Its space, turning and acceleration due to higher mass would be impacted more then top speed.

as for strike craft auto docking, what would be the point?  If this saves server/client resources then it should be implemented, imo.

Question, in regards to auto dock, does the Kostura's disable prevent Hangar defenses from being able to launch any docked strike craft?

Thanks, I was just thinking that auto dock might make the Kostura a little more effective if that were indeed the case, since not even SC could be mustered to the defense.

Such speed limits exist right now in our search for faster space travel.

Sins imitates the actual via a simpler model, it won't do so perfectly because there are "population average" hardware constraints, and the need for the gameplay to be fun.  Fun doesn't include zooming around faster then human reaction getting blown up so fast you didn't realize what happened because the action happenis all in one single frame.

Increasing the range of anti strike craft capital ship abilities would be the easiest, and most effective way to deal with this issue.

I would say that this isn't as much of an issue anymore as lvled titans can't be alpha striked down to nothing in one hit.  So really, they made a ship thats too big to die easily.

True. Only thing i can suggest then is modding. Unless the dev's have something planned that we are unaware of.

Actually, many have a maximum effective. Certain ones. such as missiles run out of fuel, while others, such as railguns and autocannons (it's very stupid to use the latter in space), can only fire accurately and reliably within a certain distance.

Umm.. How did this turn into a "real physics" debate? We were talking about lowering bomber speeds in game, and perhaps increasing range of anti strike craft weapons. Game mechanics. Not physics.

"I have 3 idle CPU cores ready to take on the task of physics calculations and thats just counting the CPU so you wouldn't believe just how much my GPU can do given the CPU could render this data." RiddleKing, 2012

Right now we could decrease the speed of bombers and have them raped by fighters, flak and ant-strikecraft abilities. After failing so hard we would then increase the bombers hp taking into account of real world mechanics that show you that a bomber is bigger and bulkier.

After we increase the HP and shield points we would then have to find a balance between them and flak. You know so flak and high armor targets aren't wiped by indistructable bombers. 

After suceeding to find the balanced hp numbers then we would assess flaks dps against them and fighters. We will probably have to increase the fighters dps to account for the bulkier bombers hp but also test the extra dps against all light armor units and increase there durability. After that we would then find a balance once again and continue the same process. 

The question is how much of a difference will be felt with a decrease in their speed? 

Answer: they will be more seating ducks to all kinds of weapons that can target them. 

The problem: Aren't we just making corvettes by making bombers bulkier?

Answer: Yes we are. That is the sad part.

Question: So what do we do about them?

Answer: nothing for now.. we need to do the testing. It would probably mean overhauling all the units speeds or not but those are the quirks of game development. 

"Thank you for taking the time to read my text. If there is any grammar and spelling mistakes then please forgive me because I speak more than 3 languages-one them being advent." RiddleKing,2012

RiddleKing - signing off

give bombers ammo - or antimatter - and give it a default recharge rate of 0. It must dock to recharge, much like real life aircraft must go back t o base to replenish their payload. Maybe that would warrant an increase in damage, since they would have few shots before having to go back and dock to replenish.

But can bombers/sc even have skills and AM at all?

Would be nice to have one faction have kamikaze strike craft/bombers, which would destroy themselves for large damage.

Why yes, I have. I would hope so, seeing as I'm in a mechanical engineering program.

Oh really? Even with the much larger ranges of space combat? There's a reason I said maximum effective range, not maximum range. There is a big difference between the two.

CIWS are last-ditch defenses against missiles. They aren't even that great to be truthful. Only thing an antocannon would be useful for is something like fighters. Against anything other than small things like fighters? It's pretty damn useless.

Except autocannons have minimal velocity, so the chances of them hitting a moving target are pretty small.  Any sort of basic evasion course will make them completely miss.

Only if you discount such things as physics. Once you factor in the relativistic speeds of objects in space the longer the range the less likely you are to hit the target. 

The exception would be something like a planet or moon that is in a predictable fixed orbit.

You aren't intentionally trying to be dense here are you?

The only thing that would fit your condition is what I just described. 

A spaceship with it's active propulsion would only become predictable to targetting computers as it gets close enough to actually predict where it will go. 

At longer distances any ship would easily be able to adjust it's course even just slightly to avoid any weapon fire. Even missiles at range would suffer similar issues as they need to first go to where the contact should be made. Even a small adjustment at a large enough distance could alter the relative distance between the original vector where the missile needed to go and to where the ships are now that it may be to large to correct.

You can't view space combat as a static set of point A - B given the speeds, distance and 3 dimensional space to work in.

Again most space combat would need to close that distance to a point where targetting computers could actually attempt to predict firing solutions.