Author Topic: Planetary Combat  (Read 9130 times)

Aaron

  • BR Developer
  • Creative Director, ZanMgt
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • Available on the IRC from 9:00am to 5:00pm (EST)
    • http://www.zanmgt.com
Re: Planetary Combat
« Reply #45 on: May 31, 2014, 09:58:48 am »
Yeah, I also thought that it would be easier to build large reactors to power giant anti space guns. But still, maybe there should be a "Shield" multiblock structure that can be modified to shield from space?

Sure, but again our concern with our limited resources will be to get the 'gist' of the planets functioning, and will probably be reliant on on modders to expand the planet mechanics and experiment with gameplay ideas.  We've got to put 90% of our attention on the space aspects, ship systems, crew, etc. ;)
Stop by the IRC and say Hi! -- Online Dev Chat

Cy83r

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 1254
  • It's Shooowtime!
Re: Planetary Combat
« Reply #46 on: June 01, 2014, 04:39:04 am »
As long as you can fire down from orbit and a sufficiently powerful weapon can send its payload, be it missile, shell, or beam back up with a reasonable divergence in accuracy on both sides because "woo, atmosphere", I would figure that bases are just grounded and buried ships, sometimes not even buried, since, after all, atmosphere allows its radiators to works many times harder than space-borne platforms.

Advantages of orbital platform
-mobile
-small target, no nearby terrain; you are either hit or missed, there is no collateral damage or secondary blast zones
-ground platforms have to fight against a gravity well to attack you
-atmosphere prevents ready use of beams, the deadliest space weapon, against you
-you can leave at any time, they can't avoid a fight

Advantages of ground platforms
-cheap armor (dirt) and raw materials
-terrain can hide surface features of base
-atmospheric shielding from beams, the deadliest space weapon; turbulence throws off cannon/railgun accuracy; up-going missiles have less inertia and are thus more mobile and able to intercept down-coming warheads which have a dedicated vector
-atmosphere is a massive coolant medium for reactors and weapons; ground base has endurance advantage
-you are at the place your opponent wants to get to, you know they must come to you

airless moons and such, while having a shallower gravity well, tend to not have significant or any atmosphere, but still have inordinate waste mass which heat can be pumped into, albeit less efficiently than a full planetary atmosphere would allow
Jibreel: Yeah but [Hufer] that's like [Axis] complaining that his Toyota Camry is stuck in the mud and you responding "Well my M1 Abrams doesn't seem to be having much trouble."

Iago

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 148
  • Keep calm and charge the FTL drive
Re: Planetary Combat
« Reply #47 on: June 01, 2014, 12:47:13 pm »
How about floating fortresses?
Superbia mentis potens in armis.

Cy83r

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 1254
  • It's Shooowtime!
Re: Planetary Combat
« Reply #48 on: June 01, 2014, 03:09:11 pm »
Ocean bases are not defensible against spaceborne targets unless they're completely or mostly submerged, even then, a sufficiently powerful railgun rod, probably a long-rod warhead, could endanger one operating or hiding near the surface.

The only time seaborne basing is a good idea is for small sensor or comms platforms that can use distributed numbers (i.e. many cheap platform of the same type spread way out across the waters, saturating the enemy's targeting computers with potential targets) and the size of the ocean to mitigate being targeted.  On the upside, tidal effects would make them harder to accurately hit on top of atmospheric distortions.

Otherwise, you're looking at civilian concerns or bases that would be so valuable to the enemy that they would risk invading such a platform over disabling or destroying it from orbit.

That's just IRL considerations, we still have no idea how planets are going to be produced by the management and if the above factors will be included in the game itself.
Jibreel: Yeah but [Hufer] that's like [Axis] complaining that his Toyota Camry is stuck in the mud and you responding "Well my M1 Abrams doesn't seem to be having much trouble."

Iago

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 148
  • Keep calm and charge the FTL drive
Re: Planetary Combat
« Reply #49 on: June 03, 2014, 09:14:37 am »
What about flying fortresses? On gas giants with electrical storms that disrupt sensors?
Superbia mentis potens in armis.

Me2005

  • Founder
  • Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 2104
Re: Planetary Combat
« Reply #50 on: June 03, 2014, 11:00:13 am »
What about flying fortresses? On gas giants with electrical storms that disrupt sensors?


