Future Tech Advice and Assistance Thread [O.O.C.]

[The Ben Boys]

*snip*

I never said they couldn't go far, realistically they could probably go somewhere in the six digit range. However, it is easier to spot a missile coming from 100,000 miles away than a mere thirty. As I stated, I use such close ranges because then it's harder for the ship (let's say it's about 500 yards) to maneuver away than at 100,000 miles. Any PD system in FT that can't target an object it sees from 100,000 miles away (with missiles of it's own, at that range) doesn't deserve to be called a point-defense system.

This is the Sprint ABM missile in action. 0 to Mach 10 in five seconds, with a range of 40 kilometers and packing a nuclear warhead. It was introduced in 1972. Anyone who is spacefaring should be able to build missiles that can outperform something that was designed forty years ago. Especially anyone with FTL, because if you can generate the energy density to violate space-time and physics then it should be a paltry easy task.

Again, I never said it was the operational range, just the range in which I use them.

So here's how I kept my OCD in check and made a missile system that I could work with: missile pods. I'm happy to see some people agree with me already, so here's the general rundown of my missile system.

[Sera Missile System]Each missile isn't that large, only about two meters in length, but packed with enough high explosives to make a B-52's payload seem like a BB gun. They are in pods of about eight, packed together on a booster frame that utilizes a chemical reaction to accelerate it to incredible speeds. The kicker here is that once the missile pod's computer detects a lock-on from a missile or a lot of CIWS fire coming to it, the missiles split off of the booster frame and either the CIWS computer is confused or only locks onto one (most likely the booster frame). This tackles the counter-measure problem, since you confuse the hell out of the computer or simply overwhelm it with numbers.

There's a few issues here; 1. Self-preservation systems to fire before destruction are a decent idea, but PD can also involve lasers and they won't see those coming, and missile pods are generally not shielded or armored and therefore potentially vulnerable to being mission killed or destroyed by proximity radiation (by say, fusion/AM charges going off nearby, or being cooked by a superdreadnought's radar arrays sweeping across it). This is especially an issue in close-proximity battles. 2. Any well designed computer system isn't going to be confused by a salvo blossoming from some pods. NSFT is an environment where battles can often thousands of missiles being hurled around in EW saturated battlespaces. Any computer that's put off by something that is expected to happen isn't a well designed computer at all.

1. I've never liked the idea of "shielded" missiles, feels like tech-wankery. And of those percentage that actually do use lasers as their PD systems, then it's a simple matter of calculating the timers to split off almost immediately when they get within range.

2. Still, it throws a wrench into everything, even if it doesn't confuse the computer it's going to have to suddenly divert resources to that sector that earlier didn't have as much priority because it didn't need that much attention. Now you have x8 the amount of missiles there than you did before.

[Vernii]

*snip*

I never said they couldn't go far, realistically they could probably go somewhere in the six digit range. However, it is easier to spot a missile coming from 100,000 miles away than a mere thirty. As I stated, I use such close ranges because then it's harder for the ship (let's say it's about 500 yards) to maneuver away than at 100,000 miles. Any PD system in FT that can't target an object it sees from 100,000 miles away (with missiles of it's own, at that range) doesn't deserve to be called a point-defense system.

"Spot" isn't the word you are wanting to use here. It is almost certainly easier to spot a missile at 48km (I'm converting your miles to metric, easier to work with for space), than it is at 160,000km. What I believe you are attempting to argue is that it's easier to intercept a missile at such long range than it is to engage it at knife-fighting ranges. That itself, is also not strictly true. First, it all depends on relative velocities. For example, my maximum powered range is generally 30-40 million kilometers, with a terminal velocity generally around ~.2c, which means that if a PD system were to engage it at our hypothetical 160,000km, it would have just over two seconds to do it in, or just three seconds if the missile was actually armed with a proximity warhead.

Furthermore there's also the question of what type of weapon system is engaging the incoming missile. A laser is going to do better than bullets simply because it can't be seen coming and its 'lag' is literally the speed of light. Therefore at our hypothetical 100,000 miles/160,000km the 'lag' on a laser is a little under half a second, meaning that the defense computer needs to aim where it predicts the missile will be half a second from 'now'. Contrast that to say, a modern day Phalanx which has a velocity of 1.1km/s on its rounds, which is utterly insufficient for space combat. So let's be generous and boost that 10x since its vacuum and assumed propellant advancements. So, 11 kps velocity... lag time versus a (stationary) target at 160k kilometers is...4 hours. Well, let's fire those engineers and boost it up to a full thousand kilometers per second on this bullet hose, which puts time to intercept at 3 minutes. Granted time will be actually shorter, since it's not a stationary target but rather a target that's attempting to intercept your starship.

The problem there, is of course, the missile can also see those bullets coming if it has a radar, and since a bullet has to be in the right time at the right place to score a hit, that means that little things like minor course changes, velocity adjustments, etc, can potentially turn thousands of rounds of outgoing ammunition into 100% waste. In particular, you have to consider that the radar on a missile can see the ship firing at the same lag that the ship can see it, and since bullets have predictable trajectories then it becomes easier for a missile to evade at range than it is for a ship to kill it at range.

