|
Post by samchiu2000 on Jul 9, 2017 3:00:36 GMT
After playing CDE for so long, it's time to think about this question.
I voted missiles because from my experience, it can overwhelme any kinetic and laser defense with sheer number.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Jul 9, 2017 3:05:43 GMT
Nuclear spear missiles are better.
|
|
|
Post by samchiu2000 on Jul 9, 2017 3:11:25 GMT
Nuclear spear missiles are better. Definitely! So sad that qswitched the master doesn't make it available in the game up till now
|
|
|
Post by Durandal on Jul 9, 2017 3:20:14 GMT
I voted none of the above, because none of them are correct.
The human mind will be the ultimate space weapon. *badum-tish*
For real though, I'd go with missiles. A missile studded with point defence lasers and KE weapons counts as a missile right?
*edit*
Nuclear pumped x-ray lasers.
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Jul 9, 2017 3:39:50 GMT
Lasers, because they are reliably accurate, scale up well, combo nicely with electric thrusters, and have great ability to be re-used in multiple engagements.
Lasers will benefit from a small amount of supporting EM guns. A missile that dodges a bullet gives the lasers more time to burn and possibly an easier armor breach. And it is difficult to armor a cost-effective missile against both lasers and kinetics.
Particle beams should be added to the game, as they are relevant space weaponry and have a unique damage mechanism.
|
|
|
Post by cyborgleopard on Jul 9, 2017 5:12:46 GMT
I think in all honesty the best thing to do would be to have a massive diversity of weapons, even if some seem to give you more bang for your buck than others. If you only focus on one particular weapon system or fighting style then it's all the more likely that an enemy is going to find an efficient way to counter you and take you down. If you have a diversity of weapons, you have tactical options and can respond to your opponent's moves. Even if you're losing, your opponent cannot easily take you down because you have many lines of defense and hurdles your enemy must overcome and adapt to in order to seriously damage you.
You don't have to be the most well defended faction and militarized faction in the solar system. You just have to have a tricky enough defense and a small enough prize for any potential enemy to decide you're not worth it and go after someone else.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Jul 9, 2017 5:30:47 GMT
I think in all honesty the best thing to do would be to have a massive diversity of weapons, even if some seem to give you more bang for your buck than others. If you only focus on one particular weapon system or fighting style then it's all the more likely that an enemy is going to find an efficient way to counter you and take you down. If you have a diversity of weapons, you have tactical options and can respond to your opponent's moves. Even if you're losing, your opponent cannot easily take you down because you have many lines of defense and hurdles your enemy must overcome and adapt to in order to seriously damage you. You don't have to be the most well defended faction and militarized faction in the solar system. You just have to have a tricky enough defense and a small enough prize for any potential enemy to decide you're not worth it and go after someone else. AKA How the USTA Kuiper belt colonies survived the initial RFP strike.
|
|
|
Post by princesskibble on Jul 9, 2017 9:52:04 GMT
Interplanetary ASATs with terminal semi-active radar guidance provided by piloted fire control vehicles. They are probably the size and shape of the average spin stabilized space probe but with an armored nosecone to protect from laser defenses.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Jul 9, 2017 10:09:17 GMT
Laserstars surrounded by a cloud of mirror drones and recon drones, backed up by planetary lasernets and mass drivers (for interbody bombardement if the target has a thick atmosphere, otherwise you can just slam your mirror drones into the target whenever lasers prove insufficient to disable fortified positions).
