[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
File
Password(Password used for file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 3072 KB.
  • Images greater than 250x250 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Read the rules and FAQ before posting.
  • このサイトについて - 翻訳


  • SOON

    File :1228018335.jpg-(47 KB, 853x480, 1198336202552.jpg)
    47 KB Anonymous 11/29/08(Sat)23:12 No.3085762  
    Okay, I'm pretending to make a sci-fi setting revolving around ship combat, and I want to get ideas and opinions (in that order) from /tg/. Its not going to be hard sci-fi of course, as that generally pleases no one worth pleasing, but I'm not sure how soft it should be either. Definitely not space opera stuff.

    Anyway, I was letting my mind turn over at work in a few periods I wasn't doing shit, and I churned out a few ideas for weaponry. I was planning on the basic weaponry being either standard chemical-accelerated ballistic weaponry, charged particle cannons (PPCs if you know battletech)

    I designed a few items, and yoinked a bit of writefaggotry I did some of you may remember, but here my ideas so far for *alternative* weaponry.

    Heat-shells. Specially made shells that transfer heat from the attacking ship and release said heat catastrophically upon impact, causing long-term structural damage.

    Ice Shot: Shell with a warhead of highly compressed steam. Upon impact the steam goes everywhere, flash-freezing into massive hunks of ice stuck to the outer hull of the enemy vessel, clogging tubes, vents, ports, and etc.

    Ice Armor: Well its easy to make, and certainly nobody minds it being abalative...

    Ice Spike: Variant of Ice Armor, a huge ass spike of ice designed as a ram. Probably the most throw-away of my ideas, but eh, what the hell.

    Grapple hooks: Harpoon cannons mounted on smaller vessels, good for attaching to larger craft for boarding operations.

    I've got a few other ideas, like weapon/shield combinations, but they need to cogitate more.

    Ideas, thoughts?
    >> Anonymous 11/29/08(Sat)23:18 No.3085779
         File :1228018719.gif-(35 KB, 673x505, 1224639445002.gif)
    35 KB
    homebrew
    >> Anonymous 11/29/08(Sat)23:20 No.3085793
    I like the ice armor, no opinion on the others.
    >> Anonymous 11/29/08(Sat)23:27 No.3085813
    Needs more ice.
    >> Anonymous 11/29/08(Sat)23:28 No.3085815
    >Heat-shells
    In space heat relies on radiation and conduction thru the hull. If I'm not mistaken, a shell can have easily more kinetic energy converted to heat on impact than the heat capacity of its materials.
    >Ice Shot
    Vacuums causes gasses to dissipate too quickly for it to solidify into masses.
    >Ice armor/Ice spike
    Depend on what makes up your "ice" as you usually want something with a higher heat capacity for ablative armor.
    Ramming moves you into the realm of highly improbable.
    >Grappling hooks
    Something often ignored in grappling hooks is that the two ships have to generally match speed unless the smaller one wants to be jerked backwards at 100gs.
    >> Anonymous 11/29/08(Sat)23:31 No.3085829
    no
    >> Anonymous 11/29/08(Sat)23:34 No.3085841
    >Shell with a warhead of highly compressed steam
    Highly compressed steam becomes water, this is unless you have superheated the steam in which case you won't get it to freeze.
    >> Anonymous 11/29/08(Sat)23:41 No.3085866
    >>3085762
    >>Its not going to be hard sci-fi of course, as that generally pleases no one worth pleasing

    As one of those folks who knows more than one should about space and space warfare (which is older than most folks realize), I thank you. I thank you many times.

    >>3085815

    Shuddap, you.
    >> Anonymous 11/29/08(Sat)23:42 No.3085875
    no
    >> Anonymous 11/29/08(Sat)23:54 No.3085913
    >Heat-shells.
    I don't see how this is any better than plain old explosives heating up their target.

    >Ice Shot:
    IIRC, compressing steam just results in water. Also, using gases in vacuum doesn't work too well. Dissipates too quickly. If you want to spread gas to fool heat sensors or something, that might work, but flash-freezing an enemy ship probably won't work.

    >Ice Armor / Spike:
    I kind of like this. Don't think it would make good armor, but hiding your ship inside an ice comet or something could be pretty neat. Just keep in mind ramming is deep in Space Opera territory.

    >Grapple hooks:
    Sure, why not? Also, if you throw any resemblance of realism out the window, you could fire these at asteroids and stuff and use them to make quick U-turns.
    >> Anonymous 11/29/08(Sat)23:56 No.3085921
    no
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)00:01 No.3085938
    no
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)00:04 No.3085946
    >>3085938
    >>3085921
    >>3085875
    >>3085829
    What's your problem man? Where you raped by a phallus-ship as a kid or something?
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)00:08 No.3085968
    >If I'm not mistaken, a shell can have easily more kinetic energy converted to heat on impact than the heat capacity of its materials.
    Run that one by me again

    >Something often ignored in grappling hooks is that the two ships have to generally match speed unless the smaller one wants to be jerked backwards at 100gs.
    Don't you just mean that it would be jerked towards the other ship? Also, yeah, its kind of assumed you have to match speeds and course, otherwise the cable would just plain snap.

    >>3085841
    Its space. But I see your point. Perhaps some sort of rapidly expanding gel...

    >>3085913
    Wouldn't it just cause the asteroid/ship duet to go spinning around?
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)00:09 No.3085970
    >>3085946
    Definitely

    >>3085762
    You're throwing out the awesome stuff, like applying strong electrical charges to objects in a debris field and using this as a lightning trap, so any ships passing through become conduits for huge voltages to jump from rock to rock and potentially baking the radio channels - or the radios.

    Not RL physics, but rule of cool prevails.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)00:14 No.3085990
    >>3085968
    >Wouldn't it just cause the asteroid/ship duet to go spinning around?
    Well yeah, which is why you let go of the rock once you're pointed the right way.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)00:17 No.3086000
    >>3085970
    Oooh, Ima write that down. Well, random *rocks* I don't think so, but metal asteroid/debris, fuck yeah.

    And yeah, I kind of am going for Fun > Balance > Practical in that order.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)00:17 No.3086003
    >>3085968
    >If I'm not mistaken, a shell can have easily more kinetic energy converted to heat on impact than the heat capacity of its materials.

    Most of the energy of a kinetic impact is converted into heat. The kinetic energy of a projectile has few limits.
    The heat capacity of a shell however is how much heat energy it can store before it changes phase. and turns into a molten blob or cloud of gas. There is a relatively low limit that depends on the property of the materials. With a change in phase, the conduction properties of a material also changes so in short, heat shells aren't a good idea.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)00:32 No.3086085
    Seriously though,

    If you set off an atomic bomb of moderate size inside the (sealed) hull of a spacecraft full of bulkheads and such that is, say, 4000m long and let's say, 800x800m in cross-section,

    What would it do? Would the entire ship break up, or would the mass of it that was vaporized merely burst through the hull at points nearest to the center of the detonation? Or would the entire vaporized mass blow out all the hatches and leave the crew sucking vacuum?
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)00:40 No.3086117
    Fuck DAMN my internet hates me tonight.

