StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The Angmarid's philosophy is essentially "If the nuke doesn't work... Use a bigger nuke."

loomer wrote:The Angmarid's philosophy is essentially "If the nuke doesn't work... Use a bigger nuke."

The Imperium's policy is that the worse comes to worst, glass that corner of the planet.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Nuclear weapons can be found in relatively cheap battlefield MLRS rockets.

That's... kind of insane, you know.

Ryan Thunder wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Nuclear weapons can be found in relatively cheap battlefield MLRS rockets.

That's... kind of insane, you know.

You aren't thinking big enough, son.

It's worth bearing in mind that "nuclear" covers a fairly wide range, from sub-kiloton (which, yes, you might see in an MLRS type system if you really want to make sure everything in the grid square you shoot at is disintegrated), up to multi-megaton (which is devastating in terms of environmental effects and damage to civilian targets).

Anyway, this is exactly the kind of answers I'm looking for, because what I was trying to get a sense of is this:

Consider a Star Wars ship, like a star destroyer. Strapping a fifty megaton bomb to the hull and lighting it off probably won't do more than scratch the paint; if the shields are up not even that. Setting off the same device a few kilometers away from the hull is so ineffective they may not even realize they're being shot at.

Consider an Honorverse capital ship, like a superdreadnought. Strap a fifty megaton bomb to the hull and light it off and you have just put a BIG damn hole in the beast. You will inflict very heavy damage to surface hull features, and considerable damage to the interior. But the ship is still there, it's not vaporized, and it will probably still be able to move and shoot- at reduced effect. You'd have to hit it several times this way to knock it out, or hundreds of times with individually less potent weapons than a point blank multimegaton explosion.

Consider the kind of spaceships we could actually hope to build in the near future. Strap a fifty megaton bomb to the hull and light it off, and it's dead. Nothing on that ship is going to be combat effective; it's all radioactive junk even if it isn't actually melted or vaporized.

So I wanted to know: which of these do we visualize our ships as being more like? Are they functionally immune to even the largest modern nukes, resistant to firepower in that range, or highly vulnerable to firepower in that range?

---

The consensus seems to be the middle option. It sounds like a lot of ships would suffer very badly from a point blank high-end nuclear blast, even with their shields up. But it's unrealistic to have the explosion happen in direct contact with the hull, and the ships' defenses can easily ride out having the same blast happen a kilometer or two away.

Hence, mid-sized ships and larger will need directed-energy weapons (shaped nuclear charges, lasers, railguns) that carry nuke-grade firepower but concentrate it into a smaller target area. Or spherical-blast weapons much more powerful than today's nukes (antimatter bombs). Because ordinary nukes aren't going to cut it against the largest, best shielded combatants, even though they probably would cut it (in sufficient quantity) against light to midsize opponents.

And at the very high end of antiship weapons, such as Chamarran beam cannons and many nations' heavy torpedoes, we see weapons that are more effective against hardened targets than any mere 2000-vintage nuclear strike could be. Hence the need for antimatter, exotic-physics weaponry, or in my case really big particle cannons.

Does that sound like a tolerable consensus answer? I'm not asking anyone to hold to that, but it's usually nice to have a rough idea of what the overall norm is for the sake of collaboration. Thanks, everyone.

I would prefer that our ships be somewhat immune to a 50MT weapon, which is pathetic by any standards. Can you imagine a 1000 year old technology damaging a modern ship? Never mind that the Soviets proved a 100MT bomb is possible?

Simon_Jester wrote:So I wanted to know: which of these do we visualize our ships as being more like? Are they functionally immune to even the largest modern nukes, resistant to firepower in that range, or highly vulnerable to firepower in that range?...

How about the following:

Take your ship hull points and divide by 3 & round down.
So, for example, a 100 point ship is divided into three groups of 33.

If you touch off a nuke of 33 MT or less, against a 100-point ship, the ship is functionally immune.
If you touch off a nuke of 34-66 MT or less, the ship is resistant.
But if you get into the 67-99 (or higher) MT, then the ship is highly vulnerable.
If you have a MT range that is greater than the point value of the ship in total, it is obliterated.

