|
Post by Hicks on Mar 17, 2017 13:28:42 GMT
I mean, you still need to have a capitol ship with the drone operators on it in the local battle zone, because light minute delays are absolutely unacceptable, and you're going to want to armor and gun that for anti missile and drone protection, but the only reason I build gunships is because my computer can't handle the volume of missiles/drones I'm willing to fire in any truthfully effective engagement.
To me, Capital ships are armed with cannon and lasers not to penetrate other capitol ship armor, but to chew through the multi thousand strong missile swarm. My destroyers have 3000 homing nuclear missiles, mass barely over a kiloton, and cost less than 15Mc. But they can't deal with unloading all 3000, I can't even test 300 without my computer becoming a slide-show. But somewhere around the 200 missile mark the destroyer's defenses become saturated and start taking nukes.
So I took a break after the update that broke -all- my coilguns, I started making conventional cannon gunships. Cuz that's fun.
|
|
|
Post by dragonkid11 on Mar 17, 2017 13:29:00 GMT
he would most likely hide it behind armour, and exploit the turrets shooting through things bug What the fuck, pal? That came out of fucking nowhere. Really, just because you can't build good drone design, doesn't mean you can just call all drones as crap.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Mar 17, 2017 13:40:52 GMT
You think I would let my sub-capital drone close to laser in the first place? Nope, missiles, shit loads of it, all launched from drone platforms for even more intercept speed. And due to CUBE square law for the correct term, bigger ship has more surface area THEREFORE more armor mass is required. While smaller drone will always require less armor mass for it because of their small size and small surface area. Need more delta-V? Add more fuel tank! Still MORE reasonable than manned warship, with zero risk of death on top of it. Besides, how would you protect your ship from laser? Cube law is one of the reason why Mars is god damn frozen but Earth's still warm. Also, be like Skynet, who just send capital ship-sized drones to intercept with human resistance. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. he would most likely hide it behind armour, and exploit the turrets shooting through things bug What the fuck, pal? That came out of fucking nowhere. Really, just because you can't build good drone design, doesn't mean you can just call all drones as crap. According to the Prosperous Megacorp Pact, you must share drone designing techniques to us.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Mar 17, 2017 13:52:54 GMT
>Implying capital ship won't suffer the same problem Drones are fucking king of future space warfare, screws things like death when you can suicide charge and dump delta-V with no worry at all. Also, gigawatt laser eat the shit out of anything besides special designed missile anyway. This brings up something we have discussed before. As much as i still think it should not really be included in COADE for simple ease of use, electronic warfare brings another huge counter argument to pure drones and missiles. If these platforms can be hacked or corrupted than the same automation which grants ease of access and deployment could be it's own worst enemy. Of course many arguments have been put forth about how this could be achieved and countered but either way the proximity of a carrier or silo ship as a means of at least having a closer server operating post would be critical.
|
|
|
Post by dragonkid11 on Mar 17, 2017 14:01:32 GMT
According to the Prosperous Megacorp Pact, you must share drone designing techniques to us. I post my designs on Post your designs here thread almost all the time But I sure as fuck don't assign myself to some kinda of Pact that I have absolutely no goddamn idea of. This brings up something we have discussed before. As much as i still think it should not really be included in COADE for simple ease of use, electronic warfare brings another huge counter argument to pure drones and missiles. If these platforms can be hacked or corrupted than the same automation which grants ease of access and deployment could be it's own worst enemy. Of course many arguments have been put forth about how this could be achieved and countered but either way the proximity of a carrier or silo ship as a means of at least having a closer server operating post would be critical. There's certainly this one dude among the crew called the electronic warfare officer. But really, while jamming signal and causing drone to go haywire is possible, outright hacking is something straight of a movie. Honestly, I felt like this drone discussion has dragged on long enough already.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 17, 2017 21:51:07 GMT
dragonkid11 sorrey if I offended you, and you're right, I have no idea how to build a good drone, so I have no idea how your drone works, that was my only guess.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Mar 17, 2017 23:15:50 GMT
If these platforms can be hacked or corrupted than the same automation which grants ease of access and deployment could be it's own worst enemy. With all due respect, mr moderator, I don't think hacking works like you think it does. And whatever means of hacking the drones you might come up with, the engineers back home designing the drones would have already predicted before the first one rolled off the assembly line. Jamming? Quite plausible, yes. Hacking/hijacking? No.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 17, 2017 23:19:20 GMT
if they can sneak up, Fail-Deadly is the only defense
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Mar 17, 2017 23:37:12 GMT
If these platforms can be hacked or corrupted than the same automation which grants ease of access and deployment could be it's own worst enemy. With all due respect, mr moderator, I don't think hacking works like you think it does. And whatever means of hacking the drones you might come up with, the engineers back home designing the drones would have already predicted before the first one rolled off the assembly line. Jamming? Quite plausible, yes. Hacking/hijacking? No. I would not be so certain of that, "The Department of Defense released a statement acknowledging that it had lost control of a UAV during the previous week, claiming that it was "flying a mission over western Afghanistan" when control was lost. The statement did not specify the model of the aircraft. The U.S. government also stated that it was still investigating the cause of the loss.[16] A Christian Science Monitor article relates an Iranian engineer's assertion that the drone was captured by jamming both satellite and land-originated control signals to the UAV, followed up by a GPS spoofing attack that fed the UAV false GPS data to make it land in Iran at what the drone thought was its home base in Afghanistan. Stephen Trimble from Flight Global assumes UAV guidance could be targeted by 1L222 Avtobaza radar jamming and deception system supplied to Iran by Russia.[17] In an interview for Nova, U.S. retired Lt. General David Deptula also said "There was a problem with the aircraft and it landed in an area it wasn't supposed to land".[18][19]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incidentMind you this was on Earth where the distances are quite a deal smaller and the horizon and altitude can lend advantages to stealth movement. In space things only get worse for a pure drone launched fleet light seconds from Earth. Grante the RQ-170 could have simply crashed or had some software issue but there is already an interesting idea for counter manipulation of unmanned assets.
