Weapons Suggestions

Fenway wrote:

No, payloads are not necessary for massive damage! Take a say... Super-compressed iron "Rod" with a basic flight correction computer, and drop it from a spaceship from orbit altitude. Even with friction, an aerodynamic design will allow it to attain massive speedsdue to gravitational acceleration. The larger the planet, and, therefore the more gravity, the faster it will fly. When it hits the ground, it would have the force of 10 nuclear warheads on impact. This would actually be much more efficient than even a nuclear warhead, as the materials needed for a warhead are more expensive than steel.

Actually thats been proven wrong, the math, which I'll find later, clearly states that such a technique would require a 40+ ton iron bar under 1g from orbit to achieve the strength of a small nuclear bomb. That is a LOT of iron, a standard nuclear bomb would be more desirable in nearly every aspect. Except maybe the unstopable-ility of a 40 ton mass of solid frkkin iron flying at you, and the "HOLY $#\^ WFT IS THAT ITS FLYING AT US ASDFGH" property, though a nuke could have that too.

Buggy1997123 wrote:

Fenway wrote:

No, payloads are not necessary for massive damage! Take a say... Super-compressed iron "Rod" with a basic flight correction computer, and drop it from a spaceship from orbit altitude. Even with friction, an aerodynamic design will allow it to attain massive speedsdue to gravitational acceleration. The larger the planet, and, therefore the more gravity, the faster it will fly. When it hits the ground, it would have the force of 10 nuclear warheads on impact. This would actually be much more efficient than even a nuclear warhead, as the materials needed for a warhead are more expensive than steel.

Actually thats been proven wrong, the math, which I'll find later, clearly states that such a technique would require a 40+ ton iron bar under 1g from orbit to achieve the strength of a small nuclear bomb. That is a LOT of iron, a standard nuclear bomb would be more desirable in nearly every aspect. Except maybe the unstopable-ility of a 40 ton mass of solid frkkin iron flying at you, and the "HOLY $#\^ WFT IS THAT ITS FLYING AT US ASDFGH" property, though a nuke could have that too.

I've done the math as well, so I can confirm your calculations. That's why I would see something like a Magnetic Accelerator Cannon (MAC) from Halo as a more economical, yet far more destructive option than deploying "Rods from God." It's basically a massive railgun that, instead of relying on sabots to guide rounds during launch, simply launches a single ferrous tungsten-alloy slug meant to slam through anything in the shot's path. Also, MACs can accommodate several types of rounds, such as "shredder" rounds meant to take out a large number of smaller ships rather than just one large ship. For orbital bombardment, one round could potentially cause destruction equivalent to, at the very least, a MOAB. Think about it this way: a 5-10 ton solid ferrous tungsten-alloy slug already moving at speeds faster than any bullet or missile enters the atmosphere of a target planet. Only a few seconds later, it impacts the planet's capital city. How much of that city do you think will be left standing when the dust clears?

what ever. You people and your math. I'm just gona make a planet buster with the ability to destroy an entire planet. You know what mats you'll need? 1 iron bar, thats it. MWAHAHAHA!!!!

But yeah, in all seriousness, nukes = no IMO. Why would people want to play a game where someone in a massive ship can attack from orbit and reduce your planet to ashes w/o you even seeing them? Where's the fun in that (well besides the guy in the ship laughing his ass off)?

I think we need to be realistic when it comes to the weapons available, if we make nukes, super cannons and what not available, guess what! Everyone will skip all the other stuff, build a giant battleship and fly around nuking and bombarding everyone from space. If we make the weapons something they have to come into the planets atmosphere to use, this will give the people on the ground a better more even chance to defend themselves.

As I've stated in a number of other threads I'd really like to see combat be a very dynamic, tactical event. People making decisions as to whether to risk certain assets to take a certain objective. Not just PEW PEW PEW RARRRR!! WARRR!!! But again, its just my opinion, I'm not a big fan of the FPS high speed jumping matches, I always enjoyed a good game of Battle Field 2 with the realism mod. Makes you have to think about what your doing rather than just aimlessly hoping around blasting anything that moves.

lordhood117 wrote:

Buggy1997123 wrote:

Fenway wrote:

No, payloads are not necessary for massive damage! Take a say... Super-compressed iron "Rod" with a basic flight correction computer, and drop it from a spaceship from orbit altitude. Even with friction, an aerodynamic design will allow it to attain massive speedsdue to gravitational acceleration. The larger the planet, and, therefore the more gravity, the faster it will fly. When it hits the ground, it would have the force of 10 nuclear warheads on impact. This would actually be much more efficient than even a nuclear warhead, as the materials needed for a warhead are more expensive than steel.