Easy-peasy?

Coyote wrote:

Simon_Jester wrote:So I wanted to know: which of these do we visualize our ships as being more like? Are they functionally immune to even the largest modern nukes, resistant to firepower in that range, or highly vulnerable to firepower in that range?...

How about the following:

Take your ship hull points and divide by 3 & round down.
So, for example, a 100 point ship is divided into three groups of 33.

If you touch off a nuke of 33 MT or less, against a 100-point ship, the ship is functionally immune.
If you touch off a nuke of 34-66 MT or less, the ship is resistant.
But if you get into the 67-99 (or higher) MT, then the ship is highly vulnerable.
If you have a MT range that is greater than the point value of the ship in total, it is obliterated.

Easy-peasy?

Argh more rules and numbers, take them away!..bad! evil!

I don't think that really works Coyote because then you'd have light and medium ships capable of being knocked out if not outright destroyed by modern day nukes. Maybe multiply the ships value by 10 and then by 3 to get your 3 groups of toughness. This would allow light vessels $30 value to take a hit from a 100mt nuke and keep going while anything higher would start damaging it.

/end 2cents

We're talking about ship-to-ship combat, something that's going to be entirely role-played. The Rule of Cool applies more than anything else.

I think Coyote's system works for conceptual purposes, giving ballpark figures for what kind of firepower you should be dishing out, but I hope not to see any rules-lawyering about it.

Although, with those kinds of numbers, it seems like we could trigger accidental obliterations of towns. ("Oops, the missile missed it's target and the first thing to hit its contact-fuse was the rock right above the McDanube's on the moon. No survivors due to resulting moon-quake.")

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:I would prefer that our ships be somewhat immune to a 50MT weapon, which is pathetic by any standards.

What on earth standards would those be? Do you really want all possible warfare to turn into complete destruction of a planetary biosphere? I kind of though this game was going to have sensible non planet cracking firepower here, all the more so since we don't have the ability to shield entire planet surfaces.

Can you imagine a 1000 year old technology damaging a modern ship?

Actually, yeah I can. 1000 year old technology could set a modern ship on fire (big ship killer too), or punch holes in the hull by ramming. Even a 1000A.D. cannon could start damaging the radar and the upper works too.

Never mind that the Soviets proved a 100MT bomb is possible?

Possible sure, in fact the Soviets thought 150 megatons was possible, but as it was the 100 megaton device also weighed as much as the MTOW of an F-35. You could always just stack up 150 million tons of TNT blocks (they've done some pretty big blasts like that to simulate nukes) if you wanted too, but that doesn't mean its a good guide to practical firepower.

As for the idea of a ship being somehow immune to warheads below a given size, that totally fucking would defeat the point that our military system is based on. Mainly that two masses of ships of equal value have basically equal capabilities! Its also just really stupid.

Combat value is combat value, period. Otherwise we're going to spend weeks, well into the game, griping and arguing about this shit.

And yes, easy slagging of planets was something I hoped to avoid, through a combination of theater shields for major cities and such (to avoid the whole "missed shots obliterates the world anyway" thing), custom (nobody willingly slags a perfectly good Earth-like world, well, unless they're fucking crazy and don't care for getting their asses kicked), and sane limits on firepower (to avoid the "Oh well, one of my shots hit between two shields and caused an extinction-level event" possibility).

Why are we still talking about megatons? Are any of you people insane enough to, when writing about a fleet action, consider that "well, this ship just suffered a near-miss; at W distance a warhead of X size means Y energy hits its shields, translating into Z megatons of damage..."?

If the answer is "of course not", as I imagine it will be, then why do you even care whether your main guns inflict megatons or gigatons of damage per shot? It's not going to matter one bit, because in the end it's fleet points that determine the outcome of engagements (for those of us who don't work such things out amongst themselves, that is), and all else is fluff anyway. You could be shooting relativistic fluffy pillows at your opponent for all it'll matter, so please just shut up and write some good fleet battles instead of worrying about dumb and pointless things like the power output of a point defense gun or whatever.

