|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 17, 2018 6:28:25 GMT
Is defeating enemy lasers by knocking out their optics with your own lasers, still a viable tactic ?
If not, why not ?
|
|
|
|
Post by AdmiralObvious on Aug 17, 2018 7:02:54 GMT
It still kind of is viable. Though I think it's been changed so you can't murder a gigawatt laser with a flashlight.
|
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Aug 17, 2018 13:24:38 GMT
It's viable in the sense that fewer of higher power lasers are worse in basically every way than more of lower power lasers with the same turret, due to redundancy for defense and due to the ablation cap for offense.
No, counter-lasers are not a thing; there was a bug for a short while where laser optics were disgustingly fragile, but that bug was fixed a long time ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 17, 2018 14:13:59 GMT
It's viable in the sense that fewer of higher power lasers are worse in basically every way than more of lower power lasers with the same turret, due to redundancy for defense and due to the ablation cap for offense. No, counter-lasers are not a thing; there was a bug for a short while where laser optics were disgustingly fragile, but that bug was fixed a long time ago. even if the optics were overly fragile, they should still, on the whole, be one of the most vulnerable components of the laser. Even if before it was to much, why are counter-lasers not a thing at all ? |
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Aug 17, 2018 14:19:17 GMT
By counter lasers, you mean more lasers?
|
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 17, 2018 14:35:43 GMT
By counter lasers, you mean more lasers? no, counter-laser are weaker, more numerous (for redundency), lasers, that fire up the stream of the enemy laser, to knock out its optics |
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Aug 17, 2018 18:53:37 GMT
even if the optics were overly fragile, they should still, on the whole, be one of the most vulnerable components of the laser. Even if before it was to much, why are counter-lasers not a thing at all ? Intensity is what does damage. Whatever you consider your most fragile component to be, a certain minimum intensity is required to do damage to it. A stronger laser is defined as having a higher intensity at a given range, or equivalently, a longer range for a given intensity. A stronger laser is able to deal damage and destroy a weaker laser before the weaker laser is close enough to do anything. This is why counter-lasers are not a thing irl (and it's why we're going to have an arms race for the biggest laser once we have serious space warfare in the works, up to the range at which light lag allows dodging laser shots).
In CoaDE, we have a maximum range. So, you can use the weakest laser that is able to do meaningful damage at maximum range (and use as many copies of it as you have power for), and you won't be losing out on anything, because any stronger laser is not making use of its theoretical range fully. That is a lot of lasers, so it's more common to use lasers that reach the ablation cap at max range on common armor types; that's fine, and it's not much different in essence.
Going much beyond the ablation cap is pure waste. It might seem that weak lasers can take out strong ones favorably when in reality such strong lasers are just not properly supported by the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 18, 2018 20:36:18 GMT
even if the optics were overly fragile, they should still, on the whole, be one of the most vulnerable components of the laser. Even if before it was to much, why are counter-lasers not a thing at all ? Intensity is what does damage. Whatever you consider your most fragile component to be, a certain minimum intensity is required to do damage to it. A stronger laser is defined as having a higher intensity at a given range, or equivalently, a longer range for a given intensity. A stronger laser is able to deal damage and destroy a weaker laser before the weaker laser is close enough to do anything. This is why counter-lasers are not a thing irl (and it's why we're going to have an arms race for the biggest laser once we have serious space warfare in the works, up to the range at which light lag allows dodging laser shots).
In CoaDE, we have a maximum range. So, you can use the weakest laser that is able to do meaningful damage at maximum range (and use as many copies of it as you have power for), and you won't be losing out on anything, because any stronger laser is not making use of its theoretical range fully. That is a lot of lasers, so it's more common to use lasers that reach the ablation cap at max range on common armor types; that's fine, and it's not much different in essence.
