Page 5 of 260
Posted:
Sat Nov 16, 2013 9:06 pmby Telros
You could do something like that Voc, though like UPT said, it sounds like it could just be a beefier version of the FT Coast Guard equivalent, taking care of most patrol and pirate tasks, while also having enough fire power to supplement orbital defenses to prevent any ships slipping through with troops or some payload of weapons. It'd probably be a good idea, as one can only afford so many defenses, and there is a lot of planet to cover.
Posted:
Sat Nov 16, 2013 9:10 pmby G-Tech Corporation
Themiclesia wrote:Is there anyway to work this PT design into a FT style?
I have a puppet with ships-of-the-line made of giant trees that grow in the vacuum, cannons faithful to the full broadside, solar sails the size of manhattan with crow's nests on top, boarding parties armed to the nines with cutlasses, blunderbusses, and "flintlock" pistols.
And that's fairly tame. There is always a way in FT, even if Rationality has to find herself willing to service Drama like a two shilling harlot.
Posted:
Sat Nov 16, 2013 9:14 pmby Themiclesia
G-Tech Corporation wrote:Themiclesia wrote:Is there anyway to work this PT design into a FT style?
I have a puppet with ships-of-the-line made of giant trees that grow in the vacuum, cannons faithful to the full broadside, solar sails the size of manhattan with crow's nests on top, boarding parties armed to the nines with cutlasses, blunderbusses, and "flintlock" pistols.
And that's fairly tame. There is always a way in FT, even if Rationality has to find herself willing to service Drama like a two shilling harlot.
I mean a FT-building style, not a spaceship. Of course spaceships can be of just any shape, but I'm looking (as part of a greater movement in my nation) to preserve the old world charm, but incorporate new elements as well.
So in the original 5,000 B.C.E., the roof was made of thatch covered with plaster, and now I want to have shards of glass to replace the thatch and a liquid metal to replace the plaster.
Posted:
Sat Nov 16, 2013 9:31 pmby Mini Miehm
Vocenae wrote:Not a chat thread guys.
To bring this back to the realm of advice, what do you guys think of a fleet of smaller, secondary ships acting as a supplement to a orbital defense grid? Namely something that acts as a screen against troopships and their escorts, or raiders looking to take out the orbital guns while the main enemy fleet slugs it out with the main defensive fleet farther out in local space. These ships would obviously be weaker and only have a few weapons to turn against the enemy, but they'd have a 'quicker' response time in comparison to larger ships or defensive platforms. I figure the ships would be roughly around 150-200m in length and wouldn't be capable of any sort of FTL and would have a operational range comparable to that of Earth's medium orbit. So you wouldn't have to worry about these boats diving into the heavier combat. Think of them as more of a orbital coast guard, though if your enemy forces you into fighting at that range you'd pretty much have to use them in a major capital ship engagement.
Of course, there is no perfect system. even low planetary orbit is still a incredibly massive theater to operate in and there an enemy will always get through, if you're attempting to be real with the scale of things. This sound like a reasonable approach? It's mainly to allow for the pew pew BOOM without filling low orbit with the bigger warships of thundering doom.
I assume that you mean something like a Cutter or patrol boat rather than a full scale monitor or gunboat of some description. I'd say that they could be a fairly viable addition to your defensive network. Assuming that you have to regularly deal with things like raiders and whatnot trying to kill your orbital infrastructure, they would likely be a bit more effective at engaging light units than full scale monitors would be. So, sure go for it. They could be an excellent addition to your force. Just the issue of manning yet another bunch of warships that you have to deal with.
Posted:
Sat Nov 16, 2013 9:44 pmby Auman
System ships can actually be more powerful than their interstellar cousins. Consider that you're building a ship of similar size and specifications as an FTL vessel. Then factor in that you don't need to stuff a faster than light engine into it. That cuts down on price and complexity. That frees up mass and volume. The downside would be that they're stuck in the system they're defending, which may not be a bad thing depending on the political circumstances of your nation.
Posted:
Sat Nov 16, 2013 9:56 pmby The Akasha Colony
Auman wrote:System ships can actually be more powerful than their interstellar cousins. Consider that you're building a ship of similar size and specifications as an FTL vessel. Then factor in that you don't need to stuff a faster than light engine into it. That cuts down on price and complexity. That frees up mass and volume. The downside would be that they're stuck in the system they're defending, which may not be a bad thing depending on the political circumstances of your nation.
That presumes your FTL drives are big and expensive, which is not true depending on your own canon.
Posted:
Sat Nov 16, 2013 9:58 pmby Vernii
Vocenae wrote:Not a chat thread guys.