|
|
|
Post by tukuro on Jul 9, 2017 10:57:11 GMT
After playing CDE for so long, it's time to think about this question. I voted missiles because from my experience, it can overwhelmed any kinetic and laser defense with sheer number. It depends on the economics. If propellant is plenty: Missiles and interceptors. If electrical power is plenty: Lasers and EM guns. Missiles blotting out the sun might make more sense around the outer gas giants than it does in the inner solar system. All systems can be developed to effectively counter each other in combination with dedicated armour. Though lasers right now suffer from wobble, and we don't have - outside of modding - sub-gram rail/coilguns or particle accelerators. So right now that puts the meta in favor of missiles and interceptors. But even then it's a question of economics. Creating all that propellant from the ice on Enceladus or sucking up the hydrocarbons from Titan both cost energy.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jul 9, 2017 15:26:04 GMT
After playing CDE for so long, it's time to think about this question. I voted missiles because from my experience, it can overwhelmed any kinetic and laser defense with sheer number. Missiles blotting out the sun might make more sense around the outer gas giants than it does in the inner solar system. nah, you just need the right enemy
|
|
|
Post by princesskibble on Jul 9, 2017 17:54:26 GMT
After playing CDE for so long, it's time to think about this question. I voted missiles because from my experience, it can overwhelmed any kinetic and laser defense with sheer number. It depends on the economics. If propellant is plenty: Missiles and interceptors. If electrical power is plenty: Lasers and EM guns. Missiles blotting out the sun might make more sense around the outer gas giants than it does in the inner solar system. All systems can be developed to effectively counter each other in combination with dedicated armour. Though lasers right now suffer from wobble, and we don't have - outside of modding - sub-gram rail/coilguns or particle accelerators. So right now that puts the meta in favor of missiles and interceptors. But even then it's a question of economics. Creating all that propellant from the ice on Enceladus or sucking up the hydrocarbons from Titan both cost energy. Lasers wobbling will always be a problem, since they have to be mounted on turrets that can sling the telescope around super fast. Current space telescopes only make extremely small corrections to their pointing, and do so very slowly. The wobbling would get much worse if it is attached to a vehicle with people on it! I think the current game is very generous (surprise!) with the ability of lasers to precisely and accurately keep a spot of light on a 2 meter wide target hundreds of miles away. If you combine that with realistically efficient laser and reactor technology that requires realistic shielding (in order for the platform to not be disposable and waste that complex expensive piece of high technology), and a realistic battlefield where the precise location and properties of every enemy can never be assumed, lasers in real life can't be God's stare of instant death, like in this game - they will be much more limited in range and power, and probably used in asymmetrical warfare where a barrage of missiles isn't needed to take out the sensors of a pirate or insurgent.
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Jul 9, 2017 21:00:20 GMT
Lasers wobbling will always be a problem, since they have to be mounted on turrets that can sling the telescope around super fast. Current space telescopes only make extremely small corrections to their pointing, and do so very slowly. The wobble is caused by sensor inaccuracy, not some residual vibrations of the wheel (which are not an issue; space telescopes don't make blurry images even with long exposure times). Actual sensor modeling and swarm data sharing would dispense with sensor inaccuracy. Got drones? And it's not necessarily so; humans can be trained to not bang on the walls during a fight (see submarine crews). Realistic military space lasers are free-electron lasers, probably pulsed, which would be frighteningly overpowered compared to CoaDE's lasers. High efficiency, higher frequency, and pulses would boost intensity for seriously impressive range. Which part is unrealistic (unless you're talking about gamma radiation)? Only the electronics need shielding on a drone. It doesn't need direct human maintenance; that can be done via remote control. This bugs me too. Fog of war and proper sensors would be great. I welcome such an update.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Jul 9, 2017 22:02:22 GMT
... and a realistic battlefield where the precise location and properties of every enemy can never be assumed, lasers in real life can't be God's stare of instant death, like in this game - they will be much more limited in range and power, and probably used in asymmetrical warfare where a barrage of missiles isn't needed to take out the sensors of a pirate or insurgent. If sensors would be modeled, lasers would be more powerful IMO. Custom sensor arrays allow for greater range (reduced wobble), and sensors can be burned out at much lower intensities (and thus, greater ranges) than the intensities required for armour ablation. Also, even with modding, our lasers are limited to about 41%, much less then current gen military lasers (60+%) or existing FEL's (65%). If anything is going to nerf lasers, it will be more detailed modeling of radiators and coolant pipes (pressure, heat gradient, mass of the coolant in the piping, structural integrity, ...).
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Jul 10, 2017 1:37:57 GMT
... and a realistic battlefield where the precise location and properties of every enemy can never be assumed, lasers in real life can't be God's stare of instant death, like in this game - they will be much more limited in range and power, and probably used in asymmetrical warfare where a barrage of missiles isn't needed to take out the sensors of a pirate or insurgent. If sensors would be modeled, lasers would be more powerful IMO. Custom sensor arrays allow for greater range (reduced wobble), and sensors can be burned out at much lower intensities (and thus, greater ranges) than the intensities required for armour ablation. Also, even with modding, our lasers are limited to about 41%, much less then current gen military lasers (60+%) or existing FEL's (65%). If anything is going to nerf lasers, it will be more detailed modeling of radiators and coolant pipes (pressure, heat gradient, mass of the coolant in the piping, structural integrity, ...). You are going to need multiple types of sensors depending on what your trying to do, regardless of the ship type if we had to. One sensor for long range identification, one for optimal range of the primary weapons, and one sensor set for finding extremely small incoming objects (eg, meteors, micromissiles, gunfire). If you have all three of these, your weapons will become increasingly powerful, if you've only got one or two (or a directional gap in sight) that opens you up to huge weaknesses. These sensors are extremely weak, or extremely pricy too. It'd be interesting to see someone try and blind the opposite ship by pointing lasers at them though.
|
|