|
I ride bikes all day posted:Between the limited range of direct fire weapons and the need to scale their output to the size and energy production of the ship itself, I think this is a poor idea. It would be more efficient if we treated fighter craft as reusable torpedo delivery systems. Yeah I amended that fighters would be best used for missile delivery. That’s definitely the better option for them. And maybe some gauss as extra pds
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2020 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 13:31 |
|
|
In dealing with the current shortage of neutronium, the UAWR proposes two new initiatives: 1. The TNE Reuse, Reduce and Recycling Act. So as to deal with current and potential future shortages or bottlenecks of TNE supplies, we propose that recycling, efficiency and reuse programs be instituted within Comintern industry alongside outreach and education programs devoted to teaching the public the importance and advantages of reusing and recycling materials while limiting unnecessary consumption, especially in times of shortage. 2. The Public Broadcasting Service: An expansion of the existing CNN project, the PBS project will be to create an entryway whereby the common man can gain access to participating in worldwide broadcasting. Comintern funding will be allocated to community unions and councils to create their own televised programmes for regional and global broadcast, with a focus on education. NewMars fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Oct 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2020 23:08
|
|
|
Also apparently the “Torpedo” strategy no longer works as it used to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2020 23:08
|
|
|
Torpedos in the old style of "super close ranged missiles that hit the same tick they're launched to avoid PD fire" don't work quite as well anymore, but only because the exploit in PD logic got fixed. There's still a case to be made for very short ranged missiles that trade that fuel space for more engine and/or warhead, and fighters are a great way to deliver them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2020 23:12
|
|
|
Ahh gotcha. Agreed, that does sound good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2020 23:15
|
|
|
I don't know much of anything about how the game works mechanically. Is it possible to pull off an Honorverse type weapon system?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2020 23:29
|
|
|
The Democratic Republic of Minnesota puts forward that the Socialist Aid Program, while enormously successful, has not yet reached its full potential or accomplished its stated goals of offering support to those hardest hit by humanitarian crises. The Trans-Newtonian Revolution has opened up new avenues for infrastructure relief and we've yet to test its full potential. The dwindling of Neutronium is worrying, however. We put forward that the Moon be surveyed for TNEs, especially Neutronium, as quickly as possible, as to aid and subsidize the establishing of heavy TNE-based native industry in Lunagrad. It has been our concern for months what long-term economic future Lunagrad has beyond hand-to-mouth self sufficiency, and heavy industry seems viable. For our more ecologically-minded parties, Luna has no native environment to damage with large-scale manufacturing, and would allow the citizens of the Lunar Republic to expand their habitable living space and improve their quality of life, while also providing resources to the Socialist Aid Program for their earthbound comrades. As far as developing of weapons technology, I advocate for missile-based weapons platforms and fighters as well. While the military application of this technology would be a last resort, the development of it would be an extension of our extant propulsion and sensor technology, and the researching of it in missile fighters may yield civilian applications in ship design.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2020 23:37
|
|
|
The NOMAD Collective presents The Venera Initiative. The Martian dream is a burgeoise dream, our sights should be set on Venus: We already have information on the planet from the Venera Space Probes, we can find earth-like conditions in its upper atmosphere and it'd be much cheaper and quicker for habitation, exploration, research and mining purposes. Thus, we propose prioritizing Venus for surveys and lining up the research needed to set up orbital habitats in its upper atmosphere And while not a proposal per se, we beesech this chamber to continue the Socialist Aid Program, us NOMADs are in the field every day, and we know for a fact that the best defense against reactionary elements is proving that every citizen has the material and social support of the Comminern
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2020 23:40
|
|
|
The new economy runs on TNEs. We have a strong base of industry now, so we propose that for now, industry conversion be suspended and the focus be put on TNE extraction projects.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2020 23:43
|
|
|
