|
Post by argonbalt on Feb 15, 2017 16:34:40 GMT
I'm with you, I voted for coilguns... Like you said, until the next update... The minute we can leverage the (essentially) unlimited range of kinetic weapons, I think we'll see dents in the laser dominance. The issue with kinetic weapons has never been range in the sense of whether a round can get from point a to b, so much as it has been an issue of how fast it can get there. To put it bluntly you will never move a mass<0 then you will be able to move a mass-less clump of energy if you are playing nice with relativity. We are also what i would consider to be a still vital but difficult function of lasers, the ability to vaporise incoming bullets. If this was implemented than i would imagine most of our sandcasters with their tiny 1 gram MMG projectiles would simply disintegrate en route.
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Feb 15, 2017 16:49:25 GMT
Like you said, until the next update... The minute we can leverage the (essentially) unlimited range of kinetic weapons, I think we'll see dents in the laser dominance. The issue with kinetic weapons has never been range in the sense of whether a round can get from point a to b, so much as it has been an issue of how fast it can get there. To put it bluntly you will never move a mass<0 then you will be able to move a mass-less clump of energy if you are playing nice with relativity. We are also what i would consider to be a still vital but difficult function of lasers, the ability to vaporise incoming bullets. If this was implemented than i would imagine most of our sandcasters with their tiny 1 gram MMG projectiles would simply disintegrate en route. Without adaptive optics, the time to switch between bullets would be a significant factor. Add in laser wobble and the problem of shooting down those 50km/s mag-glass pennies seems extremely difficult. Factor in composite barrel bracing/superconductive rails, increase maximum stages/length/power settings to match lasers, and we're probably looking at 100-200km/s guns with monolithic munitions.
|
|
|
Post by caiaphas on Feb 15, 2017 17:51:51 GMT
The issue with kinetic weapons has never been range in the sense of whether a round can get from point a to b, so much as it has been an issue of how fast it can get there. To put it bluntly you will never move a mass<0 then you will be able to move a mass-less clump of energy if you are playing nice with relativity. We are also what i would consider to be a still vital but difficult function of lasers, the ability to vaporise incoming bullets. If this was implemented than i would imagine most of our sandcasters with their tiny 1 gram MMG projectiles would simply disintegrate en route. Without adaptive optics, the time to switch between bullets would be a significant factor. Add in laser wobble and the problem of shooting down those 50km/s mag-glass pennies seems almost difficult. Factor in composite barrel bracing/superconductive rails, increase maximum stages/length/power settings to match lasers, and we're probably looking at 100-200km/s guns with monolithic munitions. Mm. How difficult would it be to implement adaptive optics in-game?
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Feb 15, 2017 18:24:27 GMT
Mm. How difficult would it be to implement adaptive optics in-game? Probably easier than simulating a single lasing array with multiple, flexible output points. Another note - a molten 1g droplet of mag-glass incoming at 100-200 km/s is just as, or perhaps even more dangerous than a solid 1 gram penny. You need to vaporize, or ablate it sufficiently that it misses due to ablative thrust. EDIT: You did say vaporize. Whoops. Still, even the gaseous residue at such tremendous velocities could be an issue.
|
|
|
Post by caiaphas on Feb 15, 2017 18:56:09 GMT
Mm. How difficult would it be to implement adaptive optics in-game? Probably easier than simulating a single lasing array with multiple, flexible output points. Another note - a molten 1g droplet of mag-glass incoming at 100-200 km/s is just as, or perhaps even more dangerous than a solid 1 gram penny. You need to vaporize, or ablate it sufficiently that it misses due to ablative thrust. EDIT: You did say vaporize. Whoops. Still, even the gaseous residue at such tremendous velocities could be an issue. I imagine that what would happen would mitigate a good deal of the damage inflicted, however. In the brief moment that it's gaseous it starts spreading thanks to a combination of temperature-dependent velocity and momentum transfer from the laser (don't know if the latter is small enough to be ignored), which, depending on the distance at which it's lased means that you're not getting all of the kinetic energy transferred to your ship. It also means that you spread out the stresses on your armor significantly, so while these new micron-scale bits of magglass will gouge out little craters when they hit your armor, it may not generate enough stress in it to shear or shatter it. Frankly, a good way to defend against a sandblaster barrage may be to mount a powerful but defocused laser with a generous spot size at, say, 10 km, and then just sweep it briefly across the incoming hail of sand and trust in your armor to handle the rest.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Feb 15, 2017 19:43:04 GMT
I am not really convinced that a molten round would be worse than a non molten one. If anything the simple heated deformation of the geometry of the impact could be enough to nullify it on the whipple bumpers.
