Print

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

[Parisbre56]

Yeah, that makes sense, that's one of the problems it has. The other being that if you put something fragile in it and launch it too fast it might break apart inside the barrel and damage it. Just wanted to have your OK in case I decide to build it later or send it to Hephaestus. Because a weapon that can shoot supersonic gravel sounds like a great idea for a guerrilla force. They would be able to shoot any specialised ammunition we give them, like redshot or normal gauss rifle rounds, but once they run out of ammo, they can start shooting with whatever is available. Like what some militaries did in the old days when they run out of cannon balls.

Anyway, another project:

Remember the monoatomic shredder sword I made earlier? The one that had the spinning monowires? http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=136149.msg5315782#msg5315782

Make it bigger. The size of a drill. And with rounded sides, like a V. And put the spinners on the now rounded sides so that they point to everywhere. That way, the front spinners will start digging the hole and the side spinners will enlarge it as the drill turns around.

Compare it to the drills we have on Hephaestus. Are there any glaring advantages or disadvantages in terms of wear and tear, power usage, cost or efficiency?

[Radio Controlled]

Longer life span, in general, meaning you have more sods for longer. On Hephestus it's not much of a change, a bit better, but since their numbers were limited and they were fighting with you, it's a increase in efficiency of about 5-8%. On the other hand, the UWM, since they were all sods, do benefit a good deal from the change, since it makes them harder to kill, meaning they get more shots off at you.

Can you give me a % increase in effectiveness for the UWM if they used robosods for that battle? And could you tell me how the ratio of effectiveness/cost changes?

Secondly, for sods inside battlesuits or other vehicles, is there an increase/decrease in effectiveness if the sod piloting it is a robot?

Thirdly, use vr to go over various battles and operations where the UWM deployed sods (try to get a mix of different engagements). Then replace flesh sods with regular robosods. Try to get the % increase in effectiveness. Then check effectiveness/cost ratio, taking into account the 'bigger picture' (such as higher initial production cost).

You could automate training pretty easy. Hell, all you'd need to do is make up a good basic training vr program with someone teaching them the stuff and then produce it as both a VR program and a straight video for those without vr machines. Youtube trained insurgents, mofo. Of course, creating some sort of heavily adapted sod drill Sargent might be more effective, but would also be harder and harder to get where they need to go.

Can't we do both? One of those things only requires some work from players, after all, no input from Hep. And what, exactly, would you require from us? You want me to write out a treatise on the aspects of warfare in this sci-fi setting, just give some vague guidelines and let the dice do the talking, film it live action and post it on youtube (deargodpleaseno)?

[piecewise]

Yeah, that makes sense, that's one of the problems it has. The other being that if you put something fragile in it and launch it too fast it might break apart inside the barrel and damage it. Just wanted to have your OK in case I decide to build it later or send it to Hephaestus. Because a weapon that can shoot supersonic gravel sounds like a great idea for a guerrilla force. They would be able to shoot any specialised ammunition we give them, like redshot or normal gauss rifle rounds, but once they run out of ammo, they can start shooting with whatever is available. Like what some militaries did in the old days when they run out of cannon balls.

Anyway, another project:

Remember the monoatomic shredder sword I made earlier? The one that had the spinning monowires? http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=136149.msg5315782#msg5315782

Make it bigger. The size of a drill. And with rounded sides, like a V. And put the spinners on the now rounded sides so that they point to everywhere. That way, the front spinners will start digging the hole and the side spinners will enlarge it as the drill turns around.

Compare it to the drills we have on Hephaestus. Are there any glaring advantages or disadvantages in terms of wear and tear, power usage, cost or efficiency?

Someone sent me this:

The burst laser is a bit dodgy physics-wise, but it's not that extreme.  However, the gauss slingshot, on the other hand, is a really, really, bad idea and a giant physics mugging.