Steve wrote:Combat value is combat value, period. Otherwise we're going to spend weeks, well into the game, griping and arguing about this shit.

Steve, you're right, and I apologize.

And yes, easy slagging of planets was something I hoped to avoid, through a combination of theater shields for major cities and such (to avoid the whole "missed shots obliterates the world anyway" thing), custom (nobody willingly slags a perfectly good Earth-like world, well, unless they're fucking crazy and don't care for getting their asses kicked), and sane limits on firepower (to avoid the "Oh well, one of my shots hit between two shields and caused an extinction-level event" possibility).

This is more or less what I had in mind. "Sane limits on firepower" implies weapons not much more destructive than modern nuclear weapons- either because they're directed energy weapons with limited blast effect, or because they're blast-effect weapons that aren't much bigger than a nuke.

I'm sorry that it went beyond that. I didn't mean for it to.

Siege wrote:If the answer is "of course not", as I imagine it will be, then why do you even care whether your main guns inflict megatons or gigatons of damage per shot? It's not going to matter one bit, because in the end it's fleet points that determine the outcome of engagements (for those of us who don't work such things out amongst themselves, that is), and all else is fluff anyway. You could be shooting relativistic fluffy pillows at your opponent for all it'll matter, so please just shut up and write some good fleet battles instead of worrying about dumb and pointless things like the power output of a point defense gun or whatever.

All I wanted was rough guidelines, so I know how to describe the effects of hits on my own ships. No numbers, no stats, just plenty of Doc Smith-derived action.

And if you haven't read Doc Smith space combat... well, if you're a fan of space opera, you haven't lived till you've read a touch of Smith. At least, that's my opinion.

Dave wrote:We're talking about ship-to-ship combat, something that's going to be entirely role-played. The Rule of Cool applies more than anything else.

I totally agree. I didn't want anything like Coyote's system, and I definitely don't want rules lawyering. I just wanted a vague poll result along the lines of "so, guys, about how dangerous are nukes to our ships?" to give me a rough internal sense of what my weapons should be capable of to match the galactic norm.

Any ship combat I'm involved in will be strictly Rule of Cool, with outcomes determined by a combination of point comparison and (possibly, if the opposing force consents) some dice rolling. Though I intend to inject a little extra dash of SCIENCE! into my Cool descriptions, purely for my own sake.

But NO NUMBERS! URRAA!

Although, with those kinds of numbers, it seems like we could trigger accidental obliterations of towns. ("Oops, the missile missed it's target and the first thing to hit its contact-fuse was the rock right above the McDanube's on the moon. No survivors due to resulting moon-quake.")

Oh, absolutely. That's a given in space opera settings- any worthwhile combat ship in space is a major threat in a planetary-bombardment role. It's just a question of how major the threat is.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:I would prefer that our ships be somewhat immune to a 50MT weapon, which is pathetic by any standards. Can you imagine a 1000 year old technology damaging a modern ship? Never mind that the Soviets proved a 100MT bomb is possible?

What does "somewhat" immune mean, though? Does that mean "fifty megatons going off in direct contact with the hull barely makes a dent?" Or does that mean "The ship can survive such a hit and keep fighting, and it would take many such hits to stop it, just as it takes many punches to stop a human being?"

And I don't think your argument about nuclear weapons being "pathetic" or primitive is sound. It's based on a preconceived idea that progress must take the form of rapid growth in the amount of energy thrown around, inevitably, and that everything in the future will be "just better" than everything in the past.

A modern soldier is not immune to a Viking's axe... nor do they have to be, because Vikings with axes would have no chance of getting into position to become a threat to modern soldiers.

Darkevilme wrote:

Coyote wrote:

Simon_Jester wrote:So I wanted to know: which of these do we visualize our ships as being more like? Are they functionally immune to even the largest modern nukes, resistant to firepower in that range, or highly vulnerable to firepower in that range?...

