Newtonian Aurora

[Mel Vixen]

Ammo would certainly be nice, now that it's a true ballistic weapon.
Such a huge Artillery weapon would likely fail, at that distance the enemy could easily evade. More importantly, he could counterfire witht he smallest weapon available in his arsenal.^^

I on the contrary think it could be rather effective. The slug has no signature of its own, thus has only minor mass and no EM or Thermal output. What would be vissible is the high EM and TH-Spike from the firing - this is like seeing the muzzleflash of a gun and then dodging the bullet.

[wedgebert]

I on the contrary think it could be rather effective. The slug has no signature of its own, thus has only minor mass and no EM or Thermal output. What would be vissible is the high EM and TH-Spike from the firing - this is like seeing the muzzleflash of a gun and then dodging the bullet.

Except it's easy to dodge a bullet when you see the flash 4+ seconds before impact. 

[Elouda]

Except it's easy to dodge a bullet when you see the flash 4+ seconds before impact.  

Not when your maximum acceleration is under 1g, like the Resolution class DD Steve posted. In 4 seconds thats a maximum displacement of 50m from your projected vector, in simple terms a circle with radius 50m perpendicular to the vector from weapon to target. While its hard to estimate the sizes of the ships given we dont know their shapes, a modern wet navy Frigate in the 5000t range is much larger than that. If you use more than one weapon, you can easily 'bracket' the target buy shooting in such a way as to maximise hit probability at the expense of number of hits (analagous to the concept of ladder firing from the battleship era). This is probably where the 'forest of puny weapons' might make a comeback.

Now, if we had a fighter with say 4g acceleration, then the target area is closer to 300m in radius, and we have a problem. Anti-fighter size railguns might have a rather small EM 'pulse' when fired though.

[jseah]

Antagonist:

Missiles need to take time to boost up to the required speeds though.  In "short range" combat, missiles actually become rather worse than railguns/lasers. 

That's where the railgun launcher comes into its own.  Allows you to use missiles as well. 


Not to mention, the railgun launcher can put some delta-v onto the missile at launch.  This increases the size of your launch windows and thus the number of salvoes you can throw
When you are closing at angles approaching 180*, if you launch your missile too late, it can't cross the gap before the enemy has zipped past you. 

[Mel Vixen]

Suggestion/question: Given that projectiles are now calculated in the energy they contain, and Shields work on that principle as well, will hull strength change as well?

I guess you could do a "by ton" approach thus like a shield a ton of armor absorbs a certain amount of kinetic power say 2500 MJ deployed over the entire size of the ship. I thought wonder how armoring certain parts of the ship will turn out. I still would like to have additional armor on my engines and reactors because often enough they are made from literal explodium. 

Also another question to Steve: You said a railgun needs to cool down - is there a way to hotwire (pun not intended) the rails with a cooling system? And will cooling be a problem if you are right next to star?

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Citing the above example of 2 destroyers fighting at a range of 270 000 km, a missile with 180 mp/s accel (360kN engine example) needs 28 minutes to cross the distance, as compared to the 4 seconds of the rail gun projectile. 28 minutes is some time to shoot down a missile with railguns. And point defense guns probably have a rate of fire above the listed ones.

As things stand at the moment, I think combat at those type of ranges will be railgun/beam weapon only. Missiles will probably be too slow to be effective.

Steve

[Rastaman]

As things stand at the moment, I think combat at those type of ranges will be railgun/beam weapon only. Missiles will probably be too slow to be effective.

Steve

If effective missiles are faster than railgun projectiles (and much heavier), we're looking at kinetic kill vehicles.

[orfeusz]

It may be a good idea to have something like "random evasive maneuvers" type of movement for fleet, that will prevent from being hit by gigantic projectiles from big distances. It's only additional type of movement that You can use when You suspect that something is shooting  It could reduce acceleration by 5% and also increase fuel usage. Also, it would be easier for small ship with small mass to slightly change course every few seconds. The fuel and acceleration penalty for capital behemoths could be much bigger.

[HKZ8]

Also what would happen when a Task Group runs out of fuel? Does it keep on going forever?

