Takao
-
Posts
288 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Takao
-
-
Mhm, good that I haven’t red the entire thing, I have completely missed that.
So, unlike in eve where the pvp button is called „undock“, here it’s called „login“?
- ATMLVE and Anaximander
-
2
-
On 18.12.2017 at 2:24 PM, Costanius said:
You can also use Space Engineers and Empyrion Galactic Survival to design and build ships. Those to two games are probably close to how ships are built in DU.
Luckely they are not, because DU has a voxel system for building and those games (at least SE) doesn't.
With the voxels you can do ALOT more then with blocks, especially when building slopes.
I have watched your first video and a little bit from the second and from that it looks like you are not that familiar with 3D modelling with a direct modeller, like Blender?
- Never, ever, ever use n-gons in any situation (faces with more than 4 verticies). They will completly screw up your renders and many modifiers. Use quads (4 verticies) wherever possible and tries (3 verticies) where needed.
- Your approach of preemtively subdividing a cube is not a good practise when you are not sculpting. It will create unnececcary faces and therefor reduces performance and increases render time. Use edge loops instead to create just enough extra faces. It should also be faster.
- A very good Blender addon is Destructive Extrude with which you can create extrusions more intuitive and much faster.
- The music is WAY to load. Get yourself Audacity and use the "normalize" ("Normalisieren") filter for your audio track. This will bring down the audio level to a decent, usable loudness. There is also an addon for Audacity for extracting audio tracks from videos, just in case. If you have the music files as mp3 I can recommend "MP3 Gain", which is a programm to alter the loudness of mp3 files and bring them to the same level.
However overall the project looks like a good idea. I have designed my ship in Blender first, too and then build it in game afterwards.
And yes I took screenshots of some ingame elements and roughly rebuild them in blender so that I can scale the whole thing acordingly.
No I sadly can't give you the numbers, because NDA.
- Anaximander, Supermega, Shadow and 1 other
-
4
-
16 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:
Elements are going to vary in power already right? Different sized thrusters, fuel tanks ect.
Yes. See the tutorial videos for more details.
16 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:I'm assuming that a more skilled player will be able to create better or more powerful elements already in some way.
That mechanics will most likely be implemented in the game, that you need to train a skill to use specific modules or "Tier 2" variants of them (I'm really not sure about the second part).
16 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:I just like the idea of incentivising keeping your ship in one piece. It seems fun.
[Looking first in a dictionary what incentivise means in German]
How about the money / resources that where needed to build your ship? How about the time you needed to move to the location where you currently are? The expensive loot you have in your cargo?
Or just the knowledge that this is YOUR (first) ship (of that type) that you build / bought?
-
I have two problem with the "constructs levelling up" mechanic:
- It make no sense at all. Even if each construct would have an AI, then the AI itself would "level up", not the construct. You could then copy the AI to other constructs and they would be as equally good (when those constructs are equal).
- It's an additional "My character's stats / values are better than your's so I win" mechanic. What matters should be the skill of the individual player, not his characters stats.
The second one here is my main concern.
And I really hope that the levelling mechanic for the character, they are planning won't do exactly that...
Oh boy, I think Twerky interpreted the energy preservation law slightly wrong -.-
-
First of, thank you for publicly showing that you are
- arrogant
- overly self convinced
- incompetent in many areas
Which leeds me to the conclusion that you suffering from Dunning Krueger Effect so I can safely ignore your physic and math crap show and don't even have to bother disproving you in that points.
1 hour ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:
m = F/a
a = F/m.
put this sucker in a function now.
a = F/(F/a)
Woooooo, math is crazeh. We just figured out that the more the force, the less he effect eccelration has. You know, it's called a Diminishing Return. It's how Recursion works best. But what do I know.Ok, this proves on of two things:
1) You really think, that a = F/(F/a) is a relevant thing. That means that you are just incompetent in basic math equations.
2) You know that a = F/(F/a) <=> a = a <=> 1 = 1 and therefore means absolut nothing because
every formular put inside itself will result in 1 = 1
which means you trying to just fool other people with that "pseudo science math" and therefor you are just pathetic.
1 hour ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:I can write you a Sigma-notation for it, but I don't really care for your personal enlightenment enough to bother.
