I'm sure the fact that ship speeds are measured in pc/wk (parsecs/week) doesn't count as "backing canon".

So, let's assume much smaller distances and much slower speeds. I'll do an example using 15,000 km between ships (less than 5% of the distance of the Earth to Luna) and 340 m/s relative speed between them (Mach 1 at sea level - less than 5% of the speed of the Space Shuttle Endeavor). Light takes 50 ms to travel that distance. So, you're aiming at a 50 ms old image and it takes an additional 50 ms to get there. The full time difference is 100 ms, and in that time the other ship has moved 34 m. Missing by a third of a football field is pretty significant, and these numbers seem entirely too small for a battle between ships capable of FTL travel.

covert: I think I pretty much covered the 'lightsecond range' in the moon example. And as was just said, even far less distance produces enough of an error margin that lasers are NOT foolproof.

If anything, I'd even say that missiles are far more accurate at these distances, as they can correct their flightpath after launch.

On canon: Where does it say that combat takes place at (based on the view) less than a kilometre? The movement of the ships aren't even anything resembling Newtonian, beams regularly fire 'through' ships since they are only crude graphical representations of dice rolls.

I find the main map animation far more realistic and believable, where opposing fleets stand off at large distances.

(As a comparison, modern aerial combat takes place at BVR ranges, which is several magnitudes more than just 50 years ago. It stands to reason that with even more speed and technology, the engagement ranges will increase even more - the sooner you fire your shot, the less time you have to be hit yourself.)

Geez come on guys back to basics here, it was a reasonable idea, it is just a game. Getting too far into conceptual theory on weapon systems that have not even been conceptualised yet, let alone have the basis of practical science, is getting a bit wacky. Dilbert would have a field day

Who'd be a dev ..... :LOL:

Regards
Zy

I'm sure the fact that ship speeds are measured in pc/wk (parsecs/week) doesn't count as "backing canon".

So, let's assume much smaller distances and much slower speeds. I'll do an example using 15,000 km between ships (less than 5% of the distance of the Earth to Luna) and 340 m/s relative speed between them (Mach 1 at sea level - less than 5% of the speed of the Space Shuttle Endeavor). Light takes 50 ms to travel that distance. So, you're aiming at a 50 ms old image and it takes an additional 50 ms to get there. The full time difference is 100 ms, and in that time the other ship has moved 34 m. Missing by a third of a football field is pretty significant, and these numbers seem entirely too small for a battle between ships capable of FTL travel.
yea it sure bloody doesnt count...


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


what the hell are you thinking? that ships in combat are buzzing around each other faster than light wtf?

yes thats right unlike every single sci-fi work involving space combat gal civ 2 features ships fighting faster than the speed of light...

yes god forbid that they use intersteller drives and 'impulse type' drives when not at stellar speeds... it sure suck that ships have to dock andtake off instantly many times the speed of light.

imho its down right stupid to assume combat is magically at rediculous speeds simply beacause INTERSTELLAR DRIVES go that fast.

at those long ranges mass driverswould be silly.


and no i dont think it is reasonable... see my argument for why ships would want to close distance.

What is exactly contrary to all weapon system developments in the past.

Aerial combat:
WW1 pilots shooting each other with flare guns (at the very start)
WW2 first experimental R4M missile packs, to engage OUTSIDE of defender guns.
Korea: Guided missiles and SAMs to engage targets OUTSIDE their weapon range.
Present day: BVR missiles capable of engaging targets at 50+ miles.

Naval combat:
Galleys ramming each other or shooting with crude ballistae and catapults.
Then cannons, allowing to engage a target at greater range.
These cannons increased in size until WW2.
Now we have missile cruisers, engaging land and sea target with long range cruise missiles.


You don't want to CLOSE to an enemy, you want to get as far away as possible - so YOU can target him, but HE can't target you.

Space has the added advantage that mass drivers don't loose any hitting power as there is no drag whatsoever. Missiles can conserve lots of fuel by only using thrusters to make minute adjustments. Beam weapons are far superior in terms of 'projectile' speed, making targeting easier.

Again, I see no reason why space ships would try to close to the perceived ridiculously close distances depicted in all science fiction, especially with the difficulty of Newtonian physics.

And you should read more closely - in none of our examples did we use ships that manoeuvre at FTL speeds during combat.

Hi

First of all covert your being an ass so shut up and read what people write before you assume things  

Second (back on topic) I think that those added things like makeing smaller/faster ships harder to hit would add more tactical depth but would be very hard for stardock to pull off effectively. Also it would make bigger ships very very easy to destroy with swarms of small ships.

I am busy with another mod at the moment but I came up with a tech tree concept based on the Renegade Legion games. So it would have fighter/small craft weapons that are weaker but equal to there counterparts and then weapons for capital ships.

