|
Post by cuddlefish on Nov 15, 2016 14:35:59 GMT
Technical education does nothing to instill virtue. Most of the architects of the worst atrocities of the last hundred years have been highly educated. There are all kinds of people with graduate degrees and no moral compass, there are all kinds of people with graduate degrees and fanatical commitments to particular socio-political formations (visit your local econ department). I don't really see a difference between what's happening in CoaDE and recent history. Agreed. Though in current society it's impossible to get a purely technical education. The best public college in my country has a 1 year general education course before focusing on technical education, for instance. Propaganda machine and war needs would probably void this kind've thing though. Just hard to put myself in a to-be soldier. Is conscription a thing? The requirements just seem so high... How many people are actually in the military anyway in CoaDE? Perhaps all this is offset by the actual amount of people in the military being so low that you can actually get enough of the right amount of people The logistics of interplanetary travel with reaction drives mean there's likely to be a massive quantity of militarily essential but potentially (depending on how one's state is structured) civilian infrastructure for every bit of actual 'tooth' in your battle-groups. All your ships need to have propellant, ammunition, food, and the rest on hand to be combat effective, and the way you distribute that is visible to your enemy thanks to the space environment, so you better have some solid logistics going on. You had better believe their intelligence analysts are going to be counting every freighter, scrutinizing every engine firing down to the RCS pulses, and generally doing their best to map out your transfers of materiel in painstaking detail, so they can know before they commit to anything exactly what you'll be able to mobilize in response. That means lots of manpower and capital for supplying the fleet. That means needing to keep credible rapid reaction forces to cover any and all linchpins in your supply chain, and expanding that chain to keep them supplied. That means redundant depots and distribution networks, so that you have (and indeed visibly have) the capability to supply not just one but two or three different action plans in response to enemy maneuvers, so they can't work around the flaws of any one. As an instrument for projecting political power, rather than outright combat, fleets are an immense undertaking, but one able to dictate terms of policy to their enemy without even having to leave port - just because we all know they CAN. Somewhat like USN carrier battle groups in that regard, or the classic 'fleet in being'.
|
|
|
Post by dpidz0r on Nov 15, 2016 14:57:17 GMT
THIS. All the this. My argument comes down to, if crew is well educated masters-degree-and-such, it makes less sense they'd be fanatical zealots. Where do you get these people from? How do you create these people? Doesn't their education include history and such? Have you been on a college campus recently though? You can find a lot of nutjobs if you get some distance from the STEM buildings Also, we may be overestimating the amount of education the crews would actually need. You can train someone in a very specific field to do very specific tasks pretty fast if you sacrifice breadth for depth. Especially if computers and automation are readily available. With a good enough expert system all your people would really need to know how to do was make observations, follow instructions, and be passable at whatever kind of physical tasks the system directed them to perform.
|
|
acatalepsy
Junior Member
Not Currently In Space
Posts: 97
|
Post by acatalepsy on Nov 15, 2016 15:27:42 GMT
I think that allot of this is false presumptions based on the campaign. The campaign itself obviously does a road-trip style to show off the system along a single persons perspective, actually ill just make a new thread for the specifics. Back to the point i believe most serving crewmen would likely deploy from more localised bases as that allows for better tactical deployment faster than transporting necessary ships and people for years across the void. In several cases in the campaign we are deployed simply because of more political or situational reasons. Like a laughably incompetent commander loosing the ENTIRE Jovian fleet and being assassinated. Also, through the use of proper drop tanks and in tanker meet ups im sure you could accelerate those meetings significantly. Also with the addition of even slightly better (and plausible) drives like orion, or deadalus, or even pure fusion-plasma you sould see a significant increase in speed. Realistically the whole NTR only system limits us to a 16th century travel time situation. The campaign takes place over the course of at least fifteen years. While you would ideally use local forces in most situations over shipping something in from across the solar system, that's probably not terribly viable in most cases. If you are outnumbered locally - like, say, in any of the outer planets - the enemy isn't going to let you build a new fleet capable of crushing them right there on their doorstep. Let's see here... babysit some computers for 6-8 months while being sterilised by the 4GW nuke plant 20 meters away, enter combat for 60 seconds and either have the ship break up and spin off into space (hoping I get killed by Gs before asphyxiated), get burned alive 1000km away by lasers, or just get gibbed by railguns. Well... what's the pay like? Decent, but there's unfortunately nothing to spend it on.
