Comments on Librium Universe Infodump thread

Comrade Tortoise · Post by **Comrade Tortoise** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 4:02 pm

The stuff that has been discussed on hypperspace and FTL comm relays, as well as the lack of FTL sensors

The Silence and I · Post by **The Silence and I** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 4:09 pm

[is totally serious]A complete and exhaustive detail of the special laws of physics that define the parameters of this soft scifi universe.[/is totally serious]
What?

Anyway, I'd kind of like some outlining of what works and doesn't for space combat. I'm pretty sure we're not too concerned with real-world rocketry concerns, so maneuvering is more free than it might be and missiles could even be major factors in combat--or maybe not. I dunno. Hence the desire for an outline.

For example, in the real world no one is going to have deep space combat, it will always be around a gravity well. Additionally it is likely no one will make serious use of missiles outside of specific applications and fighters simply won't exist unless it be for irrational reasons. All ship to ship weapons will be direct fire, and ships will have no armor, making hits lethal.

But that's the real world (as I understand it). What can we do here?

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 4:12 pm

For example, in the real world no one is going to have deep space combat, it will always be around a gravity well

I would think in the Librium universe that all combat would be within a star system with planets. Not in the void of interstellar space, nothing out there and people avoid going into real space void.

The Silence and I · Post by **The Silence and I** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 4:16 pm

frigidmagi wrote:
For example, in the real world no one is going to have deep space combat, it will always be around a gravity well
I would think in the Librium universe that all combat would be within a star system with planets. Not in the void of interstellar space, nothing out there and people avoid going into real space void.

I don't even mean the interstellar void. I mean realistically no one will fight outside of orbit (and I don't include orbiting the sun). So you won't find battles halfway between Earth and Mars unless there is some important facility sitting there, but you might fight at either planet.

But that is a world without hyperspace...not the same as this.

Destructionator XV · Post by **Destructionator XV** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 4:25 pm

The Silence and I wrote:For example, in the real world no one is going to have deep space combat, it will always be around a gravity well.

I'm not really convinced of that: you might do a 'drive by shooting', if you will, of a ship heading toward you.

It would probably be a single deadly pass, though. Burning the fuel to stop and engage him or to turn around probably wouldn't work so well, but it might, depending on your engine assumptions.

An advantage of taking them en route is you could destroy them before they are much of a threat to your actual planet (assuming it isn't on a collision course). Even destroying them in orbit might create a mess that the defender might want to avoid.

All ship to ship weapons will be direct fire, and ships will have no armor, making hits lethal.

I might argue the armor too: once again, it depends on your assumptions of weapon power. My assumption is generally that a good direct hit that can dwell on something for a little while would be pretty lethal, but armor can still be useful for making little grazing hits surviveable.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 4:27 pm

We do have energy shields, so the question is can the armor provide comparable protection to an shield to be worthwhile or if it would be just useless mass eating up power. I am inclined to say useless weight myself.

rhoenix · Post by **rhoenix** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 4:34 pm

frigidmagi wrote:We do have energy shields, so the question is can the armor provide comparable protection to an shield to be worthwhile or if it would be just useless mass eating up power. I am inclined to say useless weight myself.

I would disagree with this. Ablative physical armor exists now, and could conceivably be scaled up to this universe. Moreover, as more and better shipbuilding materials are discovered and used, physical armor for a ship could certainly have an impact for defense. For instance, ceramic-metal hybrid materials would possibly have the tensile strength necessary to hold a ship's hull together, and thicker coatings of it could quite likely diffuse kinetic impact of missiles and railgun shells and the like.

In fact, if you wished to dispense with the "particle shield / energy shield" idea, a ship's armor could very nicely take care of particle defense, letting the energy shielding take care of beam weapons, excessive radiation from errant neutron stars, and the like.

This hasn't been covered, so I'll ask this - would all ships, including non-war vessels such as science ships & mining ships and others have shields as well? If they do, then this is a moot point - however, if they don't, protection from space debris and space-borne rocks would be a concern, and point-defense guns wouldn't be a 100% guarantee of preventing a hit.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 4:39 pm

First off there would be no missile impacts. After the efforts of my long suffering roommate I grasped that missiles would have to be stand off weapons.

Also Rhinoex they would be throwing around Megatons of nuclear fire and the like. Is your armor really going to be so bad ass as to stop or even slow it down?

Cynical Cat · Post by **Cynical Cat** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 4:44 pm

frigidmagi wrote:
Also Rhinoex they would be throwing around Megatons of nuclear fire and the like. Is your armor really going to be so bad ass as to stop or even slow it down?

