Children of a dead Earth. A direction for space combat for RogSys?

[Zaphod]

After watching these youtube videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp4wQ8nweeo

... I hope this will be the direction space combat takes for Rogue System.

Orbital mechanics, fighting for positions in a gravity well. Finding the optimum distance, passing speeds for various weapons. Delta-V economy. You can send stuff towards a cruiser, the cruiser can win, but if it was stranded in your back yard, you will eventually get it.

Having star wars/wing commander"aim and fire" gameplay doesn't make much sense. It will be nigh impossible to be on somebody's tail. Even rendezvousing with an inert object in free fall is a challenge. How shall you catch up with something that is actively thrusting and turning?

I was also impressed with how Children of a dead Earth simple user interface enabled complex sequences of burns. I also think that with similar supporting math libraries in place, it will limit the actual needed decision making for enemies. It will scale well as Michael decides to extend upon it. Much is just in calculating and executing standard maneuvers.

And I think that my role as a player in this is as a sensor platform, decision making, launch weapon platforms/drones/missiles, direct weapons for finishing off stuff/surgical disabling and capturing derelicts and stranded stuff. I would be wary of entering direct exchanges with "hot bogeys".
A lot of this is also damage control. If a large weapons platform has just passed enemies and sustained damage, it may be hours until they pass each other again. During that time, I can rendezvous with it. Supply power to it. Service it. Restock, refuel it and launch another drone to enter into conflict alongside it.

Pulling the strings, tipping the scale. Strategy and tactics.

[Naiba]

I do find myself wishing for direct manoeuvre input for it for turning and rolling the ships in CoaDE. To do things like turn damaged sections of armour away from the enemy. The movement UI isn't really fit for purpose in it.

Still, one of the big reasons CoaDE doesn't have more thrusting and manoeuvres while in combat than it does (And I'd be using manoeuvres a lot more otherwise) is the highly limited delta-v; an issue Rogue System doesn't really suffer from. That doesn't mean you'd have anything remotely like 'dogfighting' from your usual space fantasy games, mind you.

[lonespace]

Originally posted by Naiba:

Still, one of the big reasons CoaDE doesn't have more thrusting and manoeuvres while in combat than it does (And I'd be using manoeuvres a lot more otherwise) is the highly limited delta-v; an issue Rogue System doesn't really suffer from. That doesn't mean you'd have anything remotely like 'dogfighting' from your usual space fantasy games, mind you.

Highly agree. The MES is a literal game-changer. The calculated maneuvers, orbit transfers, intercepts, and evasions that make up the bulk of CoaDE gameplay all revolve around a relatively large but finite delta-v budget.

One thing that would definitely carry over, however, would be the high-velocity intercept/flyby style attacks. If the weapons and targeting systems in RS are implemented similarly, the bulk of combat strategy could revolve around the strategic targeting of enemy ship systems, along with the careful management of damage to your own systems.

[Zaphod]

Well, it would simplify, and make predictable, the battlefield as a whole if the rest of the world had to abide by CoaDE restrictions.
Of course MES is a whole 'nother animal, but that is what would make the flying fox the player "avatar" in this equation.

The MES engine is, generally, a big exception from the pledge of realism. You can even make an in-game justification for it, by calling it a proto type from a lost lab or even indicate that it is from non-earth origin.

If everybody has MES, how do you orchestrate a flyby? How do you assess the battlefield?

But I do see a lot of gameplay could be had if the rest of the pieces on the chess table was comprised of CoaDE restrictions and the flying fox was the tactitian/strategist/janitor/scavenger/medic in this equation? You could secure, retrieve and capture derelicts/dead-in-the-water enemies. Tow them back to base and, providing that the base was still hooked up to its logistics/infra structure, it would repair and restore the craft. It would bump the tech level from examining the captured prize.

And even with low value targets, you can still scavenge it for spare parts for the Fox.

You can make the decision if you want to clear out an enemy target or wait until life support fails. You need to rescue friendlies out of similar situations.

With a massive enemy, you can do orbital change on your assets so to avoid proximity flyby. If the enemy decides to spend delta-V to adjust accordingly to get its target, it may not be able to get back. So you can lose the battle, but still win the war.

[Cake >w0]

I like this idea

[macdjord]

@Zaphod: I wouldn't call the MES an 'exception from the pledge of realism' - the EM drive is looking to be a real thing. If it works out in space as well as it has in testing...

[Zaphod]

Please do not derail this thread by quasi science. The EM drive hasn't been demonstrated nor does it have a plausible mechanism. There are other forums where you can take that discussion until such time as it is accepted sciene. Phrases like "looking to be a real thing" doesn't change that.

And, even as pledged, we're not talking about anywhere near the MES thrust to weight ratio. The reason why Resonant Cavity drive would be ground breaking is because it wouldn't be spending propellant, so there is no diminishing resource.

[Naiba]

I absolutely agree with Zaphod that the EM drive is almost certainly bunk.

That said; we have the above mentioned reactionless drives, but also cold fusion, FTL and direct human piloting as core elements of the universe.

