One thing I've realized from these G2G votes is that people absolutely love wings on there space crafts. I always find myself voting for the ship designs that don't have any wings and find myself always on the losing side. I'm sure in some way wings actually do come in handy in space. Perhaps having thrusters of some sort on the edges of wings could make turning much easier. Whatever the case may be, I always had hope that one of the races with a fighter or bomber design with no wings would win in a vote but that didn't seem to happen. Us earthlings just love to imagine wings on anything that flies. It's a similar concept to the way we view most aliens(Except James Cameron's). It's really hard for us to imagine that aliens look nothing like humans. We love to think they walk on two legs and have, at least slightly, humanistic bodies. I still love what these guys are doing with the whole democracy thing, and its really not a huge deal to me at all what the ships look like, but I would like to hear some of your opinions on wings in space.

I guess wings look cooler? But last I checked, Harmony and Horatio don't have any wings on them?

So. We can assume that small space craft are manufactured on planets , and in this way thay need winngs to get out from planet [liketodaysspaceshuttles]



but i supose that Your explanation is much closer to truth . People feel better among familiar things...

That's true, I guess I was talking more specifically about the new fighter and bombers. The Horatio fighters are pretty much what i would have liked to see from some of the other races. Your right though, I guess I missed that the Horatio have no wings. It does seem that the larger ships don't have wings. The regular ships all tend to be more like naval ships. Which is one reason i'm looking forward to the Automaton ships. They look like they try to avoid the average ship design.

You do actually need wings on space craft. Firstly, so that you can slice up enemy ships as you zoom past them and, secondly, because once you've mastered space flight and are embarking upon every species' last and greatest exploratory mission, you might as well do so in style.

Badmadmark wrote:
We can assume that small space craft are manufactured on planets , and in this way thay need winngs to get out from planet [liketodaysspaceshuttles]

In theory, yes. I suspect though that it would be more efficient in terms of resources and time etc. if one constructed ships in orbit and moved the materials up there using a space elevator...

Plain and simple, Space fighters posses wings so that they can enter an atmosphere, fly around, and come back out. Without the wings, they would be limited to space only. And who wants that?

Stealth_Hawk wrote:
Plain and simple, Space fighters posses wings so that they can enter an atmosphere, fly around, and come back out. Without the wings, they would be limited to space only. And who wants that?

Well, proper spacers for example who are 100 per cent dedicated to.. well... space.

n18991c wrote:
Well, proper spacers for example who are 100 per cent dedicated to.. well... space.

Not necessarily. They can just as easily provide CAS as land based aircraft, so then why would they be denied that capability? It just makes no sense to not use the extra alloy and keep the craft's functionality in both realms. At least to me.

Well where else would we put the extra guns, missiles, engines, cravers then on wings and nacelles?



Think of them as both allowing in-atmosphere travel, and as space for more shooty stuff.

Igncom1 wrote:
Well where else would we put the extra guns, missiles, engines, cravers then on wings and nacelles?



Think of them as both allowing in-atmosphere travel, and as space for more shooty stuff.

Yeah, I have always heard the argument of: Why do spaceships need to be aerodynamic? they fly without the constraints of gravity. Along with atmospheric capabilities and weapons, in theory there are substances in space that could be ridden with an airplane like craft. Star Trek Bird of Prey's don't just look cool, they are designed to be consistent with some parts of the theory of relativity (that I can't seem to find atm lol )

Star Trek and Babylon 5 addressed this well. Wings are for travel into/in/out-off atmosphere. In space they are purely cosmetic, at least for our type of space travel. We use a brute force method of chemical accelerant. WIth solar sails, these wings could be hard anchor points for when the sails are opened up.

Nasarog wrote:
Star Trek and Babylon 5 addressed this well. Wings are for travel into/in/out-off atmosphere. In space they are purely cosmetic, at least for our type of space travel. We use a brute force method of chemical acceleration. With solar sails, these wings could be hard anchor points for when the sails are opened up.