Against something like a stand-off laser head, a kinetic-kill PD system is essentially junk, and that's why IC my navy considers them to be obsolete crap.

Counter-missiles are generally a decent threat but this also depends on range and relative velocities. If the incoming missile has the delta-v to evade intercept, then the CM has basically lost its chance because now it has the option of hoping there's another follow-up target that it has the delta-v to possibly engage, or attempt to turn around and engage in what would probably be a hopeless chase.

This is why the IVN approaches PD with a defense in depth strategy of counter-missiles, laser-equipped drones, and starship mounted PD lasers, along with generally doing its best to saturate the battlespace with jamming and other electronic countermeasures. Likewise, the fact that its rival navies have identical approaches to it means that the IVN uses missile strategies that are far more complex than "fire some missiles at a target and hope they hit" like it seems a decent amount of NSFT attempts.

1. I've never liked the idea of "shielded" missiles, feels like tech-wankery. And of those percentage that actually do use lasers as their PD systems, then it's a simple matter of calculating the timers to split off almost immediately when they get within range.

I didn't say shielded missiles, I said shielded pods. As in, "pods generally aren't shielded or armored, and thus easy to kill." Second, the range on a laser is essentially a combination of difficulty hitting the target due to lightspeed lag and amount of energy that can be delivered at that range to damage the target. An unarmored, unshielded missile pod is probably going to be in the category of "easily murderized".

2. Still, it throws a wrench into everything, even if it doesn't confuse the computer it's going to have to suddenly divert resources to that sector that earlier didn't have as much priority because it didn't need that much attention. Now you have x8 the amount of missiles there than you did before.

Well, no, it doesn't really throw a wrench into anything if it's expected. Radar and other emissions returns > compare to threat library > identify as missile pod > keep an eye on it or better yet task a laser to killing it before it can fire if its within range.

I'm not saying missile pods are useless or a bad idea, I use the hell out of them. I'm just saying that you are overestimating their 'surprise' factor on enemy point defense networks.

[The Ben Boys]

"Spot" isn't the word you are wanting to use here. It is almost certainly easier to spot a missile at 48km (I'm converting your miles to metric, easier to work with for space), than it is at 160,000km. What I believe you are attempting to argue is that it's easier to intercept a missile at such long range than it is to engage it at knife-fighting ranges. That itself, is also not strictly true. First, it all depends on relative velocities. For example, my maximum powered range is generally 30-40 million kilometers, with a terminal velocity generally around ~.2c, which means that if a PD system were to engage it at our hypothetical 160,000km, it would have just over two seconds to do it in, or just three seconds if the missile was actually armed with a proximity warhead.

Two or three seconds to a computer is a long time. Add in advanced sensors, improved weapons ability, and other standard FT equipment and those missiles are scrap. Not really discounting your missiles, which perform much better than mine (though mine are just 2 meters in length) but from what I'm reading I think you may be underestimating how fast a computer can react.

Furthermore there's also the question of what type of weapon system is engaging the incoming missile. A laser is going to do better than bullets simply because it can't be seen coming and its 'lag' is literally the speed of light. Therefore at our hypothetical 100,000 miles/160,000km the 'lag' on a laser is a little under half a second, meaning that the defense computer needs to aim where it predicts the missile will be half a second from 'now'. Contrast that to say, a modern day Phalanx which has a velocity of 1.1km/s on its rounds, which is utterly insufficient for space combat. So let's be generous and boost that 10x since its vacuum and assumed propellant advancements. So, 11 kps velocity... lag time versus a (stationary) target at 160k kilometers is...4 hours. Well, let's fire those engineers and boost it up to a full thousand kilometers per second on this bullet hose, which puts time to intercept at 3 minutes. Granted time will be actually shorter, since it's not a stationary target but rather a target that's attempting to intercept your starship.

Assuming that they use laser PD emplacements. And yes, if I wanted to go down the whole "MOAR TECHZ IZ BETTR" road I can even counter that, either by equipping my missiles with a type of armor that disrupts lasers (using a magnetic field or something; I'm pretty sure Karaig uses something like that again laser weapons) or I could equip my missiles to track the movement of laser emplacements-even half a million klicks away-and split off at just the right time. I won't do that because I dislike doing that, but my point is there will always be a chink in the armor, such as it's lack of effectiveness over laser PD emplacements (whereby I just spam with missile pods that immediately split off after being launched). I myself use both counter-missiles and laser PD emplacements, but someone using the system I described could lessen the effectiveness of the former and overwhelm the latter with numbers.

I didn't say shielded missiles, I said shielded pods. As in, "pods generally aren't shielded or armored, and thus easy to kill." Second, the range on a laser is essentially a combination of difficulty hitting the target due to lightspeed lag and amount of energy that can be delivered at that range to damage the target. An unarmored, unshielded missile pod is probably going to be in the category of "easily murderized".

