Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39

Thread: What is combat going to be like?

  1. #11
    @Tormod
    ..... Should translate to opportunity to deal and to avoid damage.
    Agreed?

    Then we can discuss the minimum of "beggings" required to achieve that.
    That's the idea yes.
    However there's IMO too many parameter to really make prognostic over what the developers planned. I can support drones, however the game setting probably won't support the drone I that would support (which are basically unmanned equally-big spacecraft used to fight & keep your command ship safe).


    I'll be happy even if Rogue System end up only having cargo & basic maintenance. (I'm targeting low I know, it's because I also backed Star Citizen anyway)


    @Nemises
    The background not only have to not be as low as 3K but it as also to be as hot as the spaceship, and your particular trajectory have to keep said background for as long as you need it (plus the consideration of wether or not you are in the planet shadow or light)
    A planet temperature can vary, but it won't match a spaceship Megawatt powerplant. And let it be known that Basic analysis can easily recognize a clearly artificial heat gradient from a natural one (I doubt you'll disguise your spaceship into a planet's thermal vent).

    So basically it's still impossible unless you move your planet/harbor background with you, which would be like watching a clown at the Circus moving around with a giant painting of clowns to hide himself.
    Or alternatively if you create a convoluted setting where the enemy have no eyes, then you'll be invisible to him.

    To keep in mind : from the start we implied only one enemy sensor looking around. If there's sensor spread around, it will take as long to detect you as it will take for the sensor to transmit the information at the speed of light*.

    *: which is why SF "stealth" often come from spaceship FTL drive**.
    **: requiring in turn, SF to imagine anti-FTL sensor to avoid instantaneous genocide by FTL-nuke.


    ## HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT
    Yes I (and the website) did mention that you can disguise your ship as another ship (with the right setting) or simply pretend to be neutral/allies up until you start shooting.
    But it depend entirely on the setting as it require for your spaceship "thermal signature" (sort of ID) to not scream "I'M A WARSHIP" BUILT BY YOUR ENEMY. Or the equivalent of a Redneck moving into an airport hub with an military-rifle, grenades bandolier, bulletproof vest and "Great Again" cap, expecting to be treated as a peaceful traveler.

    note:
    - you can be recognized by your engine signature (so you'll have to carry your warship inside a bigger cargoship)
    - you can know the mass of a ship (and its repartition) as soon as it accelerate (what is that suspicious cargo carrying a WARSHIP MASS worth of cargo?)

    ## DECOY
    I want to hurt you.
    website : The ONLY decoy that will work, is a decoy that is a fully functional spaceship with the same engine, power source and mass as your own spaceship. See the problem?



    The Nicoll's law really demonstrate itself :
    - It is a truth universally acknowledged that any thread that begins by pointing out why stealth in space is impossible will rapidly turn into a thread focusing on schemes whereby stealth in space might be achieved.


    Frankly the bother isn't interrupting the debate, it's interrupting your reading of the website that explain things like why you have to redefine your expectation of Space-pirates, Even Space-laws is worth an entire section.

  2. #12
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    17
    However there's IMO too many parameter to really make prognostic over what the developers planned. I can support drones, however the game setting probably won't support the drone I that would support (which are basically unmanned equally-big spacecraft used to fight & keep your command ship safe).
    Being a suggestions forum, I don't presume to know whether these are new, old or outrageous ideas. But, as you say, there is very little indication as to what combat will be like, so feedback on the broad brush ideas would help.
    So I'm suggesting various ways in which the currently implemented mechanics, both internal systems and external positioning, may be made relevant to a space combat setting.

    Eliciting gameplay from the ship system during combat will be a challenge, for sure.
    In movies, they have the luxury of slowing the action down tremendously when camera changes to the interior of a ship.

    I'll be happy even if Rogue System end up only having cargo & basic maintenance. (I'm targeting low I know, it's because I also backed Star Citizen anyway)
    I figured as much.
    I would be happy if you were able to gradually expand a resource mining/processing empire. You do the pioneering/surveying stuff and maybe haul the first couple of cargos, but after that it is mostly done by autonomous units. That's what I want to do in Kerbal as well: Set up a Mun mining operation and space particle collectors, and then get the produce to some large shipyard/refueling station to outfit a vessel big enough to set up shop around another planet.