Some issues..  First, you need it shaped at least like a proper bullet or artillery shell for any accuracy beyond that of a smoothbore cannon.  Secondly, due to the nature of gauss propulsion, the projectile needs to be both paramagnetic and balanced by mass or it'll rip apart during the acceleration, which could damage your gun and it's wielder pretty well.. and just eyeballing it is not accurate enough.  That's not quite as big an issue with a ship-sized gauss cannon, as it's robust enough so that it will get the object out of the barrel, but it'll be leaving in a large number of pieces.

Railguns and coilguns are powerful devices.  If he wants a gun he can just shoot random objects out of, he should be looking at smoothbore cannon, and he needs to remember cladding and wadding are not optional.  Railguns and coilguns are fundamentally different.

Anyways;
Yeah, one of your series of completely unsafe things. Reminds me of Zako's Bolas. Whatever happened to zako anyways?

Monorazors as industrial drills is what we call "Break down city". Even well used mono-filaments break easily, and wildly grinding into stone 24 hours a day will break them very fast. So yes, they will cut more effectively then the drills we've got, but they will also need to be changed out really often. I suppose they would be a good choice if you wanted to tunnel somewhere really quickly and didn't care about gathering the stuff you're drilling, but as part of an industrial mining operation they're more trouble then benefit.

Longer life span, in general, meaning you have more sods for longer. On Hephestus it's not much of a change, a bit better, but since their numbers were limited and they were fighting with you, it's a increase in efficiency of about 5-8%. On the other hand, the UWM, since they were all sods, do benefit a good deal from the change, since it makes them harder to kill, meaning they get more shots off at you.

Can you give me a % increase in effectiveness for the UWM if they used robosods for that battle? And could you tell me how the ratio of effectiveness/cost changes?

Secondly, for sods inside battlesuits or other vehicles, is there an increase/decrease in effectiveness if the sod piloting it is a robot?

Thirdly, use vr to go over various battles and operations where the UWM deployed sods (try to get a mix of different engagements). Then replace flesh sods with regular robosods. Try to get the % increase in effectiveness. Then check effectiveness/cost ratio, taking into account the 'bigger picture' (such as higher initial production cost).

You could automate training pretty easy. Hell, all you'd need to do is make up a good basic training vr program with someone teaching them the stuff and then produce it as both a VR program and a straight video for those without vr machines. Youtube trained insurgents, mofo. Of course, creating some sort of heavily adapted sod drill Sargent might be more effective, but would also be harder and harder to get where they need to go.

Can't we do both? One of those things only requires some work from players, after all, no input from Hep. And what, exactly, would you require from us? You want me to write out a treatise on the aspects of warfare in this sci-fi setting, just give some vague guidelines and let the dice do the talking, film it live action and post it on youtube (deargodpleaseno)?

Depends on if we factor in the Artillery fun time, which rather reduced your forces.

No, none that I can think of. Being a robot doesn't prevent them from doing anything that a human could do in those situations. Hell, might make them more effective because damage to the cockpit that might kill a flesh sod has a better chance of being survivable and hence let the machine keep going.
 

It varies by mission, but on average it's about 20%, though thats considering the UWM's massive sod production system and the fact they can crank out sods for almost nothing. On an interesting note it would mean you could have several hundred year old sods that have seen combat on dozens or hundreds of worlds.

Yeah, you could do both.

Hmm..tempting.Very tempting...

But really, what I'd just want you to do is set up the training course and what you want to say in it. Plan out the thing in text form. Doesn't have to be super detailed, just the overview, but detail in places you want to be sure about helps.

[Parisbre56]

Well, whoever wrote that to you clearly had no idea what they were talking about because they either didn't read or didn't understand how the Gauss Slingshot works.

@RC: Do the training course in that program piecewise did the warehouse history thing. And have the player pass a virtual multiple choice test in the end, where wrong options kill your virtual self in gruesome ways.