In space there would be no fire, just hard radiation which diminishes in intensity rapidly by distance. The question will be is armour going to help against a proximity blast and how much mass are you willing to sink into armour. The capabilities or armour versus shield do matter. A limited amount of armour might be utilizedto protect against nearby rad blasts, micro meteorites, and small projectiles might very well be practical with no practical amount of armour doing much to help against direct hits or close proximity blasts.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 4:49 pm

In space there would be no fire, just hard radiation which diminishes in intensity rapidly by distance.

Guy can't speak colorfully for shit around here. Still a points were made, my thought still is that armor beyond the navigational type you suggest is gonna be just wasted Mass.

Destructionator XV · Post by **Destructionator XV** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 4:50 pm

Are they really throwing around megatons of firepower? If so, I have to ask: why?

Comrade Tortoise · Post by **Comrade Tortoise** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 4:52 pm

Put it this way, even if the armor itself is not penetrated, the kinetic impact of a multimegaton railgun shell is going to be absorbed by the crew, if the ship is not destroyed, the crew will become a blood mist inside.

Missiles might have some utility as a standoff weapon at long range, but more likely will be limited to a roll that functions more like ECM, the radiation blinding a lot of sensor systems (pretty much everything but visible-light telescopes) depending on the makeup of said radiation. bear in mind, this effect would be very temporary and limited in scale

Cynical Cat · Post by **Cynical Cat** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 4:53 pm

frigidmagi wrote:
In space there would be no fire, just hard radiation which diminishes in intensity rapidly by distance.
Guy can't speak colorfully for shit around here. Still a points were made, my thought still is that armor beyond the navigational type you suggest is gonna be just wasted Mass.

Depends on universe tech levels. Any powerful shield technology is going to be superior to anything close to "real" materials.

The Silence and I · Post by **The Silence and I** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 4:54 pm

EDIT: I would like to add for clarity that the following response of mine assumes the known physics and derived rocketry of our real world, not the universe we are working on.

Destructionator XV wrote:I'm not really convinced of that: you might do a 'drive by shooting', if you will, of a ship heading toward you.

Such a pass could happen, but I doubt it would ever be more than a skirmish. An all out battle in the real world will happen in orbit where less fuel is needed and every combatant has a reason to be present.

It would probably be a single deadly pass, though. Burning the fuel to stop and engage him or to turn around probably wouldn't work so well, but it might, depending on your engine assumptions.

Most likely you'd need unrealistic engine assumptions to accomplish that. You'd need massive spare delta vee, just consider the relative velocities of two vessels passing each other through the solar system.

An advantage of taking them en route is you could destroy them before they are much of a threat to your actual planet (assuming it isn't on a collision course). Even destroying them in orbit might create a mess that the defender might want to avoid.

You have to catch them though, and then you have to hope you haven't been fooled because there is no way your defenders are getting back to the planet in a timely fashion. There is the question of fuel again too. Attackers need to get to speed once, reduce speed once, and have spare for maneuvers. An intercepting defender has two options: A fly by pass, or forcing a battle.

For the first the defender needs to get to speed once, then reduce speed and get to speed the other way and then reduce speed again, plus spare for maneuvers. It has used twice the delta vee of the attackers and it has to hope against hope that nobody gets past the single salvo because they ain't getting home before surviving attackers get there. To force a protracted battle the defender needs to do the same tricks with its delta vee as in an intercept, but also have massively superior acceleration if it hopes to engage the enemy long enough to force a resolution away from the planet.

Basically this isn't going to happen much. It is a fuel expensive gamble, and if you can pull it off with confidence you probably don't need to worry about the attacker much anyway because you outclass them.

All ship to ship weapons will be direct fire, and ships will have no armor, making hits lethal.
I might argue the armor too: once again, it depends on your assumptions of weapon power. My assumption is generally that a good direct hit that can dwell on something for a little while would be pretty lethal, but armor can still be useful for making little grazing hits surviveable.

If you armor a ship fitted with real-world rocketry (modern or future) you will reduce its delta vee, its acceleration. Armoring a ship makes it slow and short ranged, and that means it will die while also being less useful. Just how much armor can you afford to put on a ship anyway? If it is fairly large--which means loads of surface area--painting it will add several dozens of tons to its mass, any armor worth a damn against any weapon worth a damn will cripple that vessel's ability to avoid being shot in the first place, restrict its range and increase its cost. Really useful, armor.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 4:59 pm

I wanna point out we have anti-grav and such in this world. It's not a hard sci-fi, although it's not Star Trek or Star Wars either.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:03 pm

Also I want my damn missile storm.

Comrade Tortoise · Post by **Comrade Tortoise** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:03 pm

frigidmagi wrote:I wanna point out we have anti-grav and such in this world. It's not a hard sci-fi, although it's not Star Trek or Star Wars either.