    But that's not the topic of this thread. The topic here is what we suggest space combat could be like, expanding upon the existing implementation and identity of Rogue System. Unless he scrubs it, weapons are going to be part of this game. And, unless it is for chasing away space critters, we should expect that the game will try to provide an enjoyable tactical experience.

  3. #13
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Poltava, Ukraine
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Tormod View Post
    The topic here is what we suggest space combat could be like, expanding upon the existing implementation and identity of Rogue System.
    Answer is simple. Because in RS we have fair physic (except for EM drive) and combats will be inside a gravity well (mostly), we can consider combat in RS very similar to combat in "Children of a Death Earth" but from 1st person view. Of course, reaction-less drive is unsuitable there but I hope it's not a final decision and we'll get alternate solution.
    Δv=veln(m0/mf)

  4. #14
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by BillyCrusher View Post
    Answer is simple. Because in RS we have fair physic (except for EM drive) and combats will be inside a gravity well (mostly), we can consider combat in RS very similar to combat in "Children of a Death Earth" but from 1st person view. Of course, reaction-less drive is unsuitable there but I hope it's not a final decision and we'll get alternate solution.
    I only watched the Scott Manley gameplay on youtube so I do not know if the game picks up on other elements.
    But it seems that the key elements are:
    * passing by at high speed.
    * Pausable action.

    I do not expect opponents to hold clean orbits so that you have time to plot an intercept trajectory and then intercept after doing two complete rotations. Nor does RS right now have tools to really leverage orbits tactically, either.

  5. #15
    Discussing/suggesting what we expect/hope combat to be like is fair.
    Myself I don't like imposing details or solution, so I only point out things I really hope to NOT see.

    - reactionless-drive eclipsing long-range orbital burn and fuel management (which may or not be achievable only by removing said reactionless drive and replacing it by WARP drive).
    - Stealth, (manually deciding if a target is hostile or not is expected, and electronic-warfare jamming IFF is acceptable).
    - Brachistochrone transfer possible without extremely large fuel tank (because it imply ridiculously efficient thruster and the death of fuel management)
    - Any attempt to force descredited soft-SF tropes like "space fighter/drones" rather than working out the rules of warfare out of the game's setting.

    Ideally I would not want "deflector shield" either, but if Fictional-tech allow to get around some things that would otherwise realistically kill the game it's acceptable.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tormod View Post
    I only watched the Scott Manley gameplay on youtube so I do not know if the game picks up on other elements.
    But it seems that the key elements are:
    * passing by at high speed.
    * Pausable action.

    I do not expect opponents to hold clean orbits so that you have time to plot an intercept trajectory and then intercept after doing two complete rotations. Nor does RS right now have tools to really leverage orbits tactically, either.
    Actually the game couldn't be paused after the start until recently, as a result "Passing by at high speed" was the inevitable result of not being able to micromanage dozens of ship and drones. Now that we can, a lot more strategy and a slower space is expected.

    As for the enemy waiting, remember that PROPELLANT is extremely precious & scarce in "Children of (CODE)" so it is absolutely realistic depending of the context (the game make a point that Blitzkrieg invasion mean using a lot of drop-tank and ending up as a sitting-duck incapable of coming back). Several missions have you fighting a fleeing/attacking enemy.

    Letting him deploy his drones/missiles then accomplish a maneuver that said drones/missiles don't have the fuel to accomplish (making them unable to intercept you) is a good tactic.
    So is waiting for the enemy to come at you. Only the drones have a remote chance of dodging anything and they don't have the conveniently small-yet-powerful maneuvering thruster of "Rogue System". It is realistic to simply prepare yourself to tank the enemy attack through tactic and combat choice (like targeting the heat-radiator since their destruction realistically kill a ship power source).

    To be fair CODE don't have enough tactical options (like formation) yet.

  6. #16
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    17
    I assume you realize that the game already has two of those things that you don't want.
    As for the remaining two.... well the game development hasn't come that far yet.

    But it would be cool if capital ships were restricted in that manner. Only propellant for 2-3 planet transfers. It would deepen the strategic picture immensely. Various ploys to do surgical strikes that leave major enemy assets stranded or doomed. Taking out tanks, tankers, collectors, supply lines etc. Then you can just take your good time nibbling at it, grinding it down. Or you can plan your rescue mission of your own assets.

