Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Pages: 1 2 [3]

Author Topic: why discarding crew members may be the logical thing to do  (Read 13388 times)

Aeson

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 501
    • View Profile
Re: why discarding crew members may be the logical thing to do
« Reply #30 on: March 29, 2015, 03:03:04 PM »

Another thing is Life support. How are these grossly overloaded ships able to sustain life support for all of these people? WHERE is the air coming from?! How are the ships cleaning the air fast enough to sustain them?
And another thing: how can an exterior "hab shelter" be safe at all to travel in? with how quickly these things have to be built, they aren't going to be armored. That means a single piece of rock or scrap could puncture and either kill the occupant(s) directly or indirectly
Re: Life Support. You're in a debris field with several more or less intact but inoperable ships floating around. Surely there are a few salvageable life support components in there.

Re: Safety. You're in a debris field with several more or less intact but inoperable ships. Think you might possibly be able to find some more or less intact hull sections to turn into your shelters, or some more or less intact escape pods pulled out of destroyed ships and patched enough to be livable and then grafted to the hull in some way? Or perhaps even a relatively intact hull which can be restored sufficiently to support an atmosphere, heat, and inertial compensation and then towed along? Also, indications are that at least one type of cargo ship in Starsector uses cargo containers which are at least partially exposed to space. The Atlas description, after all, mentions pirates disabling a container's couplers to steal it; this wouldn't make a terrible amount of sense if they have to cut through the Atlas hull first, implying that the cargo containers carried by the Atlas are at least partially exposed to space and should therefore be able to withstand micrometeor impacts. Reinforcing something like that a bit to better protect against debris impacts and sealing it up to hold heat and an atmosphere is probably a lot less work than building a habitat from the ground up.

More to the point, it's generally idiotic to remain floating in space and hoping that the next ship that passes by notices you and stops before your spacesuit or hull fragment or escape pod runs out of power, water, heat, air, whatever. You know that there's a ship here now that's willing to rescue you. You don't know if there's going to be another before your time's up. Even if another one comes by you don't know that it's going to notice you. You are drifting in space; right now, you're in a debris field which will tend to draw scavengers, and you're relatively close to at least some operational ships. That debris field is not going to stay together all that long, though, and there's no guarantee that you're drifting with the pieces of it that are attractive enough to draw salvagers, and one or two humans are not a particularly visible target.

Quote
Big difference in space and the ocean my friend. I wouldn't have to worry about getting shot off in that kind of situation where you would have "hab shelters" as most likely the boat would have sunk or been unable to handle so much weight.  Not to mention how bad one ship would look like to its home country's people if they fired on another ship that was rescuing people
You think a ship would be thought of poorly by its home country's people for firing on ships engaged in rescue operations? History doesn't agree with you. In WWI, three British cruisers were sunk in the English channel by a single German submarine in a single action, with the second and third cruiser being sunk after stopping to drop boats and pick up survivors from the first cruiser. The commander of that submarine was awarded a medal. Allied aircraft in WWII bombed a German submarine which surfaced and attempted to give aid to survivors of a ship that it'd just torpedoed, and I am not aware of any repercussions for the pilots and commanders who made that decision. Submarines have been known to use lifeboats as bait, lurking under the waves and torpedoing ships that come near to try to recover survivors. Convoys were to keep going despite the potential to rescue survivors of torpedoed vessels because the expected act of a hostile warship that attacks the convoy is to keep attacking the ships in the convoy, whether or not they stop to engage in rescue operations, and so stopping and making yourself an easy target is the stupid thing to do. Fleets in action with one another do not generally allow ships to break off simply to go rescue survivors from sinking ships, nor do ships routinely engage in recovery operations in the presence of the enemy; the survivors generally (but not always; sometimes a low-value vessel might be allowed to break off, or a supporting vessel following behind will arrive but isn't thought to be needed for the main action) need to wait until the action is over before ships begin to engage in recovery operations.
Logged

ahrenjb

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
    • View Profile
Re: why discarding crew members may be the logical thing to do
« Reply #31 on: May 06, 2015, 11:28:02 AM »

I am not at all a fan of the forced morality of the game preventing me from spacing crew. There should be consequences, maybe reputation hits or CR drop for doing it, but it should be an option.
Logged

GUNINANRUNIN

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 719
  • Let's do it!
    • View Profile
Re: why discarding crew members may be the logical thing to do
« Reply #32 on: May 06, 2015, 02:31:10 PM »

-snip-
It's like killing regular soldiers trying to rescue their wounded: there aren't any laws against it, but it's frowned upon. Bad faith is usually not in either side's interest because it gives your enemy an excuse to use the same kinds of tactics.

Can't you justify ditching crew in space as putting them in life boats and leaving them a distress beacon?
Logged
In short, if you throw a stone out of the rear window of your spaceship you will go faster.

miro

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
Re: why discarding crew members may be the logical thing to do
« Reply #33 on: May 06, 2015, 03:58:38 PM »

Quote
If this isn't a case of The Cold Equations I don't know what is.

^^^ Good story.
Logged
Hey brah.

Solinarius

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 97
  • Wind. Fire. All that kind of thing!
    • View Profile
Re: why discarding crew members may be the logical thing to do
« Reply #34 on: May 07, 2015, 02:05:52 AM »

I just want ships to have a ceiling in which it can be feasibly support (and not allow any more aboard) crew/passenger for a few days, not simply cram until occupants are face-hugging walls and being stowed inside cabinets, access panels, plumbing, torpedo tubes etc. This is a game :P.
Logged

Velox

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: why discarding crew members may be the logical thing to do
« Reply #35 on: May 10, 2015, 06:15:37 PM »


It basically comes down to this: is losing so many ships that the surviving crew completely overtaxes the remaining fleet capacity a losing condition for the player?  If so, just add another "lose" screen with different text and plunk him/her back into a starting ship.  If not, the fleet still needs to be able to move.  Dropping the player back into a situation where there is literally nothing he/she can do is just a design error.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]