View Thread
 Nano-disassembler Weapons Discussion
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 26-09-2005 06:12
|
 Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
Practical, or not? This thread is started on behalf of user MDD: Quote Is there a cloud type weapon effect in the game, sort of like the one given off by damaged cap ships? If so, would it be possible to simulate some sort of cloud of nanotech dissasemblers, possibly released from some sort of missile? I think i read somewhere that the factorys in homeworld use nanotechnology for production; it would be a simple step to reverse the process i would think. (not sure if this thread is in the right place, it's a two part question) |
|
|
|
| Thorin |
Posted on 26-09-2005 06:17
|
 Posts: 414 Joined: September 02 2005 |
Possibly. This would be a Spec Ops weapon, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
| Norsehound |
Posted on 26-09-2005 06:42
|
 Posts: 26 Joined: September 07 2005 |
Why don't we just bring in the Borg while we're at it? It's simple enough: they are a race that use nanotechnology. Maybe they could come here through the long-dead hyperspace network after assimiliating Karen and the Keepers. Then, with thier nanotech clouds, the Vaygr and Hiigaran forces can finally join up in an uphill battle code-named 'Operation unity.' Yes I'm being sarcastic. This 'weapon', IMO, is absurd. Sure nanotechnology is used in HW construction but only in the dissasembly of raw materials. A nanotechnology ship-eating clouds seems overboard. If it blasts from a missile then what are the chances of it eating friendly ships? What about the fact that it keeps expanding? Give it a lifespan? How would they be guided? And if they can guide themselves, why aren't weapons so sophisticated in HW nowadays to give fighter pilots 'combat suits' to simulate fighters with much more manuverability than the standard fighters with fighter benefits and then some? I say unpractacle, game breaking, and unbalanced. But then, what weight does my word have? Resigned.
|
|
|
|
| MDD |
Posted on 26-09-2005 07:16
|
 Posts: 32 Joined: September 26 2005 |
The whole reason i came up with the idea was because i was thinking of a way to create d/t (damage over time) effect. Perhaps it's not even possible. But I think that you're taking it a bit too far in your post. In answer to your guidance question, how are the nanomachines guided within the factories? A similar if not the same method could be used to guide the dissasemblers. Your point about dispersion is valid. Perhaps cloud is the wrong descriptor. If the machines were suspended in some sort of gel, the gel would spread upon contact and minimize dispersion. As an added benefit, the gel could act as a sort of petri dish, supplying the nanomachines with organic material to digest for energy. The reason i said cloud in my first post is that i thought it would be the easiest to model. As far as i know it's impossible to model a glob of gel smacking the side of a ship. Furthermore, if the nanotechnology is already being used to dissasemble raw materials (although i believe thats accompished by a phased plasma array or something, if i remember my H1 lore) then many of the guidance and sustainability issues have already been solved. You could even use the same nanomachines. Dissasembling a cap ship hull isnt much different than dissasembling an asteroid on a molecular level. |
|
|
|
| zenprime |
Posted on 26-09-2005 08:51
|
 Posts: 105 Joined: September 02 2005 |
Edit: I am a spelling whore. I'd say the nanofactory operations of HW2 is done in an "clean room" type enviroment. Using nano-dissasemblers in battle would be next to worthless. ECM, Ion beam discharges, varying temperature and radiation levels and all of the other fields and effects found in battle would most likely render them inert and/or destory them. I don't know if we're using any sort of polarizing field to handle structural integrity but even that might render open space nano operations next to worthless. HW1 Harversters used a Phased Disassembler Array(PDA), and I don't know if that used nanomachines or not, but the current generation of Harversters "feed" the materials into themselves where the actual breakdown takes place. This change in method is most likely for increased efficiency, as the PDA field would have to deal with fluctuating conditions. In the 'mouth' of our current generation of Harvesters the conditions are controlled. Now that I've said all that, I don't have an real good answer to allow the construction of external subsystems modules other then proximity to a highly polarized field or energy source. Edited by TelQuessir on 26-09-2005 08:58   Bring it on. I've mastered multiple forms of Pink! [small]Zenprime is dead. Well no |
|
|
|
| El Mambo |
Posted on 26-09-2005 09:54
|
|
Posts: 20 Joined: September 05 2005 |
HW2 already has nanoweapons - the Sajuks point defence lances are called nano (somethings) However, I?m of the opinion that if we open up the use of nanotech as weapons, fun as that may be to think of all the nasty uses it could be put to (nano disassemblers ? deconstruct? target ships crew during boarding ops  ) we may find ourselves straying too far from the kind of game we want to play (all ship engagements take place on macroscopic level, where?s the flashybang in that?) Perhaps aggressive nanotech is a proscribed weapon punishable by the gods or some such, or maybe all ships carry defender nanites or as zen suggested there is an onboard field that renders then unusable. However its fluffed id say that for the sake of keeping an interesting and recognisable battlescape we not involve nano weapons much if at all. |
|
|
|
| Drachen |
Posted on 26-09-2005 10:14
|
|
Posts: 42 Joined: September 04 2005 |
Mambo has a point there...Humanitarian reasons. Same way we no longer use flamers. However, I do think this would open alot of extra options to the game, like DOT as mentioned above. Therefore, I take a neutral stance in this. Just my 2 cents. Alternatively, we could say that no scientist ever bothered considering nanotech as a weapon. (Same way none of us are talking about a projectile weapon that might be able to latch onto a target ship, and then hyperspace it someplace desolate and drain its resources while we're at it. Hey, it's practical!)