Going much beyond the ablation cap is pure waste. It might seem that weak lasers can take out strong ones favorably when in reality such strong lasers are just not properly supported by the game.
this is true if both lasers are open,aand firing at each other. of course the stronger one is going to get into effetive ranch first, and knock out the other. i thought the general idea was that the weaker laser has multiple turrets (now that one lasing rod can be directed into multiple turrets), and that those turrets are protected by a thick shutter that only opens when the enemy laser is in range. theorectically the very thick PTFE shutter protects the weaker laser until its in range, and then the weaker laser opens up (and has multiple turrets anyway). we still have shutters, no ? this would obviously be greatly buffed if we had retractable turrets (god i want them so much), and could hide behing the full mass of the ship's (relativly) heavily armored nosecone. |
|
|
|
Post by Anon1 on Aug 23, 2018 18:29:28 GMT
Intensity is what does damage. Whatever you consider your most fragile component to be, a certain minimum intensity is required to do damage to it. A stronger laser is defined as having a higher intensity at a given range, or equivalently, a longer range for a given intensity. A stronger laser is able to deal damage and destroy a weaker laser before the weaker laser is close enough to do anything. This is why counter-lasers are not a thing irl (and it's why we're going to have an arms race for the biggest laser once we have serious space warfare in the works, up to the range at which light lag allows dodging laser shots).
In CoaDE, we have a maximum range. So, you can use the weakest laser that is able to do meaningful damage at maximum range (and use as many copies of it as you have power for), and you won't be losing out on anything, because any stronger laser is not making use of its theoretical range fully. That is a lot of lasers, so it's more common to use lasers that reach the ablation cap at max range on common armor types; that's fine, and it's not much different in essence.
Going much beyond the ablation cap is pure waste. It might seem that weak lasers can take out strong ones favorably when in reality such strong lasers are just not properly supported by the game.
this is true if both lasers are open,aand firing at each other. of course the stronger one is going to get into effetive ranch first, and knock out the other. i thought the general idea was that the weaker laser has multiple turrets (now that one lasing rod can be directed into multiple turrets), and that those turrets are protected by a thick shutter that only opens when the enemy laser is in range. theorectically the very thick PTFE shutter protects the weaker laser until its in range, and then the weaker laser opens up (and has multiple turrets anyway). we still have shutters, no ? this would obviously be greatly buffed if we had retractable turrets (god i want them so much), and could hide behing the full mass of the ship's (relativly) heavily armored nosecone. What is stopping the stronger laser from drilling through the shutters of the weaker lasers before the weaker lasers get into range? What's to stop it from drilling through the engines so that the weaker lasers not only never get into range but don't have a power supply?
Increasing the power by a factor of 100 increases the effective range from the same size aperture by a factor of 10. Increasing the aperture size by a factor of 10 increases the range by a factor of 10 if frequency and power are kept constant. Increasing the frequency (aka decreasing the wavelength) by a factor of 4, increasing the range by a factor of 4. So a 1 GW laser firing from an aperture 10 times wider at a frequency 4 times higher, will have 400 times the effective range of a 10 MW laser firing from the smaller aperture and lower frequency. And the ship carrying those smaller, weaker lasers will take a long time to cross that range. Time during which the big bad laser will get to drill through said ship.
A 1 GW, 200 nm, continuous wave laser firing through a 20 meter diameter aperture has a 1 meter diameter spot size at 81,967 km. It will drill a 1 meter wide hole through steel armor at a rate of 2.08 cm/s at that distance. If closing velocity is 100 km/s and your weaker lasers aren't effective until 1967 km, then your ship will have to get hit for 800 seconds before you get to fire back. During that time, said laser can drill through at least 16 meters of steel by adjusting its focus to maintain a 1 meter wide spot size. However if the spot size drops to .5 meters then the drill rate increases to 8.1 cm/s. At 0.2 meters the drill rate increases to 47.1 cm/s.
If the laser power goes up to 10 GW, then at 327,868.852459 km, the beam is 4 meters in diameter. It will drill a 4 meter diameter hole through steel at a rate of 1.3 cm/s. Change it to a 1kilohertz pulse laser firing 10 MJ, 10 nanosecond pulses and the laser will drill a 4 meter wide hole through steel at a rate of 9.74 cm/s. Now pump the power up to 100 GW by running the same pulse laser at 10 kilohertz and the drill up goes up to 97.4 cm/s with a 4 meter wide spot size. Or at 2.5 times the range, the spot size of the 100 GW version goes to 10 meters wide and the drill rate goes to 18.3 cm/s.