Please, go ahead and do that.
1 hour ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:It's why if a human is found exposed to the vacuum of space it's a gambit of dying from flash freezing or EXPANDING LIKE A BALOOON until you pop.
In vacuum there is 0 presure.
In earth atmosphere, at ground level there is 1 bar pressure.
That means the difference is 1 bar.
If humans would expand in the vacuum like a baloon, they would be crushed when they are in a 2 bar enviroment, like for example after diving 10 meter in water, because there the pressure difference is also 1 bar.
Do they?
No they don't.
What will happen in the vacuum however, is that your body liquids begin to boil, because of the their lowered boiling point.
This will not couse the human to expand like a ballon.
It will just kill you.
1 hour ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:5) Are you shitting me? HEAT are shells. Shells are big big bullets. You confused a TANK SHELL, with a MISSILE.
I so do hope you mean shells, cause otherwise, you confused a ROCKET, with a MISSILE. Holy crap man, you are heavily misinformed. A Rocket and a missile are not the same thing. Missiles are guided, Rockets are propelled Grenades.Bonus , you now understand why the RPG launcher is called Rocket Propelled Grenade. Guess what, Missiles don't have shrapnels, grenades have them. You confused ROCKETS, with MISSILES. Or TANK SHELLS with MISSILES.
1. It's interesting, that you have completly ignored the anti-ship missiles here. Because if you make absolute statements, then one counterexample disproves your statement.
2. So you are saying, that the Saturn V (and any other space craft) are missiles and not rockets? Or are you telling me that they are all unguided?
3. "Missile" is a guided projectiles mostly with rocket boosters or jet engines (cruise missiles) as propulsion.
4. A rocket is a missile.
5. There are unguided and guided anti-tank rockets.
6. EVERYTHING with explosives and a casing (out of a material that doesn't instantly vaporise because of the explosion) around that explosive has shrapnells. Infantry held anti-tank missiles usually are build to create extra shrapnells, so that you can use those rockets against infantry, too (or better).
So thank you again for proving your arrogance and incompetence to the public.
If you any actually sources that disproves my statment above (your opinion is still not a proof) AND prove your statements from before, post them or stop talking about this topic.
-
I haven’t played star citizens and currently I have no interest in doing so. I am watching their bug smashers series and had watched a few of their developer videos.
Their techniques are really impressive:
- Algorithmen for generating whole cities, including the buildings interiours
- Using custom weighted normals for all 3D models (no sharp edges). Also they are not the first to do so.
- Generally using tiled textures and decals for details. As a player you see the result as lower gpu and hard drive requirements, for them it reduces the time for making ships quite drastically.
One solution for the fleet problem would be to cap the fleet size at half the maximum the system can handle.
Whats the definition of an mmo?
If the economy is persistent, you could meet every person in game, then wouldn’t it be a mmo?
But in general they have promised a lot and couldn’t deliver that much so far. Let’s see how this will turn out.
They should have just created the single player / coop campaign first, and then after that started on the whole mmo thing...
-
1 hour ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:
Problem with that, is, you guessed it, 63 ship fleets, vs 1 guy who cant'; call for backup. Lord Mandalore on yoitube have a good video on the whole game with a very good point on SC's instancing extravaganza.
Ähm, can you make a 64 ship fleet?
Wouldn't that mean that a 63 ship fleet is effectively unbeatable, as long as the 1 enemy ship isn't capable of destroying either all 63 ship or 1, so that you can trade 1:1?
-
4 hours ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:
This is a conjecture of bad understanding of what Recursion is.
Recursion appears when a specific things repeats itself. What does this topic has to do with that?
QuoteYou don't need a faster projectile to hit a target, you need only tracking and leading. Leading targets is how snipers get to hit moving targets. It's standar practise, and it is used on ship warfare IRL. You HAVE to lead a target.
This is only true if the target has a constant velocity and zero acceleration (and therefore no change of course) or a constant acceleration.
If the target, after you fire an unguided projectile, evades in any way, a slow projectile has a much higher chance of missing the target.
Therefor: Faster projectile = better.
QuoteHowever, Newton's Second Law, means that if your bullet, was to hit a moving target, that is traversing a certain length of space with a certain force, and your bullet's Work is less than the target's Work, the target will displace (reduce its force of push / energy) the bullet.