[syvarris]

((Wouldn't just making a cradle mounted on a vector manip work way better?

Also, as to the training course, pickmepickmepickme.  Modern military tactics, especially CQB, is one of my favorite things.  I have more information than is actually useful.))

[PyroDesu]

Well, whoever wrote that to you clearly had no idea what they were talking about because they either didn't read or didn't understand how the Gauss Slingshot works.

((I can say that I didn't write that - I would've posted it here, not sent it to PW.

Still, whoever did is correct is correct about how insanely dangerous that thing would probably be, with the ease with which it can damage and destroy itself (here's something the comment didn't mention - damage to the coils (which is basically inevitable with the way it's intended to be used) could potentially result in a magnetic IED). And the accuracy comment too. As Syv said - you'd probably be better off getting a small(-ish) vector automanipulator and a barrel that's functionally similar a smoothbore cannon barrel.))

[Sean Mirrsen]

((The biggest problem with that design is that it won't be able to launch anything magnetic, because whatever it is will move with the cradle. The cradle itself is also likely to break apart spectacularly because of the forces involved in sudden acceleration of something very heavy and not perfectly braced against the cradle.

The easier way to achieve what you want is something like a gauss ballista - two discrete acceleration rails in parallel, with a sturdy pusher plate embedded inbetween and linked to permanent "projectiles" within the rails - though obviously the rails won't enclose them completely because a slit is needed to slide the pusher plate along. This way the gauss rails will work in their normal circumstances, on "projectiles" that will easily comply with the magnetic forces, without affecting the actual projectile.))

[Parisbre56]

I do not write down every little detail of how the weapon will work because I do not want to make a huge wall of text for piecewise. I know there are things I haven't covered in my description, like, for example, how is the cradle suspended so that it doesn't impact the walls of the barrel or how can it be reset when a projectile of increased mass causes it to lag behind. If piecewise has a problem with part of the weapon, then he will let me know and I'll be able to provide one of the solutions I have thought of. If piecewise doesn't object, then I just assume I have somehow made the weapon work, since it doesn't explode during test-firing.

Sorry to the anonymous commenter if I sounded harsh, I just find hidden criticism like that annoying, because if piecewise hadn't posted that, then I would have no chance to respond. Plus the fact that I don't like writing large walls of text/arguments when I'm busy, but that's hardly the commenter's fault.

Now, on to responses:

First, you need it shaped at least like a proper bullet or artillery shell for any accuracy beyond that of a smoothbore cannon.

Well, of course. One would think that the fact that its name contains the word Slingshot and that it's made as a "launch almost anything" weapon and the fact that I actually mentioned loading cannons with improper ammunition in it would make it apparent, but if you feel the need to state the obvious, then go ahead. Still, the fact that it can launch non-aerodynamic ammunition doesn't mean that it can't launch properly constructed aerodynamic ammunition, a fact that was also mentioned in my post.

Secondly, due to the nature of gauss propulsion, the projectile needs to be both paramagnetic and balanced by mass or it'll rip apart during the acceleration, which could damage your gun and it's wielder pretty well.. and just eyeballing it is not accurate enough.  That's not quite as big an issue with a ship-sized gauss cannon, as it's robust enough so that it will get the object out of the barrel, but it'll be leaving in a large number of pieces.

This is also a part where the commenter failed to read the weapon description properly. If they had, they would have noticed that:
a) The weapon does not require its ammunition to be magnetic. It CAN fire magnetic projectiles by functioning as a normal Gauss Rifle, but that's not all it can do.
b) The weapon has the problem that something fragile put in it will break apart during acceleration or when it contacts the air. There are two obvious solutions: Don't put fragile things in it and use the power setting to lower the speed/acceleration of the projectile. Same as putting non-aerodynamic things that could tumble inside the barrel and get stuck. If you can't figure that out, you probably shouldn't be handling this weapon.

