Improved Beam Functionality

[Morrigi (OP)]

Realism can never be a bad thing.

[Andrew]

Realism can never be a bad thing.

We agree , hence the short beam ranges

[Morrigi (OP)]

...In reality we can hit something farther away than 5 light seconds with a laser if it's big. Now with railguns, that's more understandable.

[Charlie Beeler]

...In reality we can hit something farther away than 5 light seconds with a laser if it's big. Now with railguns, that's more understandable.

Please seach the history of beam fire control.  Go back about 2 years.  If then you find that your view/claim of "reality" is different that what has been discussed previously then substantiate your view with mathmatic models the support your position.  Making broad unsubstantiated claims of "reality" is getting you no where fast.

Keep in mind that several members of this board have better than a working knowledge of astral and orbital mechanics.  Several others have more than a working knowledge of targeting and course prediction.  

As Andrew pointed out earlier, the volume of space that a ship could occupy after just 1 second while traveling at 3750kps is a staggering amount.  That volume goes up expentially.

Yes, I'm aware the request is versus a "stationary" target.  The problem is that nothing is really stationary.  Planets move... and thier orbital constructs (bases, shipyards, etc) move with them.  

So far there has not been a compelling arguement made that would sway the veteran players to back the concept.  

More importantly, Steve has not stepped in to say that the idea has enough merit to worrent the refine the logarithm's and change the code.  Final arbitor is Steve.

[waresky]

Am fear there r a main SUGGESTION,Steve's can improve:

AI routine and soub-routine.

nothing all.

From 2 years,at present day,the GAME r evolved dramatically in BETTER.

my 2 cents: nice "idea" are BEAM improvement:..BUT if u play DEEPER this game are very good now..only AI AND Army Management,needed some Steve's attentions..

For me:)

[sloanjh]

...In reality we can hit something farther away than 5 light seconds with a laser if it's big. Now with railguns, that's more understandable.

Please seach the history of beam fire control.  Go back about 2 years.  If then you find that your view/claim of "reality" is different that what has been discussed previously then substantiate your view with mathmatic models the support your position.  Making broad unsubstantiated claims of "reality" is getting you no where fast.

In particular, IIRC the part of reality that Steve was VERY concerned about was time-of-flight.  If you allow beam weapons to fire at targets more than 5 light-seconds away, then you are forced to a choice between faster-than-light beams (which IIRC was an aspect of Starfire that Steve disliked) or needing to manage a lag between firing and hitting for beam weapons, which would lead to a HUGE amount of very complex coding for very little (given the fact that almost all targets will be dodging) gain.

John

[Charlie Beeler]

...In reality we can hit something farther away than 5 light seconds with a laser if it's big. Now with railguns, that's more understandable.

Please seach the history of beam fire control.  Go back about 2 years.  If then you find that your view/claim of "reality" is different that what has been discussed previously then substantiate your view with mathmatic models the support your position.  Making broad unsubstantiated claims of "reality" is getting you no where fast.

In particular, IIRC the part of reality that Steve was VERY concerned about was time-of-flight.  If you allow beam weapons to fire at targets more than 5 light-seconds away, then you are forced to a choice between faster-than-light beams (which IIRC was an aspect of Starfire that Steve disliked) or needing to manage a lag between firing and hitting for beam weapons, which would lead to a HUGE amount of very complex coding for very little (given the fact that almost all targets will be dodging) gain.

John

I believe that is correct.

[nichaey]

...In reality we can hit something farther away than 5 light seconds with a laser if it's big. Now with railguns, that's more understandable.

Yes, I'm aware the request is versus a "stationary" target.  The problem is that nothing is really stationary.  Planets move... and thier orbital constructs (bases, shipyards, etc) move with them.  

Except they move in a completely predictable trajectory, which would be easily compensated for.

In particular, IIRC the part of reality that Steve was VERY concerned about was time-of-flight.  If you allow beam weapons to fire at targets more than 5 light-seconds away, then you are forced to a choice between faster-than-light beams (which IIRC was an aspect of Starfire that Steve disliked) or needing to manage a lag between firing and hitting for beam weapons, which would lead to a HUGE amount of very complex coding for very little (given the fact that almost all targets will be dodging) gain.