Actually thats been proven wrong, the math, which I'll find later, clearly states that such a technique would require a 40+ ton iron bar under 1g from orbit to achieve the strength of a small nuclear bomb. That is a LOT of iron, a standard nuclear bomb would be more desirable in nearly every aspect. Except maybe the unstopable-ility of a 40 ton mass of solid frkkin iron flying at you, and the "HOLY $#\^ WFT IS THAT ITS FLYING AT US ASDFGH" property, though a nuke could have that too.

I've done the math as well, so I can confirm your calculations. That's why I would see something like a Magnetic Accelerator Cannon (MAC) from Halo as a more economical, yet far more destructive option than deploying "Rods from God." It's basically a massive railgun that, instead of relying on sabots to guide rounds during launch, simply launches a single ferrous tungsten-alloy slug meant to slam through anything in the shot's path. Also, MACs can accommodate several types of rounds, such as "shredder" rounds meant to take out a large number of smaller ships rather than just one large ship. For orbital bombardment, one round could potentially cause destruction equivalent to, at the very least, a MOAB. Think about it this way: a 5-10 ton solid ferrous tungsten-alloy slug already moving at speeds faster than any bullet or missile enters the atmosphere of a target planet. Only a few seconds later, it impacts the planet's capital city. How much of that city do you think will be left standing when the dust clears?

Uhh.... id say every single cockroach, and thats it. Maybe the twinkies too, but thats mostly it.

ectrimble20 wrote:

what ever. You people and your math. I'm just gona make a planet buster with the ability to destroy an entire planet. You know what mats you'll need? 1 iron bar, thats it. MWAHAHAHA!!!!

But yeah, in all seriousness, nukes = no IMO. Why would people want to play a game where someone in a massive ship can attack from orbit and reduce your planet to ashes w/o you even seeing them? Where's the fun in that (well besides the guy in the ship laughing his ass off)?

I think we need to be realistic when it comes to the weapons available, if we make nukes, super cannons and what not available, guess what! Everyone will skip all the other stuff, build a giant battleship and fly around nuking and bombarding everyone from space. If we make the weapons something they have to come into the planets atmosphere to use, this will give the people on the ground a better more even chance to defend themselves.

As I've stated in a number of other threads I'd really like to see combat be a very dynamic, tactical event. People making decisions as to whether to risk certain assets to take a certain objective. Not just PEW PEW PEW RARRRR!! WARRR!!! But again, its just my opinion, I'm not a big fan of the FPS high speed jumping matches, I always enjoyed a good game of Battle Field 2 with the realism mod. Makes you have to think about what your doing rather than just aimlessly hoping around blasting anything that moves.

I agree that we shouldn't just have easy to make superweapons, but maybe incredibly complex to craft superweapons could be a option. Like literally having to build a refinery and refine uranium 20 times over just to get it to a usable nuclear state.

Speaking of super weapons, I think that all offical team members should be able to pick at least one overpowered thing to be implemented that only they (or other team members) can use, so long as its nothing horribly difficult to implement.

Buggy1997123 wrote:

*snip* Speaking of super weapons, I think that all official team members should be able to pick at least one overpowered thing to be implemented that only they (or other team members) can use, so long as its nothing horribly difficult to implement.

I already have! Mjolnir body armor. Might request a Bolo tank.... ahhhh, the fun in driving a tank the size of a destroyer...

At any rate! My thought on superweapons is that if we make them at all, we also need to make hellishly strong planetary defense weapons (the penultimate high-tier stuff that takes waaaaaaaaaaaay too much in the way of resources for 99% of people to bother getting.... just like superweapons. Who uses a nuke when a couple hundred/thousand M16s does the job much more economically, even if it takes longer?) to counter them. Shields, planetary Ion/Turbo/WTF cannons.(WTF - Wide Temporal Flux) That sort of thing.