We definitely shouldn't stop helping people because it's inconvenient or not in the news cycle anymore, we're not capitalists. On navy prefixes, would you mind adding the option "none" to the list if you put it up to a vote? Some navies don't use any after all, though I feel like I might be the only one voting for that. The USSR of the time favored big cruisers with a lot of missiles, I suggest we follow the same plan in space or at least smaller sized ships to start with. It's just a happy coincidence it's also what I prefer using in Aurora myself, of course. That's definitely some time away with all the techs we'd need to make good ones, but we decided on not having warships for now anyway despite knowing there are at least two factions duking it out in space. Building new fighter factories or converting to it would take away from our more important regular factories and mines right now, too. As another point, rather than fighters, we could also use FACs instead. (FACs are defined in game as ships of 1000 tons or less, and do not require a bridge but are built in shipyards, unlike fighters which are 500 tons or less and can be built by fighter factories) The bigger size would mean a more efficient and maybe smaller engine or less fuel relatively, and more missiles per craft and fire control, but they need shipyards. Usually I just build a couple 1000 tons one, and just add slipways endlessly for FACs, it works out. I ride bikes all day posted:I don't know much of anything about how the game works mechanically. Is it possible to pull off an Honorverse type weapon system? Which do you mean? Or do you want Mister Bates to bend the universe in our favor?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2020 23:48
|
|
|
Sanev.Khan posted:Which do you mean? Or do you want Mister Bates to bend the universe in our favor? In David Webber's Honor Harrington series, a big limitation for naval engagements is that ships simply can't lay down enough missiles to reliably get through enemy PD and counter-missiles. Missile tubes take space, reloading takes time, etc. The solution ends up being "missile pods" that are either towed or stored internally and then deployed. The pods are basically external, one-shot missile tubes, which allow the navy to dramatically increase the weight of fire per volley. So while a standard cruiser might only be able to fire 4 missiles in a volley, a pod ship is only limited by it's fire control and available pods. e; you asked which, not what. ill leave it as is for people who dont know WTF im talking about at all. I ride bikes all day fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Nov 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 00:03
|
|
|
I ride bikes all day posted:In David Webber's Honor Harrington series, a big limitation for naval engagements is that ships simply can't lay down enough missiles to reliably get through enemy PD and counter-missiles. Missile tubes take space, reloading takes time, etc. The solution ends up being "missile pods" that are either towed or stored internally and then deployed. The pods are basically external, one-shot missile tubes, which allow the navy to dramatically increase the weight of fire per volley. So while a standard cruiser might only be able to fire 4 missiles in a volley, a pod ship is only limited by it's fire control and available pods. Oh we can most definitely do that, or a version of it anyway, it was seriously considered in one of the past LPs on this forum. The way we do that is by giving the pod carrier ship a tractor beam, and then building the pod as a ship without engines or fuel - or building the pods as fighters without engines and stowing them in an internal hangar. Single shot missile tubes require no tech to research, incidentally, you only need to research if you want them to be able to reload. Mister Bates fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Nov 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 00:06
|
|
|
I ride bikes all day posted:e; you asked which, not what. ill leave it as is for people who dont know WTF im talking about at all. It's alright, it's been a while since I read those books, too. There used to be missile-carried bomb-pumped X-ray lasers like in HH in Aurora VB, but they're gone from C# now, they never worked right, I think. Something that might put people off pods is that technically they can't be without crew and automated in-game, though it could still be fluffed as such I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 00:32
|
|
|
Comrades, the recent violence shows clearly that we cannot fix our gaze solely on the Cosmos; the suffering here on Earth will hold our attention whether we will it or not for the time being. While our current aid efforts have done incredible work finding homes and new lives for the refugees, many of those we helped will suffer for years and decades from the effects of radiation poisoning. We are uniquely positioned to help in this regard; space is more radioactive than all but the most inhospitable fallout zones, and research in managing and alleviating the consequences of radiation exposure has been a part of space exploration since the first cosmonauts. I therefore propose that, upon the conclusion of our next current research project, labs are to be allocated to studies in Biology/Genetics with an emphasis on treatment of radiation poisoning. This will be vital for the people of Lunagrad, bereft as they are of a protective magnetic field and atmosphere, as it will be for so many back on earth. I do not have a good name for this proposal. The capacities of our new sensor systems astound, and offer the opportunity for us to quicken the end of the continuing conflicts. While some of the Fascist groups causing this terror hide amongst the populace others hide in the wilderness. Sensors that can resolve an oar powered that sunk two thousand years ago could easily resolve a fascist base or convoys. We could then pass information to friendly governments and autonomous zones. Or, if the situation truly demanded it, we could do a weapons test. I therefore call for the Friendly Eyes in Space To Extinguish Reactionaries: We should find a way to provide sensor coverage of known fascist redoubts outside of urban areas, and maintain surveilance on them. This could involve satellites, the Small Fry design, or any other method of maintaining surveillance using our new tech.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 00:32
