PDA

View Full Version : Energy weapons vs. projectile/physical weapons for spacefaring sci-fi?



Amaril
2016-11-07, 06:01 PM
Think of any spacefaring setting with military stuff going on, from Star Wars to Warhammer 40k to Mass Effect. Every one's technology will have a preference for energy-based weapons (lasers, plasma, and so on), projectile and physical weapons (bullets and metal blades), or some mix of the two.

Leaving aside the pure aesthetics of what looks cooler and fits the tone better, from an in-setting practical perspective, what are some potential advantages and disadvantages of each? What might lead a futuristic society to favor one over the other? Bear in mind, this isn't based on real science, but rather the kind of scientific-sounding explanations fiction uses for fantastical technologies to make them sound plausible, if not exactly realistic.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-11-07, 06:03 PM
Energy weapons are easier to recharge and don't have to bother with carrying around cumbersome ammunition.

Projectile weapons are less vulnerable to terrain interference. Things like dust clouds or basically any particulate in the air dramatically reduces laser efficiency.

Amaril
2016-11-07, 06:36 PM
Energy weapons are easier to recharge and don't have to bother with carrying around cumbersome ammunition.

Projectile weapons are less vulnerable to terrain interference. Things like dust clouds or basically any particulate in the air dramatically reduces laser efficiency.

What about magnetically-contained plasma? That's a route a lot of sci-fi goes with energy weapons--would particulates affect it the same way? Are there any other advantages and disadvantages you can think of for either? I've heard it said that energy weapons are hugely preferable in zero-gravity, so that could be relevant.

VoxRationis
2016-11-07, 07:18 PM
Depending on how technical you want to get, this might be better for the "Mad Science and Grumpy Technology" thread.

Plasma is generally quite hard to contain and keep sufficiently hot at any distance from its source. This is fortunate for users of candles and unfortunate for those seeking to make plasma weaponry. Unless your plasma weaponry is somehow capable of putting up a magnetic field around a projectile remotely, this means that your plasma bolt will need some sort of self-supporting magnetic field, which in all likelihood means that you need an actual solid projectile. Then you run into ammunition limits, and you wonder if it wasn't just easier to make a kinetic weapon, since the kinetic projectile doesn't lose much of its effectiveness once it gets cold.
That brings us to the other main problem (besides power sources, but that's true of most sci-fi tech): heat loss. Plasma is only plasma under certain conditions, usually involving high heat. If the environment is conducive to heat loss, your plasma shot loses much of its destructive power based on how long it spends in flight. Moreover, once the projectile loses enough heat, it ceases to be a plasma and becomes just a gas, and will no longer be containable with a magnetic field, resulting in its prompt dispersion. Any gas that does not disperse probably won't be able to do anything to the target. Fortunately, space is non-conductive, so in a vacuum you'll do fine (assuming you've dealt with the containment problem.) However, if you plan on fighting in an atmosphere, you'll find that heat transfer becomes prohibitive, severely limiting range. And of course, the actual temperature of the atmosphere will make your weapons more or less effective.

Of course, you could just keep plasma weaponry as glorified blowtorches, which solves all these problems but introduces new ones like "why am I bothering to put this much effort into a melee weapon?"

Edit: In conclusion, plasma weaponry is unlikely to be a competitive design for general-purpose weaponry. It might be practical in certain specialized applications (short-ranged combat in a vacuum, low-collateral damage rounds that are intentionally limited in range, or for burning through some sort of defense or armor that is more vulnerable to heat than to kinetic energy), but I don't see it as being a good primary weapon.

Anonymouswizard
2016-11-07, 07:51 PM
There are many possible reasons. Just for semirealistic lasers, you have a weapon that moves at light speed (so is hard to dodge), can be recharged with just a power supply, has variable power settings, variable wavelengths (which may make a difference), and the choice between a beam laser and a laser pulse. The downsides are that it's effectiveness is reduced by anything that blocks/absorbs the wavelength you're using, drain a load of power per shot, and may be rather bulky.

I am not qualified to talk about particle beams or plasma weapons, so I'll leave it at that.

comk59
2016-11-07, 08:09 PM
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/sidearmenergy.php

I've had this bookmarked for just such an occasion.


However, it really depends what we're talking about. Ship-to-Ship weapons? Lasers, all the way.

Small arms? That depends on your taste. I'm fond of futurey solid projectiles, like those electronically fired cartridges al la the Metal Storm company. Or bolters. You can never go wrong with bolters.

Also, a particle beam in atmosphere would produce comical amounts of radiation. That being said, a directed radiation weapon would be pretty cool. I'd suggest neutron radiation, super deadly and with a short half life.

Amaril
2016-11-07, 08:46 PM
Depending on how technical you want to get, this might be better for the "Mad Science and Grumpy Technology" thread.

Let's not let it get that technical. I can't keep up with real science :smalltongue:


Edit: In conclusion, plasma weaponry is unlikely to be a competitive design for general-purpose weaponry. It might be practical in certain specialized applications (short-ranged combat in a vacuum, low-collateral damage rounds that are intentionally limited in range, or for burning through some sort of defense or armor that is more vulnerable to heat than to kinetic energy), but I don't see it as being a good primary weapon.

Alright, makes sense. For the record, the thing that got me thinking about this was a real robot mecha setting I've been working on for quite a while as a thought project, and hope to one day turn into a real video game if my career in the game industry pans out. In such a world, I can see plasma being used for melee weapons and not much else (I had it in mind that mecha often prefer to fight at close range in this setting, because one of their main military functions is to board and capture colony stations, and using high-powered ranged weaponry recklessly could blow open holes in the superstructure). Though it still leaves me with a toss-up between close-combat weaponry favoring beam sabers or high-frequency blades...


There are many possible reasons. Just for semirealistic lasers, you have a weapon that moves at light speed (so is hard to dodge), can be recharged with just a power supply, has variable power settings, variable wavelengths (which may make a difference), and the choice between a beam laser and a laser pulse. The downsides are that it's effectiveness is reduced by anything that blocks/absorbs the wavelength you're using, drain a load of power per shot, and may be rather bulky.

Honestly, just from an aesthetic perspective, I normally prefer projectile ranged weapons to energy ones. If lasers are the main consideration, could one feasibly make laser-absorbing armor commonplace? Or would that not work?


However, it really depends what we're talking about. Ship-to-Ship weapons? Lasers, all the way.

I feel you. Does ship-to-ship weapons include fighter-scale? Or just the big guns?


Small arms? That depends on your taste. I'm fond of futurey solid projectiles, like those electronically fired cartridges al la the Metal Storm company. Or bolters. You can never go wrong with bolters.

Hmm, bolters are always nice, and for my giant robot thought project, micro-missiles seem a more appropriate standard than slugs--more devastating. I can imagine a system where infantry favor improved forms of modern projectile weapons, mecha go mainly for bolters (or possibly lasers for space combat), and ships use lasers exclusively.

I don't care--I just want to make a cool setting with giant robots. The flimsy justification I'm going with involves close-range dogfighting being preferred over ship-to-ship sniping due to the fusion energy source used by most spacecraft producing a form of radiation that messes with long-range targeting (basically ripping off Minovsky Particles, and making about as much sense as those do), and mecha being better than fighters due to their ability to turn in space without using fuel (again, ripping off Gundam) and aim weapons independently of the direction of their movement.

...Yes, the setting is pretty much just off-brand Gundam. Originality is overrated.

Tanarii
2016-11-07, 10:02 PM
Both are likely to destroy the hull of the ships, ejecting everyone into space in short order. Which is fine if you're a space marine in an armored space suit, but otherwise no one in their right mind would carry them.

Weapons that damage biological structures only would be the order of the day in space-based adventure games. I've seen ceramic-ammo flechette guns in some games, but also stun energy weapons, tasers, poison/gas weapons, etc.

Amaril
2016-11-07, 10:16 PM
Both are likely to destroy the hull of the ships, ejecting everyone into space in short order. Which is fine if you're a space marine in an armored space suit, but otherwise no one in their right mind would carry them.

Weapons that damage biological structures only would be the order of the day in space-based adventure games. I've seen ceramic-ammo flechette guns in some games, but also stun energy weapons, tasers, poison/gas weapons, etc.

You know, I honestly never understood this argument for human-scale weapons. Modern spacecraft, certainly, but the stuff we see in most sci-fi looks like it has much thicker construction, more than a few shots from a personal firearm could blast through easily. What is it that makes this so easy to do?

comk59
2016-11-07, 10:19 PM
You know, I honestly never understood this argument for human-scale weapons. Modern spacecraft, certainly, but the stuff we see in most sci-fi looks like it has much thicker construction, more than a few shots from a personal firearm could blast through easily. What is it that makes this so easy to do?

Because cinematic explosive decompression looks awesome.

BootStrapTommy
2016-11-07, 10:28 PM
As a tangent, aren't most weapons in Mass Effect actually projectile? I thought guns in ME were supposed to be railguns that used Eezo to acceleration very high caliber projectiles without much recoil?

Telwar
2016-11-07, 10:31 PM
You know, I honestly never understood this argument for human-scale weapons. Modern spacecraft, certainly, but the stuff we see in most sci-fi looks like it has much thicker construction, more than a few shots from a personal firearm could blast through easily. What is it that makes this so easy to do?

The assumption that all spacecraft will be like the Apollo modules or Spacelab and not built for resisting incidental micrometeorites, let alone the colossally energetic weapons possible with sufficiently-advanced science, and also assumption of one hole leading to rapid and total and irreparable environmental loss and mass death, which really isn't going to happen for personal-scale weapons on anything remotely sturdy.

or as comk59 said. :)

Tanarii
2016-11-07, 10:31 PM
You know, I honestly never understood this argument for human-scale weapons. Modern spacecraft, certainly, but the stuff we see in most sci-fi looks like it has much thicker construction, more than a few shots from a personal firearm could blast through easily. What is it that makes this so easy to do?Youre right, I'm basing it on an extension of modern space craft. Or at least the logic behind them: getting materials into space is hard and expensive, heavier materiel takes fuel more to change delta v, and you don't armor them.

Changing any of those might make my statement less true, at least for low energy projectile/energy weapons. I mean, that's effectively the idea behind the ceramic flachette gun. It's low enough energy for the materials used for standard spacecraft in the setting. Which IRRC I last saw in Palladiums Mutants in Space, in which all three of my assumptions generally applied.

VoxRationis
2016-11-07, 11:01 PM
As a tangent, aren't most weapons in Mass Effect actually projectile? I thought guns in ME were supposed to be railguns that used Eezo to acceleration very high caliber projectiles without much recoil?

Yes. With the exception of a few very exotic weapons, Mass Effect uses kinetics. However, the projectiles aren't high-caliber; they're low-caliber, more like grains of sand than bullets, but are accelerated to near-relativistic velocities because of their near-zero mass. That's why ammo was unlimited in the first game; ammunition was theoretically limited, but you'd need to have a unrealistically long engagement for it to matter.


Youre right, I'm basing it on an extension of modern space craft. Or at least the logic behind them: getting materials into space is hard and expensive, heavier materiel takes fuel more to change delta v, and you don't armor them.

Changing any of those might make my statement less true, at least for low energy projectile/energy weapons. I mean, that's effectively the idea behind the ceramic flachette gun. It's low enough energy for the materials used for standard spacecraft in the setting. Which IRRC I last saw in Palladiums Mutants in Space, in which all three of my assumptions generally applied.

Similar physical constraints apply to watercraft in real life, but we still armor them because reality means they get beaten up by environmental and military forces. Efficiency is great, but losing a ship to incidental fire can end up costing more than the extra fuel to push a heavier ship.

comk59
2016-11-07, 11:26 PM
Alright, makes sense. For the record, the thing that got me thinking about this was a real robot mecha setting I've been working on for quite a while as a thought project, and hope to one day turn into a real video game if my career in the game industry pans out. In such a world, I can see plasma being used for melee weapons and not much else (I had it in mind that mecha often prefer to fight at close range in this setting, because one of their main military functions is to board and capture colony stations, and using high-powered ranged weaponry recklessly could blow open holes in the superstructure). Though it still leaves me with a toss-up between close-combat weaponry favoring beam sabers or high-frequency blades...


As much as I love Hi-Freq blades, a mech sized one would be hard to not shake itself apart. Of course, this is all handwaved, so it wouldn't be too big of a deal. Massive Chainswords are fun too!



Honestly, just from an aesthetic perspective, I normally prefer projectile ranged weapons to energy ones. If lasers are the main consideration, could one feasibly make laser-absorbing armor commonplace? Or would that not work?


Oh yeah, easily. Ceramic plate would insulate heat pretty well. And a glass weave might be able to refract and spread a laser blast around. Although the glass would start to fuse after a couple of shots, so it would be about as long lasting as kevlar is.

And for the record, I prefer kinetic weapons too. I would really suggest looking at Metal Storm, I take their 1,000,000 RpM weapon idea and shrink it down to rifle size for my sci-fi games. I also give it fewer barrels than Metal Storm did, usually only 4 or 6.



I feel you. Does ship-to-ship weapons include fighter-scale? Or just the big guns?


Either way. Lasers would make dogfighting easier, especially if you're using realistic dogfighting. If you use cinematic dogfighting, then kinetic weapons would easily work. You'd probably want something small caliber, so you could accelerate it to high speed without affecting your own momentum too much.



Hmm, bolters are always nice, and for my giant robot thought project, micro-missiles seem a more appropriate standard than slugs--more devastating. I can imagine a system where infantry favor improved forms of modern projectile weapons, mecha go mainly for bolters (or possibly lasers for space combat), and ships use lasers exclusively.


Remember, one of the best things about making your own settings is that you can throw everything we know about what kind of weapons you're allowed to build out the window. Thermobaric grenade launcher? Yes please! Autoloading Low-yield Thermonuclear Cannon? Give me two!

Actually, Thermobaric weapons would be awful in space, but set one off inside a station or a mech and the entire thing would be vaporized. Maybe a Thermobaric torpedo that drills into its target would work.

Anonymouswizard
2016-11-08, 07:51 AM
Oh yeah, easily. Ceramic plate would insulate heat pretty well. And a glass weave might be able to refract and spread a laser blast around. Although the glass would start to fuse after a couple of shots, so it would be about as long lasting as kevlar is.

Let's be honest, in must realistic settings we're not trying to reflect the laser blast. In general we'll be using ceramic plates to absorb both, or some form of plastic.

OP, I'm also designing a real robot setting, and I came to realise that the main difference between the two is firing limitations. Because my mechs have bothered the generator and the cramped cockpit in the torso few mechs have enough power to run everything at once, and so have to divide what they generate between sensors, movement, boosters, and energy weapons. Energy weapons tend to draw power from the Tech's generator, while projectile weapons require you to balance spare ammunition against weight.

Although my setting also features mechs with better power generators, as well as mechs with special abilities (think of the Martian kataphracts from Aldonah.Zero). There's also the fact that pilots have to be careful, as not every cockpit has working air conditioning.

Amaril
2016-11-08, 08:15 AM
Similar physical constraints apply to watercraft in real life, but we still armor them because reality means they get beaten up by environmental and military forces. Efficiency is great, but losing a ship to incidental fire can end up costing more than the extra fuel to push a heavier ship.

And plenty of sci-fi makes fuel for ships essentially a non-issue already, either by making it functionally or actually unlimited, or so efficient that it no longer presents a space or mass concern in the volumes it's needed at. I may just not be looking at hard enough sci-fi, but I've never seen a single setting handle it by realistic modern standards.


As much as I love Hi-Freq blades, a mech sized one would be hard to not shake itself apart. Of course, this is all handwaved, so it wouldn't be too big of a deal. Massive Chainswords are fun too!

I'd have no problem handwaving them being that size, but they couldn't parry plasma weapons, could they? So those would still be better.

Chainswords are cool, but present the same problem, and also don't feel very anime :smalltongue: Plus, wouldn't they favor techniques where you hold the blade against your enemy's body to saw through them? The melee combat I'm picturing looks more like jousting--opponents circle each other for position before making high-speed passes. For something like that, you want a weapon that can make clean cuts, rather than requiring you to stop.


Oh yeah, easily. Ceramic plate would insulate heat pretty well. And a glass weave might be able to refract and spread a laser blast around. Although the glass would start to fuse after a couple of shots, so it would be about as long lasting as kevlar is.

Actually, I really like that. In keeping with the genre, the player in this game would pilot an advanced concept model mech (it's explicitly a concept model rather than a super prototype, because the whole idea of a super prototype doesn't make sense), and its most revolutionary feature is that it has Halo health--regenerating shields. I want other characters to be amazed when they fire on it and see that their shots have done nothing, so if I make projectile weapons the standard-issue specifically because armor doesn't normally block them, and then have these shields totally deflect them, that'll add to the shock and awe.


Either way. Lasers would make dogfighting easier, especially if you're using realistic dogfighting. If you use cinematic dogfighting, then kinetic weapons would easily work. You'd probably want something small caliber, so you could accelerate it to high speed without affecting your own momentum too much.

I'm sure what I'm picturing is much closer to cinematic. Out of curiosity, what are the differences?


Remember, one of the best things about making your own settings is that you can throw everything we know about what kind of weapons you're allowed to build out the window. Thermobaric grenade launcher? Yes please! Autoloading Low-yield Thermonuclear Cannon? Give me two!

Actually, Thermobaric weapons would be awful in space, but set one off inside a station or a mech and the entire thing would be vaporized. Maybe a Thermobaric torpedo that drills into its target would work.

Oh, totally, yeah. Having a diverse selection of weapons would be a big design goal if I made this. I just want to get a feel for what the standard baseline weapons would look like before I start coming up with exotic stuff.

GungHo
2016-11-08, 02:35 PM
I feel you. Does ship-to-ship weapons include fighter-scale? Or just the big guns?
The engagement distances with spacecraft are likely going to be rather extreme, as are the relative velocities.

Unless you're dealing with guided missiles or projectiles that are near-relativistic (or a combination of both), you wouldn't have a chance in hell of hitting anything, even if they had "predictive targeting AI" or something. Heck, we were having to learn how to lead targets in WWI... the top speeds of even the fastest fighters was in the 120~140 mph range, and that wasn't exactly sustainable. The engagement distances were <100 meters, and that didn't increase a great deal for WW2, even if the air-speeds doubled or tripled.

