Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12

Author Topic: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses  (Read 45891 times)

Morgan Rue

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #135 on: August 23, 2018, 11:08:03 PM »

Friendly reminder that Reaper Torpedoes have Antimatter warheads and look rather similar to fuel cells.
Logged
Dauntless.

MesoTroniK

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1703
  • I am going to destroy your ships
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #136 on: August 23, 2018, 11:56:35 PM »

Actually the codex says it is an antimatter catalyzed nuclear warhead, and yes that is a real theoretical (but should be workable) concept.

The point of such a thing is two fold mostly:
- Allows making the physical dimensions of the warhead smaller.
- Allows making a clean nuke, since can have a fusion reaction without using fission to get it going. So all the dakka of a nuke, with a lot less downsides! Strategic yield without most of the radiation.

Cik

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 607
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #137 on: August 25, 2018, 09:18:46 AM »

if you are raiding with nuclear/antimatter weapons you have an interesting definition of raiding imo

generally you don't do SEAD with nukes.. unless you are in 1960/70 then you do heh
Logged

Deshara

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Suggestion Writer
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #138 on: August 25, 2018, 04:43:56 PM »

im pretty sure radar doesn't work thru nuclear shockwaves

they cant shoot down orbital landers if looking up blinds them
Logged
Quote from: Deshara
I cant be blamed for what I said 5 minutes ago. I was a different person back then

Embolism

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 444
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #139 on: August 25, 2018, 08:34:31 PM »

if you are raiding with nuclear/antimatter weapons you have an interesting definition of raiding imo

generally you don't do SEAD with nukes.. unless you are in 1960/70 then you do heh

You keep saying "raiding". Fuel is only used in bombardment, you don't use any for raiding only.

Bomb guidance from orbit is absolutely not an issue when you consider 1. it's the future, you at least have modern level of computing 2. you have a better-than-birdseye view of your target for however long you like and 3. (this is a presumption, but a safe one given StarSector bombardment poses no threat to your fleet) you are relatively safe from retaliation, so you have no need to maneuver against incoming fire.

As for ground weaponry shooting down falling bombs... that's literally the justification for why ground defences increase fuel required: you need to oversaturate them or your bombs simply won't get through.

.....

And really, for people that want ship weaponry to be used for bombardment, which ones do you expect would be effective? Many inhabited planets have atmospheres, which means 1. energy weapons will bloom and dissipate and 2. physical projectiles that aren't large enough/heat shielded will burn up. The most effective weapons then would be missiles so you can ensure each heatshielded ordnance packs maximum punch. Which means you need to improvise a heatshield since space-to-space missiles designed to work in a vaccuum probably aren't be heatshielded. And what missile has the biggest punch? What kind of warhead does it carry?

Hmm!
« Last Edit: August 26, 2018, 01:03:22 AM by Embolism »
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 9931
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #140 on: August 26, 2018, 08:23:40 AM »

Quote
And really, for people that want ship weaponry to be used for bombardment, which ones do you expect would be effective?
None of the them given how short-ranged combat is in StarSector.  Attack range for weapons extends to about a ship length or three, nowhere near long enough to bomb the planet unless the ship is close enough to land.
Logged

Retry

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 407
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #141 on: August 26, 2018, 11:30:32 AM »

Quote
And really, for people that want ship weaponry to be used for bombardment, which ones do you expect would be effective?
None of the them given how short-ranged combat is in StarSector.  Attack range for weapons extends to about a ship length or three, nowhere near long enough to bomb the planet unless the ship is close enough to land.
Well, yes, the ranges in space are as they are to make gameplay mechanically interesting, rather than realistic (Beams instantly shredding the other side's armada from literally across the map is probably not the epitome of gameplay).  I'm certain one could handwave the range for ship-mounted weaponry in a similar fashion that this blog did with fuel-ammunition, or retroactively gave some ships a "hidden" bombardment weapon that's distinctly separate from the rest of its arsenal (sort of like how Sins of a Solar Empire handled their bombardment mechanics) (could be as simple as a nanoforge & torpedo tube that uses Transplutonics to spit out kinetic rods for bombardment), if one wanted to go that route.
Logged

crawlers

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #142 on: August 26, 2018, 12:00:53 PM »

Seems like the genocide run has arrived to starsector, with just the (player-set) goal of decivilizing everything.
Logged

Cik

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 607
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #143 on: August 26, 2018, 03:22:24 PM »

if you are raiding with nuclear/antimatter weapons you have an interesting definition of raiding imo

generally you don't do SEAD with nukes.. unless you are in 1960/70 then you do heh

You keep saying "raiding". Fuel is only used in bombardment, you don't use any for raiding only.

