RE: The future: DW Fighters? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series



Message


jam3 -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/30/2010 9:00:55 AM)

Oh and not just star wars.

Battlestar Galactica
Space: Above and Beyond
Babylon 5
Stargate
Wing Commander (well there was a movie)

and a few more im probably missing




Bartje -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/30/2010 9:51:30 AM)

Fighters could always be represented as squadrons with innate strengths and weaknesses vs certain ship armaments (anti-fighter vs main cannons)

Missile / drone carriers are an innovation as well however, and certainly have their place in the order of things!

It would be great if both options were implemented. This would net a nice triangle situation (Missiles / Drones VS Manned / Unmanned Fighters VS Naval Vessels)

What do you build, and how do you balance your forces?

Do you specialize in one? Or become a jack of all trades?


One thing is certain though, carriers must keep their distance!




Fishman -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/30/2010 11:54:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lordxorn

The carrier is still king of the seas precisely because of the aircraft it carries, which can project power much further and put eyes on before hostiles get to close.
Unfortunately, missiles have a range which exceeds that of aircraft, as they do not need to return. Additionally, while the carrier's AIRCRAFT are still valuable resources, especially as most opponents lack a credible airforce, the supercarrier itself is simply a sitting duck, and better results could be accomplished by smaller, cheaper, lower-profile escort carriers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lordxorn

Plus a civilian liner would be retarded to ignore the numerous warnings it would receive by flying to close to a Carrier Battle Group's area of influence.
I'm going to assume you did not mean "fly", as ships do not fly, which is their main weakness, but a carrier group's influence at which it can reasonably command people to stay away is not sufficiently large that it can declare such a zone without effectively blockading the entire Persian Gulf, or a similarly sized region. The coastal sea is a crowded place, and at any given time, hundreds of civilian ships could be easily within missile range.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lordxorn

In a full on war where some lesser naval country would love to sink a flat top, all civilian traffic will be re-routed and all the hostile targets will be weeded out by the numerous screening ships in the CVBG. The navy is also upgrading it's carriers to metal storm missile defense systems that can fire a million rounds a sec, youtube it.
Yes, those CIWS systems are impressive, but how many missiles can they really stop? One? Ten? A Hundred? None of these is enough!

quote:

ORIGINAL: lordxorn

While you are 100% correct that missile cruisers/frigates have surmounted even the time honored battleships from modern navies, carriers remain a integral part of any 1st world's navy. Otherwise if you are correct, then myself and all the smart navy brass that have studied nothing but naval warfare are completely wrong.
The military is always ready to fight the last war. Remember the WW2 battleship admirals? It was demonstrated well before the war started that battleships were obsolete and easy prey for aircraft. This advice was largely ignored because in the event that those battleships were downsized, the admirals would lose their jobs, and so they were unwilling to believe. This same thing will happen in the next war. The carrier battlegroup is a doctrine evolved from WW2, to fight enemies of comparable strength in battles. In the modern world, nobody fights like this anymore. The supercarrier is a piece for a type of a war that no longer exists, clinging to life because many thousands depend on its existence for their livelihoods.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jam3

He kind of sound like the guys who thought there would be no need for cannons on fighter jets in the vietnam era cause missles would prevent combat from ever getting that close plus the speeds would be to great.
Yeah, well, they were wrong. Turns out cannons are great for shooting up the many things that don't actually have missiles, and compared to the cost of the rest of the plane, they are pretty cheap. It is true that there are not really any serious dogfights carried out with cannons, but cannons still find a lot of use outside of interceptor dogfights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jam3

In space you could come up with several scenarios where this would be applicable as well, its all fantasy anyway.
It's always possible to invent a scenario in which Space Fighters somehow find a use that makes sense. However, DW has sort of locked itself into a corner here: Fighters have no meaningful role in DW without massive changes to the rules.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jam3

Thats one of the reasons pilots will probably always be better than a drone. A pilot has an innate sense of mortality and like any other organism a unique desire to survive.
Pilots are also remarkably squishy, have demanding life support needs, and extremely poor tolerance for acceleration. A desire to survive is very nice, but this is contrary to the goals of a missile, which wishes to plow into its opponent, causing the gruesome deaths of everyone involved. A fighter, with a live pilot, that wishes to survive, must now carry 4x the delta-V and additionally needs weapons, and life support with magical properties. A drone missile needs none of these things, being that it simply needs to accelerate to the target and plow into it. Warhead optional, kinetic energy is quite lethal in space.