|
|
|
Post by caiaphas on Feb 15, 2017 19:52:18 GMT
I am not really convinced that a molten round would be worse than a non molten one. If anything the simple heated deformation of the geometry of the impact could be enough to nullify it on the whipple bumpers. Well, we need to consider whether it'd be molten at all when it smacks into your armor (and yeah, probably, but we'd need to figure out what proportion of its impact energy is wasted in deformation of the projectile). For that we need density so we can figure out the radiative surface available and the projectile's time to target. EDIT: actually, no, I think it'll waste virtually no energy in deformation. Speed of sound in glass is 4.5 km/s, which is frankly trivial for us to exceed, so molten or not it's going to behave as a single solid body when it hits.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Feb 15, 2017 19:58:18 GMT
I feel like we could work off of what most standard sand casters use? So i suppose 1 mm cubic grain of MMG? At least for the low end, but yes once we get up to monolithic munitions.
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Feb 15, 2017 20:18:44 GMT
I feel like we could work off of what most standard sand casters use? So i suppose 1 mm cubic grain of MMG? At least for the low end, but yes once we get up to monolithic munitions. You guys are talking about lasers vaporizing/ablating incoming projectiles, right ?
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Feb 15, 2017 20:25:29 GMT
Yes, i think it is more than manageable considering we are oft pumping somewhere around 1-10 GW of a standard laser ship or laser drone, a large unfocused beam sweeping through the incoming fire field should be able to completely vaporise smaller incoming shots.
|
|
|
Post by lieste on Feb 16, 2017 0:01:41 GMT
I feel like we could work off of what most standard sand casters use? So i suppose 1 mm cubic grain of MMG? At least for the low end, but yes once we get up to monolithic munitions. I usually have specified an 0.5cm^3 block of carbon for my sandcaster, with a few exceptions using Vanadium Chromium Steel (.13cm^3). These are 500mm^3 and 128mm^3 respectively, not anything very near to 1mm^3 - and tungsten is around 52mm^3 at a 1g mass.
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Feb 16, 2017 0:06:37 GMT
I am not really convinced that a molten round would be worse than a non molten one. If anything the simple heated deformation of the geometry of the impact could be enough to nullify it on the whipple bumpers. Um. At high velocities everything behaves kinda like a fluid. So a glob of molten 50km/s sand would smack into your ship with very similar effects to a chunk of solid 50km/s sand.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Feb 16, 2017 0:58:47 GMT
True enough but i am getting a strong "physics itch" about this, when i have some time on the weekend i might go through and crunch the numbers on evaporation rates of materials. Thanks for posting your munitions Lieste i might use those as well in the calculations.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Feb 16, 2017 7:34:58 GMT
What is the mind behind our weapons? Why THESE weapons? And why so many? Is there a secret behind them? Or is it just weapons picked by chance?
In order of least disposability/cost of its total stock projectiles/tools as a system... 0. Ship (S) 1 1. Drones (D) 45 or less on stock ships ----------------- 2. Decoys (De) 75 or less... 3. Missiles (M) 100 or less... 4. Coilguns (C) 4000 or less... 5. Cannons (Cn) 20,000 or less... 6. Railguns (R) 40,000 or less... 7. Lasers (L) Infinite
If we assume that these weapons were picked with care and deliberation, then we must assume there is some reasons these were chosen. This is the paint with which we paint upon the canvas that we call our space warfare masterpiece.
We must assume that all of them have some optimum use where they excel where others will not. And that some excel in combination.
0. Ships (S) and 1. Drones (D) can use and deploy any of the tools below it, but cannot be deployed by those tools. They are considered least dispensable in the base philosophy of COADE.
