Spicing up battles, some thoughts

Like the hull specialization idea.  

Hull specialization sounds really cool. I think it's possible to mod that in and that's all it would take (right?)

I believe it's possible to mod this in, however the AI won't follow your idea. I'm not even sure if it would use the new hull types.

Actually ive recently seen more specialised hulls in alternate reality mod but im not sure that it works properly. As far as the other ideas go id say they are only possible by redesinging some core files.

The main thing id like to happen is for the smaller designs to play a role later in the game so that fleets have to be balanced and battles look like they are real.

In point of fact, any "real" battles in space are likely to involve only capital ships. What a small one man fighter can do, a cheaper torpedo can do better. Evasive maneuvers? Program in a series (say 100) different thruster combinations, and have the torpedo computer pick some at random.

What a smaller ship can do (agility?), can be countered with computer controlled turrets aboard the heavier ship. Since computer control would be neccesary for relativistic combat, that's what would likely happen.

The bigger ships being much more powerful is what would happen in real life, but small ships are still viable in GalCiv2. This is more fun, so I support it wholeheartedly, and don't think small ships need any bonuses.

In point of fact, any "real" battles in space are likely to involve only capital ships. What a small one man fighter can do, a cheaper torpedo can do better.

The advent of carried airpower in WWII showed that small, agile aircraft can do things even battleships can't. Obviously it's a different situation in space, but it's not altogether different.

Besides, I'd like to think that at least some of the sheer awesomeness in Freespace 2 would carry over into real life.

You missed the importance of the 2nd half of the quote -

Evasive maneuvers? Program in a series (say 100) different thruster combinations, and have the torpedo computer pick some at random. What a smaller ship can do (agility?), can be countered with computer controlled turrets aboard the heavier ship. Since computer control would be neccesary for relativistic combat, that's what would likely happen.

Yes, dive & torpedo bombers were effective against large naval vessel in WWII, but the AA guns were manned by sailors - not computers guided by radar and/or sophisticated visual systems somewhat superior to human sight. And were deadly even when used "only by humans".

I saw, but I didn't consider it a deal-breaker. Analog gunsights like the Kerrison predictor existed during WWII, so it wasn't just men eyeballing and turning a crank. And carrier battlegroups still reign supreme today even with the advent of long range SAMS and (mediocre) automated gun systems like the Phalanx. Even cruise missiles--the closest thing to an heir to naval bombardment--are more expensive than an attack mission, can't engage as many targets, and can't tell you if they've done the job. I doubt even computers of the future will be perfect substitutes for humans.

Besides, what about guns in the GCII universe? Clearly fighters would be in a better position to hit enemy ships in critical places than big monstrosities lobbing shells from (presumably) hundreds of KM away at least.

Klenbottle23 wrote:Besides, what about guns in the GCII universe? Clearly fighters would be in a better position to hit enemy ships in critical places than big monstrosities lobbing shells from (presumably) hundreds of KM away at least.

Two words: Beam Weapons.

Before you say anything about dodging those, keep in mind that GalCiv hyperdrive works by warping space, not neccesarily going faster than light (I think...). So there's little chance a fighter'd see it coming.

Even if your fighter manages to close on my capital ship, keep in mind GalCiv's engines are reaction drives, albeit advanced ones*. Larger ships have more storage capacity for mass to burn, so would be able to go farther than a smaller one. That small fighter of yours? Toast as soon as it turns its back. Not to mention there's no chance of shooting the engines if they're properly shielded laterally. The only shot'd be from behind, and there you'd be wiped out by the output of said drives.


*The glowy bits on the back ends of the ships and engines are all the proof I need. A reactionless drive wouldn't need such bits.

Another word: Missiles.

Organic beings are inherently limited in the amounts of G-Force they can take. Machines also have inherent limits, albeit much higher ones. There's no outturning or outrunning that cylindar of death coming up your tailpipe. And there's little evading it, if you're going in at relativistic speeds, since human reaction times are only so fast.

An automated ship (large torpedo?) would have a much better chance at evading, simply due to not being hampered by a meatbag sitting in it. Not to mention that it'd carry more power for killing the enemy due to having no need for a bulky life support system.

Heck, if game mechanics allowed it, I'd build fighter-sized torpedos equipped with one-shot hyperdrives to be put onto my capships. Then deploy those against enemy capships. I'd like to see point-defense shoot THAT down.

In point of fact, any "real" battles in space are likely to involve only capital ships. What a small one man fighter can do, a cheaper torpedo can do better. Evasive maneuvers? Program in a series (say 100) different thruster combinations, and have the torpedo computer pick some at random. What a smaller ship can do (agility?), can be countered with computer controlled turrets aboard the heavier ship. Since computer control would be neccesary for relativistic combat, that's what would likely happen. The bigger ships being much more powerful is what would happen in real life, but small ships are still viable in GalCiv2. This is more fun, so I support it wholeheartedly, and don't think small ships need any bonuses.