I'm still not to keen on the idea. In any event, I could just send in a whole bunch of missiles without the pods and hope for the best.

Well, no, it doesn't really throw a wrench into anything if it's expected. Radar and other emissions returns > compare to threat library > identify as missile pod > keep an eye on it or better yet task a laser to killing it before it can fire if its within range.

I'm not saying missile pods are useless or a bad idea, I use the hell out of them. I'm just saying that you are overestimating their 'surprise' factor on enemy point defense networks.

When you first attack, there will always be a surprise, but I see where you're going with it (I can't fight every species once and that's it). Again, this is all assuming the ship in question only uses laser PD emplacements. Moreover, the "surprise" factor isn't what makes the system, in my opinion, it's the fact that it's like a shotgun shell and blows off into eight different directions. It also happens to be at close range, which makes it devastating especially if you spam them with missiles and overwhelm the PD emplacements.

Anyways, most of our differences are differences of doctrine. I engage in close range and have knife-fights for most of my battles, both for the cool factor and because I find it easier to RP, and therefore I have my technology adapted to that: I have missiles that fire like nuclear shogun shells at close range rather than a bazillion miles away (which I still find unrealistic, but we've beaten that horse to death) you have missiles that you can fire from 160,000 km away and get there in a timely manner.

[The Legion of War]

Since we're discussing naval warfare... I figure now is the time to ask for some help.

I'm not really sure where I want to go in terms of doctrine and tactics. All I know is that I want my nation to be "high tech" when it comes to kinetic/ballistic weapons and "meh" at lasers. Basically we rely on kinetic weapons more than anything (and at the moment that's pretty much just bullets, missiles, and railgun/coilguns).

However for naval combat, I'm not really sure what would be the best doctrine to optimize the effectiveness of these types of weapons. I was thinking, maybe, go the old school ship battle route. Basically where you line up the side of your ship with their ship and fire off a lot of cannons. Although, I get the feeling that might not work in an FT setting due to advanced levels of tech.

Another thing I should mention, in case it helps, is that the FTL drive of my ships is basically slipspace from Halo. So, I don't know if that would allow me to close distances faster if I need to? I do realize that there are some RPing issues with tactical FTL in battle, so I would appreciate some guidance here.

[StellarGate]

Since we're discussing naval warfare... I figure now is the time to ask for some help.

I'm not really sure where I want to go in terms of doctrine and tactics. All I know is that I want my nation to be "high tech" when it comes to kinetic/ballistic weapons and "meh" at lasers. Basically we rely on kinetic weapons more than anything (and at the moment that's pretty much just bullets, missiles, and railgun/coilguns).

However for naval combat, I'm not really sure what would be the best doctrine to optimize the effectiveness of these types of weapons. I was thinking, maybe, go the old school ship battle route. Basically where you line up the side of your ship with their ship and fire off a lot of cannons. Although, I get the feeling that might not work in an FT setting due to advanced levels of tech.

Another thing I should mention, in case it helps, is that the FTL drive of my ships is basically slipspace from Halo. So, I don't know if that would allow me to close distances faster if I need to? I do realize that there are some RPing issues with tactical FTL in battle, so I would appreciate some guidance here.

So you want your ships to have broadside tactics? I don't see why that couldn't work, I use it almost faithfully due to being based on tech from Honor Harrington, and HHverse tech isn't exactly low tech.

As for tactical FTL, ask your RP partner first if you have something that might seem god modish, is probably the best way to go, and don't abuse it. My RP partner has tactical FTL and I personally have no problem with it when our ships engage each other because he knows when not to spam the 'jump away' button in his warships.

[The Fedral Union]

Also, any FT alliances? I can't really find any.

There are three that I can think of, TSAR, GESO, and AXIS, though only GESO is a "open" alliance so to speak, while TSAR and AXIS are much more inclusive/region-focused, IIRC.

From my own RP perpective, alliances are best when they come about more naturally through roleplay and shared security commitments, and that players should keep in mind that there are manners of beneficial military interaction besides alliance; informal security commitments, joint training and exchanging of liaisons, and so on.

For example, my own region, the Raumreich Oversector, typically presents a relatively unified face to the rest of the galaxy, but we aren't an alliance at all. Instead, we have something more akin to the G8 or UN Security Council, and it serves our purposes well enough.

<-- A bit late but I'll chime in. Yes alliances are best formed through interactions, but that's not the say they have to be done first. What I mean is, a bunch of friends can get together and form an alliance, and rather than doing rps first to make it happen they construct a history of why and when it happened if that makes sense. Its two ways of doing the same thing, just reversed. To put to rest why I decided to form GESO I've drawn upon my 10+ year history on NS for it, ie that war with chrono that was never finished I plan to make a long history write up about (that's another story). And that factor would sensibly guide us to form GESO. It was a nasty war, many dead lots of bloodshed , destruction; the way me and chron planned it out was going to be a victory for me but at a high cost, and now due to that plan I assume that it all worked out.. And since he also planned to collapse in to a giant warp storm ala eye of terror I now have one of those nasty things located near some of my systems in the sectors we eyed one another in.

