Nosferatiel wrote:
Only one little objection: ICBMs are neither slow nor easy to shoot down. The typical velocity is of the order of a few kilometers per second during flight (try to hit sth. like that...) and shooting a ballistic missile in orbit requires something damn precise. Lasers are out of the question, because the rockets are made of metal and would reflect most typical laser wavelengths. About 1 percent heat conversion upon hit is just not enough to do more than evaporate the paint of such a damn thing.

You are not completely correct here. Yes ICBM are fast but are snails compared to beam weapons. Lasers are capable of shooting down ICBMs as the testing of the USAF Airborne laser proved several times. It was designed to shoot down ballistic missiles at distances of about 200-300 km. Of course a much more powerful laser would be required to shoot down missiles from longer distance, but we are 2012 after all. And yes special coating is being developed for protection of missiles (much like the one used to protect them from the blast and EMP of nuclear explosions) but it is really a race much like in the tank/anti-tank weaponry case, so ultimately it is up to the power of the laser.



The other way to shoot them down, that has proven itself many times so far, is through a kinetic warhead traveling with speed up to several km/s (again just a tiny fraction of the beam weapon speed). Here a demonstration of the Aegis BMD system, the SM-3 missiles use such kinetic warhead to destroy ICBM warheads:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pr9WY2Xyj0&feature=related

Martok wrote:
I too am curious as to what defensive installations will be available to build.

Bump.





Does anyone know the answer to this one? I'm fine with or without starbases, but I'd still like to know what kind of planetary defenses (to defend against invading fleets) we can have.

Raptor wrote:
You are not completely correct here. Yes ICBM are fast but are snails compared to beam weapons. Lasers are capable of shooting down ICBMs as the testing of the USAF Airborne laser proved several times. It was designed to shoot down ballistic missiles at distances of about 200-300 km. Of course a much more powerful laser would be required to shoot down missiles from longer distance, but we are 2012 after all. And yes special coating is being developed for protection of missiles (much like the one used to protect them from the blast and EMP of nuclear explosions) but it is really a race much like in the tank/anti-tank weaponry case, so ultimately it is up to the power of the laser. [...]

Just read everything Wikipedia got on this one. First, almost everything is a snail compared to vakuum light speed, agreed. Second, ICBMs fly 1200 km high. To catch them in the ballistic phase while the aircraft flies about 10km high, you have to fire at them during ascent. This of course bypasses the major problem of nonlinear optic effects that would negate most of the energy in the atmosphere. Still I'm amazed that they manage such a small beam divergence.

To fire during descent is a bad choice at best, because multiple warhead missiles (MIRV or MARV) will detach their independently moving warheads after reentry. A lot more targets to hit.

Infrared laser is the best choice to bypass the metallic surface problem, because such low wavelengths are typically absorbed.

But the program has been halted, because it was considered to be not manageable, yet. To have such a laser on a satellite would be a different story, but they speak of 10-20 shots and then the laser would have to be refueled... (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1)

Raptor wrote:
[...]The other way to shoot them down, that has proven itself many times so far, is through a kinetic warhead traveling with speed up to several km/s (again just a tiny fraction of the beam weapon speed). Here a demonstration of the Aegis BMD system, the SM-3 missiles use such kinetic warhead to destroy ICBM warheads:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pr9WY2Xyj0&feature=related

That is, perhaps, the best logical choice. The issues remain, though. Just bring up a little debris with high radar sections when shooting your ICBM and you'll get even more severe targeting problems.

In terms of reliability, you still need a bout twice the defense missiles for every ICBM your enemy has to be really effective. Probably just not economic.

I'm not saying current solutions are perfect, military use of lasers is at its start, there's a lot going on in that field though. I remember I read something about some test of a laser point defense system being tested on the F-35 so suffice to say we are nowhere near Star Wars but we are improving our laser tech, let's talk about lasers again in 30-40 years from now



Space debris monitoring is evolving too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7SJdN90vT04



Anyways this is all a bit OT, the game is set somewhere around year 3000 A.D. Imagine what the beam weapons would be capable of after so many years of evolution.