WOW! You've been to the future?

What i was getting at was that larger ships would have to use different weapons in order to stay balanced, eg some huge mass drivers for making holes in big ships and some lasers for dealing with smaller ships.

This could lead to more than one line of research in each weapon catagory, for example the missile catagory could split mid way into those with big warheads and those which are quick and clever. Equally the laser tree could end in the doom ray and maybe a lighter anti fighter system which consists of a few lasers but which can only be applied once, like the trade module.If you do specialize your larger ships then youl need some fighters to defend it from the nucsance fighters.

As for all this argument over me using the word real i mean simply that in no warfare do you just pump out the biggest and the best otherwise wars would only be fought with tanks, but the main thing was that it looks right to have your capital ships flanked by some fighters.

Before you say anything about dodging those, keep in mind that GalCiv hyperdrive works by warping space, not neccesarily going faster than light (I think...). So there's little chance a fighter'd see it coming.

Er...I don't get what you mean. Are you saying that the beam would be going faster than light? That the fighters would be going too fast to be safely maneuvered away from an incoming beam?

Even if your fighter manages to close on my capital ship, keep in mind GalCiv's engines are reaction drives, albeit advanced ones*. Larger ships have more storage capacity for mass to burn, so would be able to go farther than a smaller one.

Massive ships aren't going to handle better than small fighters no matter what kind of reaction drive they use. And it's also not obvious that we're talking about combat at extreme distances and relativistic speeds. Indeed, we almost certainly aren't--fighters can't carry enough reaction mass to go that fast, and big ships could carry enough but probably not enough to maneuver. Not to mention the time involved---years or months at least unless we're talking about insane acceleration.

All combat we see in the GC universe takes place in normal space.

That small fighter of yours? Toast as soon as it turns its back. Not to mention there's no chance of shooting the engines if they're properly shielded laterally. The only shot'd be from behind, and there you'd be wiped out by the output of said drives.

I'm afraid I don't see your point. Yes, it would be dumb for a fighter to try to fly close to the engine wash of a ship and fire a weapon in. Firing at any of the other sensitive places--weapons, shields, life-support gear, sensors, etc--wouldn't be intrinsically hazardous (well, except for weapons )

Again, I'd like to bring up the prevalence of carried airpower in today's military. We have ICBMs, cruise missiles, missiles capable of pulling 60+ Gs, and 16-inch naval guns, but we still use aircraft for the overwhelming majority of our tactical strikes. Why? Because a small, maneuverable plane has more flexibility, precision, can be used more than once, and a human pilot can make decisions that a computer is rubbish at doing. And yes, there is out maneuvering missiles. Happens all the time, even though they go at Mach 3-4 and can put any fighter on earth to shame.

As for the effectiveness of an automated megatorpedo, well...no doubt they'd have their uses, but I don't see them being all that more maneuverable than fighters. Keep in mind that most of the missiles we see pulling 60 Gs are missiles designed to take out fighter aircraft. You don't see ICBMs pulling amazing aerobatic maneuvers; indeed, they carry MIRVs and decoy warheads precisely because they can't maneuver worth beans. And you'd need something this size if we're talking about combat at hundreds or thousands of KM away. (Side note: realistically, that's probably all we're dealing with.) Missiles might not have a "meatbag" pilot, but they're just as vulnerable to structural stresses.

In short: I can think of uses for both systems, but I don't see any reason to expect a vast capability gap between the two.

Kleinbottle23 wrote:
Er...I don't get what you mean. Are you saying that the beam would be going faster than light? That the fighters would be going too fast to be safely maneuvered away from an incoming beam?

No, I mean that I believe that the fighters' pilot, even if looking at the sensor would be unable to see a laser before it hit said fighter, assuming we're talking about a few thousand kilometers. Given that individual ships can track whole parsecs of space, they must have FTL sensors, but a human's reaction times would be to slow to evade.

Kleinbottle23 wrote:
Massive ships aren't going to handle better than small fighters no matter what kind of reaction drive they use. And it's also not obvious that we're talking about combat at extreme distances and relativistic speeds. Indeed, we almost certainly aren't--fighters can't carry enough reaction mass to go that fast, and big ships could carry enough but probably not enough to maneuver. Not to mention the time involved---years or months at least unless we're talking about insane acceleration.

Correct, I was talking about endurance. Said fighter would have to turn back to its mothership given enough time. Once the fighter turns back, it would become the metaphorical sitting duck.


