Outsider Ground War

[Trantor]

But it is easier with it than without.

If all we're worried about is ease then we should be talking about the Maus or the Ratte. Cost-effectiveness leans heavily towards the Panther.

Nah, Maus and Ratte were stupid waste of resources, and useless in reality.
The KT was just right. Of course you can´t produce it numbers, but a few more than the ~500 should have been.

And for the Panther - weak side armor, and couldn´t kill a M26, which the KT could do with ease, even through the front of the Pershing.


But more important, are there Brunhilde-Loroi?

[fredgiblet]

If we're assuming a competent leadership for the Nazis then the Pershing isn't important since there will never be a Normandy, or if there is it will be a disaster.

[Trantor]

If we're assuming a competent leadership for the Nazis then the Pershing isn't important since there will never be a Normandy, or if there is it will be a disaster.

As i mentioned earlier, i once read a paper, in which the possibility of a german bomb was evaluated, and the authors came to the conclusion that in lucky circumstances and max focus it could have been summer or autumn 1944 until readiness.
D-Day was 6/6/44, so i suppose Normandy happened in that scenario, too.

[fredgiblet]

I think that with competent Nazi leadership the Allies (or at least the Western ones) wouldn't have invaded as the war would be going much better for the Germans. The strategic bombing campaign would have been less effective, the supply lines would have faced much higher losses and the Soviets would be failing to make any headway. If we assume competent leadership I don't see the Allies invading mainland Europe and if they did I don't see them being successful.

[daelyte]

@Dragoon:
How fast you can turn depends on the ship's mass and maneuvering thrusters.

How accurate you can be depends on your battle computers, and that goes for turrets as well as spinal mounts. Without very accurate battle computers you won't hit anything anyway.

Being off by a few degrees would be a total miss except at knife range. If I'm not mistaken, hitting a 1 km ship at 60km would require an accuracy within 1 degree. Lasers and particle beams would be very powerful at that range.

A guided and self-propelled round can indeed help get around accuracy and deviation, and also lightspeed lag.

Compared to a full missile, a dumb rock might need very little high tech manufacturing, but adding propulsion would increase the cost proportionally. The guidance systems and sensors should cost about the same for both a missile and a "smart rock".

In hyperspace there is an atmosphere, although thin in some places, and lots of dust and debris so you can waive the limits on your weapons for hyperspace combat

That would tend to favor missiles (and smart rocks) over other weapons. Atmosphere (and dust) would scatter lasers and particle projectors, and could significantly reduce the accuracy of mass drivers. Missiles can more easily correct for it, especially if they're not also fighting a gravity well like here on Earth.

Come to think of it, that would also reduce the effective range of sensors. Depending on how thick that atmosphere, dust and debris is, the friction in hyperspace might make ship movement slower than realspace, making it less of a shortcut - or even not shorter at all.

Sad side effect, is that a barrier tends to be a HUGE sensor target, thermally, EM Noise, and reflected radar/sensor pulses. You cant sneak around with your shields up, and it would take time to pump them up to full strength. Also your shield also blunt your own energy weapons, so no shields and energy weapons fire at the same time.

EM field can be turned on very quickly. Use small coilguns or even sandcasters as point defense to disrupt incoming plasma rounds. None of this would have much effect on stealth. The EM field would only affect magnetic weapons, and even then only while it's turned on which could be in computer-scheduled bursts when needed. Kind of like the way propeller aircraft used to synchronize shooting to pass between their own propeller blades.

the uber-ish race mandated self destruct devices on anything that has a technically unlimited rang, and enough impact to seriously damage a ship or vessel

That wouldn't help mass drivers at all, but the other weapons should be able to work with that.

[Dragoon]

@Dragoon:
How fast you can turn depends on the ship's mass and maneuvering thrusters.

Or where you mount the thrusters.
Or you move smaller thrusters further away from the center of gravity on projections or wings. smaller thrusters with more leverage work as well as really big thrusters
How accurate you can be depends on your battle computers, and that goes for turrets as well as spinal mounts. Without very accurate battle computers you won't hit anything anyway.