You could also imagine a futuristic rail-gun shooting some slugs of some extremely heat resistant material at extremely high velocities, much faster than a missile.

SABA wrote:
You could also imagine a futuristic rail-gun shooting some slugs of some extremely heat resistant material at extremely high velocities, much faster than a missile.

True, but I fear for the good old "fire a sniper rifle bullet into a pool of water"-effect. That needs some hell of ammunition to survive the friction.



For atmospheric defense I'd toss a reversed lightning defense system into the bowl. Fire a heavily ionising laser at the target, connect a really heavy duty electrode to the ionised channel you just created in the air, fire thunder and lightning. More for the optical effects than anything else. XD

Nosferatiel wrote:
They normally come running within 24 hours, but back to the topic:



If the planet has an atmosphere, you need special weapons to attack it.

Normal rockets would just ignite due to the friction. ICBMs have their nuclear warheads in apollo capsule like objects that don't melt during reentry into the atmosphere. It is basically a container with a heatshield of heat-resistant ceramics.



And energy weapons... The largest particle accelerator on this planet currently has collisions of 8 TeV energy, that means 4 TeV per beam. TeV = Tera electron Volt. From space, particles with energies of up to order 100 TeV collide with our atmosphere. Even if electron volt means nothing for you, just look at the relation.

We still won't be grilled, though. The larger the energy of a beam, the more of it is deposited rapidly in matter. 16 km of atmosphere count as matter (and lots of it). Therefore even high energy particles from space produce harmless amounts of radiation at surface level.



For a planet you'd basically need bombs to be effective and for planetary surface defense you'd need rockets (no atmospheric reentry = no problem), that's it from the realists. :P

Interesting. Just add "Dust". And then you have a special beam that can reverse the effect of atmosphere, and instead of being reduced by it, the beam becomes more powerfull thanks to it ! Think of it like a beam that would "cook" the planet.

Dust is beautiful, pray it or die by it !

VieuxChat wrote:
Interesting. Just add "Dust". And then you have a special beam that can reverse the effect of atmosphere, and instead of being reduced by it, the beam becomes more powerfull thanks to it ! Think of it like a beam that would "cook" the planet.

Dust is beautiful, pray it or die by it !

Then you'd convert friction to energy that generates more friction and therefore more energy. Basically a localised perpetuum mobile, until the goddamn atmosphere overheats and dissipates into space. One shot, kill everyone and everything, make the whole planet uninhabitable. Or more precise: Overpowered!

Such weapon would lead to more fear from your opponents. The dust used in that way would become "alive" or "toxic" and could lead to some new faction. The player could get a loss of approval each time he uses it. Or like in civ and the nucear bomb it would lead to "alive" space pollution that would target the ships that fired then try to get to YOU.

There's a lot of ways to balance such an end-game weapon. And I think end-game needs game-breaking things like that.



Ps: I would love to see a spell like in populous where all your civilization is transformed in warriors, same for anyone and a huuuuuge brawl in the middle.

I understand the "its not hyper-realistic" argument for planet defence Star Bases, if that is how you feel it should be in a game as well that's fine...looking at it from the point of view of a game, what would you suggest then? As to the logistical benefits and other uses, perhaps a "system base" would be more applicable? or several, whatever. Any ideas?

Xervitus wrote:
I understand that there will be no Starbases on release, what options will be included then for system defence? Just curious because I found that omission fairly surprising - Starbases to me are the central hub of any star system for trade, fleet maintenance, c&c, even reasearch... (and defence)



I was also wondering if there will be different requirements for ship drives, similar to moo3. I liked the idea that ships without warp drive could fit a bit more equipment but were then "System Defence" only.



Cheers,

we wanted to focus on dynamic battles for the release, but star bases could something we could definitely look into for the futrure.

system defences are a mix a system improvement and population.

SpaceTroll wrote:
[..]system defences are a mix a system improvement and population.