Kleinbottle23 wrote:
Again, I'd like to bring up the prevalence of carried airpower in today's military. We have ICBMs, cruise missiles, missiles capable of pulling 60+ Gs, and 16-inch naval guns, but we still use aircraft for the overwhelming majority of our tactical strikes. Why? Because a small, maneuverable plane has more flexibility, precision, can be used more than once, and a human pilot can make decisions that a computer is rubbish at doing. And yes, there is out maneuvering missiles. Happens all the time, even though they go at Mach 3-4 and can put any fighter on earth to shame.


The only reason fighters and bombers have an advantage over ships, is because they are traveling in a plane that ships can't. The Z plane is inherently closed to ships. Space ships won't have such an issue, and assuming Newtonian physics are in play, a fighter would have significant difficulties moving any faster than a large ship, and

Point conceded on outmaneuvering missiles. However, providing for fighters, their fuel, and the pilots onboard a carrier would take far more than maintenence for a few torpedoes with advanced computers. A civilization could field torpedo ships in space that are as cheap as your carriers, yet pack a larger punch due to having to provide for fewer humans. Sure, your fighter pilots could make a difference -- assuming their capital ship hadn't been blown away, and they weren't facing massive difficulties closing with the carrier*.

Kleinbottle23 wrote:*snip megatorpedo*

I apologize, I should've been more clear. That was just me wishing for the ability to do that in the game. It wasn't meant to be part of the debate. The only reason I can think of using those would be to destroy large capital ships, or cities on a planet.

Kleinbottle23 wrote:Missiles might not have a "meatbag" pilot, but they're just as vulnerable to structural stresses.


Ah, but they would pack a larger amount of explosives, or be able to maneuver far better. Yes, they are vulnerable to structural stresses, but said stresses are beyond those possible for a human piloted fighter.



*Let's do some math here, shall we?

Even today's large battleship turrets can turn several degrees/second. Space is very very large. Even a 5 degrees/second rate of turning for turrets would cover a great distance (for Earth folks).

Lets assume an effective range of 50 kilometers for a beam weapon aboard the theoretical capital ship. The circle of this weapon's range has a 50 kilometer radius. Assuming it has 180 degrees of clearance, it can cover ~157 kilometers in cirucumfrance. Assuming a turning radius of, say, 5 degrees/second, it'll cover 4.36 kilometers/second at its maximum range.

Let's say the battleship doesn't see the theoretical fighter coming. It closes to 10 kilometers. This turret turning at five degrees/second covers 1.13 kilometers along the circumfrance of the fighter's coming in. assuming a constant amount of turning.

Assuming 1 G of acceleration, that would take ~114 seconds to accelerate to, that's 114 seconds of acceleration at a 90 degree angle from the turret. Sure, you could have such an acceleration, but you'd only have one attack run each time you did so, and that's just from one turret.

I must say that I still disagree, but I like the way you think.

I'll focus my comments on point defense technology, since that's what it ultimately comes down to: what's the best way to deliver a warhead that won't get shot down?

First, a 50 KM beam weapon seems unlikely, especially one capable of tracking a small target. I'm to tired to do the math now, but modern weapons have a power range of a couple of hundred kW and a range of 5km. (Rather lame of me, especially after you did the math, but hey, it's 3AM.) Obviously that would increase in the future, but how many fast-tracking decent sized beam turrets can a ship afford to mount for point defense? Assuming the enemy doesn't fire shots one at a time, Beam dwell time would be an issue. Especially if the pilot isn't an idiot and doesn't fly in a straight line those 50 km. Presumably beam-reflective coatings, ablative coatings, and heat hardening would only increase the energy demands.


One specific response to your comments:

The only reason fighters and bombers have an advantage over ships, is because they are traveling in a plane that ships can't. The Z plane is inherently closed to ships. Space ships won't have such an issue, and assuming Newtonian physics are in play, a fighter would have significant difficulties moving any faster than a large ship, and

I think you had more to add, but I'll respond to what's there for now. The issue of planes seems largely irrelevent, since a small fighter will be able to maneuver in three dimensions much faster than a massive capital ship even in Newtonian physics. It takes much less energy to propel a fighter's smaller mass up to an arbitrary speed than it does a big ship. Thus we aren't likely to see a battleship dogfighting with a fighter. And I'd add that aircraft have many more advantages than the one you list---flexibility, precision, maneuverability, and the like. Yes, PD emplacements would mitigate their effectiveness, but it seems just as likely that they'd be able to take out missiles, too. The best case scenario is a furious arms race between missile AI and PD AI.

