|
|
Post by asdf on Aug 14, 2018 9:22:17 GMT
I made a flat pentagonal ship one-side armed and armored, so that when it's in broadside orientation, not much of it is revealed to the enemy.
Sadly enough my ship has almost capital ship class cross section area, which seems that this game don't take perspective into calculation.
What's the point of making flatten ship and sloped armor then?
|
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Aug 14, 2018 9:37:11 GMT
In my humble opinion, if you put your radiator all farside, block them with your anti-laser class heat armor, let nothing but weapons on your broadside, they shouldn't be able to detect you until you get relatively closer to them. Basic stealth, ya know.
|
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Aug 14, 2018 10:37:41 GMT
Sadly enough my ship has almost capital ship class cross section area, which seems that this game don't take perspective into calculation. Wait, you made a capship that has an *almost*, but not quite, capship cross section and you are unhappy about that?
Also, AFAIK going flat reduces calculated cross section displayed in the editor.
As for the stealth, that assumes everyone NOT dispersing tons of micro sensor platforms everywhere, which is the working assumption of CoADE. Even without micro sensor platforms putting observation satellites in high, highly inclined orbits around stuff is easy enough and awfully hard to prevent, demolishing any and all directional stealth schemes.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Aug 14, 2018 10:45:33 GMT
In my humble opinion, if you put your radiator all farside, block them with your anti-laser class heat armor, let nothing but weapons on your broadside, they shouldn't be able to detect you until you get relatively closer to them. Basic stealth, ya know. Considering high inclination sensor probes, I think this might not be a good stealth method. For protecting your radiators from incoming fire however, it's excellent. |
|
|
|
Post by anotherfirefox on Aug 14, 2018 11:13:22 GMT
Sadly enough my ship has almost capital ship class cross section area, which seems that this game don't take perspective into calculation. Wait, you made a capship that has an *almost*, but not quite, capship cross section and you are unhappy about that?
Also, AFAIK going flat reduces calculated cross section displayed in the editor.
As for the stealth, that assumes everyone NOT dispersing tons of micro sensor platforms everywhere, which is the working assumption of CoADE. Even without micro sensor platforms putting observation satellites in high, highly inclined orbits around stuff is easy enough and awfully hard to prevent, demolishing any and all directional stealth schemes.
It's me registered, and my goal was making a beam skiff with partial but concentrated armor. I'm struggling to go through Vesta Overkill and needed a cool fleet defense. I was able to make a fantastic fleet defense ship but failed to control its cross section, and I still don't think it's as big as capital ships. About directional stealth, you can easily jam the radio connection. So called electronic warfare. Even with it you can't hide yourself completely, but enough to evade enemy bullets incoming. Enemy fleet need to catch your ship with their own sensor to lock their weapons on you. Data links are not that fast and accurate enough to control your guns. At least my common sense as a once-a-soldier guy says so. |
|
|
|
Post by anotherfirefox on Aug 14, 2018 11:17:38 GMT
In my humble opinion, if you put your radiator all farside, block them with your anti-laser class heat armor, let nothing but weapons on your broadside, they shouldn't be able to detect you until you get relatively closer to them. Basic stealth, ya know. Considering high inclination sensor probes, I think this might not be a good stealth method. For protecting your radiators from incoming fire however, it's excellent. Yeah, protecting my radiators was my primary concern. Without them a laser boat is nothing but a drifting target  I hope you can implement a heat sink so that fold your radiator for limited time tho. You can ditch the heat sink as a emergency decoy ahah |
|
|
|
Post by anotherfirefox on Aug 14, 2018 11:46:53 GMT
Also, AFAIK going flat reduces calculated cross section displayed in the editor. Did a simple test. Put a pair of radiators in 90 degrees so that they're fully exposed broadside, and in 180 degree so that they're not be able to seen. No changes in cross section. |
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Aug 14, 2018 11:57:41 GMT
I'm struggling to go through Vesta Overkill and needed a cool fleet defense. Feel free to browse my designs for use and/or inspiration (link below). All my published ships so far are exclusively stock modules, so they could in principle be built before beating Vesta, are largely built to match stock design's budgets and mission parameters and I would expect most combinations to be able to beat Vesta quite easily. Narrow-beam laser comms. |
|
|
|
Post by anotherfirefox on Aug 14, 2018 12:54:22 GMT
hmmm, good point. Still I don't think you can 100% rely on the remote recon anytime. Military itself is a huge bureaucracy, so you can expect every single nonsense of government stupidity. Let's say, an infantry on the line call for an emergency CAS, it has to go through the endless ladder of commands. The observing sats, the comms node, C4I systems are gonna be limited assets, can't oversee every single direction of the theater, so you have to ensure your admiral to get data link from it, unless you're the only ship in the battlefield. However, let's set the bureaucracy aside and say the recon system work as you said... As you don't put your strikers and bombers before you wipe out enemy AAs, they wouldn't put their fleet into a theater before they wipe out the observing sats. If observing sats are too many or too small to wipe out, then it would be a trench warfare like WW1: Nobody goes into other's territory not to be shredded. Inventing a space-tank would be hard, considering Dv offenders can't overwhelm defenders in mass. Missiles can be the solution. In the final stage, they can ditch their radiator and take advantage of insulated heatsink to avoid detection. Once you hide your heat trace, the old school stealth would work. If you can break the comms node of enemy fleet to disconnect the observing sats, the one sided radiator raiders are coming... Conclusion is that tactics and warfare are evolving, so you can't say just "there's no directional stealth in space". It depends, indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Aug 14, 2018 13:10:58 GMT
