Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 0:25:42 GMT -6
.
|
|
|
Post by Sliprunner on Aug 14, 2015 7:38:26 GMT -6
Basing things upon future develops is in itself a flawed ideal. We've had to go through a few iterations of designs for fusion power as while something started to work it would fail should it be taken to scale. There is still nothing to say we won't encounter problems with meta-materials in attempts to scale them up or cover wider spectrum. Something I have made very clearly on a number of occasions is that you can't simply scale something up and have it work, it has to be designed for that scale. Because something semi-works on a small scale doesn't mean you can just scale it up to something larger. Take CPU's for instance, Their own development is starting to become problematic as where we had thought they could be continuously upgraded is starting to prove wrong; We are reaching a point where we can't simply scale the size of the CPU's logic anymore and are having to start figuring out how to increase the number of cores instead, should a similar issue ever crop up for meta-materials it would remove starships from the equation.
You still run into a consistent problem that you WILL be generating a thermal signatures with engines, even drifting you kindly ignored the factor of where you will need to use engines once you get there. If you can not stop yourself once you reach your destination, then you have to either break stealth once there or simply slide past your target. Suspending the inner hull in the super cool liquid creates another issue, you create a point of abnormal cold within space. Space is not cold but rather a general lack of temperature, there's nothing to chill or heat deep space. When you consider that in GC many of our sensors are searching in AU this only complicates maters. "Going Silent" in a diesel sub worked because the primary way of detecting them was from sonar, which at the time wasn't exactly very decent. Modern submarines now have considerable issues in regards to sonar, namely that in order to combat all the methods of being detected they can now be found by looking for spots of "Abnormal" silence.
In better terms, Meta-Materials are a passive form of stealth that simply help hide something, they aren't going to be a major turning point in cloaking starships, especially considering that the major issues with cloaking starships is dealing with the emissions. (Lets not also forget that your FTL burst to enter the system is likely going to tip someone off there's something lurking around)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 9:02:34 GMT -6
.
|
|
|
Post by Sliprunner on Aug 14, 2015 11:02:10 GMT -6
As per your statement, trying to hide something better then the tools designed to find it is largely the problem here. Our sensors are having to be designed to pick up objects that in some cases are less then a 100 meters in length, not only picking them up but picking them up at vast distances. When you consider that actual sensor platforms within the fleet in some cases contain more then twenty separate sensor arrays you come across the simple problem that you are trying to hide against something vastly more advanced. Hiding behind an event horizon, in the form of manipulating the space directly around the ship, is by far the more likely option for how you would get cloaking functional.
The problem is you can't really relate starship combat to naval combat as people would hope, The first problem encountered is that there is no arbitrary alignment axis. This occurs problems in trying to hide the "submarine", our stealth ship, in an "Unusual" vector; What can be considered an unusual vector or even an advantageous approach when your alignment could very well differ from a scouts alignment. The second being that starships aren't harshly classed in role via size, A battleship can be as much of a sensor platform as a simple corvette. Such as stealth could be a full on destroyer or again just a simple corvette. The size and scaling of equipment between these is absolutely dramatic and makes it hard to compare with realistic equipment itself. We can speculate on how things should function but we can't firmly base it off anything.
As for actually introducing cloaking, it'll be coming at a point where the laws of physics start becoming subjective. The stealth platform as is currently serves more for "specialty" vessels, In my case, its using a non-standard design and a drive stolen from another faction to be used as a "Black Ops" vessel. Its point for the most part is to lurk in and take a view of what is there, while relatively speaking it is easy to find if you are actually looking its impossible to pin it to me without capturing the vessel. Even then its not something you'll pick up casually looking around, lending well to them as "aggressive" recon vessels.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 12:01:45 GMT -6
.
|
|
|
Post by Sliprunner on Aug 14, 2015 12:30:25 GMT -6
I would prefer if the debate was kept to the actual debate, rather then you attempting to imply your opponent (me) simply doesn't understand. However for the submarine hiding at the ocean, the problem is you would have to know how the space looks from your opponents perspective to know where you could hide then among "ambient" traces. If you are approaching inward (towards star) of a system from deep space, you for example wouldn't be able to know which points your opponent may see that would be to your advantage to hide against. You can attempt to predict but that requires you to already know conditions before your approach.
One of the side effects with attempts to cloak though? If we cloak and thus render ourselves invisible to the surroundings, such as through meta-materials that would bend the light and other such around the target to conceal them, how would the hidden object see? Without those same wavelengths interacting with the object, they would be secluded from seeing whats around them. Unlike a submarine which can still listen in on its surroundings, in order to hide the object using metamaterials, we are silencing the surrounding "sound" rendering the object (our ship) blind. You'd have to create a "one way" metamaterial in order to accomplish this; Referring the Klingon cloaking, they could be detected yes, but they could also see whats going on around them.
Reason Torpedos were removed was that there wasn't enough difference compared to bombs. Even though the torps could be armored and technically could of been launched from further out, it rather counteracts the point of having a strikecraft lugging around those kind of munitions; In better terms "They were redundant".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 12:32:45 GMT -6
An even bigger problem than how you see: How you deal with your waste heat while cloaked.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Kyle Deshara on Aug 14, 2015 12:44:55 GMT -6
Torpedoes being in the strike craft system led to questions about "what even is the difference between a torpedo and a bomb", and really it was a glorified bomb. There simply wasn't enough difference that would warrant it being titled other than a longer effective range, which as slip said, defeats the point of mounting it to strike craft.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 12:55:29 GMT -6
.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 0:47:22 GMT -6
Shouldn't boarding be left to the Assault starship template? It just feels slightly silly to have a carrier that launches assault dropships which can engage in boarding themselves or launch boarding pods. Same with putting PD on strikecraft.
|
|
|
Post by Sliprunner on Aug 26, 2015 17:38:18 GMT -6
Version 3 Up Notified upcoming change to strikecraft cost Casemate (unmanned) removed, Turret mounts are cheaper Missiles reduced in cost Armor reduced from 10mm for 2 to 5mm for 1 Clarified SCAR armor FTL drive reduced from 20 to 15 cost Bomber/Gunship wording cleared up Added Atmospheric Design
Unless anyone has any major issues to bring up with this version, it'll go live "Soon"
|
|
Sunshine60
Edessian Ensign
Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.
Posts: 218
|
Post by Sunshine60 on Aug 27, 2015 12:49:57 GMT -6
We might need rules for constructing strike craft outside of Hangar Support. Otherwise, I see no problems from my initial read-through.
Edit: Second read-through reveals that you already covered that. I should pay better attention.
|
|