Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Taricus]

There's something called design complexity. Not to mention that the enemy only has to hit the rails and the system is useless. Railway-based weapons are just not efficient at all, regardless if the rail is on a ship, or terrestrial.

[GreatWyrmGold]

There's something called design complexity.

How are rails more complex than a whole fighter?

Not to mention that the enemy only has to hit the rails and the system is useless.

"Not to mention that the enemy only has to hit the fighter and the ship is useless."

Railway-based weapons are just not efficient at all, regardless if the rail is on a ship, or terrestrial.

More efficient than space fighters. And really, the rails are only an auxiliary thing. "It's there if we need it, but we really won't."

[Parisbre56]

There's something called design complexity. Not to mention that the enemy only has to hit the rails and the system is useless. Railway-based weapons are just not efficient at all, regardless if the rail is on a ship, or terrestrial.

What about some sort of magnetic treads? Point defense tanks!

[Taricus]

@GWG I was talking about the turrets >.>

@Paris: You're looking at something that's many more times expensive than a standard, fixed mount turret. While it could be somewhat effective, depending on what weapons it as, you are still looking at a very large investment per tank.

[Sean Mirrsen]

PD weapons exist in any case, be it against missiles or asteroids. Take that as fact.
This means that missiles both exist, and are used on the field.
This means there are tactics developed to counteract the enemy point defense.
This means fighters are possible during the same phase of engagement where missiles are possible.

Anti-ship weapons are used to deal damage to enemy ships. If these are projectile weapons, point defenses are used against those as well. If those are beam weapons, they can be either individual ship-busting beams, or an array of damaging beams. An array of damaging beams can be used to take out the weapons of the defending ship - large and small alike.

Both large and small weapons are weakpoints in the ship structure - they need to face the enemy and can't be covered completely with armor.

Weapons precise enough to destroy fighters can destroy or damage these weapons with ease, as they are attached to much slower-moving capital ships.

The opening phase of the fight therefore becomes an exchange of salvoes that targets the individual weapons of the enemy - it's the best way to render the enemy helpless. This is especially true if ships are valuable enough to refrain from destroying them with abandon.

Single large weapons become weakpoints. They become secondary weapons meant to be used when it's necessary to destroy the enemy, after its precise defensive weaponry is removed.

Multiple mobile weapons with enough range and precision to inflict damage on sensitive parts of the enemy become favorable.

Attack drones start being employed as secondary precision weapons platforms. They are used at large ranges to avoid incoming enemy fire where regular weapon turrets are incapable of this, prolonging their presence on the field and preventing the enemies from using their heavy weapons with impunity.

Attack drones use starts to expand when both sides use drones. As they are mobile weapons, the engagement ranges close to eliminate the possibility of dodging due to laser lag.

Eventually fights progress into mixed drone/ship combat with ships and drones both exchanging fire at long and medium ranges.

Unless drones possess individual intelligence on par with human, effective countermeasures are being employed to fool the opposing sides' drone AI.

Human presence is required on the field to control and direct drones in situations where light lag would prove disastrous.

Squadrons of mixed piloted and drone fighters are adopted as standard, all designed to appear identical on sensors, to provide in-situ control of AI drones.

...

That's about as far as I can hypothesize it.

[Radio Controlled]

There's something called design complexity.

Indeed. Now tell me, which is easier to design:
-a spaceship: needs engines (main and maneuvering), hull and mechanical components, has to be capable of landing and taking of from your ship (means you also need to design a hangar, with everything that entails, like a launching system for the fighters and a way for them to land safely in space. Also hangar is a big 'ol weak spot, and fighters that are launching are extremely vulnerable), needs computer good enough to do complex 3D maneuvering (for every ship), something to control it (drone or cockpit or whatever) a place to store your fuel, a place to put your weapon

Or: a rail and something to move over it (wheels for all I care), a turret hull on top of that and the weapon.

Not to mention that the enemy only has to hit the rails and the system is useless. Railway-based weapons are just not efficient at all, regardless if the rail is on a ship, or terrestrial.

D

Nope, if it hits the rail in one spot the turrets cannot traverse that spot alone, they still have full mobility over the rest of the hull. And while you are shooting the rails, I'm taking out your fighters, so you lose firepower way faster than I do due to limiting my turret mobility. and replacing one section of rail is infinitely cheaper than rebuilding a whole damn fighter.

