|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 28, 2018 20:01:01 GMT
gedzilla I wonder what you'd be able to tell us about Hiveship.
Also, the analysis should include potential applications of a craft, in the gameplay context and recommended tactics - what can you do with given ship and what doesn't work?
Also, we could use this sort of stock module compendium.
Yo, im doing these roughly one a day. tommorow is the Corvette, which ive been looking foward to, since their is much more info on it in the campaign. Ill get to the Hiveship eventually. and feel free to add your own thought on these ships in the comments.
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 28, 2018 6:20:18 GMT
Congratulations, you just solved the heat death of the universe. The cost is we transition to a dystopian society where we breed vast legions of Wandcrafters & Clerics, selecting for traits that make one conducive to becoming a cleric or wandcrafter Quadrillion-Quadrillion-Quadrillion-Quadrillion humans inhabit a vast Birch World orbiting a supermassive black hole, as Seed-class AIs continuously optimize mankind for Faith and Wandcraft, continuously magicking entire solar systems worth of mass in water and feeding the conjured substances into optimized Kugelblitz singularities to generate exponentially increasing power, using the power output to fuel vast transmutation machines for the sake of increasing the infrastructure and supportable population size (and thus conjuration rate). I dont think clerics would be mass bred against their will. With the ability to create mass out of nothing, its more likely they would control the society, and they would want to retain their power, and artificially restrict their numbers, to create a bottleneck they control
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 27, 2018 6:29:59 GMT
Timid hello! I've lurked on this forum since the game came out, utterly terrified of saying anything due to my complete lack of any actual expertise. I managed to beat the campaign, even if that fucking polar orbit intercept mission took me getting my parents (who both are literal rocket scientists with actual PHDs) to come over and help. But while I love hard science, I also love tabletop RPGs. And one day, after reading Diaspora (a hard SF game that uses the Fate system) and the D&D 5th edition handbook in the same afternoon, a thought struck me. "What if I was on a rocket...and I had a wand of create water?" Create Water is a spell in D&D that creates, out of literal nothingness, 10 gallons of water. So, I started doing math using Atomic rocket. And before you know it, I've started creating a setting with two rules in mind: Hard science, hard magic. Hard science is clear enough, but hard magic means "if it cannot be cast by a player character, using the rules as written, it doesn't exist." In a lot of D&D settings, they have magic that breaks the rules that player characters get to use, and I wanted to give myself a similar constraint with magic as you have with technology...if only because if you could just make up any old magical hoozit then I could just say, "Well, someone builds a magical brick that uses magic to fly magically." And where's the fun in that? So, I've come to ask a question: What would the capacity to regenerate reaction mass en route do to spaceships? Basically, I figure that all or most rockets would be nuclear thermal, because it's simple enough to boil and accelerate water out of the back of a ship. I did a bit of math with the idea of using electrolysis to split water into oxygen and hydrogen, but you'd end up with a bunch of oxygen and hydrogen and that's potentially explosive and it takes an obscene amount of electricity. Even with a nuclear reactor! Meanwhile, 100 wands of Create Water can makes roughly 4 tons. And each wand has 7 charges and recharges 1d6+1 (so, 2-7) charges per day. So, a single Wand of Water Creation Unit (WOWC Unit for short) can make 4 tons per charge per day. Since 100 wands, even if you assume they're in a housing to make them easily used (since magic items need to be physically touched and then activated with an activation word), isn't that heavy, you can have multiple WOWC-Units. That'd mean that you'd no longer need to have 80% of the ship be propellant and reaction mass, right? Are there any things that I'm not thinking about in this equation? And if anyone knows D&D as much as they know about spaceships, I'd love to hear any suggestions! I already know that, thanks to the ease of industrially manufacturing gemstones, casting the Clone spell would be a lot easier. Meaning that astros and adventurers could get Clone insurance (for those who haven't played D&D, clone creates a copy of your body, which your soul inhabits when you die. Which does mean that I can make ship combat nice and lethal and not worry about TPKs!) Just out of curiosity, what did your rocket scienctist parents think about CoaDE ?
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 26, 2018 20:34:50 GMT
I thought i would do something unusual for a change, and give the stock ships a (relatively) in depth look. I'm going to look at stats and derive some doctrines the ship could fulfill. Also, feel free to add your own thoughts on the STOCK ships i showcase.
ALL OF MY SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT ARE RELATIVE TO OTHER STOCK SHIPS. Obviously relative to custom ships, all of the stats are terrible, but when i say something is good or bad, im judging the attributes relative to other stock ships.