Shiva wrote:

Buggy1997123 wrote:

*snip* Speaking of super weapons, I think that all official team members should be able to pick at least one overpowered thing to be implemented that only they (or other team members) can use, so long as its nothing horribly difficult to implement.

I already have! Mjolnir body armor. Might request a Bolo tank.... ahhhh, the fun in driving a tank the size of a destroyer...

At any rate! My thought on superweapons is that if we make them at all, we also need to make hellishly strong planetary defense weapons (the penultimate high-tier stuff that takes waaaaaaaaaaaay too much in the way of resources for 99% of people to bother getting.... just like superweapons. Who uses a nuke when a couple hundred/thousand M16s does the job much more economically, even if it takes longer?) to counter them. Shields, planetary Ion/Turbo/WTF cannons.(WTF - Wide Temporal Flux) That sort of thing.

Maybe shields should be a medium-low tech device and have tiers, with lower tiers being easier to make and weaker and higher tiers being stronger and harder to make, with the top tier being like 3x as expensive to make as the next tier down but incredibly powerfull.

Also something to think about is Satellites: orbital weapons platforms, Sensors, Spy networks etc ( maby not the spy stuff but...) witch would help with the problem of super weapons. If you see the ships as there entering the Solar System then you can prepare for combat before they get in range of your planets, and with the orbital weapons platforms you can put them up before you get good space travel worked out. Or like in Stargate SG1 the Tollans had the Ion Cannon planet defense system, Why not do something like that with Mass Accelerator Cannons (General Term for Cannons that use Magnetics or other means (Like Gravity Control or things like in Mass Effect) to "Shoot" something at extreme* speeds) There not as good as Ion cannons but a metal Slug moving at a % of the Speed of light is still going to do damage.

And on the topic of MACs who says the only thing they can shoot is metal, plasma is just a gas charged to the next state of matter, it has a electromagnetic field that you can use to shoot it out of one (and when you get to the point of useing Gravity just use gravity to compress it then shoot it.)

This is just a few things i was thinking of as i read threw some of the posts. I plan on getting a degrees in Engineering to go in to this field of study, so i might post some more ideas i come up with.

- Dragoon

Edit: Remembered the name of the Tollans.

Hrmm... the more powerful weapons on the ship the more powerful the ground defenses need to be, and so the capital ships are gonna be weaker, and thus more easily destroyed, and these ships are likely going to be the product of hours of swinging a pickaxe, so watching it get destroyed in ten seconds would be a major bummer, so you only attack the weak planets, then there is no chance of starting a new server...

This is going to be really hard to balance so its fun but not unfair.

As fun as as a Super Mega Ultra MAC Plasma Accelerator 5000 Level Four sounds the game would likely be too harsh...

roguenerd wrote:

Hrmm... the more powerful weapons on the ship the more powerful the ground defenses need to be, and so the capital ships are gonna be weaker, and thus more easily destroyed, and these ships are likely going to be the product of hours of swinging a pickaxe, so watching it get destroyed in ten seconds would be a major bummer, so you only attack the weak planets, then there is no chance of starting a new server...

This is going to be really hard to balance so its fun but not unfair.

As fun as as a Super Mega Ultra MAC Plasma Accelerator 5000 Level Four sounds the game would likely be too harsh...

You've forgotten the Assault ship class, which is a magnitude of size larger than the second-largest ship, the Superdreadnought. Both are rather... ginormous (think flying Mount Everest in both sheer mass and total size on the AShip) and thus fairly tough. Additionally, we're going to (probably) implement automated mining systems. I rather think that anyone in a "capital" class ship who takes the time to build it will get a very, very good return on their money against mid-high tiered servers, but probably fall off against most high-tier servers. And those old, high-tier servers which have an above average number of people participating (think Buxville, which regularly has a queue list after filling a hundred slots) can still be taken by stealth, I.E., landing your Mine-SEALS via a stealth craft of some sort, and having them disable the planetary power generators which are powering the uber-death-cannons-of-pwnership sitting in orbit.

Well, ok, so here's my question cuz I've seen this a lot...

whats up with everyones obsession with super weapons?

