Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
Yeah, see that is where I have to disagree. Explain turning left as you spin. Explain dodging as you spin. You simply would not be able to have enough thrusters to do what you are envisioning without an insane amount of additional power.
Sounds like you are trying to envision every advantage but not have any negatives. Ask an engineer (which I am not), and they will tell you, the more complexity you add, the greater chance of a failure.
Conservation of angular momentum, interesting, what happens to your spin when you get hit by a weapon? As your spinning is based on complex calculations to maximize your weapons. Oh wait, that breaks that law doesn't it? So no, you would have to have continuous changes to your spinning thrusters.
Yet again, per what I said, if you read above, when comparing ships with the same weapon loads, same power, and same style of ship.
You don't have more weapons or more power.
Really, this has gone on too long. I yield to whatever this is.
How non-guided weapons could reach a moving target at those distance scale? If I'm not wrong, the very purpose of ranged weaponry is to deal from afar with (much) slower targets, or at least, with targets that can't change their speed vector that fast.
Wouldn't real engagement range be then vastly inferior to detection range on purpose, so that lasers and kinetic weapons may be fired with reasonable chances to hit their targets, and only if they are seconded by powerful targetting computers?
But lasers would be detected only when they reach your sensor, except if you have a deported observer and a FTL link to it...
Also in the literature, one way to deal with vessels (at large distance) is to crush them with powerful focused shock waves, for example by synchronizing nuclear explosions. The issue is to bring the charges in place unnoticed. Some also invoke a synchronized fire by several shock wave emitters from different directions, This would require some kind of encirclement manoeuver, however, and we are back to the space combat's scale question.
Energywise it's actually better to have spinning parts on a ship. You don't need to rotate the whole ship, You can also just limit the rotation to specific parts and keep the thruster-part static in the middle for example. Take a look at Nexus: The Jupiter incident, where this kind of ships is build. That also causes artificial gravity on the spinning parts, which can be used to reduce the amount of gravity generators and therefore save more energy, especially in non-combat-situations. The biggest problem with this design however is, that it might cause big problems, when the enemy hits crucial parts of the spinning mechanism^^
However there's obviously another big contra about adding more weapons and that's heat generation. If you're adding 4 times the weapons, then you'll also generate 4 times as much heat. Realistically the biggest risk would then not be an enemy attack, but actually killing the crew with the own heat generation (especially in laser weapons). A ship with more weapons would therefore need way more heat capicity (or big radiators, which are then the most vulnurable weak point of your ship, once they're exposed), which makes the ship way heavier and propably bigger, which then causes the ship to be less agile than ships with less weapons. And that's already indirectly modled into the game with ship types of different size and therefore different amount of weapon sizes and maneuverability.
And overall as many already stated (and when we ignore the heat propblem completely or accepting it as an already solved problem): There's no need to have a bigger attack angle, as battles will most likely take place over half of the solar system with lasers. Given that sensors can scan the precise amount and size of ships several systems away, then they should also be able to precisely locate enemys for an attack at that system. You can easily fire a laser and hit a ship 3 million km away without them even seeing it coming. That's also why most rl battleships were build in a way, that they only need to care about one direction, as their range was big enough, that it wasn't necessary to always be able to fire on both sides, as the chance of reaching a battleship before getting sinked was like 0, if it already spotted you 20km away. It was possible to trap ships in RL due to being able to hide behind the horizon or behind land masses, but that's something you definitely won't find in the space, when everybody can just scan the whole system and find you in an instant^^
Perhaps after all, four guns firing together every X hours would deal the same average damage as four guns firing in sequence, each gun firing once every X hours.
In this case, heat dissipation would be the same on the average, but a broadside volley could generate a higher thermal stress if the energy has to be dissipated (or reused) whithin the ship.