    >>3086003
    If you want I could post the writefaggotry.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)00:41 No.3086122
    >>3086085
    Depends on how the ship is built, and the output of the nuke. If it's a relatively small nuke, inside a sturdy ship with weak bulkheads, then the bulkheads give way and stuff shoots out from them. If bulkheads and the hull itself are both very strong, the explosion might tear one or two large cracks in the hull and vent most of the energy out of those. Sufficiently large bomb and/or weak hull, and there won't be anything left of the ship.
    >> Waffle goes in every field in every field !vrJcJuXJ/g 11/30/08(Sun)00:45 No.3086138
    a massive heat sink / exhaust chamber that when activated closed off all outside sensors of the engines... for a limited time, once the tanks are full or the heat sink reaches maximum it has to be vented
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)00:51 No.3086161
    You know, nothing in OP's post actually mentioned that he meant SPACE ships. Lets be honest, armoring your ships with FUCK YEAH ICE makes a lot more sense when you have plenty of water to maintain it with; space is pretty fucking dry for the most part.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Habbakuk
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)00:55 No.3086164
    Kinda funny, I'm currently working on making a Sci-Fi setting.
    One thing that I'm relatively proud of is a spreadsheet I've worked on that details the different classes of ships, their lengths in meters and feet, their Hardpoints and Cargo slots as well as their tonnage. Also it has a calculator that allows you to make your own ship and it'll give you the number of hard points and tonnage.

    But enough of that, ideas...

    In my setting shields are unbreakable, but not unbeatable. They act like elastic to mass, they respond to projectiles like a sheet of rubber. The mass is slowed and eventually pushed back away. Emitters keep the shield spread out, without any of them the shield wouldn't exist, and without them pointing out across the ship the shield would collapse across the ship (Not doing any real damage, but they'd lose their effectiveness). The emitters are what push the shield back, so without them the shield would just get pushed around, crumpling the ship as it's hit.

    The main weapon ships use are mass accelerators, they are giant cannons along the ships middle which are used to hit other large ships. When two equally classed ships are fighting their shields should be able to take 2 or 3 direct hits before the ship's energy buffers (more on that later) are depleted.

    (Continued)
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)00:58 No.3086168
    For close-in defenses, defending the ship from incoming projectiles, you could have a few different things.

    Ablative armor you mentioned, which is just to absorb the energy of incoming rounds.

    Reactive armor or electrostatic armor could work to prevent shaped charges from being effective or, if maxed out in power, could even knock out an armor-piercing blast weapon (that would strike, be carried through armor by its inertia and then detonate once it's inside the structure). Of course, if it goes off and melts your hull instead of your ship's innards, you're still fucked, but maybe there's still time to man the lifeboats.

    There's always having a number of machine guns or similarly low-tech weapons available to put lots of lead into the trajectory of incoming rounds, in hopes of either deflecting or prematurely detonating them (since there are no shockwaves in space, you don't get blast damage). Examples include Phalanx, Goalkeeper or Kashtan for ships, Trophy and Arena for land vehicles.

    And of course, you could have guided projectiles that fly out to intercept incoming rounds. I believe Iron Fist and Quick-Kill can be seen on YouTube. That kind of tech could probably be sized up to battleship size, or space battleship size.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)00:58 No.3086169
    Kinda funny, I'm currently working on making a Sci-Fi setting.
    One thing that I'm relatively proud of is a spreadsheet I've worked on that details the different classes of ships, their lengths in meters and feet, their Hardpoints and Cargo slots as well as their tonnage. Also it has a calculator that allows you to make your own ship and it'll give you the number of hard points and tonnage.

    But enough of that, ideas...

    In my setting shields are unbreakable, but not unbeatable. They act like elastic to mass, they respond to projectiles like a sheet of rubber. The mass is slowed and eventually pushed back away. Emitters keep the shield spread out, without any of them the shield wouldn't exist, and without them pointing out across the ship the shield would collapse across the ship (Not doing any real damage, but they'd lose their effectiveness). The emitters are what push the shield back, so without them the shield would just get pushed around, crumpling the ship as its hit.

    (Continued)
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)01:01 No.3086177
    >>3086085
    The shockwave of the explosion is the biggest killer here as it propagates through the superstructure of the ship tearing it to bits.
    Whatever the details, nuke inside=byebye ship.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)01:09 No.3086204
    (Continued)

    The main weapon ships use are mass accelerators, they are giant cannons along the ships middle which are used to hit other large ships. When two equally classed ships are fighting their shields should be able to take 2 or 3 direct hits before the ship's energy buffers (more on that later) are depleted. These weapons require aim which creates battle tactics in the setting (which I’ve always loved). Secondary weapons are missiles. These missiles are long range, almost tiny ships themselves. They can either be used to hammer on the enemies shields, or if equipped with a shield pulse emitter, they can be used to deal direct damage.

    The reason behind the shield emitter on missiles is not for shielding, the energy required would be too great for a missile to put out. When shields contact each other, they connect and become one, opening themselves to each other. The missile uses this by pulsing a shield around itself right before contacting the enemy ship’s shield. This opening allows the missile to break right through their shields.

    One failing with shield technology is the fact that it does not protect against light, hence visible ships. This also allows lasers to pierce the shields of ships, luckily, lasers are extremely short range weapons, only really useful as point defense. But, this does open up the field for Fighters, not only can they get missiles closer to capital ships, they can also be equipped with lasers to stab at the massive capital ships. To fight these fighters, other fighters are made to intercept them. These fighters are usually smaller, and in larger numbers (they don’t have to travel as far), fighters are too small and expendable to have shielding be useful, smaller mass accelerator cannons can be equipped to combat them.

    (Continued)
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)01:20 No.3086251
    >>3086204
    Why are lasers only for point defense? Seems the best way to deliver energy to your target is to send it over, as a pulse of energy traveling at the speed of light.

    The attraction of long-range space artillery, other than guided missile batteries, escapes me. There's just too much time for the other sucker to see them coming and step aside, unless the projectiles are moving at a very significant fraction of the speed of light; in which case, you must have ungodly energy sources; in which case, why not just build a bigger laser? Not so good for precision work from orbit into an atmosphere, maybe, but still.

    Dunno, I mean, I'd consider the lasers and missiles and the highest-energy mass drivers as the long-range weapons, and keep lower-energy artillery with specialized payloads or fuses for close-in stuff.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)01:25 No.3086277
    >>3086251
    Lasers lose coherency over distance. The beam spreads out from a glowy melty red point of doom to a large red spotlight.
    >> Salamanders Fanboi !!Q4/i89xuPmX 11/30/08(Sun)01:26 No.3086281
    >>3086251
    Space artillery, as you call it, works by saturating the targets maneuver envelope, and it's very hard to track unpowered projectiles in space.

    Lasers diffuse, and missiles are easier to shoot down.

    irl, ships will probably launch missiles, use lasers to target specific spots on the enemy ship (point defenses, sensors, radiators, etc.) and then zip past firing unguided projectiles while the missiles track in and the lasers recharge.

    See the Ad Astra stuff mentioned earlier, they put a lot of effort into making their games a realistic depiction of space combat.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)01:28 No.3086296
    (Continued)

    Now, to the energy buffers.

    In my setting, we’ve discovered away to open the tiny dimension rifts. These rifts are directly below our own, and where gravity is millions of times stronger. After projecting matter into this rift it is affected by the millions of times greater gravity of the ship (or whatever the generator is in). This gravitational force rockets the matter back into our dimension where it losses the great pull but retains the velocity. We then use the particles pressure (of them coming into our dimension) to generate power before easily pushing them back into the alternate dimension where they rocket back again. This provides energy with no fuel needed. Unfortunately these generators only produce so much power at a time, not enough to effectively power a ship while in combat. So, a buffer is used, essentially batteries store charge that’s not needed when production is higher than expenditure (out of combat) and then is used when needed. Another downside to these generators is the massive amount of energy required to first start them, opening the rift. Because of this, production of them is limited.

    In addition to the Graviton Generator, many military ships have secondary fusion or fission drives to produce emergency and backup power during combat.

    So far, I have two means of FTL communication.

    Ansibles act kinda like Wi-Fi, in a large area, (3-4 to cover a solar system), they provide instant communication, but have a limited range. In addition to ansibles we have Tacyon arrays. These provide instant communication at unlimited ranges, however they only work in a direct line. This means they must be kept pointed very nearly exactly at each other from hundreds of light years apart.