The average ship mass is 4.009kt and 79.8Mc and 4.59 km/s Dv
BeamCraft 894t 14.3Mc 2.13km/s The Beamcraft is obviously quite small and cheap. its weapons are a single 1MW laser rod, and 5 turrets, and 4 cannons. its armor is pretty bad, but its acceleration is great, while it's Dv is Shit.
this ship never appears in the campaign so there is not much to go off off, but i think that with this ships level of redundancy (5 turrets to 1 rod), this ship is an anti laser laser (or at least against the 13MW). Other than that, this ships is just some cheap muscle, so it might be manufactured with 2-bit asteroid gangster lord in mind. It would most likely be seen around small asteroids, or other non-essentials posts. This is an Ok design
Corsair 3.82kt 40.6Mc 5.61km/s The Corsair is roughly average in mass, but far below average in cost, which means this ship is quite cheap for its mass. its weapons are 1 flak coilgun and 4 autofire railguns. That sounds on paper like a lot of firepower, until you realize the ship only has enough MW to fire one of those at a time. So the reality is the ship probably would have been better off with a bunch of power-cheap cannons. its armor is bad for a ship of its mass; the ship has a tendency to spin when hit, which leads to its quick death when broadside. its acceleration is also complete garbage at 60mg. Its Dv is good, actually.
This ship only appears once; the mission Fall of Titan, under the command of the USTA. Unfortunately we can glean little from this cameo. Its placement in the USTA fleet does suggest a role as an escort.
Now i originally thought this ship would be a basic brawler, a CQC ship. Yet its terrible survivability in close combat seems to suggest otherwise. One role i can attribute to this ship is as a hunter of >1kt ships. What suggests this is; good Dv, and the fast firing weapons. TBH, this design is pretty bad. the 5 13MW weapons are wasted when the ship only has 13.5MW total. The ship would be better off with 1 autofire railgun, and 4 cannons. Also if the armor is bad, than at least make the acceleration decent (why not, the ship has good DV) so the ship can run-and-gun. Simply put, there is bad synergy between the various components, even for a stock ship.
Corvette 4.94kt 99.9MC 5.18km/s The Corvette has a moderately higher than average mass, and moderately higher than average cost. Its weapons are 4 13MW Sniper Coilguns, and 7 13MW autofire Railguns. These are all good guns, HOWEVER, (just like the corsair) its only a lot of firepower on paper, as there are only enough MW to fire one weapon at a time. Its armor is decent, considering that the corvette can go nose in. Its acceleration is Ok, and its Dv is moderately good.
This ship appears in Predatory Opportunism (as the enemy), Main Belt Extraction (as a ship of yours), Vesta overkill (as an enemy and as one of yours), Solar Ties (as a Nippon ship), and Dusk over Triton. This commonality suggests that the ship is well liked across the system, which suggests this design is quite solid. Its role seems to be Gun Cruiser, added to provide CQC firepower. It also has the ability to launch decoys, a nice little addition to protect fleet ships from missiles.
I do believe is role is quite straight foward; use your Dv to get a good closing velocity, go nose in, and Blast away. Use your decoys to protect from missiles. This design is ok/mediocre overall. I was going to say that this ship is good/great for its cost and mass, except its suffering from severe lack of MWs. Besides the lack of MW, there is really no big weakness, and the ship can tank decently (provided you stay nose in), and its reasonably well protected against missiles). To fix this, just apply more reactor, the ship definitely has the space for more radiators
Cutter 3.61kt 44.9Mc 4.3km/s The Cutter has a slightly lower than average mass, much lower than average cost, so similar to the Corsair, it is pretty cheap for its mass. its weapons are 4 60mm cannons, and 3 13MW lasers, which are both solid, reliable weapons. The Armor actually seems decent (in the admitedlly limited tests i ran), stay at a very slight angle preferably, not completly nose in. Its acceleration is pretty bad, and the Dv is Meh.
The Cutter appears in Vesta Overkill (good ol vesta overkill, love this mission), and Solar Ties, the Jovian Lunar tour, in the hands of the USTA and Nippon Prime. This suggests the Cutter is a mainstay design in the USTA-Nippon Prime alliance, perhaps first produced by the USTA and then given to their japanese allies. As befitting its seeming place as a mainstay deisign, the design is a good escort ship. It fits the point defense role well (especially against drones), with its cannons, lasers and decoys. Also befitting a escort, its below average mass and cost.
The role is simple, put it in a fleet, start the combat out broadside (so the decoys go away (horizontally) from the fleet to draw off missiles, and hit ignore range on the weapons, and blaze away. This ship is Good, has good synergy among its parts (finally a ship that can fire all its weapons at once), and a clear roles, and not to much of a burden to produce.