|
|
|
Servetus posted:
I second the motion, requestiong that some free labs be allocated to the study of biology/genetics with an emphasis on treatments and mitigation for radiation-based diseases both to improve terrestrial health and improve colonization of naturally highly irradiated space, in what I shall call the Radiological Attenuation and Defense, or RAD Initiative quote:The capacities of our new sensor systems astound, and offer the opportunity for us to quicken the end of the continuing conflicts. While some of the Fascist groups causing this terror hide amongst the populace others hide in the wilderness. Sensors that can resolve an oar powered that sunk two thousand years ago could easily resolve a fascist base or convoys. We could then pass information to friendly governments and autonomous zones. Or, if the situation truly demanded it, we could do a weapons test. I therefore call for the Friendly Eyes in Space To Extinguish Reactionaries: We should find a way to provide sensor coverage of known fascist redoubts outside of urban areas, and maintain surveilance on them. This could involve satellites, the Small Fry design, or any other method of maintaining surveillance using our new tech. This however, seems like a poor use of resources, as all intelligence gathered on these insurgents so far indicates a guerilla movement using civilian vehicles and facilities and stolen military hardware, making it unlikely to be easily tracked solely by sensor signature.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 00:42
|
|
|
Sanev.Khan posted:It's alright, it's been a while since I read those books, too. That's too bad; bomb pumped lasers is basically the best answer to the beam vs. missile question. Is there any mechanical reason pod analogues would be better than SRM fighters? Also, is towing an asteroid at 5,000km/s to hurl at enemy stations/planets possible? I'm guessing they either won't move or will stop moving when you stop moving them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 00:55
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:Oh we can most definitely do that, or a version of it anyway, it was seriously considered in one of the past LPs on this forum. I don't like missile pods in Aurora because there's no way to do a proper Honor Harrington pod missile dreadnought, where it tows hundreds of pods with half a dozen or more missiles each. In Aurora, you can only have one tractor per ship, and you can't chain tractor beams. That said, larger pods make for pretty good FAC/fighter launchpads. I proposed the idea of adding a tractor to all our capital ships in Virtual Russian's game to take advantage of simple hangar pods to take short-ranged FACs with us into enemy territory. It's not as fuel-efficient as a dedicated carrier ship, but it's versatile and once you get to a certain size, the 500 tons of the tractor barely makes a difference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 01:00
|
|
|
I agree with those who have suggested the Moon, Mars, and Asteroidal Bodies be the top priorities for surveys, with an eye on Neutronium deposits. I also propose we begin upgrading Mining facilities with TNE technology, prioritizing those with access to Neutronium. It's time our ability to mine such materials match our ability to process it. And since there is already a fleet doctrine proposal up and I don't want it to pass unopposed, I propose our future space fleet doctrine focus on large, heavily armored capital ships sporting direct-fire laser weapons supported by fighters armed with missiles. Similar to the other proposed doctrine, I do agree the backbone of our space navy, when it comes time to create such a force, should be centered around large, heavily armed and heavily armored battleships. I merely disagree about what they should be armed with. Also, fighters allow us flexibility when it comes to production in case of emergency. This is all very premature though. We can also table the discussion until it's more relevant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 01:05
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:
Agreed, right now this is all incredibly hypothetical. While we know there are other civilizations out there, and that they have SOME sort of weapons technology, the disposition of their forces is entirely unknown, and any attempt to devise a military doctrine against them could easily be pointless in the field. Actually... upon further review of our only piece of information on alien war capabilities, the Roswell Object, an excess focus on missiles might not be a good idea. IT was theorized to be a small carrier-based short range figher armed with missile launchers, presumably more advanced than any we currently posess, and it was shot down. Hostile forces may be familar wih this strategy and have countermeasures.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 01:14
|
|
|
Asterite34 posted:Actually... upon further review of our only piece of information on alien war capabilities, the Roswell Object, an excess focus on missiles might not be a good idea. IT was theorized to be a small carrier-based short range figher armed with missile launchers, presumably more advanced than any we currently posess, and it was shot down. Hostile forces may be familar wih this strategy and have countermeasures. Exactly. Star Destroyers all the way!
