Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: kdstubbs
« on: May 13, 2009, 07:34:37 PM »

Steve,
       Been away so haven't picked up this thread in a long while.  Probably passe now.  RF weapons can actually do more than just affect electronics.  I've discussed this with an electrical engineering friend of mine--holds a doctor of engineering degree.  Just trying to establish some kind of credibility for my data.  He experimented with Microwave and RF weapons, and actually caused metals in contact to weld together, not to mention the effects of induction currents.  

One interesting weapon is the ability to cause waves (any type) to add at specific points in spacetime, due to interferometry.  Setting up travel waves that add together at specific points in space time.  The deposition of energy can be pretty devastating if done correctly.  I assume you know about active phased array radars and what happens when pencil beams are focused on a given point in space in phase.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: January 30, 2009, 10:28:59 AM »

Quote from: "kdstubbs"
Would be interested to know why you are ignoring microwave, or other Radio Frequency weapons, since Masers would be very interesting weapons.  
There is a Microwave weapon in Aurora that fries electronic systems, such as fire controls and sensors. Its short-ranged but potentially devastating. You can harden sensors against the Microwave effects, although that is expensive and you need to research the necessary tech.

Steve
Posted by: jfelten
« on: January 29, 2009, 03:33:14 AM »

Quote from: "kdstubbs"
Problem of any collimated energy weapon is the problem of bloom, i.e., the individual photons are not actualy parallel with the other photons of the laser beam--regardless of frequency or wavelength.  In a perfectly collimated beam, all of the photons would be moving absolutely parallel, which would mean the laser pulse would travel any distance until it hit a physical object.  Lethiality would be the same over any distance since you would not get beam divergence.  I still believe longer ranged energy weapons could be developed at any frequency as long as you solved the beam divergence, collimation problem.  Would be interested to know why you are ignoring microwave, or other Radio Frequency weapons, since Masers would be very interesting weapons.  

Just a thought

Kevin

This is just my opinion as a (new) player but I take the laser frequency to be pure game color.  Obviously any advanced technology is going to be able to create lasers of any frequency they like.
Posted by: Erik L
« on: January 28, 2009, 03:55:02 PM »

Quote from: "kdstubbs"
Problem of any collimated energy weapon is the problem of bloom, i.e., the individual photons are not actualy parallel with the other photons of the laser beam--regardless of frequency or wavelength.  In a perfectly collimated beam, all of the photons would be moving absolutely parallel, which would mean the laser pulse would travel any distance until it hit a physical object.  Lethiality would be the same over any distance since you would not get beam divergence.  I still believe longer ranged energy weapons could be developed at any frequency as long as you solved the beam divergence, collimation problem.  Would be interested to know why you are ignoring microwave, or other Radio Frequency weapons, since Masers would be very interesting weapons.  

Just a thought

Kevin

Microwaves are in, just that they do only EM damage.

Now a mixed damage type weapon would be interesting. EM and kinetic. (Or as I did in Astra Imperia, EM, Thermal and Kinetic, but I digress). I think before Steve adds any more weapons, he would need to ask himself, is there a need for this weapon that is not filled by another weapon.
Posted by: kdstubbs
« on: January 28, 2009, 03:51:08 PM »

Problem of any collimated energy weapon is the problem of bloom, i.e., the individual photons are not actualy parallel with the other photons of the laser beam--regardless of frequency or wavelength.  In a perfectly collimated beam, all of the photons would be moving absolutely parallel, which would mean the laser pulse would travel any distance until it hit a physical object.  Lethiality would be the same over any distance since you would not get beam divergence.  I still believe longer ranged energy weapons could be developed at any frequency as long as you solved the beam divergence, collimation problem.  Would be interested to know why you are ignoring microwave, or other Radio Frequency weapons, since Masers would be very interesting weapons.  

Just a thought

Kevin





Quote from: "Brian"
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
I'd call the torpedo systems medium-short range...

PD Class - Gauss/Meson
Short Range - Plasma Carronade (I see this as sort of a plasma shotgun type weapon)/Torpedo
Medium - Laser/Railgun
Long - Missile

The Microwave is a special class weapon so I didn't class it (and normally don't use it)


I was actually only refering to the ranges for energy weapons.  Missiles are far longer ranged than all of the energy weapons.

The reason I called the torpedo a long range weapon is that it is still doing good damage at it's maximum range.  A small torpedo does not have the range limits that the laser have.  At the range were a laser can reach beyond the torpedo the chance to hit is already very low. (around 15% on down)  also for the most part it takes a larger laser to get out to these ranges with the matching slower fire cycle times and more massive weapons.  Torpedo's don't have that problem.  If a player wants they can make very good use of a thermal torpedo( the first one available) even into the late game.  After play testing them extensively I found that with the current armor rules there is little point to having a torpedo that does not fire every 5 seconds.  The total damage over time per weapon tends to come out the same, but the lighter weapons use less mass.  This makes the damage per ton of weapon favor the smaller torpedo's.    The problem that the laser's face is that the range is based off of the base damage of the laser.  Smaller lasers have good cycle times, but are much shorter ranged than the larger lasers.  Once you get into the really large lasers it is possible for the laser to still be doing good damage at the maximum range because of the fire control limit on range.  In every case though that I looked at the torpedo still did more damage over time as they could fire more quickly.  They also in general tend to take less energy than the big laser's require, and definitly less tonnage.

Brian
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: January 06, 2009, 10:10:07 PM »

In game terms, the Gauss Cannon does one point of damage, with various options changing the size & acuracy of the gun, and/or the number of one-damage shots.  Railguns do a varying amount of damage per shot, with various technologies improving range, damage, or both.