What secrets were locked in the mind of qswitched when he choose these weapons? I submit that there is some secret still to be unlocked, some grand design, grand plan for the best use of each weapon type.
Clearly it must be that the sum of weapons used together, are greater than it's parts. And to make things even more complex, all of these can be combined in various combinations to make for hybrid weapons.
The hierarchy of warfare is based on disposability and capability. That which must survive in order to declare victory must survive. (The King in Chess, the General in war.) That which can be thrown away to achieve victory must be thrown away but only when needed. (The pawn in Chess, the private in war.)
The Ship itself, at least one of the Ships in the fleet, must survive or there is no victory. And so the Ship must be at the top of the hierarchy, and based on disposability and capability, falling from there.
Alpha______The Ship Must Survive Ship Drones (SD), Ship Missiles (SM), Ship Decoys (SDe), Ship Coilguns (SC), Ship Cannons (SCn), Ship Railguns (SR), Ship Lasers (SL). SD, SM, SDe, SC, SCn, SR, SL
From the fact that Cannons (Cn) are only used on the more inexpensive ships, we might conclude that Cannons (Cn) and Railguns (R) are interchangeable with similar performance/use at least at Cannon (Cn) ranges.
-Ship Coilguns can be used to launch Drones or Missiles. Ship Coilgun Launched Drones (SCD), Ship Coilgun Launched Missiles (SCM) SCD, SCM
-What is launched from a Ship by nature disposable, and will not return to it. It is sacrificed to win victory. -They vanish almost as soon as they are launched. -Except we know this isn't the case for Ship Drones (SD), because they are made to be refueled in flight.
-Ships can launch Drones and Missiles which are expected to last much longer and pursue the enemy beyond the range of the ship itself. Drones can even be refueled and this is clear from the designs of Qswitched that this was intended because they have Drone refueling ports stock.
Beta____Disposable if Needed -Drones can launch microDrones or microMissiles, carry warheads/decoys, or mount weapons themselves. Drone "microDrone" Buses (DDB), Drone microDecoy Bus (DDeB), Drone microMissile Buses (DMB), Drone Coilguns (DC), Drone Cannons (DCn), Drone Railguns (DR), Drone Lasers (DL) DDB, DDeB, DMB, DC, DCn, DR, DL
Gamma_Desposible by Design -Missiles can carry warheads of various types but do not carry ship weapons. -By definition a Missile that could launch another missile would be a drone. Nuke Missiles (MN), Decoy Missiles (MDe), High Explosive Missiles (MH), and Flak Missiles (MF). MN, MDe, MH, MF
So we have three classes in our battle. Alpha -Ships w/Drones, Missiles and Weapons.____________A1. SD,_ A2. SDe/SCD, A3. SM/SCM, A4. SC, (A5. SCn, SR), A6. SL Beta - Drones w/microDrones, microMissiles and Weapons.___B1. DDB, B2. DDeB,___B3. DMB,____B4.DC,_ (B5. DCn, DR), B6. DL Gamma - Missiles w/ payloads.________________________G1. MN, G2. MDe,____ G3. MH,____ G4. MF
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Feb 16, 2017 8:06:09 GMT
Why do the stock ships matter and why are they relevant in a COADE world, where user designs have far surpassed stock designs?
Because the fact that stock designs were underpowered was by design. From the beginning, unlocking ship and module design and to encourage user designs was the true goal of Qswitched all along. He left in our hands a basic idea of the world that is created, but left it to us to build upon it.
But what Qswitched left OUT of our hands, and what we can never change is the cost of items/materials ingame, and the mechanics of how the way we put our materials together affects the battle itself.
I submit that behind COADE is a secret formula, a secret plan, where given a certain task, it will be more efficient, and therefore more advantageous to do that task using one weapons system vs another.
We can play with designs, but they can never exceed the programing or design of the overall world of Qswitched. We can never go futher than the price system and setup of COADE itself.
Therefore I submit that understanding the stock ships, understanding the stock weapons, and why they were chosen over other weapons, will reveal to us the direction in which our designs will find greatest success and promise.
Understanding the basic set of weapons, and what their best uses are, will lead us to see the secret language of COADE space warfare.
|
|