Railguns and coilguns are powerful devices.  If he wants a gun he can just shoot random objects out of, he should be looking at smoothbore cannon, and he needs to remember cladding and wadding are not optional.  Railguns and coilguns are fundamentally different.

That's not what the weapon was designed for. Cannons require gunpowder. Gunpowder requires resources. This weapon is designed to function with as little resources necessary as possible, while allowing a large variety of ammunition to be launched. It's like a laser working off a generator that allows it to have infinite ammo, only this one has the strengths of the Gauss Rifle: It can launch specialised ammunition like Grav-Shot or other kinds of Ani-Tank Gauss Ammunition and it can launch non-magnetic ammunition designed by the wielder.
Also, what does cladding mean? I think it means to put a layer of metal on top of something but I don't understand what it means in this context.

Still, whoever did is correct is correct about how insanely dangerous that thing would probably be, with the ease with which it can damage and destroy itself (here's something the comment didn't mention - damage to the coils (which is basically inevitable with the way it's intended to be used) could potentially result in a magnetic IED). And the accuracy comment too. As Syv said - you'd probably be better off getting a small(-ish) vector automanipulator and a barrel that's functionally similar a smoothbore cannon barrel

I don't understand why damage to the coils would occur. Which part of the weapon would damage the coils?

And vector manips go against the spirit of the weapon. It's meant to be a multi-purpose tool rather than a pure weapon that can be cheaply mass produced and given to civilian forces/sod commandos/infiltrators that could end up cut off and without supplies. They would be given along with some more powerful ammunition like grav-shot or red-shot or those chemical gauss rounds that can eat through battlesuit plate, which the wielder would be instructed to try and conserve for emergencies. They could be given along with generator fed lasers with various helpful features and some other basic medical/engineering/communication supplies as a sort of "starter pack" for civilian armies, along with the more conventional and more powerful weapons that will be created in greater numbers and given to regular armies. A vector manip would mean that the weapon would be very expensive, require manipulator batteries and there would be no variable power setting (so that things like launching a grappling hook or spear or grenade from it would be impossible, greatly reducing its versatility). The fact that it can be used for those crazy projects most inmates sometimes build is an added bonus (like that one guy who tried to build that kinetic-amp-tipped-stake launcher).

The biggest problem with that design is that it won't be able to launch anything magnetic, because whatever it is will move with the cradle.

The cradle can be locked in place and the coils unlinked so that the weapon functions like a normal gauss rifle.

The cradle itself is also likely to break apart spectacularly because of the forces involved in sudden acceleration of something very heavy and not perfectly braced against the cradle.

Simple solution: Add padding.
And lower the power setting so that you don't try to throw supersonic, irregularly shaped rocks at your enemies. If you're throwing rocks, you're probably either targeting fleshy things at really close range or are out of ammo and really desperate because you are trying to damage the cameras of the battlesuit advancing on you with rocks. And, well, if you're that desperate, damaging your weapon is the least of your problems.

A way to judge the type the ammunition inserted so that the best power setting can be selected would be best, but that would probably get complicated and require cameras and electronics and maybe some kind of spectrometer. So just a number of preset power settings with clear meanings would be best (from launch a ball to your friend all the way to Full Power)

And remember, the cradle only gives ammunition half (or less, due to its mass) the acceleration of a normal gauss rifle in the best case scenario because of the way it operates.

The easier way to achieve what you want is something like a gauss ballista - two discrete acceleration rails in parallel, with a sturdy pusher plate embedded inbetween and linked to permanent "projectiles" within the rails - though obviously the rails won't enclose them completely because a slit is needed to slide the pusher plate along. This way the gauss rails will work in their normal circumstances, on "projectiles" that will easily comply with the magnetic forces, without affecting the actual projectile.

