Subject:
|
Re: Combat strategies and tactics in space. Was: Jormungand Carrier Strike Craft
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:14:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1461 times
|
| |
|
|
On 11:20 10/21/04, DedmanWalkin wrote
> The Wing Commander reference was just a way of visually explaining
> how and why.
We can accept parts of the Wing Commander universe's physics without
accepting all of it.
In this case, the defender could not anticipate the drop out point of the
attacker. Without that knowledge, there is no reason to deploy defenders
anywhere more than a short distance of key military targets.
Personally, I like my .space physics to allow limited drop-out points or
some other way of detecting and intercepting enemy units. One of the
easiest limits to FTL is that it can not operate within X AUs of a star or
other large mass... This means the attackers have to drop out some distance
from the target then move sublight in. If you include that the FTL drop-out
causes some detectable disturbance then you have an excellent scenario for
defensive units, high mobility missile platforms and other picket line type
units.
A good dramatic FTL would be one where the attacker has to drop out
somewhere like outside the orbit of Jupiter and that the drop-out signature
could be detected within a few million kms. Or maybe even make it that the
FTL relies on Jupiter's gravity well in order to aim itself. This would
mean the defender doesn't have to have an unrealistically large defense
fleet, but you could still have all the fun of an advance defense force.
In this case, the defender would want some fast patrol ships to monitor the
area and report any intrusions plus some heavier units that can be deployed
to try and slow down the intruders in order to give the main target more
time to evacuate or prepare.
Another good dramatic FTL effect is one that causes the ships who drop out
to be incapacitated for some length of time. This shifts a great deal of
power to the defender since they would have a great incentive to be able to
attack during the time that the attacker is unable to respond.
> This Defense Fleet will
> not get to choose when the battle occurs unless they know where the offending
> fleet is launching from and can stop them from launching.
>
> The defense fleet isn't going
> to have its front to the planet they are protecting, assuming that the defense
> fleet does not have omnidirectional ships.
Even with directed ships, it is likely the ships would have time to turn
their main weapons to bear.
If the FTL allows drop out at an arbitrary point, the defender would need
to deploy its main guns covering most arcs with smaller more agile ships
scattered about to swing in more firepower as fast as possible. It might
even be possible in that scenario that you would not see any large capital
class ships since the defender would have a hard time deploying them to
cover all arcs. Easier to deploy a larger number of smaller ships that can
cover more arcs.
If the FTL lets the attacker drop out, but he cannot accurately determine
the drop out point, this swings the weight more towards capital ships
again, since it is more likely the attacker couldn't just pop right in a
"blind spot" and bigger ships would have time to maneuver into position.
For that matter, if the FTL allows drop out at an exact point, the attacker
has almost overwhelming advantage, since they can drop in exactly in the
position to bring the most force on the target and the defender would have
a very hard time keeping forces ready (both orbital mechanics wise and crew
readiness wise).
> I used
> superconductive armor previously because it was easier than typing out super
> high-temperature superconductive armor.
I can accept the "short hand". And you can keep the "super conducting" part
of it, since the super conducting electrical part of the armour could help
move the energy of a beam weapon to the other side of the ship to let all
parts of the "super heat absorbing" aspects of the armour work.
This would imply mostly omnidirectional armour, which you would certainly
want in a space battle.
> What I was saying is that you can't delay damage from kinetic weapons whereas
> you can delay damage from heat weapons. Armor is meant only to extend the
> usefulness of your ships whereas weapons are meant to lower the usefulness of
> enemy ships. Heat weapons can be defeated by armor, kinetic weapons cannot.
Kinetic weapons can be defeated with ablative armour. Even a blanket of low
density foam would help slow down the impact and allow internal
reinforcement to take some of the energy.
If the kinetic weapon is "smart" like a missile, then you have the ability
to defeat it via ECM or other masking techniques.
If the kinetic weapon is dumb like a shell, then rapid maneuvers or forcing
the enemy to fire at long range helps defeat it. (ECM also helps here too).
With dumb shells you also have a play off between quantity and quality. Do
you want to throw out lots of little rocks knowing that 99% of them won't
hit. Or do you spend extra tech getting one big rock to hit where you want
it to.
> Are you saying that I am not self-consistent?
Some of the challenge of debating how space battles would be is to posit
some form of technology then look at the impact of that technology and any
implications for offense or defense. Keeping things consistent is a good
part of the challenge.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
45 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