PD weapons exist in any case, be it against missiles or asteroids. Take that as fact.
This means that missiles both exist, and are used on the field.
This means there are tactics developed to counteract the enemy point defense.
This means fighters are possible during the same phase of engagement where missiles are possible.

With all due respect to your otherwise good engineering chops, if we can pick and choose our starting positions to build an argument we won't be getting nowhere.

Example: 'we have weapons that turn enemy ships into ice cream with a direct hit. Take that as fact.
So we need anti-dairy defenses dammit. Send in the lactose intolerant!'

[Taricus]

Now, what if it was a capship weapon that took out the rails (As a side effect of hitting the main hull itself.)

As for the design, the ship would be easier, as the rail weapons also need their power supply taken into account, and a destroyed reactor on the hull could have pretty catastrophic effects so that's not exactly a suitable option. Batteries would have limited charge, and ammo being loaded into the turret would be far more difficult if it is mobile.

[Xantalos]

Shouldn't this be in Tinker?

Anyhow, how do you guys think the biohorror mission's gonna turn out? GL and I are pretty much going to be chilling while I modify myself.

[Sean Mirrsen]

PD weapons exist in any case, be it against missiles or asteroids. Take that as fact.
This means that missiles both exist, and are used on the field.
This means there are tactics developed to counteract the enemy point defense.
This means fighters are possible during the same phase of engagement where missiles are possible.

With all due respect to your otherwise good engineering chops, if we can pick and choose our starting positions to build an argument we won't be getting nowhere.

Example: 'we have weapons that turn enemy ships into ice cream with a direct hit. Take that as fact.
So we need anti-dairy defenses dammit. Send in the lactose intolerant!'

I refrained from pointing out that the moment PD weapons cease to exist, fighters become automatically viable. Because that seemed too obvious to point out. So either you take PD weapons' existence as fact, or you allow fighters to rule the space battlefields unopposed. Choose.

[Lenglon]

quick reminder: heat weapons (lasers) need to stay on their target over time to work. additionally at long range in space you have light-speed sensor limits. small targets can move perpendicular to the line of fire and the lasers, even with instant reactions, won't stay on them. there is no true 'instant weapon', and accuracy limits still apply. additionally, a ship intent on close-quarters combat can build up momentum from outside effective range, and their limiting factor is mostly how fast they can slow down. if they can slow down rapidly, or are willing to accept a collision, they can close the gap at some insane speed and only slow down near or at their target. remember that there is no 'top speed' in space (ignoring near C speeds and radiation issues) but there are major accuracy limitations and accel/decel/turning limits.

oh, and not everything has to be turreted. you can hull-mount fighter/drone weapons without issue, and they only need small sideways movement options, they can mostly go forwards/backwards and rotate.

finally, how big is the quantum handwavium com system compared to a robo-teammate's braincase? We don't seem to have them in our suits or robo-teammates, and the Sword wasn't casually available during the long mission, which had a proper base. so I'd assume they're on the large side, far too big to put into a drone. meaning drone AIs are either autonomous or limited by light-speed coms.

regarding rails, continuious damage heat weapons (lasers) can draw large circles or grid patterns without precise aiming, and rails, by their nature, can't be armored. you can confine / limit railed turrets to a single area at much longer ranges than you can pick individual turrets/targets off.

[Taricus]

That depends on the laser. If it's pulsed operation, it wouldn't need to stay on target since it delivers all it's energy in one, large blast. Sorta like the sectopod main cannon or a lasgun.

[Lenglon]

even that large blast has a duration. if it only hits for part of the time it is fireing, be it pulsed or not, it will only do a fraction of its normal damage.

[Taricus]

A pulsed laser only hits once. it doesn't fire a continuous beam at the target.

[syvarris]

Spoiler: Drones vs. Fighters (click to show/hide)

So, skipping over the argument of whether a small attack craft is even feasible,  what does a fighter have over a drone?  As Lenglon said, life support is minor- brains can be supported by a torso, with room left over (robobodies have accurate anatomy as far as muscles, and there's some decent musculature in a torso).  But instant communications equipment is also cheap and easy.

Disadvantage of com control is that it might be possible to jam the control.  Then the enemy can press a button and kill a swarm easily.  That's pretty big.  But coms have several advantages over brains:

First, you don't need to remove someone's brain to get a pilot.  That's going to open up your pilot pool- Saint, for example, would be very iffy about losing his flesh, but would make a decent pilot

Second, losing the craft won't lose your pilot.  This will lead to your forces being overall better trained, and allow kamikaze tactics that would be more risky if you have pilots.  I would also like to point out that currently, the U.S. Air Force values a fighter pilot more than the fighter itself.