To bring this back to the realm of advice, what do you guys think of a fleet of smaller, secondary ships acting as a supplement to a orbital defense grid? Namely something that acts as a screen against troopships and their escorts, or raiders looking to take out the orbital guns while the main enemy fleet slugs it out with the main defensive fleet farther out in local space. These ships would obviously be weaker and only have a few weapons to turn against the enemy, but they'd have a 'quicker' response time in comparison to larger ships or defensive platforms. I figure the ships would be roughly around 150-200m in length and wouldn't be capable of any sort of FTL and would have a operational range comparable to that of Earth's medium orbit. So you wouldn't have to worry about these boats diving into the heavier combat. Think of them as more of a orbital coast guard, though if your enemy forces you into fighting at that range you'd pretty much have to use them in a major capital ship engagement.
Of course, there is no perfect system. even low planetary orbit is still a incredibly massive theater to operate in and there an enemy will always get through, if you're attempting to be real with the scale of things. This sound like a reasonable approach? It's mainly to allow for the pew pew BOOM without filling low orbit with the bigger warships of thundering doom.
Like ZMI said, basically the big question is how many regular warships could you build with the resources, and is that a good enough trade-off? If it is, I'd recommend going with kind of a glass cannon design. Troopships tend to come in two flavors: thin skinned and therefore escorted, or capable of participating in a stand up fight. Therefore, it makes sense to me that you're designing what's essentially an expendable starship, to build something that can do as much damage as possible in a short amount of time, and built to last just long enough to get the job done.
The battle rider concept I brought up in the previous thread would also work well with the idea.
PvP ships in EVE are actually a good example of this; that type of combat is typically short and brutal, with most ships having weapons and shield/armor systems that drain their capacitors faster than the reactors replenish it, which gives them a very short combat endurance, but are capable of doing a lot of damage (if properly equipped) and soaking it up within that time. Of course, the instant their capacitor banks run dry they're dead, because the ships are paper-thin otherwise.
Themiclesia wrote:I mean a FT-building style, not a spaceship. Of course spaceships can be of just any shape, but I'm looking (as part of a greater movement in my nation) to preserve the old world charm, but incorporate new elements as well.
So in the original 5,000 B.C.E., the roof was made of thatch covered with plaster, and now I want to have shards of glass to replace the thatch and a liquid metal to replace the plaster.
Then just do it.
Posted:
Sat Nov 16, 2013 10:08 pmby Auman
The Akasha Colony wrote:Auman wrote:System ships can actually be more powerful than their interstellar cousins. Consider that you're building a ship of similar size and specifications as an FTL vessel. Then factor in that you don't need to stuff a faster than light engine into it. That cuts down on price and complexity. That frees up mass and volume. The downside would be that they're stuck in the system they're defending, which may not be a bad thing depending on the political circumstances of your nation.
That presumes your FTL drives are big and expensive, which is not true depending on your own canon.
True enough... But it stands to reason that sensible people won't be using Enderverse FTL concepts and might have these issues.
Posted:
Sat Nov 16, 2013 10:14 pmby The Akasha Colony
Auman wrote:The Akasha Colony wrote:That presumes your FTL drives are big and expensive, which is not true depending on your own canon.
True enough... But it stands to reason that sensible people won't be using Enderverse FTL concepts and might have these issues.
Except that it's hardly exclusive to the Enderverse.
Star Trek warp drives are cheap enough to mount even on little shuttles, while all but the absolute cheapest fighters in
Star Wars get their own hyperdrives.
Posted:
Sat Nov 16, 2013 10:33 pmby Auman
The Akasha Colony wrote:Auman wrote:True enough... But it stands to reason that sensible people won't be using Enderverse FTL concepts and might have these issues.
Except that it's hardly exclusive to the Enderverse.
Star Trek warp drives are cheap enough to mount even on little shuttles, while all but the absolute cheapest fighters in
Star Wars get their own hyperdrives.
I've seen warp cores. They're a series of tubes that are multiple stories tall. You need to take an elevator to service the thing. The Runabout was about three times the size of a conventional shuttle used in TNG. So, you take all that space and you load it up with ammunition for all the additional weapons you'll have instead of warp nacelles and you've got something going on.
And in the Enderverse, faster than light travel was powered by
belief
Posted:
Sat Nov 16, 2013 10:36 pmby The Akasha Colony
Auman wrote:I've seen warp cores. They're a series of tubes that are multiple stories tall. You need to take an elevator to service the thing. The Runabout was about three times the size of a conventional shuttle used in TNG. So, you take all that space and you load it up with ammunition for all the additional weapons you'll have instead of warp nacelles and you've got something going on.
Except you still need the warp core, because that's also the thing that provides power for the ship itself.