- Objects neither have force nor work. A force is applied to an object (from an object) and work is done by a force.
- Your statement definitive sounds like bullshit, so please post some actual mathematical examples or sources.
- Also, when your acceleration is zero, your entire statement stops working, because you don't have any forces if your acceleration is 0. Furthermore, because F = m * a, the resulting force will effectively be small, because heavy objects (in our case ships) won't be able to accelerate fast and light ships are, well light.
QuoteIn other words, the faster your kinetic energy the more it CAN make bullets bounce off of you if you were to move fast enough. That contributes to a virtual density of a target. Of course, this also means that a target, if they accelerate past a point of acceleration, they can shatter (literally explode) as if they would if they were to abruptly stop (decceleration is just acceleration to the opposite vector).
1. Density is mass / volume. As long as nether of both change, the density doesn't change ether. The mass of an object will only change, except from the obvious that you add or remove parts from that object, if you move at a relativistic speed.
Furthermore combat will not take place during relativistic speed, because you won't be able to reach that speeds in planet orbits and between planets you won't find your target.
2. An object will not explode, as a direct result of acceleration, when it receives a very high acceleration. It will simply get crushed. In case of it falls into a black hole, it will get torn apart, but only because the acceleration difference between the molecules (or even atoms) is so big.
An object can explode when suddenly decelerating, but is a result of the sudden chance of their aggregate status (mass -> liquid / gas) because of heat, which can accrue when two object collide at very high velocities (e.g. railguns).
QuoteAs for missiles...
no missile explodes on point blank. No person building missiles would do that, that's brain dead thing to do with missiles.That statement is outright WRONG.
Anti-Tank missiles (HEAT) RELY on hitting the target, otherwise their penetration would drastically decrease. There are some heat missiles that detonate above the target, with a downwards facing steam, but those missiles rely on the far less armoured top of vehicles.
Anti-Ship missiles also do NOT explode before the target. They have a contact fuse with a delay and explode inside the ship.
If your missiles main damage source is its shrapnels and your target is lightly armoured, then you want to detonate bevor hitting the target (or inside it, if the target is really big (=ship)).
Please stop making this claims if you don't know what you are talking about.
QuoteYoru signature radius means "how well can this missile see you". If the missile sees a large signature, it will far easily find the "center" to land the warhead near the object.
If the Signature is small, then the missile will try and explode where it THINKS the target is, givenm the target is so small, it can barely pinpoint it.This makes sense, BUT it doesn't make sense, that the missiles explosion radius is here taken into account (explosion radius decided by signature radius?).
If missiles had a sensor value which represents their ability to detect small targets, then ok, but not the explosion radius.
My point here is, that it makes no sense, that small ships in EVE are basically immune to big missiles which are at least as fast as they are and furthermore the missiles stats are misleading, because a big explosion radius should be always a better thing, because its directly proportional to the amount of explosives and therefore should also work against smaller targets.
If I fire a cruise missile or torpedo at a frigate, then who much damage do I even to?
If the target is stationary, then the slow explosion speed of the torpedo (which is totally unrealistic) doesn't reduce the damage, but the huge explosion radius, compared to the frigate small signature radius will do.
Or is the damage still high enough to outright destroy the frigate?
My points here are:
- (In game) The explosion radius should not reduce the damage to a target, just because it's small. It's just the distance where the explosion can potentially damage a target. The damage done is scaled accordingly.
- (In game) The missiles damage value is not the total damage it does across its entire explosion sphere, but at point blank range (r = 0).
- How well a missile can detect targets should not be anti-proportional to its size, but rather it's sensor capabilities.
- Explosion velocities are really fast. And to hit a target with a missile you generally need to be, compared to the target, fast (I know you can predict the shot, but that doesn't help you in any situation, also the target may have CIWS to defend itself), which means that the missiles owns speed plus the explosion speed should always be fast enough so that a target can't "outrun" the explosion.
QuoteIn EVE, the "explosion speed" and "explosion time" means how much the dmg wil lbe multiplied, depending on how fast the enemy goes.
