|
Post by anotherfirefox on Aug 24, 2018 0:11:44 GMT
That only assumes that you're grossly outperforming the enemy No, it only assumes that engagement ranges will be extremely long compared to the relative velocities between ships. In-game, you can easily deal a significant amount of damage out to a few Mm's of range, using either railguns or lasers. There's no way to close that distance cost effectively quickly enough to make use of pincer maneuvers or anything else to do with maneuvering really. Any curvature in your trajectory will increase your already strained dv requirements significantly. In reality, lasers would be even more powerful, with ranges reaching out to tens or hundreds of Mm's. With enough power, you'd hit light lag limits before running out of effective range on your laser. With ranges like that, small-scale maneuvering like rolling to face enemies can take days and you'll still have plenty of time. And if we're talking about real tactics, lateral thrusting would be far more important than rolling. That will actually let you avoid projectiles completely instead of just aligning your armor optimally. Spending dv isn't any cheaper around deep gravity wells. It just means you have to burn a lot of propellant to make the intercept in the first place. There's nothing stopping you from doing fast intercepts in flatter space. I don't see the benefits of rolling really. A sharp nose will be both more durable and easier to manage, and you will also always be able to bring all guns to bear on the enemy. Talking about tactical superiority/inferiority without the agreement of given technological/strategical/macroeconomic condition is irrelevant. That kind of discussion can't explain any single real life tactics: for example, after the nuke invention every forces must be armed with nuke-whatever weapons and conventional guns should be nothing but niche filler. There should not be something like Aegis system nor close range APS, considering they can do nothing against long range nuke still be pricy like hell. Who knew deep buried concrete bunkers would be still a thing when you have a massive nuke bunker buster. Here's my suggestion: As this game lacks such a critical assumptions, we should not say about each others meta, especially when some of us are using AE style super optimized modules and some are using lore friendly under optimized modules.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Aug 24, 2018 0:47:30 GMT
In reality, lasers would be even more powerful, with ranges reaching out to tens or hundreds of Mm's. With enough power, you'd hit light lag limits before running out of effective range on your laser. With ranges like that, small-scale maneuvering like rolling to face enemies can take days and you'll still have plenty of time. And if we're talking about real tactics, lateral thrusting would be far more important than rolling. That will actually let you avoid projectiles completely instead of just aligning your armor optimally. First, any sort of pincer manoeuvre wouldn't be done during the intercept, but outside of it, most likely on the opposite side of the orbited body. multi-directional attacks would be quite devastating against slowly reorienting crafts, and laser stars with their massive (but flimsy) radiators and wimpy but efficient electric nuclear propulsion to make best of beefy reactors and help offset radiator mass penalty would probably not be very manoeuvrable. Second, rolling and lateral dodging serve completely different purposes, there is no sense comparing them. Third, I agree that lasers kill all the fun, but the reality has a habit of never turning out so simple. Also, lateral dodging is fairly useless against lasers unless far enough out for light lag to play a role, rolling can actually retain some defensive utility as long as as armour still remains a noticeable speed bump. Not true, for two reasons: - A large mass permits fast intercepts while still staying gravitationally bound to the orbited mass. That's at least the amount of free delta-v you'd otherwise spend on not hurtling away into circumsolar orbit.
- For eccentric orbits a tiny delta-v expenditure at apoapsis can mean a tremendous change to velocity vector at periapsis
No matter how marginal you think the utility will be, free degrees of freedom are free.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Aug 24, 2018 11:14:07 GMT
No, it only assumes that engagement ranges will be extremely long compared to the relative velocities between ships. In-game, you can easily deal a significant amount of damage out to a few Mm's of range, using either railguns or lasers. There's no way to close that distance cost effectively quickly enough to make use of pincer maneuvers or anything else to do with maneuvering really. Any curvature in your trajectory will increase your already strained dv requirements significantly. Actually, as your intercept range increases, the curvature due to orbital mechanics becomes more and more noticeable. Engagement ranges VS relative velocities also scale very differently depending on orbited masses (extreme velocity 100km/s railgun no longer looks as extreme if you're already intercepting head-on in low gas giant's orbit at tens of km/s), and in low orbit you may also start re-encountering horizon problem cutting off effective range of high velocity weaponry. Places like belt (where there is little doubt that MPDT laserstars will reign supreme) and orbit around a planet, especially a giant, are going to be as different tactical environments as possible. Talking about tactical superiority/inferiority without the agreement of given technological/strategical/macroeconomic condition is irrelevant. That kind of discussion can't explain any single real life tactics: for example, after the nuke invention every forces must be armed with nuke-whatever weapons and conventional guns should be nothing but niche filler. There should not be something like Aegis system nor close range APS, considering they can do nothing against long range nuke still be pricy like hell. Who knew deep buried concrete bunkers would be still a thing when you have a massive nuke bunker buster. Here's my suggestion: As this game lacks such a critical assumptions, we should not say about each others meta, especially when some of us are using AE style super optimized modules and some are using lore friendly under optimized modules. This too. Reality is always more complex and surprising than this kind of dry attempts at modelling it. The ICBMs might be a thing, but (thankfully) the most important offensive tool in warfare worldwide is probably still a humble AR.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Sept 6, 2018 9:31:16 GMT
anotherfirefoxYour design overwrites stock 40x10 Silicon Carbide Radiator. Care to rename?
|
|
|
Post by anotherfirefox on Sept 15, 2018 13:11:03 GMT
anotherfirefox Your design overwrites stock 40x10 Silicon Carbide Radiator. Care to rename? Oops, sorry. This was not intended to publish, so I haven't given enough care. Will rename it now. I found what was problem - Since my ship is highly asymmetric, my NTR thruster was way outta CoM axis, so game treated it as RCS.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Sept 15, 2018 13:52:26 GMT
I found what was problem - Since my ship is highly asymmetric, my NTR thruster was way outta CoM axis, so game treated it as RCS. More gimbal or offset the engine?
|
|
|
Post by anotherfirefox on Sept 15, 2018 14:00:42 GMT
I found what was problem - Since my ship is highly asymmetric, my NTR thruster was way outta CoM axis, so game treated it as RCS. More gimbal or offset the engine? Increased engine number so CoM be in engine complex solved the problem.
|
|