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 01:19
|
|
|
I ride bikes all day posted:Is there any mechanical reason pod analogues would be better than SRM fighters? I don't believe pods are better than fighters. Fighters can go off on their own and further extend the missiles' range. It could allow for the expensive carrier to be out of enemy range and sensors, while only the cheap and light fighters with reduced signature go forwards; pods would necessarily be next to the ship while being a smaller and cheaper target, or need to be dropped ahead of time and still manage to have enemies in range. And nope, no towing asteroids. You can sort of do that with mass drivers that toss mineral packets from a planet to another, but you can only target your own planets and you do damage by deactivating the receiving facility, so it's a bit limited in usefulness. Asterite34 posted:the Roswell Object, an excess focus on missiles might not be a good idea. IT was theorized to be a small carrier-based short range figher armed with missile launchers, presumably more advanced than any we currently posess, and it was shot down. Hostile forces may be familar wih this strategy and have countermeasures. Or it was the only one shot down in the battle for all we know. Or it was ambushed twenty to one and there was nothing to do. I don't think it shows anything. We shouldn't base our ships' designs on just the one sample. All it tells us is that not everyone in space is friendly. Now that TNs are well understood, did anyone manage to get the ship's computer to run after refuelling it with fresh sorium, or scrub its data or something? There might be clues in there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 02:00
|
|
|
Sanev.Khan posted:
Actually, it tells us a great deal more than that. It tells us that there is a conflict between forces with a greater mastery of TNEs than we posess, and ONE of those sides is at least partially composed of carriers fielding missile-armed fighters. from this there are two possibilities: 1) The side who made the Roswell Object is the dominant force, in which case if we were to engage them with a carrier and missile fighter based strategy, they would be doing the same, only with more sophisticated tech. It is a technology gap we would need to close, and would require anti-fighter doctrines and a focus on point defense, OR 2) The side that shot down the Roswell Object is dominant, in which case they have experience winning against better fighters than we can currently make. We shouldn't even attempt using any fighter-based strategy againt them until we have something AT LEAST equal in specs to the Roswell object, or some other novel technology they wouldn't have countermeasures prepared for. All that being said quote:Now that TNs are well understood, did anyone manage to get the ship's computer to run after refuelling it with fresh sorium, or scrub its data or something? There might be clues in there. This would answer a lot of these hypotheticals. We've been making headway in computer science lately, this might be worth looking into.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 02:21
|
|
|
The most anyone has been able to do with the Roswell Object is get the intact lights and some of the mechanical components working - a single-bit on-off switch is pretty much the same no matter where in the galaxy you are. What computers remain relatively intact have remained dead no matter what we feed into them. We have been able to mostly deduce what they do by following the wires and determining what is connected to what, and dismantling one to look at the components has proven valuable in our understanding of how to design TNE-based electronics and computer hardware, but so far there's been no luck getting one to even power on.I ride bikes all day posted:That's too bad; bomb pumped lasers is basically the best answer to the beam vs. missile question. I personally prefer fighters to pods in my own games, but the justification for fighter-size or FAC-size pods instead is that they don't need engines, sensors, or fuel, and you can therefore fit more missiles into them - and since they don't travel, they can fire and then instantly re-dock with the mothership and begin reloading. Those two things together should allow for much, much greater volume of fire. You can use planet-bound mass drivers to fire mineral packets at planets but it's not really all that useful - they can do a lot of damage and cannot be blocked, but you have to take a planet in the same system, drop a mass driver on it, send or mine some minerals for it to launch, and hope the enemy doesn't also have a mass driver on the planet you're shooting at (if they do they can just decelerate the mineral packet and you just gave them a bunch of free minerals). Mister Bates fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Nov 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 02:52
|
|
|
One more thing I want to add the the ongoing weapons discussion is sensors and stealth. Big ships, powerful engines and big active sensors are all easy to detect. Fighters are hard to detect because they're small with small engines, so that's one way to go about being stealthy, but there's also the possibility of using cloaking technology and baffled engines to reduce the signatures of larger ships - this would be a large investment, but being able to strike at an enemy that can't strike back is a big advantage. This approach definitely favors the use of missiles, since they can have sensors built-in, and shipborne active sensors can't be masked; they're big loud pings that even the most rudimentary EM sensor can detect from very far away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 11:09
