Print

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

[Retropunch]

Lasers are a hypothetical, but only if you could basically rake massive areas of space with them, which would require a ridiculous amount of power.

Aren't there laser "weapons" already? I say "weapons" because AFAIK they're only used to shoot down missiles.

That said, yeah, space warfare is pretty hard to imagine. Which is why I just give nearly all sci-fi space battles a pass as long as they look cool. If I was to speculate though, it might involve the conflicting spacecraft to close in on each other like ships-of-the-line of some centuries back.

The USS Ponce is currently deploying a pretty impressive laser system to target fast attack craft. There are no missile defense lasers really - there's some ideas behind blinding and the like, but it's all a bit theoretical.

I don't really believe spacecraft would be closing in on each other in space for a face off. Again, space is REALLY, REALLY BIG - there's absolutely no reason to get even vaguely near something unless you want to. More than that, the laws of physics (as we know them) wouldn't allow you to 'face off' against an opponent in a ships-of-the-line way, the nearest you'd get is hurtling past each other. You could set that up, but with how big space is, I don't see any reason to do so.

More than that, the distances involved would make predicting enemy movement extremely difficult, so anything other than an insanely huge laser rake, or guided drones would be useless.

The only theoretical possibility would be to stop planetary bombardment. However, if that was the case, you'd probably just send the equivalent of hundreds of spaceflight capable drones up to kamikaze anything coming your way.

[Teneb]

-snip-

I'll concede on this. Frankly, other than knowing space is really damn big, I don't know that much about it. Really wish governments funneled more money into space exploration though.

[Flying Dice]

The main problem with drones/missiles is, I would think, carrying enough fuel to stay on target across non-trivial ranges. If you're just fighting in orbit, sure, but even Earth-to-Luna-orbit size areas would be questionable.

[Sirus]

Launch drones/missiles in the general direction of the enemy, boosters trigger when they get within something resembling a short range? Assuming they use propulsion systems roughly similar to those of the spaceships, they ought to have much higher acceleration than manned ships.

And if you want to say "sure, but the targeted fleet could just move somewhere else", the same is true for any other space weapon system you could imagine.

[Retropunch]

The main problem with drones/missiles is, I would think, carrying enough fuel to stay on target across non-trivial ranges. If you're just fighting in orbit, sure, but even Earth-to-Luna-orbit size areas would be questionable.

Yeah, it'd be impossible to have anything approaching space warfare with anything like tech we have now (other than against stationary/orbiting structures) as manoeuvring costs just too much fuel to be feasible. When most rockets leave earth they're basically pointed towards what they're going to and that's about it - making constant changes to speed and direction would use an incredible amount of fuel.

You'd also be starting at a significant (think again how big space is) distance, and need to be able to close that distance on top of everything else. As we'd at least be at a tech stage of orbital shipyards by this point in our thought experiment, there would be no reason for us not to use the best engine we have for everything as we don't have to contend with gravity or anything like that. Therefore, your missile/drone would somehow have to have a substantially better engine than what it was trying to catch.

On top of all of that you've got gravity to contend with (which can be a big issue near big planets) and all sorts of other interference.

However, I don't think we should ever underestimate humanities ability to blow each other up, so I well imagine we will find a way.

[Retropunch]

Launch drones/missiles in the general direction of the enemy, boosters trigger when they get within something resembling a short range? Assuming they use propulsion systems roughly similar to those of the spaceships, they ought to have much higher acceleration than manned ships.

And if you want to say "sure, but the targeted fleet could just move somewhere else", the same is true for any other space weapon system you could imagine.

Higher acceleration would only help if both targets were stationary from the outset - as there's no gravity/drag, as soon as something is going at x/mph it stays going at that speed. More than that, as you're waiting for light bounce back, you'd have a very hard time predicting where your target is or the direction they're heading. This can obviously be accounted for by resources (launch 360,000,000 drones and you're going to get one or two in the right direction) but they'd still have to adapt their flight path on 'late data'.

And as to your second point - that is what I'm saying! Space warfare just isn't feasible and won't be for a significant amount of time - and I doubt it'll ever be like games/movies.

[Loud Whispers]

So if long-range space warfare is nigh impossible does that mean space pirates are viable at close range?

[Egan_BW]

Well, if a craft full of pirates wanted to dock with the ISS as-is, there's very little that the astronauts onboard could do about it. The question is whether there's really anything worth looting on it for someone who already owns a spaceship.
I guess the most likely space conflict would be an isolated incident involving a ship commandeering supplies from an immobile space station. But that's not so much a conflict in itself as something that could spark a war on the ground.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

So, I'm seeing that the "one planet" challenge isn't a viable option? Any ideas on this?

[Ultimuh]

So, I'm seeing that the "one planet" challenge isn't a viable option? Any ideas on this?

Try one of those Ringworld starter planet mods.
Only control one system, but should have whatever resources you would need, should you colonize all parts.
Not sure if the mod I'm thinking of is outdated though.

edit: Yep. Definitively outdated.

[umiman]

Updated version from the comments: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=717498014

[Ultimuh]

Updated version from the comments: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=717498014

Ah yes.
I should probably subscribe to it myself.
The "12 habitable segments" starter system is what you want for a 'relatively' easy 1 system challenge.
You don't really need much else, unless you are planning to get certain strategic resources, which might or might not spawn on any of those segments.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Interesting... Thanks peeps.

[Flying Dice]

They're also apparently going to make some changes/additions to make tall states viable.

[IronyOwl]

They'd apparently like to in a nonbinding vague future sense, rather. I'm rather willing to rag on this game for doing easy things incredibly poorly, but making more != better without making more == always pointless or entirely disallowed is legitimately difficult. It wouldn't surprise me if that one ended up getting shoved back a ways or wound up as a major expansion thingy.

...speaking of which, did their fleet design update do what it was supposed to at all? I kept hearing the term "RPG classes" but it still feels mostly like glomming together blocks of ship. The module clarification/overhaul was nice, but I'm not seeing a lot of torpedo capital killers or destroyers screening for anything.