Basically similar to space stations, only possibly with some atmospheric cover. They're likely susceptible to problems from that atmosphere and falling out of the sky than a real space station though.
But you were dead a thousand times. Hopeless encounters successfully won. A man long dead, grafted to machines your builders did not understand. You follow the path, fitting into an infinite pattern. Yours to manipulate, to create and rebuild.

I know who you are.

You are destiny.

Nautilus81

  • Spacer
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: Planetary Combat
« Reply #51 on: June 03, 2014, 02:58:36 pm »
So long as I can do something along the lines of the Klendathu Drop, I'll be happy.

Make it happen, ZanMgt!
"Peace through superior cruiser design." -Unknown

Aaron

  • BR Developer
  • Creative Director, ZanMgt
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • Available on the IRC from 9:00am to 5:00pm (EST)
    • http://www.zanmgt.com
Re: Planetary Combat
« Reply #52 on: June 03, 2014, 04:03:22 pm »
So long as I can do something along the lines of the Klendathu Drop, I'll be happy.

Make it happen, ZanMgt!

o7

Probably more like Mass Effect 1 / Minecraft for a while though.  The environment would be there for others to mess with through modding though. ^^
Stop by the IRC and say Hi! -- Online Dev Chat

elijahpederson

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 151
  • Matter matters
Re: Planetary Combat
« Reply #53 on: July 27, 2014, 12:12:58 pm »
I'd say a zoom feature would work; the more you zoom, the more precise you can aim.
Or it could just be a hit-and-miss kind of thing. With innacurate explosions and such going about on the surface all over the place merely in the general area of your target, it would look much, much more dramatic
« Last Edit: July 27, 2014, 12:16:20 pm by elijahpederson »

Axel

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 94
Re: Planetary Combat
« Reply #54 on: March 17, 2015, 05:18:48 pm »
Ocean bases are not defensible against spaceborne targets unless they're completely or mostly submerged, even then, a sufficiently powerful railgun rod, probably a long-rod warhead, could endanger one operating or hiding near the surface.

The only time seaborne basing is a good idea is for small sensor or comms platforms that can use distributed numbers (i.e. many cheap platform of the same type spread way out across the waters, saturating the enemy's targeting computers with potential targets) and the size of the ocean to mitigate being targeted.  On the upside, tidal effects would make them harder to accurately hit on top of atmospheric distortions.

Otherwise, you're looking at civilian concerns or bases that would be so valuable to the enemy that they would risk invading such a platform over disabling or destroying it from orbit.

That's just IRL considerations, we still have no idea how planets are going to be produced by the management and if the above factors will be included in the game itself.

Not entirely sure this is accurate. Depending on depth, water would serve not only to visibly obfuscate one's location, but cushion it from projectiles originating outside the given body of water. Concussive force is far more reliable when shifting into denser mediums. Sheer kinetic force alone suffers some problems, as a projectile goes from near-vacuum to atmosphere, its terminal velocity drops significantly as friction rises. The heat alone can begin to burn off the slug, diminishing the weight, and further decreasing velocity. Upon impacting water, any kinetic force that can translate away from the projectile will do so readily, the force exerted is of course met with equal and opposite resistance meaning a slug may simply fragment on impact, harmlessly raining shrapnel upon the ocean depths. Assuming the slug survives, its terminal velocity is reduced further by the even denser medium through which it is now traveling, eventually, it will have nothing but gravity pulling it down, by which point it would be relying on only it's weight to do any damage.

Now, the depth charge and torpedo are effective because of the factors that limit a projectile's effectiveness. By waiting until they've been 'delivered' to detonate, pressure has a one two punch effect on the target. First, water is pushed out with great force in all directions, often this creates a low pressure cavitation bubble as water is forced out of the space of an explosion, the shockwave propagates until it either hits a denser material or is cancelled out by the volume's own resistance/inertia. As the water rushes in to fill in the cavetation an implosion occurs. Should materials have been weakened by the propagation of the shocwave, they may come to be ripped loose by said implosion.