Not only that, but subspace is theorized (more like hypothesized) to require a certain geometric shape in order to remain in and not fall out of sub space. Thats why the ships in star trek always have huge discs, because of this rationale. As to whether or not it is true that we need to "float" on top of subspace, I don't think we will ever know. But its interesting non the less.

That could explain the design type for each races ships, each race relying on their own unique FTL drive, and thus each having it's own overall shape requirement.



Of course that means little to STL strike-craft.

Stealhhawk and igncom1 clearly made the point.



and Chickens dont fly but also have wings

Ba Dum Tss!

I prefer space-only ships and shuttles for planet-visitig (the most reasonable for me) - fighters which switch between space and planet need wings, ofc.



What I like too, are wings which are folded, once in space.

Meedoc wrote:




Gameplay



System Bombardments



The probability to succeed is then related to the number of fighters / bombers and to the defense of the system. If the quantity of fighters / bombers is higher than the system’s antiaircraft defenses, the bombardment will succeed.

If (Sum(Fighters + Bombers Invasion Strength) > System Antiaircraft Defense) Hitting Bomb = 1 + (Sum(Fighters+ bombers Invasion Strength) / System Antiaircraft Defense)

While the player is sieging, he can click on the Land Invasion button to conquer the system within the turn. In order to do so, it requires at least one ship with troops and then fighters or bombers provide additional bonuses.



The invasion success is calculated depending on:

• Fighters & Bombers Quantity: Number of fighters & Bombers.
  
  

Success Probability = {Invasion Percent * [(TroopQuantity*CoefficientTroopefficiency)+(F&BQuantity*CoefficientF&Befficiency)] - [InvasionDefence*(1-InvasionPercent)]} / Invasion Defence

In any case, an Instant Invasion causes damage to both sides. The following values may be influenced thanks to star system improvement and troops characteristics.

If the winner is the invader:

[LIST=1]

A random number of fighters / bomber are destroyed between 0 to 25%

[/LIST]



If the winner is the defender:

[LIST=1]

A random number of fighters / bomber are destroyed between 25 to 75%

[/LIST]

Not to mention all this system invasion stuff for fighters and bombers to do inside of an atmosphere.

Leaving out the Fighters and Bombers, the other larger craft would either be designed for space, or designed for atmosphere... the requirements are quite different. So they wouldn't need wings.



A military spacecraft is designed as light as possible, so that it gets maximum effect from it's engines, and is as manoeuvrable as possible... any atmospheric space vehicle has to be stressed for atmosphere operations, and is of little use for extended trips in space... it's too heavy, and difficult to manoeuvre. An atmosphere capable fighter would be a complete dead duck against a proper space fighter (in space). The films are, of course, completely misleading in this, but it's really relatively simple basic physics.

The_Quasar wrote:
Leaving out the Fighters and Bombers, the other larger craft would either be designed for space, or designed for atmosphere... the requirements are quite different. So they wouldn't need wings.



A military spacecraft is designed as light as possible, so that it gets maximum effect from it's engines, and is as manoeuvrable as possible... any atmospheric space vehicle has to be stressed for atmosphere operations, and is of little use for extended trips in space... it's too heavy, and difficult to manoeuvre. An atmosphere capable fighter would be a complete dead duck against a proper space fighter (in space). The films are, of course, completely misleading in this, but it's really relatively simple basic physics.

Capital ships should posses the capability to at least have high atmosphere capability. But they are so massive that re-pulsar lifts would do the job quite nicely, so no wings there.

Sovereign wrote:
Stealhhawk and igncom1 clearly made the point.



and Chickens dont fly but also have wings

Ba Dum Tss!

Not sure, but I think chickens can fly? (At least glide), just nowadays they clip their wings to make sure they don't fly away (and what about penguins and ostriches)

i never saw a chicken gliding more then a few meters.



and pinguines are obviously just fishes with feathers and ostriches are horofic abominations of nature.