    (Continued)
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)01:32 No.3086322
    >>3086296
    fuckingstupid.jpg
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)01:36 No.3086343
    >>3086296
    this is dumb as shit
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)01:39 No.3086358
    >>3086322
    Fuckinguseless.jpg
    Add something or shut up, me I think the whole graviton drive is a little weird but then again whatever.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)01:43 No.3086370
    >>3086358
    Add what? It's so dumb that there really isn't anything to say other than "lol try again"
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)01:47 No.3086381
    (Continued)

    A built Tacyon array will usually be house far out of system to keep it away from orbiting bodies, and from debris. The construction of Tacyon arrays is also extremely difficult and expensive, limiting the number of them in the galaxy. Disabling them in military actions is common, and purposefully made relatively easy if you have control of their station. They are easy to disable to make destroying them unneeded. To destroy a Tacyon array is seen as a high crime in any Government and terrorist groups that destroy them are ruthlessly hunted. To destroy a Tacyon array is to cut its people off from the rest of the galaxy (universal instant communication, and internet).

    For FTL travel I have 3 types.

    Slipspace Drive (Or Slip Drive)
    (Not very well worked out yet) Punches a hole into Slipspace a dimension where things flow (for some reason, I haven’t worked this out very far yet) to other locations very quickly. Essentially hyperspace where you can’t change directions during the course of. Similar to Halo’s (Except faster), also very similar to Star War’s. Large masses will pull you out of Slipspace but won’t damage you, you simply can’t be in slipspace around massive objects. Slipspace drives don’t require much energy to begin, but they do require that your Graviton Generator to be turned off (Yea, sorry. Like I said I’m currently working on this system. Graviton Generators will now be very difficult to build, and use expensive materials, but don’t require massive start up power).

    (Continued)
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)01:47 No.3086382
    >>3086370
    Then say that.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)01:50 No.3086393
    >>3086370
    What's your problem with it. Why don't you think it would work, and what's wrong with it working when we're talking about traveling faster than the speed of light.

    So far I seem to be the only one tossing out a large quantity of ideas, and unless you're about to drop a motherload, you haven't done much if anything at all in this thread.

    Just because you've never seen an idea in a movie or book before doesn't mean it's stupid or dumb. We're talking Space ship combat for god's sake.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)01:53 No.3086404
    (Continued)

    The Graviton generator’s pocket dimension create problems when in slipspace (primarily you move, but the pocket dimension doesn’t, it ends up ripping a hole through your ship). This means that the hours or days in Slipspace must be powered by back up generators, or by the buffer. Turning your Graviton generator off and on does take time though, making instant jumps impossible.

    Warp Gates
    Essentially an artificial wormhole near the difficulty to make as the Tacyon Arrays but much more expensive to build. They also require massive amounts of energy leading to long recharge times between connections, but they allow multiple crafts to pass through them at a time. Using a warp gate requires paying a toll, and they follow a rigid schedule of openings. This means going somewhere remote will take quite a while, and may take multiple jumps, meaning multiple tolls. Travel is instant and the distance traveled is, as of yet, limitless. To connect a wormhole there must be another Warp Gate at the end location as well. Traffic both ways is allowed, and regulated to prevent collisions. Gates can be opened for as long as there is power, but limits in power generation keep most portals to a half hour to hour, with two hours of downtime.

    (Continued)
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)01:54 No.3086411
         File :1228028070.jpg-(64 KB, 640x480, 1226570349761.jpg)
    64 KB
    This thread
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)01:56 No.3086414
    >>3086393
    And talking about space ship combat doesn't mean that we have to accept you blithering on about the yo-yo dimension. I'm perfectly free to say I don't like it and leave it at that.
    >> Salamanders Fanboi !!Q4/i89xuPmX 11/30/08(Sun)02:02 No.3086431
    >>3086393
    I'm getting pretty tired of people hiding behind the "OH YEAH WELL I'M A CONTRIBUTOR SO STFU AND DON'T HATE" excuse. It's perfectly acceptable for people to tell you they don't like what you've come up with, and on 4chan, they're unlikely to be too polite about it.

    I don't like most of your stuff either, for that matter. It feels too much like you just took a bunch from ideas from sources better than you and awkwardly pasted them all together.

    Fucking die, faggot.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)02:04 No.3086437
    >>3086414
    But you didn't say you didn't like it, you essentially said it was stupid.

    When my completely implausible piece of technology is insulted over other completely implausible things, it kinda annoys me. Warp technology is cool, effective lasers are cool, having enough fuel to travel around (let alone fight in space) is cool, but my pocket dimension is stupid?

    Particles enter the pocket dimension, and proceed to explode (attracted to the matter of the ship). The explosion is absorbed in a piston and then a tiny portion of the energy absorbed is used to push the now normal particles back into the other dimension.

    That's not much worse than, opening a bubble into another dimension then moving through it at FTL speeds (relative to your dimension) and popping back up somewhere different. (We've already deduced that other dimensions probably exist at tiny sizes.)
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)02:05 No.3086441
    >>3086281
    Another advantage of dumb projectiles is that they're easy to build and store, so you can afford to use saturation patterns that would be much to expensive otherwise.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)02:11 No.3086458
    >>3086437
    >Particles enter the pocket dimension, and proceed to explode (attracted to the matter of the ship). The explosion is absorbed in a piston and then a tiny portion of the energy absorbed is used to push the now normal particles back into the other dimension.

    I can't read this with a straight face.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)02:15 No.3086476
    A good book to take a look at is "The Shiva Option", it's a great Sci-Fi read. It's military Sci-Fi with some cool technology. The light limit stands unbeaten, but there are gravitational anomalies that teleport objects from system to system (and rarely empty space). These are natural choke points that are used to great effect.

    No mass accelerators in this, but lasers and missiles are used extensively. It's really a good read, and should give you some fuel for ideas.

    I'm done for the night.

    Gnight fellow fa/tg/uys.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)02:17 No.3086484
    >>3086476
    I'll second that Shiva Option.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)04:16 No.3086845
         File :1228036565.jpg-(10 KB, 100x84, 2414494.jpg)
    10 KB
    >>3086437
    Oh. My. God.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)04:27 No.3086861
    Why not just copy-pasta Mass Effect?

    It's one of the more well thought-out systems I've seen.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)04:35 No.3086881
    >>3086861
    Aye, I liked how they only added one plotonium (Element Zero) and then followed it to every conclusion. Mass manipulation is oh so very versatile.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)11:43 No.3087616
    Pocket Dimension Guy: Well I did specify ship combat, not "HOW DOES I BULLSHIT ENGINES AND POWER". And when you can open rifts in space/time, man, nothing's gonna top that. However, I did mention writefaggotry about the heat cannon, so here you are, as a quick bump before I head to work
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)11:44 No.3087620
    Thermic Warhead Launcher:

    M-SC-258 Mk-XVII "Ifrit", 30.5p CPW launcher
    M-SC-259 Mk-XVIII "Prometheus" 50.0p CPW launcher

    Role: Heavy Weapon Support
    Manufactured by SilverDyne Industries
    Cost: 532,000t

    Analysis: The Thermic Warhead Launcher is a CPW(Charged Particle Warhead) weapon similar to the OptimusTech M-SC-231 "Thunderbolt" launcher, but with several key differences. The 231's warhead is primarily the PolyPhasic matrix used to contain the charged particles. The 258/259 utilizes a significantly reduced PolyPhasic matrix, containing a much smaller number of charged particles. During the arming procedure, the projectile links up with the launcher's thermodynamic uplink lattice, and utilizing [CLASSIFIED], drains excess heat from key points throughout the ship, including but not limited to the reactor substructure, heat sinks, and external engine structure. The uplink lattice then transfers the excess heat into the charged particles as they are injected into the PolyPhasic matrix.

