Posted by: UnLimiTeD
« on: August 25, 2011, 11:34:32 AM »In that case I'd totally build massive dropships with a single drop pod to fail the enemy ship out of existence.^^
Posted by: Thiosk
« on: August 25, 2011, 07:11:36 AM »it all goes back to speed. think the train job episode of Firefly-- how did they get to the train? they had a spaceship that could fly much faster than the train, hopped on board, and loaded up the booty. imagine if the train had been flying, and jerked up-- it would have crashed the smaller ship and blown up the crew. Jetpacks would be great-- but the speeds are enormous; 1000 kms is really effing fast; voyager 1 (essentially the fastest man made object) goes what, 17 kms? If you and your house were moving at 1000 kms, and you slowed down to 999 for just a tenth of a second, the back wall would smack into you, you'd blast through, and would be splattered over several city blocks.
I'd posit that in only damaging the marines in a failed drop, steve is being nice-- a failed drop should be considered a ramming attack on the dropship with the potential of catastrophic damage.
on the other hand, space marines with jetpacks are awesome (Orz!)
I'd posit that in only damaging the marines in a failed drop, steve is being nice-- a failed drop should be considered a ramming attack on the dropship with the potential of catastrophic damage.
on the other hand, space marines with jetpacks are awesome (Orz!)
Posted by: deoved
« on: August 25, 2011, 06:40:43 AM »One could always say that it takes a drive field to penetrate a drive field. Thus the need for drop pods.
How about personal drive fields for jet-packs of Space Marines? Self-delivering Space Marines!
Posted by: Erik L
« on: August 24, 2011, 02:59:36 PM »One could always say that it takes a drive field to penetrate a drive field. Thus the need for drop pods.
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: August 24, 2011, 01:25:07 PM »But small and numerous Space Marines with jet-packs can swarm this carrier
Yep, smallcraft with CombatDropModules can deliver troops for board actions...but they have to be able to get there first.
Posted by: deoved
« on: August 24, 2011, 12:28:01 PM »But small and numerous Space Marines with jet-packs can swarm this carrier 
Posted by: sloanjh
« on: August 24, 2011, 08:37:59 AM »Considering everything else in aurora is like a modern combat fleet battle I cannot see why people are against the fundamental thing that make carrier based attacks possible. Else fighter would be knocked out the sky just like they are in aurora without a hope.The amazing thing is that even though Aurora looks like modern naval warfare, the way it got there was through Steve ruthlessly following where the "physics" led. For example, missiles used to be MUCH shorter range, and were handled using a completely different mechanism from ships. Then Steve got a bug in his ear to look at fuel consumption vs. power/weight curves, and the ultra-long-range missiles (just like modern naval warfare's missiles vs. guns) popped out.
The fundamental physics difference between fighters and ships in modern naval warfare is that fighters operate in a different medium than ships, giving them a huge performance advantage. The other one is that the Earth is not flat
(so fighters can sneak up on ships without being detected/targetted by ship-borne sensors). Neither of those is the case in space, so fighters in Aurora operate at a disadvantage vs. fighters in Harpoon.One other thing to consider: what would happen if a group of fighters attempted to gravity-bomb an Aegis-defended TG (without using horizon-based lobe-picking approach techniques)? There's a decent chance they'd all be knocked out of the sky without a hope.
John
PS - I love the idea of beam-fighters and want to have them - I just don't know how to make them work in Aurora.
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: August 24, 2011, 07:32:42 AM »Wow!! This as strayed a long way from Gundam/mecha/veriform smallcraft to countermeasures.
From the generic viewpoint countermeasures already exist in the game, both passive and active. The most notable passive is the thermal reduction techline for engines. Current Electronic Warfare (ECM/ECCM) by definition is also countermeasures.
Flares and Chaff would fall into the rhelm of active countermeasures and have been discussed from time to time. The intent is either to provide a volume of alternate targets that overwelm the attackers ability to maintain an destingquishing signature of the target or to create temporary terrain mask (for lack of a better term) that completely block LOS between attacker and target. Both are achievable goals and have been done for both aircraft and warships.
Decoys can also be done. With the knowledge of the technology being used to detect a given target(fighter/warship/etc) it is quite possible to create an active system that will mimic the targets signature for attacking systems thus creating the need for the attacker to make a discission as to which one is the valid target.
From the generic viewpoint countermeasures already exist in the game, both passive and active. The most notable passive is the thermal reduction techline for engines. Current Electronic Warfare (ECM/ECCM) by definition is also countermeasures.
Flares and Chaff would fall into the rhelm of active countermeasures and have been discussed from time to time. The intent is either to provide a volume of alternate targets that overwelm the attackers ability to maintain an destingquishing signature of the target or to create temporary terrain mask (for lack of a better term) that completely block LOS between attacker and target. Both are achievable goals and have been done for both aircraft and warships.
Decoys can also be done. With the knowledge of the technology being used to detect a given target(fighter/warship/etc) it is quite possible to create an active system that will mimic the targets signature for attacking systems thus creating the need for the attacker to make a discission as to which one is the valid target.
Posted by: ardem
« on: August 23, 2011, 10:38:16 PM »My point was the same in real life as it is now. It is far easier to trick a missile with countermeasure on a small object like a plane compared to a ship at sea. Otherwise you would see ships at sea with a mass of countermeasures.
Yes countermeasures need to be cheaper otherwise why would you produce one. Let look at counter measure v thermal missiles.