It honestly would be ashamed to let such a story go to waste, and it would set the precedent for alot of what I've recently done icly. As for open alliances, I will admit my little band was open for a while but has since shifted and moved on from that in to a closed group. And it is for the better honestly. Quality over quantity is key to many things, an alliance can get large and house good quality players but that will take time and should take time. As of now for GESO rping between a member state and someone who would want to join is pretty much a requirement, then its a process of politicking and a whole bunch of stuff, its true for most other alliances as well on NS now a days. You don't exactly say yes to someone joining or ask when you initiate first contact. Unless one works it out with fluid time.

There has to be a balance between aligned nations and non aligned nations in a sense that if there's too much of either nothing interesting happens.. If everyone is aligned then...Yeah it gets boring fast, non aligned nations have the advantages of not being committed to treaties, at the same time allied nations at least the way GESO has formed work closely together YMMV on that ofc. We have the GRF (a joint defense exploration thingy) , a security council , gate systems and principles that have been laid out in the charter. So we're all of the same mindset in a sense.

Anyway long winded reply short, I will close with this, learning to play politics in an alliance is a thing, and not wielding them as blunt instrument (its a cooperative, and old alliances used to spam threads with dog piles and that's not cool) is also a thing.. That doesn't mean though that if you fuck with the bull legitimately and blatantly you wont get the horns.

[The Ben Boys]

Since we're discussing naval warfare... I figure now is the time to ask for some help.

I'm not really sure where I want to go in terms of doctrine and tactics. All I know is that I want my nation to be "high tech" when it comes to kinetic/ballistic weapons and "meh" at lasers. Basically we rely on kinetic weapons more than anything (and at the moment that's pretty much just bullets, missiles, and railgun/coilguns).

However for naval combat, I'm not really sure what would be the best doctrine to optimize the effectiveness of these types of weapons. I was thinking, maybe, go the old school ship battle route. Basically where you line up the side of your ship with their ship and fire off a lot of cannons. Although, I get the feeling that might not work in an FT setting due to advanced levels of tech.

Another thing I should mention, in case it helps, is that the FTL drive of my ships is basically slipspace from Halo. So, I don't know if that would allow me to close distances faster if I need to? I do realize that there are some RPing issues with tactical FTL in battle, so I would appreciate some guidance here.

First of all, I find kinetics the way to go. It's a personal preference, since there are probably more effective means to kill things I just find kinetics appealing. There's just something satisfying about throwing a massive boulder at your enemy and watching them (hopefully) crumble.

I'm also a fan of the broadside tactics that you have described, and already gave a rundown of how I use these tactics a page ago. Not only does it satisfy the romantic in me (I have a certain thrill of fighting like Lord Nelson and John Paul Jones) but it's the way I enjoy RPing, for better or worse in terms of effectiveness. I encourage you to choose based off of what you like RPing, even if it isn't as effective (heck, until about a year ago I purposefully didn't have a doctrine for my navy because I wanted them to suck, whereas my ground forces were much more powerful).

Though it may be because I find the "slipspace" concept a little blasé, I encourage you to rework your own FTL systems to make it as original as you could be, or better yet make it a story element. My first nation, for all of it's incredible plotholes and unoriginal content, has an FTL system that tied into the story of the nation and RPs quite nicely. I myself am trying to rework or even redo my current FTL system, mostly because it doesn't provide enough story content and just doesn't fit into my nation.

-snip-

Going off on what Vernii and Fedral said, some FT alliances are generally formed as plot points (at least from my experience), such as to fight a larger enemy or to get through a trying time. For example, I personally belong to an alliance of three nations known as TIBER, though we are within our own backwater galaxy that has few ties to the Milky Way. We started initially as a wartime alliance, though we extended our history and plans for future RPs for at least another hundred years ICly. Though one of the players is defunct, two more have risen up we maintain a series of RPs within our own little galaxy based off of this alliance and our relations to other NPC powers.

Tibea, if you want to join a larger "open" alliance I suggest GESO. Though I haven't RPed with them I looked into them and they are a good group of RPers. I do also suggest you create an event that would create an alliance between another player or two (such as a war against a large, common enemy or a common internal threat) or, better yet, try to start a small one with a friend of yours IRL or someone you consistently enjoy RPing with.

[Vernii]

Two or three seconds to a computer is a long time. Add in advanced sensors, improved weapons ability, and other standard FT equipment and those missiles are scrap. Not really discounting your missiles, which perform much better than mine (though mine are just 2 meters in length) but from what I'm reading I think you may be underestimating how fast a computer can react.