Third, and this is going into full munchkin territory: multiple pilots.  Due to the quirkiness of dynamic bonuses, you could have thirty pilots and ten drones.  Ten pilots fly the fighters at the enemy ship, and make normal AUX checks for dodging rounds.  The other twenty sit back watching the screens and charging AUX bonuses.  When a critical roll comes up, you switch control to the secondary pilot and have him get an auto-five thanks to his charging.  Further, whenever a drone's shot down, the pilots can switch to charging backup rolls for other drones, making your forces more effective as they're shot down.

If you actually tried this, you would get slapped by Piecewise.  But still, it technically abides by the rules.  A lesser version that's probably okay is having ten pilots and seven gunners.  Presumably a few drones will be shot down before getting any rounds off, so you shouldn't lose much effectiveness over ten pilots and ten gunners.


Last thing.  The one big advantage a manned fighter has is that it can use non-automated manipulators/amps.  This is probably too negligible in most cases- the efficiency of using a manip at close range is probably outweighed by the fact that a standard space wizard can't do much to a capital ship, and the various advantages of drones.  It's effective if you run kamikaze overload attacks, but just try getting volunteers for that job.  I've got ideas on how you could do it and be effective, reliable, cheap, and easy, but they're very evil.  Also, these would have to be called F-9s.

However, there are ways to make space wizards more effective.  For a moment, recall Miyamoto fighting the sods with meat shields.  IIRC, he made a massive heatblade which bisected the building he was in and continued on into the upper atmosphere.  That would be very effective against a spaceship.  Miyamoto could do that, because he was in an avatar of war.  Isn't an Avatar about the same size as a large fighter?  You could make a Avatar that is entirely space based, give the user a universal manip, coat it in as much stealth stuff as possible, and voila!  You have a hard to detect fighter craft that can chop capital ships in half.  And it's more durable than a equivalent fighter made of metal.  It's probably really expensive though.

[GreatWyrmGold]

There's something called design complexity. Not to mention that the enemy only has to hit the rails and the system is useless. Railway-based weapons are just not efficient at all, regardless if the rail is on a ship, or terrestrial.

What about some sort of magnetic treads? Point defense tanks!

...That's a little silly.

@GWG I was talking about the turrets >.>

I know. I was applying the exact same argument to the fighters.

@Paris: You're looking at something that's many more times expensive than a standard, fixed mount turret. While it could be somewhat effective, depending on what weapons it as, you are still looking at a very large investment per tank.

Not as much as a whole fighter.

PD weapons exist in any case, be it against missiles or asteroids. Take that as fact.
This means that missiles both exist, and are used on the field.
This means there are tactics developed to counteract the enemy point defense.
This means fighters are possible during the same phase of engagement where missiles are possible.

Possible, yes. Effective, efficient, worth making? You haven't shown that.

Weapons precise enough to destroy fighters can destroy or damage these weapons with ease, as they are attached to much slower-moving capital ships.

Whereas fighters are going to have severe trouble dodging any kind of weapon unless they're at extreme distances, so they're also going to be easy to hit.

The opening phase of the fight therefore becomes an exchange of salvoes that targets the individual weapons of the enemy - it's the best way to render the enemy helpless. This is especially true if ships are valuable enough to refrain from destroying them with abandon.

Wouldn't your logic make the ship with more PD weapons and PDstroyers the one with the advantage?

Single large weapons become weakpoints. They become secondary weapons meant to be used when it's necessary to destroy the enemy, after its precise defensive weaponry is removed.

Assuming, of course, that the exposed part of the weapon is A. easy to damage and B. important to the function of the weapon.

Multiple mobile weapons with enough range and precision to inflict damage on sensitive parts of the enemy become favorable.

Wait, how did "mobile" become an advantage? You kinda slipped that in there without explaining it. And why do I suspect you're going to immediately jump from "mobile" to "not on the ship" without explaining that, either?

Attack drones start being employed as secondary precision weapons platforms.

Called it.

They are used at large ranges to avoid incoming enemy fire where regular weapon turrets are incapable of this,

Why? Again, the turrets can be made mobile if it's that much of an issue, and the ability to dodge in space is pretty much nil except against kinetic weapons at low speeds or extreme ranges.