You might still have to "lead" at extreme distances (like significant fractions of an AU) with a laser. It's not completely point-and-shoot unless you're within a couple of light seconds (from here to the Moon is 1.28 seconds). We'd need to figure out how you detect each other at that range, as I assume the ship won't be moon-sized. That may help moderate the distance considerations. Still, it won't be WWII-distance Star Wars stuff... or even Star Trek stuff, which were nearly goofy close.

Amaril
2016-11-08, 02:59 PM
The engagement distances with spacecraft are likely going to be rather extreme, as are the relative velocities.

Unless you're dealing with guided missiles or projectiles that are near-relativistic (or a combination of both), you wouldn't have a chance in hell of hitting anything, even if they had "predictive targeting AI" or something. Heck, we were having to learn how to lead targets in WWI... the top speeds of even the fastest fighters was in the 120~140 mph range, and that wasn't exactly sustainable. The engagement distances were <100 meters, and that didn't increase a great deal for WW2, even if the air-speeds doubled or tripled.

You might still have to "lead" at extreme distances (like significant fractions of an AU) with a laser. It's not completely point-and-shoot unless you're within a couple of light seconds (from here to the Moon is 1.28 seconds). We'd need to figure out how you detect each other at that range, as I assume the ship won't be moon-sized. That may help moderate the distance considerations. Still, it won't be WWII-distance Star Wars stuff... or even Star Trek stuff, which were nearly goofy close.

Yeah, I'm aware this would be the reality. Personally, I like my sci-fi at least soft enough to handwave this away, and have at least Star Trek space combat--I just can't get excited about long-range ship-to-ship sniping. Hence, the setting I'm working on has dogfights in space (you can check my earlier spoiler for the justification I'm using, which is admittedly still not realistic, but at least, I think, plausible).

GungHo
2016-11-08, 03:38 PM
Yeah, I'm aware this would be the reality. Personally, I like my sci-fi at least soft enough to handwave this away, and have at least Star Trek space combat--I just can't get excited about long-range ship-to-ship sniping. Hence, the setting I'm working on has dogfights in space (you can check my earlier spoiler for the justification I'm using, which is admittedly still not realistic, but at least, I think, plausible).

I understand where you're going.

I honestly like Macross Missile Massacre for capital ships with point defense and fighter deployment as the "shields". Think "new" BSG (in quotes because it's now 12 years old).

I also like asymmetric technology when it comes to fighting aliens. Mass drivers and missiles for humans, disruptors and gamma rays for green skins, and acid bombs for the fishcats who are actually pre-digesting you.

VoxRationis
2016-11-08, 03:52 PM
I also like asymmetric technology when it comes to fighting aliens. Mass drivers and missiles for humans, disruptors and gamma rays for green skins, and acid bombs for the fishcats who are actually pre-digesting you.

And that brings me to a point I've missed with technology, particularly plasma weapons. A mysterious and advanced "other" can make use of technologies that would be improbable for a POV character or culture. Indeed, having such technologies may make them more awe-inspiring, more wonderful (in the old sense of the word) in the eyes of the viewer. The Covenant from the first Halo were very good about this. Their technology had few to no moving parts, floated, and used principles seemingly beyond that of human ability. It operated on principles alien both to the player and to the POV characters, which helped make the Covenant appear alien, advanced, and dangerous. (The later games spoiled a lot of that mystery the first game did so well, but that's another matter.)

Amaril
2016-11-08, 04:11 PM
I understand where you're going.

I honestly like Macross Missile Massacre for capital ships with point defense and fighter deployment as the "shields". Think "new" BSG (in quotes because it's now 12 years old).

Yeah, the Macross/BSG style is my personal favorite, and what I'm using in this project. Unrealistic it may be, but for me, nothing can match the excitement of high-speed one-pilot space fighters taking on gigantic capital ships. It never fails to distract me from the lack of sound science behind it.


I also like asymmetric technology when it comes to fighting aliens. Mass drivers and missiles for humans, disruptors and gamma rays for green skins, and acid bombs for the fishcats who are actually pre-digesting you.

And that brings me to a point I've missed with technology, particularly plasma weapons. A mysterious and advanced "other" can make use of technologies that would be improbable for a POV character or culture. Indeed, having such technologies may make them more awe-inspiring, more wonderful (in the old sense of the word) in the eyes of the viewer. The Covenant from the first Halo were very good about this. Their technology had few to no moving parts, floated, and used principles seemingly beyond that of human ability. It operated on principles alien both to the player and to the POV characters, which helped make the Covenant appear alien, advanced, and dangerous. (The later games spoiled a lot of that mystery the first game did so well, but that's another matter.)

I'm a big fan of this too. The uncertainty that prompted me to start this thread came from the fact that the setting I'm working on doesn't have aliens*, or any kind of convenient other to stick the energy weapons on--it's all about human conflict. In something like Halo, where it's humans versus an alien threat, I'm all for giving the humans bullets and the aliens beams (or the humans beams and the aliens weird organic stuff, or whatever).

Well, alien tech would play a role in the game's story. Towards the end, it would be revealed that the miraculous invincible shields on the player's mecha were actually derived from stuff found in a crashed alien spacecraft the homeworld government discovered. The latter part of the story would focus on the rebellion gaining access to that wreckage, and using data from it to construct a planet-busting superweapon that would end the war. All that stuff is meant to be exceptional, though, and mostly just a backdrop to humans having high-minded philosophical debates about the nature of justice and the ethics of violence before using giant robots to kill each other.

Anonymouswizard
2016-11-08, 04:51 PM
Yeah, I'm aware this would be the reality. Personally, I like my sci-fi at least soft enough to handwave this away, and have at least Star Trek space combat--I just can't get excited about long-range ship-to-ship sniping. Hence, the setting I'm working on has dogfights in space (you can check my earlier spoiler for the justification I'm using, which is admittedly still not realistic, but at least, I think, plausible).

I just handwave it. 'For some reason mecha are awesome as battlefield weapons, therefore you all pilot mecha'. At the most I just handwave it by saying they have the best balance of speed and firing arcs with the setting's technology (what I'm actually using, mechs just move so fast that computers have trouble targeting them).


Yeah, the Macross/BSG style is my personal favorite, and what I'm using in this project. Unrealistic it may be, but for me, nothing can match the excitement of high-speed one-pilot space fighters taking on gigantic capital ships. It never fails to distract me from the lack of sound science behind it.

Realistic space fights are a very different feeling. I have another, harder science fiction setting where fights are relatively slow and 'boring', because it's a much more mental battle and having to track not only your speed but also your acceleration is fun.


I'm a big fan of this too. The uncertainty that prompted me to start this thread came from the fact that the setting I'm working on doesn't have aliens*, or any kind of convenient other to stick the energy weapons on--it's all about human conflict. In something like Halo, where it's humans versus an alien threat, I'm all for giving the humans bullets and the aliens beams (or the humans beams and the aliens weird organic stuff, or whatever).

Well, alien tech would play a role in the game's story. Towards the end, it would be revealed that the miraculous invincible shields on the player's mecha were actually derived from stuff found in a crashed alien spacecraft the homeworld government discovered. The latter part of the story would focus on the rebellion gaining access to that wreckage, and using data from it to construct a planet-busting superweapon that would end the war. All that stuff is meant to be exceptional, though, and mostly just a backdrop to humans having high-minded philosophical debates about the nature of justice and the ethics of violence before using giant robots to kill each other.

My favourite is Aldnoah.Zero, which has the same thing I'm using for mech abilities. Basically, one side has access to alien supertech only the possess the keys for, but have only learnt to use it in specific ways (it's a bit more complex in Aldnoah.Zero than in my setting because my Titanians don't have the feudal structure Vers has in Aldnoah.Zero).

CharonsHelper
2016-11-08, 04:56 PM
In a future fantasy type sci-fi, I'd like the idea that people use both.

Energy weapons have more pure oomph, but if a target has shields they can negate energy weapons with relative ease, so people use projectile weapons against those. However, shields are extremely expensive both to manufacture and to power for extended periods, so energy weapons are better against everything without shielding.

In addition, you could build the world so a mix is awesome.

Ex: Shoot the ship with projectiles to take down their shields and then rip them apart with energy weapons.

Amaril
2016-11-08, 05:17 PM
I just handwave it. 'For some reason mecha are awesome as battlefield weapons, therefore you all pilot mecha'. At the most I just handwave it by saying they have the best balance of speed and firing arcs with the setting's technology (what I'm actually using, mechs just move so fast that computers have trouble targeting them).

Personally, I like the challenge of coming up with a practical explanation that at least sounds like it could be true, and I feel the extra effort it reflects strengthens the project. But fair enough, and there's definitely an appeal to just saying "f*** it, rule of cool".

I think the reason mecha are so awesome as weapons is because they evoke humanity on an epic scale. When you climb into a mecha, far more so than any other kind of vehicle, there's a very clear sense that you're becoming something greater. You're still you, but more, able to do the impossible, see the invisible, row row, fight the powah :smallcool: Super robot may embrace this more fully, but all the good real robot stuff still echoes it. That's what I love about it. It's why I hate the idea of mecha being nothing but disposable pieces of equipment, even in real robot settings. I think a mecha should be an extension of its pilot's being, tuned to their unique skills and reflective of their personal style. If a pilot loses their mecha, it should be a big deal, and getting a new one should be a serious step in their character arc. And pilots switching mecha, or using each other's? No way, unless it's a special case supported by the story and, in the latter case, their particular relationship.


Realistic space fights are a very different feeling. I have another, harder science fiction setting where fights are relatively slow and 'boring', because it's a much more mental battle and having to track not only your speed but also your acceleration is fun.

I've heard it likened to submarine warfare--less exciting, and more tense, with firing a single shot, and then waiting in anxious suspense to find out if it connected, and if your enemy hit you back. That definitely sounds like a thing, it's just not my thing (although that may just be me not having seen it done well yet).


My favourite is Aldnoah.Zero, which has the same thing I'm using for mech abilities. Basically, one side has access to alien supertech only the possess the keys for, but have only learnt to use it in specific ways (it's a bit more complex in Aldnoah.Zero than in my setting because my Titanians don't have the feudal structure Vers has in Aldnoah.Zero).

I watched the first couple episodes of Aldnoah.Zero, and liked it, but stopped after I saw several accounts saying it got really stupid later on. Awesome music, though--I still listen to it.

You should tell me about your setting. It sounds interesting!


In a future fantasy type sci-fi, I'd like the idea that people use both.

Energy weapons have more pure oomph, but if a target has shields they can negate energy weapons with relative ease, so people use projectile weapons against those. However, shields are extremely expensive both to manufacture and to power for extended periods, so energy weapons are better against everything without shielding.

In addition, you could build the world so a mix is awesome.

Ex: Shoot the ship with projectiles to take down their shields and then rip them apart with energy weapons.

Star Trek does something like this, right? Phasers to break shields, followed by photon torpedoes to break the hull? That's definitely a way, giving both kinds of weaponry a role in every conflict at different moments. My setting does a similar thing with ranged and melee weapons, so that dichotomy does exist.

Oroul
2016-11-08, 05:40 PM
Think of any spacefaring setting with military stuff going on, from Star Wars to Warhammer 40k to Mass Effect. Every one's technology will have a preference for energy-based weapons (lasers, plasma, and so on), projectile and physical weapons (bullets and metal blades), or some mix of the two.

Leaving aside the pure aesthetics of what looks cooler and fits the tone better, from an in-setting practical perspective, what are some potential advantages and disadvantages of each? What might lead a futuristic society to favor one over the other? Bear in mind, this isn't based on real science, but rather the kind of scientific-sounding explanations fiction uses for fantastical technologies to make them sound plausible, if not exactly realistic.

Star Ruler 2 has an interesting approach:

> Energy Weapons (lasers in this case) consume very little "ammunition", are extremely precise, but have trouble piercing armor and have no recoil (both on the target and user).
> Projectile Weapons' (Gauss in this case) ammunition takes much more room, are imprecise, takes a longer time to reach their target but have much more impact.
> Missile weapons takes the most room, have a very slow rate of fire, but each munition can cripple an enemy ship. They are also a bit more precise than projectile weapons due to guidance.

Sooo... assuming Dream Pod 9's rules...

Energy Weapons gets a bonus on accuracy, have to deal with overheating instead of ammo, lose the ability to use ballistic to hit behind cover, and have slightly less power. They do not cause the target to fall over. Projectiles work with regular rules.

Strigon
2016-11-08, 05:50 PM
Energy weapons are likely less ammunition-intensive, and also less likely to cause collateral damage via ricochets or overpenetration. They're also less "messy"; they certainly aren't pretty, but they wouldn't shred your insides and break apart like bullets tend to. For this reason, it's not entirely outside the realm of possibility that projectile weapons - at least in an anti-infantry role - might be banned. You could certainly have them be legal; this isn't something that would necessarily happen, but it's possible.

Conventional weapons would likely be more efficient, however. They cause more bleeding, and have less trouble with armour, especially ablative armour. They'd probably be more rugged and durable, as lasers are very precise devices, and even the best batteries lose charge over time. Of course, you'd also have to lead your target and allow for gravity and wind interference.

CharonsHelper
2016-11-08, 06:12 PM
Star Trek does something like this, right? Phasers to break shields, followed by photon torpedoes to break the hull? That's definitely a way, giving both kinds of weaponry a role in every conflict at different moments. My setting does a similar thing with ranged and melee weapons, so that dichotomy does exist.

Lol - maybe? I don't think that Star Trek worried much about being consistent about such things. Star Trek was really at its best when it was exploring weird social/political ideas through the filter of sci-fi 'otherness'. The tech pretty much worked however that particular episode's plot needed it to.

Anonymouswizard
2016-11-08, 06:19 PM
Personally, I like the challenge of coming up with a practical explanation that at least sounds like it could be true, and I feel the extra effort it reflects strengthens the project. But fair enough, and there's definitely an appeal to just saying "f*** it, rule of cool".

I unfortunately have enough of a science background to immediately see that any explanation is probably untrue, especially the long ranged targeting one (most other forms of vehicles are just better in this instance). I've given up trying to justify it beyond 'mechs are fast, accurate, and cool'.


I think the reason mecha are so awesome as weapons is because they evoke humanity on an epic scale. When you climb into a mecha, far more so than any other kind of vehicle, there's a very clear sense that you're becoming something greater. You're still you, but more, able to do the impossible, see the invisible, row row, fight the powah :smallcool: Super robot may embrace this more fully, but all the good real robot stuff still echoes it. That's what I love about it. It's why I hate the idea of mecha being nothing but disposable pieces of equipment, even in real robot settings. I think a mecha should be an extension of its pilot's being, tuned to their unique skills and reflective of their personal style. If a pilot loses their mecha, it should be a big deal, and getting a new one should be a serious step in their character arc. And pilots switching mecha, or using each other's? No way, unless it's a special case supported by the story and, in the latter case, their particular relationship.

You see, I prefer it when mecha are at least semi-disposable. Or at the very least I like there to be mook mecha that are. It makes the mecha feel more like a real thing to me.

Now, I'm not beyond having a pilot use a mecha for so long that it becomes hard for others to use (either because they are just used to the quirks it developed in-use or because the controls are optimised for them), but I think that, if it isn't a super robot you should be able to get a new production model with only a short amount of downtime. It's a probably because, while I think mecha are awesome, to me the pilot should be the special one, not the machine.


I watched the first couple episodes of Aldnoah.Zero, and liked it, but stopped after I saw several accounts saying it got really stupid later on. Awesome music, though--I still listen to it.

Aldnoah.Zero is interesting. The first series is awesome, and has a brilliant conclusion. I love how the Earth mechs are interchangeable (literally, there are several cases where a mech gets trashed but the pilot has a new one in an episode or two), while the Mars mechs are all unique and hard to replace (only one is ever replaced in the entire run). There's also nothing beyond societal reasons stopping Vers Knights from switching mechs, although it's easy to see how they might get good enough at a certain ability that there'd be no point to.

The second series is not quite as good. It's focus isn't as tight for the Earth characters (although I suspect that's because season 1 is Inaho's story and season 2 is Slaine's), the plot doesn't quite flow as well, and the ending is far worse (I like it, but think the originally planned ending would have worked out better).


You should tell me about your setting. It sounds interesting!

I'll see what I can dig up, I haven't written down a lot seeing as I'm still working on the society, but below is the basic premise.

There are two important sides in this conflict:
-Earth/the inner sphere, who seek to have the entire system under their control.
-The Titanian Alliance, a group of colonies in the outer solar system who wish to retain independence.

As far as the actual setting is concerned the only players worth anything are Earth and Titan, because they are the only ones in a position to build mecha or move forces about.

I'm going to focus on Titan, because they are what I've been concentrating on, but they are a semi-transhumanist group who left Earth to pursue the progress they wanted without bothering those back on Earth. They have DNIs that allow them to directly link up with technology (including their mechs), and a variety of biological and cybernetic tweaks are common. They are intended to be the 'better' side of the conflict. Their society is loosely English with some quirks.

Titanian mechs come in two types, the basic ones are lightly armed and armoured and designed to be manufactured quickly, so that loses can be replaced. However, those that survive tend to get modified by their users to better reflect their preferences. Then there are Specials, that Titanian PCs pilot, which start as slightly better basic models and then have some modifications attaches (better boosters or armour are very common), plus a 'special power' designed for the pilot.

Earth is more like the current world, and uses mechs with no special powers, right down to things like DNIs and augmentations being rather rare. They have a variety of standard mechs to fill various roles, but no true Specials.

Rules-wise, it's based off d6 Space. Pilots work as normal, and then mechs are built with a modified set of vehicle rules where the chassis gives a certain amount of space, and then players fill it with weapons systems to their liking.

There's some other stuff, like rough uniform designs, but that's my basic outline.

CharonsHelper
2016-11-08, 06:47 PM
The engagement distances with spacecraft are likely going to be rather extreme, as are the relative velocities.

Unless you're dealing with guided missiles or projectiles that are near-relativistic (or a combination of both), you wouldn't have a chance in hell of hitting anything, even if they had "predictive targeting AI" or something. Heck, we were having to learn how to lead targets in WWI... the top speeds of even the fastest fighters was in the 120~140 mph range, and that wasn't exactly sustainable. The engagement distances were <100 meters, and that didn't increase a great deal for WW2, even if the air-speeds doubled or tripled.