|
|
|
I propose the Naval Deep Battle doctrine Previous military experience gained in the capitalist wars of aggression showed the advantage of specialized hardware in battle. The battles of the great patriotic war demonstrated further the power of specialized systems operating close cooperation. Our naval forces should consist of at least three, and possibly more distinct components, with unique lineages of design. The main force should consist of heavily armoured vessels specialized for close combat. These should be able to dictate the range in battle and be capable of defending themself to some degree. A fire-support force will cover their approach with massed missile fire to degrade their ability to respond in a useful way to our approaching main-force. Finally a highly mobile force geared towards extremely close engagements will delivery a 'fighter shock' by massed salvoes of short-ranged missiles or guns. These three main-components will be enhanced by a small number of additional craft, consisting of, but not limited to the following: long-ranged patrol craft carrier/FAC-tender anti-fighter/missile escorts stealth raiders / recon-platforms tanker and ammunition/maintenance-supply carriers
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 12:33
|
|
|
Boksi posted:One more thing I want to add the the ongoing weapons discussion is sensors and stealth. Big ships, powerful engines and big active sensors are all easy to detect. Fighters are hard to detect because they're small with small engines, so that's one way to go about being stealthy, but there's also the possibility of using cloaking technology and baffled engines to reduce the signatures of larger ships - this would be a large investment, but being able to strike at an enemy that can't strike back is a big advantage. This approach definitely favors the use of missiles, since they can have sensors built-in, and shipborne active sensors can't be masked; they're big loud pings that even the most rudimentary EM sensor can detect from very far away. How effective is cloaking tech in this game? My understanding is that it just delays the enemy's ability to spot you on the approach and you can't do Romulan or Submarine style hit-and-fade attacks where you appear, shoot some missiles, and then disappear again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 14:28
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:How effective is cloaking tech in this game? My understanding is that it just delays the enemy's ability to spot you on the approach and you can't do Romulan or Submarine style hit-and-fade attacks where you appear, shoot some missiles, and then disappear again. Pretty much. To start a small effort-post here: Cloaking-device (picture an 'grav-dampener' or similar): they reduce the target-cross section of a ship. Functionally, they appear as a smaller ship to active grav-sensors. Initially, they are huge. You need to dedicate about a third of your ship to such a device, and you require a substantial number of RPs to build even that. We're looking at 18k just to research the basic technologies and another 3125 for the actual cloaking device. Below is the smallest, most basic cloaking device we could build. It reduces our signature by 74%, so the ship would look like a 938 ton FAC. code:Thermal reduction To reduce thermal signature, you need to design special engines, the technologies are quite affordable, 25% reduction clocks in at 1500 RP, and a 50% reduction at 3000. By checking the appropriate tech, you build an engine with reduced thermal emission, but at much increased costs in RP and resources. The only way to prevent detection by EM-sensors is not using any active sensors. So, to have your maximum stealth-ship, you will need an expensive cloaking device, low-power, baffled engines, powerful thermal and em-sensors to evade possible hostiles and finally a weapon system. As you can't use active sensors, beams are out of the question outright. Missiles would need to be equipped with on-board sensors and possibly a low-powered lower stage to get separation from the launch point before you light active seekers and have the required stand-off range. Having a stealth-carrier would need a much better cloaking device (efficiency is the measure for the weight of a ship which could be cloaked by a given weight of cloaking device), but could infiltrate an enemy system and strike at will.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 15:41
|
|
|