|
|
|
Post by kuriosly on Mar 17, 2017 23:56:33 GMT
If these platforms can be hacked or corrupted than the same automation which grants ease of access and deployment could be it's own worst enemy. With all due respect, mr moderator, I don't think hacking works like you think it does. And whatever means of hacking the drones you might come up with, the engineers back home designing the drones would have already predicted before the first one rolled off the assembly line. Jamming? Quite plausible, yes. Hacking/hijacking? No. As an internet security professional, I don't think you understand how hacking works. Engineers suck at predicting all edge cases. And edge cases are how hacks happen
|
|
|
Post by vegemeister on Mar 18, 2017 0:29:12 GMT
Since the drones have recently been launched from your capital ship, you can encrypt communication between the drone and the mothership with one-time pads. There's no hacking that. The only way to take control of a drone is to hack the mothership. And if you can do that, you've already won anyway. It could potentially be jammed, but that'd be very difficult with directional antennas (or lasers) and a jamming-resistant modulation scheme.
For navigation, the mothership could tell the drone where it was, and/or the drone could use celestial observations to determine its own position.
|
|
ndeo
Junior Member
It's not a flashlight... It's a High-frequency relativistic boson cannon
Posts: 67
|
Post by ndeo on Mar 18, 2017 2:00:15 GMT
Since the drones have recently been launched from your capital ship, you can encrypt communication between the drone and the mothership with one-time pads. There's no hacking that. The only way to take control of a drone is to hack the mothership. And if you can do that, you've already won anyway. It could potentially be jammed, but that'd be very difficult with directional antennas (or lasers) and a jamming-resistant modulation scheme. For navigation, the mothership could tell the drone where it was, and/or the drone could use celestial observations to determine its own position. Hacking almost always does not target encryption. That's like breaking open a huge steel vault door when there is a easy-to-lockpick flimsy wooden door just beside it. The security of any system is based on its weakest link, which are usually overlooked vulnerabilities/edge cases in a system that was not considered by the developer, not the strong link that is encryption. Aside from that, drones aren't even supposed to receive commands aside from pre-programmed ones beyond LOS/behind a planet from the mothership.
|
|
|
Post by Dhan on Mar 18, 2017 6:06:59 GMT
Since the drones have recently been launched from your capital ship, you can encrypt communication between the drone and the mothership with one-time pads. There's no hacking that. The only way to take control of a drone is to hack the mothership. And if you can do that, you've already won anyway. It could potentially be jammed, but that'd be very difficult with directional antennas (or lasers) and a jamming-resistant modulation scheme. For navigation, the mothership could tell the drone where it was, and/or the drone could use celestial observations to determine its own position. Hacking almost always does not target encryption. That's like breaking open a huge steel vault door when there is a easy-to-lockpick flimsy wooden door just beside it. The security of any system is based on its weakest link, which are usually overlooked vulnerabilities/edge cases in a system that was not considered by the developer, not the strong link that is encryption. Aside from that, drones aren't even supposed to receive commands aside from pre-programmed ones beyond LOS/behind a planet from the mothership. Although I believe that's not the case in game. IIRC out of LOS communication would be handled by satellite/drone networks that are abstracted from the game.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Mar 18, 2017 6:16:26 GMT
How about sending a tiny EMP and kill everything in its radius
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Mar 18, 2017 8:17:29 GMT
EMP is extremely short ranged and irrelevant in space combat. If the communication signals are bounced around by satellites currently abstracted away, then the introduction of these satellites as physical entities would make laserstars more potent. Lasers are after all, the most cost-effective means of dealing with lots of tiny unarmoured targets.
|
|