So yes, I'll accept that compromise in scientific rigor so long as we get to see all this (admittedly preposterous) tech treated with a fine enough respect, attention to detail and consistency that they feel fleshed out and believable in the context of rogue-system's universe.

We don't have stupid magical energy shields, silly magical fake gravity, or especially stupid, silly and pointless magical telepathy; and for that I'm grateful.

I'm hoping for a solid high 3 to mid 4 out of 6 on Mohs Scale of Scientific Hardness.

Consistency is key, if the world makes sense and the consequences of these three implausible technologies are explored and one implausible ship design choice is explained, then I’ll be very happy with the game's realism indeed.

[Zaphod]

At the end of the day, I think gameplay should trumph realism. One of the reasons why I think CoaDE would be a good direction, is because it not only brings aspects of realism, but it actually solves a lot of gameplay/playability issues.

* No dogfighting. Instead, the goal is for the ship systems operating at peak capacity at the encounter to make sure that the weapons and defenses are performing.
* A strategic battlefield. An actual chess board. Predictability. Not "every thing can freely go everywhere else". A "terrain". A backdrop.
* Most of the direct control of NPC units is just MechJeb stuff. One can have a reasonable interesting battle without very sophisticated decision making on the part of the enemy AI.
* Many interesting jobs for the flying fox (recovery, rescue, scavenging, servicing, refuel, repair, rearm, delivering the coup de grace, logistics, reconnaissance, strategist, tactician, capture, raid) that doesn't involve tit-for-tat trading hits with operational bogeys.

Many games try to emulate the SciFi classical mixing of internal and external focus. But usually it doesn't work. In a sci-fi movie, the ship external stuff happens within seconds and ship internal stuff takes minutes. We can see a ship firing at another, bringing it down in a matter of seconds, but still allowing the audience to see people trying to save the ship, deciding against it, running to escape pods with a little of drama along the way and stil make it off the ship even though there is little external justification for how they got the time to do all that. Hell, even issuing verbal commands would be too slow compared to the external view of most star trek battles. So, a game has problem pacing the action. Likewise, I don't think you can engage an enemy and work the RogSys internal systems simultaneously.

[macdjord]

@Zaphod: When NASA publishes a peer-reviewed paper* saying they tested one and got detectable thrust, it ceases to be 'quasi-science'. Controvertial, I'll grant, but not impossible.

* "Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum", published in the Journal of Propulsion and Power, December 2016.

[Naiba]

Five eagleworks researchers taking eight days out of their schedule to knock that experiment up is hardly 'NASA', and that peer reviewed paper's conclusion was pretty much 'Yeah, we don't have sensitive enough equipment or enough time to filter out all the possible variables.'

Or to quote a bit of it;
"Thrust was observed on both test articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the expectation that it would not produce thrust."

When your control shows you a positive result, it's time to give up and go home. *(you know, until you get the funding to run it again with better equipment, more stringent test conditions and over a lot more time.)

[macdjord]

@Naiba: This isn't a medical trial. There's no placeebo effect. That the control device produced thrust is a mark against the theory - but it doesn't change the fact that the devices produced thrust. We don't know how or why, but thrust was generated from within a closed system.

[Zaphod]

@Macdjord. When the CONTROL is found to have the same thrust as the item-under-test, that doesn't mean that it is "doubly positive" or something. It means that the test was negative. And dragging a whole organization (NASA) into it as if it somehow elevates the paper beyond the five individuals who took part in this.
Stop derailing the thread with this cynical alchemy scam.

[lonespace]

We're getting off topic; Can we take this discussion on the MES/EM Drive into its own thread?

[Surveyor]

Personally, I came to the conclusion I'd rather have CoaDE from the crew perspective now. I absolutely love that thing, but you don't get much control over it. RS is starting to veer off the promised 'DCS in space' scenario (especially if there will be other star systems to visit at your leasure). Not to mention RS' rate of progress...

Or maybe it would better be a hybrid in the vein of Dangerous Waters, where you could both manage your fleet trajectories and burn points, but could also get inside as well to operate the stations and possibly EVA and do the repairs.

[Naiba]

Originally posted by Surveyor:

Personally, I came to the conclusion I'd rather have CoaDE from the crew perspective now.

I'd say yes to the missiles, flares, auto-turrets and heavy weight-of-fire close-range weapons, but no to the freefall flights and 'everyone you know dying of old age before you'd finished a single tour of duty' flight times issue that CoaDE ship tech would have.

Would want to see how the combat plays out with the reactionless torch-ships we have at the moment before arbitrarily deciding if it'll work or not. There's a lot of interesting gameplay possibilities with how combat could end up.

Originally posted by Surveyor:

RS is starting to veer off the promised 'DCS in space' scenario

Eh. I've always viewed it as a missing link between study sims and space sims. To quote the kickstarter brief, Rogue System's always aimed:

"to combine the depth and fidelity of a complex flight simulator with the classic gameplay of the space combat genre"

To do both, do them well, and have them complement each other. Way I figure, the world was being built alongside the core module anyway, there was always intended to be multiple star systems and FTL, all the tutorials and missions so far have been set in the 'sandbox' level already. The current direction most likely just means the world's going to be worked on and fleshed out a bit further (and faster) first, with a few extra bells and whistles.