You might still have to "lead" at extreme distances (like significant fractions of an AU) with a laser. It's not completely point-and-shoot unless you're within a couple of light seconds (from here to the Moon is 1.28 seconds). We'd need to figure out how you detect each other at that range, as I assume the ship won't be moon-sized. That may help moderate the distance considerations. Still, it won't be WWII-distance Star Wars stuff... or even Star Trek stuff, which were nearly goofy close.

It all depends upon the accuracy/speed/range/power of weapons vs the speed/maneuverability/durability(including shields) of ships.

Mass Effect's fluff actually talked about this quite a bit in the fluff. The ship ranges were basically how far away ships could dodge the massive projectile weapons of the big ships. Bigger = longer ranged. Fighters would get pummeled by a couple shots coming in, but you would attack with swarms of them. Lasers had near perfect accuracy at the start of battles, but they were short ranged point-defense, and as they heated up they lost power/accuracy, allowing fighters/bombers to hit ships with hugely powerful but short-ranged torpedoes at basically point-blank range.

In the fluff, one reason humans gave the turians a rough time at first contact was because they had way more fighters, and they were willing to use them offensively despite pretty heavy losses coming in. (Basically humans invented the space carrier in Mass Effect while everyone else just had a few squadrons on their battleships.)


So basically - you can realistically justify just about any range combat you want - just be consistent. If anyone here has read the Vorkosigan Saga - they even talk about how in the main character's grandfather's time battles were fought when they couldn't even see other ships when shooting them with lasers, but shielding tech made lasers basically useless and made them have to close to plasma range in his father's time, and now the new thing which mostly ignored shielding were gravitic imploder lances which only had a range of a few km (in a world where ships are going at a decent fraction of the speed of light even out of warp - though it's not too specific.).

VoxRationis
2016-11-08, 07:53 PM
Lol - maybe? I don't think that Star Trek worried much about being consistent about such things. Star Trek was really at its best when it was exploring weird social/political ideas through the filter of sci-fi 'otherness'. The tech pretty much worked however that particular episode's plot needed it to.

One of my favorite Next Generation episodes actually mentioned that Federation ships have two sorts of shielding: a combat shield and a low-power environmental shield meant to protect them against radiation and micrometeors. It came up because the aliens of the week were technically behind the Federation to the point that their weapons couldn't even pierce the environmental shield. The Enterprise had near-complete power over the situation and the conflict of the episode was in the most just way to resolve a local dispute—a nice reversal of the constant invincible energy beings that plagued TOS (as well as a fair share of NG episodes).

Telok
2016-11-08, 08:05 PM
Back in the sixties someone, General Electric I believe, built a mech for servicing nuclear powered strategic bombers. The bomber bit fell through and it was scrapped though.
Go to the Project Rho website mentioned above, go to the Radiation section, scroll down to the end.

Amaril
2016-11-08, 08:28 PM
Energy weapons are likely less ammunition-intensive, and also less likely to cause collateral damage via ricochets or overpenetration. They're also less "messy"; they certainly aren't pretty, but they wouldn't shred your insides and break apart like bullets tend to. For this reason, it's not entirely outside the realm of possibility that projectile weapons - at least in an anti-infantry role - might be banned. You could certainly have them be legal; this isn't something that would necessarily happen, but it's possible.

Conventional weapons would likely be more efficient, however. They cause more bleeding, and have less trouble with armour, especially ablative armour. They'd probably be more rugged and durable, as lasers are very precise devices, and even the best batteries lose charge over time. Of course, you'd also have to lead your target and allow for gravity and wind interference.

Here's a question about laser weapons in sci-fi. Which is more plausible/your favorite: lasers that slice through solid matter, or lasers that cook people? Personally, I just find the latter to be kind of lame, lacking in oomph, but I imagine it's more plausible.


I unfortunately have enough of a science background to immediately see that any explanation is probably untrue, especially the long ranged targeting one (most other forms of vehicles are just better in this instance). I've given up trying to justify it beyond 'mechs are fast, accurate, and cool'.

Ah, yeah, I can see how having a real science background would make it hard to swallow. Fair enough.

This is why science ruins everything :smalltongue:


You see, I prefer it when mecha are at least semi-disposable. Or at the very least I like there to be mook mecha that are. It makes the mecha feel more like a real thing to me.

Now, I'm not beyond having a pilot use a mecha for so long that it becomes hard for others to use (either because they are just used to the quirks it developed in-use or because the controls are optimised for them), but I think that, if it isn't a super robot you should be able to get a new production model with only a short amount of downtime. It's a probably because, while I think mecha are awesome, to me the pilot should be the special one, not the machine.

I see what you mean about mook mecha being disposable. I guess I just don't think about them the same way, because their pilots aren't really characters--there's nothing special or unique about them for their mecha to reflect, and they're completely replaceable, so their mecha are as well (which is a really problematic thought process, I know, but often a convenient one). I'm also definitely in favor of ace customs over super prototypes as the standard for main characters, or at least when a super prototype does show up, it shouldn't be that much more powerful on its own than whatever came before it. A significant upgrade, sure, but not an unstoppable force that can take on an entire army by itself, as they're sometimes shown to be (*cough*ZoneoftheEnders*cough*). That's a big thing I'd want to bring across in my game. As the main character, you get the advanced mecha so normal combat gameplay isn't an insurmountable challenge, and to justify you being able to hold your own with no prior combat training. However, the boss fights are all against experienced pilots in customized versions of standard machines, and they're at least on equal footing with you, because while you might have the edge in technology, their greater experience and familiarity with their particular equipment easily closes the gap. The first such battle is an impossible supposed-to-lose fight, and you're only able to win the next one because it's against the weakest member of the enemy team, after you've had a lot more practice. Point being, the pilot is the one who's special, not the mecha--it's not about having the best machine, but the greatest mastery of the one you've got, and customization helps with that.


Aldnoah.Zero is interesting. The first series is awesome, and has a brilliant conclusion. I love how the Earth mechs are interchangeable (literally, there are several cases where a mech gets trashed but the pilot has a new one in an episode or two), while the Mars mechs are all unique and hard to replace (only one is ever replaced in the entire run). There's also nothing beyond societal reasons stopping Vers Knights from switching mechs, although it's easy to see how they might get good enough at a certain ability that there'd be no point to.

The second series is not quite as good. It's focus isn't as tight for the Earth characters (although I suspect that's because season 1 is Inaho's story and season 2 is Slaine's), the plot doesn't quite flow as well, and the ending is far worse (I like it, but think the originally planned ending would have worked out better).

That does sound interesting. Maybe I'll check it out again. I don't have the most discriminating taste, so as long as it's not terrible, I'll probably like it just fine.


I'll see what I can dig up, I haven't written down a lot seeing as I'm still working on the society, but below is the basic premise.

There are two important sides in this conflict:
-Earth/the inner sphere, who seek to have the entire system under their control.
-The Titanian Alliance, a group of colonies in the outer solar system who wish to retain independence.

As far as the actual setting is concerned the only players worth anything are Earth and Titan, because they are the only ones in a position to build mecha or move forces about.

I'm going to focus on Titan, because they are what I've been concentrating on, but they are a semi-transhumanist group who left Earth to pursue the progress they wanted without bothering those back on Earth. They have DNIs that allow them to directly link up with technology (including their mechs), and a variety of biological and cybernetic tweaks are common. They are intended to be the 'better' side of the conflict. Their society is loosely English with some quirks.

Titanian mechs come in two types, the basic ones are lightly armed and armoured and designed to be manufactured quickly, so that loses can be replaced. However, those that survive tend to get modified by their users to better reflect their preferences. Then there are Specials, that Titanian PCs pilot, which start as slightly better basic models and then have some modifications attaches (better boosters or armour are very common), plus a 'special power' designed for the pilot.

Earth is more like the current world, and uses mechs with no special powers, right down to things like DNIs and augmentations being rather rare. They have a variety of standard mechs to fill various roles, but no true Specials.

Rules-wise, it's based off d6 Space. Pilots work as normal, and then mechs are built with a modified set of vehicle rules where the chassis gives a certain amount of space, and then players fill it with weapons systems to their liking.

There's some other stuff, like rough uniform designs, but that's my basic outline.

Sounds cool! And a lot of similarities with mine (funny how that happens with real robot stuff).

For nearly two thousand years, humanity's home has been the planet Zion, orbiting the star Andra. Mythology has it that they came there from a lost paradise called Earth, but no one knows for sure.

In year 1573 of the Esselian Calendar, the first interstellar colony ships departed Zion. The impossibility of true FTL travel led to the development of orbital wormhole gates known as bridges, which allowed travel between planets in a matter of hours, and star systems in days or weeks. The first colonists left Zion in cryogenic suspension aboard seed ships, towing bridges with them. Their successes led to a boom of expansion, and nearly a third of humanity currently lives in outposts across eight systems beyond Andra, with more seed ships on their long way out. In all these, only one other life-supportive planet has been discovered; most colony settlements are space stations or arcologies, the inhabitants working in mining, manufacturing, and the slow process of terraforming.

It was the expansion of mining in the colonies that led to the discovery of jovium. This rare mineral, found mostly in certain asteroids, proved an incredibly efficient source of fusion energy. Mining it, though, presented a problem: it was highly reactive, and life expectencies among workers sent to gather it proved distressingly short. To solve this, mining companies developed the Neuro-synaptic Anthropomorphic Vehicle, or NAV. These thirty-foot-tall humanoid space vehicles, controlled via DNI implants in a process termed synapsis, offered jovium miners greatly improved protection without sacrificing the precision, flexibility, and reflexes their work required. The very energy efficiency that made jovium so valuable made this development possible, allowing the huge power requirements of NAVs to be filled entirely by small back-mounted reactors. Meanwhile, the challenge of making a machine react to human neural impulses with such speed and near-perfect precision was met by the Animus, a form of AI construct that interfaced between pilot and NAV. While not fully intelligent, NAV pilots often liken them to animals, and describe the process of controlling a NAV as more like riding a living creature than piloting a vehicle--hence their colloquial name, riders.

Predictably, the discovery of jovium led to a long series of bloody wars fought over its supply, fought both on Zion and in the colonies. Spanning nearly twelve years, the Jovium Wars saw a revolution in space combat tactics. One of the byproducts of jovium fusion was a unique form of radiation termed Kitase waves, which interfered with the long-range weapon targeting systems previously favored by space battleships. For the first time in history, short-range space fighters, once thought the realm of science fiction, saw actual use in combat. This, in turn, led to the rise of the first military NAVs, as it was discovered that being able to turn in space without using fuel and aim weapons independently of the direction of their movement gave them an advantage over conventional space fighters. Further development also revealed that their ability to move both in space and on the ground could be used to great effect, as the same force of NAVs could be used both to board colony space stations and to capture them. By the wars' end, NAVs had come to dominate the battlefields of the inhabited sector, and been responsible for the loss of thousands of lives.

The Jovium Wars made it clear to the governments of Zion that greater cooperation was needed to make the most of their colonial endeavors. To that end, they founded the Union of Colonial Nations, an international security and trade organization that would manage virtually all income from the colonies from then on, as well as overseeing the Union Expeditionary Space Corps, a colonial peacekeeping force of units from all the Union's member nations. Over thirty-six years of Union administration, the world economy flourished, sparking a second colonization boom that brought the population beyond Andra to its current numbers. However, many of the younger colonies chafed at the Union's heavy-handed trade regulations. Union mandate prohibited the building of bridges directly between colony systems, requiring all goods traveling from one to another to first pass through Andra, and be subject to heavy tariffs. With their burgeoning populations and lack of political clout compared to the older, more established colonies, the outer systems began to feel that the Union was stifling their growth and depriving them of the chance to advance their local interests. These tensions rose swiftly, and culminated in a series of rapid, violent insurrections where all but the two oldest colony systems overthrew their governments, drove out the UESC, and declared independence, banding together for mutual protection as the Coalition of Independent Exandric Systems. The insurrections would come to be named the Red Star Rebellions, after the red sun of the Fenrir system where they began, and the Coalition happily took the red star as its emblem.

Now firmly in control of its territory, the Coalition took a bold course: they shut off the bridges connecting their systems to the homeworld, halting most of Zion's income of colonial materiel, and demanded that they be granted independent administration. By far the most dire effect this had was sending Zion into a crippling jovium shortage, as jovium didn't exist in the Andra system, and supplies of it in the loyalist colonies were badly depleted and running out fast. The Coalition expected the Union to capitulate quickly, but the Union held out, knowing that for all their dependence on jovium, the colonies were even more dependent on imported food and medicines. What followed was a four-year stalemate as each side sought to outlast the other. Zion faced widespread civil unrest as its economy went into a nosedive, while the Coalition systems grappled with famine and disease. Worse for the Coalition's leaders, the will of their own people swiftly turned against them, as most colonial citizens had been against violent revolution in the first place, and were now faced with a new government that, by all appearances, had nothing like their best interests at heart.

It is now 1722 EC. The deadlock between Union and Coalition shows no sign of breaking peacefully. Pushed to the limit, the Coalition prepares to take drastic action. Over the past two years, rebel sympathizers in the loyalist systems of Syrinx and Asgard have been hard at work building secret, hidden bridges to the outer systems--not full-size, but big enough for mid-class battleships. Believing the loyalist systems to be unreachable without first passing through Andra, the Union has left them nearly undefended. Now, a fleet of some of the Coalition's finest prepares for a sneak attack on the outermost sector of the Asgard system, in the rings of the gas giant Asgard V, hoping to capture it and hold its population hostage until the Union complies with their demands...

Strigon
2016-11-08, 08:44 PM
Here's a question about laser weapons in sci-fi. Which is more plausible/your favorite: lasers that slice through solid matter, or lasers that cook people? Personally, I just find the latter to be kind of lame, lacking in oomph, but I imagine it's more plausible.

Personally, I like a good mix. Hand weapons, in my eyes, should be of the cooking variety. I'm not much of a stickler for hard science - when I spot a discrepancy, I make a note of it, chuckle to myself, and enjoy the movie - but I do prefer that small weapons be kept in their place. The human body, as I understand it, chars when exposed to extreme heat, somewhat protecting it from a laser burning all the way through.

Heavy weapons - those mounted on vehicles, turrets, or even if they're shoulder-mounted - can and should be of the slicing variety. Unless, of course, you're going for a more gritty feel, but in that case they should throw off light like a gigantic arc welder; looking at a laser hitting armour should be like looking at the sun. I know, it's hard to do because you don't want to white out the whole screen as that's bad for both movies and games, but it deals with the "oomph" factor quite nicely. In all other cases, heavy lasers should neatly bisect anything they come in contact with. Because it looks awesome.

But that's just my opinion. The debate between hard and soft sci-fi is a contentious one, and everyone has their preference.

5ColouredWalker
2016-11-08, 09:19 PM
A mix:

Lasers for small stuff/'Long' fighting range. Kinda hard to dodge a laser, and you don't have to worry about ammo.
Kinetics for Bombardment/Ultra Long Range and 'Short' fighting Range. You can do lots of fancy s*** with kinetics that you can't do with Lasers, and if you hit their shields hard enough you might break the shield generator from it's moorings in the ship, which makes things interesting, assuming shields exist and make sense.
Ignore Plasma. It doesn't work without lots of Plebtobium, and you could apply it to lasers instead to give them extra range.

CharonsHelper
2016-11-08, 09:31 PM
Lasers for small stuff/'Long' fighting range. Kinda hard to dodge a laser, and you don't have to worry about ammo.

Actually - you have to start thinking about lightspeed lag if the ships are fast enough.

If ships are going 1/10 the speed of light, at 10 seconds distant not only do they have a full second to dodge your incoming shot, but they are a full second of maneuvering different from where you think they are when you fire in the first place. Now - they aren't actively dodging your individual shots, but neither are modern jets dodging incoming flak - but that doesn't mean that it's a good idea for them to go only in straight lines.

5ColouredWalker
2016-11-08, 09:38 PM
That is true. However Lasers move at light speed, and barring Plebtomium, you're not detecting laser fire as anything other than 'It just missed us' or 'We've just been hit', which makes them good 'ambush' weapons as well.


And if you can scan at FTL speeds, you can probably also focus your scanner to make some variety of FTL laser.

Strigon
2016-11-08, 09:43 PM
If ships are going 1/10 the speed of light, at 10 seconds distant not only do they have a full second to dodge your incoming shot, but they are a full second of maneuvering different from where you think they are when you fire in the first place. Now - they aren't actively dodging your individual shots, but neither are modern jets dodging incoming flak - but that doesn't mean that it's a good idea for them to go only in straight lines.

But when a jet turns, its velocity changes direction as soon as it moves. With a spacecraft, it has to turn into position, and only then can it begin to change course. This, of course, ignores any lateral thrusters, but placing enough of them to give appreciable acceleration for dodging in any direction would be prohibitively expensive and heavy. And even when it does "turn", it doesn't begin moving 90 degrees to its original heading like a jet, it only changes by a few degrees.

When a jet's flying, it can suddenly be moving just as fast, but in the opposite direction, with only a few seconds notice. A spacecraft could never achieve that level of mobility. Sure, hitting things a light-second away from you is very hard, but it's nothing like hitting a jet.

CharonsHelper
2016-11-08, 10:03 PM
But when a jet turns, its velocity changes direction as soon as it moves. With a spacecraft, it has to turn into position, and only then can it begin to change course. This, of course, ignores any lateral thrusters, but placing enough of them to give appreciable acceleration for dodging in any direction would be prohibitively expensive and heavy. And even when it does "turn", it doesn't begin moving 90 degrees to its original heading like a jet, it only changes by a few degrees.

When a jet's flying, it can suddenly be moving just as fast, but in the opposite direction, with only a few seconds notice. A spacecraft could never achieve that level of mobility. Sure, hitting things a light-second away from you is very hard, but it's nothing like hitting a jet.