Being off by a few degrees would be a total miss except at knife range. If I'm not mistaken, hitting a 1 km ship at 60km would require an accuracy within 1 degree. Lasers and particle beams would be very powerful at that range.

Heres a slightly scary thought, the accuracy of the main guns on the New Jersey was les than one minute of angle...or one inch of deviation per hundred yards... which is the goal of most marksmen....

A guided and self-propelled round can indeed help get around accuracy and deviation, and also lightspeed lag.

Compared to a full missile, a dumb rock might need very little high tech manufacturing, but adding propulsion would increase the cost proportionally. The guidance systems and sensors should cost about the same for both a missile and a "smart rock".

That would tend to favor missiles (and smart rocks) over other weapons. Atmosphere (and dust) would scatter lasers and particle projectors, and could significantly reduce the accuracy of mass drivers. Missiles can more easily correct for it, especially if they're not also fighting a gravity well like here on Earth.

your right on all counts. one of the resons lasers are usually reserved for point defense and real space combat. mobile weapons platforms( like warships) have to mount weapons that can punch through the clutter of hyperspace.

Come to think of it, that would also reduce the effective range of sensors. Depending on how thick that atmosphere, dust and debris is, the friction in hyperspace might make ship movement slower than real space, making it less of a shortcut - or even not shorter at all.

well in the version of hyperspace i put together. each point in hyperspace is directly related to a point in real space...
the relationship of distance between an adjoining point in real space is greatly compressed. A few hundred kilometers in Hyperspace may bring you to a point trillions of miles in real space... you don't go any faster, and in most cases much slower through hyperspace but you don;t have to travel nearly as far...a few hundred thousand kilometers ( a trip that might take a week or more on a clear traffic lane) can take you to a neighboring star system.
Outside of the gravity well of a star, or other massive real space object hyperspace tends to open up and allow fast travel... just dust and gas and the occasional island of rock.

EM field can be turned on very quickly. Use small coilguns or even sandcasters as point defense to disrupt incoming plasma rounds. None of this would have much effect on stealth. The EM field would only affect magnetic weapons, and even then only while it's turned on which could be in computer-scheduled bursts when needed. Kind of like the way propeller aircraft used to synchronize shooting to pass between their own propeller blades.

Good ideas all. but having a ships shield require some time to warm up and fade makes more sense in a game than a story. it forces players to thin of tactics, and when to drop, or maintain their shields.
Coilguns, and sandcasters are pretty much part and parcel of any point defense suite.

That wouldn't help mass drivers at all, but the other weapons should be able to work with that.

Which is why most ships use plasma and missiles in real space. The only time that firing off a mass driver in real space would get you hands slapped would be if you did it A LOT or were firing in the direction of a neutral planet or station...otherwise the enforcers just scowl a lot and slap the responsible government with some penalties.
In reality the odds of a stray round actually hitting anything in the next million years or so are pretty slim the rule would be there for safety of people currently in a system but not part of the battle.

[daelyte]

Or where you mount the thrusters.
Or you move smaller thrusters further away from the center of gravity on projections or wings. smaller thrusters with more leverage work as well as really big thrusters

That was part of what I mean, yes. Big thrusters far from the center of gravity would make a very maneuverable ship. Don't forget the third dimension, and also reverse thrust.

That would tend to favor missiles (and smart rocks) over other weapons. Atmosphere (and dust) would scatter lasers and particle projectors, and could significantly reduce the accuracy of mass drivers. Missiles can more easily correct for it, especially if they're not also fighting a gravity well like here on Earth.

your right on all counts. one of the reasons lasers are usually reserved for point defense and real space combat. mobile weapons platforms( like warships) have to mount weapons that can punch through the clutter of hyperspace.