GC:  One (to ten) shots at point-blank (to short) range, always doing one point of damage
Rg:  Four (or five) shots at short (to long) range, for one to three (sixty-four) points of damage


Oh, and you can squeeze a super-small Gauss Cannon onto a fighter.
Posted by: welchbloke
« on: January 05, 2009, 10:02:58 AM »

Quote
Backstab Wrote:
Can someone explain the difference between Gauss Weapons and Railguns ... I was under the impression that both were based on magnetic accelleration ? ...

In the Gauss Cannon thread Steve answered a similar question with the following Wiki quote:

Quote
A Gauss gun is a type of projectile accelerator that uses one or more electromagnetic coils to accelerate a magnetic projectile to high velocity. Gauss guns accelerate the projectile using contactless means. Gauss guns consist of one or more coils arranged along the barrel that are switched in sequence so as to ensure that the projectile is accelerated quickly along the barrel via magnetic forces.

A railgun is a form of purely electrical gun that accelerates a conductive projectile along a pair of metal rails. Railguns use two sliding contacts that permit a large electric current to pass through the projectile. This current interacts with the strong magnetic fields generated by the rails and this accelerates the projectile.
Posted by: Erik L
« on: January 04, 2009, 05:16:17 PM »

Quote from: "backstab"
Can someone explain the difference between Gauss Weapons and Railguns ... I was under the impression that both were based on magnetic accelleration ? ... if this is the case then Gauss weapons should work in an atmosphere

In a technical sense, gauss projectiles have no contact with the accelerator of the weapon, whereas railgun projectiles have contact with the rails.
Posted by: backstab
« on: January 04, 2009, 04:49:41 PM »

Can someone explain the difference between Gauss Weapons and Railguns ... I was under the impression that both were based on magnetic accelleration ? ... if this is the case then Gauss weapons should work in an atmosphere
Posted by: Hawkeye
« on: January 04, 2009, 01:56:44 PM »

Quote from: "Brian"

Not quite.  Meson's ignore the effect of atmosphere.  All other energy weapons have their damage reduced by the percentage of of the atmosphere compared to 1 atmosphere pressure.  From one atmosphere pressure on up all energy weapons are useless as they do no damage except for Meson's.  Because gauss cannon only do one point of damage it does not take much of an atmosphere to make them ineffective.  Currently you need to do one point of damage to a missile to shoot it down.

Brian


Arrgh, so I have to redesign most of my PDCs  -  again.

Anyway, thanks for clearing things up
Posted by: Brian Neumann
« on: January 04, 2009, 01:41:50 PM »

Quote from: "Erik Luken"
I'd call the torpedo systems medium-short range...

PD Class - Gauss/Meson
Short Range - Plasma Carronade (I see this as sort of a plasma shotgun type weapon)/Torpedo
Medium - Laser/Railgun
Long - Missile

The Microwave is a special class weapon so I didn't class it (and normally don't use it)


I was actually only refering to the ranges for energy weapons.  Missiles are far longer ranged than all of the energy weapons.

The reason I called the torpedo a long range weapon is that it is still doing good damage at it's maximum range.  A small torpedo does not have the range limits that the laser have.  At the range were a laser can reach beyond the torpedo the chance to hit is already very low. (around 15% on down)  also for the most part it takes a larger laser to get out to these ranges with the matching slower fire cycle times and more massive weapons.  Torpedo's don't have that problem.  If a player wants they can make very good use of a thermal torpedo( the first one available) even into the late game.  After play testing them extensively I found that with the current armor rules there is little point to having a torpedo that does not fire every 5 seconds.  The total damage over time per weapon tends to come out the same, but the lighter weapons use less mass.  This makes the damage per ton of weapon favor the smaller torpedo's.    The problem that the laser's face is that the range is based off of the base damage of the laser.  Smaller lasers have good cycle times, but are much shorter ranged than the larger lasers.  Once you get into the really large lasers it is possible for the laser to still be doing good damage at the maximum range because of the fire control limit on range.  In every case though that I looked at the torpedo still did more damage over time as they could fire more quickly.  They also in general tend to take less energy than the big laser's require, and definitly less tonnage.

Brian
Posted by: Brian Neumann
« on: January 04, 2009, 01:31:47 PM »

Quote from: "Hawkeye"
I seem to remember that Lasers and Mesons also work within an atmosphere and are therefore usefull as PD-turrets in PDCs, while gauss cannons don´t.

Missiles are useless in a nebula system.

Is this correct?

Not quite.  Meson's ignore the effect of atmosphere.  All other energy weapons have their damage reduced by the percentage of of the atmosphere compared to 1 atmosphere pressure.  From one atmosphere pressure on up all energy weapons are useless as they do no damage except for Meson's.  Because gauss cannon only do one point of damage it does not take much of an atmosphere to make them ineffective.  Currently you need to do one point of damage to a missile to shoot it down.

Brian
Posted by: welchbloke
« on: January 04, 2009, 08:36:27 AM »

Thanks everyone; I intend to repay the favour by collating all the descriptions into a doc that can be included in the tutorial section.

Welchbloke
Posted by: Hawkeye
« on: January 04, 2009, 01:46:43 AM »

I seem to remember that Lasers and Mesons also work within an atmosphere and are therefore usefull as PD-turrets in PDCs, while gauss cannons don´t.

Missiles are useless in a nebula system.

Is this correct?
Posted by: Erik L
« on: January 03, 2009, 08:25:28 PM »

I'd call the torpedo systems medium-short range...

PD Class - Gauss/Meson
Short Range - Plasma Carronade (I see this as sort of a plasma shotgun type weapon)/Torpedo
Medium - Laser/Railgun
Long - Missile

The Microwave is a special class weapon so I didn't class it (and normally don't use it)