I know nothing about radiowave propagation, so I can't speak to detection other than to say "It makes the visible spectrum blurry, so why wouldn't it do the same for anything else?"
« Last Edit: March 17, 2015, 07:02:23 pm by Axel »

Czorio

  • Founder
  • Residential nutbag
  • *
  • Posts: 684
    • Youtube Channel
Re: Planetary Combat
« Reply #55 on: March 18, 2015, 05:53:32 am »
That's assuming that the slug doesn't disintegrate upon hitting the water.

iirc Mythbusters tested this on a pool with a .50 anti-materiel rifle and found that even that round stopped after about 1.8m (6Ft.) Now the kinetic difference between a .50 and spaec Railgun is massive, but I don't think the dynamics with water will be all that different.

On the other hand, if you can design a slug that causes hyper cavitation you could manage to make it work.

It'll be a gameplay vs. realism thing in the end.
"If you're in an equal fight, your tactics suck."

http://www.youtube.com/user/czorio4

spartanshalo

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 57
Re: Planetary Combat
« Reply #56 on: March 20, 2015, 02:27:32 am »
I think orbital attacks would be fun. But I disagree that it should be easy. It should be "easy" to build such weapons, but very very difficult to use them. Pin point space lazer snipers would make most ground combat dull. Why bother landing and fighting it out or sending bombers when I can just power up good ol' Betty the monster canon and blow mr skittles away from space?

Also, I must admit that I am not certain to what degree planetary landings and features will be or play out. I thought that planets were a little side attraction to gather more materials, then back to the ship? If everything is about getting back to the ship, what purpose is there to building a base on a planet, building shields, or even staying there? Will I be able to build a fleet of ships with crews and tell them to go off and do my bidding?
« Last Edit: March 20, 2015, 02:30:55 am by spartanshalo »
Liberty and justice for all...except for you. And you. And YOU. Your going to the box.

Thrivero

  • Spacer
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Here since February 2013
Re: Planetary Combat
« Reply #57 on: March 20, 2015, 07:17:05 am »
I think orbital attacks would be fun. But I disagree that it should be easy. It should be "easy" to build such weapons, but very very difficult to use them. Pin point space lazer snipers would make most ground combat dull. Why bother landing and fighting it out or sending bombers when I can just power up good ol' Betty the monster canon and blow mr skittles away from space?

Also, I must admit that I am not certain to what degree planetary landings and features will be or play out. I thought that planets were a little side attraction to gather more materials, then back to the ship? If everything is about getting back to the ship, what purpose is there to building a base on a planet, building shields, or even staying there? Will I be able to build a fleet of ships with crews and tell them to go off and do my bidding?

Orbital attacks, in my opinion, would work the best if they were innacurate and slow, but huge shots that will cause ALOT of damage.

Aaron

  • BR Developer
  • Creative Director, ZanMgt
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • Available on the IRC from 9:00am to 5:00pm (EST)
    • http://www.zanmgt.com
Re: Planetary Combat
« Reply #58 on: March 20, 2015, 12:08:07 pm »
Quote from: spartanshalo
Also, I must admit that I am not certain to what degree planetary landings and features will be or play out. I thought that planets were a little side attraction to gather more materials, then back to the ship? If everything is about getting back to the ship, what purpose is there to building a base on a planet, building shields, or even staying there?

At this point, we're not sure either.  I mean, there are "ideas" for the planet surface, but they don't exactly 'mesh' with the core spaceship gameplay or represent a worthy enough investment to take attention away from space mechanics.

All that matters is the engine will be capable of doing a planet surface, so there'll be room to expand into it, eventually.
Stop by the IRC and say Hi! -- Online Dev Chat

Axel

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 94
Re: Planetary Combat
« Reply #59 on: March 30, 2015, 01:59:57 am »
I could imagine having more of a tactical side to the game would make establishing bases worthwhile. Consider that you may need to recruit your crew from somewhere, and an entire planet would likely contain more resources than any one shipyard could use in its lifetime. Not to mention, it's nice to have some guaranteed friendly territory set aside.

Edit:
Different types of settlements, colony, mining, military, etc. Maybe with some prefab structures for ease of use but with the option for custom blueprints. Colony structures could be designed around making a settlement appealing to settlers. Mining structures would of course be designed to collect resources. Military provide defensive installations such as hangars for orbital fighters and satellite launch/control facilities. Some light management mechanics to bring it all together, and an R&D aspect to each that can help with ship hardware/upgrades.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2015, 02:30:29 am by Axel »