Bomb guidance from orbit is absolutely not an issue when you consider 1. it's the future, you at least have modern level of computing 2. you have a better-than-birdseye view of your target for however long you like and 3. (this is a presumption, but a safe one given StarSector bombardment poses no threat to your fleet) you are relatively safe from retaliation, so you have no need to maneuver against incoming fire.

As for ground weaponry shooting down falling bombs... that's literally the justification for why ground defences increase fuel required: you need to oversaturate them or your bombs simply won't get through.

.....

And really, for people that want ship weaponry to be used for bombardment, which ones do you expect would be effective? Many inhabited planets have atmospheres, which means 1. energy weapons will bloom and dissipate and 2. physical projectiles that aren't large enough/heat shielded will burn up. The most effective weapons then would be missiles so you can ensure each heatshielded ordnance packs maximum punch. Which means you need to improvise a heatshield since space-to-space missiles designed to work in a vaccuum probably aren't be heatshielded. And what missile has the biggest punch? What kind of warhead does it carry?

Hmm!

so you're arguing that we should be using reaper missiles(?) OK, i agree..

are we arguing or are you agreeing with me?

also, i'd expect at least large weapons would be pretty effective, assuming some baseline level of atmospheric density. but that's pretty in the weeds generally. if i was going to make up a system for it i'd probably just say large/medium weapons mounts that have at least something mounted are good enough.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2018, 03:33:05 PM by Cik »
Logged

MesoTroniK

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1703
  • I am going to destroy your ships
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #144 on: August 26, 2018, 05:54:21 PM »

Quote
And really, for people that want ship weaponry to be used for bombardment, which ones do you expect would be effective?
None of the them given how short-ranged combat is in StarSector.  Attack range for weapons extends to about a ship length or three, nowhere near long enough to bomb the planet unless the ship is close enough to land.

Megas, you do realize Starsector's gameplay is *heavily* abstracted from the tech lore right? Turning it into something that is fun and a solid blend of arcade action and more complex mechanics. If you convert the gameplay, as observed in combat, the campaign, and codex descriptions into a fictional universe rule-set? Large fleet battles take days, ships can move at a low fraction of C, shooting weapons at up to light second ranges, and every projectile and non beam energy weapon is at the min hypervelocity and up to mid relativistic velocities.

Voyager I

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 331
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #145 on: August 26, 2018, 06:56:26 PM »


also, i'd expect at least large weapons would be pretty effective, assuming some baseline level of atmospheric density. but that's pretty in the weeds generally. if i was going to make up a system for it i'd probably just say large/medium weapons mounts that have at least something mounted are good enough.

I know you aren't a dummy and presumably you read the blog post before posting feedback to it, so it's really confusing to me that your starting point for these arguments seems to be disregarding everything that was stated about what bombardment represents and how it was intended to fit within the overall framework of the game.

EDIT:  sorry I guess a lot of this was actually in Alex's first few replies in the thread, so go read those.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2018, 08:49:35 PM by Voyager I »
Logged

Embolism

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 444
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #146 on: August 27, 2018, 02:40:03 AM »

so you're arguing that we should be using reaper missiles(?) OK, i agree..

are we arguing or are you agreeing with me?

also, i'd expect at least large weapons would be pretty effective, assuming some baseline level of atmospheric density. but that's pretty in the weeds generally. if i was going to make up a system for it i'd probably just say large/medium weapons mounts that have at least something mounted are good enough.

Reapers use antimatter. Fuel is antimatter. Reapers can't simply be shot through an atmosphere because they'll burn up. Jury-rig antimatter fuel as an explosive and add a heatshield, use post-modern computing to caculate the trajectory while your ships orbit serenely a safe distance from ground weapon emplacements, drop en masse and overwhelm point defences.

Thinking more about non-missile large weapons, only a handful could potentially make sense in bombardment lore-wise... Hellbore, Mjolnir and Tachyon Lance. But even large ballistic weapons are way too small calibre to survive atmospheric entry (Hellbore and Mjolnir may have the destructive power to be effective but again... likely to burn up in an atmosphere), and conventional directed (and worse, plasma) weapons will suffer from blooming which restricts range and power. All of them still pale before the ubiquity and compact destructive efficiency of matter-antimatter explosives. Only the Tachyon Lance could potentially hold an argument for being uninterceptible (assuming it's not subject to blooming).
« Last Edit: August 27, 2018, 02:49:40 AM by Embolism »
Logged

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2615
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #147 on: August 27, 2018, 05:47:32 AM »

Is there in-game difference between planets with and without atmosphere?