Now this, is something to really worry about, because it could turn out to be a real game breaker.
A warning should sound or the game paused when either a ship or a fleet nears the fuel level when decelerate can't stop the ship, either that or make it automatic that the ship/fleet must decelerate when the available fuel supply is only enough to bring the speed down to nil speed.  Otherwise, I fear that soon the galaxy will fill with (powerless) drifting ships/fleets with no hope of stopping, because the further they go, the less chances they have of rescue.  They couldn't even scuttle the ship because their escape pods' momentum would turn them into mini comets if they were to be caught into the gravity of a neighboring star or (if they should go fast enough) endless drifting in a straight line, until they would leave the game galaxy altogether.

[UnLimiTeD]

Sounds absolutely fine to me.

[orfeusz]

... make it automatic that the ship/fleet must decelerate when the available fuel supply is only enough to bring the speed down to nil speed.  

Maybe some kind of check-box that if enabled will do that? Because there is possibility that Your tankers are coming, or You want to stop using enemy home-world  



EDIT: Do we really need fuel in the game?  

[Elouda]

Maybe some kind of check-box that if enabled will do that? Because there is possibility that Your tankers are coming, or You want to stop using enemy home-world  



EDIT: Do we really need fuel in the game?  

YES. Its one of the most critical peices of logistics, and its about to get even more critical. 

However, perhaps a checkbox to 'disable fuel usage' might be an option for those who dont want to fiddle with logistics, kind of like the 'no maintenance' option.


As for evasive manuevers, the best way be to simple be able to specify the amount of them, from say '2 degree zigzag every 2 hours' to ensure long range safety, to '5 degree course zigzag every 15 minutes' for more radical manuevers. I would prefer them to be definable, rather than some arbitary 'x% more fuel use' thing.

[bean]

I just stumbled onto this, and had to restrain myself from laughing maniacally.  I apol
To preface the following comments, one of my hobbies is studying realistic space warfare.  And I mean realistic.  Aurora is about the only thing I can stand where spacecraft don't move in a Newtonian manner, and while I'm a huge fan of this already, it would be even better with more realism.
That said, I've studied quite a bit, which might be of some help.
First off, I've attempted to do something somewhat like this in spreadsheets, though on a tactical level.  They can be found at the following links:
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B3KjwvJFChTfNGYzNWNjNzEtMDQzZS00ZWIzLTkyMDItNDA5ZjY0MTY5YjI4&authkey=CJWd6dwB&hl=en_US&authkey=CJWd6dwB
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B3KjwvJFChTfODU4OWZkNTQtOTllNy00NThlLWI1MjAtODk0ZDU0MzhiMjRj&authkey=CJjV9UE&hl=en_US&authkey=CJjV9UE
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B3KjwvJFChTfMTU2NDk4OGMtOWZhMS00ZDk3LTg2YmYtMjU0NTRlNjU1NWU4&authkey=CMPwg80C&hl=en_US&authkey=CMPwg80C
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B3KjwvJFChTfMDczZjZhNGUtYTc4Ni00YTc0LWIzNTYtZDE2YmY2ZjIzNDA1&authkey=CIvAseMI&hl=en_US&authkey=CIvAseMI
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B3KjwvJFChTfNWVlY2M1NGMtN2FjMy00N2ExLTgwZGQtNmIwZGMwMDY1NWQw&authkey=CKOL_-sE&hl=en_US&authkey=CKOL_-sE
Things that might be useful include a formula for projectile weapon tracking, though it's based on x&y position and velocity, not on headings and velocities.  That might make the whole thing easier, though.  I don't know, as I'm not a programmer (as anyone who looks at the sheets can tell).

One thing I would like to see is a different detection system.  Realistically, you can't hide in space.  http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacewardetect.php Period.  Even having that as an option would be helpful, and even more so if there was some ambiguity.  "We know there's a strength 100 thermal contact, and it's out there.  We know how big it is, but not what it is."  At the very least, add a non-removable "life support" thermal signature.  Or even just as an option.

The FLT system sounds very interesting, and I look forward to testing it.  One suggestion is to have well-surveyed routes produce slightly higher speed multiplication.  This would be expensive, but allow "trade lanes".

Steve if i would have some sort of crazy overengineered ion-drive (like we usein present day probes) with enough fuel to reach relativistic speeds, would it be possible to snail my way into another system?

Ion drives aren't terribly practical for interstellar travel.  The specific energy is too low to get the sort of speed required.  Even a high-efficiency ion drive probably can't make more than 900 km/s total.