Frigates going at 4000 m/s , hit by a 100m/s explosion, will take x% of the missiles explosion radius (meters of explosion per seconf oexplosion), mitigated even more by how much of the explosion the frigate caught on its b ody.Which speed does the calculation takes into account here?
The "absolut" speed of the target or the relativ speed of the targets towards the missile?
Is the missiles speed added to the explosion velocity?
If the missiles explodes in front of the target, then the explosion will move towards the target at
missile speed + explosion speed + target speed (assuming non-relativistic speeds here).
QuoteI don't know if you played EVE a lot, but these things are kinda not known by newbros - or some veterans I've seen =shudders=.
I haven't played Eve for a long time now.
-
1 hour ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:
However, Black Squad has NO innovative features, other than hosting games on a cloud server, thus keeping the distance between players at a relative minimum. It's using a 30hz update rate.
Who sad their net code is revolutionary?
Fact is: their net code works better than most other net codes, because they achieve a very low latency by letting clients sent updates to the server once every frame and not on a fixed number or to a maxim at which the servers itself sends updates to the clients.
1 hour ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:Also now you see why people with actual education on these scoff at Star Citizen's "cloud based servers". 240ms delay works for DU's lockl-and-fire, not for SC's balls to the wall shooter with spawned bullets.
Yes, I'm still wondering how they want to manage bigger battles or at what ping you are playing these.
They may have a persistent universe, but they have different servers, like in WoW.
1 hour ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:If DU succeeds, maybe games will start evolving and not utilise a piece of shit Peer-2-Peer host on every game.
Peer-2-peer means that you don't have a server which runs the game / session, but instead the clients connect to each other directly.
Basically every online shooter does not use P2P. I know only of Destiny 2 that uses P2P.
-
@korean netcode: well, yes and no. Good netcode will improve online experience everywhere. The test was done not on Korean servers, but on American (YouTube Channel „battle nonsense“).
-
8 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:
F = m * a. That means the faster a ship goes, the more mass it has. And the more mass over a smaller volume, the more DESNE an obejct is. The more DENSE an object is, the more resilient is becomes when alternations are appleid to it
That is wrong.
the mass of an object, and therefore it’s density, is CONSTANT and not proportional to the objects speed, as long as the velocity is not relativistic (<0,1 c).
Space combat will take place below that speed.
Also, moving fast will not increase your resilience for damage, because if you get hit, the projectile that hits you will be faster than you or if not, you will fly into it at your high speed.
speed is relative: there is no difference when you fly at x km/h into a projectile with 0 km/h or when a projectile with x km/h fly into a ship with 0 km/h.
for explosion mechanics:
in eve the damage of missiles is spread out over the missiles explosion radius. If the target (signature?) radius is lower, you do proportional less damage.
That mechanic is not very good and also misleading. The explosions main damage value should represent its force st point blank range and its explosions radius the max distance where the explosion can damage things. The damage is then correctly scaled over that distance (double distance = quarter damage). how much damage would cruise missile or torpedo (in eve) do against a stationary frigate?
QuoteExplosions work on a surfare area. It's not Star Wars, one missile CAN"T blow up a Death Star.
If your ship is only 1% of an explosion surface, and you are far off an explosion, you won't be affected. That's how PHYSICS work. EVE is very accurate on how missiles work. In atmosphere, explosions like nukes, are itnesified due to the shockwave - the mechanical wave - being propagated via air mollecules. in Space, explosions are just intense heat, no kinetic displacement to actually cause intense damage.That’s not what I’m talking about, see above.
Also, in the eve mechanics the explosion velocity of bigger missiles is significantly lower than of smaller ones.
Thats unrealistic and also, as far as I know, the calculation doesn’t take the missiles own velocity into account.
If the missile hits a target directly in the front, the explosion wave WILL hit the ship fully.
if the missile hits the back of the ship, it has to be at least as fast as the ship itself and therefor its explosion wave will be faster.
-
Ah ok.
I hope that will not be in du. I have played eve and the mechanic is very frustrating if you deal with battleships only a little bit damage to frigates even when you hit (especially with missiles!)
hit chance and damage should be generally separated.
