Craft it is.Arioch wrote:I'd say "craft."
Still, you need something for the small buggers, and maybe in between loading the big guns.
Moderator: Outsider Moderators
Craft it is.Arioch wrote:I'd say "craft."
Fighters or Fighter craft is the normsaint of m wrote:Craft it is.Arioch wrote:I'd say "craft."
Still, you need something for the small buggers, and maybe in between loading the big guns.
I think they had a problem with something about the size of the nail of you're small finger going through a wall on the ISS a while backsaint of m wrote:Sand makes sense in a way. Anything going fast enough can cause serious damage.
There is space junk the size of marbles and yet singlehandily cause major repair problems for NASA (even a small thing going the speed the average object in Earth's orbit will be insainly fast, and fast needs alot of force to stop).
Let's be honest - if you're going for hard universe, anything that isn't missile spam with the explosion fueling a laser, graser, xaser something is largely moot.javcs wrote:Yeah ... how soft/hard you want your universe will be is a major factor on evaluating the viability of various systems.
If you're going with a harder universe, mass drivers, barring specific tech constraints, are likely to be largely ineffective, and require extremely short ranges to be viable.
You could always fire "shells" which have minimal explosives packed in them that go off and allow the itto disperse over the area.fredgiblet wrote:Volleys like a musket? Musket volleys are fired by a bunch of different people, so you're talking about a ton of mass drivers which gets ridiculously expensive REAL fast. I think broadsides are assumed anyway.daelyte wrote:@fredgiblet:
How about firing pellets in volleys, like a musket? It would be more difficult to dodge them all. Even more so in multi-ship battles if you have the unfortunate privilege of being the primary target.
Do you mean like a shotgun? If so then there's several problems, you would need something to contain them in the barrel which would need to break apart on leaving the barrel but be strong enough to withstand the pressures inside the barrel, which would be difficult. Without atmospheric/gravitational interference the actual spread would be reduced (though even a few degrees at thousands of miles would give a decent spread). Another problem I see is that you are drastically reducing the hitting power of individual pellets, reality isn't like a game where you can chip away at health or armor until it fails, you have to actually hit hard enough to have an immediate effect.
TO be honest missiles should be viable in about all situations. At knife range the fuel is great for an additional punch and it's so close tht countermeasures have a hard time picking them all up.Missiles and remote platforms: overall, not very useful unless deployed en masse or where your target is within knife-murder range; independent weapons platforms are also restricted to this arena, though their use in Zone Air Defence/Interception operations could be tactically sound. Accurate only while it still has fuel to expend with a variety of warhead/munitions operations, potential only limited by its range and survivability.
Like Flak then. That runs into issues with structural integrity again, making a shell that will come apart AFTER you fire it, but not come apart when you subject it to tens or hundreds of thousands of gs will be a challenge. Plus you have the dead weight of the filler, plus the explosive range of a shell isn't going to be that big when you take the distances involved into account.junk wrote:You could always fire "shells" which have minimal explosives packed in them that go off and allow the itto disperse over the area.
This is true of literally every fiction ever written ever. What happens is what the writer wants to happen. Whether that is plausible based on what the author has already shown us and our own experience is another matter. I find it entirely plausible that an empire that rules half of humanity and has tech on par with their opponents could win a war against them. And it isn't like the Abh don't take losses. I REALLY don't understand what you mean by "clumsy writing", can you provide an example?Absalom wrote:
As for the Abh, that's what happens when the writing is that clumsy. They mostly steamrolled everyone else by way of authorial fiat.
It's been too long since I read the stuff to go into detail, but my complaints boil down to authorial failure.Paragon wrote:This is true of literally every fiction ever written ever. What happens is what the writer wants to happen. Whether that is plausible based on what the author has already shown us and our own experience is another matter. I find it entirely plausible that an empire that rules half of humanity and has tech on par with their opponents could win a war against them. And it isn't like the Abh don't take losses. I REALLY don't understand what you mean by "clumsy writing", can you provide an example?Absalom wrote:As for the Abh, that's what happens when the writing is that clumsy. They mostly steamrolled everyone else by way of authorial fiat.
Banner/Crest owns. The Abh own.
Yeah, but at knife range most missiles can't get a lock, or if they can, the amount of time it takes for them to be "kicked" lose of the ship ('cos the missile can't just go straight to main drive too close to the ship) means that the target has moved and it takes time for the missile to select a new vector to attack, easier at knife range to use a knife than shotgun is what I'm saying really.junk wrote:TO be honest missiles should be viable in about all situations. At knife range the fuel is great for an additional punch and it's so close tht countermeasures have a hard time picking them all up.Missiles and remote platforms: overall, not very useful unless deployed en masse or where your target is within knife-murder range; independent weapons platforms are also restricted to this arena, though their use in Zone Air Defence/Interception operations could be tactically sound. Accurate only while it still has fuel to expend with a variety of warhead/munitions operations, potential only limited by its range and survivability.
At long ranges you have a higher to hit chance and you can also mix and match it with CCM rounds, additional scanner equipment, CM rounds and a lot of other ugly little tricks.
Plus remember you don't need a direct hit. You'll most likely be using the explosion as a power source for a single high powered energy weapon shot at knife range. Which again improves your hit chances.
What? If the sensors of the ship are even half-way decent short-range shouldn't be any sort of limitation, in fact shorter-range should make it EASIER to acquire a target lock.Michael wrote:Yeah, but at knife range most missiles can't get a lock
That's been solved for decades, it's called proportional pursuit.or if they can, the amount of time it takes for them to be "kicked" lose of the ship ('cos the missile can't just go straight to main drive too close to the ship)
Not necessarily. While countermeasures would be more effective you can also have mid-course updates like the AMRAAM missiles of today where they continually receive updates from the launching craft, meaning you have to fool the missile AND the ship.At long rang, yeah you can get a good lock, see where their going and pre-program the missile to get the best results, BUT no only is it a double edged sword, as the enemy can easily track the missile and counter measures will be more effective the longer it takes for the missile to reach them.
That's not a problem, every weapon has a max effective range. The effective range can very easily be as long or longer than beam weapons and WILL be longer than mass drivers that aren't ultra-tech.The next problem is fuel, in space all missiles will have an "effective range" a range at which they are most likely to hit their target because they will still have powered flight, after the leave the effective range their going ballistic, no fuel no manoeuvring.