True - but even a large spaceship is much smaller relative to the distances involved than a jet is, and a laser blast is narrow, so they don't have to change direction much to dodge a laser blast entirely. And I do expect that military ships would have significant lateral thrusting capabilities if dodging were at all viable. (They go into some detail in the Longknife series where they do just this. Also of note - in that series the battleships don't dodge much, instead they have thick ice armor which absorbs and diffuses laser blasts, melting away over the course of a battle - and the ship itself rotates on an axis so that it is more difficult to focus fire and punch through the ice. An interesting idea in a world without energy shielding.)

Tanarii
2016-11-08, 10:19 PM
Here's a question about laser weapons in sci-fi. Which is more plausible/your favorite: lasers that slice through solid matter, or lasers that cook people? Personally, I just find the latter to be kind of lame, lacking in oomph, but I imagine it's more plausible.from what little I understand of weaponized lasers (and despite having studied physics it's actually not much) they generally work most efficiently by energy to kinetic energy transfer. In other words, they don't slice so much as punch or explode. When they burn that's the least efficient way of transferring energy to the target.

And now I'm off to Wikipedia to see how wrong my understanding might be. :smallbiggrin:

Telok
2016-11-08, 10:21 PM
Um, a note on lasers. Light, as a science term because science is where the acronym laser is from, is the radiation of the whole electromagnetic spectrum. Visible light lasers are lousy for energy transfer, microwave lasers are interesting, and X-ray/gamma ray lasers require lots of mass to stop them.

Amaril
2016-11-08, 10:25 PM
Um, a note on lasers. Light, as a science term because science is where the acronym laser is from, is the radiation of the whole electromagnetic spectrum. Visible light lasers are lousy for energy transfer, microwave lasers are interesting, and X-ray/gamma ray lasers require lots of mass to stop them.

Yeah, but you pretty much have to handwave them being visible for fiction in any visual medium, since otherwise an audience would have no idea where anyone was shooting. One solution I've considered is to have HUDs in vehicles or power armor project a simulated visual of lasers that are actually invisible, so the user can track them. Similar to something I've heard Star Wars does, with ship computers simulating sound for pilots even though there is none in space, to help their situational awareness (a thing I'm stealing for my giant robots, because a video game with actually silent space combat would be weird).

CharonsHelper
2016-11-08, 10:49 PM
Similar to something I've heard Star Wars does, with ship computers simulating sound for pilots even though there is none in space, to help their situational awareness (a thing I'm stealing for my giant robots, because a video game with actually silent space combat would be weird).

See - now I'm picturing the pilots in the opposing sides just sharing a radio channel and saying "Pew pew!" "Kapow!" at each-other as they fire.

comk59
2016-11-09, 12:21 AM
Here's a question about laser weapons in sci-fi. Which is more plausible/your favorite: lasers that slice through solid matter, or lasers that cook people? Personally, I just find the latter to be kind of lame, lacking in oomph, but I imagine it's more plausible.

Actually, a real life laser blast would be extremely bloody, due to how lasers would do damage to a soft, squishy target.

Mastikator
2016-11-09, 02:23 AM
Actually, a real life laser blast would be extremely bloody, due to how lasers would do damage to a soft, squishy target.

It would also blind everyone. Including the person operating the laser weapon. Closing your eyes wouldn't be enough shielding to prevent you from going blind. You'd need a thick piece of steel plate in front of your face to not go blind. And the laser weapon would almost certainly catch fire.

On the flip side a rail gun could punch a hole through very thick armor go through the entire space ship and come out the other side. And as anyone who has played Kerbal Space Program will tell you: don't put armor on space ships. They're too heavy when you don't need them and not good enough when you do. It's better to shoot first and then evade.

CharonsHelper
2016-11-09, 09:00 AM
It would also blind everyone. Including the person operating the laser weapon. Closing your eyes wouldn't be enough shielding to prevent you from going blind. You'd need a thick piece of steel plate in front of your face to not go blind. And the laser weapon would almost certainly catch fire.

I don't think that either of those things have happened with any of the military test into laser weaponry/defenses.

For one thing - on blinding you're assuming that the laser is in the visible spectrum.

Strigon
2016-11-09, 09:59 AM
True - but even a large spaceship is much smaller relative to the distances involved than a jet is, and a laser blast is narrow, so they don't have to change direction much to dodge a laser blast entirely. And I do expect that military ships would have significant lateral thrusting capabilities if dodging were at all viable. (They go into some detail in the Longknife series where they do just this. Also of note - in that series the battleships don't dodge much, instead they have thick ice armor which absorbs and diffuses laser blasts, melting away over the course of a battle - and the ship itself rotates on an axis so that it is more difficult to focus fire and punch through the ice. An interesting idea in a world without energy shielding.)

The distances are much larger, but lasers are also much faster than bullets.
Leading a spaceship by 1 second is easier than leading a jet by 1 second. Jets are smaller and more maneuverable.

Let's assume that an average spaceship has to move 10 metres to dodge a laser. Let's also assume the aforementioned 1 second delay. It would need to accelerate at 20 m/s2, or roughly 2G in order to evade. A jet can easily pull this through aerodynamics. Having thrusters capable of moving even a "small" ship like that in any direction would add a lot to the mass. Which means they have to be even bigger. Which means even more fuel. Which means a larger ship for the same armament.
Maybe a "fighter" could pull this off, but anything bigger would be very difficult without some serious physics-bending. Which is to be expected, to some extent, with sci-fi, but if you're willing to give magic thrusters, you also have to be willing to accept predictive targeting software, or scattered/diffused lasers, or other such nonsense.

The ice armour is intriguing, though. It, too, would be massively heavy, but if you only need thrust along one axis and you don't need to accelerate in a hurry, there's no reason why it can't happen. Provided, of course, you don't literally get too close to the sun.

Actually, wait; isn't heat venting a major problem for spacecraft? How do they keep the hull cool enough to support ice, while also keeping life support running?

Amaril
2016-11-09, 10:20 AM
Maybe a "fighter" could pull this off, but anything bigger would be very difficult without some serious physics-bending. Which is to be expected, to some extent, with sci-fi, but if you're willing to give magic thrusters, you also have to be willing to accept predictive targeting software, or scattered/diffused lasers, or other such nonsense.

I have to disagree on this point. Just because you include one particular unrealistic thing doesn't mean you have to have every unrealistic thing imaginable. Not all kinds of technology have to be equally developed in a sci-fi setting; there's plenty of real history that proves the contrary. It might not be logical to have some fields be more advanced than others, but human behavior is hardly logical.

I know you don't mean to go this far, but the argument seems reflective of a common view of sci-fi that bothers me: the notion that you have to either adhere perfectly to real science, or ignore it completely in all respects. This, of course, missing the fact that all fiction ignores science to some extent (if it didn't, it wouldn't be fiction, it would be reality), while even the softest sci-fi still operates on a set of internally consistent rules. Every work falls somewhere in between the two extremes, it's just a matter of deciding where you want that point to be. It's the same as the Dragons Are Unrealistic Problem; saying you have to have it all one way or all the other is absolutist thinking, and only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Strigon
2016-11-09, 10:51 AM
I have to disagree on this point. Just because you include one particular unrealistic thing doesn't mean you have to have every unrealistic thing imaginable. Not all kinds of technology have to be equally developed in a sci-fi setting; there's plenty of real history that proves the contrary. It might not be logical to have some fields be more advanced than others, but human behavior is hardly logical.

I know you don't mean to go this far, but the argument seems reflective of a common view of sci-fi that bothers me: the notion that you have to either adhere perfectly to real science, or ignore it completely in all respects. This, of course, missing the fact that all fiction ignores science to some extent (if it didn't, it wouldn't be fiction, it would be reality), while even the softest sci-fi still operates on a set of internally consistent rules. Every work falls somewhere in between the two extremes, it's just a matter of deciding where you want that point to be. It's the same as the Dragons Are Unrealistic Problem; saying you have to have it all one way or all the other is absolutist thinking, and only a Sith deals in absolutes.

My point was, we're talking about no sci-fi in particular. What is and isn't allowed has not been determined, so him claiming that some new type of thruster would solve the problem I detailed is just as valid as a claim that new targeting softwares or lasers would solve the dodging problem.
You could have a world that has one and not the other, but we're talking - as I understand it - about the general case. A laser trying to hit a spaceship. In order to dodge, the spaceship needs magic thrusters. If the spaceship has magic thrusters, the laser needs magic targeting to hit. Neither of these is necessarily more plausible than the other, so the general case that the spaceship should be able to dodge the laser cannot be said to be true.

CharonsHelper
2016-11-09, 10:56 AM
Let's assume that an average spaceship has to move 10 metres to dodge a laser. Let's also assume the aforementioned 1 second delay. It would need to accelerate at 20 m/s2, or roughly 2G in order to evade. A jet can easily pull this through aerodynamics. Having thrusters capable of moving even a "small" ship like that in any direction would add a lot to the mass. Which means they have to be even bigger. Which means even more fuel. Which means a larger ship for the same armament.
Maybe a "fighter" could pull this off, but anything bigger would be very difficult without some serious physics-bending.

1. In my example above there was both a 1 second delay in targeting (since sensors would also be limited to lightspeed) & a 1 second delay from firing to target allowing them to dodge. So 2 seconds overall - meaning that they'd only need to be in a evasion pattern at about 1G to be missed by a good margin. (Not that dodging would be guaranteed - but it could certainly keep you from being hit 100%. In large part it would depend upon the speed of laser firing. Constant, or would they overheat? etc.

2. 2G isn't really that crazy. And in sci-fi I've seen that uses this and lacks some sort of kintetic dampener tech - the crew all went into high G stations during combat situations. (a helmet & bunches of padding etc.) In the Longknife series (since I already mentioned it) smaller combat ships are expected to maneuver at 3Gs or even a bit more.

3. I'm not sure that they'd need that many G's if they turned ship/main thrusters instead of only using lateral thrusters. I'm certainly no physics expert, but it seems like that would reduce the Gs required somewhat.

4. I agree - no doubt there would be major advantages to smaller space ships in combat if dodging were effective. If there is no form of shielding (whether energy or ice) the only reason to go bigger would be to fit longer ranged weaponry on it. (Other than a carrier.)


The ice armour is intriguing, though. It, too, would be massively heavy, but if you only need thrust along one axis and you don't need to accelerate in a hurry, there's no reason why it can't happen. Provided, of course, you don't literally get too close to the sun.

Actually, wait; isn't heat venting a major problem for spacecraft? How do they keep the hull cool enough to support ice, while also keeping life support running?

Yes - in the fiction with ice armor - they have refrigeration coils on the hull to keep the ice there, and they have massive exhaust venting back by the engines - and they have to keep foes from getting at both them & their engines by using ship turning, smaller escort ships, and bomber box style formations.

Mastikator
2016-11-09, 11:07 AM
I don't think that either of those things have happened with any of the military test into laser weaponry/defenses.

For one thing - on blinding you're assuming that the laser is in the visible spectrum.

Well if it's not in the visible spectrum then it would be even less efficient in the atmosphere, meaning it would be even more at a disadvantage to conventional bullets. Blue laser visible spectrum is really the best case scenario, lowest refraction through air.

The only real benefit of using a laser at all is that it does not suffer from gravity or wind, you can shoot at a greater range with more ease. But that's it. It would always be less deadly than a normal bullet and always more likely to blind the shooter and everyone around.

Strigon
2016-11-09, 11:10 AM
1. In my example above there was both a 1 second delay in targeting (since sensors would also be limited to lightspeed) & a 1 second delay from firing to target allowing them to dodge. So 2 seconds overall - meaning that they'd only need to be in a evasion pattern at about 1G to be missed by a good margin.

2. 2G isn't really that crazy. And in sci-fi I've seen that uses this and lacks some sort of kintetic dampener tech - the crew all went into high G stations during combat situations. (a helmet & bunches of padding etc.) In the Longknife series (since I already mentioned it) smaller combat ships are expected to maneuver at 3Gs or even a bit more.

3. I'm not sure that they'd need that many G's if they turned ship/main thrusters instead of only using lateral thrusters. I'm certainly no physics expert, but it seems like that would reduce the Gs required somewhat.

4. I agree - no doubt there would be major advantages to smaller space ships in combat if dodging were effective. If there is no form of shielding (whether energy or ice) the only reason to go bigger would be to fit longer ranged weaponry on it. (Other than a carrier.)


1) True. And, due to the way acceleration works it would actually have to be a little less than 1G, just for the record.

2) 2G isn't crazy in terms of what a human can take, but it is quite a lot to ask for a warship with weapons, engines, crew, and radiators to be able to accelerate at 2G - or even 1G - in any given direction without significant increase in thruster technology.

3) I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say. To clarify, I'm assuming that the average distance they'd have to move is 10m. For a ship with crew quarters, weapons, a bridge, life support, engines, a power generator, and a minimum of 5 lateral thrusters, I think this is reasonable. And since we both agree they can't actively dodge individual lasers, the average is the best way to go.

CharonsHelper
2016-11-09, 11:10 AM
Well if it's not in the visible spectrum then it would be even less efficient in the atmosphere, meaning it would be even more at a disadvantage to conventional bullets. Blue laser visible spectrum is really the best case scenario, lowest refraction through air.

The only real benefit of using a laser at all is that it does not suffer from gravity or wind, you can shoot at a greater range with more ease. But that's it. It would always be less deadly than a normal bullet and always more likely to blind the shooter and everyone around.

I think this thread is mostly about spaceship combat (or has at least become so) - so the range benefit is huge - and in their case they don't have to worry about atmospheric diffusion.

Beleriphon
2016-11-09, 11:11 AM
Think of any spacefaring setting with military stuff going on, from Star Wars to Warhammer 40k to Mass Effect. Every one's technology will have a preference for energy-based weapons (lasers, plasma, and so on), projectile and physical weapons (bullets and metal blades), or some mix of the two.

Leaving aside the pure aesthetics of what looks cooler and fits the tone better, from an in-setting practical perspective, what are some potential advantages and disadvantages of each? What might lead a futuristic society to favor one over the other? Bear in mind, this isn't based on real science, but rather the kind of scientific-sounding explanations fiction uses for fantastical technologies to make them sound plausible, if not exactly realistic.

Provided that the energy requirements to actually have function directed energy weapons (graser, laser, maser, plasma balls, whatever) can be achieved then the primary advantage of an energy weapon is that they don't run out of ammo. Also, a laser travels at the speed of light, while a ballistic weapon doesn't.

Missiles and similar weapons would be useful since they can accelerate to insane levels, and presumably course correct if they miss.

On the question asked earlier, I'm fond of the slice and dice laser in scifi. Its more visual, and I like the idea that it works like an industrial laser cutter turned up to 11000.

CharonsHelper
2016-11-09, 11:13 AM
1) True. And, due to the way acceleration works it would actually have to be a little less than 1G, just for the record.

I'm with you - I was just thinking to have some leeway because the ship won't likely be dodging perfectly away - likely at an angle of some sort since they aren't actively dodging individual shots.



3) I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say. To clarify, I'm assuming that the average distance they'd have to move is 10m. For a ship with crew quarters, weapons, a bridge, life support, engines, a power generator, and a minimum of 5 lateral thrusters, I think this is reasonable. And since we both agree they can't actively dodge individual lasers, the average is the best way to go.

Yes - that would be the average distance they'd be going for. I was just speculating if, instead of the entire 10m movement being from lateral thrusters alone, instead the lateral thrusters turned the ship's nose & the main engines turn for a total of a 20-30 degrees while the main engines continued to blast out full force, moving forward in a different direction and ending up the same 10m away after 2 seconds. I'm not sure if it'd be easier on the ship's structure/crew (though it'd make it so that it'd mostly have to absorb force from a single direction) but it'd almost certainly be easier to design/build.

Note: I'm really bad at explaining this sort of thought. >.<

Amaril
2016-11-09, 11:38 AM
Huh, I always forget to consider G-forces as a factor in space combat. I know a lot of sci-fi handwaves it with inertial dampening--is that usually magic, or based in real science somehow? What might things look like if it doesn't exist?

On another note, let me bring up melee weapons again. I said before that plasma weapons would be ideal because nothing can parry them, but I remembered a concept I'd forgotten. In this one text-based choose-your-own-adventure game I played called Mecha Ace: Heroes of the Vedrian War (which I highly recommend if you like that sort of thing), the melee weapons of choice are monosabers--liquid metal shaped into a monomolecular blade by a magnetic containment field. In that setting, the only thing that can parry a monosaber (besides another monosaber) is a plasma blade, since they use the same kind of magnetic field. Can anyone comment on this concept? Is it just total magic BS, and if not, would it have an advantage?

CharonsHelper
2016-11-09, 11:48 AM
the melee weapons of choice are monosabers--liquid metal shaped into a monomolecular blade by a magnetic containment field. In that setting, the only thing that can parry a monosaber (besides another monosaber) is a plasma blade, since they use the same kind of magnetic field. Can anyone comment on this concept? Is it just total magic BS, and if not, would it have an advantage?

That technology is so out-there and different from what we have now, it's solidly in the realm of future fantasy. Not necessarily bad - just something to be aware of. Less fantasy-ish if it's internally consistent. (Really - any sci-fi much more than a few years past current tech is somewhere on the hard sci-fi to future fantasy spectrum - just be pretty consistent on about where you want to be on that spectrum.)

Strigon
2016-11-09, 11:51 AM
Yes - that would be the average distance they'd be going for. I was just speculating if, instead of the entire 10m movement being from lateral thrusters alone, instead the lateral thrusters turned the ship's nose & the main engines turn for a total of a 20-30 degrees while the main engines continued to blast out full force, moving forward in a different direction and ending up the same 10m away after 2 seconds. I'm not sure if it'd be easier on the ship's structure/crew (though it'd make it so that it'd mostly have to absorb force from a single direction) but it'd almost certainly be easier to design/build.

Note: I'm really bad at explaining this sort of thought. >.<

Ah, I get you. That would make the maneuvering easier, but at the cost of limiting options. There would be a cone extending from the nose of the ship representing potential final positions, rather than a sphere extending in all directions. It would make dodging less hand-wavey, but also less reliable. Exactly how much can't be determined without more data.


Huh, I always forget to consider G-forces as a factor in space combat. I know a lot of sci-fi handwaves it with inertial dampening--is that usually magic, or based in real science somehow? What might things look like if it doesn't exist?

