NOTICE Notice: This is an old thread and information may be out of date. The last post was 94 days ago. Please consider making a new thread.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: How will we stop people from "escaping" in combat?

  1. #1
    Newer Member markasoftware's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    14

    How will we stop people from "escaping" in combat?

    When fighting someone, how will the combatants prevent the other from simply using their flux drives (or MTS booster) to get away? Will there be some way to disable the flux drive of nearby ships?

  2. #2
    Registered Ironwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    129
    Good question.

    I wouldn't want to see equipment that disables flux drives.
    I think cat and mouse will be part of game play, until combat takes its toll.

    Ships will probably be in trouble after a few hits, systems will be damaged.

    In the future we will be able to board ships, that will be good.

    But you have raised an interesting aspect. I'm sure others have answers.

  3. #3
    Registered SquidLord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Lawrenceville, GA
    Posts
    70
    If you've driven your enemy from the battlefield to rearm and re-maneuver, you've arranged the same for yours -- and you've got more control of the actually important local space. Now they're coming in on a goal with fewer forces and lacking surprise.

  4. #4
    Registered NovusNecrontyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    142
    Well.. I would stop them from running away by shooting them and actually hitting them. . But I'm the "take no prisoners" kinda guy..

  5. #5
    New Member carlsojos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    4
    I would say there would be a two-fold issue to give a ship pause to fleeing. First, at longer ranges, tracking weapons that self-propel would have more time to determine the path a retreating ship is taking and account for any patterns in its evasive maneuverings, increasing the likelihood of striking and causing further damage. The second issue is the matter of objective; whichever ship leaves first leaves the area open to control by the remaining ships; on the defensive side, the value of the assets being guarded (stations, offline ships, civilian populations, commodities) give weight to remaining in the battle even if the ship is losing function, while the value of the pilot's ship and the fact that experienced combat pilots will be difficult to replace gives weight toward disengaging from a battle instead of committing to destruction of a side. On the offensive side, they have to counterbalance the long-term advantage of completing their objective and the danger of potentially leading the defenders to their staging point (likely a tender ship or a command & control relay) verses the cost of their vessel and the expenses involved in beginning the offensive.

    Retreat is likely to be based on calculations between how important success is and what will maximize preservation of war assets; sometimes falling back will gain a tactical advantage, such as leading an attacking fleet into following into an ambush point, while running your ship until it's disabled may be worthwhile if you need to bide time until reinforcements arrive.

  6. #6
    Newer Member Guillermo Arana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    28
    But, from my understanding, if someone runs away from you with his Flux drive/MTS booster, given that you have the same equipment on your ship, what stops you from following the coward with the same acceleration shooting him from the back? It seems to me like running away from your opponent would only put you in an inferior position, as long as he can follow you. By the way, please excuse my typos.

  7. #7
    Registered socaire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    40
    Very interested in see how the fighting will go. I agree I don't like the engine jamming devices.

    I think submarines are a better comparison for combat that airplanes. In my mind the game will not be about dog fighting at all. You don't see the enemy ship, which may be several light seconds away. Instead you'll register them on your sensors, fire and maybe wait several minutes or even hours until you know if it hit or not.

    Continuing with the submarines comparison, I think it'll be very easy to one shot or be one shotted (unless the game ends up having some sort of shielding). So the strategy will be to not be detected until you can have a firing solution. Depending on the weapons and how sensors detect an incoming attack, the enemy may have some sort of countermeasures / evasive maneuvers. Even if the enemy doesn't instantly die when hit, I would think that the engines / navigation would be the most likely to be affected, so running away wouldn't be so easy. And there is so many systems a ship needs to safely travel in space that even if you get away, the chance of getting alive to a station for repairs is quite small.