Welcome to the laser problem of space combat.
|
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Aug 23, 2018 19:27:17 GMT
Welcome to the laser problem of space combat. Yup. Though it ceases to be a problem at around a light-minute of range, or a bit less. With ion drives or better, you are able to continuously accelerate in random directions (for weeks if necessary) to throw off enemy aim (light lag will make properly locking on impossible). Even if a pulse could one-shot your ship, it is useless if it misses. Scaling beyond one-shotting is pointless, because extra energy and infrastructure is wasted. So the optimal strategy would be to use a light-minute laser, with a power ranging from the minimum effective up to the strongest that still doesn't overpenetrate, and spam ships with one spinal laser each, for redundancy.
It becomes a lot like old naval battleship combat. Damage control in combat is actually relevant again due to the rarity of successful strikes; this even makes a valid reason to have humans on board, since strong AI is probably farther off than this scenario.
|
|
ghgh
Full Member
Still trying to make kinetics work.
Posts: 136
|
Post by ghgh on Aug 31, 2018 13:51:42 GMT
I've had an issue of enemy gunship lasers with a 225 kw intensity (range 1000km) sniping my 25 Mw lasers. I think it had to do with the massive targetable area on the 25 Mw laser while the 225 kw laser is 1/10th the surface area.
|
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 31, 2018 14:54:34 GMT
this is true if both lasers are open,aand firing at each other. of course the stronger one is going to get into effetive ranch first, and knock out the other. i thought the general idea was that the weaker laser has multiple turrets (now that one lasing rod can be directed into multiple turrets), and that those turrets are protected by a thick shutter that only opens when the enemy laser is in range. theorectically the very thick PTFE shutter protects the weaker laser until its in range, and then the weaker laser opens up (and has multiple turrets anyway). we still have shutters, no ? this would obviously be greatly buffed if we had retractable turrets (god i want them so much), and could hide behing the full mass of the ship's (relativly) heavily armored nosecone. What is stopping the stronger laser from drilling through the shutters of the weaker lasers before the weaker lasers get into range? What's to stop it from drilling through the engines so that the weaker lasers not only never get into range but don't have a power supply?
Increasing the power by a factor of 100 increases the effective range from the same size aperture by a factor of 10. Increasing the aperture size by a factor of 10 increases the range by a factor of 10 if frequency and power are kept constant. Increasing the frequency (aka decreasing the wavelength) by a factor of 4, increasing the range by a factor of 4. So a 1 GW laser firing from an aperture 10 times wider at a frequency 4 times higher, will have 400 times the effective range of a 10 MW laser firing from the smaller aperture and lower frequency. And the ship carrying those smaller, weaker lasers will take a long time to cross that range. Time during which the big bad laser will get to drill through said ship.
A 1 GW, 200 nm, continuous wave laser firing through a 20 meter diameter aperture has a 1 meter diameter spot size at 81,967 km. It will drill a 1 meter wide hole through steel armor at a rate of 2.08 cm/s at that distance. If closing velocity is 100 km/s and your weaker lasers aren't effective until 1967 km, then your ship will have to get hit for 800 seconds before you get to fire back. During that time, said laser can drill through at least 16 meters of steel by adjusting its focus to maintain a 1 meter wide spot size. However if the spot size drops to .5 meters then the drill rate increases to 8.1 cm/s. At 0.2 meters the drill rate increases to 47.1 cm/s.
If the laser power goes up to 10 GW, then at 327,868.852459 km, the beam is 4 meters in diameter. It will drill a 4 meter diameter hole through steel at a rate of 1.3 cm/s. Change it to a 1kilohertz pulse laser firing 10 MJ, 10 nanosecond pulses and the laser will drill a 4 meter wide hole through steel at a rate of 9.74 cm/s. Now pump the power up to 100 GW by running the same pulse laser at 10 kilohertz and the drill up goes up to 97.4 cm/s with a 4 meter wide spot size. Or at 2.5 times the range, the spot size of the 100 GW version goes to 10 meters wide and the drill rate goes to 18.3 cm/s.
Welcome to the laser problem of space combat.