Which kinds of system improvements are we talking about? A general "the wealthier the system, the better defended it will be"-factor or dedicated improvements for system defense, like entrenchments, bunkers, shields, etc?

When I think of orbital structures, I think of the O'Neil Cylinder colonies from the Mobile Suit Gundam series. They were built to house the ever growing population of earth. They also are used for agriculture, commerce, industry, and off world mining. They are really a progression of humanity leaving the cradle of earth. In the game, rather than them being static structures that you build, they could be a research topic on the tech tree in order to boost production, ship building, whatever you can think of. This would also make sense for colonizing gas giants and astroid belts, since you can't really land on a gas giant and build anything.

Nosferatiel wrote:
Which kinds of system improvements are we talking about? A general "the wealthier the system, the better defended it will be"-factor or dedicated improvements for system defense, like entrenchments, bunkers, shields, etc?

Yeah, I want to know about this too. Just to know how to defend our systems in the best possible way.

I think the orbital rings or stations for defense is a great idea, have it as a structure that you build give it a negative to dust like other structures do and then give it a military rating, then when enemies come into contact with your system have a battle between the incoming fleet and the defensive structure. If the fleet wins the rings/station are destroyed and then the fleet can begin invasion/blockading the system.



This could be done mnore easily with starbases. I think starbases might make more sense cause you contorl the buidling for each SYSTEM not each individual planet. The starbase can have engines that can push it around the system (but go no further) allowing it to head off a fleet inside your own system.



I'd hate for this game to turn into one of those strategy games where you have to keep a fleet in orbit of every system you own just to keep them safe.

From a practical warfare standpoint, fortified emplacements do have useful applications in securing a given area. As far as game balance goes, having defenses that would appropriately augment the defensive capabilities of a planet just makes sense - when games start to get rather big during mid-to-late game, with multiple intersystem connections being exposed to opponents, it makes having a defense fleet at or very close to each exposed area at best difficult and at worse almost impossible. Having system defenses that could stop a few scouts at strategically important locations allows for more fleet resources to be dedicated to the dynamic combat than sitting statically to babysit. They can't (and shouldn't) be able to deal with real fleet engagements (which should, in a dynamic scenario, as something that is dealt with your own responding fleets), but they should be able to deal with minor threats.



It would also make sense from an in-game universe perspective to have such defenses. Even peaceful civilizations and planets that deal in intersystem and intergalactic trade would have their own dedicated patrols (as in a police force) to deal with threats from "overzealous entrepreneurs".



As for pure fun factor, having platforms and batteries either firing at you (if you're the aggressor) or with you (if you're the defender) is rather thrilling. It's surprisingly immersive. To use an example, Sword of the Stars allowed you to build orbital platforms that could be outfitted with a range of different weaponry that make both raids and defending seem just a bit more engrossing in combat. Mind you at time they could be a little too effective (such as a fortress world), but finding a happy medium would definitely add to the overall experience.

I just want a dumb star base for defence like MOO2

Im supporting this.

Also: I wont copy paste the full thing here, but please refer to my blog entry. Leave your thoughts and if you agree with me, keep on posting the link around. I hope to get the devs attention somehow.

What is probably a better compromise is have a new planetary upgrade. Say a Military type world (Warhammer has forge worlds for example) make that a new exploitation of a planet. Allow for the creation of planetary based defenses. You could try and assault the world directly but suffer attrition damage for each round of the invasion as it ticks by, as the planetary guns would eventually be taken over by your invasion or your fleet would be obliterated depending on the respective strength of the attacker and defender.



On a side note I have always enjoyed the idea of a artificial ring installation around a planet. Very practical as a more realistic station that could be linked to space elevators all over the globe. Yes expensive as hell but piratical none the less

kosch wrote:
I just want a dumb star base for defence like MOO2

Exactly! Just some flying thing shooting rockets and giving a +10% boost to ship construction or whatever. If you updgrade it there are better bonuses and more costs. Come on, what is a spacegame without starbases?