On another note, let me bring up melee weapons again. I said before that plasma weapons would be ideal because nothing can parry them, but I remembered a concept I'd forgotten. In this one text-based choose-your-own-adventure game I played called Mecha Ace: Heroes of the Vedrian War (which I highly recommend if you like that sort of thing), the melee weapons of choice are monosabers--liquid metal shaped into a monomolecular blade by a magnetic containment field. In that setting, the only thing that can parry a monosaber (besides another monosaber) is a plasma blade, since they use the same kind of magnetic field. Can anyone comment on this concept? Is it just total magic BS, and if not, would it have an advantage?
Inertial dampeners? Magic. There are ways to make G-forces more bearable, and I remember reading in one book about the crew being suspended in a breatheable liquid which made their bodies able to withstand greater forces that was theoretically possible, but my (admittedly laymen's) knowledge says that G-forces can't be reduced.

Regarding Mecha Ace? Played it. Loved it. Pretty sure it's bull.
But it's pretty much what lightsabers do, so it's hardly unprecedented bull XD
(Edit: I meant the parrying thing. Lightsabers have nothing to do with monosabers, which I am pretty sure are handwavium)

Amaril
2016-11-09, 11:59 AM
Inertial dampeners? Magic. There are ways to make G-forces more bearable, and I remember reading in one book about the crew being suspended in a breatheable liquid which made their bodies able to withstand greater forces that was theoretically possible, but my (admittedly laymen's) knowledge says that G-forces can't be reduced.

Alright, that validates the vague sense I had that inertial dampeners probably weren't a thing in my setting (except the shields on the player's mecha, but, as established, those are straight-up magic alien tech bulls*** in-setting). Of course, now I have to think in detail about how everyone else deals with them. I could just handwave it, but the liquid suspension solution is intriguing to me; could something like that plausibly work with liquid-filled space suits? That seems slightly less intensive to me than suspension tanks, since you can at least still move around in something like that.


Regarding Mecha Ace? Played it. Loved it. Pretty sure it's bull.
But it's pretty much what lightsabers do, so it's hardly unprecedented bull XD

Ah, okay, I may have been misunderstanding "realistic" plasma weapons. You're saying the magnetic field thing is magic, and the only realistic possibility would literally just be giant arc welders? Which cut through things just as slowly as they do in real life? If that's the case, I'll probably just go with HF blades and handwave the size, maybe with some justification about them being segmented so no one piece is too big to work.

Strigon
2016-11-09, 12:31 PM
Alright, that validates the vague sense I had that inertial dampeners probably weren't a thing in my setting (except the shields on the player's mecha, but, as established, those are straight-up magic alien tech bulls*** in-setting). Of course, now I have to think in detail about how everyone else deals with them. I could just handwave it, but the liquid suspension solution is intriguing to me; could something like that plausibly work with liquid-filled space suits? That seems slightly less intensive to me than suspension tanks, since you can at least still move around in something like that.

Actually, in the source material, the whole ship was filled with the stuff. It wasn't a tank you climbed into, it was how you lived while on-duty. Which, yes, made you more sluggish by a long way.
I don't see why a suit wouldn't work, but you might want to do a bit more research if you want it to hold up under scrutiny; when I get home I can do some legwork and find you some articles, if you like



Ah, okay, I may have been misunderstanding "realistic" plasma weapons. You're saying the magnetic field thing is magic, and the only realistic possibility would literally just be giant arc welders? Which cut through things just as slowly as they do in real life? If that's the case, I'll probably just go with HF blades and handwave the size, maybe with some justification about them being segmented so no one piece is too big to work.

I don't think the magnetic field is necessarily magic (in truth I don't have the knowledge to have any clue if they're feasible at all), but I'm reasonably certain parrying with them is magic. Now I want to do some research on this, too!

Amaril
2016-11-09, 12:45 PM
Actually, in the source material, the whole ship was filled with the stuff. It wasn't a tank you climbed into, it was how you lived while on-duty. Which, yes, made you more sluggish by a long way.
I don't see why a suit wouldn't work, but you might want to do a bit more research if you want it to hold up under scrutiny; when I get home I can do some legwork and find you some articles, if you like

I don't know if I'll understand them, but sure, I'd appreciate that :smallsmile:


I don't think the magnetic field is necessarily magic (in truth I don't have the knowledge to have any clue if they're feasible at all), but I'm reasonably certain parrying with them is magic. Now I want to do some research on this, too!

Hey, if you do, let me know what you turn up. Argh! None of this is making my design choices any easier. I'm gonna go play Mecha Ace again and hope inspiration strikes.

Aeson
2016-11-09, 02:07 PM
Alright, that validates the vague sense I had that inertial dampeners probably weren't a thing in my setting
Be aware that if inertial dampeners are not a thing in your setting, then artificial gravity of the type seen in Star Trek and Star Wars is also not a thing in your setting. I don't know if that's a problem for you or not, but it's something to be aware of.


Of course, now I have to think in detail about how everyone else deals with them. I could just handwave it, but the liquid suspension solution is intriguing to me; could something like that plausibly work with liquid-filled space suits?
The big advantage that the liquid suspension solution has going for it is that it gets rid of the suit, leaving personnel with their full range of motion (well, insofar as it isn't restricted by being strapped into a chair or acceleration couch or the geometry of the compartment, or something else like that) and manual dexterity for manipulating controls and doing whatever else they need to do within the liquid-filled space. Putting that into a suit and leaving the controls and everything else outside of it just brings you back to where you are with a normal g-suit or space suit, except possibly even worse because now you need to move around all that liquid and, quite possibly, the system for oxygenating it, and any mechanical aids to help compensate for the increased mass are going to add more bulk to the suit and as such will likely further impair the manual dexterity and possibly range of motion of personnel wearing the suit. As a result, if you're going to go in for space suits of some kind, I'd suggest sticking to something similar to modern-day g-suits coupled with acceleration couches.

I'd further add that there are some risks with liquid-filled environments which are not present for gas-filled environments. There's a risk of panic attacks in personnel, particularly newer or less well-trained personnel, during the transitions from gas to liquid and liquid to gas environments, particularly if there are periods of the transitions where relatively little oxygen is available to the lungs. There's a risk of drowning in the transition from a liquid to a gas environment, if the liquid filling the lungs is not expelled rapidly enough. If you go in for relatively large liquid-filled compartments, you have issues with the mass of the liquid being an impediment to the vessel's maneuverability, both because high-mass bodies accelerate more slowly under a given thrust and because you need to be concerned about the pressure, pressure gradient, and rapidity of changes in pressure within the compartment, especially during high-g maneuvers, because these things can threaten the integrity of the compartment, the structural strength of the vessel, and the safety of personnel within the compartment.


Actually, in the source material, the whole ship was filled with the stuff. It wasn't a tank you climbed into, it was how you lived while on-duty
Filling the entire ship, or at least that portion of it which is inhabitable, with liquid is not a very practical idea. That's a very significant increase in the mass of the inhabitable portion of the vessel, which has significant ramifications for the vessel's structural requirements and for the thrust required to attain a given acceleration. Furthermore, if the inhabitable space is relatively 'tall' (i.e. extends far along the axis of acceleration), there will be a significant pressure gradient within the compartment during periods of acceleration, and especially during periods of significant acceleration, unless steps are taken to prevent the liquid from acting as a single column of fluid. This is very dangerous, especially if the durations of these periods of acceleration are significant, and it could also materially affect the distribution of oxygen contents within the liquid, most likely with oxygen being forced towards the top of the liquid column.

Amaril
2016-11-09, 02:26 PM
Be aware that if inertial dampeners are not a thing in your setting, then artificial gravity of the type seen in Star Trek and Star Wars is also not a thing in your setting. I don't know if that's a problem for you or not, but it's something to be aware of.

Nah, I never wanted artificial gravity on my ships. Colony stations and the like simulate gravity through rotation; on anything smaller, you're floating. I think that goes a greater ways towards making space actually feel like space.


The big advantage that the liquid suspension solution has going for it is that it gets rid of the suit, leaving personnel with their full range of motion (well, insofar as it isn't restricted by being strapped into a chair or acceleration couch or the geometry of the compartment, or something else like that) and manual dexterity for manipulating controls and doing whatever else they need to do within the liquid-filled space. Putting that into a suit and leaving the controls and everything else outside of it just brings you back to where you are with a normal g-suit or space suit, except possibly even worse because now you need to move around all that liquid and, quite possibly, the system for oxygenating it, and any mechanical aids to help compensate for the increased mass are going to add more bulk to the suit and as such will likely further impair the manual dexterity and possibly range of motion of personnel wearing the suit. As a result, if you're going to go in for space suits of some kind, I'd suggest sticking to something similar to modern-day g-suits coupled with acceleration couches.

I'll just do that. G-suits as standard space combat uniform doesn't seem that weird to me. Might throw in some fluff about liquid suspension having been tested and found to be more effective for personnel's range of motion, but scrapped because it added too much mass to ships, which couldn't afford the extra when they already had to be armored.

CharonsHelper
2016-11-09, 02:46 PM
Nah, I never wanted artificial gravity on my ships. Colony stations and the like simulate gravity through rotation; on anything smaller, you're floating. I think that goes a greater ways towards making space actually feel like space.

While I understand why from a world-building perspective, how in the world are you doing mechanics for zero-G? Any attempt I've thought of would lead to a hot mess.

Or is your system a more abstract one?

I know that in the sci-fi RPG I'm working on (Space Dogs) I just embraced the artificial gravity as a major part of the setting. It's also how ships travel through space outside of warp (which is impossible in star systems due to the gravity) is that they grab 2+ pieces of gravity (star/planets etc.) and drastically increase them or reverse them to cause the ship to move through the system. This also let me keep the action within the plane of the star system instead of having to worry about 3-d movement.

I kept the ship to ship combat pretty simplistic, and I actually fluffed the tech so that boarding opposing ships is a solid tactic (by "catching the wind" of the other ship's gravity drive - humans don't really know how it works - and I have no energy weapons, making space combat rather close range to begin with besides chucking the occasional torpedo at each-other) to push the action back to the personal level where the system really thrives.

Beleriphon
2016-11-09, 03:00 PM
I know that in the sci-fi RPG I'm working on (Space Dogs) I just embraced the artificial gravity as a major part of the setting. It's also how ships travel through space outside of warp (which is impossible in star systems due to the gravity) is that they grab 2+ pieces of gravity (star/planets etc.) and drastically increase them or reverse them to cause the ship to move through the system. This also let me keep the action within the plane of the star system instead of having to worry about 3-d movement.

That's kind of cool, makes it more like age of sail then full blown space combat.

Amaril
2016-11-09, 03:03 PM
While I understand why from a world-building perspective, how in the world are you doing mechanics for zero-G? Any attempt I've thought of would lead to a hot mess.

Or is your system a more abstract one?

I know that in the sci-fi RPG I'm working on (Space Dogs) I just embraced the artificial gravity as a major part of the setting. It's also how ships travel through space outside of warp (which is impossible in star systems due to the gravity) is that they grab 2+ pieces of gravity (star/planets etc.) and drastically increase them or reverse them to cause the ship to move through the system. This also let me keep the action within the plane of the star system instead of having to worry about 3-d movement.

I kept the ship to ship combat pretty simplistic, and I actually fluffed the tech so that boarding opposing ships is a solid tactic (by "catching the wind" of the other ship's gravity drive - humans don't really know how it works - and I have no energy weapons, making space combat rather close range to begin with besides chucking the occasional torpedo at each-other) to push the action back to the personal level where the system really thrives.

Oh, this setting is for a video game, not a pen-and-paper game (though even the video game is barely a distant fantasy, and in all likelihood will never really happen), so I don't need comprehensive mechanics for zero-gravity. The only time it'll be mechanically relevant is for the player controlling the mech in space. I'm a little undecided on how I want to handle that. See, I don't want space combat to handle like a flight sim, because one of the big advantages of mecha in the setting is that they can move and aim in different directions, and you can't do that with flight sim controls. However, neither a mouse and keyboard nor a gamepad offers an elegant means of controlling a mecha capable of lateral movement in an environment with no set up or down. The simplest solution I've come up with is to just handwave the lack of a horizon and have it control as though there is one, with horizontal movement on the left stick or WASD, aiming on the right stick or mouse, and elevation on the shoulder buttons or Q and E. In-setting, I could justify this by saying that just as the interface computers in mecha simulate sound in a vacuum, they also induce an artificial sense of a horizon in the pilot's brain, to simplify movement and tracking for them (which I know is a steaming pile of BS, but it's an explanation, and for something like space somehow having a horizon, I feel like one is needed). However, now that VR is starting to really become a thing, there's the possibility of an additional control input that could potentially solve the problem--in space combat, I could map horizontal movement to the left stick/WASD, roll to the right stick/mouse, vertical movement to the shoulder buttons/Q and E, and aiming to the headset. Of course, that would be a much more complex control scheme, and I imagine a lot of players would have a hard time with it, as well as VR still being very much a new, unknown quantity in general.

However, given that this is, again, just something I'm designing as a thought project to maybe make some day if I ever have the resources, I'm probably putting too much effort into it.

Strigon
2016-11-09, 03:07 PM
So, upon thinking this over, I made a major mistake. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIj0qhYzqCU) The fluid wasn't for G-forces, it was for pressure. And while the fluid would probably help with G-forces as well, it wouldn't work out very well in space for all the reasons Aeson listed. Except for one; I don't think the panicking thing would be a problem. Not because it would be unlikely to happen to the inexperienced - it would most certainly - but because the people who would panic shouldn't be on a military spacecraft in the first place.

Anyway, yeah, it was for a submarine, and it was meant to prevent the inhabitants - as well as the sub itself - from being crushed under phenomenal pressure. Which explains why mass wasn't a big deal, since it wasn't for a spacecraft in the first place.

Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_breathing#Space_travel) claims that there's already testing going on for G-suits that use this technique in the aviation industry, though it doesn't provide any further reading on the subject. All other sources mostly cite biomedical data on how liquid respiration works, and the potential dangers of it, with very few mentions to using it to survive pressure or acceleration.
You might consider them for exploring high-gravitational worlds, though, if you actually like the idea.

As far as plasma blades go, I'm having trouble finding reputable sources. Lots of media websites claiming "lightsabers might be possible" and then keeping things too simple as to give a real answer. Everything I've found that's promising is behind a paywall. So if you want to spend your hard-earned cash to read "Magnetic multipole containment of large uniform collisionless quiescent plasmas", knock yourself out!
Try saying that ten times fast.

CharonsHelper
2016-11-09, 03:43 PM
That's kind of cool, makes it more like age of sail then full blown space combat.

Thanks - that was sort of the vibe I was going for. (Hence the RPG title of "Space Dogs" - which was derived from the "Sea Dogs" of the age of sail.)

Now - you're totally interested enough to take my system through its paces in some major play-testing, right?

Beleriphon
2016-11-09, 04:59 PM
Thanks - that was sort of the vibe I was going for. (Hence the RPG title of "Space Dogs" - which was derived from the "Sea Dogs" of the age of sail.)

Now - you're totally interested enough to take my system through its paces in some major play-testing, right?

If I could manage a regular group interested in new stuff that might be fun. Unfortunately I must declined.

icefractal
2016-11-09, 05:54 PM
That fluid idea suggests a reason for "why mechs" as well, although I don't know if it fits with the feel you want. Let's say that within a fluid pod, the pilot can be protected from acceleration up to a fairly large amount. This might be in combination with cyber/bio-modifications on the pilot to enable this.

However, while in the pod, the pilot can't move - at all. Forget pulling a lever or even tapping a button, the only way they can control things is via direct neural interface. And that neural interface works better the more human-shaped the "body" is, and probably not at all for something like a typical spaceship shape.

And yes, you can have a humanoid mech pilot a non-humanoid spaceship, using controls like normal. But the size of the acceleration pod imposes a minimum size on the mech, so at that point your ship has to be pretty big to accommodate it. And even then you're going through an additional layer of separation: pilot -> mech -> controls -> ship instead of just pilot -> mech, which will slow down reaction times.

CharonsHelper
2016-11-09, 06:48 PM
If I could manage a regular group interested in new stuff that might be fun. Unfortunately I must declined.

I pretty much figured - hence the blue text. Finding play-testers seems to be just about the hardest part of design. I can barely get my own group to play-test with me sporadically.

Thanks for even semi-seriously considering it though. Just keep an eye out for when it comes out in a year or two on Kickstarter. :P (I'm at the commissioning art stage.)

Amaril
2016-11-09, 07:06 PM
That fluid idea suggests a reason for "why mechs" as well, although I don't know if it fits with the feel you want. Let's say that within a fluid pod, the pilot can be protected from acceleration up to a fairly large amount. This might be in combination with cyber/bio-modifications on the pilot to enable this.

However, while in the pod, the pilot can't move - at all. Forget pulling a lever or even tapping a button, the only way they can control things is via direct neural interface. And that neural interface works better the more human-shaped the "body" is, and probably not at all for something like a typical spaceship shape.

And yes, you can have a humanoid mech pilot a non-humanoid spaceship, using controls like normal. But the size of the acceleration pod imposes a minimum size on the mech, so at that point your ship has to be pretty big to accommodate it. And even then you're going through an additional layer of separation: pilot -> mech -> controls -> ship instead of just pilot -> mech, which will slow down reaction times.

That's a cool idea, but not really what I want to go for. Also, if the main advantage of suspension over G-suits is freedom of movement, but these pods are immobilizing, doesn't that defeat the purpose?

icefractal
2016-11-09, 07:13 PM
That's a cool idea, but not really what I want to go for. Also, if the main advantage of suspension over G-suits is freedom of movement, but these pods are immobilizing, doesn't that defeat the purpose?I don't know that suspension would normally allow much freedom of movement - I was thinking of something like the one used in ... Starship Troopers, I think? Or maybe The Forever War? Where the liquid was pressurized/solidified so you really couldn't move inside it.

But it depends whether direct neural interface is even a thing in your setting or not. And the idea that it would be easier to interface with human-shaped things is totally a wild guess, just that it would be convenient to explain the use of human-shaped mecha.

Amaril
2016-11-09, 07:43 PM
I don't know that suspension would normally allow much freedom of movement - I was thinking of something like the one used in ... Starship Troopers, I think? Or maybe The Forever War? Where the liquid was pressurized/solidified so you really couldn't move inside it.