I mean I know its a sci-fi based mod with massive space ships, but a super weapon.... I mean, where's the fun in blowing up a massive capitol ship with the click of a mouse? That's boring, requires no effort and only enjoyable to a 4 year old IMO.

I really think we need to emphasize the smaller scale engagement aspects. Get away from planetary bombardment and massive surface to air guns that would make battles distant and well rather dull and concentrate on stuff like ship to ship batteries, torpedo bombers, ship boarding and capture, assaulting an asteroid complex blah blah blah.

I like the idea of defense satellites though. I think the satellites could be the first line of defense that the attackers have to get through before they can assault a planet. Think like bunkers on the beaches of Normandy, once you break through the initial defenses you must then land your assault force and being the task of conquering the planet etc etc.

I just feel that if we put huge Yamoto cannons in the game people will exclusively use them and the game will not longer be 'FutureCraft', it will become 'WMDCraft'.

Quote :

whats up with everyones obsession with super weapons

Well, they're awesome.

Quote :

I mean, where's the fun in blowing up a massive capitol ship with the click of a mouse? That's boring, requires no effort and only enjoyable to a 4 year old IMO.

I was thinking along the same lines. It will probably end up that the uber-massive cannons will take a massive amount of power, so you need lots of energy very quickly, which would require lots of expensive energy-generating stations, so it wouldn't really be easy to explode a capital ship in one hit. The effort in doing it would make it harder/funner I think.

Quote :

I was thinking along the same lines. It will probably end up that the uber-massive cannons will take a massive amount of power, so you need lots of energy very quickly, which would require lots of expensive energy-generating stations, so it wouldn't really be easy to explode a capital ship in one hit. The effort in doing it would make it harder/funner I think.

I can see that point. I suppose if you make it very hard to actually accomplish a super weapon, like needing to be a very advanced world, I would be down with that.

I'm just firmly against easy to access super weapons that get tossed around like they we're dirt blocks.

I don't think anyone was saying that supers would be easy to get As a matter of fact, I did say that it was the high-tier, old systems which would have the big cannons - and to further your Normandy/beach defense analogy, said orbital cannons and satellites are equivalent to the US's shore guns of WWII - massively long-ranged, bigger than anything a ship could ever carry (minus, maybe, the Yamato or Iowa) - and of course, a very, very long reload. I'm thinking that satellites would be a good stopgap for everyone, lowest tier to highest, while their mobile units (the true defense of anything as vast as a star system) get underway to engage.

Shiva wrote:

I don't think anyone was saying that supers would be easy to get As a matter of fact, I did say that it was the high-tier, old systems which would have the big cannons - and to further your Normandy/beach defense analogy, said orbital cannons and satellites are equivalent to the US's shore guns of WWII - massively long-ranged, bigger than anything a ship could ever carry (minus, maybe, the Yamato or Iowa) - and of course, a very, very long reload. I'm thinking that satellites would be a good stopgap for everyone, lowest tier to highest, while their mobile units (the true defense of anything as vast as a star system) get underway to engage.

humm, you make quite the compelling argument there. I like the way that sounds.

Well, I suppose I'd be cool with super weapons if they're properly implemented. I just don't want every joker and their grand mother building supers as the only thing in the game, would become quite the snooze fest

Regardless, I think we'll be able to work out once we get to the implementation phase.

ectrimble20 wrote:

humm, you make quite the compelling argument there. I like the way that sounds.

Well, I suppose I'd be cool with super weapons if they're properly implemented. I just don't want every joker and their grand mother building supers as the only thing in the game, would become quite the snooze fest

Regardless, I think we'll be able to work out once we get to the implementation phase.

I agree with it being boring if everyone has a super weapon hidden in their pocket, though if the physics incorporated works and is well thought out ( lasers travel at a specific speed in a vacuum [other projectiles a lot slower], and with the massive distance between things, if one had the skill of piloting ships, then it would be a cake walk to dodge or even just put up defense barriers to diminish some of the overall damage.)

One thing that I think should be incorporated is that if someone launches a superweapon ( nuke, laser, blackhole generator, void portal, etc.) and the ship/ enemy is relatively close to the planet ( in its gravity sphere) then bad things would happen, like if a nuke went off, then radiation would flow down, or i a super dreadnought blew up, then a whole h%$$ of a lot of debris would crash to the ground causing even more damage. ( or one could somehow miss and waste a weapon, there is always that slim chance)

That way there are pros and cons of launching such weapons.