    The resulting warhead radiates an excessive amount of heat into the target upon detonation. Depending on the amount of heat available on arming and the material of the target, the weapon has been recorded increasing the temperature of the target a maximum of three thousand degrees celsius. While a majority of spacefaring vessels are insulated against extreme temperatures and this effectiveness is drastically reduced, an impact against an unshielded portion can still cause excessive internal damage, structural fatigue, and create ECM-grade interference. With preparation and [CLASSIFIED] the M-SC-259 is capable of causing significant damage to planetside installations, including [CLASSIFIED].
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)11:45 No.3087624
    >>3087620

    Notes:
    Well Captain, thats the official report on the Thermic. My opinion? Its nowhere near as effective a weapon as your average CPW, so you generally won't see more than 2 on most ships, 4 on heavy motherfuckers. Thats why we only have one. Word around the fleets is that most of the time as long as your heat sinks and shielding is still okay, you'll barely feel the impact from one of these, but if it hits you good, you're looking at massive internal failures across that portion and crew getting cooked alive. The real kicker is that most of the time the armor melts and then cools WAY too fast, turning your nice shiny armor plating into brittle scrap waiting for another hole in it.

    Oh, and with a few interrogations of the previous crew, I found that apparently that last "Classified" comment was where... well, remember that apocalyptic flood on Hygale 3? They used a superheavy cruiser to bombard the icecap for half a week. Thats one way to avoid a bloodbath with the Word of Regale, but I don't think the 4 billion who died in that flood would agree.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)11:49 No.3087641
    >>3087616
    http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3v.html#limits

    >Since FTL drives are ruled more or less impossible by current science, you have to invent your own. In such cases, the best way to start is to focus on effects instead of causes. Many novice SF novelists and game designers make the mistake of inventing a cause first and may not even try designing the effects.

    >The important things are the effects. Here are a few examples: How big a ship can be moved? How much faster than light is the ship? Does it require large intricate starships, or can you just mount it in a submarine? Does it require huge amounts of energy? Does it require the ship to be outside any planetary or solar gravity wells? Can the ship only enter FTL flight at special locations ? ("jump points") Does each FTL "jump" require days of tedious mathematical calculations? Can a ship in FTL flight be detected by another ship also in FTL flight? Can a ship in FTL flight be detected by another ship not in FTL flight? Does FTL flight make the crew vomit, hallucinate, have epileptic fits? Is the supply of FTL drive units limited due to a tight monopoly on their manufacture, or due to the fact that they can no longer be manufactured at all? Does it require rare and hard to get materials?

    >If your ship is twice as fast as the speed of light, it can go 100 light years in a mere 50 years. Therefore most of the action in your universe will take place close to Sol, if the average interstellar journey is two years. On the other hand if your ship is 36,500,000 times as fast as the speed of light, your ship can cross the Galaxy the long way in about one single day. The action in this universe will therefore be galactic in scope.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)11:49 No.3087643
    >>3087641

    >If ships require huge amounts of energy for their FTL drives, you have to decide upon the source of said energy. Antimatter fuel implies antimatter factories or antimatter "mining." There is also the unintended consequences of a given starship containing enough energy to, say, vaporize Greenland. The further implication is that starship captains will be on a very short leash (John's Law). If on the other hand a starship can run on one AAA battery, you start having problems with FTL missiles the size of bullets.

    >Ships that can only enter/exit FTL flight at special locations make those locations into military choke points. Ships that can exit FTL flight anywhere coupled with ships that cannot be detected while FTL will open the possibility to genocidal interstellar wars that last all of five minutes.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)11:51 No.3087652
    >>3087643

    The Alderson Drive or "jump point" drive has been used in many SF starship combat games, for the same reason Niven and Pournelle used it: unlike most other FTL, it allows the possibility of interstellar battles. Most other FTL is a "fly anywhere" kind of propulsion, which generally does not allow battles to occur except by mutual consent. Often a planet cannot even detect an enemy invasion fleet until it suddenly pops out of hyperspace. Interstellar wars only last long enough for your hyperspace bombers to fly to the enemy's planets, then a brief emergence to spit out a hellburner, a planet-wrecker nuclear bomb, a planet-sterilizing torch warhead, a planet-cracker antimatter warhead, or a planet-buster neutronium-antimatter warhead. Then they fly home, only to discover that the enemy's bombers were on a similar mission.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)11:56 No.3087673
    FUCK YEAH LARRY NIVEN!
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)21:49 No.3090596
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_in_science_fiction
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)22:36 No.3090743
    Ok, no idea how it could be done, but here's a cool thought. A projectile that upon penetration fires a quick hardening gell substance behind it that would cover its entry point, then releases super pressurized gas. The entire concept is to blow open hatches or maybe just straight crush people with the massive amount of pressure being rapidly released inside the vessel.... I dunno, sounds cool to me.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)22:41 No.3090758
    >>3090743
    Even better, a toxic gas that becomes inert after X hours, meaning you can fire a few into a capital ship and hang around for a while before capturing it with little or no resistance.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)22:44 No.3090763
    >>3090758
    nice.
    >> That Fucking Guy with the Clannad Threads 11/30/08(Sun)22:44 No.3090766
    >>3085866

    As one of those folks who knows more hard science than he rightly should, I must disagree. Hard science space combat is a badass idea, much more original and interesting than this phasers and photon torpedo shit.

    And a hundred times better than attempting to introduce an element system into space battles.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)22:45 No.3090769
    I had an idea for a space-based weapon which nicely avoided the "lol missed shots fill space with new asteroids" problem. It fired projectiles with anti-matter warheads designed to completely annihilate after a certain length of time.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)22:49 No.3090782
    >>3090763
    Except firing _anything_ into a spaceship kinda implies explosive decompression, which coincidentally also allows for capturing it with little or no resistance.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)22:50 No.3090785
    >>3087675
    I hope you're going to share
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)22:58 No.3090816
    >>3090758
    Surely the target ship would just automatically seal its bulkheads and shut off the life support system to the compromised section if not on detecting the impact, then when the presence of the gas was detected. Also wouldn't environment suits, which all damage control personnel would wear, and during combat all crew should be required to wear?

    A radiological weapon would probably have a better result, particularly when you consider that if you've got a bunch of radioactive crap coating sections of your ship you pretty much HAVE to do something about it, which drains logistics.

    And inflicting logistic drains on your enemy is much, much better than outright destroying or capturing them.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)23:07 No.3090869
    >>3090766
    You mean how in the future space warfare is just going to be a bunch of ships trying to drop mines in each others path. Or of course, modern "dog fighting" between jets, which involves missles launched over the horizon.
    >> J.W. 11/30/08(Sun)23:17 No.3090931
    waiiit a minute....Why does this seem so bloody similar to a Jim Profit thread?! Has he somehow got around his BAN!?!
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)23:17 No.3090934
    >>3090869
    Don't forget high powered energy weapons vaporizing ships from orbit since you were able to track them as soon as they fired their engines to enter orbit.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)23:19 No.3090951
    All I want to know, if you're going into space combat, why wouldn't your first step be to get your crew into vacuum suits, and decompress your ship.

    Probably save a lot crew from simply flying out every little hole in your hull...
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)23:28 No.3090987
    >>3090951
    SHIT, you tripped and tore your suit!
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)23:29 No.3091000
    Heat shells could be like a super-sticky substance wrapped around a magnesium center, with an impact trigger.

    Ice shots are complete shit, but you could have water in one part of the shell, and liquid nitrogen in another. Or you could just have liquid nitrogen shells, followed by a AP round, to exploit the brittleness of the frozen armour.

    Ice armour is easily removed, heat shells or lasers would do the trick, and it is a GIANT waste of water, which in space, is a PRECIOUS COMMODITY.