Even in real space lasers lose intensity pretty fast, and have poor armor penetration, so they seem to be mostly useful for point defense or to damage external systems.

the relationship of distance between an adjoining point in real space is greatly compressed. A few hundred kilometers in Hyperspace may bring you to a point trillions of miles in real space... you don't go any faster, and in most cases much slower through hyperspace but you don;t have to travel nearly as far...a few hundred thousand kilometers ( a trip that might take a week or more on a clear traffic lane) can take you to a neighboring star system.

Alpha centauri is 25.6 trillion miles away.

If 100 km in hyperspace equals 1 trillion miles, alpha centauri is 2560 hyperspace km away.

2560 kilometers in hyperspace in 7 days would be 4.23 m / s.

Is hyperspace filled with dense muck?

Good ideas all. but having a ships shield require some time to warm up and fade makes more sense in a game than a story. it forces players to thin of tactics, and when to drop, or maintain their shields.

So, instant EM shields are inconveniently realistic. Ok, let's see how we can fix that.

First, the effect could linger for a whole turn after it's activated, so you can't use magnetic weapons that turn.

Second, if the plasma bubble has a good amount of mass and velocity, it may take a strong field to deflect it, which could draw a lot of power. You might have to charge up your capacitors before you're able to do that again, so do you waste it this turn or wait for a heavier volley?

Third, every action has an energy cost. The same capacitors are shared between propulsion, weapons, shields, life support, and various minor systems. So if you're shooting or maneuvering, those capacitors are slower to charge up or even depleting, and you may not be able to use that energy for shields when you need it.

Fourth, producing and using power creates heat which must be disposed of. Getting hit by some weapons would add some more heat as well. Once your heat sinks are near capacity, you might have to reduce power production to give your radiators a chance to cool them down before various systems melting down.

See Mechwarrior for details on how energy and heat management can make realistic tactics interesting.

The only time that firing off a mass driver in real space would get you hands slapped would be if you did it A LOT or were firing in the direction of a neutral planet or station...otherwise the enforcers just scowl a lot and slap the responsible government with some penalties.

In reality the odds of a stray round actually hitting anything in the next million years or so are pretty slim the rule would be there for safety of people currently in a system but not part of the battle.

There's plenty of stuff moving around out there at scary velocities, debris from supernovas and whatnot. It's not so hard to evade or deflect so long as it's not guided, and you can see it from hours or days away unless it's fired from within orbit of your planet or something. Rigging a guidance system to simply shut off after its past the intended target(s) wouldn't be too much to ask.

Firing anything in the direction of a neutral planet or station would risk a diplomatic incident, so that would be a bad idea anyhow.

[Trantor]

If we assume competent leadership I don't see the Allies invading mainland Europe and if they did I don't see them being successful.

How so? Poland was tied to England, and so England (and France) declared war on Germany after they invaded Poland.
You mean e.g. that the Nazis shouldn´t have bonded with Japan to avoid the USA on the european theater?







(sry to the audience for hijacking this thread)

[fredgiblet]

I think that if the Nazi leadership was competent that the chances of an invasion succeeding would be minimal, and obviously so. I DO think that competent leadership may have resulted in the Nazis not declaring war on America post Pearl Harbor, if that was the case in our political climate at the time it would likely have resulted in the supplies moving East being diminished leaving the British and Soviets worse off (which would improve the German performance even more) and leaving them incapable of mounting a crossing of the Channel. If this happened I expect FDR would have manufactured a reason to get into the European theater though so it would likely only be a temporary setback

However, even if that didn't happen I think that a demonstration of competence on the part of the Nazi leaders would have left us in the position of seeing an attempted invasion as nothing but a meatgrinder to shove our troops into. If the Soviets aren't making any headway and our bombers are having consistently appalling losses and half our troops don't even make it across the ocean then I don't see an invasion being successful and I see the attempt as being obviously suicidal.

[Trantor]

If the Soviets aren't making any headway and our bombers are having consistently appalling losses and half our troops don't even make it across the ocean then I don't see an invasion being successful and I see the attempt as being obviously suicidal.