-
I just hope that the combat in DU is at least fluent and not slowed down like in eve online....
netcode and bullets: not every game spawns physically bullets, some use a hit scan system (counter strike for example), where you shoot with laser pointers effectively.
also a higher server update rate (60<->30 per seconds) doesn’t automatically means a shorter lag (=time between you press fire and the shot is registered by the server).
there is a Korean ego-shooter with only 30 Server updates per Seconds but a shorter lag then most games with 60 updates per second.
-
Aren’t you throwing bonus hit and damage together here?
The Formular above is for the hit chance, not damage.
-
1) They are planning a creative mode for release, because otherwise designing a ship would be very expensive. In which way this will be implemented, I don’t know, probably a holo table or some sort.
-
Edit: sorry , haven’t seen that this is not pre alpha forum.
my post would have fallen under nda, sadly.
-
You mean the voxels?
the smallest size is 25x25x25 cm
edit: its 25, not 20 cm
-
36 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:
No, no it's not, a Capital Ship can only be combated by other capital ships - carriers vs carriers, battleships vs battleshiips or any combination of the two, or superfirepower onto them.
By that definition there is ether no such thing as a capital ship or (almost) every warship is a capital ship, or do you mean "combated by other capital ships in a 1vs1"?
Because battleships can be easily sunk by submarines, destroyers with torpedoes or be defeated (= not being able to continue fighting) by cruisers.
Also you have specifically sad that frigates are line of battle ships, so they would be capital ships by your definition.
Quote by William S. Lind:
Quote"These characteristics define a capital ship: if the capital ships are beaten, the navy is beaten. But if the rest of the navy is beaten, the capital ships can still operate. Another characteristic that defines capital ships is that their main opponent is each other."
-
30 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:
1) Actually, every ship is a "she", cause of some really antiquated naval traditions. There is the saying "steady as she goes", which has an equivalent in almost every language, always with a female pronoun associated with it. While Bismarck was an actual guy, it's irrelevant when it comes to naming ships.
Yes ships are generally called as "she", but not the Bismarck and Tirpitz. They where called "he" exactly because both where man (German precision at it's finest -.- ).
Just look it up
30 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:As for the cruiser size, the average cruiser back then was 200 meters long and during the first Bismarck engagement against the HMS Hood and PRince of Wales, they had considered it "just a bigger cruiser". The HMS Hood was 262 meters long and classified as "Battlecruiser" and the HMS Prince of Wales was 220 meters. Fo coruse they' think the Bismarck was "just a cruiser". To them, it was just that.
If thats the case, than the British spotters where pretty bad...
30 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:Although, it packed A SHITTON more armor than what both ships had, let alone the Bismarck had radar guided Gun Controls for deadly precision of weapon groupings.
As far as I know, the only navy who had radar guided guns where the American Navy. Their radar system could also automatically track see and air (!!!) targets.
The Bismarck had radar, but it could definitive not track air targets.
-
55 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:
Germany had the Bismark (I don't remember its class) which was ALMOST the size of a cruiser, but had a lot of displacement, at least twice that of a Cruiser, but also its 30 Knots speed.
It's the Bismarck class. His (yes his!) sistership (or in this case even brothership?) was the Tirpitz.
Also, you should look up the Bismarcks size:
250 m length (Iowa: 270 m) and 36 m width (Iowa: 33 m), is defintive NOT "almost cruiser size". It's battleship size.
55 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:When the US heard of Yamato and how it pretty much roflstomped ANYTHING on its wake, the ship engineers of the time said "how big must it be? Let's built it a bit biggher than the Arizona(which was sunk in Pearl Harbor)". When they first saw the Yamato, the Iwoa-Class Battleships were already being out of the Ddry docks. The Iowas won vs Yamatos cause of their RADARs and gun controls which made the deadly precise at night.
What did the Yamato "roflestomped"? As far as I know absolutly nothing.
She had only ONE engagement against enemy ships.
Besides that she got just bombed by American planes.
55 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:Actual research the past 17 years have gone into making Stealth Frigates with the French leading the charge and absurdly long-range Destroyers developed by the South Koreans.
I doubt that the French are any futher in stealth ship development than America.
Also, what destroyer are you talking about? Or do you mean the Zumwalt (which is American)?
