 4 kbs but a ship with much more could not return because reasons?

Why would a missile have a communications system? It doesn't need to report back to do its job.

update on targetting...

The most massive missiles in the game are the human Torpedoes, which are 4.8t each (and, in each case, the vast majority of that mass is fuel).
The Gunship, with nothing whatsoever added to it, is 178t.
The lightest weapons in the game capable of being used against ships are the Light E-Beam and Light Ion Batteries, which are both 10t. The lightest kinetic weapon capable of being used against ships is the 40mm autocannon, at 25t +10kg per shot. The lightest magnetic weapon is the Light Coilgun mk3, at 40t + 10kg per shot. The lightest laser weapon capable of being used against ships is the 60cm IR Phaser battery, at 75t. None of these include the mass for power generation/storage. As you're probably aware, none of these weapons are good against ships because they just don't deal enough damage to function in that role. The 60cm and 40mm are for point defense, and the light coil is for saturating enemy point defense (and the particle weapons are just bad rn, and I doubt the bugfix will make the light T1 and T2 weapons be good, either)

So yes, as I said, tremendously increasing weight.

doesn't change that you could easily start gunship from a titan even heavy ones. so what is the issue again they have a ton of EQ they don't need as figther which heavily lower DV.

Those small ships that do insane wasteful maneuvers have a lot of DV, because "small" is relative. They're still orders of magnitude larger than missiles.

and they can move faster more efficient then rocket because they are bigger and have a crew or what are you saying to me here? why does this invalidate fighter at all?
because rocket suck in this game a fighter does have to.
and the assumption that rockets are mostly fuel is just projection and based on surface rockets of current tech rockets. does not apply to gunboats and what stops you from downscaling gunboat and yes there are even engines that don't need a power source quite a lot don't need a power source.

that just leaves what power source/engine can be downscaled and what weapon can they use.

[Ericus1]

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

The most massive missiles in the game are the human Torpedoes, which are 4.8t each (and, in each case, the vast majority of that mass is fuel).
The Gunship, with nothing whatsoever added to it, is 178t.
The lightest weapons in the game capable of being used against ships are the Light E-Beam and Light Ion Batteries, which are both 10t. The lightest kinetic weapon capable of being used against ships is the 40mm autocannon, at 25t +10kg per shot. The lightest magnetic weapon is the Light Coilgun mk3, at 40t + 10kg per shot. The lightest laser weapon capable of being used against ships is the 60cm IR Phaser battery, at 75t. None of these include the mass for power generation/storage. As you're probably aware, none of these weapons are good against ships because they just don't deal enough damage to function in that role. The 60cm and 40mm are for point defense, and the light coil is for saturating enemy point defense (and the particle weapons are just bad rn, and I doubt the bugfix will make the light T1 and T2 weapons be good, either)

Gunships under the 0.4.29 update are even heavier - 190 tons completely empty.

The only thing I might mention in terms of lasers is part of the need for very large, very powerful, very heavy lasers is because we're trying to do damage from hundreds of kms away. It's possible something like a space fighter firing at near point blank range could get away with a radically smaller laser and power source and be able to do damage. Any kind of electromagnetic kinetics would likely still be right out.

Not sure how missiles/torpedoes would fall out if you assume they would have almost no fuel themselves if carried by some kind of "space bomber", but it wouldn't really make much sense when you could just have them fly themselves much more efficiently.

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by Brother Santodes:

a rocket works with 4 kbs but a ship with much more could not return because reasons?

A missile with 4 kps works because it doesn't have to come back. A ship with a lot more than that is in the territory of asking why it has a mother ship in the first place.

Why would a missile have a communications system? It doesn't need to report back to do its job.

update on targetting...

A missile doesn't need to communicate with the launching ship to update targeting. It either tracks the target itself, as with infrared or active radar homing, or merely listens in the case of semi-active radar homing. It doesn't need to tell the launcher anything.

doesn't change that you could easily start gunship from a titan even heavy ones. so what is the issue again they have a ton of EQ they don't need as figther which heavily lower DV.

What would even be the point? By the time you get Titans you have power plants and drives that make it so you can make independent ships with performance characteristics you'd desire in a fighter, but with the range to go wherever they want on their own.

and they can move faster more efficient then rocket because they are bigger and have a crew or what are you saying to me here?
[...]
that just leaves what power source/engine can be downscaled and what weapon can they use.

Answering the first by addressing the second: power sources have economy of scale on their side. They have overhead that prevents them from being scaled down indefinitely (for instance, radiation shielding has thickness requirements to actually stop radiation, so you need to put a barrier of at least that thickness between it and anything that needs to not be bathed in radiation from a nuclear power source), which is why power plants are big and centralized instead of small and scattered.

and the assumption that rockets are mostly fuel is just projection and based on surface rockets of current tech rockets.

That you think being a surface rocket has anything to do with it makes me think you don't know the most important equation in rocketry, the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, otherwise known as the ideal rocket equation:
DV = EV * ln (Mwet / Mdry)
Or, another way of writing it:
Mwet / Mdry = e^(DV / EV)
If you want less than half of the mass to be fuel, your DV needs to be less than 69% of your rocket's EV, or you need to jettison dry mass in addition to fuel like surface-to-orbit rockets do. That surface-to-orbit rockets are almost entirely fuel (and housing for the fuel) is because their EV is much lower than the DV needed to get into orbit from Earth, which at its lowest is about 10 kps to enter LEO (however, it is difficult to quantify how much non-fuel non-payload mass of ground-launched rockets is due to the fact that it needs to be able to withstand the forces of gravity at all times and drag while in flight, so direct comparison doesn't really work out)

and yes there are even engines that don't need a power source quite a lot don't need a power source.