Attack drones use starts to expand when both sides use drones. As they are mobile weapons, the engagement ranges close to eliminate the possibility of dodging due to laser lag.

You mean it was possible to dodge before? Referring to those fighters, there.

Eventually fights progress into mixed drone/ship combat with ships and drones both exchanging fire at long and medium ranges.

Unless, of course, you have accurate, long-range lasers that can heavily damage ships before they get in fighter/etc range. Or you could always shoot down the drones as they get closer.

Unless drones possess individual intelligence on par with human, effective countermeasures are being employed to fool the opposing sides' drone AI.

Which are most eaisly and cheaply remedied with a patch, not--

Human presence is required on the field to control and direct drones in situations where light lag would prove disastrous.

--that.

Squadrons of mixed piloted and drone fighters are adopted as standard, all designed to appear identical on sensors, to provide in-situ control of AI drones.

Which requires wasting space in the drones so they have fake life support and whatnot.

That's about as far as I can hypothesize it.

Mind starting over?

Now, what if it was a capship weapon that took out the rails (As a side effect of hitting the main hull itself.)

So anti-capital weaons are suddenly not worthless?

As for the design, the ship would be easier, as the rail weapons also need their power supply taken into account, and a destroyed reactor on the hull could have pretty catastrophic effects so that's not exactly a suitable option. Batteries would have limited charge, and ammo being loaded into the turret would be far more difficult if it is mobile.

We already have rails that give power to what's on them. They're called electric trains, I've ridden on them. They have functional electric lights and everything.
And since when would the reactors be on the hulls? And, um. wouldn't the fighters also have reactors pretty near their puny hulls?

quick reminder: heat weapons (lasers) need to stay on their target over time to work. additionally at long range in space you have light-speed sensor limits. small targets can move perpendicular to the line of fire and the lasers, even with instant reactions, won't stay on them.

If you're not constantly spending delta-v to change your course (a tactic so fraught with issues I won't go into it unless asked), you're going to be moving in a straight line. PRetty easy to track your movements then.

there is no true 'instant weapon', and accuracy limits still apply.

Moreso to the little weapons than the big ones, since the big ones will have access to better...well, everything that can be made better, really.

additionally, a ship intent on close-quarters combat can build up momentum from outside effective range, and their limiting factor is mostly how fast they can slow down.

And their delta-v.

oh, and not everything has to be turreted. you can hull-mount fighter/drone weapons without issue, and they only need small sideways movement options, they can mostly go forwards/backwards and rotate.

Your point?

regarding rails, continuious damage heat weapons (lasers) can draw large circles or grid patterns without precise aiming, and rails, by their nature, can't be armored. you can confine / limit railed turrets to a single area at much longer ranges than you can pick individual turrets/targets off.

Unless the ship moves relative to where the lasers are being aimed. Why is that possible for the fighters but not the capital ships?

That depends on the laser. If it's pulsed operation, it wouldn't need to stay on target since it delivers all it's energy in one, large blast. Sorta like the sectopod main cannon or a lasgun.

Both of which are from pretty soft sci-fi (XCOM and 40k)...

A pulsed laser only hits once. it doesn't fire a continuous beam at the target.

So?

even that large blast has a duration. if it only hits for part of the time it is fireing, be it pulsed or not, it will only do a fraction of its normal damage.

So, skipping over the argument of whether a small attack craft is even feasible,  what does a fighter have over a drone?  As Lenglon said, life support is minor- brains can be supported by a torso, with room left over (robobodies have accurate anatomy as far as muscles, and there's some decent musculature in a torso).

Um, a drone piloted by a brain instead of a computer is still a drone for all intents and purposes.

However, there are ways to make space wizards more effective.  For a moment, recall Miyamoto fighting the sods with meat shields.  IIRC, he made a massive heatblade which bisected the building he was in and continued on into the upper atmosphere.  That would be very effective against a spaceship.  Miyamoto could do that, because he was in an avatar of war.  Isn't an Avatar about the same size as a large fighter?  You could make a Avatar that is entirely space based, give the user a universal manip, coat it in as much stealth stuff as possible, and voila!  You have a hard to detect fighter craft that can chop capital ships in half.  And it's more durable than a equivalent fighter made of metal.  It's probably really expensive though.

And Avatars are not, by default, equipped for any kind of zero-g acceleration. Imagine an overshot on a manipulator roll just to get moving...
And that's assuming you don't run out of charge while maneuvering.