I'm sure the fact that ship speeds are measured in pc/wk (parsecs/week) doesn't count as "backing canon".

So, let's assume much smaller distances and much slower speeds. I'll do an example using 15,000 km between ships (less than 5% of the distance of the Earth to Luna) and 340 m/s relative speed between them (Mach 1 at sea level - less than 5% of the speed of the Space Shuttle Endeavor). Light takes 50 ms to travel that distance. So, you're aiming at a 50 ms old image and it takes an additional 50 ms to get there. The full time difference is 100 ms, and in that time the other ship has moved 34 m. Missing by a third of a football field is pretty significant, and these numbers seem entirely too small for a battle between ships capable of FTL travel.

Geez come on guys back to basics here, it was a reasonable idea, it is just a game. Getting too far into conceptual theory on weapon systems that have not even been conceptualised yet, let alone have the basis of practical science, is getting a bit wacky. Dilbert would have a field day

Who'd be a dev .....

Regards
Zy

at those long ranges mass driverswould be silly.


and no i dont think it is reasonable... see my argument for why ships would want to close distance.

Hi

First of all covert your being an ass so shut up and read what people write before you assume things  

Second (back on topic) I think that those added things like makeing smaller/faster ships harder to hit would add more tactical depth but would be very hard for stardock to pull off effectively. Also it would make bigger ships very very easy to destroy with swarms of small ships.

Actually, carriers would NOT necessarily be viable. Given even current electronics capabilities, there are very few things a fighter could do that a missile couldn't do almost as well. Plus the fact that you could build missiles smaller, faster, and cheaper - no pilot, no life support, no fuel to get back, etc.



This is not necessarily true. It assumes the accuracy of both sides improves equally with decreasing range. If that is not true, one side would have a decisive interest in holding the range open. Sure, you may lose 50% of your accuracy at 2 light seconds, but if your opponent loses 75% at that range, you'll do everything possible to keep your distance. As long as you dont' run out of amunition, you'll win the battle because you're landing twice as many hits.

And, if you'll permit me to be that "dumbo" - even in the era of aircraft carriers (WW2), range mattered. Even with fire control radar, accuracy improved with decreasing distance - but if you could land even a couple hits before the other guy could get in range, you started with a massive advantage. The Yamato was designed for this specific purpose. It could lob reasonably accurate shells so far that it couldn't spot it's own fire, they had to use a plane to see the target. And then, of course, the Americans killed it with an even longer range weapon system - torpedo bombers. Today, of course, we would use a cruise missile - because the missile can do the same thing as the bomber did 60 years ago, but it can do it faster, more accurately, and with no risk of life to the side making the decision.

im mostly talking about obscene ranges...

the silly idea that combat is taking place at distances several times longer than the length of our solar system is completely bogus.

Unless we are assuming all of the weapons used have the magical inate ability to travel faster than the speed of light it would be completely impossible to hit a target with any weapon.

As for the magical faster than light weapons... other than missiles *maybe* having a cheesey and lame ability to use hyperspace there is little chance for energy weapons to hit their targets and for mass drivers to reach the opposing fleet before the crew dies of old age.

If you give me 30+ light seconds between ships the idea that the ships wont move out of the way is absurd.

thus ships fighting at these bizarre distances is plain dumb.

Wow, I never thought I would touch off a discussion this big. I'll throw another bone to the dog pound and see what happens.

A weapon type that I have never seen used in any sci-fi is the space-age equivalent of a battering ram. Basically, a ship moves in close and shoots out a rod to impact the ship. The rod is then retracted to be fired again. Also, a hammerlike attachment to batter or crush ships could be used. We also have the issue of boarding parties. I find the crew numbers given for some ships to be far too low, but that is a separate issue. It would be nice to have more control in combat, perhaps to order your ships to attack certain targets or to beam over a boarding party (which would require a Transporter technology to be researched). There is also something in the special abilities about Stealth and Detect Stealth that has not been implemented, which I assume should make ships invisible and create a means of detecting invisible ships. Last, but perhaps most, Carriers. We need to make use of the Dock Ships ability.

The thing is, is that target for your lasers where your computer thinks it is. The distances don't have to be great, but if there is any lag, then the sensors are not going to know exactly where that ship is. The gunners are not likely aiming with their eyes, but depending on the ship's systems.

That is just my take.   

Imagine an enemy ship is any distance away at all.. say, 2 light seconds.

Say it's moving at a few kilometers a second relative to you, engaging in hard lateral thrust in a random fashion - in other words, dodging.

To hit this ship with a laser you have to lead this ship by 2 seconds - and you can not see where it has dodged until two seconds after it HAS dodged. Hitting the ship at all would be a matter of PEPPERING the likely spaces for the ship to be at the time the laser light is hitting that area - it would be pure luck, biased by.. good or bad guesses.

 

Heck, it'd be bad enough if the ship were just half a light second away - and worse yet if you're dealing with anything but light. Mass drivers would be hopelessly slow.