Artificial grav will not help you, unless it can nullify the shockwave caused by a kinetic impact. If it can do that, kinetic weapons would not be useful at all, because the systems could nullify its effects on the hull itself

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:06 pm

Was mostly talking about the effects of grav tech on ship movement not on it's ability or lack thereof verus impacts.

The Silence and I · Post by **The Silence and I** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:08 pm

frigidmagi wrote:I wanna point out we have anti-grav and such in this world. It's not a hard sci-fi, although it's not Star Trek or Star Wars either.

Obviously. The question we should be asking is what can this universe do? Not as much what ours can, I included that previously as a reason I need a new framework for this 'softer' universe.

Also I want my damn missile storm.

That's one vote. Do I hear any others?

rhoenix · Post by **rhoenix** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:13 pm

A good compromise might simply be ablative armor that can be (painstakingly) renewed a couple times during trips, but are best reapplied in dock. Ablative armor would dissipate the impact of railgun shells, as well as angry swarms of missiles.

However, repeated hits in the same place would deplete the ablative armor, leaving nothing but nice tasty hull to break through for an enemy ship. After a fight was done, it would likely take a couple (unlucky) ship's crew to don spacesuits, go outside, and reapply the ablative armor over a period of a few hours to days. If in enemy territory though, this obviously wouldn't be an option. This would require a ship to be withdrawn to avoid being hit by a multi-MT railgun shell in the weapon spot in the ship's armor, turning the crew into a bloody mist, and turning the ship into a prime target for enemy salvage.

This would prevent KE weapons from being king in this universe, since otherwise they'd be more effective than even anti-matter particle beams and the like, which would relegate those otherwise horribly nasty beam weapons to point defense duty.

Cynical Cat · Post by **Cynical Cat** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:16 pm

If you want easily repairable armour, go with steel not something fancy. That would be easy to repair/replace in the field, which would not be the case with a fancy hitech composite.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:17 pm

Destructionator XV wrote:Are they really throwing around megatons of firepower? If so, I have to ask: why?

A: Yes they are.

B: 3 reasons
1: The 3 writers who have discussed this being myself, Hotfoot and Marcoa like the idea of Megatons being flung around like candy. We're like that yeah.
2: Hyperspace is currently imagined as a place where you need to be able to absorp Kilotons worth of energy per hour or die. Hence to overload or puch through the shields low double digits megatons work best for weapons
3: I thought the word megaton was cooler then Gigaton or Kiloton. Yes I know Gigaton is bigger, so what?

Destructionator XV · Post by **Destructionator XV** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:18 pm

Wouldn't a multi-megaton railgun shell just punch clean through the ship without transferring much of its energy to it?

But, it also begs the question of how the launching ship fired this beast of a shell in the first place. Our buddy Newton would have something to say about that.

Comrade Tortoise · Post by **Comrade Tortoise** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:19 pm

rhoenix wrote:A good compromise might simply be ablative armor that can be (painstakingly) renewed a couple times during trips, but are best reapplied in dock. Ablative armor would dissipate the impact of railgun shells, as well as angry swarms of missiles.

However, repeated hits in the same place would deplete the ablative armor, leaving nothing but nice tasty hull to break through for an enemy ship. After a fight was done, it would likely take a couple (unlucky) ship's crew to don spacesuits, go outside, and reapply the ablative armor over a period of a few hours to days. If in enemy territory though, this obviously wouldn't be an option. This would require a ship to be withdrawn to avoid being hit by a multi-MT railgun shell in the weapon spot in the ship's armor, turning the crew into a bloody mist, and turning the ship into a prime target for enemy salvage.

This would prevent KE weapons from being king in this universe, since otherwise they'd be more effective than even anti-matter particle beams and the like, which would relegate those otherwise horribly nasty beam weapons to point defense duty.

No. Ablative armor would have to be explosive reactive armor in order to fend off a kinetic impact. It works against energy weapons by absorbing and boiling off the high-specific heat armor, but to nullify a kinetic impact it would have to explode with enough force to neutralize the impact, which has the same crew-killing problem.

The reason reactive armor works on modern tanks is because they are concerned with penetration of the armor and subsequent explosion IIRC

rhoenix · Post by **rhoenix** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:19 pm

Cynical Cat wrote:If you want easily repairable armour, go with steel not something fancy. That would be easy to repair/replace in the field, which would not be the case with a fancy hitech composite.

Well, for the ablative armor, I was thinking giant spraycans for repairs.

LibriumArcana.Games

Comments on Librium Universe Infodump thread

#26

#27

#28

#29

#30

#31

#32

#33

#34

#35

#36

#37

#38

#39

#40

#41

#42

#43

#44

#45

#46

#47

#48

#49

#50