Oh I'm certainly not discounting how fast computers can react, but two seconds means everything in the process has to go perfectly for every intercept. ECM, target saturation, multi-vector approaches, hell, even firing rate and the rad/sec tracking speed of a turret or lense all factor into the probability of a successful intercept. I'm not arguing that intercepts aren't likely, but 100% intercepts are difficult to achieve, and competent navies adjust their technology and doctrine so that even if only one out of ten or whatever gets through, the target is going to hurt. All it takes is something critical like a radar array being hit and leaving an arc badly surveyed or a PD battery getting blotted off the hull by a strobed laser and a ship that was previously doing just fine could find itself in danger of being mobbed down by laser warheads.

Assuming that they use laser PD emplacements. And yes, if I wanted to go down the whole "MOAR TECHZ IZ BETTR" road I can even counter that, either by equipping my missiles with a type of armor that disrupts lasers (using a magnetic field or something; I'm pretty sure Karaig uses something like that again laser weapons) or I could equip my missiles to track the movement of laser emplacements-even half a million klicks away-and split off at just the right time. I won't do that because I dislike doing that, but my point is there will always be a chink in the armor, such as it's lack of effectiveness over laser PD emplacements (whereby I just spam with missile pods that immediately split off after being launched). I myself use both counter-missiles and laser PD emplacements, but someone using the system I described could lessen the effectiveness of the former and overwhelm the latter with numbers.

You do realize that this is what I'm arguing yes? That no PD system is 100% effective against an equiv-tech enemy.

EDIT: Actually, an interesting thing to consider with point-defenses is that they could conceivably be far more effective against kinetics than missiles. The only different between a missile and shell is that the missile is capable of altering its own course and velocity. In contrast, a shell moves at a unchanging velocity on an unchanging course, which means a PD network can easily predict which ones will miss and which ones are threats, and toss out its own counters accordingly.

[The Legion of War]

Since we're discussing naval warfare... I figure now is the time to ask for some help.

I'm not really sure where I want to go in terms of doctrine and tactics. All I know is that I want my nation to be "high tech" when it comes to kinetic/ballistic weapons and "meh" at lasers. Basically we rely on kinetic weapons more than anything (and at the moment that's pretty much just bullets, missiles, and railgun/coilguns).

However for naval combat, I'm not really sure what would be the best doctrine to optimize the effectiveness of these types of weapons. I was thinking, maybe, go the old school ship battle route. Basically where you line up the side of your ship with their ship and fire off a lot of cannons. Although, I get the feeling that might not work in an FT setting due to advanced levels of tech.

Another thing I should mention, in case it helps, is that the FTL drive of my ships is basically slipspace from Halo. So, I don't know if that would allow me to close distances faster if I need to? I do realize that there are some RPing issues with tactical FTL in battle, so I would appreciate some guidance here.

First of all, I find kinetics the way to go. It's a personal preference, since there are probably more effective means to kill things I just find kinetics appealing. There's just something satisfying about throwing a massive boulder at your enemy and watching them (hopefully) crumble.

I'm also a fan of the broadside tactics that you have described, and already gave a rundown of how I use these tactics a page ago. Not only does it satisfy the romantic in me (I have a certain thrill of fighting like Lord Nelson and John Paul Jones) but it's the way I enjoy RPing, for better or worse in terms of effectiveness. I encourage you to choose based off of what you like RPing, even if it isn't as effective (heck, until about a year ago I purposefully didn't have a doctrine for my navy because I wanted them to suck, whereas my ground forces were much more powerful).

Though it may be because I find the "slipspace" concept a little blasé, I encourage you to rework your own FTL systems to make it as original as you could be, or better yet make it a story element. My first nation, for all of it's incredible plotholes and unoriginal content, has an FTL system that tied into the story of the nation and RPs quite nicely. I myself am trying to rework or even redo my current FTL system, mostly because it doesn't provide enough story content and just doesn't fit into my nation.

My nation uses kinetic because we're not too far along in terms of tech. At least not at the point where we use lasers, grasers, masers, etc on the battlefield as a common thing. We have lasers for point defence, and a select few other weapons but it's not massively widespread. It's also easier for me to write since ballistics are more familiar to us folk in the 21rst century. However, when and if I decide my nation moves beyond kinetics... I'll take up the task of learning how to "properly" RP lasers and what not.

As for using broadside tactics... I've only considered it because it's the only form of naval warfare I really know and therefore feel comfortable writing (and even then, it'd just be coming from movies like Pirates of the Caribbean). I'm not sure what modern navies do today or what a futuristic navy might do, so if someone could shed some light on that I would appreciate it. So I can't even say for sure it's because I like it, it's more because that's all I know.

As for slipspace... I don't know enough physics to suggest a remotely plausible FTL engine on my own. I'm also a bit too lazy at the moment to be bothered to invent something that really is only supposed to get my from point A to B. That's just on my part, but I do think what you said has merit. Maybe sometime in the future.