|
|
|
Post by someusername6 on Nov 15, 2016 16:11:47 GMT
Let's see here... babysit some computers for 6-8 months while being sterilised by the 4GW nuke plant 20 meters away, enter combat for 60 seconds and either have the ship break up and spin off into space (hoping I get killed by Gs before asphyxiated), get burned alive 1000km away by lasers, or just get gibbed by railguns. Well... what's the pay like? Decent, but there's unfortunately nothing to spend it on. The pay can probably be held into an account that will be disbursed to your relatives if / when the ship breaks apart. Or waiting for you and collecting interest if you make it back, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Nov 15, 2016 16:12:55 GMT
the campaign only actually lasts about 8sh years total, i don't know where you are getting fifteen years from, initial starting date is new years 2249.00 to final mission starting date of 2257.40 with an ideal end date of 2257.48.
Also as we have been over "If you are outnumbered locally - like, say, in any of the outer planets - the enemy isn't going to let you build a new fleet capable of crushing them right there on their doorstep."
Who said anything about letting anyone? it has been implied multiple times that secretive construction techniques are the norm considering the ease of information potentially collectable from micro stats. Think about it, a local port, you mine the ore in asteroid/planet, use the advanced manufacturing assets, take a few space debris eliminating lasers and "refocus" them, propellant is pretty locally available, a few engines from a cargo barge and viola a brand new laser destroyer with missiles supply, arguably the hardest thing to get is fissile's but if you are already at a home rock you have absolute control of everyone going and coming, and heck, if there is enough nut job technicians and engineers to man a space ship there are surely enough to build a couple in secret hangers.
|
|
|
Post by subunit on Nov 15, 2016 18:52:31 GMT
Technical education does nothing to instill virtue. Most of the architects of the worst atrocities of the last hundred years have been highly educated. There are all kinds of people with graduate degrees and no moral compass, there are all kinds of people with graduate degrees and fanatical commitments to particular socio-political formations (visit your local econ department). I don't really see a difference between what's happening in CoaDE and recent history. Agreed. Though in current society it's impossible to get a purely technical education. The best public college in my country has a 1 year general education course before focusing on technical education, for instance. Propaganda machine and war needs would probably void this kind've thing though. Just hard to put myself in a to-be soldier. Is conscription a thing? The requirements just seem so high... How many people are actually in the military anyway in CoaDE? Perhaps all this is offset by the actual amount of people in the military being so low that you can actually get enough of the right amount of people I guess it depends on whether they have to actually occupy any of the colonies- I don't think the "navies" are very large, but any ground component would probably have to be decently sized. Out of curiousity, are you in Europe? I was able to complete my BSc, MSc, and PhD coursework without ever being required to take a single philosophy, epistemology, history of science, etc. class. If I didn't have good friends and time to read stuff outside work, I'd be just another handle-cranker who sees everything through the lens of their equipment. Many "good" schools in North America are like this now- you can complete a technical education without ever having any meta-knowledge about what you're doing, the significance and limitations of empiricism, etc.
|
|
|
Post by subunit on Nov 15, 2016 18:54:05 GMT
Let's see here... babysit some computers for 6-8 months while being sterilised by the 4GW nuke plant 20 meters away, enter combat for 60 seconds and either have the ship break up and spin off into space (hoping I get killed by Gs before asphyxiated), get burned alive 1000km away by lasers, or just get gibbed by railguns. Well... what's the pay like? Decent, but there's unfortunately nothing to spend it on. LOL- good point. The typical shore leave blandishments available to sailors are somewhat fewer and farther between in CoaDE, hey?
