What, exactly, are railguns and coilguns?

[King of Amazons]

I know they state using kinetic energy and electromagnetism, but do they fire physical bullets or energy bullets made of electromagnetism or something? I also know their animations look and sound like machine guns.

[Shanzival]

Both weapons are based on types of magnetic propulsion of (usually) inert rounds. Sometimes one or the other are referred to as Gauss Weapons as well.

Railguns use two rails to accelerate a projectile up to a high speed based upon the current differential of those two rails. Current real-world development of them has run into issues with the amount of wear that occurs on the rails because of friction, among other things. You can find US Navy trial videos of them on YouTube I believe.

Coilguns use a series of rings or a coil to accelerate the projectile by pulsing the magnetic field down the barrel. Unlike railguns the projectile does not make direct contact with the coils so in theory its much better for repeated firing. I'm not immediately aware of any current trials for such a weapon.

[gavinfoxx]

Look up youtube videos of railguns and coilguns. They really exist and you can make a handheld one and totally take out some soda cans! They fling metallic slugs at things, just like standard cannons.

[King of Amazons]

Hey, I just found out that Gauss guns never run out of bullets (while missiles and even anti-missiles can); how is that possible?

[Arioch]

Originally posted by NecroDragon:

Hey, I just found out that Gauss guns never run out of bullets (while missiles and even anti-missiles can); how is that possible?

It's an abstraction, making a gameplay distinction between weapons which are harder-hitting but expendable, and those which have a more modest damage output and are presumed to carry enough ammunition to last a battle.

Realistically, nearly every kind of weapon requires some kind of consumable -- even beam weapons will require tanks of the appropriate reaction gasses. While I think it can be fun tactical play to conserve your hardest-hitting expendables for just the right moment in a battle, I don't think it's very much to have to worry about your ships becoming completely unable to fight (or maneuver, if we also modeled tactical fuel). (If you designed ships that are only armed with expendable weapons, well... that was your choice. )

The original Microprose X-COM game realistically modeled ammunition for all weapons, which presented a somewhat interesting logistical element to the game (and you could scrounge enemy weapons and ammo from the battlefield), but also a large amount of micromanagement. And in the longer battles (especially the two-stage encounters in Terror From the Deep) it became a common and serious problem of running out of ammunition and being unable to finish the encounter. Realistic, yes... but maybe not so much fun. I was never able to finish TFTD partly because of this. The Firaxis X-COM reboot simplified a number of things, including ammunition; you no longer have to manage ammo stockpiles, and while there are still expendable munitions like grenades and missiles, most guns have unlimited ammunition (you still need to reload, but you have unlimited reloads). While this is less realistic, and those who love endless micromanagement were heartbroken, I think it makes the games a lot more fun.

[gavinfoxx]

If you want more realistic parts of that kind of stuff in your 4X game, play Aurora 4X. Frankly? I'm happy about the cinematic, space opera tone of Stars in Shadow. It is not trying to be anything it isn't, and it clearly telegraphs it's tone and intentions!

[ashbery76]

I think making it as realistic as possible is important to making a good theme no matter the subject.

[gavinfoxx]

I fear we have vastly different definitions of 'realism' here. Try playing Aurora 4X, and, for a Real Time Tactics game, Children of a Dead Earth. You'll see what I mean, and how they are different and realism doesn't always allow for the same things as a standard of verisimilitude and self-consistency does!

[matt3916]

Ah, Terror From the Deep. A monument to wretched excess. Shows the dangers of listening primarily to hard core fan boys when developing a sequel. After my first cruise ship mission, my reaction was "OMG, what were they thinking?"

[ashbery76]

Perceived realism in the theme.This is what all good literature does and the good games too.It has nothing to do with some sort of sim approach.Things should make sense.Aurora is just a game and not real either.

[Arioch]

Fun is subjective; some people really love intense micromanagement, and if so Aurora looks like it will satisfy, as I skimmed a gameplay video and saw more spreadsheets than I saw graphics. I'm not sure more detail always translates into "realism", but I don't know enough about the game to say anything except that I'm really glad that easy access to game distribution for developers allows them to reach an audience for exactly the kind of game that they most want to make.

[Arioch]

Originally posted by matt3916:

Ah, Terror From the Deep. A monument to wretched excess. Shows the dangers of listening primarily to hard core fan boys when developing a sequel. After my first cruise ship mission, my reaction was "OMG, what were they thinking?"

It was both beautiful and terrible. Even though I never finished one playthrough, I still have fond memories of it.

[gavinfoxx]

Originally posted by Arioch:

Fun is subjective; some people really love intense micromanagement, and if so Aurora looks like it will satisfy, as I skimmed a gameplay video and saw more spreadsheets than I saw graphics. I'm not sure more detail always translates into "realism", but I don't know enough about the game to say anything except that I'm really glad that easy access to game distribution for developers allows them to reach an audience for exactly the kind of game that they most want to make.

The realism is less about the spreadsheet and more about the 'diamond-hard-sci-fi engineering and rocket science', where you have to worry about things like delta v and specific impulse and such, and designing the specifics of mass drivers to launch matter from robot-mined moons to the core system so you can make use of it and stuff like that.

[easytarget]

As has already been stated, fun is subjective.

As for realism, I'll take a focus on fun over that any day of the week.

To live in modernity is to have more than enough realism thank you very much.

[King of Amazons]

Originally posted by Arioch:

Originally posted by NecroDragon:

Hey, I just found out that Gauss guns never run out of bullets (while missiles and even anti-missiles can); how is that possible?

It's an abstraction, making a gameplay distinction between weapons which are harder-hitting but expendable, and those which have a more modest damage output and are presumed to carry enough ammunition to last a battle.

Realistically, nearly every kind of weapon requires some kind of consumable -- even beam weapons will require tanks of the appropriate reaction gasses. While I think it can be fun tactical play to conserve your hardest-hitting expendables for just the right moment in a battle, I don't think it's very much to have to worry about your ships becoming completely unable to fight (or maneuver, if we also modeled tactical fuel). (If you designed ships that are only armed with expendable weapons, well... that was your choice. )

The original Microprose X-COM game realistically modeled ammunition for all weapons, which presented a somewhat interesting logistical element to the game (and you could scrounge enemy weapons and ammo from the battlefield), but also a large amount of micromanagement. And in the longer battles (especially the two-stage encounters in Terror From the Deep) it became a common and serious problem of running out of ammunition and being unable to finish the encounter. Realistic, yes... but maybe not so much fun. I was never able to finish TFTD partly because of this. The Firaxis X-COM reboot simplified a number of things, including ammunition; you no longer have to manage ammo stockpiles, and while there are still expendable munitions like grenades and missiles, most guns have unlimited ammunition (you still need to reload, but you have unlimited reloads). While this is less realistic, and those who love endless micromanagement were heartbroken, I think it makes the games a lot more fun.

Plus, and I just realized this, bullets (as well as lasers and plasma bolts) most likely do NOT require as much time, effort, or resources to make as missiles and mini ships would (since those 2 require computer systems and AI).

[gavinfoxx]

Actually plasma bolts require magic. http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunexotic.php#id--Plasma_Weapons
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/PlasmaWeapons.html