Logically atmosphere-less planets should be WAY more vulnerable to bombardment: Just drop/shoot anything from orbit with correct trajectory... Or if it is a really small moon, just park your Onslaught overhead and shoot pointblank (Starsector ships clearly have ridiculous enough deltaV and acceleration to afford this).

As for atmo-planets, I suspect dropping suitably large asteroids with jury-rigged engines (or in tug-like manner) is likely a better way to spend Antimatter fuel than directly using it as pd-vulnerable bombs. With an asteroid, unless defenders manage to totally annihilate it, it's still going to cause a lot of damage even if shattered.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2018, 08:12:53 AM by TaLaR »
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 9931
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #148 on: August 27, 2018, 07:47:45 AM »

Quote
And really, for people that want ship weaponry to be used for bombardment, which ones do you expect would be effective?
None of the them given how short-ranged combat is in StarSector.  Attack range for weapons extends to about a ship length or three, nowhere near long enough to bomb the planet unless the ship is close enough to land.

Megas, you do realize Starsector's gameplay is *heavily* abstracted from the tech lore right? Turning it into something that is fun and a solid blend of arcade action and more complex mechanics. If you convert the gameplay, as observed in combat, the campaign, and codex descriptions into a fictional universe rule-set? Large fleet battles take days, ships can move at a low fraction of C, shooting weapons at up to light second ranges, and every projectile and non beam energy weapon is at the min hypervelocity and up to mid relativistic velocities.
Nitpick:  Large battles only take days between NPCs.  If your fleet is involved, battle is instant.

As for game, I tend to think game mechanics as the rules of the universe of that game, and if there is a mismatch between crunch and fluff, I defer to crunch, not fluff, because only game mechanics matter.  I also think NPCs should be aware of game rules and exploit them as if they are natural laws of the world.

It is like some role-playing game saying some magic-users are natural born elementalists and their build advice is pick fire and more fire, but if they need to chant, wiggle their fingers, and wave a focus like a bookworm wizard, and blasting is weak compared to OHKO from a control spell, you do not follow their advice.  You pick the best stuff, whatever it is, not pump hp-inflated monsters full of fire if they can tank several blasts.
Logged

Retry

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 407
    • View Profile
Re: Raids, Bombardments, and Planetary Defenses
« Reply #149 on: August 27, 2018, 08:45:44 AM »

Quote
And really, for people that want ship weaponry to be used for bombardment, which ones do you expect would be effective?
None of the them given how short-ranged combat is in StarSector.  Attack range for weapons extends to about a ship length or three, nowhere near long enough to bomb the planet unless the ship is close enough to land.

Megas, you do realize Starsector's gameplay is *heavily* abstracted from the tech lore right? Turning it into something that is fun and a solid blend of arcade action and more complex mechanics. If you convert the gameplay, as observed in combat, the campaign, and codex descriptions into a fictional universe rule-set? Large fleet battles take days, ships can move at a low fraction of C, shooting weapons at up to light second ranges, and every projectile and non beam energy weapon is at the min hypervelocity and up to mid relativistic velocities.
Nitpick:  Large battles only take days between NPCs.  If your fleet is involved, battle is instant.
Yes, because it is abstracted that way, because actually taking days to play out a small frigate patrol clash like the AI does doesn't seem particularly practical or fun (to people that aren't me, anyways).  That's Meso's point.

Reapers use antimatter. Fuel is antimatter.

As stated earlier in this thread, Reapers have a Nuclear warhead according to its codex entry, the AM component is just a catalyst.


also, i'd expect at least large weapons would be pretty effective, assuming some baseline level of atmospheric density. but that's pretty in the weeds generally. if i was going to make up a system for it i'd probably just say large/medium weapons mounts that have at least something mounted are good enough.

I know you aren't a dummy and presumably you read the blog post before posting feedback to it, so it's really confusing to me that your starting point for these arguments seems to be disregarding everything that was stated about what bombardment represents and how it was intended to fit within the overall framework of the game.

EDIT:  sorry I guess a lot of this was actually in Alex's first few replies in the thread, so go read those.

It's possible to read them, and disagree either with his intended direction or w/ how it was implemented.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12