10 light minute range on Acc. guns

Xero Cool Down · Post by **Xero Cool Down** » 2005-07-17 05:52pm

I've seen this argued at SB.com, but nobody seemed to noticed that just because the ICS listed that as the range doesn't mean that that is the range at which ships engage in combat, since it doens't seem reasonable that ships would be firing when the other ship has 10 minutes to evade the oncomming bolt. It would, however, be useful if the ship were attacking a stationary object like a planet.

Xero Cool Down · Post by **Xero Cool Down** » 2005-07-17 05:53pm

WTF, I know I didn't hit the Topic post button twice......

apocolypse · Post by **apocolypse** » 2005-07-17 06:00pm

What do you mean "nobody seemed to notice"?

I argued the topic over at SB myself on more than one occasion. No one was seriously arguing that combat would take routinely take place at those ranges, only that it wasn't unreasonable for TLs to potentially go out to those ranges. It was mostly people shouting "bullshit" and "wank", and people like myself trying to argue that it wasn't necessarily. I'm sorry, but the way you're stating it is not the way that it happened, at least not from what I've seen/argued.

Xero Cool Down · Post by **Xero Cool Down** » 2005-07-17 06:10pm

apocolypse wrote:What do you mean "nobody seemed to notice"?.

What I mean is that nobody seemed to consider any other use for having weapons with that range other than ship to ship combat.

Techno_Union · Post by **Techno_Union** » 2005-07-17 06:14pm

Xero Cool Down wrote:
apocolypse wrote:What do you mean "nobody seemed to notice"?.

What I mean is that nobody seemed to consider any other use for having weapons with that range other than ship to ship combat.

Not true, I (Grand_Admiral over there) brought up that point that the range could also be used to attack stationary targets like some stations and planets. And I believe the ICS mentioned it attacking ships, but, IIRC, large ships.

Xero Cool Down · Post by **Xero Cool Down** » 2005-07-17 06:18pm

Techno_Union wrote:
Xero Cool Down wrote:
apocolypse wrote:What do you mean "nobody seemed to notice"?.

What I mean is that nobody seemed to consider any other use for having weapons with that range other than ship to ship combat.
Not true, I (Grand_Admiral over there) brought up that point that the range could also be used to attack stationary targets like some stations and planets. And I believe the ICS mentioned it attacking ships, but, IIRC, large ships.

Ah well I quite reading after about the second or third page as the discussion degenerated.

apocolypse · Post by **apocolypse** » 2005-07-17 10:14pm

Xero Cool Down wrote:
apocolypse wrote:What do you mean "nobody seemed to notice"?.

What I mean is that nobody seemed to consider any other use for having weapons with that range other than ship to ship combat.

Like GA (or TU here) already said, no-one was debating 10 minute light ranges for ship-to-ship combat. It was mostly an onslaught of "wank figures" and "movies over-ride it!" that GA, myself, and a couple of others were arguing against about. The whole thing was just one massive general bitchfest. I should know, because I was involved as well. And there were several instances of people like GA stating it could be used against stationary targets like stations or planets.

Cykeisme · Post by **Cykeisme** » 2005-07-19 01:40pm

Hrm.. would the turbolaser bolt/beam undergo diffusion or attenuation of some sort?

Whatever the case, even if it still carried a fifth or even a tenth of its energy, it'll be pretty deadly to a populated planet that had no shielding, though!

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2005-07-19 11:18pm

I've always seen it like the difference between the maximum range of a bullet compared to the average range at which they're useful. A high-powered rifle can easily shoot bullets out to a thousand yards, but will more likely be used at a couple hundred yards.

Of course, with an energy weapon in space, there's a bit of a difference. Imagine how long it'd take a turbolaser bolt to slowly shed 200 gigatons of energy. The "effective range" in the ICS, to my mind, explains how long it takes the bolt to lose the most significant amount of its energy... the point after which the bolt is so much weaker than when originally fired that it is no longer effective.

It has nothing to do with accuracy or chance of hitting your target... it's a simple measure of how long the bolt retains a significant amount of destructive power.

Cykeisme · Post by **Cykeisme** » 2005-07-20 01:00am

Regarding small arms, the terms are "maximum range" and "maximum effective range".

The 10 light-minute range would be the maximum range.

As an aside, maximum effective range is the maximum practical useable range of a weapon. Now, while the maximum effective range of a rifle is always with regards to a man-sized target when fired by an average soldier.

The maximum effective range of a turbolaser would be limited by constraints of sensors, targeting fire control and beam propogation time, and more importantly, it would vary vastly depending on the size and maneuverability of the target. A city on a planet with a rate of angular rotation could be hit at much greater distance than a juking starfighter, for example.
Due to the latter factors, I doubt a meaningful value can be established for maximum effective range.

Therefore I don't see any problem with only stating the maximum range for a turbolasers..

Dangermouse · Post by **Dangermouse** » 2005-07-20 01:27am

SPOOFE wrote: Of course, with an energy weapon in space, there's a bit of a difference. Imagine how long it'd take a turbolaser bolt to slowly shed 200 gigatons of energy. The "effective range" in the ICS, to my mind, explains how long it takes the bolt to lose the most significant amount of its energy... the point after which the bolt is so much weaker than when originally fired that it is no longer effective.