    I do think I would need a kerbal like interface to even comprehend the battle arena, though.
    And, even though smaller crafts may be impacted to a lesser extent by such restrictions, it's not clear to me how the game shall be played out in first person. It sounds like a strategy game where any given craft would see a relatively small part of the action.

  7. #17
    There is such a things as "placeholder" feature. The developer do plan for change and considering realistic interplanetary/moon transfer take days or ridiculous engine, I don't expect him continuing with infinite-drive.

    I can't possibly tell enough that reactionless engine in a game that claimed realism would would be a self-defeating waste. And yes I'm saying that even with "WARP" or "Stargate" as alternatives.

    But hey! I'm just an entitled consumer like you.
    Me I'll be happy even if it doesn't get up to combat and all you do is cargo and rescue mission.

  8. #18
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    17
    That's why I started this thread. With the weapons demo on youtube.... unless you're fighting some space critters, debris, enemy EVA's or something, I don't see how combat will be playable.
    I have many ideas on how it COULD happen, but it wouldn't look like the weapons demo on youtube. I knew it would require some fictional freedoms. You showed that it require more than I was aware of.

    I agree that propellant free engine is fiction. It does, however, play into the theme of degrading gracefully, which I see as a main theme of the game. You have a fallback option if tanks are ruptured.
    I was thinking that nothing was really saved by this "placeholder feature". Consuming from a tank wouldn't be harder to implement than taxing the power system.
    But then I suddenly realized that something is achieved: it allows early players to explore the solar system even though refueling infrastructure is not in place.
    Also, the short sales pitch on steam says that it will highlight the "science" in "science fiction".
    So you are probably correct. The EM drives will at some point go out the window or be replaced.

  9. #19
    Well the thing is that we don't know what REAL space warfare could look like because a few breakthrough make it equally possible in 10 different ways, or impossible without straight/mutual annihilation.


    For the humor : I believe that realistically, "space Marines boarding spacestation or spaceship" is actually more probable than spaceships or fleet shooting at each other.

    The logic goes like this :
    If you take "Kessler Syndrome" full force there's reasons to think that debris and destroyed (nuclear) spaceship are the LAST things you want hurling in orbit or with a trajectory intersecting with your 100,000 billions dollars spaces infrastructure.
    Thing is,
    You can destroy a tank and it turn into immobile hunk of metal.
    You can destroy a plane and it will only crash once.
    You can destroy a sea-ship and it will either sink or stay (relatively) easy to tractor or finish.
    But I don't see any (failsafe) way to intercept/deviate a >1000tons spaceships threatening your installation. As a (expected) consequences, an "invasion" would be a fleet of spaceship using their own mass as a threat, slowing near their target, then launching a thousand angry viki...space marines to take control of the precious spaceport (war are won with logistic).
    Very funny consequences : Remember how you don't want debris in space ? Same goes for bullets. Meaning that you can have a go at sword-fight in space.



    Ps : yeah, infinite-fuel is a simplify an obvious placeholder for a game in development and (I suspect) it's easier to program a brachistochrone trajectory with no mass change than a complete Interplanetary-Transfer MFD, plus the tutorial to explain it to mortal people who weren't raised with game like Orbiter or Kerbal Space Program.
    Actually, maybe the accessibility is the actual main reason.

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Brasil
    Posts
    173
    This is the best place to ask

    I was wondering, is an "orbital dive attack" an effective way to destroy a target? As "orbital dive attack" I mean, an approach where a ship intersects the target's path, for a brief period of time, then releases a device, this device imediately burn to match the target's orbit, while the attacker is moving away in it's own path (relative safe).
    The released device was programed to explode (or self dismount) leaving in the target's path a deadly cloud of debris (or proximity mines).
    I apologize in advance for any grammatical error or misuse of words, unfortunately my english is not good, but I've been working to improve it. Thank you all.

Similar Threads

  1. How will we stop people from "escaping" in combat?
    By markasoftware in forum Rogue System FAQ
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-21-2018, 09:13 PM
  2. Realistic Space Combat Resources
    By Crazy Tom in forum Rogue System Suggestions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-08-2016, 03:38 PM
  3. Will it be possible to avoid all combat?
    By Elriuhilu in forum Rogue System General Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-19-2015, 05:30 PM

Posting Permissions

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