[Vernii]

My nation uses kinetic because we're not too far along in terms of tech. At least not at the point where we use lasers, grasers, masers, etc on the battlefield as a common thing. We have lasers for point defence, and a select few other weapons but it's not massively widespread. It's also easier for me to write since ballistics are more familiar to us folk in the 21rst century. However, when and if I decide my nation moves beyond kinetics... I'll take up the task of learning how to "properly" RP lasers and what not.

As for using broadside tactics... I've only considered it because it's the only form of naval warfare I really know and therefore feel comfortable writing (and even then, it'd just be coming from movies like Pirates of the Caribbean). I'm not sure what modern navies do today or what a futuristic navy might do, so if someone could shed some light on that I would appreciate it. So I can't even say for sure it's because I like it, it's more because that's all I know.

As for slipspace... I don't know enough physics to suggest a remotely plausible FTL engine on my own. I'm also a bit too lazy at the moment to be bothered to invent something that really is only supposed to get my from point A to B. That's just on my part, but I do think what you said has merit. Maybe sometime in the future.

I would recommend doing research on modern air and naval combat strategy as a foundation to build upon, while keeping in mind that a lot of the factors that influence modern tactics aren't present in space (horizons for instance, and being a limitless 3d environment). I would also recommend reading through Atomic Rocket, which approaches spaceships from a hard science viewpoint. Even at 'soft' levels of science fiction, a lot of the same principles will still apply. Here is the site's page on conventional weaponry.

From a realist perspective, I would highly recommend learning and adopting something other than an Age of Sail broadside model, as it essentially relies upon your opponent fighting in a similar manner, getting the drop on them, or them making enough mistakes to allow you to close the range and engage them on your terms. If they do not, then it would be quite likely that your forces are in for a rough time. This isn't the same as having broadside weaponry, since that still makes plenty of sense to mount weapons on the largest portions of hull available, but rather that your tactics should be more complex than "pull close alongside the enemy and fire everything."

EDIT: I suppose I could do a giant write up on how the IVN approaches space warfare, but it'll take some time.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

your tactics should be more complex than "pull close alongside the enemy and fire everything."

Heresy!

[Vernii]

your tactics should be more complex than "pull close alongside the enemy and fire everything."

Heresy!

I said it was from a realist perspective, not a "manly men in manly hats" perspective.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

My nation uses kinetic because we're not too far along in terms of tech. At least not at the point where we use lasers, grasers, masers, etc on the battlefield as a common thing. We have lasers for point defence, and a select few other weapons but it's not massively widespread. It's also easier for me to write since ballistics are more familiar to us folk in the 21rst century. However, when and if I decide my nation moves beyond kinetics... I'll take up the task of learning how to "properly" RP lasers and what not.

As for using broadside tactics... I've only considered it because it's the only form of naval warfare I really know and therefore feel comfortable writing (and even then, it'd just be coming from movies like Pirates of the Caribbean). I'm not sure what modern navies do today or what a futuristic navy might do, so if someone could shed some light on that I would appreciate it. So I can't even say for sure it's because I like it, it's more because that's all I know.

As for slipspace... I don't know enough physics to suggest a remotely plausible FTL engine on my own. I'm also a bit too lazy at the moment to be bothered to invent something that really is only supposed to get my from point A to B. That's just on my part, but I do think what you said has merit. Maybe sometime in the future.

From a realist perspective, I would highly recommend learning and adopting something other than an Age of Sail broadside model, as it essentially relies upon your opponent fighting in a similar manner, getting the drop on them, or them making enough mistakes to allow you to close the range and engage them on your terms. If they do not, then it would be quite likely that your forces are in for a rough time. This isn't the same as having broadside weaponry, since that still makes plenty of sense to mount weapons on the largest portions of hull available, but rather that your tactics should be more complex than "pull close alongside the enemy and fire everything."

This

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Heresy!

I said it was from a realist perspective, not a "manly men in manly hats" perspective.

Seeing things from other people's perspective isn't manly, therefore heresy.

[Vernii]

Alright, so here's an attempt at explaining the IVN's approach to space combat. First, it focuses on long range combat. This is partly because it's rather risk-averse; missiles are cheaper and far easier to replace than starships. In addition, long ranges allow more freedom to maneuver and make it easier to disengage if things go badly. Finally, the IVN puts a lot of priority on coordination and information dominance.

At range, one runs into the problem of lightspeed lag. At 100,000km, you see the target where it was (approximately) 1/3 of a second ago, at 300,000: 1 second. 1 million: 3.3 seconds. At 40 million, which is the maximum powered range of my anti-shipping missiles? 2.2 minutes. When you consider that, for example, a starship that's matched velocity with Earth is moving at 30 kilometers per second (which is pretty slow as far as I'm concerned with space combat in FT). But, at 30kps, a target could have moved potentially almost 4,000 kilometers from where one of my ships 'sees' it at two light minutes away.

Notice that I said "could have", because the target vessel isn't necessarily limited to maintaining that speed and course. It could brake, accelerate, alter course, fire maneuvering thrusters and skew sideways, and so on. Further information is always coming in of course, but its always two minutes out of date, leaving the target vessel always in a nebulous zone of locations that it could be.