In the context of DW, fighters suffer the problem of either being indistinguishable mechanically from missiles, or being very easily killed if they emulate shiplike properties, as FRIED systems are available midgame and upwards, and render any such small, easily destroyed craft completely obsolete. Ever see what happens when you let off a shockwave in the presence of a swarm of larger-than-fighters escorts? They all kinda die. Given that the traditional role of space fighters in fiction is attacking large capital warships, and mounting shockwave generators is a standard item according to the description of capital ships, this will result in the instant death of all of your fighters.




Bartje -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/30/2010 1:13:20 PM)

 
-Missiles can be carried by fighters, hence they also serve as extensions of the carriers weapons range. Fighters are a projection of force, Intelligent Force.

-It is cheaper to use shorter range missiles from a returning / non suicidal launch platform than to use expensive long range seeking missiles.

-In space, Life support is arguably only air, I don't think that pulling G's is possible in space???

-The main advantage of a Fighter would be its maneuverability, allowing it to evade most attacks. (In most Sci-Fi Universes)


If fighters can evade attacks by larger ships they have reasonable staying power and perhaps pack enough punch in numbers to be viable







Astorax -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/30/2010 6:35:17 PM)

You would not pull G's per se but you couldn't get away from inertia. 




Bartje -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/30/2010 7:03:42 PM)

That's true but I ment it as a reflection on what piloting equipment and stress would have to be handled. In essence a modern planetary fighter pilot would have a (much?) tougher physical job.




Wade1000 -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (4/30/2010 10:51:31 PM)

Fighters, even soon on Earth, are going the way of automated/non piloted.




Fishman -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (5/1/2010 2:00:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bartje

-In space, Life support is arguably only air, I don't think that pulling G's is possible in space???
Nope. "Pulling Gs" is a direct consequence of acceleration and Newtonian physics. You can't avoid that just by being in space.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bartje

-The main advantage of a Fighter would be its maneuverability, allowing it to evade most attacks. (In most Sci-Fi Universes)
Maneuverability requires "pulling Gs", which a manned fighter cannot do as well as an unmanned missile.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bartje

If fighters can evade attacks by larger ships they have reasonable staying power and perhaps pack enough punch in numbers to be viable
Unfortunately, you can't evade FRIED, so you're screwed.




Aurelian -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (5/1/2010 2:37:45 AM)

http://scienceblogs.com/interactions/2007/07/newtons_laws_in_science_fictio.php

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceFriction

I know, technobabble makes anything work in space-fi. But as was mentioned above by someone, that word realism.




Bartje -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (5/1/2010 9:43:13 AM)

Right, so DW ships don't entirely follow the laws of physics do they? Or do they? I'm confused!

Is there an ingame explanation in the sense of hyperdrive and sublight speed drive ignoring newton's laws?

It must be a Quantum Effect Field! [;)]




Gertjan -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (5/1/2010 11:22:05 AM)

I dont particulary care about fighters, but I wouldnt mind them being in this game. Galciv2 didnt have them, but I didn't mind.




Bartje -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (5/1/2010 12:14:18 PM)

The ability to represent Fighters would be nice

But I agree that they woudn't make much sense in the DW Universe.

The LAC idea is awesome however  (and sort of functions the same way??)

Lets go with that then!




Honorverse: http://honorverse.wikia.com/wiki/LAC#LAC

The term 'LAC' was an abbreviation for Light Attack Craft. LACs were intrasystem craft, incapable of entering hyperspace. Their traditional roles had been that of very light picket ship and for customs duties. (HH2) Third or fourth tier states such as those on the verge of the Solarian League often had navies entirely composed of LACs. (SI1) Improved technology and the advent of the CLAC had reinvigorated the LAC as a war-fighting vessel near the end of the First Haven-Manticore War.



[:D]




Igard -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (5/1/2010 2:23:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

http://scienceblogs.com/interactions/2007/07/newtons_laws_in_science_fictio.php

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceFriction

I know, technobabble makes anything work in space-fi. But as was mentioned above by someone, that word realism.


Thanks for these links. Very interesting reading.




Igard -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (5/1/2010 2:54:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bartje

Right, so DW ships don't entirely follow the laws of physics do they? Or do they? I'm confused!