GroundBurg_Coder13 wrote:

ectrimble20 wrote:

humm, you make quite the compelling argument there. I like the way that sounds.

Well, I suppose I'd be cool with super weapons if they're properly implemented. I just don't want every joker and their grand mother building supers as the only thing in the game, would become quite the snooze fest

Regardless, I think we'll be able to work out once we get to the implementation phase.

I agree with it being boring if everyone has a super weapon hidden in their pocket, though if the physics incorporated works and is well thought out ( lasers travel at a specific speed in a vacuum [other projectiles a lot slower], and with the massive distance between things, if one had the skill of piloting ships, then it would be a cake walk to dodge or even just put up defense barriers to diminish some of the overall damage.)

One thing that I think should be incorporated is that if someone launches a superweapon ( nuke, laser, blackhole generator, void portal, etc.) and the ship/ enemy is relatively close to the planet ( in its gravity sphere) then bad things would happen, like if a nuke went off, then radiation would flow down, or i a super dreadnought blew up, then a whole h%$$ of a lot of debris would crash to the ground causing even more damage. ( or one could somehow miss and waste a weapon, there is always that slim chance)

That way there are pros and cons of launching such weapons.

How do you miss a planet?

Buggy1997123 wrote:

How do you miss a planet?

I was thinking of the reverse, as in not ship to planet ( i agree, how can one miss a planet?), but more so ground to air, last ditch effort to take down a dreadnought / super carrier etc. when all else fails.

Buggy1997123 wrote:

How do you miss a planet?

Lolz

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-russia-space-20111129,0,2693984.story
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-12/japanese-venus-probe-fails-find-orbit-might-get-second-chance-six-years

Don't worry, its been done

roguenerd wrote:

Buggy1997123 wrote:

How do you miss a planet?

Lolz

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-russia-space-20111129,0,2693984.story
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-12/japanese-venus-probe-fails-find-orbit-might-get-second-chance-six-years

Don't worry, its been done

That holds true for such precision as required in your examples. However, when you are in orbit around a planet and you are trying to fire weapons at it, it really isn't as hard.

Quote :

That holds true for such precision as required in your examples. However, when you are in orbit around a planet and you are trying to fire weapons at it, it really isn't as hard.

Yea I meant those links as a joke. Couldn't help but poke some fun at some fails.

This type of bomb/missile could produce a ripple in the very fabric of space (how large depending on how much your willing to pay ) which would be very devastating to large, non-atmospheric ships since they would probably not be braced very hard since shock waves only travel through matter and thus almost eliminating them in space, almost. They would also spew some type of fuel that would burn rapidly (could be explosive too) that would catch hold to the ship as it burns frying sensors and weakening armor. Read about the current type on wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon

Bombs and bullets don't work in space. They operate on the principle of combustion. Guess what you need to burn something? Hint: It's a gas, and there isn't any of it in the vacuum of space.

It is possible. You would just need a small supply of on board oxygen to help it build up speed and alter its trajectory. Even when it runs out it will still be going- just unguided. Bombs, on the other hand, could be launched by large artillery cannons even though they would be much slower and no chance of guidance.

MaggotKing wrote:

It is possible. You would just need a small supply of on board oxygen to help it build up speed and alter its trajectory. Even when it runs out it will still be going- just unguided. Bombs, on the other hand, could be launched by large artillery cannons even though they would be much slower and no chance of guidance.

They won't explode if there isn't any oxygen.

tonyri wrote:

Bombs and bullets don't work in space. They operate on the principle of combustion. Guess what you need to burn something? Hint: It's a gas, and there isn't any of it in the vacuum of space.

Bullets do work in space, its the gun itself that doesnt. This is because bullets already have an oxidizing agent bonded to the gunpowder (thats how some guns can fire underwater), the gun part fails because of its moving mechanisms in which lubrication is needed ( in space, it would freeze ( when in shadow) or dry out / evaporate when exposed to sunlight)

So with that, if the explosives in the bomb has an oxidizing agent bonded to it chemically, then there is a possibility for it to fully explode in a vacuum