So, to combat this issue, the IVN has two approaches. The first is the construction of probability models. Information on the target (including any data in the threat library if its type has been encountered before) is analyzed to generate expected performance envelopes (aka expected acceleration if the target goes full throttle or stomps on the brakes and anywhere in between, how their inertia is going to factor into evasive maneuvers and course alterations, etc), and to look for patterns of behavior. This all gets used in the creation of a probability cone to predict where the target may be. I whipped up a simple cone as an illustration, with a cutaway view as well. In this example, the red zone is basically where the ship will be if it follows its current course, with orange being where it could be if it engages in limited maneuvers, and yellow if it engages in evasive maneuvers, assuming it begins them at that moment. This cone would be further refined and regenerated as the target's actual actions are observed, and provides a continually updating estimate on where to vector missiles and sweep patterns with lasers.

As I said though, it's a simple illustration. Against a target in combat that's say, already doing its best to random-walk and putting out jamming, decoys, etc, it's not going to be a nice and pretty defined cone like that. Furthermore, the longer the range, the faster the target is moving, and the more delta-v it has, the larger the cone is going to get. For missile combat, it becomes problematic when missiles reach the point at which light-speed lag to their own mothership means the information they are receiving from it is also out of date, and now their computers are comparing the data they are receiving on the target with their own sensors and comparing it to the analysis that the mothership is sending, in an attempt to build a picture of how best to conduct their attack.

This is where the IVN's second approach comes in, and this one is a purely technological solution. Most FT nations have FTL communications of some sort, and using it in battle is a pretty obvious usage. The IVN goes a step further and uses it for fire control work. Each warship is equipped with a number of nu-space (the Raumreich's FTL communication method) drones of various types, with the intention of sprinkling them around in battle at various ranges from the enemy. I drew up a quick diagram of how the system works here.

Essentially, the IVN uses its reconnaissance platforms to shortcut its way around the substantial lightspeed lag at range, and in turn dramatically reduce the probability cones that enemy warships are lurking in. Furthermore, through the use of nu-space, its missiles are being fed that same data in more or less real-time (processing delays and all), and thus can adapt to the changing battle situation as it happens. The same principle applies in reverse for point-defense work, through the use of drones and such, the mothership can get a better and faster picture of the threat situation that its in.

Anyway, this also all factors into why the IVN doesn't use kinetics. At long range they're basically useless because you have to achieve an intercept at the X,Y, and Z coordinates of the enemy vessel, with a weapon that it can see coming on an easily predictable course. In contrast, the lasers and grasers that it uses as ship mounted weaponry, since a beam basically only has to intercept the target at the appropriate X and Y coordinates. So not only are they actually useful at long range, but they're still deadly as hell at knife-fighting because a laser that's meant to poke holes in armor at a light second or two is going to mess up something unlucky enough to get nailed at only 50 kilometers.

As for missile/kinetic defense, I went some detail in a prior post about my defense-in-depth technique. What I left out is how that operates at the division level (4 ships) or higher: units in combat are regularly evaluated and triaged by overarching point-defense and electronic warfare programs. Each starship is ranked in priority of unit importance, mission objectives, and overall warfare value, then ranked in terms of survivability, including taking into account existing damage and ability to suffer such. Point-defense resources are thereby allocated to ensure the safety of highest priority assets. Defense programs may leave a lower-value unit entirely open to incoming fire to protect a higher-value, if necessary (aka it sucks to be a lowly destroyer).

Fleet combat generally involves placement of screening units at a substantial distance from the main force, between it and the enemy, but still covered by the outer fringes of the main force's point defense network. In this way, PD coverage is extended, and enemy munitions aimed at the main force that make it past the screen will be caught in a cross-fire.

There, I think that mostly covers it.

[SquareDisc City]

EDIT: Actually, an interesting thing to consider with point-defenses is that they could conceivably be far more effective against kinetics than missiles. The only different between a missile and shell is that the missile is capable of altering its own course and velocity. In contrast, a shell moves at a unchanging velocity on an unchanging course, which means a PD network can easily predict which ones will miss and which ones are threats, and toss out its own counters accordingly.

The counterargument to that is the other difference between kinetics and (most) missiles: a kinetic needs only its own energy and momentum to do damage, while a missile usually uses an active warhead. To stop a kinetic dead in its tracks you need a PD weapon delivering momentum equal to the incoming kinetic; generally not going to be practical. A weaker PD weapon will usually suffice to turn the kinetic into a cloud of plasma that still hits you unless you snipe it from far enough out (and even then some of it still hits you). If it would otherwise hit your armour spreading the impact out may be a good thing, but if it's hitting your shields it might not make a difference what state of matter it's in. All depends on the details of your tech of course. In any case, chances are a weaker weapon still will be able to break the warhead or drive of a missile.

So in short, kinetics are easier - much easier - to hit with point defence, but may be harder to kill with it.