Posted:
Sat Nov 16, 2013 11:18 pmby Auman
The Akasha Colony wrote:Auman wrote:I've seen warp cores. They're a series of tubes that are multiple stories tall. You need to take an elevator to service the thing. The Runabout was about three times the size of a conventional shuttle used in TNG. So, you take all that space and you load it up with ammunition for all the additional weapons you'll have instead of warp nacelles and you've got something going on.
Except you still need the warp core, because that's also the thing that provides power for the ship itself.
Sure, except it would be way smaller because you don't need to go Warp 9. It's all dependant on the sort of FTL you use... But ultimately, if you don't need the systems necessary to go really, really, fast, you can use that space for something else.
Posted:
Sat Nov 16, 2013 11:47 pmby The Akasha Colony
Auman wrote:The Akasha Colony wrote:Except you still need the warp core, because that's also the thing that provides power for the ship itself.
Sure, except it would be way smaller because you don't need to go Warp 9. It's all dependant on the sort of FTL you use... But ultimately, if you don't need the systems necessary to go really, really, fast, you can use that space for something else.
Instead, you need to power all those weapons you want to cram onto the ship.
Posted:
Sun Nov 17, 2013 1:29 amby Red Talons
*Nestles into his couch and watches, sipping a glass of opaque silver liquid.*
With starships theres a few common systems,
Hull- this includes armour as well as internal space for people to move around
Electronics- Shields, sensors, communications, all the electronic systems
Weapons- pretty self explanitory
Power core- whatever makes power for the ship
Drives- this includes FTL as well as sub-light propulsion systems
Basically, on any given ship, those five things must fine a balance. The ships abilities and purpose become apparent based on which areas have more space available on and in the ship.
A ship with minimal crew, minimal weapons, basic electrical systems, and light armor. Mounted with a beefy power core and beefy drives, you've got a courier or a scout. Run a smaller power core and some smaller drives, beef up the hull, and you've got a blockade runner. Cut down the size of the drives, beef up the weapons and add some crew space and you've got your average combat vessel, maybe merc or a raider, etc. Cut the crew space to zero and beef the electrical and you've got an AI drone-ship.
I've found it helpful to take those five things into consideration when making my ships. It has helped me a lot to determine roles as well as function together in groups.
Posted:
Sun Nov 17, 2013 2:46 amby Canuckland
Remember all those quotes I pieced together to make a small thing about mechs/walking tanks?
They've evolved. Hey mama, look! I did something [kinda] useful with my time on nationstates!
Posted:
Sun Nov 17, 2013 5:49 amby Interstellar Planets
The Akasha Colony wrote:Auman wrote:Sure, except it would be way smaller because you don't need to go Warp 9. It's all dependant on the sort of FTL you use... But ultimately, if you don't need the systems necessary to go really, really, fast, you can use that space for something else.
Instead, you need to power all those weapons you want to cram onto the ship.
While warp cores on a starship do provide power for things outside of just the warp drive (for example, as of TMP onwards, phasers), Starfleet vessels do use fusion reactors as well - their impulse engines are essentially fusion torches with extra SCIENCE! in them.
Things without warp capability - such as space stations - were often powered exclusively by fusion. The warp core, as it's name suggests, was primarily needed for warp travel, because of the immense power requirements it was portrayed as having. Until TNG came along and made a mess of everything at least. Take away those power requirements and you no longer need a big-ass tube running half-way along your ship full of highly explosive material; a standard, safer, more vanilla power plant will do just fine.
Posted:
Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:10 amby SquareDisc City
Auman wrote:System ships can actually be more powerful than their interstellar cousins. Consider that you're building a ship of similar size and specifications as an FTL vessel. Then factor in that you don't need to stuff a faster than light engine into it. That cuts down on price and complexity. That frees up mass and volume. The downside would be that they're stuck in the system they're defending, which may not be a bad thing depending on the political circumstances of your nation.
Even when from a technical standpoint this is true, I think most powers would reject the economics. A powerful ship's likely to be expensive, and thus cutting costs by dropping the FTL drive just ends up wasting a lot of the other costly capability since it can't go anywhere. A cheap ship meant for system defence can drop the FTL drive to cut costs, but it's also likely to drop lots of other little things and thus end up less powerful.
Posted:
Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:22 amby Valinon
SquareDisc City wrote:Auman wrote:System ships can actually be more powerful than their interstellar cousins. Consider that you're building a ship of similar size and specifications as an FTL vessel. Then factor in that you don't need to stuff a faster than light engine into it. That cuts down on price and complexity. That frees up mass and volume. The downside would be that they're stuck in the system they're defending, which may not be a bad thing depending on the political circumstances of your nation.