John

Any particular reason why Steve does not like FTL lasers?
Also I'm not sure delayed laser hits would be as much of a coding nightmare as you think, but then again I don't work with VB6 so I wouldn't know.


Here are my arguments (note that I don't necessarily believe that either should be implemented, just discussed and fleshed out)

Against stationary targets:
it is realistically possible with a very high chance to hit
Believed balance change:
would make it possible to bombard an capture planets without making dust or fallout
My thoughts:
I'm not sure that there should be such a consequence free way of exterminating all of the inhabitants of a planet. (especially from such a long distance)

Against moving targets
it is realistically possible with an extremely low chance to hit
Believed balance change:
would make a no shield build vulnerable, and give players more options when building offensive laser ships
My thoughts:
I think it's worth toying around with, especially if you could target an entire task force (i.e. spraying a massive incoming fleet with 100 lasers batteries, aimed at no specific ship)

It's worth pointing out that realism isn't the deciding factor as the computer you are currently using could probably fulfill the role of a massive 2t fire control system found in the game.

[boggo2300]

It's worth pointing out that realism isn't the deciding factor as the computer you are currently using could probably fulfill the role of a massive 2t fire control system found in the game.

Your PC has sensors with resolution to detect a small incredibly fast moving object at several hundred thousand kilometres?

I've been ripped off!

Matt

[symon]

It's worth pointing out that realism isn't the deciding factor as the computer you are currently using could probably fulfill the role of a massive 2t fire control system found in the game.

Actually it isn't the computer that takes up space in fire control. It's the detectors. Bigger generally means better, especially with widely separated arrays on the same vessel.

[Andrew]

Any particular reason why Steve does not like FTL lasers?
.

An FTL Laser is somewhat internally contradictory. Realism flies off and dies of relativistic shock at the concept.

[sloanjh]

Believed balance change:
would make it possible to bombard an capture planets without making dust or fallout
My thoughts:
I'm not sure that there should be such a consequence free way of exterminating all of the inhabitants of a planet. (especially from such a long distance)

And what the veteran players keep trying to point out (among other things) is:

A)  One of Steve's prime goals in the game was to avoid the GFFP strategy from Starfire (I leave it as an excercise for the reader to figure out what GFFP stands for).  It is intentional that it is very difficult to kill populations without wrecking the planet.

B)  Beam weapons don't penetrate atmosphere (or do so at a degraded level for low pressure worlds), so the primary stationary target that you want to shoot at won't take any damage from the super-luminal lasers, which pretty much knocks out the game-play argument.

As Charlie points out, "Steve's games, Steve's rules".  You can argue until you're blue in the face, but it won't go into the code unless the idea grabs Steve's fancy, and the suggestion goes against his previously stated opinions.

One more thing to consider: just because it can be put in the game, doesn't mean that it should be.  As Waresky often points out, Steve is a limited resource , and we want him working on high-value enhancements like gunboats and fighters (neither of which were in the original game).

John

[symon]

GFFP = Genocide For Fun & Profit.
Never thought it was very believable myself. Sure you can do the genocide part easy enough. I just always had great difficulty believing that the planet would be much fun for anyone after nuking it till it glowed.

[UnLimiTeD]

Well, technically, I can't imagine advanced bombs leaving radiation in significant amounts, an H bomb already has a way higher ratio of power to radiation, and if pure fusion is that hard to pull off, there could always be atmospheric deprivation weapons, the bio- or chem-weapon path.
I in turn find the current radiation system unbelievable; but I got SM functions, so what do I care.
What I really wonder is how this thread has still not died, but I'm probably just answering that myself just now by posting here I guess.
Generally, Realism is ALWAYS bad unless it adds to atmosphere or understandability. No one invented games out of his fond love of reality.

[symon]

Even if you can manage a multimegaton explosion with zero radiation and fallout, there is still that annoying dust.
Don't forget, Krakatoa had a marked effect on global temperatures. That was just one very large bang. Think of the effect of bangs enough to wipe out many or all major cities.

What's left is in rather poor shape!