Slightly off topic but could be of interest. Just finished reading "through struggle, the stars" by John Lumpkin. Aside from being a pretty good read I thought it had an excellent take on combat in a Newtonian environment and has some very good points:

- Basically no one does head on attacks because the closing speeds given so much kinetic energy to any slugs that it's pretty much suicide for both sides.

- Missiles tend to get shot down a lot but when they do get through they are pretty devastating. These are also basically MIRVS with lots of flechettes.

- Rail guns etc are used to help command the combat space rather than trying to hit things in most cases ie fill a section of space with a lot of lead to stop your enemy moving there and limiting their ability to undertake evasive mans.

- Lasers are the main close in armament. There is also an interesting concept of an overall laser wattage that can be directed between the offensive lenses and the defensive ones which gives captains some interesting decisions as to how aggressive they want to be.

Anyway perhaps some food for thought!

This made me laugh.  I haven't read the book, but I know he used the same sources I've studied.  All are requested.

I really have doubts that this endeavor, while notable for seeing if it will actually work, will end up actually be more of a simulation than a game.

There's a difference?
I'll deal with the second half as I read it.

[bean]

I have a lot to post on missiles.
1.  Why bother with warheads at the speeds in question?  At 190 km/s relative (which sounds fairly low for Aurora) the kinetic energy is approximately equal to that of a modern nuke.  And metal is a lot cheaper.  This is particularly true for AMMs.
2. Laser warheads sound good, as do EMP warheads, submunition warheads, and sandcaster warheads.  No, I'm not proposing them based on Traveller.  They're an idea I came up with to damage laser optics.
3. My spreadsheet includes CBDR (constant-bearing, decreasing-range) tracking formulas.
4. It would be reasonable for any missiles that miss to disappear (unless you're tracking space debris).  I say this because giving it 3x impact delta-V is incredibly wasteful.  To the point of insanity.  In a knife-fight it might happen, but that's fairly rare.
5. I also like the unification of kinetic projectiles and missiles. 
6.

Yes, it would, although the effect would be tracked as Newtons not Joules. Momentum isn't the same as kinetic energy (and this is a weird one to get your head around) so increasing the velocity of a projectile by x5, would require 25x more energy and would give the projectile x25 impact but, at least as I understand the physics, would only give the projectile 5x more momentum and have 5x the effect on the launching ship in terms of affecting its movement. This is because the force applied to the ship is equal to the velocity x mass of the propellant (the railgun shot), not 1/2 mass x velocity^2, which is kinetic energy of the railgun shot.

However, I haven't decided whether to include it yet. Once I have some railguns designed I will run the math and see how much of an impact (unintended pun!) it has.

Steve

Don't bother.  As the speed gets higher, the energy-to-mass ratio gets higher.  At the sort of velocities you speak of, you're firing the smallest thing you can get a guidance system and thrusters into.

Also, if some sensors are going to be limited-use, it might make sense to set up sensors to be independently-activated.
And if that's going to happen, duty-cycle scaling might be a nice addition, too.  This is mostly for surveiliance ships.  You can only activate once every five minutes, but the range is x10 or more.

I also would like remote-piloting available.  I personally believe that realistic space combat will be largely unmanned.  As to why, see http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/2011/03/space-warfare-xiii-human-factor.html.  The biggest issue might be maintainence (as with FLT communications, it's not reaction time.)  A robot vessel has a higher failure rate than a manned vessel, and "ages" faster, too.  (I'm not terribly familiar with the details of how that works in Aurora.)

And if space pirates must be added, please give them an off switch.  I really don't want to go there.

On the balance though, I'm incredibly excited about this.  I've enjoyed Aurora immensely, and this looks to be far, far, better. 

High-powered microwaves can produce a similar result to EMPs.  And there are ways of making an EMP without the use of a nuke.  Faraday cages only block them if they are sealed.  If there are wires going in and out, then the current induced in the wires can still fry whatever's inside. 
Particles to block lasers are not going to be terribly effective.  They'll burn out too fast, or be heavier than armor.

While it is true that strong magnetic fields CAN deflect charged particles or magnetically vulnerable materials, these would only work against say ion beams or kinetic weapons using magnetizable metals for instance.  Plastic or ceramic ammunition would pass right through, and since it is not the composition of the material that matters but rather the mass for kinetic kill weapons, these should still be effective.

A bigger problem is the velocities involved.  That's going to be too high to make these terribly practical.

For shielding I normally consider it to be a handwavium mass effect style potential shield, capable of robbing momentum from kinetic attacks and even laser light (maybe a combination of two or more different shielding technologies working together?).