Is there an ingame explanation in the sense of hyperdrive and sublight speed drive ignoring newton's laws?

It must be a Quantum Effect Field! [;)]


There are quite a few inaccuracies. When a ship is being damaged and it slows to a halt because its engines go offline. The ship should really maintain its inertia. It's possible each ship has a designed emergency stop to explain this, but why would that not be damaged too? In any case, it would be extremely difficult to keep track of your ships drifting away into the cosmos, so it's just as well.

Travelling faster than light is, at this time, not plausible given our understanding of physics and technology. In Star Trek they use fictional devices such as sub-space and dylithium crystals.

Also where fuel is concerned, The ships should use less fuel when in orbit or patrolling a planet. It would actually require more fuel for the ships to sit stationary inside a star system where enormous gravitational forces are acting on them.

I don't see any way to make the ships in this game act completely true to physics at the same time keeping the game fun to play. Personally, I'm waiting to see what Frontiers Elite IV brings to the table. Elite II had a very accurate newtonian flight system.

DW realism doesn't bother me. IMO, the game is all about creating an expansive, involving, dynamic experience. That means implementing carrier support with fighters would be a great thing indeed.[:)]





jam3 -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (5/5/2010 5:40:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wade1000

Fighters, even soon on Earth, are going the way of automated/non piloted.


No, but remote piloted with alot more computer automation of systems yes. This is actually one of those questions I kinda fight about with myself (yes kinda ridiculous but I actually do think about drones alot). Especially way off in the future when you get into space combat where I believe a fighter type of small craft could definetly play a role, I think fishman is 100% wrong in his missle assement I think both have a place in the battlespace of the future. Now, as to whether or not an organic lifeform would actually being piloting any of these craft either remotly or in the craft itself is debateable. mainly because history has shown us that every time a scientist thinks they can eliminate a human from a combat system it usually ends up badly. I think at the point where it would be viable your looking at a highly developed ai for 100% non organic control and once you get to that point, well we have all seen the Matrix, Terminator,and played the 100's of computer games on the subject of why you don't hand of weapons systems to high functioning AI, lol.




Bartje -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (5/5/2010 8:44:56 AM)

It would make sense to remove the pilot from the craft itself but keep him in control.

In space this would mean the pilots still need to be near the battle because otherwise the "signal" would have to travel too long. (unles the fighter is really very autonomous)

This could be a "DW" explanation for why carriers keep relatively close to battles though try to stay out of range. They need to "control" the fighters.

Which also means it's hardly a crime to leave a losing battle and strand a dozen or so fighters; It's just equipment.

Awesome delaying tactics...





taltamir -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (5/5/2010 10:04:53 AM)

space fighters are horribly impractical and unrealistic...
Also I do not find them to be cool, in fact I find them to be the opposite. I hope DW doesn't get fighters.




Fishman -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (5/5/2010 11:56:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bartje

It would make sense to remove the pilot from the craft itself but keep him in control.
A fighter without a pilot is now a missile. With really bad lag, because light-speed transmission only gets you so far, which can be jammed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bartje

In space this would mean the pilots still need to be near the battle because otherwise the "signal" would have to travel too long. (unles the fighter is really very autonomous)
And when you've removed the pilot from the equation and made the craft autonomous, it is now a missile. Given that you are no longer retrieving a living being, you now lack any real incentive to pay 4x Delta-V for the same job, so you crash the missile and forget about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bartje

Which also means it's hardly a crime to leave a losing battle and strand a dozen or so fighters; It's just equipment.
Or, you know, you could just crash them into your target.




Pipewrench -> RE: The future: DW Fighters? (5/5/2010 12:06:59 PM)

fighters and bombers with a carrier might make an interesting addition to the present system.

While a fighter could not beat a shield or armor defence against a capital ship it could destroy enemy freighter traffic and provide intel ahead of a fleets path. bombers could be used to attack with single torpedo at a safe distance to the fleet and combined with capital ships attacking would split the offensive power of the defender.

Would be interesting to see my fleet being hounded by fighters and bombers while never really knowing where the enemy carrier fleet is. It would make me very paraniod as I know that I have been spotted.

I am trying to think this outside the box so that a carrier and its cargo could really play a good tactical role instead of being a waste. It make sense to use carriers as a stand-off platform for intel and blockading with fighters as fast extension of sensor ranges with bombers providing single use weapon delivery at ranges where the enemy cannot see the fleet.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.125