|
|
|
Post by tessfield on Nov 15, 2016 20:19:21 GMT
<snip> I guess it depends on whether they have to actually occupy any of the colonies- I don't think the "navies" are very large, but any ground component would probably have to be decently sized. Out of curiousity, are you in Europe? I was able to complete my BSc, MSc, and PhD coursework without ever being required to take a single philosophy, epistemology, history of science, etc. class. If I didn't have good friends and time to read stuff outside work, I'd be just another handle-cranker who sees everything through the lens of their equipment. Many "good" schools in North America are like this now- you can complete a technical education without ever having any meta-knowledge about what you're doing, the significance and limitations of empiricism, etc. That's a very good point, except for the fact that our faction seems to prefer nuking everything (hopefully, everything that doesn't surrender) from orbit. Maybe exoskeleton powered soldiers with nuclear rocket launchers ala Starship Troopers. Depends on how valuable people are, meaning, in this case, how much resources it'd cost to bring a million strong cheap army vs a thousand strong expensive, armed to the teeth, high tech, cutting edge, army. Also depends on how useful the spaceships are providing ground support, and the kind of defenses we'd expect. Of which I've no idea. I can only assume cities are mostly underground to protect from deadly radiation to begin with, anything that's not high tonnage nukes is unlikely to penetrate several meters of ground. Eh, so many assumptions xD I'm in Argentina. Although thinking back on what I said, I may've exaggerated a bit. I had secondary education (equivalence of a trade school. Ish.) with specialization on electronics, where the later years were basically college level (they were teaching us integrals and derivatives at age 17), and I remember the social studies teacher berating me for thinking voting should be restricted to 'educated people' (though after 16 yo there were only science classes). I've learnt better since then. Private universities and tech universities don't require the general course I mentioned, but the University of Buenos Aires, which is the biggest public/free, does, and is a known topic around here (everyone complains about it. ) I think I'm averaging the world based on what I see around here, didn't know NA schools could be like that.
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Nov 15, 2016 21:20:06 GMT
Being stuck on a spacecraft for years is certainly a hardship.
But if you're being sent into suicidal missions, you might want to reconsider your allegiance. For one, I can see single use starship crews having questionable morale. Second it is difficult to maintain high skill proficiency or experience if this is the crew's first and last cruise. Also I can see it getting expensive if you aren't reusing resources.
This game doesn't penalize you for launching all drones, missiles and ammo bins in each scenario. The real answer would depend on the ability to resupply before the next engagement.
DON'T JOIN THE SPACE NAVY OF SUICIDAL LOSERS
|
|
|
Post by wafflestoo on Nov 16, 2016 23:18:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by amimai on Nov 20, 2016 0:59:35 GMT
Let's see here... babysit some computers for 6-8 months while being sterilised by the 4GW nuke plant 20 meters away, enter combat for 60 seconds and either have the ship break up and spin off into space (hoping I get killed by Gs before asphyxiated), get burned alive 1000km away by lasers, or just get gibbed by railguns. Well... what's the pay like? you forgot the real danger... anything that has long range sensor capacity will launch 1000 nukes at you the moment you are detected! clearly you guys have not played aurora 4x... that game gives a pretty good analogy of what space warfare is like, most combat happens between walls of missiles flying at appreciable %C at ranges so far outside laser/railgun engagement distances that the amount of time your conventional weapons have to kill anything that survived the missile/counter missile war is counted in seconds before said missiles nuke you into oblivion imo this game shows a good example of what short range space combat looks like, but most space combat is going to be fought at massive ranges with missiles simply because its cheaper to load up on a massive array of missile/counter missile tubes and re-stock them as needed then it is to fist build all the complex machinery needed to run lasers/electromagnetic weaponry and second haul all that weaponry into range... think about it this way, if 50% of my ships mass in missiles, after I launched all my missiles my dV defectively doubles so I can just boost into effective range(say 1-5 minutes of C), drop all my ammo which will fly itself to target, then boost out to resuply without ever letting you get a shot off with your fancy lasers or cannons because my dV is a lot higher then yours will ever be
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Nov 20, 2016 18:21:49 GMT
you forgot the real danger... anything that has long range sensor capacity will launch 1000 nukes at you the moment you are detected! [...]think about it this way, if 50% of my ships mass in missiles, after I launched all my missiles my dV defectively doubles so I can just boost into effective range(say 1-5 minutes of C), drop all my ammo which will fly itself to target, then boost out to resuply without ever letting you get a shot off with your fancy lasers or cannons because my dV is a lot higher then yours will ever be That's a little too convenient when you start with the assumption of "I have already won from the start because I took superior strategy, numbers, tactics, position, everything" You glossed over drones by lumping them in in missiles. But the major issue was pre-positioning your missile before the battle. You've committed your missiles to a very specific engagement, already spent their delta V to reach a high interception velocity and have become tactically inflexible. If you made all the right decisions, perhaps you may have won. If you made any bad assumptions about your missile deployment, its too late. I'd also like to criticize scorched Earth tactics. Ironic considering the game's setting, but its very bloodthirsty and absolutist and obviously will result in very high civilian casualties and infrastructure damage.