  8. #8
    Registered Tryss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    131
    I'm already starting to imagine some strategical approach for space combat. Here is an exemple of possible trajectory, that may be possible (or not depending on your acceleration) :

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	No contact trajectory.png 
Views:	294 
Size:	41.8 KB 
ID:	19010

    The goal is to attack a target in orbit around a moon by surprise. You park yourself in a mirror orbit of the moon, and you wait the right moment to start your move : you'll always have a body between your target and you, until the last moment.

    If your ship is slow, it's only possible if the moon is close to the planet, and the faster (as in acceleration) you are, the farther the moon can be.

    You'll also want to calculate the best encounter speed in regard to your weapon system, and if you want a hit and run or stay on your target after the move. The faster you are, the more options you have
    Last edited by Tryss; 01-08-16 at 11:09 AM.

  9. #9
    Registered NovusNecrontyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    142
    We currently have the tech to protect our phones screens from falling or being hit by hammers. That same technology could help ships absorb impacts, spreading the stress across the entire hull. Perhaps the ship is designed with some little spikes that cause enemy projectile detonation a little too early? Or it coats the ship with an electromagnetic field that fries electronics as they pass through..

    As for stopping someone from getting away, I see warefare as being more cat & mouse than dogfight. Strike & run. Prepare for next strike as your orbit comes around. It just requires too much energy to do a dogfight in space.

  10. #10
    Newer Member Hrusdik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    28
    Good point for energy consumption. Unless you have a mothership or whatever near you, you won’t be able to restore the energy you lost (harvesting your opponent maybe? :P).

    Moreover, dogfight means "close" combat, which looks cool in movies, but seems impossible IRL. Because ... space …
    I mean you can’t maneuver as fast with your little engines (top/bottom/left/right) and since you can’t use drag to make crazy stuns it will look ridiculous for your enemy.

    Imagine your enemy 500 meters away looking at a fly trying to move. Add to that the fact that you need to “undo” the delta-v you produce, meaning your maneuvering is very predictable.
    With a hypothesis where a weapon travel faster that your little engines, like 100 times faster for example, you won’t come even close to 200-300 meters distance, because dodging reaction time will be ridiculous at this point and the one who shots first wins.

    And don’t even think that with better engines you could go away, you will die with the G (I am no expert but I think so).

    This said, the submarine is a clever comparison, in Silent Hunter (submarine “sim”), when you play in hardcore mode you do tons of thinking about how to approach your target at a safe distance, then you try to detect a pattern in its movement, and only when you are sure that the ship will go straight for the next X minutes you launch your torpedo. (With a little of geometry and simple math).
    With this comparison, I think Tryss’s image is showing very well what combat in space wil be.

  11. #11
    Registered Tryss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    131
    And don’t even think that with better engines you could go away, you will die with the G (I am no expert but I think so).
    Our current FLUX drive manage to push us at 4.3g for hours. I'm not sure if it's healthly, even if we imagine anti-g functions. That could be an interesting parameter.

  12. #12
    very good post
    Last edited by atlasweb; 06-05-16 at 02:00 PM.

  13. #13
    Registered Nemises's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by Tryss View Post
    Our current FLUX drive manage to push us at 4.3g for hours. I'm not sure if it's healthly, even if we imagine anti-g functions. That could be an interesting parameter.
    just in case you were wondering, the FLUX is OP on purpose to allow us to test the transfer functionality ...MJ has said it will be about 1/4 of the current output (I guess around 1 - 1.5 g) in the game...but..he'll need to fully get the SAN working for longer periods (need to consider the underlying simulation needs to be "sped up" to simulate SAN).

  14. #14
    Registered draeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    361
    Quote Originally Posted by Nemises View Post
    (need to consider the underlying simulation needs to be "sped up" to simulate SAN).
    That's actually not much of a big deal - when you no longer have to render stuff, the CPU can do these orbital mechanics ridiculously fast.
    Volunteer Rogue System Wiki Moderator
    Come visit the Rogue System Discord Server!