Just because you place all weapons an one side doesn't mean, that you've to fire them all at once. You could easily make a timetable for when specific weapons are allowed to fire to ensure, that the ship can take care of the disadvantages of a fired weapon. But if you put 4 times the weapons on a ship, then you obviously want to also fire them 4 times as often. Otherwise it would just make no sense at all to build them there in the first place (more isn't always better)
And there's always a risk at making things more complex, than it needs to be. It's not just the heat, which makes the rotating ship inferior. You would also need to put hull reinforcements on all sides of your ships instead of just the side, which you expose to the enemy. And you also might expose an obvious weak point to the enemy. And on top of that you've also way more parts to maintain than your enemy, which raises the costs of your ships significantly compared to more simple ship designs.
As i said.. shotgun blasts. You divide space into sectors and use predictive algorithems to saturate these sectors in space based on where you believe the enemy will be. Alternatively you use smart projectiles similar to modern naval torpedos that will be lunched into a sector and then use their own onboard sensors to try to home in on the target.
Problem with smart projectiles is again that they probably have to deaccelerate or use a form of propulsion, which you then could again target with point defense systems.
A bunch of metal rods or balls saturating all of space however are very difficult to defend against. Its like flying through a meteor shower.
We are talking about a hypothetical situation with ships that actually have the necessary equipment for interstellar travel. By the time technology advances to that level using predictive algorithms won't be an issue anymore.
There aren't that many forces in space that do limit engagement range. Matter of fact, as i pointed out, Interstellar combat might actually take months, if you try to hit a stationary object like a space station or a planet, where you can just plug an asteroid out ofthe asteroid belt and calculate a trajectory and send it towards the planet, letting it pick up speed in various gravity wells in the system, before it then will impact with the station or the planet in a quite devasting fashion. Likely entirely undetected to, if we count modern abilities to spot unpowered objects flying towards earth.
That depends on what is generating the laser. While true, you couldn't detect the laser itself, you could very well detect the emmitter.
And that i assuming space ships wouldn't deploy counter measures in form of dust clouds, pre-emptively.
So yes, you are of course right, that you couldn't detect light sooner than light arrives at your point, but you are likely to detect the heat and energy build up in advance. If we are talking space ships type of energy beams that deliver enough energy to make it through a ship's hull. Which has to be protected against radiation. So we are talking about massive discharges of energy. (Of course, i do not know what kind of energy we'll have by that time, so maybe there is some energy that could generate such vast quantities of energy without some kind of precharge).
Maybe they could shield it somehow, i don't know, but even then you have the possibility of counter measurements in form of Chaff, which likely would if not entirely stop and disperse the laser, would probably at least lower its intensity into a save margin. After all the ship hall has to withstand solar radiation in the first place.
Your best bet are really kinetic, unpowered projectiles and homing missiles.
You need a medium for shockwaves to propagate. A shockwave is compressing matter as it travels through the medium. No matter, no compression that makes molecules vibrate and collide.
https://www.gi.alaska.edu/alaska-science-forum/shock-waves-space
Well, as i said... realistic space combat is very, very boring, and fictional shock wave emitters sound awesome
And of course, we could also talk space-time shock waves, Which we assume FTL would generate (and thus destroy any system ahead of it), but that is an entirely different subject.
And a "regular" spacecraft will face the same problems associated with recoil from shooting and getting hit. This is not spinning craft exclusive problem.
It's not so much the hit itself, which is a problem, but rather the possibility, that even a slight dislocation of the rotation mechanism might already be able to jam it. And the forces need to unload somewhere at that point. If the mechanism goes from spinning to a full stop in a short time, then it might damage the ship even further. And when the ship survived that, you'll just sit their with a ship, which lost a key element of its combat ability.
A regular ship on the other hand can still reposition itself properly with its full remaining battle strenght, even if it got twisted or if it got holes in it. And yeah, you can luckily hit a critical part of these ships as well, but it's way harder to hit these by accident than by just aiming at obvious weak points.
And after all it's always important to take a step back as an engineer and to evaluate the consequences of your idea. Feature Creep will almost always lead to disadvantages compared to other people, who make it simpler.