<Raises hand> I have a question. What are the main loss mechanisms for a energy bolt in a space?

Forgive the curiosity of a curious onlooker.

Striderteen · Post by **Striderteen** » 2005-07-20 01:33am

Dangermouse wrote:
SPOOFE wrote: Of course, with an energy weapon in space, there's a bit of a difference. Imagine how long it'd take a turbolaser bolt to slowly shed 200 gigatons of energy. The "effective range" in the ICS, to my mind, explains how long it takes the bolt to lose the most significant amount of its energy... the point after which the bolt is so much weaker than when originally fired that it is no longer effective.
<Raises hand> I have a question. What are the main loss mechanisms for a energy bolt in a space?

Forgive the curiosity of a curious onlooker.

It's completely dependent on the nature of the energy bolt, which in the case of a turbolaser is only vaguely known.

Cykeisme · Post by **Cykeisme** » 2005-07-20 03:01am

The only confirmed mechanism for energy loss during bolt propogation that we can know exist are light that bleeds off in all directions in at least one particular wavelength of color of the visible spectrum; this causes the luminosity of the bolt.
There may be more, of course.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2005-07-20 03:42am

Cykeisme wrote: Therefore I don't see any problem with only stating the maximum range for a turbolasers..

Stating maxium range for Turbolasers only is deceptive because people tend to equate maximum range with maximum effective range if you don't state which is which.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-07-20 03:47am

Well, only if they're a dolt.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2005-07-20 11:26am

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Well, only if they're a dolt.

Dolts are common.

Considering the speed at which SW ships can zip around, Hell if they can do 50MPH then ten light minutes is more than enough to dodge a flurry of shots from another ship at that range.

So max range rather than max effective range.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2005-07-20 04:00pm

It was the Venator's guns, which are superior, not the Acclamators. Acclamator gunnery range is unknown, AFAIK.

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2005-07-20 04:24pm

Doesn't the ROTS:ICS say, that the ten lightminutes range are for ship-combat?

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2005-07-20 11:22pm

FTeik wrote:Doesn't the ROTS:ICS say, that the ten lightminutes range are for ship-combat?

Yes. and technically it probably could be done. Power generation is such that (generally) they can divert full power to weapons or engines, but not both. So if you're firing your weapons at full power, you probably can't use your engines to manuver. If SW ships need long times (minutes) to knock down shields, then they might very well engage in such slugging matches. (This may be designed to reflect the idea that some hold that SW ships do not manuver much if at all in combat.)

Cykeisme · Post by **Cykeisme** » 2005-07-21 04:33pm

That's an interesting observation, Connor.. makes a lot of sense, too. I doubt capital ships that are at ranges where beam propogation times are a tiny fraction of a second would bother wasting energy attempting evasive maneuvers.

I guess it is possible that a ship's turbolasers may be able to hit an enemy capital ship moving in a linear manner with zero acceleration even when it takes ten minutes for the shot to get there. With SW level tech, I guess this shouldn't come as a surprise.

However, I doubt it takes a significant (relatively) amount of energy to cause an impulse sufficient to alter a ship's position ten minutes into the future (that is enough to completely displace its position). Ten minutes is just too long a time for a target to make a minute evasive maneuver that would completely negate an attack.

Btw can someone do the calcs to find out how many minutes of angle a Star Destroyer's silhouette subtends, from the point of view of an observer ten light-minutes away?

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2005-08-01 06:43am

Instead of single ships opposing each other, fleets firing at each other should be less maneuverable.

ClaysGhost · Post by **ClaysGhost** » 2005-08-01 08:46am

Cykeisme wrote: Btw can someone do the calcs to find out how many minutes of angle a Star Destroyer's silhouette subtends, from the point of view of an observer ten light-minutes away?

The maximum linear angle subtended would be about 1.8 milli-arcseconds for a 1.6km ship at that distance. I don't know what the maximum solid angle subtended by the silhouette would be, as I don't know the beam of a star destroyer.

montypython · Post by **montypython** » 2005-08-01 11:24pm

Cykeisme wrote:The only confirmed mechanism for energy loss during bolt propogation that we can know exist are light that bleeds off in all directions in at least one particular wavelength of color of the visible spectrum; this causes the luminosity of the bolt.
There may be more, of course.

What about the inverse square law effects on energy weapons?

Cykeisme · Post by **Cykeisme** » 2005-08-02 02:25pm

montypython wrote:What about the inverse square law effects on energy weapons?

That's for fields of force and expanding blast radii. The components of a turbolaser bolt travel more or less parallel to the direction in which the weapon is fired, rather than outward in all directions.

If I'm wrong, someone correct me.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2005-08-02 03:10pm

All I'd take that figure to mean, is that the inherent accuracy of the gun is sufficient to hit a target at 10 light minutes. There's no way ships which can accelerate at thousands of gravities are going to hit each other with 10 minutes warning, chasing salvos would be the easiest thing ever.