55 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:2) Carriers also have Cruise missile launching capabilitiy, as well as Predator Drones. I mean ,they can pinpoint targets 500 km off. So.. .yeah, they are really effective if it comes to pulverising enemy ships.
At least the American carriers can NOT launch cruise missiles, only anti-aircraft missiles (for self defence).
Cruise missiles are bascially flying, guided bombs, designed to engage targets at long range.
Predator drones are aircrafts, not missiles.
55 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:3) Referr to 2) as of why Battlestars are Carriers in my eyes. Also, check out the Iowa's modernised weaponry used during the 1990s Desert Storm operation. Their aremanets were then applied onto Nimitz-class carriers to bolster their offensive capabilities when the Iowas were decomissioned.
The Iowa was modernizes with cruise and anti-ship missiles. Both are not on the Nimitz class.
55 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:4) True, the HMS Dreadnought was revolutionary for its time, but that's besides the point, it's just a frame of referrence. It's why we call the M16 a "carbine" instead ofa a machinegun - which it is, it is a mechanised gun working on gases. It's why we canll the AK-47 an Assault Rifle (and yes, Carbine != Assault Rifle, CoD is not reality). It's about "conventionn", i.e "everyone calls the M16 a Carbine, to make it stand out due to its niches and everyone calls the Vektor an SMG, cause it's a machinegun, but sub-parr as of stopping or suppresive potential in actual combat for war-time".
Machinegun: Full automatic gun with a focus on a high rate of fire and sustained fire. Portable by infantry. Technically everything that can fire full automatic is a machine gun. However, this is as practically as calling every warship just a "warship": To less relevant information.
Assault rifle: A combination of a rifle and machinegun. The first assault rifle was the German "Sturmgewehr 44" ("Sturmgewehr" = "Assault rifle") and was exactly that: You could fire semi-automatic with the precision of (nearly?) a rifle or full automatic like a machine gun, while you had magazines and no cartrigde belts.
SMG: Full automatic (compact) rifle that fires pistole ammunition.
Carbine: Compact (= shorter barrel) assault rifle.
When a assault rifle becomes a carbine is convention (definition), yes.
55 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:Notince. "war-time", there's a reason SWAT teams use SMGs and not Assault Rifles. Likewise, the Dreadnought is just that - convention. It's just a way to let others know "this battleship is not normal".
SWAT and other special forces prefere carbines and MPs (in most situations!) because of their shorter barrel and therefore overall compacter and lighter design.
55 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:5) Still, Displacement is what you classify ships as. And RADRS will let you know of displacement - in conjunction with other means of course - they won't tell you what calibre of weapons the cruiser you detected has.
Radar tells you the size of the target (=radar cross section). In most cases the displacment is proportional to the ships size, however when you start using stealth techniques, then this is not the case anymore.
The Zumwalt for example, although beeing very huge (for a modern non-aircraft carrier ship) with almost 200 m lenght, has a very small radar cross section ("a small fisher boat").
-
4 hours ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:
The HMS Dreadnaught was a big battleship - first of its kind. It's why we refer to super battleships as Dreadnaughts.
The hms dreadnought was big for it’s time, but not big in relation to („modern“) battleships.
Although the battleship existed before the dreadnought, the hms dreadnought changed the battleship ship type.
After the dreadnoughts there where the super dreadnought and then again the battleship (firepower + speed).
Or do you call the Iowa or Yamato class a (super super?) dreadnought?
QuoteCarriers have missiles on them and they can hit other ships with them. The Nimitz ones have, so did the Enterprise class carriers before them.
Carriers only have defensive armament (including missiles) to defend them against aircraft and missiles. You could use anti-air missiles against ships, but that wouldn’t be very effective and the range is very low compared to cruise and anti-ship missiles.
QuoteBattlestars are that, carriers, their power is the Vipers and Raptors.
Again, although the battlestars fighters might be the their primary offensive weapon, their guns are formidable, too.
Therefore calling that ship types just carriers is simply missleading because it makes a huge different if a carrier has a firepower that is equal to a battleship.
Also there is no law or rule, that you can’t create new ship types to better represent what the ship is capable of.