A thermal missile target itself on the heat signature, to replicate a heat signature of a fighter you use basic physics tricker, current day we use magnesium burning and giving a signature comparative to a fighter, that how it confused the missile targeting.
In future I am sure the missile AI is smarter but I think i am sure the counter measure would be just as smart and just as cheap.
Active Sensors target missiles, re based on a sound or light targeting system or perhaps a mixture of the both I am sure a countermeasure would trick the the missile. Just like Chaffs countermeasure for radar guided missiles.
I don't have the exact physics answers but the logic is the same to how current modern combat works. Having said that some ships are deployed with chaffs and flares but logical you can not have the same impact compared to smaller vessels.
Considering everything else in aurora is like a modern combat fleet battle I cannot see why people are against the fundamental thing that make carrier based attacks possible. Else fighter would be knocked out the sky just like they are in aurora without a hope.
Yes countermeasures need to be cheaper otherwise why would you produce one. Let look at counter measure v thermal missiles.
A thermal missile target itself on the heat signature, to replicate a heat signature of a fighter you use basic physics tricker, current day we use magnesium burning and giving a signature comparative to a fighter, that how it confused the missile targeting.
In future I am sure the missile AI is smarter but I think i am sure the counter measure would be just as smart and just as cheap.
Active Sensors target missiles, re based on a sound or light targeting system or perhaps a mixture of the both I am sure a countermeasure would trick the the missile. Just like Chaffs countermeasure for radar guided missiles.
I don't have the exact physics answers but the logic is the same to how current modern combat works. Having said that some ships are deployed with chaffs and flares but logical you can not have the same impact compared to smaller vessels.
Considering everything else in aurora is like a modern combat fleet battle I cannot see why people are against the fundamental thing that make carrier based attacks possible. Else fighter would be knocked out the sky just like they are in aurora without a hope.
Posted by: Brian Neumann
« on: August 23, 2011, 03:36:52 PM »The problem with this sort of an analysis is that the thermal flare as you put it is not consistent. It can be modified by tech. If the tech that is normally used to minimize the thermal emmissions is instead used to enhance the emmissions then you can have a small object moving at a decent speed that has a thermal signature of something much larger. There is no exhaust speed, nor reaction mass being expelled to help figure out the energy involved. The mass is a measure of volume in this case also, not actual weight so a decoy that can be collapsed for storage could then be unfolded/turn on its gravity enhancer to make it appear larger than it really is. Do the same thing to its thermal signature and you have a viable decoy that doesn't need to cost anywhere near as much as the actual fighter would cost. I have even done something like this on larger ships where I made a warship with a lot of low cost internals (old style cargo holds) and a military engine that was not damped down. As my actual warships had a early cloak that made them look 10% of their actual size the combination made a ship that was actually the size of a destroyer look more like a big battleship. Given two different targets they concentrated on the one with the most battleship targets which was actually the decoy fleet and allowed my real warships to get into range of the planet I was going after. This was against a computer controlled npr so I had nothing to do with the actual choice of which to go after.
Brian
Brian
Posted by: Hawkeye
« on: August 23, 2011, 11:45:17 AM »I can take for instance thermal, a thermal flare you could do at a fighter level there is no way to create a thermal flare for a 8000 ton vessel.
Same with decoys (sqwarkers), a fighter which is a small craft you can do, to get the same presicion on a 5-10K vessel would be impossible.
I might misunderstand you here. If so, disregard.
If you have a fighter of mass X, that throws out Y reaction mass per second at an exhaust speed of Z, your decoy has to match all those three, or it will be immediately recogniced as a decoy.
Say, you have 10 fighters, accompanied by 20 decoys --> the decoys are supposed to stay with the real fighters, to fool the enemy into thinking the strike is larger and/or making the enemy shoot at decoys instead of the real fighters.
Case A:
Your decoys are smaller (and cheaper) than your fighters). In order to stay with your real fighters, either Y or Z has to be smaller --> decoys immediately recognized
Case B:
Your decoys are the same size as your fighters (and probably cost almost as much). Why bother with decoys and not use 30 real fighters?
Posted by: waresky
« on: August 23, 2011, 05:39:27 AM »Srry guys,make no mistake..: IVE been lover "Gundam"..in 1975 and next years:)) very addictive toons.
But in Aurora..my (my 2 cents) HOPE are primarily to Steve take seriously , bug treath and countermeasure.
When Bugs are fixed..going on in ARMY development and MAPPING..
Am fear..Gundam,can be a "more later" achievment in research plan..not for now.
(hope my funny english are understandable,..)
But in Aurora..my (my 2 cents) HOPE are primarily to Steve take seriously , bug treath and countermeasure.
When Bugs are fixed..going on in ARMY development and MAPPING..
Am fear..Gundam,can be a "more later" achievment in research plan..not for now.
(hope my funny english are understandable,..)
Posted by: ardem
« on: August 23, 2011, 05:05:47 AM »Its hard to think of fighter based countermeasures that ships can't use more effectively.
Really, the only thing fighters have going for them is size.
I can take for instance thermal, a thermal flare you could do at a fighter level there is no way to create a thermal flare for a 8000 ton vessel.
Same with decoys (sqwarkers), a fighter which is a small craft you can do, to get the same presicion on a 5-10K vessel would be impossible.
Posted by: ollobrains
« on: August 23, 2011, 03:33:02 AM »could be worth exploring
Posted by: backstab
« on: August 23, 2011, 01:59:24 AM »Mecha in Aurora..damn no..
+1
Super Heavy Armour instead ... OGREs or BOLOS !