EDIT: This leads me to an interesting defensive idea: a shield that can effectively stop plasmas and charged particles (for example a simple magnetic shield) but is ineffective against kinetics, coupled with a PD system designed to vaporise incoming kinetics so the shield can stop them. I might use this on some UPT craft that don't have access to the Space Force's all-round shields.

[DuThaal Craftworld]

So in FT, is there any real difference between missiles & torpedoes? Or are they pretty much interchangeable?

[SquareDisc City]

So far as I'm aware, it's largely up to the franchise that uses them.

[The Akasha Colony]

So in FT, is there any real difference between missiles & torpedoes? Or are they pretty much interchangeable?

On a functional level, not really. Individual nations and individual franchises may make distinctions, but these are largely arbitrary as the actual distinguishing features between those present terms (method of propulsion, general size/weight, launch mechanism, and above all travel medium) are largely irrelevant in space. They're both labels for guided, self-propelled munitions.

[Feazanthia]

EDIT: Actually, an interesting thing to consider with point-defenses is that they could conceivably be far more effective against kinetics than missiles. The only different between a missile and shell is that the missile is capable of altering its own course and velocity. In contrast, a shell moves at a unchanging velocity on an unchanging course, which means a PD network can easily predict which ones will miss and which ones are threats, and toss out its own counters accordingly.

The counterargument to that is the other difference between kinetics and (most) missiles: a kinetic needs only its own energy and momentum to do damage, while a missile usually uses an active warhead. To stop a kinetic dead in its tracks you need a PD weapon delivering momentum equal to the incoming kinetic; generally not going to be practical. A weaker PD weapon will usually suffice to turn the kinetic into a cloud of plasma that still hits you unless you snipe it from far enough out (and even then some of it still hits you). If it would otherwise hit your armour spreading the impact out may be a good thing, but if it's hitting your shields it might not make a difference what state of matter it's in. All depends on the details of your tech of course. In any case, chances are a weaker weapon still will be able to break the warhead or drive of a missile.

So in short, kinetics are easier - much easier - to hit with point defence, but may be harder to kill with it.

But you don't need to kill the kinetic, just deflect it. Enough power to vaporize a small part of it, maybe enough for a 0.5% change in velocity in any direction, would be enough to knock the projectile out of an intercept vector. It's unguided, it can't make a course correction.

[SquareDisc City]

Fair point. Though I believe you'd need one of multiple ships, non-straight-line point defense stuff, or extreme precision to pull it off.

[Feazanthia]

Fair point. Though I believe you'd need one of multiple ships, non-straight-line point defense stuff, or extreme precision to pull it off.

Precision is not a problem. Any moron who can develop a laser weapon system can stabilize and calibrate it correctly, and laser beams are practically the definition of precise. It's mostly a question of computer speed and turret traverse time. Your average kinetic slug, when fired, will burn extremely hot. If your passive detection sensors are at any way based on IR signature (which, given that most people tend to use reaction engines, THEY SHOULD BE), you will have a very good look at the projectile. Determining its velocity is a simple equation then. Any first year physics student could do it. The challenge for the computer, then, would be to determine the slug's velocity in a short enough period of time that a point defense laser can be brought to bear and fired. Assuming your ship is accelerating, and depending on range, even a glancing hit should change the projectile's velocity sufficiently for a miss. The difficulty increases exponentially the higher the slug's velocity and the shorter the range, of course. Hence why kinetics are generally seen as "knife fight" weapons. I doubt most civilizations on NS have the tech to reliably deflect average anti-ship kinetic bombardments with active defenses at even 10,000 km.

[Oppressorion]

Why would a slug be hot? If it's coming out of a mass driver, then the vacumn of space would keep it isolated from any transfer, and there is no mechanical contact between barrel and slug for friction. Assuming that it's already cold, it'll stay that way until impact (barring being too close to a star or something).

[The Akasha Colony]

Why would a slug be hot? If it's coming out of a mass driver, then the vacumn of space would keep it isolated from any transfer, and there is no mechanical contact between barrel and slug for friction. Assuming that it's already cold, it'll stay that way until impact (barring being too close to a star or something).

A railgun however does require physical contact in order to complete the circuit. And while it is probably not what Feaz meant, just keeping the slug onboard the ship (which is presumably warm relative to the surrounding space) would result in the slug also being rather warm, and thus detectable.

[Feazanthia]

Even in a completely free-floating coilgun design, there will still be an enormous generation of heat in the projectile itself. By the nature of electromagnetic acceleration, the magnetic slug will be absorbing incredible amounts of energy - the faster you accelerate, the more energy it takes in. This energy is inevitably going to be released as infrared radiation - heat.

But even if you somehow create a free-floating accelerator design without any net energy absorption, and if your ammunition stores are kept in a space-temperature vacuum (which may be a bad idea with vacuum welding being a factor), if your slug is moving at any appreciable clip through interplanetary space, it's going to throw off bursts of hard radiation as it passes through solar wind.

So no. Stealth naval guns aren't really possible.