How about the following:
Take your ship hull points and divide by 3 & round down.
So, for example, a 100 point ship is divided into three groups of 33.
If you touch off a nuke of 33 MT or less, against a 100-point ship, the ship is functionally immune.
If you touch off a nuke of 34-66 MT or less, the ship is resistant.
But if you get into the 67-99 (or higher) MT, then the ship is highly vulnerable.
If you have a MT range that is greater than the point value of the ship in total, it is obliterated.
Easy-peasy?

Argh more rules and numbers, take them away!..bad! evil!

Agreed, and I apologize for encouraging the bad man to expose your poor sensitive eyes to that. I should have remembered what physics does to catgirls...

I didn't want numbers; I just wanted a vague, order of magnitude-ish estimate, so I could figure out whether shipboard weapons should look more like Star Trek, more like the Lensman setting, or more like Star Wars. That sort of thing.

So out of consideration for the catgirl civilization of Chamarra, I think we'd better just leave it at that vague order of magnitude-ish state of "A single large thermonuclear device is powerful enough to be a threat to small ships, though not necessarily a mortal threat... but not powerful enough to be a major threat to large ships individually."

Gy-alll', folks, I was just trying to put something up that was simple to keep it from gathering too much momentum. I don't want any more damn numbers either. But in a toss-up between my suggestion and a spreadshit of tonnage to shielding and armor resistance based on molecular density... blah blah blah... my way would be simpler.

Coyote wrote:Gy-alll', folks, I was just trying to put something up that was simple to keep it from gathering too much momentum. I don't want any more damn numbers either. But in a toss-up between my suggestion and a spreadshit of tonnage to shielding and armor resistance based on molecular density... blah blah blah... my way would be simpler.

Yeah, it would, but since we're not doing either...

Don't feel bad, you were trying to help. I'm not going to hit you with Modnir or anything....

Steve wrote:Yeah, it would, but since we're not doing either... :)

Don't feel bad, you were trying to help. I'm not going to hit you with Modnir or anything.... 8)

The mods should have a numbar, to hit people with if they start trying to do some unnecessary quantification.

Stas Bush wrote:

Darkevilme wrote:*snip*

This is accepted. Works well enough for me.

Have you considered yachts? Having diplomats show up in warships may not send the right message, after all.

A "scout frigate" may not be much of a warship, but it's still a warship (in theory, anyway).

Stas Bush wrote:Ships are cool enough, dimensions and minutiae will come later (if I'd need them at all).

Probably not, unless you get supremely bored one evening.

Karmic Knight wrote: The mods should have a numbar, to hit people with if they start trying to do some unnecessary quantification.

If someone is really obsessed with numbers, he can calculate the force with which the Mod Hammer hits him. Provided his head is still working afterwards.

RogueIce wrote:Have you considered yachts? Having diplomats show up in warships may not send the right message, after all.

Heh...you should see what my diplomats will be showing up in.

DarthShady wrote:

RogueIce wrote:Have you considered yachts? Having diplomats show up in warships may not send the right message, after all.

Heh...you should see what my diplomats will be showing up in.

I think the more extraordinary part here is that the Karlack swarm, spacemonsters that are out to EAT the galaxy, have diplomats.

Well, we have everyone on the map now except Dahak and Flameblade.

Darkevilme wrote: I think the more extraordinary part here is that the Karlack swarm, spacemonsters that are out to EAT the galaxy, have diplomats.

Hey, it pays to be nice to someone, before you eat them.

Wait until you meet our diplomats, they are unusually good at what they do.

RogueIce wrote:Have you considered yachts? Having diplomats show up in warships may not send the right message, after all.

A "scout frigate" may not be much of a warship, but it's still a warship (in theory, anyway).

Works for a lot of 19th century powers. Foreign warships used to put in at each other's ports all the time.

I'm not including consular ships in my Star Force order of battle. They aren't armed, so as far as I'm concerned they don't count.

It shouldn't be a problem; it is generally a safe bet that someone coming to the doorstep of your star empire with a couple of frigates or a destroyer that they have no realistic intention of coming a-conquering.

A stranger showing up with a couple carrier task forces, now, that will raise some alarm bells.