  15. #15
    Registered Cooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    33
    This is interesting to me and I enjoy the thoughts I have read on the topic. I am not sure how many people come from Aerial combat sims (Ie. Birds of steel, war thunder or DCS)vs. Space sims like Kerbal space program. For those who come from "Dogfighting" games they probably know that real turn and burn dogfights were not as common as we think. Indeed shooting at someone and then running for your life was pretty much the favored tactic of most of the great aces. Erick Heartmann (352 highest scoring ace of all times) once said that he would make one attack at an enemy and if he missed he would just fly away. Basically it is safer to get away than get lured into a dogfight.

    So many of these methods described(while the orbital mechanics are much more complicated) are not tactically or strategically dissimilar to successful aerial tactics in WWII. In particular Tryss's contact Trajectory idea could be described as the "Boom and Zoom" for space combat.

  16. #16
    Registered TMC_Sherpa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    85
    Orbital mechanics complicate things. I mean in a plane you want height so you can turn altitude into energy but in space a higher orbit makes you slower. I would think the best tactical position would be as low as you can get so that anything faster than you would have an orbit that dips (deeper) into the atmosphere. Your velocity vector and your facing don't matter so I'm not even sure if being ahead of someone in orbit wouldn't be better.

    Trying to missile someone on the other side of the planet would be...difficult. If you launch in the direction of your orbit the apo goes up and the missile slows down, shoot it the other way and the peri gets pretty low. If your both close enough (or have enough dV in your munitions) then I guess it wouldn't matter.

    There is also a realism vs fun factor and until we have more pieces in place it's all up in the air. For instance I'm sure there are folks who would have no problem playing "NASA tracks New Horizons" for a decade but I'll take FTL, SAN or time acceleration myself.

    I think I was trying to make a point about something but I don't remember what it was...
    Lazy and willing to work hard to stay that way

  17. #17
    Registered Cooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    33
    Sherpa- We may, or may not, be agreeing or we might be talking past each other? Maybe I should clarify my point and that would help. There is an assumption in this thead, "How do we stop people from escaping combat," that this issue is somehow unique to orbital combat. I am just saying that that is not the case. Escaping combat is nothing new to an aerial "dogfight." If a IJN Zero jumps a USN Corsair and misses that Corsair would then hit the gas and hit the deck and the fight is over. The plane uses energy derived from thrust and altitude instead of thrust and orbital trajectories to make this happen, but the tactical effect is the same.

    I have read on this and other threads several ideas that orbital combat might be more akin to submarine warfare than aerial warfare. Indeed the grand tactics of a submarine ace vs. a fighter ace were never all that different really. Position yourself for a surprise attack, make the attack, flee the battle space.

  18. #18
    Registered TMC_Sherpa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    85
    I wasn't specifically aiming at you Cooper, I've been AWOL for a while so it was more like a brain dump? I needed to get that stuff out of my head so someone else could poke at it. I'm sure there is a logical 'whoops' in there but I've gone round and round and can't see the forest from the trees.

    The original poster may be thinking about games like EVE where you can web, scramble, energy neutralize, warp bubble and probably a few things I've forgotten to keep the target from bugging out.
    Lazy and willing to work hard to stay that way

  19. #19
    Registered Cooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    33
    No worries I did not take it that way. But it did help me think about my point a bit more. There are a lot of thoughts on different aspects of orbital combat scattered on various threads. I have not read them all yet but I am still exploring for the forums.

  20. #20
    Registered NovusNecrontyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by TMC_Sherpa View Post
    I wasn't specifically aiming at you Cooper, I've been AWOL for a while so it was more like a brain dump? I needed to get that stuff out of my head so someone else could poke at it. I'm sure there is a logical 'whoops' in there but I've gone round and round and can't see the forest from the trees.

    The original poster may be thinking about games like EVE where you can web, scramble, energy neutralize, warp bubble and probably a few things I've forgotten to keep the target from bugging out.
    You are cool. EVE is cool. That is all.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •