Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 38 39 [40] 41 42 ... 2205

Author Topic: Einsteinian Roulette: OOC and NEW PLAYER INFO  (Read 2522568 times)

Taricus

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #585 on: February 07, 2014, 01:40:39 pm »

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.
Logged
Quote from: evictedSaint
We sided with the holocaust for a fucking +1 roll

GreatWyrmGold

  • Bay Watcher
  • Sane, by the local standards.
    • View Profile
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #586 on: February 07, 2014, 01:44:34 pm »

There's something called design complexity.
How are rails more complex than a whole fighter?

Quote
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."

Quote
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."
Logged
Sig
Are you a GM with players who haven't posted? TheDelinquent Players Help will have Bay12 give you an action!
[GreatWyrmGold] gets a little crown. May it forever be his mark of Cain; let no one argue pointless subjects with him lest they receive the same.

Parisbre56

  • Bay Watcher
  • I can haz skullz?
    • View Profile
    • parisbre56 Discord
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #587 on: February 07, 2014, 01:46:14 pm »

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!
« Last Edit: February 07, 2014, 01:49:21 pm by Parisbre56 »
Logged

Taricus

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #588 on: February 07, 2014, 01:50:00 pm »

@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.
Logged
Quote from: evictedSaint
We sided with the holocaust for a fucking +1 roll

Sean Mirrsen

  • Bay Watcher
  • Bearer of the Psionic Flame
    • View Profile
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #589 on: February 07, 2014, 01:51:30 pm »

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.
Logged
Multiworld Madness Archive:
Game One, Discontinued at World 3.
Game Two, Discontinued at World 1.

"Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe's problems are the world's problems, but the world's problems are not Europe's problems."
- Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs, India

Radio Controlled

  • Bay Watcher
  • Morals? Ethics? Conscience? HA!
    • View Profile
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #590 on: February 07, 2014, 01:52:40 pm »

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.


Quote
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.

Quote
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!'
« Last Edit: February 07, 2014, 01:56:50 pm by Radio Controlled »
Logged


Einsteinian Roulette Wiki
Quote from: you know who you are
21:26   <XYZ>: I know nothing about this, but I have strong opinions about it.
Fucking hell, you guys are worse than the demons.

Taricus

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #591 on: February 07, 2014, 01:57:51 pm »

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.
Logged
Quote from: evictedSaint
We sided with the holocaust for a fucking +1 roll

Xantalos

  • Bay Watcher
  • Your Friendly Salvation
    • View Profile
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #592 on: February 07, 2014, 01:59:06 pm »

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.
Logged
Sig! Onol
Quote from: BFEL
XANTALOS, THE KARATEBOMINATION
Quote from: Toaster
((The Xantalos Die: [1, 1, 1, 6, 6, 6]))

Sean Mirrsen

  • Bay Watcher
  • Bearer of the Psionic Flame
    • View Profile
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #593 on: February 07, 2014, 02:01:30 pm »

Quote
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. :P
Logged
Multiworld Madness Archive:
Game One, Discontinued at World 3.
Game Two, Discontinued at World 1.

"Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe's problems are the world's problems, but the world's problems are not Europe's problems."
- Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs, India

Lenglon

  • Bay Watcher
  • Everyone cries, the question is what follows it.
    • View Profile
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #594 on: February 07, 2014, 02:03:42 pm »

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.
Logged
((I don't think heating something that is right above us to a ridiculous degree is very smart. Worst case scenario we become +metal statues+. This is a finely crafted metal statue. It is encrusted with sharkmist and HMRC. On the item is an image of HMRC and Pancaek. Pancaek is laughing. The HMRC is melting. The artwork relates to the encasing of the HMRC in metal by Pancaek during the Mission of Many People.))

Taricus

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #595 on: February 07, 2014, 02:06:01 pm »

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.
Logged
Quote from: evictedSaint
We sided with the holocaust for a fucking +1 roll

Lenglon

  • Bay Watcher
  • Everyone cries, the question is what follows it.
    • View Profile
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #596 on: February 07, 2014, 02:08:17 pm »

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.
Logged
((I don't think heating something that is right above us to a ridiculous degree is very smart. Worst case scenario we become +metal statues+. This is a finely crafted metal statue. It is encrusted with sharkmist and HMRC. On the item is an image of HMRC and Pancaek. Pancaek is laughing. The HMRC is melting. The artwork relates to the encasing of the HMRC in metal by Pancaek during the Mission of Many People.))

Taricus

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #597 on: February 07, 2014, 02:12:48 pm »

A pulsed laser only hits once. it doesn't fire a continuous beam at the target.
Logged
Quote from: evictedSaint
We sided with the holocaust for a fucking +1 roll

syvarris

  • Bay Watcher
  • UNICORNPEGASUSKITTEN
    • View Profile
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #598 on: February 07, 2014, 02:13:40 pm »

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

GreatWyrmGold

  • Bay Watcher
  • Sane, by the local standards.
    • View Profile
Re: Einsteinian Roulette OOC
« Reply #599 on: February 07, 2014, 02:18:48 pm »

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.

Quote
@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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
Attack drones start being employed as secondary precision weapons platforms.
Called it.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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--

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

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Logged
Sig
Are you a GM with players who haven't posted? TheDelinquent Players Help will have Bay12 give you an action!
[GreatWyrmGold] gets a little crown. May it forever be his mark of Cain; let no one argue pointless subjects with him lest they receive the same.
Pages: 1 ... 38 39 [40] 41 42 ... 2205