Yeah, that's actually a very good idea. It would solve the deceleration problem when launching not-as-magnetic-as-the-cradle objects. And probably increase the power output a bit and decrease maintenance. But less pusher plate and more Π shaped, so that aerodynamic ammunition put in it would point forward and be generally easier to align with custom ammunition. Only problem I see is that then you wouldn't be able to launch magnetic projectiles like a gauss rifle that way, which is one of the features of the weapon.

Other thoughts:
An adjustable cradle size would be best, since it would ensure the ammunition will remain in place and keep pointing in the right direction. Auto-adjustable would be even better, but that might be more complex.

I could also make the barrel a bit bigger to account for whatever launched inside it tumbling.

I'd also add a plasma window (it's not like our generators lack the power to do that) and some vacuum pumps to prevent the problems arising from air resistance inside the barrel (although the cradle pushing the air inside forward would help with that) but that would make the weapon too complicated and I'm trying to design something relatively simple, relatively low maintenance that doesn't require lots of supplies to function, but with multiple uses.

Anyway, all that is for later. I just wanted to get an OK from piecewise that the basic concept works.

[Devastator]

You know.. this might sound like piling on, but there's two things that come to mind.

Isn't a one-coil system dramatically less efficient than a good multi-coil system?  Both in general, and the fact that you're accelerating something that you don't fire.  I don't have the math for it, but I'd think the inverse square law kicks in with a one-coil system, and if it takes twenty or thirty times the power to get 60% the velocity, at best, it's not minimal resources.

And two, aren't normal coilgun projectiles basically lathed iron or steel?  That's something you can make with hand tools in a cave without electricity.  A good coilgun can be difficult to make, but the ammo for it should be quite easy.

I'm also not sure what it's for.  If you want a gauss rifle, why not just mass-produce some real ones, and send people dies to make more, and make their own ammunition?  If you want a gun you can fire anything out of, and doesn't require an external power source, why not optimize a good air cannon?  That'll do the job nicely, and it'll get rid of the generator, ridiculous power needs, and likely the superconducting wire necessary for one of these gauss guns, so it can really be built by anybody with minimal tools.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Heck, why not optimize a good old crossbow? Between high-tech materials, high-strength myomers, and compact power generators, you could pretty much make a crossbow with more power than an elephant rifle, and have it able to launch anything from pebbles to rebar.

[NAV]

Dammit why do people keep stealing tinker ideas out of my head when I'm on mission? First the goop sprayer now the electroreactive ballista. This is why I wanted to buy that vr backpack.

[PyroDesu]

Dammit why do people keep stealing tinker ideas out of my head when I'm on mission? First the goop sprayer now the electroreactive ballista. This is why I wanted to buy that vr backpack.

You are now experiencing what I do quite often. Oh, and I asked for the VR packs first.

And Paris, I can understand about the 'no manipulator' part, but my thinking about possible damage to the coils is that most things that you'd end up stuffing down the barrel of one of these things is probably going to be highly irregular, and may or may not stay in the 'sling' properly (especially during acceleration (double especially if you use a slower acceleration to avoid breaking the object up), and don't even think about trying to make a big shotgun out of it by putting gravel or ball-bearings or whatever in) - if it doesn't, and scrapes the barrel, then you have a problem.

[Radio Controlled]

Run several tests (same parameters as the recent tests Tavik did for his Halberd), give the increase or decrease in effectiveness (keeping in mind different resource costs) compared to Tavik's most recent Halberd tests (without perfect rolls):

1) replace current halberd design with the smaller one (you said it could be made smaller, to about 8 feet, without losing anything)
2) replace halberd design with standard battlesuit carrying the same weapons (or weapons of comparable strength and cost)
3) replace halberd design with mobility battlesuit carrying the same weapons (or weapons of comparable strength and cost)
4) replace halberd design with melee battlesuit carrying the same weapons (or weapons of comparable strength and cost)

For reference, this is the test I'm talking about:

Now do all that again but observe with normal rolls. Do 10 times then get an evaluation of the Halberd.