I guess. I imagine anti laser protection will become an entire area of military study in an of itself. But tbh, the range disparity between the enemy laser and my counterlasers might not be as big as you suggest. I wouldnt use a 10MW agianst a GW. id prob use something 3-5 times smaller (like a 1GW against a 5GW). One more thing to consider, steel is a pretty shit antilaser armor. Have you tried this agains PE or Graphogel, or Silagel ? |
|
ghgh
Full Member
Still trying to make kinetics work.
Posts: 136
|
Post by ghgh on Aug 31, 2018 15:28:19 GMT
What is stopping the stronger laser from drilling through the shutters of the weaker lasers before the weaker lasers get into range? What's to stop it from drilling through the engines so that the weaker lasers not only never get into range but don't have a power supply?
Increasing the power by a factor of 100 increases the effective range from the same size aperture by a factor of 10. Increasing the aperture size by a factor of 10 increases the range by a factor of 10 if frequency and power are kept constant. Increasing the frequency (aka decreasing the wavelength) by a factor of 4, increasing the range by a factor of 4. So a 1 GW laser firing from an aperture 10 times wider at a frequency 4 times higher, will have 400 times the effective range of a 10 MW laser firing from the smaller aperture and lower frequency. And the ship carrying those smaller, weaker lasers will take a long time to cross that range. Time during which the big bad laser will get to drill through said ship.
A 1 GW, 200 nm, continuous wave laser firing through a 20 meter diameter aperture has a 1 meter diameter spot size at 81,967 km. It will drill a 1 meter wide hole through steel armor at a rate of 2.08 cm/s at that distance. If closing velocity is 100 km/s and your weaker lasers aren't effective until 1967 km, then your ship will have to get hit for 800 seconds before you get to fire back. During that time, said laser can drill through at least 16 meters of steel by adjusting its focus to maintain a 1 meter wide spot size. However if the spot size drops to .5 meters then the drill rate increases to 8.1 cm/s. At 0.2 meters the drill rate increases to 47.1 cm/s.
If the laser power goes up to 10 GW, then at 327,868.852459 km, the beam is 4 meters in diameter. It will drill a 4 meter diameter hole through steel at a rate of 1.3 cm/s. Change it to a 1kilohertz pulse laser firing 10 MJ, 10 nanosecond pulses and the laser will drill a 4 meter wide hole through steel at a rate of 9.74 cm/s. Now pump the power up to 100 GW by running the same pulse laser at 10 kilohertz and the drill up goes up to 97.4 cm/s with a 4 meter wide spot size. Or at 2.5 times the range, the spot size of the 100 GW version goes to 10 meters wide and the drill rate goes to 18.3 cm/s.
Welcome to the laser problem of space combat.
I guess. I imagine anti laser protection will become an entire area of military study in an of itself. But tbh, the range disparity between the enemy laser and my counterlasers might not be as big as you suggest. I wouldnt use a 10MW agianst a GW. id prob use something 3-5 times smaller (like a 1GW against a 5GW). One more thing to consider, steel is a pretty shit antilaser armor. Have you tried this agains PE or Graphogel, or Silagel ? Isn't graphogel kinda the opposite of laser armor? In the past, anything I have coated in it has popped faster than a balloon in an iron maiden (turrets especially). |
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 31, 2018 15:30:39 GMT
I guess. I imagine anti laser protection will become an entire area of military study in an of itself. But tbh, the range disparity between the enemy laser and my counterlasers might not be as big as you suggest. I wouldnt use a 10MW agianst a GW. id prob use something 3-5 times smaller (like a 1GW against a 5GW). One more thing to consider, steel is a pretty shit antilaser armor. Have you tried this agains PE or Graphogel, or Silagel ? Isn't graphogel kinda the opposite of laser armor? In the past, anything I have coated in it has popped faster than a balloon in an iron maiden (turrets especially). Im under the impression it and silagel are great antilaser armors |
|
ghgh
Full Member
Still trying to make kinetics work.
Posts: 136
|
Post by ghgh on Aug 31, 2018 15:37:51 GMT
Is it good in bulk or something? I noticed it got buffed in the last update. My 2 meter thick graphogel railguns weren't so much popping as burning very quickly at least compared to aramid or polyethylene. Still not great compared to other options especially when aramid is also great against kinetics.
|
|