Thx for sharing your point of view.
Hm, that implications bring up the bomb again. Don´t know how a later start of the war (invasion of Poland) would have delayed the Manhattan Project and therefor the US-bomb, but all historical facts and timelines indicate how much was at stake in that small timeframe.
One more year of preparation on Nazi-German side, a bit more paranoia, less arrogance (e.g. faith in the Wunderwaffen), a "few" months here or there, and the outcome would have been totally different.



Heh, and some ppl say history is boring...

[discord]

hearts of iron game series, now go and try for a german victory.

[Dragoon]

Even in real space lasers lose intensity pretty fast, and have poor armor penetration, so they seem to be mostly useful for point defense or to damage external systems.

which is how I reasoned it out. Big ship killing lasers are possible in therory but ships cant fit the systems and power supplies into their hulls and still avoid being too large to build at a cost that is practical for fleets.

Alpha centauri is 25.6 trillion miles away.

If 100 km in hyperspace equals 1 trillion miles, alpha centauri is 2560 hyperspace km away.

2560 kilometers in hyperspace in 7 days would be 4.23 m / s.

Is hyperspace filled with dense muck?

In places yes.

More realistically most ships cant take a direct route, due to the geography of hyperspae, going in a straight line may be impossible, or simply not practical. a ship may have to sail well out of it's way to safely reach a point which is next door to their system without risking damage, or becoming lost in the distortions and clutter of hyperspace.
In additions since ships don't need to reach escape velocity to exit a gravity well, they can simply make a slow ascent using their antigrav, they aren't really that fast, a fast star ship is only capable of high subsonic or low supersonic speeds in hyperspace.
IF you pilot and Navigator are top notch and you are willing to risk damage or have a reinforced hull a military ship could reach a destination in hours or days where a slower, less rugged ship takes weeks.

So, instant EM shields are inconveniently realistic. Ok, let's see how we can fix that.

yeah, lets face it trying to get real world physics to fit a specific scenario/plot/desired outcome can be tricky.

First, the effect could linger for a whole turn after it's activated, so you can't use magnetic weapons that turn.

In play

Second, if the plasma bubble has a good amount of mass and velocity, it may take a strong field to deflect it, which could draw a lot of power. You might have to charge up your capacitors before you're able to do that again, so do you waste it this turn or wait for a heavier volley?

in play

Third, every action has an energy cost. The same capacitors are shared between propulsion, weapons, shields, life support, and various minor systems. So if you're shooting or maneuvering, those capacitors are slower to charge up or even depleting, and you may not be able to use that energy for shields when you need it.

easily implemented

Fourth, producing and using power creates heat which must be disposed of. Getting hit by some weapons would add some more heat as well. Once your heat sinks are near capacity, you might have to reduce power production to give your radiators a chance to cool them down before various systems melting down.

hmmm will look at this one closely

See Mechwarrior for details on how energy and heat management can make realistic tactics interesting.

yeah, sometimes the limits of the systems seemed a bit too restricting but then again you had to think of more than can I hit him with my big guns...

There's plenty of stuff moving around out there at scary velocities, debris from supernovas and whatnot. It's not so hard to evade or deflect so long as it's not guided, and you can see it from hours or days away unless it's fired from within orbit of your planet or something. Rigging a guidance system to simply shut off after its past the intended target(s) wouldn't be too much to ask.

one option for the "self Destruct" option. There is no set method of turning off a weapon, guided rounds can be sent into nearby stars, planetiod, or they fire a braking motor and simply go dead in space.
Small Kinetic rounds don't need to be limited until they reach a certain threshold, most rounds will burn up if they hit an atmosphere. The more powerful rounds might be hard to detect or avoid, and not many civilian ships can take a hit from a Gigajoule range impact. So the rules are weighted to restrict them in real space.

Firing anything in the direction of a neutral planet or station would risk a diplomatic incident, so that would be a bad idea anyhow.