    Ice spike is an even dumber idea, seeing as you could just make this out of asteroids.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)23:35 No.3091039
    >>3091000
    Its not so precious the second someone has access to Europa.
    >> PointMan !!sjoCtjmIoEU 11/30/08(Sun)23:40 No.3091057
    >>3090931
    It's really fucking easy to bypass bans here, so i wouldn't be surprised by that. Still, he can't use his name though, plus, no naruto avatars in this thread. He could be stealth trolling but that doesn't seem like him.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)23:42 No.3091064
    >>3090951

    Suits are bulky and restrictive, and explosive decompression is anything but.
    >> Major Maxillary !!eorO1kqUwyR 11/30/08(Sun)23:44 No.3091073
         File :1228106643.png-(59 KB, 1276x675, dnxgmf.png)
    59 KB
    space isn't really cold; it's a vacuum, and therefor an insulator. you have more problems keeping cool and non-radioactive.

    the one case where a NASA engineer was exposed to hard vacuum he reported that, aside from the gases seperating from his blood and his lungs completely deflating he was actually quite comfortable.

    in anycase; radiators and heat sinks. explosives don't work too well in space as they do most of their damage due to the overpressure which requires an atmosphere. so kinetic and beam weapons are more effective. not to saw nukes aren't useful; just not for attaching space ships. however; if you have a projectile that is designed to explode inside a ship then there's something to really fuck the enemy up due to the pressurized interior.

    keep in mind Astronauts apparently can't fart while in their space suits because it would rupture a seal due to overpressure.

    don't make your ships look like boats or planes, AND DON'T MAKE THEM FUNKY ASYMETRICAL SHAPES. and don't make them super long.

    plan the guns so they have as many overlapping fields of fire as possible to maximize volume of fire.

    don't be afraid to make them have to orient themselves just right.

    pictured is something I dug out of my old harddrive; a spacecruiser with s droplet style radiator engaging in a close range gunfight with some enemy ships(dots in the upper corner). it's positioned itself so most of her guns can be brought to bear on the enemy, and the radiator is concealed from their fire by the mass of the ship.
    the arrow indicates direction of movement.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)23:48 No.3091092
    >>3091073
    Spoken like a true hard sci-fi fag. If you can see them without the Hubble, its superfucking close range.
    >> Kitty-Moogle-Chan 11/30/08(Sun)23:53 No.3091116
    Ice spikes and armour are a cool idea. They'd be very cheap and reasonably effective.

    If you need a system, try Emlia: www.spirit-plumber.com/emlia/
    >> Major Maxillary !!eorO1kqUwyR 11/30/08(Sun)23:54 No.3091119
    >>3091092

    pretty much.


    also, kinetic kill missiles work better than cannon shells, but that doesn't mean you have to put big boxy launchers all over your ship, the guns can shoot missiles, too.
    >> Rival Wombat 11/30/08(Sun)23:56 No.3091129
    >>3091000

    Water is one of the most common compound in the universe. Given proper collection equipment you can have an arbitrary amount, limited by how much you can haul around with your propulsion system. Given that water can serve as your fuel, respiratory gasses and reaction mass it's useful stuff to have around, so in a low tech setting wrapping it around your hull as armor can be viable.
    >> Anonymous 11/30/08(Sun)23:56 No.3091130
    >>3091116
    >Kitty-Moogle-Chan
    >> Kitty-Moogle-Chan 11/30/08(Sun)23:58 No.3091137
    >>3091130
    Yes, what? You'd think /tg/ would fucking know me by now given that I've been here since it goddamn well started.
    >> Major Maxillary !!eorO1kqUwyR 12/01/08(Mon)00:01 No.3091155
         File :1228107677.png-(40 KB, 1276x675, wjr.png)
    40 KB
    forgot pic; size comparison between the enemy ships and the cruiser.

    as you can see, it's fucking huge compared to them, and so they're fighting within a space of less than five kilometers.

    which is close range.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)00:02 No.3091157
    >>3091137
    LOOK AT ME I'M A NAMEFAG GIVE ME ATTENTION
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)00:02 No.3091161
    Sad to say, but the star destroyer from star wars seems to me like an optimal design for a space capital ship.
    the wedge design lets a row of turrets along the top fire a full salvo to the sides or at the front.

    The ships you see nowadays have terrible arcs of fire, (EVE im looking at you). If you had a wedge type ship, you could put a row of turrets along the spine of the ship on the top and bottom.

    If you had say... 10 dual turrets each slightly higher on then the next on the top and bottom, you could fire 40x shots to the front, 40 shots to each side, and if an enemy was above you, just roll the ship 90.
    >> Salamanders Fanboi !!5UlGlkaxBkH 12/01/08(Mon)00:06 No.3091178
    >>3091137
    You haven't been around in fucking ages, nobody but the old folks remember you.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)00:09 No.3091182
         File :1228108143.jpg-(65 KB, 750x600, poster22118287.jpg)
    65 KB
    >> Rival Wombat 12/01/08(Mon)00:11 No.3091193
    Now, to contribute a bit..

    Standoff kinetic kill missile. A weapon intended to engage at long range, this weapon is self guided for most of it's flight, getting within about two kilometers of the target then explosively propelling a depleted uranium rod into the target at high speed.

    The standoff distance the missile activates at allows it to avoid terminal point defense fire. While it's technically possible for the DU rod penetrator to be intercepted, the high speed and comparatively small size makes it unlikely.
    >> Major Maxillary !!eorO1kqUwyR 12/01/08(Mon)00:12 No.3091198
    >>3091161

    this is true; it also needs little effort to stay balanced along the propulsion axis, and it has a bit of aerodynamics so it can somewhat glide if it encounters an atmosphere.

    you don't even need to step up the turrets; just make it a sort of slightly flat pyramid and all the turrets can be directed forward allowing maximum firepower.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)00:12 No.3091199
    >>3091157
    says the anon who made a post consisting of a namefag's name and nothing more.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)00:15 No.3091215
    >>3091193
    Several submunitions would probably be better in order to increase hit probability.
    >> Tvmbledown !!eYuQGZHZNYM 12/01/08(Mon)00:18 No.3091231
    >>3091157
    YES! AND I AM A TRIPFAG, TOO! SECURE, EVEN! WHAT A TOTAL FAGGOT I AM! ONE MIGHT SAY A DOUBLE-NIGGER, EVEN!

    1/10.
    >> Rival Wombat 12/01/08(Mon)00:20 No.3091237
    >>3091215
    Yep, but you get into a tradeoff of maximizing damage by focusing as much energy on one point vs increasing the chance of landing any sort of it with a shotgun worth of DU darts.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)00:28 No.3091279
    >>3091198

    Exactly. However im going with a "traditional" propulsion type, where there are engines in the rear, and not some crazy inertialess drive with the engines buried in the center.

    A pyramid would be ideal if you were using some inertialess drive. However, using normal propulsion, a ship in the shape of a wedge would be ideally the most perfect shape possible.

    Put your main turrets along the top and bottom, and point defense along the sides, and you have the ability to maximize firepower along any axis. The only really weak spots are from the top/bottom and the rear, and these can be solved by rolling the ship 90 degrees, and you would again be able to bring every single gun to bear on the target.

    The problem with spaceflight games nowadays is that they still play out with fantasy laws of physics.

    In true newtonian physics in space, a captain of a spaceship would be rolling his ship constantly to bring maximum firepower to bear and to hide damaged sections of the ship.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)00:29 No.3091283
    >>3090766
    Heat and Ice =/= Element sytem. Also, wtf is Clannad. Oh well, don't care.

    OP: Weapons aren't important. As long as mankind has access to any degree of chemicals we can make weapons. Whats more important is how do you deal with the lightspeed barrier?
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)00:34 No.3091297
    >>3091237
    If you're aren't going to have a single submunition and the munition is going to be guided for quite some time it would almost cetainly be more cost effective to just give the missile a more powerful, faster burning propellant and have the entire mass strike the target than to have it accelerate a penetrator stage explosively, that would decrease the complexity of the missile and increase the ammount of mass striking the enemy. If you're going to compromise accuracy then you may as well not compromise on the cruising speed of the missile or its hitting power.

    Unless you want to shoot down targets in orbit from the surface of a planet. Then you provably want the missile to aim the penetrator at the target prior to firing.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)00:40 No.3091332
    >>3091297
    Are not aren't. How do I words.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)00:42 No.3091343
    >>3091237

    Read: AP vs HE. You'd use the LOLSPACESHOTGUN against unarmored transports and civilian vessels. It'd also be cool to see it used against cities and such.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)00:42 No.3091347
    homebrew sucks
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)01:06 No.3091498
    Flack Missiles:

    These relatively small missiles are meant to be fired in massive quantities. They are designed to center in on the most probable courses of their targets, when within a certain distance from their target (dependent on size and velocity of target), they ignite their suicide thrusters. These thrusters accelerate them to near light speeds. The instant before their suicide thrusters cut off they detonate themselves. This splits their specially designed casings, releasing thousands of ball-bearing sized high density projectiles. These projectiles moving at near light speed spread across a large area destroying everything with their kinetic energy.

    These missiles can also be programmed as a antimissile system, though use as such is generally considered overkill.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)01:28 No.3091623
    >>3091347
    Whenever I see that I wonder if it's all the same person, if we've had an influx of newfags or if there are a bunch of people who do actually think origional campaign settings are bad for some reason.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)01:33 No.3091640
    eat a dick homebrew fags
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)01:42 No.3091697
    >>3091498
    better idea: missile encased in a thick cylinder with a thin covering over the front and a hole in the back, the cylinder is magnetically accelerated towards the target, once it gets close enough, a proximity fuse ignites the missile's engines just as it impacts the hull of the other ship, sort of like a super shape charge effect only with a solid missile instead of molten copper, the missile plunges through the hull and explodes or whatever you want it to do.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)01:55 No.3091777
    >>3091498

    Im sorry but the idea of these flack missiles that accelerate to near light speeds is kind of ridiculous.

    If you can accelerate something to a near light speed, why not just have the missile impact that target instead of blowing itself up and splitting into a ton of projectiles with random vectors and reduced mass?

    using F=ma formula, something at a near light speed impacting would be overkill already, why complicate things by having it split up and what not.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)02:05 No.3091849
    >>3091777
    One minor problem with that is that a high speed projectile is likely to go straight through a target whilst still maintaining much of its kinetic energy. Having the projectile release a few large submunitions prior to impact might be beneficial in that respect.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)02:12 No.3091878
    Wow, I never realized how fucking boring most ship weaponry is.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)02:21 No.3091932
    >>3091878
    How do you figure?
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)02:27 No.3091967
    >>3091932
    Near lightspeed metal rods, missles with metal rods, realistic lasers, depleted uranium, its all so boring. Boring as jets fighting jets. "Base command we see something on the radar 65 miles out, request orders" "Base command here, target and engage." "Copy Base Command, targetting. Target locked. Permission to fire." "Permission granted." "Firing." *5 minute wait* "Missle has impacted. Target destroyed." "Good job, Squadron leader, permission granted to come home a hero." "Copy, Base Command, request permission to scratch my ass on the way" "Permission denied."
    >> Christmas Ape 12/01/08(Mon)02:32 No.3091977
    >>3091967
    I see you've discovered why there are no really popular hard sci-fi games. Nobody wants the combat skill to be Calculus.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)02:34 No.3091983
    >>3091977
    I thought these were the soft sci-fi weapons
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)02:38 No.3092005
    >>3091983
    Soft sci-fi tends towards weapons that don't actually work in reality. Like plasma rifles.

    Hard Sci-fi uses what we know, and extrapolates to what is theoretically possible without breaking any physical laws.

    >>3091977
    Attack Vector: Tactical is my favourite tabletop space wargame, and in all honesty it doesn't have much more math than Battletech or Shadowrun does. It's all basic adding/subtracting/division. 10 year olds could do it.
    >> Rival Wombat 12/01/08(Mon)02:43 No.3092026
    To make things fun for missile combat..

    Have there be complications. Missile countermeasures ranging from sensor jammers to counter-missile missiles to high energy lasers and rapid fire projectile point defense guns and decoy launchers.

    This creates a multi-layered defense when ships fight, and creates situations where a ship will be firing shoals of missiles, most of whom will be spoofed, intercepted, decoyed or prematurely detonated by laser or kinetic weapon fire.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)02:43 No.3092027
    Well... I'm just gonna say I was a big fan of Skies of Arcadia ship battles. I like the idea of a modified version of that, where the two enemy ships pick what there going to do for the next say 3-5 rounds without knowledge of each others moves
    Ex. Round 1: Red Closes Distance; Black Fires Main Cannon. Round 2: Red Fires Close Range Lasers Attempting to Disable Main Cannon; Black Fires Long Range Missiles. Round 3: Red Attempts to Grapple; Black Fires Long Range Rail Cannons.
    In this example the Red ship would take a direct hit in the first round from the Black ships main cannon due to it actively trying to move in. The second and third round, if the Red ship survived, the Black ship would be hampered terribly due to its focus on long range combat. Any ship can use an "Evasive Maneuvers!" command anytime during combat taking only 1/2 damage from an attack but they lose their turns action.
    Ex: The Red ship sensors detect the firing of the Black ships main cannon in Round 1. The captain orders an Evasive Maneuver to lessen the damage of the blow, thus giving up his Closes Distance command. This saves the ship from "MASSIVE DAMAGE!" but for the next two turns it fails its attacks due to being outside the attacks operation range.
    >> Unholy Clown Ninja Maid Anonymous, tl;dr Xom's Champion !!0aKrfPDoCW4 12/01/08(Mon)02:49 No.3092029
    >>3091967
    >"Base command we see something on the radar 65 miles out, request orders" "Base command here, target and engage." "Copy Base Command, targetting. Target locked. Permission to fire." "Permission granted." "Firing." *5 minute wait* "Missle has impacted. Target destroyed." "Good job, Squadron leader, permission granted to come home a hero." "Copy, Base Command, request permission to scratch my ass on the way" "Permission denied."
    "Ground Control to Major Tom. Ground Control to Major Tom. Take your protein pills, and put your helmet on."
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)02:50 No.3092039
    >>3086296
    >Ansibles

    The enemys gate is down?
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)02:52 No.3092044
    >>3091983
    Okay, soft sci-fi.

    X-ray lasers, relativistic plasma cannons, tractor beam shears, antiparticle beams, antimatter warheads...
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)03:00 No.3092047
    >Okay, I'm pretending to make a sci-fi setting
    >pretending
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)03:00 No.3092049
    >>Heat-shells.

    Unless you have something ultra faggoty planned with the words "transfer heat" like it was a commodity you store in a bucket this is just more or less a normal HEAT round.

    >>Ice Shot:

    Probably wouldn't really work as intended even in soft sci-fi without stretching the plausibility. Pretty sure water vapor just turns to individual crystals instead of freezing into a big chunk of ice. Maybe if you put some sort of SCIENCE liquid inside the rounds?

    >>Ice Armor:

    Like the idea, run with it.

    >>Ice Spike:

    You're right, it's a throw away idea. Be ashamed.

    >>Grapple hooks:

    Can't say I'm a huge fan of starship action that gets close enough for boarding, but if you're taking it that way then at least make sure there's something interesting about the grapple hooks. Maybe stealthy missiles capable of attaching at long distances, trailing a near invisible microfilament of awesome strength that acts as a lead for an even heavier cable that is very difficult to destroy.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)03:01 No.3092054
    Ok, I don't understand all this craftiness with crazy weapon types. I mean, admittedly, its cool, but its just ludicrously over-complicated and cost-inefficient. You know what the best choice for weapons in space will be?

    Nuclear missiles, same as it is down here. Alternatively, matter/antimatter annihilation missiles, if you want to bring that shit in.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)03:09 No.3092069
    >>3092054
    Going the bussed nukes in your target's path route? It's a classic but not very fun.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)03:10 No.3092080
    >>3092054
    Or just antimatter warheads. All they have to do is hit something hard enough to break their own containment field system and BOOM.

    Nukes should pretty much be standard issue to all ships though.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)03:13 No.3092090
    >>3092069

    No, no, like...nuclear seeking missiles. Nuclear hydra missiles, so to speak. Heat-seeking nukes.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)03:15 No.3092101
    >>3092090
    Homing nukes, basically.

    Here's a thought. What's the most effective kind of nuclear missile for use in space combat? Proximity-detonated? Impact? Delayed? How about a two-stage AP-nuke?
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)03:15 No.3092103
    >>3092054

    actually, i would imagine that high powered lasers/other EM radiation-type weapons would ultimately be superior, given the speed at which they can hit the target. missiles can be detected and shot down, you dont know a laser is coming until its too late.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)03:19 No.3092112
    >>3092101
    It'd have to be impact detonated, since nukes have overpressure wave in space. You'd need a direct, or damn near direct hit for the nuke to have a major effect, at least assuming the enemy's armor has some sort of heat shielding, which it almost certainly would if the trend is to throw nukes around in space.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)03:21 No.3092120
    >>3092101
    It'd have to be impact detonated, since nukes have no overpressure wave in space. You'd need a direct, or damn near direct hit for the nuke to have a major effect, at least assuming the enemy's armor has some sort of heat shielding, which it almost certainly would if the trend is to throw nukes around in space.

    My votes for predominant space weapons go to lasers and relativistic kill vehicles. Can't dodge one, pretty damn hard to dodge the other either if it's up to 1/2c.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)03:21 No.3092121
    >>3092103
    see
    >>3086281
    >> Salamanders Fanboi !!5UlGlkaxBkH 12/01/08(Mon)03:25 No.3092134
    >>3092103
    when light-seconds or more apart, it is possible to dodge lasers.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)03:29 No.3092142
    >>3092120
    How about a delayed-fire nuclear missile with the warhead in the midsection of the missile and some kind of penetrator up front like a HEAT warhead or something? Missile hits target, punches hole into hull, buries into hull, nuke detonates, blows huge gaping hole in target?
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)03:32 No.3092155
    >>3092134
    Only if you know they're shooting at you and the trajectory of the shot, which you won't because it's a laser, hence it moves at light speed and you cannot see faster than light.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)03:32 No.3092156
    >>3092142
    At that point just use a kinetic kill weapon, the difference in damage isn't enough to justify all the added effort/expense.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)03:35 No.3092167
    >>3092156
    KKPs are unguided.
    >> Salamanders Fanboi !!5UlGlkaxBkH 12/01/08(Mon)03:36 No.3092169
    >>3092112
    Make it two stage, part 1 busts a hole in the enemy hull and then the nuke detonates inside.
    >> Salamanders Fanboi !!5UlGlkaxBkH 12/01/08(Mon)03:37 No.3092177
    >>3092155
    Obviously not, but you can still dodge, just not dodge that specific shot.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)03:48 No.3092210
    >>3092120
    That depends completely on the yield of your warheads, how shielded your enemy is and what you define as a "hit".

    Also neutron bombs, which you'd use in space, of the multi-megaton variety would have lethal-to-ships blast radii measured in tens of kilometres because radiation isn't absorbed by an atmosphere, which sort of compensates for the lack of overpressure. Incidently weapons like that would be lethal to unshielded or lightly shielded personnel for hundreds of kilometres.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)03:53 No.3092234
    >>3092210
    It'd have to be a fairly powerful bomb, though, since space is already full of lethal radiation that any spacecraft would have to be hardened against anyway.

    >>3092169
    A Teller-Ulam two stage nuclear warhead using the secondary fusion explosive as a kinetic penetrator?
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)04:00 No.3092254
    >>3092234
    I quote NASA:

    "A yield of 20 kilotons has been used here as an example to show the dominance of nuclear radiation effects in space; however, it may well be that multimegaton warheads, rather than 20-kiloton warheads, will be far more representative of space defense applications. With such weapons the lethal radii (from nuclear radiation) in space may be of the order of hundreds of miles. The meaning of such huge lethal radii in possible future space warfare cannot now be assessed. It does seem clear, however, that manned space combat vehicles, unless heavy shielding is feasible, will be considerably more vulnerable to nuclear defense weapons than their unmanned counterparts."

    The normal level of shielding that spacecraft and current military vehicles of all kinds have wouldn't be sufficient to protect them against multi-megaton warheads even at extreme ranges. The problem probably wouldn't be the ship being destroyed, it would be the crew dying.
    >> Salamanders Fanboi !!5UlGlkaxBkH 12/01/08(Mon)04:02 No.3092265
    Also why hasn't anyone mentioned Bomb-Pumped Lasers yet?
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)04:04 No.3092280
    >>3092265
    I was going to, along with nuclear shaped charges, but it never came up.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)04:10 No.3092308
    Ok, while we are talking about space combat and hard sci-fi stuff, can anyone give me some info on a much lower tech level?

    For example, no ftl, no space travel outside of the solar system. Some colonization on mars and large amalgam bodies constructed from material in the asteroid belt\various moons.

    Propulsion would be solar sails, ion drives, em-drives or some sort of similar system. Perhaps a number of different systems used within a single ship.
    Liquid breathing technologies have been advanced to the point where withstanding 20 to 25 G's is no problem, given sufficient preparation time on the part of the crew.


    Politically, the situation is that of a new era of colonization - the exploitation of the solar system being the latest game - the earth is totally off limits for any kind of warfare or unauthorized environmental impacts because the world government (or coalition of super-states) has finally realized that we can't fuck the planet up too much.

    Economic struggle is the only major conflict between various parties on earth, however in the relatively free territories outside a specific zone centered on the earth, the same conflict takes on a decidedly more vicious aspect. ie: If you boys (read: states\ megacorporations) are going to fight, take it outside where you won't break any of the furniture.


    What kind of weapons would be sufficiently 'hard sci-fi' in this kind of setting?
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)04:16 No.3092338
    >>3092308
    Lasers, conventional guns, missiles with explosive or KE warheads, coilguns and railguns. For close range murder perhaps charged particle beams.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)04:21 No.3092353
    >>3092308
    I'm afraid you've set yourself up to be too goddamn reasonable. In this setting, actual space combat would be a ludicrous proposal. Actually flying around to attack ships in transit is the height of stupidity, when they have to land or dock to get anything done. And then it's bullets and missiles.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)04:28 No.3092366
    >>3085762
    7/10
    Would rage again.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)12:28 No.3093417
    OP:
    >soft sci-fi
    > Fun Over Balance Over Practical.
    >Thread

    LOL! 10/10 would rage again.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)14:18 No.3093812
    Someday it will be legal, nay, encouraged to rape homebrew faggots like you with tigers.
    >> Dagda !hTbo821v7U 12/01/08(Mon)19:23 No.3095341
    OP, what sort of gameplay did you have in mind? For example, a group of players, each one controlling a ship and its crew?
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)19:32 No.3095401
    Idea for a weapon:

    Take one extremely advanced computer armed with a standard weapons system template (say, a decent starfighter). When activated, it copies the mind of the person using it and, using a short-lived high performance computer (virtual particle quantum supercomputer, perhaps), runs a series of simulations to progressively redesign the template into the perfect weapon for that particular person, given available materials and power. Nanoconstructors then build said perfect weapon, using the materials on hand. End result: push button, receive ultimate weapon (for you).