As for armor that disintegrates under heat makes sense against laser weaponry.  These would give off superheated plasma AWAY from the hull WITHOUT spreading it over a larger part of the armor.

It's called ablative armor, and it also carries away more heat than conventional armor.  Aurora already uses it, though.  There's no "bounces off armor" mode.

Regarding EMP and microwave weaponry, while microwave weaponry is effective against organics, it is MORE effective against sensitive electronics.  The electronics for ship control systems, target prediction and all that can be created simply and with resistance to interference far easier than the complex electronics needed for an AI.  For example, your AC would be less susceptible to an EMP than an unshielded CPU.  Both do their duty but one is just so much closer to the limits of what is physically possible that interferences can be that much more destructive.  A single voltage pulse through an AC electronics would likely do nothing, while on a CPU can destroy it.

As far as I am aware, your microwave is not shielded from microwaves with a Faraday cage, the door for instance is shielded by the fact that the holes in the grid is smaller than the microwave wavelength(1mm-1m).  That isn't to say that shielding isn't trivial.  Either way, we already have a researchable technology that can reduce the vulnerability of our sensors to microwave weaponry, makes sense that this would also be effective to shield AI cores.

That is a faraday cage.  It's just that the cage appears to be solid to things with a larger wavelength.  A few weeks ago, I was in a faraday cage that was less than 10% metal by area.  A tesla coil was arcing to it.  I had my hand about 8 inches from the point of contact.  Didn't feel a thing.

Minefields are going to be difficult.  The sheer volume of space is enormous, and will defeat unguided munitions.  And making them go faster doesn't work, either.  They have to go at orbital velocity.  A better plan is an honrverse-style pod defense system.  Missile targeting might require an overhaul to make this all work, though.

One thing I would really like to see would be keel-mount weapons.  The mechanics would probably be that the weapon in question is much bigger than normal, and you can only mount one per ship.

As I read the whole thing, I can't wait.  If there's anything I can do to help, let me know.

[Antagonist]

Hmm, as for missiles and shields... For lasers that make deep gouges in armor, the point strength determines the total shield at the point of impact.  But what about missiles whos damage profiles are more 'craters'?  Would these require 4x or more of the point strength to overcome in order to pierce the shield?

This can affect tactics quite a bit, for one thing it makes cratering the armor impractical without first eliminating the entire shield, since a single missile shot is unlikely to be able to pierce the shields.  It also makes lasers more valuable since it will take less to pierce the shields, even if it then has difficulty piercing the armor... and multiple laser hits at same point is unlikely, so you need a laser that can with one shot pierce shields AND all layers of armor, which might not be possible except for weak ships.  It might not even BE practical to kill a ship without first taking down the entirety of its shields.

On that front, what about special anti-shield weapons?  Microwave maybe, but it already has a niche as a anti-sensor weapon (and maybe anti-AI as well), but it is a possibility.

For Faraday caging... yes, there will definitely we wires.  Either the engine ports will be vulnerable, and the sensors definitely will be (EM sensors can't work inside a faraday cage).  And internally shielding the AI might help to a degree, but not provide immunity since it will need wires to the rest of the ship.  Such shielding can be a tech line, but should never be perfect.

As for cannot hide in space... yes, you are correct.  The ship definitely will have a exhaust plume in Aurora of some description, since it has a Thermal signature.  BUT... even so, I like the current system.  This is a point where gameplay and fun should trump realism.

Back to minefields... the way Stars! worked was that if you lay minefield then any enemy ships passing through that exceeds a certain speed risks a % chance per turn of striking a mine.  You can go slower to be safe and detect mines soon enough to avoid them.  This suggests to me a VERY sparse dark minefield, and is something that can be considered for Aurora.  From the comments I see others agree that mines will tend to be point denial instead of area denial, hence me thinking of ways it possibly can work as area denial.  Possibly when laying them they will have a sparsity setting?  And perhaps a one-shot laser warhead, allowing them to hit from range instead of having to make physical contact, or else engines that activate when close enough after which it acts as a missile.  If you make the minefield VERY sparse you might even be able to seed the whole system, but it would require that the enemy be fast and even so only get hit a few times as it crosses the system.  Non-newtonian materials and gravity manipulation can explain how they can keep a position in a system without being limited to an orbit or a lagrange point.