But it depends whether direct neural interface is even a thing in your setting or not. And the idea that it would be easier to interface with human-shaped things is totally a wild guess, just that it would be convenient to explain the use of human-shaped mecha.

Aeson was the one who said its advantage was freedom of movement--I don't know the science, myself. Direct neural interface totally is a thing in my setting, though, and used almost exclusively for humanoid mecha precisely for that reason. I'm still in the process of thinking through the other implications its existence might have for the world, but in terms of piloting vehicles, yeah, I'm making use of the assumption that human brains are best at controlling things shaped like human bodies. Granted, that's not why mecha are used in combat, but...well, I've gone on enough about that already upthread.

CharonsHelper
2016-11-09, 07:43 PM
But it depends whether direct neural interface is even a thing in your setting or not. And the idea that it would be easier to interface with human-shaped things is totally a wild guess, just that it would be convenient to explain the use of human-shaped mecha.

It seems to be the most logical reason to me - especially for larger mecha. (Smaller mecha/exosuits might make sense without it due to the tactical advantage of being able to walk around indoors etc.) I even went so far as to have alien mecha in approx. the same proportions as those aliens (4 arms etc.). It also made the mechanics much easier - since I don't have to worry about pilot checks etc.

Though of course - that design decision may limit your ability to have built-in rockets etc. and remain consistent.

5ColouredWalker
2016-11-09, 08:00 PM
Well if it's not in the visible spectrum then it would be even less efficient in the atmosphere, meaning it would be even more at a disadvantage to conventional bullets. Blue laser visible spectrum is really the best case scenario, lowest refraction through air.

Some of purple is equally good (The sky is actually a mix of blue and purple. Like normal, the brain lies to the consciousness for simplicity.)


On another note, let me bring up melee weapons again. I said before that plasma weapons would be ideal because nothing can parry them, but I remembered a concept I'd forgotten. In this one text-based choose-your-own-adventure game I played called Mecha Ace: Heroes of the Vedrian War (which I highly recommend if you like that sort of thing), the melee weapons of choice are monosabers--liquid metal shaped into a monomolecular blade by a magnetic containment field. In that setting, the only thing that can parry a monosaber (besides another monosaber) is a plasma blade, since they use the same kind of magnetic field. Can anyone comment on this concept? Is it just total magic BS, and if not, would it have an advantage?

There's another possibility for two magneticly contained weapons colliding. They splash.
Sure, a lightsaber blocking another lightsaber looks cool, but depending on the forces involved it doesn't really make sense, and you'd be more likely to see a small explosion of plasma that looses containment. If you're lucky, the burst will be directed well away from you. If you're unlucky, your 'block' caused you to catch a face full of uncontained plasma... Of course, what exactly happens depends on how the magnetic field is shaped, and I don't know enough about that/don't think we can do it like done with Lightsabers.
And it makes even less sense with a liquad metal blade. What are you wielding? A pocket MRI?

Cluedrew
2016-11-09, 08:51 PM
Now - you're totally interested enough to take my system through its paces in some major play-testing, right?How long would it take to learn? No promises.

On Ranged Weapons: Personally I would have to say you can invent enough science to justify either type of weapon easily. So I would go for the one that gets you the proper feel and then write in the science necessary.

Amaril
2016-11-09, 09:27 PM
There's another possibility for two magneticly contained weapons colliding. They splash.
Sure, a lightsaber blocking another lightsaber looks cool, but depending on the forces involved it doesn't really make sense, and you'd be more likely to see a small explosion of plasma that looses containment. If you're lucky, the burst will be directed well away from you. If you're unlucky, your 'block' caused you to catch a face full of uncontained plasma... Of course, what exactly happens depends on how the magnetic field is shaped, and I don't know enough about that/don't think we can do it like done with Lightsabers.
And it makes even less sense with a liquad metal blade. What are you wielding? A pocket MRI?

Perfect. HF blades it is. Honestly, I'm happy to have a reason to go with them--aesthetically, I find them much more stylish, and from a design perspective, there's a much greater variety of things you can make with them, since they have actual mass and weight. There's an appreciable difference in function and feel between, say, an HF longsword, an HF greatsword, and an HF battleaxe, while with plasma blades, you basically just have sword, smaller sword, and bigger sword, with the only meaningful difference being reach.

CharonsHelper
2016-11-09, 09:38 PM
How long would it take to learn? No promises.

I'm not 100% sure - as I've only had 1 set of play-testers thus far, but it's not too bad. They were able to basically figure out character creation on their own - though they had to ask a couple questions - mostly because the rules weren't grammar-checked yet. I'm not going lie and say that it's super simple either.

Space Dogs is probably in the middling range of crunchiness - certainly not nearly as crunchy as GURPS, Anima or 3.x/Pathfinder. If I had to ballpark it based upon a game you'd like know - probably about the same crunchiness as 5e only with simpler spell-casting & using a grid. Not that Space Dogs has spell-casting per se, but there are psychics, and both they and martials get Talents to use actively with Grit and/or Psyche (basically physical & mental mana respectively). I'm actually planning to recommend that players not generally try psychics for their first session or three as they require a bit more resource management, and that's hard to do without a feel for the game engine.

If you're seriously interested - I'd be more than happy to PM you the introductory chapter - which is totally done except for the gameplay example. It'd take me a few days to clean up the rest of the rules & the character sheet a bit to mesh with my latest tweaking before sending you the rest though.

(No grumpiness from me if you aren't interested. I know that I certainly don't have time to play-test for everyone with an interesting RPG idea.)

Cluedrew
2016-11-09, 10:21 PM
probably about the same crunchiness as 5e only with simpler spell-casting & using a grid.Yeah, probably will not be able to talk my group into that. We tend towards very rules light. As in last campaign we brought two reference sheets instead of a rule-book. So unless you could use someone just reading it over not a lot I can do.

Kane0
2016-11-09, 10:41 PM
Assuming range and damage are competitive between the two:

Energy Weapons are efficient and powerful. They need little to no 'ammo' (or an equivalent) and suffer next to no travel time when firing, but extended use may lead to heat buildup or power depletion and often the weapons themselves feature fragile, complex components that could be dangerous or difficult to maintain.

Projectile Weapons are simple, sturdy and dependable. As long as you have ammo (which adds considerable weight and bulk) and you can deal with the accuracy and recoil issues you can put a consistent stream downrange, often with the added bonus of considerable kinetic impact.

Basically you can say that energy weapons offer better novas whereas projectiles offer better DPS. Most would quickly find out it's a good idea to have one type as a primary with the other as a backup weapon, especially when defences against one type or other start coming into the picture.

CharonsHelper
2016-11-09, 10:42 PM
Yeah, probably will not be able to talk my group into that. We tend towards very rules light. As in last campaign we brought two reference sheets instead of a rule-book. So unless you could use someone just reading it over not a lot I can do.

Fair enough - not every game is for every group and it looks like Space Dogs doesn't fit yours. Frankly - I'd take whatever criticisms you'd be willing to give on a read-through (I have a thick skin - so you could be brutal) - but I don't want to force you to wade through rules which are of no interest to you either. Send me a PM if you get bored and want to read some crunchier rules than you usually play with a somewhat space western vibe.

Fri
2016-11-10, 01:27 AM
I can think a few thing. For example:

- Energy Shield exists in this setting, and energy weapon can easily deplete energy shield but can't penetrate physical armor while projecitle weapon can penetrate physical armor but have hard time depleting energy shield, or vice versa (you can mix them up).

- Energy weapon is strong but need a lot of juice, you either need to hook them up to a big generator (space station/capital ship) or use limited battery that only good for a small number of shots, while you can spam projectile weapons.

- Energy weapon is strong, powerful, long ranged, and instantly hit, but there's a specific technological counter with limited availibility. For example, space stations or capital ships can release a gas that disperse beam weapons. When they do that, people will have go up close and personal using short-range projectile weapons.

As usual, consistency/versimilitude is more important than realism. As long as the rule is consistent, you don't need to think of too much detailed realistic reasoning. You just need to refer to the rule, and just say "that's how deuteromadunium crystal works." Since it doesn't exist in real life anyway, you can make up any rule, BUT it have to be consistent.

Also, there's an interesting advice from a game designer I read that might be relevant or not..



I think a mistake a lot of novice designers make when coming up with game settings - whether for computer games or tabletop games - is trying too hard to make them make sense.

The thing is, “does this make sense?” is coming at it from the wrong direction.

Game settings don’t have to justify themselves that way: gameplay always comes first. You start with a premise that supports your desired mode of play, then work backwards to arrive at the broader setting.

Like, if your gameplay requires that everybody travel about in giant plastic hamster balls?

Then your task in terms of setting design is not to try and devise a society that would logically result in hamster-ball-based transportation - if you do that, you’re forgetting which is to be the master.Rather, treat people traveling about in giant hamster balls as a given, like the law of gravity, and imagine what a society defined by hamster-ball-based transportation would look like.

Mutazoia
2016-11-10, 02:29 AM
Think of any spacefaring setting with military stuff going on, from Star Wars to Warhammer 40k to Mass Effect. Every one's technology will have a preference for energy-based weapons (lasers, plasma, and so on), projectile and physical weapons (bullets and metal blades), or some mix of the two.

Leaving aside the pure aesthetics of what looks cooler and fits the tone better, from an in-setting practical perspective, what are some potential advantages and disadvantages of each? What might lead a futuristic society to favor one over the other? Bear in mind, this isn't based on real science, but rather the kind of scientific-sounding explanations fiction uses for fantastical technologies to make them sound plausible, if not exactly realistic.

My answwer is: It depends.

Is your setting Space Opera or hard Science? (Assuming ship to ship combat here, btw)

In a Hard Science setting, Projectiles will be the way to go. Energy weapons will have a definite range, and will be less powerful the further away from the source the target is. They will require massive power sources to generate a beam capable of doing damage with out sustained fire. (Think Star Trek Phasers that fire a beam for 3 or 4 seconds before the target dies.) Any mass added to a ship is going to require more thrust to move said ship.

Due to the laws of physics, projectile weapons will have an unlimited range. Once fired, they will continue until they hit something, and they will retain their initial kenetic energy for the duration of their flight time. Although they will be easier to dodge at long or extreme ranges, and will require the ship to dedicate tonnage and space for ammo storage, this actually works out to a net benefit. Ship to ship combat would take place at close range, preventing ships from sniping each other from out of sensor range (*), and as a ship uses ammo, it's total weight/mass is reduced, resulting in less fuel/thrust to drive the ship. I.e. given two identical ships, the one that has spent all of it's ammo would be able to outrun the one fully loaded.

"Smart Weapons", such as guided missiles would be rare, as they would require maneuvering jets in the warhead to be able to track a target, and would not be very agile, making them useful only at medium range, and only agains slow capital size ships.

In Hard Science settings, however, ship to ship combat would be almost unheard of, given the cost of building ships and their relative fragility. No "shields" or "deflector screens", just a lot of thick armor plating. This makes a very delicate balance between power to weigh ratio...a ship that can take pretty much anything you throw at it will be slow and clumsy that you could avoid it rather easily.

There would be no dog-fighting at all. The laws of physics prevent it. The amount of power and fuel required to pull off the kind of maneuvers that you see in the movies (or in actual aerial dog-fights) in space would leave little to no room for weapons, ammo, or even a pilot. Which means no small fighter craft.

For crew scale weapons, all this is doubly true, as energy weapons would require large, heavy batteries, or would only be good for a few shots before being discarded.

(*) Note: Given a the proper calculations, it would be possible to fire a projectile into the path of a moving ship from extreme range so that the flight path of the two would intersect, but it would be next to impossible to score a hit. Depending on the range, even a fraction of a fraction of error would result in the projectile missing by miles. This tactic would work slightly better when firing projectiles into an orbital path around a planet, calculating the time for a complete orbit and attempting to herd your target into their path.

In a Sapce Opera setting, all bets are off. The laws of physics and thermo-dynamics don't apply. At this point, the choice becomes purely aesthetic.

Storm_Of_Snow
2016-11-10, 08:51 AM
In a Hard Science setting, Projectiles will be the way to go. Energy weapons will have a definite range, and will be less powerful the further away from the source the target is. They will require massive power sources to generate a beam capable of doing damage with out sustained fire. (Think Star Trek Phasers that fire a beam for 3 or 4 seconds before the target dies.)
But equally, due to the speed of light, energy weapons would be more accurate - I could see them being used especially for point defence against small craft or torpedoes, with projectile weapons and missiles/torpedoes for the heavy duty ship-to-ship combat (although if EMP's are practical without requiring nuclear detonations, they could be used to disable enemy vessels).


Due to the laws of physics, projectile weapons will have an unlimited range. Once fired, they will continue until they hit something, and they will retain their initial kenetic energy for the duration of their flight time.

What about making them explosive rounds rather than simple solid slugs? That way the shell could self destruct if it's not hit anything after an appreciable length of time (say an hour after being fired) to minimise collateral damage some time later.



"Smart Weapons", such as guided missiles would be rare, as they would require maneuvering jets in the warhead to be able to track a target, and would not be very agile, making them useful only at medium range, and only agains slow capital size ships.

They can be launched and coast, so fuel is only used for corrections and the terminal phase rather than the entire flight. Small size, minimal EM signature (at least until terminal phase) and the potential to be able to hit exact points on enemy vessels may make them good for ambush attacks. Plus you could potentially have full missile volleys against a target in any aspect of your vessel, where you might only be able to get some of your turrets to bear on it.



There would be no dog-fighting at all. The laws of physics prevent it. The amount of power and fuel required to pull off the kind of maneuvers that you see in the movies (or in actual aerial dog-fights) in space would leave little to no room for weapons, ammo, or even a pilot. Which means no small fighter craft.

Probably going a little too far from hard science, but what if you've got artificial gravity generation? You could potentially generate a suitably deep gravity well somewhere close by and use that to change your trajectory.

Strigon
2016-11-10, 09:09 AM
But equally, due to the speed of light, energy weapons would be more accurate - I could see them being used especially for point defence against small craft or torpedoes, with projectile weapons and missiles/torpedoes for the heavy duty ship-to-ship combat (although if EMP's are practical without requiring nuclear detonations, they could be used to disable enemy vessels).

Well, energy weapons disperse over time. Lasers become less focused and their punch, tending to spread out as light does, while plasma would require a magnetic field to prevent the same thing, but even more quickly. Not to mention plasma wouldn't travel at light speed.



What about making them explosive rounds rather than simple solid slugs? That way the shell could self destruct if it's not hit anything after an appreciable length of time (say an hour after being fired) to minimise collateral damage some time later.

Then you have a stream of shrapnel, rather than individual slugs. More likely to hit something, and while it might not have the same armour penetration value, they'd spread out and be more likely to hit a sensitive location.
Of course, the thing is, they wouldn't actually keep going until they hit something, in the sense that they wouldn't constantly have the same energy. As they traveled throughout the system, they'd constantly gain and lose energy to gravity, and any time they'd get close to a large body, its atmosphere would slow them down. Sure, many don't have appreciable atmospheres, but that's only when we're talking about huge spacecraft aiming for a planet. For a bullet going around and around for months, if not years, it should be considered.

Chances are, if a shot misses its target, it'll lose most of its energy before hitting something important.



They can be launched and coast, so fuel is only used for corrections and the terminal phase rather than the entire flight. Small size, minimal EM signature (at least until terminal phase) and the potential to be able to hit exact points on enemy vessels may make them good for ambush attacks. Plus you could potentially have full missile volleys against a target in any aspect of your vessel, where you might only be able to get some of your turrets to bear on it.


Probably going a little too far from hard science, but what if you've got artificial gravity generation? You could potentially generate a suitably deep gravity well somewhere close by and use that to change your trajectory.

But they'd need a lock in order to make those corrections. So either they'd be visible, or you would; meaning ambushes wouldn't work so well. But for prolonged or large-scale engagements, they could be used. It would be tough, though, since long fights wouldn't be commonplace in all likelihood, and if they only made minor corrections they'd take some time to arrive.

Beleriphon
2016-11-10, 10:11 AM
On lightsaber like weapons I once found an article that basically posited they aren't a plasma blade, but rather project a beam of spinning exotic matter through a focusing matrix with crystals that somehow affected the frequency of said exotic matter's spin. I can't find it any more, and I thought at one point it was linked from stardestroyer.net but I'm not sure anymore. It supposed to be some kind of particle fountain using some crazy quantum mechanics involving anti-gluons.

It was really neat because the science explanation basically setup the rationale for why lightsabers behaved the way they did, from the hum, to the blocking, to slicing through things that cauterizing them, even Qui-Gon melting through the blast door.

Strigon
2016-11-10, 12:13 PM
On lightsaber like weapons I once found an article that basically posited they aren't a plasma blade, but rather project a beam of spinning exotic matter through a focusing matrix with crystals that somehow affected the frequency of said exotic matter's spin. I can't find it any more, and I thought at one point it was linked from stardestroyer.net but I'm not sure anymore. It supposed to be some kind of particle fountain using some crazy quantum mechanics involving anti-gluons.

It was really neat because the science explanation basically setup the rationale for why lightsabers behaved the way they did, from the hum, to the blocking, to slicing through things that cauterizing them, even Qui-Gon melting through the blast door.

That's gotten to the level where I can't distinguish whether it's technobabble that makes no sense and is just random justification, or if it's actually a beautiful and consistent explanation of how a lightsaber could work :smallbiggrin:

Mutazoia
2016-11-10, 12:14 PM
What about making them explosive rounds rather than simple solid slugs? That way the shell could self destruct if it's not hit anything after an appreciable length of time (say an hour after being fired) to minimise collateral damage some time later.

A goodly amount of damage from exploding shells is the concussion, which you wouldn't have with out an atmosphere of some kind. You could get get flak hits, but you would have your shell detonate on top of the target, or else the armor plating for a ship (built to withstand micro-meteor impacts) would just laugh off the shrapnel, if it noticed it at all.


Then you have a stream of shrapnel, rather than individual slugs. More likely to hit something, and while it might not have the same armour penetration value, they'd spread out and be more likely to hit a sensitive location.
Of course, the thing is, they wouldn't actually keep going until they hit something, in the sense that they wouldn't constantly have the same energy. As they traveled throughout the system, they'd constantly gain and lose energy to gravity, and any time they'd get close to a large body, its atmosphere would slow them down. Sure, many don't have appreciable atmospheres, but that's only when we're talking about huge spacecraft aiming for a planet. For a bullet going around and around for months, if not years, it should be considered.