QuoteCalling the HMS Dreadnaught a ''sci fi thing'', is like saying '' Iraq War? Obviously inspired by the famous Victorian era theatrical play : The Empire Strikes Back"
I‘m not calling the „hms dreadnought“ a sci-fi thing, i‘m only calling the classification „dreadnought“ for big battleships sic-fi because it was historically never used in such a way.
Also the hms dreadnought was a revolutionary battleship and indeed for a time a super battleship, but after other nations build them the old, pre-dreadnought ships where obsolete and therefore the dreadnoughs weren’t super battleships anymore (if everyone is super, nobody is).
QuoteCruisers are ships of the line. Nobody ever calls light cruisers as such they just call them cruisers.
It makes a huge difference if the enemy ship has 155 or 200 mm guns.
Cruiser is the main classification for, well cruisers while „light“ and „heavy“ is more specific, for the primary armament and depending on the ship also it’s size.
QuoteRead a history book, stop taking Star Trek as the index for ship naming accuracy.
Star Trek has a ship type naming Index?
-
On 1.12.2017 at 9:39 AM, CaptainTwerkmotor said:
A dreadnaught is but a class of battleship. Heavy Cruiser is a class of Cruiser. And depending on who you ask, Destroyers and Hunter-Killers are just a ship class of frigate.
Thats not right actually and you are inconsistent here. The dreadnought ship type is the predecessor of the battleship ship type, not a class.
Also therefore heavy cruisers can't be ship classes, they are ship types.
According to the Washington naval treaty there are actually no "cruisers", only "light cruisers" (main calibre <=155) and heavy cruisers (main calibre <155).
On 1.12.2017 at 9:39 AM, CaptainTwerkmotor said:Battlestar Galactica? Just a fancy name for a Carrier.
A carrier doesn't have the firepower a battleship has (in guns). Calling Battlestars just "carrier" would be definitive missleading.
On 1.12.2017 at 9:39 AM, CaptainTwerkmotor said:Super Star Destroyers? Dreadnaughts, plain and simple.
The ship type "dreadnought" for super big (battle)ships, is not a historical, but a pure sci-fi term.
Therefore techically super star destroyers are super battleships, not dreadnoughts.
Also I personally prefer dreadnought for oversized battleship-like ships.
On 1.12.2017 at 9:39 AM, CaptainTwerkmotor said:Titans from EVE Online? Still, just another class of capital ships, despite EVE insisiting on the term "super-capital", which is ridiculous, like saying "Eternal Forever Trumandane Leader".
A "capital" ship is, as far as I know, simply a ship, that can operate on its own for a longer time periode and is the main core of the fleet.
The term "capital ship" is definitiv overrated in sci-fi settings, HOWEVER:
Space warfare (no matter if fully unrealistic and fictionally or not) is different from water warfare and if you can build ships of so different sizes (from < 100 meters to over sever kilometers), than you just need other type names.Also the usage of ship types changed over the course of time, see "Korvettes" and "Frigates".
-
On 28.11.2017 at 10:09 PM, Cronael said:
I think that a system to categorize ships is not obligatory, because the more we want to add:
Weapons, mechanics, propulsion and other items.
The ship will have to be bigger to install all the device.If a ship gets bigger, then it’s no longer in one ship class, but in another.
If you are not building by a specific design that you have created in an external program or from a sketch than it’s not very useful to categorise your ship bevor finishing it.
If you are, then you know what category your ship will belong into, as long as your design is realistic:
If you are designing a ship with a length of 200 m, by ww2 ship standards, this would be a heavy cruiser or a light cruiser, depending on the callibre.
However, if in dual universe ships of those size would be really difficult to build because if it’s size or straight up unpractical, then classifying that ship as a cruiser would be misleading.
The reason why ww2 ships are so big is, because they have to:
you need a long bow for reduced water friction, the boilers take up the majority of space and gun magazines are big, too.
Historically you first design a gun and then build a ship around it, not the other way.
We don‘t know what space you need for specific guns, engines (with enough fuel to be practically) or reactors at the moment.
-
When you can only hack outposts / ships, when you are near the core, then that wouldn't be such of a problem, because when you can reach the core, then that means you have overcome the defence systems and could potentially destroy the whole thing, so why shouldn't you be allowed to capture it instead?
in-game Pets
in General Discussions
Posted
Your picture does not work...