Even when from a technical standpoint this is true, I think most powers would reject the economics. A powerful ship's likely to be expensive, and thus cutting costs by dropping the FTL drive just ends up wasting a lot of the other costly capability since it can't go anywhere. A cheap ship meant for system defence can drop the FTL drive to cut costs, but it's also likely to drop lots of other little things and thus end up less powerful.
I think it depends on the intent of such a ship, SquareDisc. Auman's idea has merit if there is a particularly important system with a considerable amount of strategic value. It represents a way to solve the static vulnerability of defensive battle stations or larger manned orbitals. The only reason I can think that dropping an FTL drive would lead to the loss that you suggest is if the drive system is used to create/power other systems (shields, sensors, what-have-you). That would be a system I have never saw the logic in and strongly disagree with the economic merit of the ship.
On Auman's original note, I do support the idea of limited mobility even for larger ships. The complete elimination of FTL seems to just build a bigger box for the static vulnerability to be fit into, and I am not a big believer in bigger boxes merely being better just on the face. There are any number of ways to accomplish limited FTL, either with ship-based hardware or with off the ship hardware. In the latter case, I am mostly thinking of the various equivalent of tugboats in FTL (which in OMG I presume are interstellar peasant slave galleys).
Posted:
Sun Nov 17, 2013 9:54 amby Milagro
Hey, so if my nation has been left on its own for a while with no real external threats... what would the military be like?
They had a slight head jump since they were stranded colonists so they had working knowledge of science and some advanced tech, even if they didn't have the immediate resources or manufacturing capacity to produce it themselves (at first).
Posted:
Sun Nov 17, 2013 11:23 amby Dreadful Sagittarius
Milagro wrote:Hey, so if my nation has been left on its own for a while with no real external threats... what would the military be like?
They had a slight head jump since they were stranded colonists so they had working knowledge of science and some advanced tech, even if they didn't have the immediate resources or manufacturing capacity to produce it themselves (at first).
I imagine it could go one of two ways; either they follow a similar route to myself, in that they've spent a considerable amount of time doing nothing more than perhaps your average pirate-bashing while slowly updating themselves because while there isn't a direct threat, there is probably one or two hanging around in the background. However, with no real warfighting experience of any recent value, the chances are you will probably keep plodding along under old tactical/design ideas. (For example, IC'ly the Polyarchy still maintains the use of fighters to thicken up anti-bomber defences, but they've not made the leap themselves to make the fighters more versatile.)
The other way is that you end up treating it as a blackhole for funding and resources. It becomes a relic of bad times, and is generally looked down upon, perhaps in favour of a coast guard/police unit instead. You don't have to run with either of those ideas, but they're good for consideration.
Posted:
Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:42 pmby Auman
The Mexican Armed Forces is a decent example of the force you would want to build... With a lack of enemies and a benign foreign policy, your military would probably be centered around COIN operations, counter insurgency.
So you'd be running a lot of light infantry groups that whomp on pirates, terrorists, narcos and other major crime groups.
Posted:
Sun Nov 17, 2013 2:37 pmby The JVP
Following
Posted:
Sun Nov 17, 2013 5:07 pmby Daskoxian
Quite the shiny sequel we have here.
Posted:
Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:02 pmby Yalos
In terms of space weaponry...
If my objective is complete and total genocide and enslavement of alien scum on the surface of a planet, but colonization of said planet as well, what kind of ship armaments should I look into for bombardments?
Versus xenos warships, what kinds of weapons would be appropriate if I didn't believe in showing any kind of mercy? If my goal was simply to annihilate them in space without any sign of letting up, what kinds of weapons can produce the maximum amount of fire power in regards to efficiency?
So, essentially, my military objectives in space are to utterly destroy, and on the surface, to cleanse but not cause needless damages.
Posted:
Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:16 pmby The Legion of War
Yalos wrote:In terms of space weaponry...
If my objective is complete and total genocide and enslavement of alien scum on the surface of a planet, but colonization of said planet as well, what kind of ship armaments should I look into for bombardments?
Versus xenos warships, what kinds of weapons would be appropriate if I didn't believe in showing any kind of mercy? If my goal was simply to annihilate them in space without any sign of letting up, what kinds of weapons can produce the maximum amount of fire power in regards to efficiency?
So, essentially, my military objectives in space are to utterly destroy, and on the surface, to cleanse but not cause needless damages.
You... I like you. Are you a human nation?
As for advice, I can't give much but here's what I think you should avoid:
-Nukes
-Cluster bombs (some bombs don't detonate so they are a hazard to future colonists)
-Chemical weapons that contain environmentally damaging chemicals
-Biological weapons (might mess up the ecosystems and what not)
-Mines
Kinda generic, I know. Sorry, it's the best I got. Not sure what to say in terms of ship to ship weapons.