Also, AFAIK going flat reduces calculated cross section displayed in the editor. Did a simple test. Put a pair of radiators in 90 degrees so that they're fully exposed broadside, and in 180 degree so that they're not be able to seen. No changes in cross section. Increase aspect ratio while observing the cross-section displayed in the editor. For quite a few designs it will decrease, at least initially. |
|
|
|
Post by anotherfirefox on Aug 14, 2018 13:19:53 GMT
Did a simple test. Put a pair of radiators in 90 degrees so that they're fully exposed broadside, and in 180 degree so that they're not be able to seen. No changes in cross section. Increase aspect ratio while observing the cross-section displayed in the editor. For quite a few designs it will decrease, at least initially. That's not a matter of perspective. Flatten figure has less cross section by nature. What I want is that cross section would be calculated dynamically depends on enemy's perspective, or if that's to hard, calculated from broadside. My fleet defense looks same as beam skiff at the broadside, but it has 2~3 times of cross section! No point of making it flattened. |
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 15, 2018 10:10:56 GMT
hmmm, good point. Still I don't think you can 100% rely on the remote recon anytime. Military itself is a huge bureaucracy, so you can expect every single nonsense of government stupidity. Let's say, an infantry on the line call for an emergency CAS, it has to go through the endless ladder of commands. The observing sats, the comms node, C4I systems are gonna be limited assets, can't oversee every single direction of the theater, so you have to ensure your admiral to get data link from it, unless you're the only ship in the battlefield. However, let's set the bureaucracy aside and say the recon system work as you said... As you don't put your strikers and bombers before you wipe out enemy AAs, they wouldn't put their fleet into a theater before they wipe out the observing sats. If observing sats are too many or too small to wipe out, then it would be a trench warfare like WW1: Nobody goes into other's territory not to be shredded. Inventing a space-tank would be hard, considering Dv offenders can't overwhelm defenders in mass. Missiles can be the solution. In the final stage, they can ditch their radiator and take advantage of insulated heatsink to avoid detection. Once you hide your heat trace, the old school stealth would work. If you can break the comms node of enemy fleet to disconnect the observing sats, the one sided radiator raiders are coming... Conclusion is that tactics and warfare are evolving, so you can't say just "there's no directional stealth in space". It depends, indeed. The stealth in space arguement has been ragimg for a LONG time, not just here, but in many places. If you really want the comprehemsive arguements on it tho, look up projectrho (atomic rockets website), stealth in space post. Its a long read, but good, and you will get the main arguements for both sides. (I personally believe that strategic stealth will be viable, but not tactical stealth) |
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Aug 15, 2018 14:56:10 GMT
Increase aspect ratio while observing the cross-section displayed in the editor. For quite a few designs it will decrease, at least initially. That's not a matter of perspective. Flatten figure has less cross section by nature. What I want is that cross section would be calculated dynamically depends on enemy's perspective, or if that's to hard, calculated from broadside. My fleet defense looks same as beam skiff at the broadside, but it has 2~3 times of cross section! No point of making it flattened. Why does the calculated cross-section bother you so much?
It only affects the AI's decision when to open fire. It doesn't affect whether or not you're actually hit (actual cross-section is what matters here) nor the consequences of being hit (armour slope, composition and ship layout affect that).
Plus, it's always better to be a moving target than merely a small one.
|
|
|
|
Post by anotherfirefox on Aug 15, 2018 16:14:02 GMT
That's not a matter of perspective. Flatten figure has less cross section by nature. What I want is that cross section would be calculated dynamically depends on enemy's perspective, or if that's to hard, calculated from broadside. My fleet defense looks same as beam skiff at the broadside, but it has 2~3 times of cross section! No point of making it flattened. Why does the calculated cross-section bother you so much?
It only affects the AI's decision when to open fire. It doesn't affect whether or not you're actually hit (actual cross-section is what matters here) nor the consequences of being hit (armour slope, composition and ship layout affect that).
Plus, it's always better to be a moving target than merely a small one.
Yeah, evasive maneuver always win. However if AI thought it can't hit me anyway so decided not to open fire, evasive maneuver would be much easier. |
|
|
|
Post by anotherfirefox on Aug 15, 2018 16:14:38 GMT
hmmm, good point. Still I don't think you can 100% rely on the remote recon anytime. Military itself is a huge bureaucracy, so you can expect every single nonsense of government stupidity. Let's say, an infantry on the line call for an emergency CAS, it has to go through the endless ladder of commands. The observing sats, the comms node, C4I systems are gonna be limited assets, can't oversee every single direction of the theater, so you have to ensure your admiral to get data link from it, unless you're the only ship in the battlefield. However, let's set the bureaucracy aside and say the recon system work as you said... As you don't put your strikers and bombers before you wipe out enemy AAs, they wouldn't put their fleet into a theater before they wipe out the observing sats. If observing sats are too many or too small to wipe out, then it would be a trench warfare like WW1: Nobody goes into other's territory not to be shredded. Inventing a space-tank would be hard, considering Dv offenders can't overwhelm defenders in mass. Missiles can be the solution. In the final stage, they can ditch their radiator and take advantage of insulated heatsink to avoid detection. Once you hide your heat trace, the old school stealth would work. If you can break the comms node of enemy fleet to disconnect the observing sats, the one sided radiator raiders are coming... Conclusion is that tactics and warfare are evolving, so you can't say just "there's no directional stealth in space". It depends, indeed. The stealth in space arguement has been ragimg for a LONG time, not just here, but in many places. If you really want the comprehemsive arguements on it tho, look up projectrho (atomic rockets website), stealth in space post. Its a long read, but good, and you will get the main arguements for both sides. (I personally believe that strategic stealth will be viable, but not tactical stealth) Thanks for the good info, gonna read it and catch up. |
|