Which brings me to my next point. It's hard to imagine a laser that would be effective against regular mass drivers. Leaving aside entirely exotic crap like Quantum Drivers and their ilk, what kind of beam can quickly melt (at bare minimum) a large, dense slug of metal? If fighters close in and fire those--especially if they fire them at, say, the fire control radars--what can the PD turrets do?*


Misc:

Warhead size hardly seems like it would be an issue for either deployment method. Considering the distances we're talking about, nukes are the obvious choice. The question is whether a fighter launching a nuke or a missile carrying a nuke has a better probability of kill.



*Okay, I'll admit that fighters probably couldn't carry (and fire) guns big enough to punch through cap ship armor. But that doesn't mean they couldn't do what I originally suggested--hit various sensitive places on the cap ship. This would soften the enemy up for enemy cap ship guns.

Hello to all

interesting ideas people but think the spaceships for a more relistic look should move in one direction, some of you may not be able to get what i am saying so allow me to explain. What i have noticed the ships move there frakin nose all over the place without moving the hull, if any of you have seen star wars, star treak and played halo 2 move the hull with the thrusters and in one direction and from priate like battles were the side cannons are used to cripple the oppisition while the main weapon is at the nose kicking the crap out of long range targets.

Another way you could spice up space battle is to introduce broading craft with no weapons, strong sheilds but have a strike team ready of about 5 million troops ready to naw at the inside of the battle ship as soon as there connected to the hull.

Also extending on the side guns main gun thing, i rekon that the custom attachment ponits a ship with a lot of side guns should have the upper hand on small fighters and should be weaker agianst battle ship with a big hull rippers. While the ship with the hull rippers should be weaker agianst swarming fighters.

Thanks shadowmaster,

Thats exactly what i think ,it would be nice if the fighters could engage in dogfights rather than just wriggling in any direction whilst the turrets do all the work.

The anti fighter weapons vs "hull ripper" weapons idea might make espionage more viable as you can scout an enemy fleet of dreadnaughts being prepared to invade and send in a strike force of mass fighters to leave it in ruins before they are at full strength.(sort of like pearl harbour). The huge guns would take out a fighter in one shot but the fighters are numerous enough to take the damage whist wearing down the enemy they would also be likely to avoid the shots and become realy pesky.At the moment if you knew an enemy fleet of dreadnoughts was coming youd have to research a whole line of techs to get some weapons for their weakness and defences to counter their strengths... and then build them, loosing the advantage. At least the former could buy you some time to do the later.

The problem here is that its pretty unlikely the fighters would get through the defences one at a time in the way they are currently calculated, therefore fleets of fighters could have there damage calculated in one. This could be linked with the formation tech idea.

bump

Always happy to help, but one more idea, if you were to engage in dogfights you could add anthour line to the tech tree like "fighter trianing" or "tactical manovours" to add advantage to one side and then wars would become interesting

Er...I don't get what you mean. Are you saying that the beam would be going faster than light? That the fighters would be going too fast to be safely maneuvered away from an incoming beam?

Hyperdrive and stargates work to my understanding by changing the amount of distance between two points, not by going faster than light.

Space is literally compressed into a smaller area, while the ship is not compressed. The distance between two points is somehow changed, from 200 miles say, to 20 miles and the ship compresses space, travels, de-compresses space, travels and so on. A

Using such a system in battle would not protect you against a laser. A laser is not compressed space, it is uncompressed space and it's going at light speed.

Battles in Galactic civilizations, are faught at very short range between ships fighting in normal space, it would appear.

One thing about mods -- you could have each AI have its own tech tree. And therefore control how they do their ship designs.

I know that no one asked for my 2bc but ummmm, here it is anyway.

Death Star, X-wing fighter, ohhhhhhh ahhhhhhhhh
Look at all the pretty colors!

Nuff said about small fighters I think.

(not knocking anyone, some pretty good posts above kept me completely entertained!)

The problem with individual tech trees so far is that the ai trade their own tech tree for that of other races(using the system in star trek and alternate reality for example). Then they just start researching their opponents tech tree as well as their own, which stunts growth.

Individual tech trees by race - interesting...

I would think that IF another race got a foothold in an alien tech path by trading or other means, research along that path should be very difficult/expensive because of the inherent differences of thought patterns. Having said that, if another race did get ahold of an alien tech they should be able to effectively use any improvements associated with that tech. (Some thought would have to be given to whether the bonuses would be the same or even of the same type - Dregnin entertainment might help Terran soldiering.)

In the case of weapons &/or defenses, having the tech should make their own correspponding defenses/weapons more effective against the race's improvements (or improvement type) associated with the tech - e.g. All Dregnin shields get bonus against Terran Lasers but not Plasma beams; All Terran missiles better against Dregnin ECM but not against Point Defense; Dregnin invasions of Torian planets easier because Torian Planetary Defense gotten (Orbital Flt Mgr)(Planetary Defenses); etc.

Espionage & counterespionage could become a lynchpin to any viable game strategy.