Besides, at interplanetary ranges, combat trajectories would include some random evasive measures (making combat speed inferior to cruise speed, among other reasons), that would force the attacker to "paint" a predicted area with a laser beam instead of aiming at a predicted spot, thus decreasing the average energy transferred by day. Back we are to area of effect weapons or a scattered artillery fire.
And it takes weeks in game already (you can retreat after 30 days in fight).
The game implicitly already considers that the whole system is saturated with remote sensors, monitors, and relays (and that launching such devices is the first thing an hostile fleet does upon entering a system), so let's assume that nothing that can't be destroyed by PD weapons or absorbed by armor, can travel undetected. There could be an (titan) aura, however, with some blinding effects that would decrease the efficiency of such defensive weapons (emulating the destruction of sensors in the area).
I know that, and I wasn't invoking chemicals. A nuclear explosion generates plasma, that is accelerated matter and magnetic field, but I was actually more thinking about the radiative shockwave (air surpressure is replaced by a particular kinetic impulse), the same that occurs when a nova explodes, or to a lesser extent, when a solar storm propagates, or even when the solar wind "meets" with the geomagnetic belt..
I invite you to read some threads on the Paradox forum.
One discusses on combat range.
[EDIT]I just found a mine of useful info here:
Project Rho[www.projectrho.com] that counters what I say, and prefers to see nuclear weapons in space as pure irradiating weapons. There's also a link to another page[www.projectrho.com] about laser cannons in space, that comforts what I says (see also wiki pages about Gaussian beam).
In short, the maximum power output of your laser gun dictates the maximum cross-section of the beam on the target; this in turn is constrained by range (focal distance) and barrel's diameter (actually, focalisation lense's diameter). To give an idea, you can approximate the relation down to:
[/edit]
You can't even angle a ball, there's always a point on it that's unangled. And the ball has complex parts increasing the cost of the ship. Meaning that you tried to solve the firepower problem only to increase the ship cost meaning you get less of them falling back into the lack of firepower problem when the enemy is able to bring out 30% more for example. On top of this once the ball jams you have less firepower.
Perhaps what you mean to say is having the guns normally on one side of the ship, but then having ball mounts on each gun. This has been done before on tanks and aircraft.
For all the nonsense that Star Wars has contributed to space combat...
The Star Destroyer is actually a pretty good space warship in realistic combat.
It's arrowhead shape is near-optimal, rendering extreme angles toward the enemy if engaged from the direct front or sides, great for mitigating incoming kinetic projectiles. It's a sturdy shape, easy to build and fabricate, no structural weak points to be overstressed during maneuvers. Additionally because of its tapering shape, weapons turrets mounted near the edges of the planes of its hull can have a very good field of fire, overlapping to the front, as well as traversing downward on broadside firing so that turrets on the top and bottom surfaces can engage targets on its same vertical plane.
The bridge is obviously a problem, so maybe just sit it down into the main hull of the ship so it's not a giant 'shoot me' sign.
So, line the broadsides with point defense guns. Build a massive series of spinal weapons down its center. Probably railguns, because reasons. And you have a fixed, forward firing main weapon for offense.
Given the distances involved in realistic space combat, there's no reason for turrets at all, when fighting at long range. Fixed angle weapons have the advantage of being built within the hull to better benefit from armor and protection. They can be maintained and operated from the inside of the ship without the need for dangerous exposure to space, or combat hazards. And they can be built far larger, taking up the entire length of the ship. Just keep the front of the ship facing the enemy, and spam railguns until you win. Easy.
You know, rather than a sprawling space empire with hundreds of solar systems, I'd rather play a game where I run a single star system, or even a single planet and orbiting bodies, but at a much greater depth of scale.
I feel like game developers are in an arms race to provide bigger, better thrills. While never really considering that they're sacrificing depth, in favor of size.
I like Stellaris, I really do. But despite how big the galaxy is, it feels so empty once I claim my territory.