Speed and maneuvering is its greatest strength, that's for sure. But basically, if someone shoots it in the leg and slows it down, it is boned. Very boned.

Otherwise, the weapons work fairly well, though the blades really don't work against anything with much armor.

If the Battle suits are Chromehounds mechs, then yours is Armored core style.

Depends on if we factor in the Artillery fun time, which rather reduced your forces.

Run two tests, one where Artillery fun time remains like it was, the other where the simulation is reset. Get in- or decrease in effectiveness for UWM

It varies by mission, but on average it's about 20%, though thats considering the UWM's massive sod production system and the fact they can crank out sods for almost nothing. On an interesting note it would mean you could have several hundred year old sods that have seen combat on dozens or hundreds of worlds.

Could the average UWM sod actually benefit from this battlefield experience, or not? Could our current upgraded sods benefit from it? Is it possible to create sods that are smart and independent enough to benefit from it? If yes, would we face the loyalty problems we would with that 'guerilla sod'?

@RC: Do the training course in that program piecewise did the warehouse history thing. And have the player pass a virtual multiple choice test in the end, where wrong options kill your virtual self in gruesome ways.

An interesting idea, but it would be a huge amount of work. I don't think I can devote the time or energy for that, though if other people were to help it might be possible.

Also, as to the training course, pickmepickmepickme.  Modern military tactics, especially CQB, is one of my favorite things.  I have more information than is actually useful.))

Sure, but you'll have to wait until the flesh horror stuff on your planet is solved before Saint can help with that IC. But until then we can plan things through OOC. I'm gonna lay down a framework for these vids soon, so hold your horses for a little while.

@ Sean and Tavik: why not merge your designs and work together? If your stuff is going to fill the same niche, I think that'd be the most optimal way to go about it. Yes; I know there's pride involved in wanting your own design to be proven best and used, but I think the two of you working together would find the best solution to the 'lightly armored rapid assault mech' problem.

Dammit why do people keep stealing tinker ideas out of my head when I'm on mission? First the goop sprayer now the electroreactive ballista. This is why I wanted to buy that vr backpack.

Heh, welcome to my world. But if another works out your idea in a good way, does it matter all that much you weren't the one to do it? After all, you know you had a good idea, you just didn't get the time to work on it. And you can still help out in OOC. For example, do you (or anyone else) have an idea to improve upon the goop thrower/universal chem thrower?

[Sean Mirrsen]

@ Sean and Tavik: why not merge your designs and work together? If your stuff is going to fill the same niche, I think that'd be the most optimal way to go about it. Yes; I know there's pride involved in wanting your own design to be proven best and used, but I think the two of you working together would find the best solution to the 'lightly armored rapid assault mech' problem.

We'd kind of be working long-distance, and we're not yet in time-sync, and Anton has a nonzero chance of not surviving until then anyway. Plus, Anton's design needs certain important technological breakthroughs. But yeah, like I said, the two projects are likely to end up being related. Either one based off the other, or one inspired by the other.

[Radio Controlled]

@ Sean and Tavik: why not merge your designs and work together? If your stuff is going to fill the same niche, I think that'd be the most optimal way to go about it. Yes; I know there's pride involved in wanting your own design to be proven best and used, but I think the two of you working together would find the best solution to the 'lightly armored rapid assault mech' problem.

We'd kind of be working long-distance, and we're not yet in time-sync, and Anton has a nonzero chance of not surviving until then anyway. Plus, Anton's design needs certain important technological breakthroughs. But yeah, like I said, the two projects are likely to end up being related. Either one based off the other, or one inspired by the other.

I kinda think PW wouldn't mind if you ignore the time-sync suff, he has said as much in the past. You are right Anton can't help right now IC, but you can always discuss things OOC. You do what you want of course, I just suspect that, if there are two designs that somwhat fill the same niche, one will just be forgotten in favor of the other, which could be a waste since you both have interesting ideas the other doesn't.