Yeah stealth tech is a huge investment and requires some very specific builds to use it to its full potential, but it can be very useful. While weapon impacts can be detected across a system, weapons firing can't be detected at all, so stealthed missile ships can shoot without having to worry about being instantly detected. Use them correctly and you can bombard an enemy without them ever seeing your ships. What stealth missile strikes can't do is effectively discriminate against targets when firing - you can decide where the missiles go initially, but once it gets there, the missile's seekers take over and they'll go for the most enticing target. As such, they're good for strikes on single big enemy targets - the flagship of a fleet, an enemy's carriers, freighters or logistics ships, shipyards, space stations, etc. You can't do something like fire a spread of missiles from stealth at every ship in an enemy fleet. For precise missile aiming you need to see the targets on active sensors. Something I've never tried, but which just occurred to me, is that you could launch a two-stage missile whose upper stage is an active sensor buoy, and use that buoy's sensors to guide missiles in. Stealth beam ships will be detected by the enemy eventually, so you want them to be tough and very, very fast, and that usually means skimping on passive sensors to save hull space for engines and armor. This means they can't really operate independently - to be really effective they need someone else telling them where the target is. Then they approach at low engine power until they hit the edge of the target's detection range, accelerate to full speed, and open up on them. They're good when they can score a kill quickly and then disengage cleanly - lone targets, or groups of unescorted unarmed targets, are their ideal prey. They can also be useful in fleet actions, fighting alongside more conventional ships, to focus-fire specific high value targets or finish off damaged ships. There's actually a third kind of stealth in addition to cloaks and baffles, and that's another ship. Commercial ships can have hangars mounted in them, and unless the enemy manages to steal the ship blueprints, they have no way of knowing whether a specific commercial ship has a big cargo bay or a big hangar. Need to sneak your super-secret spy ship past a guarded jump point belonging to someone you aren't already at war with? Put it in a 'freighter'! Mister Bates fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Nov 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 16:52
|
|
|
Speaking of Q-Ships, Comrades, I am worried Gladio will eventually make just such an attack in the near-enough future. What can be done to safeguard against a sympathetic independent nation building a Q-Freighter to launch a fighter attack against our shipyards?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
You're thinking of too sophisticated an attack. If Gladio goes for the shipyards it'll be by assassination, explosives, or outright ramming a vessel into them. Basically what I'm saying is that Hawaiians are a problem. At TNE speeds it is seconds from anywhere in earth orbit to those shipyards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 20:51
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:Speaking of Q-Ships, Orbital monitoring of any launch facilities in non-Comintern-aligned nations? Maintaining a small body of fighters that can scramble in the case of an emergency? Maintaining a larger warship near our shipyards? FESTER does make provisions for orbital monitoring. We clearly don't have anywhere near the knowledge to create ships that would stand up to the Roswell craft, and we should probably be more worried about hijackers on our freighters than a military strike. Still, there are reactionary groups with access to military assets on the surface and the possibility of a strike on orbital facilities is not completely beyond possibility if a nation chooses to ally with these fascists. Edit: I don't know if even making little fighters or FACs would be a waste of resources right now, but it is possible Servetus fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Nov 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 21:01
|
|
|
Would designing a Fighter capable of spaceflight go against the anti-Warship clause? I am uncertain how restricted we are in that regard. FAC absolutely would, I suspect, being built in the Shipyard. But ground-based fighters who just so happen to be space-capable seems like it might have wiggle-room.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 21:07
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:Would designing a Fighter capable of spaceflight go against the anti-Warship clause? I am uncertain how restricted we are in that regard. FAC absolutely would, I suspect, being built in the Shipyard. But ground-based fighters who just so happen to be space-capable seems like it might have wiggle-room. If they are missile fighters we can fill the magazines half full of sensor probes and half full of missiles and fulfill the requirements of that clause.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 21:10
|
|
|
Servetus posted:If they are missile fighters we can fill the magazines half full of sensor probes and half full of missiles and fulfill the requirements of that clause. Instead of trying to find loopholes in this foolish legislation, let's just repeal JR-20. e; proper name of the act I ride bikes all day fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Nov 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 21:19
|
|
|