    Opinions?
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)23:22 No.3096691
    >>3095341
    I was actually thinking more a story setting, for a story, rather than a game. You can tell /tg/s obvious, eh, predisposition to homebrew, and considering the fact that everyone has gone hardcore hard-sci-fi, I'm ready to just give up as is.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)23:33 No.3096760
    >>3096691
    lol, good riddance. all homebrew fails sooner or later.
    >> Anonymous 12/01/08(Mon)23:54 No.3096894
    >>3095401
    My opinion is that that idea is dumb as shit
    >> Anonymous 12/02/08(Tue)00:03 No.3096963
    >>3096691
    Pussy bitch. Fucking die.
    >> Anonymous 12/02/08(Tue)00:06 No.3096986
    >>3096691
    iF YOU CAN'T TAKE TH EHEAT, SUCK MY COCK AND DIE, BITCH
    >> Anonymous 12/02/08(Tue)00:15 No.3097047
    >>3096691

    Trust me, you're better off.

    It's taken every once of self control for me not to nerdrage all over these fags and their "realistic" space warfare. Read more military documents and less Aliens:Colonial Marines tech manuals!
    >> Kitty-Moogle-Chan 12/02/08(Tue)00:19 No.3097073
    >>3097047
    Like your fucking military has a clue about how space WORKS let alone how to fight in it. They're a bunch of profiteering dickwads who wouldn't know science if it hit them in the face.

    If I want to write a fucking space combat game, I'd just go hang out with some NASA guys. If you didn't realize, they go to bars and chill too, y'know. Never met any astronauts or anything fancy like that, but if you want people who know about space shit, they're all over. Hell, my brother's an astrophysics grad, he knows that shit. He'll probably be flipping burgers when he gets out of grad school unless I hire his ass, but he knows shit.
    >> Anonymous 12/02/08(Tue)00:21 No.3097081
    >>3097073
    >>3097047
    Will both of you dumb fucking niggers shut the fuck up? We established decades ago that realistic space combat is as fun as being raped by a glacier.
    >> Anonymous 12/02/08(Tue)00:24 No.3097096
    >>3096691
    There's no "/tg/s obvious predisposition", just a very persistent troll.
    >> Anonymous 12/02/08(Tue)00:26 No.3097109
    >>3097073
    You mean those military pilots from NASA? The sheer ignorance of your post astounds me. Oh, I forgot... hurrr military inteligence is oxymoron lolol im clever
    >> Anonymous 12/02/08(Tue)00:35 No.3097151
    >>3092308
    First off, there's little use for regular manned missions here. Second, a laser will work just fine within the bounds of a solar system. A telescope (not the mirror kind, but more like Hubble) will pretty much let you know within a half our at most when somebody's flying anywhere, and you can zap them from there.

    Of course, you have to be able to dissipate your heat so you're probably going to want an orbital platform (to avoid atmospheric interference) with exchangeable heat sinks (to prevent your base a splode). This sort of orbital castle pretty much functions as a sniper's nest, suppressing illegal activity most everywhere.

    Railgun firing can be detected, so a really advanced point defence system could in theory intercept the projectiles, though this would be difficult. Missiles are just really stupid. They can't burn all the way, they stick out like crazy, they don't work that well in a vacuum, they take forever to get anywhere, and they're just easy to destry from a long damn way away.
    >> Anonymous 12/02/08(Tue)00:37 No.3097160
    >>3097081
    No, you shut the fuck up. Some people like realism. Especially people who know how this stuff works in real life. Or think they know. Anyways, to some people raw maths is more fun than anything powered by rule of cool. Being able to use "real world" knowledge instead of relying on some arbitrary rules appeals to them.

    Granted, I'm not one of them, but there's absolutely no reason to use such harsh language when talking about personal preferences, something which is completely subjective i can't even write this with a straight face anymore what have you done to me i used to be a normal polite person and now i cant stop laughing at the realismfags oh god
    >> Anonymous 12/02/08(Tue)00:45 No.3097206
    >>3097160
    Almost had me, haha!
    >> Anonymous 12/02/08(Tue)00:51 No.3097237
    >>3097160
    "Rule of Cool" is just a derogatory term for lazy development and implementation. I think that it's funny that it's almost taken on a complementary tone here in /tg/, as if it meant that something is actually cool.

    But have fun with your cowboys and indians in space. I'm sure it will be a very rewarding distraction from... whatever you're distracting yourself from.
    >> Anonymous 12/02/08(Tue)00:53 No.3097255
    >>3092308
    Larry Niven. Jerry Pournelle.

    Motherfucking read them.
    >> Anonymous 12/02/08(Tue)00:56 No.3097272
    >>3097237
    Exactly. Its like nobody wants to do triggonometry for fun anymore.
    >> Anonymous 12/02/08(Tue)00:59 No.3097296
    >>3097272
    FUCK YEAH TRIG!
    >> Anonymous 12/02/08(Tue)01:04 No.3097310
    >>3097255
    Even The Mote in God's Eye had FTL travel and shields (though they were both vital to the plot, and the main point of the story was the aliens). They do illustrate the life and times of a space traveller pretty well, though. It's sad that I have to say this, but the fact that they had to accelerate to simulate gravity rather than just having a magical artificial gravity field was refreshing (even though it should be the norm).

    They really strike the perfect balance for storytelling between sci-fi and fantasy (hard and soft sci-fi if you must), and it's a lot "harder" than the shit you see on /tg/ every day.
    >> Anonymous 12/02/08(Tue)01:06 No.3097325
    >>3097310
    >sci-fi and fantasy (hard and soft sci-fi if you must)
    This just in: If its not NASA shit, its fantasy.
    >> Anonymous 12/02/08(Tue)01:07 No.3097329
    >>3097310
    After reading those books I started to actually get my head around how you'd be designing ships for extended spaceflight. With the interior configured to work under either spin or acceleration gravity. Shit got hard to design at that point.
    >> Anonymous 12/02/08(Tue)01:28 No.3097412
         File :1228199301.png-(31 KB, 395x319, 395px-Almaz_drawing.svg.png)
    31 KB
    >>3097073
    >>Like your fucking military has a clue about how space WORKS let alone how to fight in it.

    Space warfare in practice and theory (including armed, manned, maneuvering, hunter-killer craft) has been going on since before any of us were born.

    Also, NASA gets a lot of its personnel and hardware from the Airforce, which is becoming increasingly active in space itself.

    They have a lot more theoretical and practical experience than >>insert sci fi game or TV series one likes here<<.

    But that, children, is a story for another day.
    >> Anonymous 12/02/08(Tue)02:20 No.3097636
    No wonder nobody cares about the space program anymore. You faggots suck the joy out of it faster than cyborg hooker/vacuum cleaner
    >> Anonymous 12/02/08(Tue)02:22 No.3097649
    Homebrewfags die in a few
    >> Anonymous 12/02/08(Tue)02:38 No.3097709
    >>3097636

    By explaining the realities? WTF? If the realities of the space program are such that they don't interest people, then so be it. Do you expect people to lie to you about plans for gravity boots, plasma guns, and teleporters when there's important stuff like trash in orbit or bringing the mass/cost ratio of launches down?
    >> Anonymous 12/02/08(Tue)02:44 No.3097736
    >>3097709 plasma guns
    But it's actually possible to build plasma guns...
    >> Anonymous 12/02/08(Tue)03:11 No.3097874
    >>3097709
    Well when I want to play a game that sounds FUN, and instead get bored to tears by fags who's idea of fun revolves around finding as many ways to say "giant metal rod flying through space" as they can... yeah, I'm gonna say fuck you.


    Delete Post [File Only]
    Password
    Style [Yotsuba | Yotsuba B | Futaba | Burichan]