Escort Carrier 4.04kt 77.9MC 4.54km/s This Ship is darn close to dead average mass and cost. The Primary weapon of the Escort Carrier is obviously the Stinger Drone, which is a good, effective Design. Although the EC is limited by the fact that you often have to luanch (at minimum) 8-12 Drones for an effective strike, meaning that at 25 drones you are only likely to get 2-3 effective blows in. Of course you can conserve the drone's Dv for multiple strikes but then you will have to stick to slow intercepts with the enemy, which means the drones are subject to the enemies PD for longer. The EC does have refueling capabilites, which is nice but the refueling is pretty limited by the EC's very limited Flourine supply. So you are unlikely to get more than one full refuel on one strike group (8-12 drones). All in all, if you stick to efffective strikes, fast intercepts (not too fast though, or the drones have issues targeting. The ideal intercept velocity is about 1km/s closing.), and manage a refueling for a strike group, you can get in 3-4 effective blows. The EC also has 7 13MW railguns, which are solid weapons, but, -in a unfortunately common problem- only has enough MW to fire one of them. The armor seems good actually (its quite thick), though the top part is one big flat surface that projectiles will hit at a 90 degree angle. The acceleration is Meh, and the DV is slightly bad.
The EC appears in Predatory Opportunism (as yours), in Retaking Ceres (as an enemy ship), and Dusk over Triton (as one of yours). I would say that its a mainstay design, except its cousin the Support Carrier is as common. I would guess one side produced the EC (and then the other side stole the design, or an actual ship), and the other side produced the SC (and the other side stole it). Its probably moderatly well liked by each side, and is produced in medium numbers.
More to come (i will edit it in)
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 23, 2018 9:48:18 GMT
I think I’m missing something here. From what was mentioned above, the composite layout is designed to protect against low mass, high velocity rounds which would make quick work of metal plate armour, at the expense of being weak to heavier rounds, right? So, as most modern tanks have composite armors, would it not be more effective to use a weapon which can defeat this armour, which as far as I know, means big slugs at low velocities (as the mass and velocities of a round are inversely related for the same amount of propellant)? In-game, I tend to use low velocity weapons because of their heavy rate of fire, capable of bringing capital ships down in seconds due to the weight of fire. This necessitates the use of low velocity conventional guns, as railguns simply lack the rate of fire needed. Is this not standard among other players? This is not standard at all. The stardard round for the majority of used guns is 1g (for me 10g is a HEAVY round, 100g just seems incredibly slow).
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 23, 2018 5:00:28 GMT
Overcoming Veusian gravity well wouldn't be that much hard: the most difficult thing is it's thick and deep atmosphere, not gravity itself. If you're gonna launch your rocket in mid air next to your ur ballonon city it wouldn't be that much harsh. One feasible solution is trimodal NTR SSTO on wings: Atmospheric nuke jet mid air, orbital NTR outta air, power plant mid course. More feasible solution is nuke powered airborne TSTO: just like Space One but much larger nuke powered mothership with much larger nuke powered rocket onboard. Most feasible one is Interplanetary Transportation System consisted of flying mothership, fairly light rocket with high thrust/low dV, saying, chem rocket, and low Venusian orbit NTR/MPDT intetplanetary transportation. Airborne aircraft carrier has been tried since WW1 so landing and taking off wouldn't be that difficult. Airborne aircraft carrier ?
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 21, 2018 4:41:01 GMT
Campaigns made in the level editor
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 20, 2018 10:18:10 GMT
Methane for methane god Problem: nothing to mine resources out of during the transit, when your cryogenic propellant boils away Solution: Use cryogenic peopellant for departure, and storable ones for arrival injection Its funny; i havent seen a 40k reference here in so long
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 19, 2018 19:30:24 GMT
How do i do any of this ??
its so confusing
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 19, 2018 18:52:02 GMT
i made a custom level, but the second i load it, it keeps failing me right away. how fix ?
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 19, 2018 5:12:29 GMT
Okay, well you move it over to suggestions I guess? argonbalt is the forum mod (yes, the only one). Direct any requests about moving threads to him. If you want it done faster, go to the CoaDE Discord channel and poke him there. He hasnt posted in a while. Speaking of which, isnt there a bunch old timers who used to post here, but left ?
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 18, 2018 20:39:28 GMT
i also have many ideas (most of them based of the best level in the game (vesta overkill) ), but i have no idea how to make multiple fleets -friendly and enemy- orbit the same body.
how do ?
|
|
|
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 gedzilla on Aug 17, 2018 15:16:56 GMT
I want to post my entry for the low cost vesta overkill challenge at: 292kc, total mass is 70.3t It can clear the mission at gold and complete the mission within 10 minutes gameplay with drones to spare. it uses a thermoeletric generator to keep crew requirements down to 22 crew. I've uploaded it to the steam workshop here: steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1222650077video of the run is available below and on the workshop page. hey, those drones look great. can i have the code for them ?
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 17, 2018 15:14:58 GMT
i made a TINY RTG with an outlet heat of 320 K. what is the best raidiator material to use for such a temp ?
|
|