Actually, carriers would NOT necessarily be viable. Given even current electronics capabilities, there are very few things a fighter could do that a missile couldn't do almost as well. Plus the fact that you could build missiles smaller, faster, and cheaper - no pilot, no life support, no fuel to get back, etc.



This is not necessarily true. It assumes the accuracy of both sides improves equally with decreasing range. If that is not true, one side would have a decisive interest in holding the range open. Sure, you may lose 50% of your accuracy at 2 light seconds, but if your opponent loses 75% at that range, you'll do everything possible to keep your distance. As long as you dont' run out of amunition, you'll win the battle because you're landing twice as many hits.

And, if you'll permit me to be that "dumbo" - even in the era of aircraft carriers (WW2), range mattered. Even with fire control radar, accuracy improved with decreasing distance - but if you could land even a couple hits before the other guy could get in range, you started with a massive advantage. The Yamato was designed for this specific purpose. It could lob reasonably accurate shells so far that it couldn't spot it's own fire, they had to use a plane to see the target. And then, of course, the Americans killed it with an even longer range weapon system - torpedo bombers. Today, of course, we would use a cruise missile - because the missile can do the same thing as the bomber did 60 years ago, but it can do it faster, more accurately, and with no risk of life to the side making the decision.

Star Trek had battles happening during warp travel quite frequently.

im mostly talking about obscene ranges...

the silly idea that combat is taking place at distances several times longer than the length of our solar system is completely bogus.

Unless we are assuming all of the weapons used have the magical inate ability to travel faster than the speed of light it would be completely impossible to hit a target with any weapon.

As for the magical faster than light weapons... other than missiles *maybe* having a cheesey and lame ability to use hyperspace there is little chance for energy weapons to hit their targets and for mass drivers to reach the opposing fleet before the crew dies of old age.

If you give me 30+ light seconds between ships the idea that the ships wont move out of the way is absurd.

thus ships fighting at these bizarre distances is plain dumb.

Which NONE of us talked about. Our examples where distance earth - moon or less.



Which NONE of us mentioned.


And perhaps you could stop calling every idea and argument that isn't yours 'dumb', stupid' and 'wtf' and bring some backed up arguments of your own?

Wow, I never thought I would touch off a discussion this big. I'll throw another bone to the dog pound and see what happens.

A weapon type that I have never seen used in any sci-fi is the space-age equivalent of a battering ram. Basically, a ship moves in close and shoots out a rod to impact the ship. The rod is then retracted to be fired again. Also, a hammerlike attachment to batter or crush ships could be used. We also have the issue of boarding parties. I find the crew numbers given for some ships to be far too low, but that is a separate issue. It would be nice to have more control in combat, perhaps to order your ships to attack certain targets or to beam over a boarding party (which would require a Transporter technology to be researched). There is also something in the special abilities about Stealth and Detect Stealth that has not been implemented, which I assume should make ships invisible and create a means of detecting invisible ships. Last, but perhaps most, Carriers. We need to make use of the Dock Ships ability.

The problem with ramming is energy. On an oar powered ship, punching a hole in your enemy was survivable. In space, where colliding at even "low" speed might liberate enough energy to vaporize chunks of both ships, ramming is a suicide tactic. You might argue for kamikazes, but ramming is pretty silly.

And in direct contradiction to the previous    ramming of various sorts HAS appeared in several sci-fi venues, mostly in books. The first book in the Starfire series had ramming and boarding, as did parts of the Robotech series.

Boarding, stealth, and carriers have all been nuked most thoroughly by the developers, so it's a non-discussion.

The thing is, is that target for your lasers where your computer thinks it is. The distances don't have to be great, but if there is any lag, then the sensors are not going to know exactly where that ship is. The gunners are not likely aiming with their eyes, but depending on the ship's systems.

That is just my take.   

Ive juste played a ship battle only game.

 

the game is called : Gratuitous Space Battles

 

In this game you only desing ship and give them an AI behavior.

no economy, no politics, juste ship Vs ship battle

 

Then you watch the battle and hope for the best.

 

I can realy see this game be plug-in to replace the battle viewer.

Not the AI system but the way action is displayed and all.

 

I hope that Gal Civ team look at this game and orient the battle system that way!

Imagine an enemy ship is any distance away at all.. say, 2 light seconds.

Say it's moving at a few kilometers a second relative to you, engaging in hard lateral thrust in a random fashion - in other words, dodging.

To hit this ship with a laser you have to lead this ship by 2 seconds - and you can not see where it has dodged until two seconds after it HAS dodged. Hitting the ship at all would be a matter of PEPPERING the likely spaces for the ship to be at the time the laser light is hitting that area - it would be pure luck, biased by.. good or bad guesses.

 

Heck, it'd be bad enough if the ship were just half a light second away - and worse yet if you're dealing with anything but light. Mass drivers would be hopelessly slow.