Author Topic: Newtonian Aurora  (Read 54561 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline jseah

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 490
Re: Newtonian Aurora
« Reply #1005 on: July 18, 2012, 01:41:02 PM »
The point was that you know the angle the projectile must approach and so you can camp your ships along that line to spot the incomings.  And likely, NA will force very large missile sensors, due to the range you need to react properly.  (AMMs take forever to get to decent speeds)

Eg. in my proposed defense tactics, I do mention having multiple groups carrying their own size 25 sensor (1250tons) for missile detection. 
 

Offline mikew

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Posts: 34
Re: Newtonian Aurora
« Reply #1006 on: July 21, 2012, 10:53:53 PM »
The point was that you know the angle the projectile must approach and so you can camp your ships along that line to spot the incomings.  And likely, NA will force very large missile sensors, due to the range you need to react properly.  (AMMs take forever to get to decent speeds)

If we are talking a pure newtonian setting, then time to accelerate your AMMs shouldn't have any (well, much anyway) bearing if you are on or relatively close to  the line of flight of the missiles you are intercepting.  Absolute speed has no impact on maneuverability (a newtonian missile in a vacuum doesn't care at all about its "absolute velocity" or velocity relative to its launcher as far as maneuvering goes), so all you have to consider is closing velocity and "sideways speed," i.e. relative velocity normal to the intercept velocity, which becomes zero if you are on an intercept path.  Launching AMMs early gets you standoff distance at intercept (which in practical "real" terms can mean that you have time for followup intercepts or that you are far enough from the resulting explosion to not have to worry about blast, shrapnel, or radiation effects), but kinetically there should be no improved capability to intercept.  It can even be argued that intercepting farther out and at higher velocities decreases the likelihood of a successful intercept- timing becomes trickier for a warhead which must detonate within a certain distance of the target, and distance and delta v from the launcher results in less signal strength from the launcher's active sensor, and more doppler shift to deal with.

Mike
 

Offline jseah

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 490
Re: Newtonian Aurora
« Reply #1007 on: July 22, 2012, 07:18:10 AM »
Yes, but follow up intercepts for leakers is rather important.  Assuming interception rates are roughly the same as in TN Aurora, you're going to want many interception chances. 

In fact, given that missiles tend towards one-hit-one-kill, AMM defense is pretty much compulsory.  Beam only defense gets one shot on the final approach, and a full salvo of ASMs will very likely leak at least one.  (remember that ASMs can do evasive maneuvers too, and they have a tiny cross-section to displace)
 

Offline UnLimiTeD

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1108
Re: Newtonian Aurora
« Reply #1008 on: July 23, 2012, 07:37:59 AM »
On the other hand, they likely won't come in salvos as a single nuke can blast them all.
After all, they need to hit more of less the same target.
A sandblaster should be an option there.
The most dangerous ASMs in my book as Laser Rod Warheads and Shrapnell, set off at a distance of a few kilometers.
Lower hit/Kill rate, but way harder to intercept as well.
 

Offline jseah

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 490
Re: Newtonian Aurora
« Reply #1009 on: July 23, 2012, 01:19:39 PM »
^When I said salvoes, I meant something more like 10+ ASMs travelling from the same firing ship on slightly divergent initial vectors.  They could essentially travel together, yet be far enough apart that you can't nuke them all.  100km separation is nothing in Aurora. 

Also, ASM + Escort AMMs in attack groups ala the ones I posted about in the Tactics thread would also be a massive headache to deal with without multiple interception chances.  There will probably be less groups than a pure ASM bumrush that we see now in TN Aurora, but the saturation of TN Aurora-style salvoes will mean you will need multiple interceptions anyway. 

NA's missiles being able to change accelerations and generally act more intelligently would radically change missile warfare.  But some things stay the same.  Like saturation.  ToT salvoes are even easier, with missiles being able to make minor course correction burns (the ahead ones slow down a bit and the behind ones speed up), don't even need the TN Aurora hack of multiple slightly slower designs. 
 

Offline UnLimiTeD

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1108
Re: Newtonian Aurora
« Reply #1010 on: July 23, 2012, 06:12:04 PM »
On the other hand, the defender might just fire high power lasers in the direction of any potential target, all the time.
With no limit in range, they are bound to hit something.
Damn, combat's gonna get complicated.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 349
  • Thanked: 19 times
Re: Newtonian Aurora
« Reply #1011 on: July 23, 2012, 06:57:38 PM »
On the other hand, the defender might just fire high power lasers in the direction of any potential target, all the time.
With no limit in range, they are bound to hit something.
Damn, combat's gonna get complicated.

Unlike railguns, though, lasers do have a range limit (when their damage drops below 100 MJ/m²). Inside that limit they'll be far more accurate, though, so I suspect lasers will be the premier anti-missile/anti-fighter weapon, with railguns being the weapon of choice for taking out large, well protected ships.
 

Offline jseah

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 490
Re: Newtonian Aurora
« Reply #1012 on: December 03, 2013, 07:26:24 PM »
Any chance NA would be continued?  =D
Would play it even if there was only railguns, lasers and missiles.  That's more or less good enough to do everything. 
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • Posts: 6819
  • Thanked: 1368 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Newtonian Aurora
« Reply #1013 on: December 04, 2013, 07:00:51 AM »
Any chance NA would be continued?  =D
Would play it even if there was only railguns, lasers and missiles.  That's more or less good enough to do everything. 

There is a chance. Just had a lot less free time since I stopped playing cards and got a real job again :)

Steve
 

Offline ollobrains

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 380
Re: Newtonian Aurora
« Reply #1014 on: December 26, 2013, 07:49:29 PM »
real jobs pay the bills  ;D
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • Posts: 6819
  • Thanked: 1368 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Newtonian Aurora
« Reply #1015 on: December 27, 2013, 07:57:44 AM »
real jobs pay the bills  ;D

Playing poker also pays the bills but now my wife and I are both awake at the same time :). Anyway I am still in poker, just working for the house now :)

 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52