Chances are, if a shot misses its target, it'll lose most of its energy before hitting something important.

Irl, (mostly) yes. In game terms, however they will be long gone and forgotten and as such can be considered to have infinite range. And we are talking artillery shells, not bullets. Shells the size of a VW Bus on the small end of the scale.


They can be launched and coast, so fuel is only used for corrections and the terminal phase rather than the entire flight. Small size, minimal EM signature (at least until terminal phase) and the potential to be able to hit exact points on enemy vessels may make them good for ambush attacks. Plus you could potentially have full missile volleys against a target in any aspect of your vessel, where you might only be able to get some of your turrets to bear on it.

IRL, guided missiles/heat seekers have the rocket thrust in back, and move the "fins" in the tail to maneuver. Sans atmosphere, you would need to install attitude thrusters in the nose of your projectile, a more complex computer control system to run things....it could be done, but your missiles are going to be huge, with a relatively small payload (by mass). Consider that your average dead-fire missile is about 6' long, and about 8" or so of that is warhead. The rest of the space is propellant.



But they'd need a lock in order to make those corrections. So either they'd be visible, or you would; meaning ambushes wouldn't work so well. But for prolonged or large-scale engagements, they could be used. It would be tough, though, since long fights wouldn't be commonplace in all likelihood, and if they only made minor corrections they'd take some time to arrive.

IRL, in atmosphere, a guided missile can turn in a large arc, but can't make sharp turns. They are normally used either as Extreme long range Air to Surface missiles (Exocet) to hit stationary or slow moving targets, or when you are on your targets tail and he has a very limited number of maneuvers he can do to move out of the way. (Or if you are closing in a head-to-head posture). Despite what you see on Top Gun, missiles are seldom used in actual dog fights.

In space, a missile, as stated earlier, would need maneuvering jets...powerful ones, to make a turn. If so equipped, it would be capable of tighter turns. But his would necessitate a non-solid fuel for said jets, perhaps tanks of compressed air, to provide the necessary thrust. You would only get a few small course corrections, or one really big one, though.

The best use of missiles in space ship-to-ship combat would be swarm missiles. Fire a crap load of small to medium sized missiles, and hope the sheer volume is enough that a bunch will get through any anti-missile defense system your target has in place.

Strigon
2016-11-10, 12:37 PM
Irl, (mostly) yes. In game terms, however they will be long gone and forgotten and as such can be considered to have infinite range. And we are talking artillery shells, not bullets. Shells the size of a VW Bus on the small end of the scale.


IRL, in atmosphere, a guided missile can turn in a large arc, but can't make sharp turns. They are normally used either as Extreme long range Air to Surface missiles (Exocet) to hit stationary or slow moving targets, or when you are on your targets tail and he has a very limited number of maneuvers he can do to move out of the way. (Or if you are closing in a head-to-head posture). Despite what you see on Top Gun, missiles are seldom used in actual dog fights.

In space, a missile, as stated earlier, would need maneuvering jets...powerful ones, to make a turn. If so equipped, it would be capable of tighter turns. But his would necessitate a non-solid fuel for said jets, perhaps tanks of compressed air, to provide the necessary thrust. You would only get a few small course corrections, or one really big one, though.

The best use of missiles in space ship-to-ship combat would be swarm missiles. Fire a crap load of small to medium sized missiles, and hope the sheer volume is enough that a bunch will get through any anti-missile defense system your target has in place.

First off, when was it established we're talking about shells of that size? I might have missed it, certainly, but otherwise it would be a lot more efficient to have smaller bullets fired at much higher velocity. Unless you want them to be for your universe, spacecraft aren't very durable for much the same reason airplanes aren't durable; adding armour makes them more likely to get hit, and reduces their range. And anything that can hit an enemy at the ranges found in space combat just isn't going to care about much armour. Missiles, railguns, and the like will just punch through any armour that isn't measured in meters, and having a ship that heavy would be far too expensive to mass-produce. Then, since they can't be mass-produced, they'll be ineffective in space because it can't get to where it's needed quickly enough to be effective. Maybe a few would be produced to defend home planets, but at that point you might as well have a space station.

Lots of little bullets will be easier to hit with (both because of their relative speed and quantity), and are more than capable of destroying anything that would realistically fly in space.

And, missiles would most certainly not need as much fuel as you seem to think. First of all, most of a missile's fuel in real life is solely to combat air resistance, because the speed it needs to get enough lift for its fins to work also produce massive amounts of drag. In space, they could be shot out, and 100% of the fuel saved for maneuvering. Then, it slowly adjusts its course as it approaches the target. Unless it pulls a hard burn at the last second, the missile will hit. And the target won't know to do that because the whole point of these missiles is that they're difficult to detect.

Gnoman
2016-11-10, 01:30 PM
IRL, guided missiles/heat seekers have the rocket thrust in back, and move the "fins" in the tail to maneuver. Sans atmosphere, you would need to install attitude thrusters in the nose of your projectile, a more complex computer control system to run things....it could be done, but your missiles are going to be huge, with a relatively small payload (by mass). Consider that your average dead-fire missile is about 6' long, and about 8" or so of that is warhead. The rest of the space is propellant.

Any missile practical in space combat will either carry no warhead at all, or will carry a nuclear one. If it is fast enough to reach a target in a reasonable amount of time, it will be going fast enough to do catastrophic damage by pure kinetic impact, and the only point of having even a nuclear warhead would be to give it some area-effect damage.




IRL, in atmosphere, a guided missile can turn in a large arc, but can't make sharp turns. They are normally used either as Extreme long range Air to Surface missiles (Exocet) to hit stationary or slow moving targets, or when you are on your targets tail and he has a very limited number of maneuvers he can do to move out of the way. (Or if you are closing in a head-to-head posture). Despite what you see on Top Gun, missiles are seldom used in actual dog fights.


You might want to read through the Wikipedia articles on the AIM-9X Sidewinder, the R-73/AA-11 "Archer", the AIM-120 AMRAAM and the R-77/AA-12 "Adder". Everything you said here is wrong.




And, missiles would most certainly not need as much fuel as you seem to think. First of all, most of a missile's fuel in real life is solely to combat air resistance, because the speed it needs to get enough lift for its fins to work also produce massive amounts of drag. In space, they could be shot out, and 100% of the fuel saved for maneuvering. Then, it slowly adjusts its course as it approaches the target. Unless it pulls a hard burn at the last second, the missile will hit. And the target won't know to do that because the whole point of these missiles is that they're difficult to detect.

To be useful at the sort of range any realistic space combat will take place, your missile is going to have to be going really, really fast. The fastest thing we've ever got moving (the Juno probe after slingshotting) reached a speed of about .8 light-seconds per hour. At that speed, massive delta-V is going to be required for any course correction, which is going to require massive amounts of fuel, particularly since attaining that speed is going to require a constant-boost drive instead of the boost-and-coast method of today. The kicker is that that is too slow a speed to be practical at ranges that would make lasers inaccurate. If you are fighting at half a light-second, a missile going at that speed is going to take around 40 minutes to reach the target.

CharonsHelper
2016-11-10, 02:38 PM
Unless you want them to be for your universe, spacecraft aren't very durable for much the same reason airplanes aren't durable; adding armour makes them more likely to get hit, and reduces their range. And anything that can hit an enemy at the ranges found in space combat just isn't going to care about much armour. Missiles, railguns, and the like will just punch through any armour that isn't measured in meters, and having a ship that heavy would be far too expensive to mass-produce. Then, since they can't be mass-produced, they'll be ineffective in space because it can't get to where it's needed quickly enough to be effective. Maybe a few would be produced to defend home planets, but at that point you might as well have a space station.

See - I always figured that most spaceships would be more like ocean ships than like planes. Aircraft are light because they have to deal with gravity in air - which a spaceship doesn't - and spaceships are currently rather light mainly because it's so expensive to get stuff up into space and then expensive to get it to move. I can only assume that in a sci-fi world with much ship combat & interstellar travel - we'd have some other form of propulsion removing those two factors. (at least fusion and space elevators getting stuff out of the atmosphere)

I do agree that bullets that size are probably unrealistic simply because they could be rather easily deflected by much smaller defensive guns so that they miss their target.

Telok
2016-11-10, 02:48 PM
Our mecha, circa 1961 from here (http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/radiation.php).

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/images/radiation/hotSoup07.jpg

Kane0
2016-11-10, 05:58 PM
Due to the laws of physics, projectile weapons will have an unlimited range. Once fired, they will continue until they hit something, and they will retain their initial kenetic energy for the duration of their flight time.


Indeed. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLpgxry542M) One of my favourite tidbits of that series.

Strigon
2016-11-10, 06:20 PM
See - I always figured that most spaceships would be more like ocean ships than like planes. Aircraft are light because they have to deal with gravity in air - which a spaceship doesn't - and spaceships are currently rather light mainly because it's so expensive to get stuff up into space and then expensive to get it to move. I can only assume that in a sci-fi world with much ship combat & interstellar travel - we'd have some other form of propulsion removing those two factors. (at least fusion and space elevators getting stuff out of the atmosphere)

I do agree that bullets that size are probably unrealistic simply because they could be rather easily deflected by much smaller defensive guns so that they miss their target.

My point was, any practical amount of armour will be ineffective against the weapons you'd use in space. Not that armour would be prohibitive to put on, just that it wouldn't be useful, and the amounts you'd need to make it useful would be prohibitive. In order for projectile weapons to be effective in space, even for a very low sci-fi, they would need a muzzle velocity of several thousand meters per second. The GAU-8 Avenger fires 30mm rounds at 1km/s, and it can shred just about anything on the battlefield today. Something moving with three or four times the speed - and thus over ten times the energy - would absolutely annihilate any armour we could reasonably put on a vehicle. And like I said, that's the absolute minimum; that's basically 2 ships in orbit around the same planet, in a relatively close fight. Things would only move faster the more advanced you got.
Spacecraft are inherently fragile, by which I mean just about every system is a critical system, so anything that gets hit would take the vehicle out of commission - if not immediately, then in a few hours.

Perhaps I communicated poorly, and if so I apologize. My point wasn't that armour would necessarily be too difficult to use, but only that effective armour would be too expensive and unwieldy to be used on a spacecraft. In much the same way that body armour stopped being effective with the rise of the gun (until modern materials, but even then it's expensive and can't hold up to many weapons), or (as I understand it) armour on warships has become largely obsolete due to the size and range of the missiles they'd face in modern combat.

CharonsHelper
2016-11-10, 06:46 PM
My point wasn't that armour would necessarily be too difficult to use, but only that effective armour would be too expensive and unwieldy to be used on a spacecraft. In much the same way that body armour stopped being effective with the rise of the gun (until modern materials, but even then it's expensive and can't hold up to many weapons), or (as I understand it) armour on warships has become largely obsolete due to the size and range of the missiles they'd face in modern combat.

Maybe (though possible at least a good chunk of the kinetic energy hitting the armor would be move the ship rather than cause penetration/damage against heavy armor - or the above mentioned ice armor which breaks away from the ship, taking with it much of the kinetic energy - you'd need someone who knows more about physics/math formulas than me) - but it wouldn't be hard to justify armor being effective if it fit the vibe you wanted. Besides having the standard energy shields which stop weaponry cold - you could also have shields or some sort of gravity tech which slowed down projectiles before impact.

As someone said above - in a game it's the mechanics & vibe which should generally drive the fluff rather than the other way around.

Amaril
2016-11-10, 09:20 PM
As someone said above - in a game it's the mechanics & vibe which should generally drive the fluff rather than the other way around.

Now, that is certainly a perfectly good approach to game design, and, I wouldn't be surprised to find, the most popular one. But I don't think it's binding; like with any art form, there are lots of ways to make good games. Sometimes, taking a particular setting conceit, like realistic space combat, and building a game specifically around that can result in something interesting that you might not have expected to work. Of course, you always have to compromise certain things to keep it engaging, but starting with a setting--at least, the general concept of one--isn't inherently a bad method. It's all about finding the interesting parts of your starting idea and focusing on them. And I think there's a not-insignificant group of players who really enjoy well-crafted, detailed, consistent settings in games, and find they strengthen the experience.

CharonsHelper
2016-11-10, 10:25 PM
And I think there's a not-insignificant group of players who really enjoy well-crafted, detailed, consistent settings in games, and find they strengthen the experience.

True - but I think that this thread has shown that it's not very hard to justify nearly any sort of game mechanics in a consistent sci-fi world with a bit of effort & creativity.

Fri
2016-11-10, 10:38 PM
True - but I think that this thread has shown that it's not very hard to justify nearly any sort of game mechanics in a consistent sci-fi world with a bit of effort & creativity.

Yes, especially in less-hard sci-fi, basically you can justify _anything_ as long as the rule is consistent enough. What you should do is pick what you like most, and work your way from there.

CharonsHelper
2016-11-10, 10:47 PM
Yes, especially in less-hard sci-fi, basically you can justify _anything_ as long as the rule is consistent enough.

Even in reasonably hard sci-fi there is a lot of room. And frankly - no matter how hard the writer tries to avoid it, any sci-fi which takes place more than a few years in the future is stuffed full of all sorts of guesses & assumptions of where tech would go. Heck - the best guesses as to what now would be like in the 60's were horribly wrong. We were supposed to have flying cars and be on Mars by now, but no one guessed at anything much like the internet or smart-phones.

Mastikator
2016-11-10, 11:16 PM
I think a thought experiment could be useful for battle between space ships.

Imagine two space ships locked in deadly battle, one is orbiting the Earth at 400km and moving at 7.7km/s the other is orbiting the Moon at 100km moving at 1.6km/s + 1km/s (very rough numbers, the precise details are not important), the reason I split it up is because the Moon orbits the Earth.

One is equipped with railguns, missiles and plasma projectiles, the other is equipped with a big telescope and a long range focused laser.

The one with the laser wins, always. Here's why, there's a 384,400 km distance between the two space ships, the one with the laser can see the other ship and shoot at him and only has to lead their shot by a little over a second.
The other one would take days to even get into range. That means you can constantly bombard the enemy space ship with lasers and not even have to worry about protection.

Any armor you put on your space ship will undoubtedly protect you from the laser, it will also make you significantly slower and just buys the laser ship more time. In fact if you try to approach the laser ship can just move back and keep firing.

If it comes down to 2 ships with lasers then the competition is between who's laser can focus at the greatest distance, I don't even think anything else matters. It takes days just to go from the Earth to the Moon.

The only option the short range space ship has is stealth, some kind of technology that allows it to approach really closely and then it can destroy the laser equipped space ship. Stealth, range and mobility are the only factors that really matter. Energy shields and armor will only slow you down and prolong your inevitable death.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-11-10, 11:23 PM
Surely that depends on how fast these theoretical spaceships move compared to what the effective range on a combat laser is. It's certainly not impossible that the longer ranged ship doesn't have enough time to inflict damage before it gets chased down.

CharonsHelper
2016-11-10, 11:31 PM
The one with the laser wins, always. Here's why, there's a 384,400 km distance between the two space ships, the one with the laser can see the other ship and shoot at him and only has to lead their shot by a little over a second.
The other one would take days to even get into range. That means you can constantly bombard the enemy space ship with lasers and not even have to worry about protection.

You're making a lot of assumptions about the technology involved. With those assumptions are true you're right - but they certainly aren't inherently true. (Mostly about how long-range laser weapons could theoretically be.)

Heck - I've read that the lasers aimed at The Moon from Earth in the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment are 6.5km wide when they get to The Moon's surface. No way is that going to do any damage unless you have a star's worth of power behind it (in which case you probably have better things to do with it). From what I understand, some amount of divergence is unavoidable due to the nature of waves, so laser weapons would always have a max effective range.

Kane0
2016-11-10, 11:54 PM
But at least laser range usually isn't as horrendously short as in some games.
I'm looking at you, Battletech.

Mutazoia
2016-11-11, 01:39 AM
But at least laser range usually isn't as horrendously short as in some games.
I'm looking at you, Battletech.

Battletech is more realistic, believe it or not. Given the small power plants driving lasers that are doing damage instantly, rather than needed to be projected onto a mech for several seconds, you are going to have lasers that don't have a very long effective range. Anything over the max range of a laser weapon, and you are not doing enough damage to matter. At that point you might as well be flashing them with a laser pointer.

Excession
2016-11-11, 01:50 AM
Two problems with lasers:

First, due to diffraction the laser cannot be perfectly focused over long distances. From this wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk) and some back of the envelope calculations, to bathe a 10m diameter target area with a visible light laser over earth-moon distance, you'd need a emission lens in the order of 50m across. If you want to target just part of the enemy ship, you're going to need a much bigger emitter. A shorter wavelength will help, but not by that much.

Second, waste heat. A CO₂ laser is only 20% efficient, which is better than most. For ever joule you put into the enemy ship, you put 4 joules into your own. Cooling that is not going to be easy. Also, a CO₂ laser is infrared, meaning you'll need an even bigger emission lens. For sci-fi I'd be OK with super efficient lasers, that's something tech advancement can fix.

Over earth-moon distance, I'll bet on missiles. They'll take a while to get there, but it's better than shining a bight light at the enemy until you overheat.

khadgar567
2016-11-11, 06:31 AM
So tl;dr version of treat is as long as some wonderous material like ezero from mass effect created in setting solid projectile weapons gonna keep their superiority and for ground combat unless you put pyskers or force to mix guns are still rule the battlefield and bolter like grenade launching uzis are far fetched as current rail gun projects

Mutazoia
2016-11-11, 06:57 AM
So tl;dr version of treat is as long as some wonderous material like ezero from mass effect created in setting solid projectile weapons gonna keep their superiority and for ground combat unless you put pyskers or force to mix guns are still rule the battlefield and bolter like grenade launching uzis are far fetched as current rail gun projects

In a Hard Science setting, yes. As been said before, in Space Opera, all bets are off.

Telok
2016-11-11, 01:28 PM
In a Hard Science setting, yes. As been said before, in Space Opera, all bets are off.