I ride bikes all day posted:Instead of trying to find loopholes in this foolish legislation, let's just repeal FESTER. FESTER hasn't been approved yet, I put it up for a vote this session The no warship clause was added to JR-20. quote:The development or construction of warships is banned, with the exception of those strictly necessary to ensure the defense of humanity. In game terms, this means that any armed spacecraft larger than 1000 tons must have either a deployment time of less than three months (to allow for defensive and short-ranged patrol vessels), an explicit and specific scientific or exploratory role for which its weapons are necessary (subject to the interpretation of the People's Congress), or one of the following: a Diplomacy Module, Geosurvey or Gravsurvey Sensors, large passive sensors, or a missile magazine that is kept loaded at least 50% with sensor drones/buoys or survey drones/buoys during peacetime. CIWS do not count as weapons for the purposes of this restriction, and this restriction is immediately voided should the Comintern ever find itself in a state of war with another spacefaring power or civilization. FESTER is the acronym for Friendly Eyes in Space To Extinguish Reactionaries. Servetus fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Nov 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 21:22
|
|
|
Servetus posted:FESTER hasn't been approved yet, I put it up for a vote this session The no warship clause was added to JR-20. Fixed, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 21:23
|
|
|
Are people interested enough in fighters for it to be worth writing up a proposal for research headed in that direction? Seems like there is at least a little pro-fighter lobby. The engine boost techs would also cross-over with missiles or FACs.Rhjamiz posted:How effective is cloaking tech in this game? My understanding is that it just delays the enemy's ability to spot you on the approach and you can't do Romulan or Submarine style hit-and-fade attacks where you appear, shoot some missiles, and then disappear again. One of the ways to do carriers is to have a small, slow, blind, and vulnerable carrier that tries to stay hidden while carrying a handful of fighters. Either scout fighters or full size scouts locate a target, then bomber sorties hit it. If everything works, the enemy sees a bomber flight switch on an active at 10mkm or so, missiles impact, then the sensor switches off and the bombers disappear. Tracking a fighter-sized target that isn't emitting back to its carrier is hard. Rhjamiz posted:Speaking of Q-Ships, A 3rd party nation state getting anything into orbit themselves should be a pretty big industrial undertaking since we decided not to make TN engines public outside the Comintern (the Hawaiians brute-forced their ships with chemical rockets). If the theory has leaked out, a small craft engine that can make orbit on its own is pretty simple to design and build though (less RP & BP than a freighter one) Rhjamiz posted:Would designing a Fighter capable of spaceflight go against the anti-Warship clause? I am uncertain how restricted we are in that regard. FAC absolutely would, I suspect, being built in the Shipyard. But ground-based fighters who just so happen to be space-capable seems like it might have wiggle-room. Whether people would view that as violating the spirit of the resolution is an open question. Mister Bates posted:I personally prefer fighters to pods in my own games, but the justification for fighter-size or FAC-size pods instead is that they don't need engines, sensors, or fuel, and you can therefore fit more missiles into them - and since they don't travel, they can fire and then instantly re-dock with the mothership and begin reloading. Those two things together should allow for much, much greater volume of fire. These work, but feel more like a rules loophole to me. Box launchers that are hanger reload-only are smaller enough that a hanger + 'ship' that is just box launchers and a fire control is smaller than the same number of directly mounted mini reloadable launchers, so a fake pod offers the biggest volume of fire that is still field-reloadable. Probably hanger overhead would be bigger in a better balanced game. Kodos666 posted:I propose the Naval Deep Battle doctrine
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 22:11
|
|
|
Can a ship use an active sensor lock on an enemy made by another friendly ship to fire on the enemy? I'm guessing not or it would be too easy to just use swarms of cheap, disposable, tiny scout fighters to get active locks for much bigger ships with actual guns.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 22:21
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Can a ship use an active sensor lock on an enemy made by another friendly ship to fire on the enemy? I'm guessing not or it would be too easy to just use swarms of cheap, disposable, tiny scout fighters to get active locks for much bigger ships with actual guns. Yes, that is fine. Some ship needs an active sensor lock but it doesn't need to be the firing ship. Firing ship just needs an appropriate fire control system. You can have forward scout fighters do the active sensors and have a rear ship launching missiles from it. If the fighters get shot down, any missiles in flight lose lock though. Smallest boat bay is also 150 tons, so it'd be competing with just putting a 150 ton active sensor on the main ship and that won't necessarily come out in favor of the fighter Foxfire_ fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Nov 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 13:31 |
|
|
Huh. So is there a downside to using a bunch of hard to hit and disposable scout fighters for most target locking needs to keep the big guns safe? I'd guess that you can't really fit a very good active sensor in a fighter or FAC frame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 22:30
|
|