Ya ever stop to think how much of any set of laws is just there to stop people from doing things that are just a bad idea to begin with....

[fredgiblet]

hearts of iron game series, now go and try for a german victory.

Does it allow me to try and avoid American involvement?
Does it allow me to make the competent technological decisions that would bring the Stg 44 and the Me-262 into the field years early?
How about developing things like a decent heavy strategic bomber?
Does it allow/model the crushing blow to morale that the "Disaster at Dunkirk" should have had?

Then of course it's not going to happen.

[Arioch]

There's a long list of things that a sane German leadership (with hindsight) could have done differently or more effectively... but if Hitler & Co. hadn't been completely bonkers, they probably wouldn't have started the war in the first place, so there's a limit to the value of such observations.

[Trantor]

There's a long list of things that a sane German leadership (with hindsight) could have done differently or more effectively... but if Hitler & Co. hadn't been completely bonkers, they probably wouldn't have started the war in the first place, so there's a limit to the value of such observations.

Yup, as is said before, no war would have been the best option.

But on my questions earlier:

All of the major combatants will have some version of:
[*]Loroi infantry units will often be led by Teidar officers with dangerous psi abilities.

That´s why i say the bomb would have made a difference (Or Loroi Teidars*).
...
*Could a powerful Teidar "manipulate"/kill an incoming warhead, e.g. with Amps? I´d say yes?
So, what´s the Loroi word for "Brunhilda"? And are there blue-eyed blonde Loroi? (Beryl comes close, maybe that´s why i like her so much?)
Well, really, that idea sounds too good, where are the downsides? Availability of Teidar? Exhaustion due to use of Amps?
We´re OnT again!! Hooray Threaddrift!!

Most important: How powerful can an Amp be? Is it possible for a skilled Teidar to kill an incoming warhead at enough distance to survive e.g. in a makeshift shelter?
2nd important question: Blonde blue eyed Loroi?

[Trantor]

Does it allow me to make the competent technological decisions that would bring the Stg 44 and the Me-262 into the field years early?
How about developing things like a decent heavy strategic bomber?

Thx for jumping in.
Engineering and it´s impact is a weak point in all these sims.

Maybe on purpose? scnr.

[Grayhome]

I wonder if the Umiak use suicide bombers and if not what they would think of that tactic.

[fredgiblet]

Maybe on purpose? scnr.

More likely it's too difficult to code and the majority of people aren't really interested in the Nazis/Japanese winning. Making an actual complete economic/social/diplomatic/military simulation that also allows you to create thigns that didn't actually exist (like a decent German heavy bomber) would be far more difficult, and the only real upside would be that the Germans would stand a decent chance of winning.

How many people are craving that?

[Arioch]

I wonder if the Umiak use suicide bombers and if not what they would think of that tactic.

Suicide bombs are usually either terror weapons used against civilians, or guerrilla weapons used by insurgents against government or occupation forces, when the insurgents don't have the strength to oppose their enemy in a stand-up fight. And in general, the bomber has to be able to pass as some kind of civilian or harmless entity to be able to get close enough to the target to trigger the bomb. An Umiak approaching a Loroi checkpoint would almost certainly be shot on sight, so even if the Umiak found themselves in some asymmetrical ground conflict with the Loroi (which seems unlikely), it's hard to imagine this kind of tactic being effective.

At this tech level, there's not much need for kamikaze-style sacrifice; missiles don't need a pilot on board to be effective.

[daelyte]

@fredgiblet:
I don't think the technology aspect would be that much harder to code, so long as the number of chassis and options are limited.

The economic and military aspects are common enough.

The social and diplomatic aspects could be harder. AIs are really dumb, so the possibilities would be limited to whatever was programmed in, but some games do have branching storylines.

Other possibilities could include victory by the British, Russians or French without the Americans getting involved. The British could have had up to date military research before the war. French tanks could have been organized as a mobile force instead of being scattered among the infantry. The Russians could have expected the Germans to attack. There's other players too, like Japan, China, etc.