The only ones that don't need power are the chemical rockets (which all have poor EV) and the Orion drives (which I won't entertain discussion of, as they're insane)

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by Ericus1:

The only thing I might mention in terms of lasers is part of the need for very large, very powerful, very heavy lasers is because we're trying to do damage from hundreds of kms away. It's possible something like a space fighter firing at near point blank range could get away with a radically smaller laser and power source and be able to do damage.

But, as with basically everything in space warfare, that works both ways. How much armor would this thing need to not get zorched by lasers from the ship it's attacking?

[Ericus1]

Oh, if it gets hit it's zorched. Only thing that would save it is being too tiny and maneuverable to hit.

[Brother Santodes]

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

Originally posted by Brother Santodes:

a rocket works with 4 kbs but a ship with much more could not return because reasons?

A missile with 4 kps works because it doesn't have to come back. A ship with a lot more than that is in the territory of asking why it has a mother ship in the first place.

ok someone never did play the combat in this game...

update on targetting...

A missile doesn't need to communicate with the launching ship to update targeting. It either tracks the target itself, as with infrared or active radar homing, or merely listens in the case of semi-active radar homing. It doesn't need to tell the launcher anything.[/quote]
yes just take any information given to you even today modern smart weapon use GPS and to use GPS you have to ask the setallite. and it is obvious why. putting high end detection hardwaher in a one use device is stupid so you just ask the mothership or the fleet for updates on direction. i wonder why they added ECM in this game. ohh no i don't.

doesn't change that you could easily start gunship from a titan even heavy ones. so what is the issue again they have a ton of EQ they don't need as figther which heavily lower DV.

What would even be the point? By the time you get Titans you have power plants and drives that make it so you can make independent ships with performance characteristics you'd desire in a fighter, but with the range to go wherever they want on their own.[/quote]
yes you can why wouldn't you be able to do that because you can build a fighter where DV is irrelevant.. exactly my point.

i still think that not a great use but my point is that you can do it and DV is the least of your issue you brought up to me.

did you think you will get motherships early or soemthing?

and they can move faster more efficient then rocket because they are bigger and have a crew or what are you saying to me here?
[...]
that just leaves what power source/engine can be downscaled and what weapon can they use.

Answering the first by addressing the second: power sources have economy of scale on their side. They have overhead that prevents them from being scaled down indefinitely (for instance, radiation shielding has thickness requirements to actually stop radiation, so you need to put a barrier of at least that thickness between it and anything that needs to not be bathed in radiation from a nuclear power source), which is why power plants are big and centralized instead of small and scattered.[/quote]
that's why i name it and i don't know how farm you can scale them down... and i don't pretend to do. these poor electronics how could you ever shield them from radiation.
and did you now that gamma ray is not done with material you new the stuff that is hard to shield.

and the game make the engine size between a gunboat and a titan 100 % the same...

and the assumption that rockets are mostly fuel is just projection and based on surface rockets of current tech rockets.

That you think being a surface rocket has anything to do with it makes me think you don't know the most important equation in rocketry, the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, otherwise known as the ideal rocket equation:
DV = EV * ln (Mwet / Mdry)
Or, another way of writing it:
Mwet / Mdry = e^(DV / EV)
If you want less than half of the mass to be fuel, your DV needs to be less than 69% of your rocket's EV, or you need to jettison dry mass in addition to fuel like surface-to-orbit rockets do. That surface-to-orbit rockets are almost entirely fuel (and housing for the fuel) is because their EV is much lower than the DV needed to get into orbit from Earth, which at its lowest is about 10 kps to enter LEO (however, it is difficult to quantify how much non-fuel non-payload mass of ground-launched rockets is due to the fact that it needs to be able to withstand the forces of gravity at all times and drag while in flight, so direct comparison doesn't really work out)[/quote]
ohh really did you do the math?
did you know you can build a gunship with a weight of 55000 ton dry and a acceleration of 3.3 g adding 100 ton adds 5 K DV have fun with the math how much do you need to jettison. and last time i checked we don't have drag in space to bad about that.

what is 200 tons of 55000 pretty sure that is less then 50 % don't ask me me stupid.

do the math can't wait...

and yes there are even engines that don't need a power source quite a lot don't need a power source.

The only ones that don't need power are the chemical rockets (which all have poor EV) and the Orion drives (which I won't entertain discussion of, as they're insane) [/quote]
there is more...
and super kronos isn't to bad.
it doesn't matter if it is insane this is about the game not reality. and the idea that a fighter start by nuking itself and the mothership is funny to me.

Originally posted by Ericus1:

Oh, if it gets hit it's zorched. Only thing that would save it is being too tiny and maneuverable to hit.

yes hard to use i agree i'm mostly argue that DV is not the issue at all...
maybe railgun but the knockback should be quite heavy on a small craft... don't know to be true. PD operation is something they could do but just build PD in instead.

stations is a different story having defensive ship that are strip of the living stuff and so on make sense.