In space opera you have spaceships the size of F-16s dogfighting at WWII machine gun ranges with slower-than-light lasers that make sounds in space. The bets are so off that the bookies are offering 1:10,000 odds on cliched plots and cgi explosions.

Beleriphon
2016-11-12, 01:09 PM
Perhaps I communicated poorly, and if so I apologize. My point wasn't that armour would necessarily be too difficult to use, but only that effective armour would be too expensive and unwieldy to be used on a spacecraft. In much the same way that body armour stopped being effective with the rise of the gun (until modern materials, but even then it's expensive and can't hold up to many weapons), or (as I understand it) armour on warships has become largely obsolete due to the size and range of the missiles they'd face in modern combat.

I look at it this way, a heavily armoured dreadnought of a space cruiser is going to have armour to stop smaller ships from taking it out with one hit, not to stop another ship of similar size and payload from taking it out.

Beleriphon
2016-11-12, 01:27 PM
The only option the short range space ship has is stealth, some kind of technology that allows it to approach really closely and then it can destroy the laser equipped space ship. Stealth, range and mobility are the only factors that really matter. Energy shields and armor will only slow you down and prolong your inevitable death.

I think the factor you have to keep mind is that the range between earth to the moon in space using anything that approach a decent velocity for projectiles (even a small fraction of C) is going to be a different of maybe a minute or so. For a projectile to get travel from Earth orbit to Moon orbit in about one minute we're looking at around 1.67% of C, or 4996.53 km/s.

Strigon
2016-11-12, 06:11 PM
I look at it this way, a heavily armoured dreadnought of a space cruiser is going to have armour to stop smaller ships from taking it out with one hit, not to stop another ship of similar size and payload from taking it out.

Perhaps. But going from what we know now, that just won't be the case.
Now, chances are, things will change gears in the future, and going strictly from what we know now is almost the definition of what sci-fi isn't, but going from current knowledge, there are two possibilities. Either there won't be dreadnoughts for the above reason, or projectile weapons will be found to be ineffective, so dreadnoughts' defenses will be largely countermeasures to missiles, lasers, or whatever else happens to be the primary method of damage. The possibility is left open for truly massive, lumbering ships that actually have that level of armour, but they'd be unable to move to where they're needed, strategically.

That isn't what I'm saying sci-fi should be, only what I think space combat - if it ever becomes a reality - will be.

Squiddish
2016-11-12, 08:59 PM
Okay, so, from what I've read so far, you have shields. If these are force shields, that behave like a solid barrier (including selectively), then a laser is your shield piercing weapon. If it creates a sort of reverse gravity or otherwise reduces the kinetic energy of incoming attacks, then a laser still might be good, but a physical shell could have a lot of momentum.

In general, a charged particle beam is the most fun thing at short ranges, since it has a good chance of irradiating their crew and computers, thus potentially poisoning the former and destroying the latter. At longer ranges and for defense against projectiles and fighters you'd use lasers, since they hit very quickly. Projectiles can be very fun, since with realistic orbital mechanics they can hit a ship on the clear other side of the planet without them ever seeing you.

On a smaller scale modern guns would probably work. Since you have fairly abundant, portable energy you could also use coilguns.

If the forcefield can be focused into a beam, there are a couple things. One, a mech or a fighter could use it on the ground or a capital ship, respectively, to maintain stability and maneuver. Two, they could be used as a kinetic energy weapon, smashing ships and mechs with force rather than bullets or lasers.

Amaril
2016-11-12, 10:30 PM
Good stuff.

Are you commenting on my setting in particular? If so, thanks for taking the time to read over everything. Let me just go through your points...


Okay, so, from what I've read so far, you have shields. If these are force shields, that behave like a solid barrier (including selectively), then a laser is your shield piercing weapon. If it creates a sort of reverse gravity or otherwise reduces the kinetic energy of incoming attacks, then a laser still might be good, but a physical shell could have a lot of momentum.

Well, no, shields aren't a typical thing in my setting--they're unique to the player character's mecha. Everyone else relies on physical armor. For the player character, I'm...honestly not sure which of those describes the shields better. Like I said, I had a loose sense that they're the same as the inertial dampeners in many sci-fi settings; would that make them more like the second option, with reverse gravity?


In general, a charged particle beam is the most fun thing at short ranges, since it has a good chance of irradiating their crew and computers, thus potentially poisoning the former and destroying the latter. At longer ranges and for defense against projectiles and fighters you'd use lasers, since they hit very quickly. Projectiles can be very fun, since with realistic orbital mechanics they can hit a ship on the clear other side of the planet without them ever seeing you.

So what are some practical differences between charged particle beams and lasers? I guess the former are more short-range, but more damaging?


On a smaller scale modern guns would probably work. Since you have fairly abundant, portable energy you could also use coilguns.

Alright. I know a lot of sci-fi uses railguns as dedicated sniper weapons--would coilguns work to fill a similar role, or would it be pointless to relegate them to just that? I only ask 'cause I think bolters are really cool, and would like to use them if it's not totally ridiculous.


If the forcefield can be focused into a beam, there are a couple things. One, a mech or a fighter could use it on the ground or a capital ship, respectively, to maintain stability and maneuver. Two, they could be used as a kinetic energy weapon, smashing ships and mechs with force rather than bullets or lasers.

You know, I actually did want one of the special abilities the player's mech could equip to be a repulsion blast that throws their shield off as a weapon to damage and knock back everything around them. I thought about having another one that focuses it into a beam, but figured that would basically be a chest-laser and too super robot for the tone I was going for. Though if it's actually a conceivable option for the technology, I'd love to include it, because chest-lasers are awesome.

CharonsHelper
2016-11-12, 11:22 PM
That isn't what I'm saying sci-fi should be, only what I think space combat - if it ever becomes a reality - will be.

If technology in this theoretical future space combat is just more advanced versions of current tech - I pretty much agree with you.

However - that's a big assumption to make. I think that the safest thing to assume when thinking about future tech is that there is going to be some stuff which comes out of left field which no one seriously guessed at.

Squiddish
2016-11-12, 11:33 PM
Are you commenting on my setting in particular? If so, thanks for taking the time to read over everything. Let me just go through your points...

Yes indeed I am. Thank you for posting this, since I don't often get to use my knowledge of realistic sci-fi weapons.


Well, no, shields aren't a typical thing in my setting--they're unique to the player character's mecha. Everyone else relies on physical armor. For the player character, I'm...honestly not sure which of those describes the shields better. Like I said, I had a loose sense that they're the same as the inertial dampeners in many sci-fi settings; would that make them more like the second option, with reverse gravity?

Yes. That's also the more realistic one, since the best way to create a solid barrier is with a solid barrier rather than a force field.


So what are some practical differences between charged particle beams and lasers? I guess the former are more short-range, but more damaging?

Maybe, but the real advantages are that charged particle beams basically ignore armor and can take out circuitry that isn't heavily radiation-hardened.

Also, since lasers actually heat your ship/mech/base more than they heat the target, they are quite impractical unless you have a way to dump a whole lot of heat, or store it. Bases can use the ground, ships and stations either radiate it, store it in an asteroid, or carry a specially-built heat sink. A mecha could pump the heat into the ground using its feet/legs if they were bulky enough.

Lasers are actually not all that practical, due to the aforementioned heat concerns and fragility concerns. They either have to use lenses or mirrors, neither of which are known for their durability. If you simply say that lasers are too impractical to use on a battleship scale, you could easily explain the lack of long-range sniping without resorting to the targeting interference just by saying that they don't have that many weapons that are viable against (relatively) small targets at long range.


Alright. I know a lot of sci-fi uses railguns as dedicated sniper weapons--would coilguns work to fill a similar role, or would it be pointless to relegate them to just that? I only ask 'cause I think bolters are really cool, and would like to use them if it's not totally ridiculous.

Basically, a coilgun is the younger brother of a railgun. A coilgun uses an electromagnetic coil, or a set of them, to fling a projectile at high speed (equivalent to a normal gun). A railgun uses a set of charged rails to fling a projectile at immense speed (equivalent to certain specialized projectile launchers used for physics experiments). Railguns are very, very, very unsafe and expensive to operate since A) they produce basically a giant electrical inferno that would kill anyone that got too close; and B) unless the rails are made of something that is both heat resistant and conductive they wear away after three shots.

If it's a mecha holding the gun, a railgun is okay. You also get rule of cool, and it probably works better in a vacuum. If a person is holding the gun, go with a coilgun.

Another thing with railguns is that they can also shoot plasma. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_railgun)


You know, I actually did want one of the special abilities the player's mech could equip to be a repulsion blast that throws their shield off as a weapon to damage and knock back everything around them. I thought about having another one that focuses it into a beam, but figured that would basically be a chest-laser and too super robot for the tone I was going for. Though if it's actually a conceivable option for the technology, I'd love to include it, because chest-lasers are awesome.

Since this is your force field, you can decide whether to allow it. Since we don't really have a real world analogue, there's nothing saying this wouldn't work, and I would definitely allow it. If you let them control where it's coming from and aim it at the ground/a large object it could serve as the equivalent of a jetpack.

Satinavian
2016-11-13, 01:12 AM
Maybe, but the real advantages are that charged particle beams basically ignore armor and can take out circuitry that isn't heavily radiation-hardened.
Another important difference is that it is (comparably) easy to build "shields" that help against charged particles, because they are, well, charged, while there is no such option against lasers (outside of armor).

The whole concept of sci-fi shields came from shielding against charged particles (and hard science). Then several authors grossly misunderstood the concept/didn't care for it and you know, where it went.

Amaril
2016-11-13, 04:41 PM
Yes indeed I am. Thank you for posting this, since I don't often get to use my knowledge of realistic sci-fi weapons.

My pleasure, I guess :smalltongue:


Yes. That's also the more realistic one, since the best way to create a solid barrier is with a solid barrier rather than a force field.

Makes sense.


Maybe, but the real advantages are that charged particle beams basically ignore armor and can take out circuitry that isn't heavily radiation-hardened.

Another important difference is that it is (comparably) easy to build "shields" that help against charged particles, because they are, well, charged, while there is no such option against lasers (outside of armor).

The whole concept of sci-fi shields came from shielding against charged particles (and hard science). Then several authors grossly misunderstood the concept/didn't care for it and you know, where it went.

Well, given that, it makes sense to me to say they're not widely used because they're so easily countered. I'm not sure all battleships would necessarily have anti-particle shielding, but even if they don't, the uncertainty seems like it'd still lead to a greater prevalence of projectiles--barring force fields (which, again, aren't typically in play), nothing can stop them easily. As for lasers, because it seems like they're pretty easy to armor against, I think I'll just make anti-laser plating standard on ships same as on personnel and vehicle armor, again preserving projectiles as dominant.


Also, since lasers actually heat your ship/mech/base more than they heat the target, they are quite impractical unless you have a way to dump a whole lot of heat, or store it. Bases can use the ground, ships and stations either radiate it, store it in an asteroid, or carry a specially-built heat sink. A mecha could pump the heat into the ground using its feet/legs if they were bulky enough

Lasers are actually not all that practical, due to the aforementioned heat concerns and fragility concerns. They either have to use lenses or mirrors, neither of which are known for their durability. If you simply say that lasers are too impractical to use on a battleship scale, you could easily explain the lack of long-range sniping without resorting to the targeting interference just by saying that they don't have that many weapons that are viable against (relatively) small targets at long range.

Seems like lasers just aren't a good fit for my setting in general. They clash with my aesthetic tastes; they present all kinds of design problems, like why would shots from them be visible; they're technically impractical due to heat; and, perhaps most importantly, they're fragile and unreliable, which conflicts with the image I want to go for of an interstellar spacefaring culture still in its early stages, where sturdy, reliable technology is usually the most prized.

I'd like to keep the sensor-disrupting Kitase waves, though, partly as an homage to Gundam, and partly to remove sniping with projectiles like you've described.


Basically, a coilgun is the younger brother of a railgun. A coilgun uses an electromagnetic coil, or a set of them, to fling a projectile at high speed (equivalent to a normal gun). A railgun uses a set of charged rails to fling a projectile at immense speed (equivalent to certain specialized projectile launchers used for physics experiments). Railguns are very, very, very unsafe and expensive to operate since A) they produce basically a giant electrical inferno that would kill anyone that got too close; and B) unless the rails are made of something that is both heat resistant and conductive they wear away after three shots.

If it's a mecha holding the gun, a railgun is okay. You also get rule of cool, and it probably works better in a vacuum. If a person is holding the gun, go with a coilgun.

Another thing with railguns is that they can also shoot plasma. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_railgun)

Well, coilguns seem like a good mainstay weapon. For ships, I'll make them the standard, with missiles as a secondary (I'll handwave any technical concerns surrounding missiles in space, solely because I want the player to have them). Probably go for coilgun slug launchers as the main thing for infantry, too. As for mechs, I'm still torn between them and bolters, because bolters are sick. Care to weigh in on that issue?

I'm not sure how putting a railgun on a mech solves the problem of rail durability. I hadn't specifically planned on any highly advanced fictional materials that would serve the purpose; the only such material I specifically want is carbon nanotube synthetic muscle (the third generation of combat NAVs' greatest improvement was swapping traditional robotics for CNT muscle construction that more closely mimics human physiology, a design that continues with the player's rig, which is the first of the fourth generation).


Since this is your force field, you can decide whether to allow it. Since we don't really have a real world analogue, there's nothing saying this wouldn't work, and I would definitely allow it. If you let them control where it's coming from and aim it at the ground/a large object it could serve as the equivalent of a jetpack.

Alright, chest-laser is in :smallbiggrin: I'll leave out the jetpack option, though. The shield works like Halo health because it consumes too much power to stay continuously active; it turns on in response to sensors detecting incoming projectiles, and can be overloaded with sustained fire (all a handwaved system, chosen for gameplay reasons). All NAVs do come with traditional thrusters already, which is how they move in space; they're not enough for sustained flight outside zero-gravity, but they do allow for Armored Core-style skating along the ground (handwaved again, because it looks cool).

Sneak Dog
2016-11-13, 05:02 PM
As for lasers, because it seems like they're pretty easy to armor against, I think I'll just make anti-laser plating standard on ships same as on personnel and vehicle armor, again preserving projectiles as dominant.


So anti-laser armour is rather efficient and laser weaponry cumbersome. So there's basically no laser weaponry being used. This means a daring pilot could just forgo the laser armour for just the tiniest bonus, no? I mean, what're the odds of it ever being useful? :smallamused:

Squiddish
2016-11-13, 05:59 PM
Well, coilguns seem like a good mainstay weapon. For ships, I'll make them the standard, with missiles as a secondary (I'll handwave any technical concerns surrounding missiles in space, solely because I want the player to have them). Probably go for coilgun slug launchers as the main thing for infantry, too. As for mechs, I'm still torn between them and bolters, because bolters are sick. Care to weigh in on that issue?

I assume by bolters you mean rocket-propelled bullets, and they do exist in real life in the form of the Gyrojet, which, sadly, was not very efficient. However, with research and development they could be improved. Also, what you could also do is a hybrid system, use a coilgun to launch the bullet and then it accelerates under its own power.


I'm not sure how putting a railgun on a mech solves the problem of rail durability. I hadn't specifically planned on any highly advanced fictional materials that would serve the purpose; the only such material I specifically want is carbon nanotube synthetic muscle (the third generation of combat NAVs' greatest improvement was swapping traditional robotics for CNT muscle construction that more closely mimics human physiology, a design that continues with the player's rig, which is the first of the fourth generation).

I was mostly referring to the safety problem there. The navy is already working on creating a railgun for ship-to-ship combat, and if you use a helical railgun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helical_railgun) design you could greatly reduce wear and tear.

Amaril
2016-11-13, 06:10 PM
So anti-laser armour is rather efficient and laser weaponry cumbersome. So there's basically no laser weaponry being used. This means a daring pilot could just forgo the laser armour for just the tiniest bonus, no? I mean, what're the odds of it ever being useful? :smallamused:

Point taken :smalltongue: Still, though, it works out to a paucity of laser weapons, for the same reason there'd be one of particle weapons. Given the choice between a weapon with a 50-50 chance to be effective, and one that's guaranteed to be slightly less effective, I imagine most would go for the latter just about every time.


I assume by bolters you mean rocket-propelled bullets, and they do exist in real life in the form of the Gyrojet, which, sadly, was not very efficient. However, with research and development they could be improved. Also, what you could also do is a hybrid system, use a coilgun to launch the bullet and then it accelerates under its own power.

I've always assumed the term came from Warhammer 40k, in which they're basically full-auto micro-missile launchers--that's more or less what I was picturing, anyway, with the rounds being explosive in addition to self-propelled. I like the hybrid system, though, so I'll probably go with that, regardless of practicality. Having mech-scale weapons merely fire solid slugs just doesn't seem right to me. They should have something more destructive.


I was mostly referring to the safety problem there. The navy is already working on creating a railgun for ship-to-ship combat, and if you use a helical railgun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helical_railgun) design you could greatly reduce wear and tear.

Ah, gotcha. In that case, I'll probably have mech-scale railguns as dedicated sniper weapons. Ship-scale, possibly the main gun on larger vessels, backed up by coilguns for point-defense and smaller targets.

Excession
2016-11-14, 01:47 AM
If you want something really big and flashy as a weapon, I have an idea. Call it an "Orion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)) Missile".

The missile's drive is one or more small nuclear bombs, and a really tough shock absorber. Use a coil gun to throw it far enough away from your launcher, then start detonating bombs behind it. This throw the rest of the missile very quickly toward the enemy. Repeat as necessary to gain even more speed.

The warhead of the missile is another nuke, this time behind a bunch of tungsten penetrators. Basically a nuclear bomb powered shotgun. This is aimed to try and counter the enemy's last minute dodging. Hopefully, you put a few hundred bits of very fast tungsten through the target. Even if you miss, they probably had to use a whole bunch of fuel to dodge. Once they run out of fuel, they die to the next missile. This works best against crewed ships; without being really big using an Orion drive of their own would pulp and/or irradiate the crew. A missile warhead is much easier to armour than a crewed ship.

There are a few variations that could work, like using laser triggered fusion instead of a bomb, with the laser fired from your own ship into a parabolic collector on the missile. Adding a bunch of decoys, aluminium foil balloons for example, is probably mandatory to avoid point defences.