|
|
|
Post by amimai on Nov 20, 2016 20:02:49 GMT
That's not scorched earth, that's saturation fire...
Space warfare is a game of statistics, with 1000 missiles I can have 20 groups of 50 missiles covering every possible escape vector set in a spread and converge pattern... also missiles have pretty significant dV values and don't need to worry about having enough dV to make it back home again. A game of radars and missiles, nothing more.
Simply put space combat is an all or nothing scenario. You either make the right choices, and survive unscathed or you make the wrong choices and die a horrible death. Most of these choices are about as interactive as this game. A true war fought by strategists and admirals with no individual fighter ever seeing their enemy or usually even what killed them, nor having any way to prevent it happening...
Basically space warfare is 100% babysitting machines until you either go home or suddenly die
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Nov 20, 2016 20:24:36 GMT
That's not scorched earth, that's saturation fire... Space warfare is a game of statistics, with 1000 missiles I can have 20 groups of 50 missiles covering every possible escape vector set in a spread and converge pattern... also missiles have pretty significant dV values and don't need to worry about having enough dV to make it back home again. A game of radars and missiles, nothing more. You don't have 1000 missiles when you spread them out to every possible escape vector. You only have 50 missiles with 950 missiles wasted on wrong vectors. Its a lot easier for point defenses to handle the much smaller salvo. And that is ignoring the basic CoaDE strategy of intercepting enemy missiles and drones with missiles/drones/decoys of your own. An anti-missile interceptor need not be as massive as an anti-ship missile. Declaring missile superiority and then wasting 95% of your missiles isn't a recipe for success against a comparable opponent.
|
|
|
Post by amimai on Nov 20, 2016 21:11:57 GMT
lets put it this way: this will never beat that, so that will be your floating tomb and a similar version on the other side of the solar system will be what kills you btw that has 400 standard missiles, 60 capital killer 20Mt nukes, 60 drones, and 12 heavy MIRVs each carrying 210 micro nukes My heaviest armour ship with 3/4 mass as armour can take at best 15x150kg combined micro nuke boosted fragmentation missiles... and they have 11km/s dV at just over 1.5kC Spread and converge patterns mean the missiles are launched to cover escape vectors at about 2km/s then once the target is surrounded using another 1km/s to re converge all the missile at intercept vectors. So that's 20 waves of 50 missiles each travelling at roughly 8km/s at terminal stage. They are next to impossible to intercept or avoid at terminal stage because of that. Also you assumed that this games rules apply IRL, there would probably be km's between each missile, so you would need roughly 1 missile/drone to counter each missile, and the missiles them selves will be a tiny bit smarter using multiple sensor systems to target... also that does not really change the war of missiles that space war would be. ah aurora, best source of more or less realistic simulations of space logistics and combat, in other words the fine art of lobbing hundreds of ever more complicated missile systems at each other across Gm ranges
|
|