Edited by Drachen on 26-09-2005 10:16 |
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 26-09-2005 10:27
|
|
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
It will only be practical if the device is acceptable in function, and "practical" to this battlespace and in a secondary aspect, the real world. As such the subject here is nanotech-based weaponry, presently inaccessible to conventional technology. I'm not going to entertain any mention of fancy latch-on-enemy ship devices - leave all of them in HW:C. |
|
|
|
| Cobalt Shiva |
Posted on 26-09-2005 11:22
|
 Posts: 118 Joined: September 07 2005 |
Zenprime's right. Nanomachines are fragile, and space is full of ionizing radiation - even without DEWs and explosions everywhere. Nanotech doesn't work well outside of a controlled environment.
"This is tactical control..."
|
|
|
|
| MDD |
Posted on 26-09-2005 21:53
|
|
Posts: 32 Joined: September 26 2005 |
What if the nanites were grouped around some sort of minerature magnetic field generator? The earths magnetic field protects us from a lot of more intense radiation. So picture this, theres a cannonball sized polymer shell encasing gell suspended nanites, and at the core of the projectile is a simple electromagnet. The shell could be delivered in multiple ways, from a cluster-bomb like munition or shot from a cannon (probably in some of protective casing so that the blast doesnt rupture the round). As for its effectiveness in battle, i think that thorin has the right idea. These would most likely some sort of special ability command. I was thinking that maybe they could disable a subsystem for a set amount of time. Number of rounds would have to be limited i think, similar to the missles on the acolytes in cataclysm: where you get 2 but then it's necessary to dock to rearm. |
|
|
|
| Teufel |
Posted on 26-09-2005 22:12
|
|
Posts: 8 Joined: September 07 2005 |
The counter to attacking nanos would be shipboard hunter seeker nanos and in this sense the defenders would always outnumber the attackers, especially on ships with construction bays. However small ships frigates and fighter would be in trouble. Hardening the nanos to operate in space would just make them bulkier and more expensive. And what happens when the nanos don't do what you tell them too. |
|
|
|
| BigFish |
Posted on 26-09-2005 22:22
|
|
Posts: 106 Joined: September 02 2005 |
I would say not to develope them as weapons - it would talk the dynamic of PDS as it stands aw. all you would do would deploy nanoweapons then retreat till they had consumed the enemy fleet.
Rampent Kitty-basher
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/10...ang0gu.gif |
|
|
|
| CIWS |
Posted on 26-09-2005 23:24
|
 Posts: 54 Joined: September 09 2005 |
I'm not particularly fond of the idea of nano-weapons being used against spacecraft. It's too much like the incredibly stupid grey goo scenario, or some of the truly stupid things they attribute to nanotech in Orion's Arm. [QUOTE]What if the nanites were grouped around some sort of minerature magnetic field generator? The earths magnetic field protects us from a lot of more intense radiation. [/QUOTE] We're talking about throwing these tiny (and by extension, fragile) machines into an environment filled with DEWs, Defense Fields, high-powered sensors, and close-range nuclear detonations. I somehow doubt that something as exceedingly fragile as a nano-machine is going to be shielded by a generator that can be fit in a shell. That's leaving aside the fact of just how they're going to do anything to something as heavily armored as a starship with their literally microscopic fuel reserves. Then there's the matter of other options. The real question is not whether or not nanomachines can be used as weapons, but whether they can be used as weapons in a manner that makes them cheaper and/or more effective than just whacking the target with a plasma bomb or KEM. Edited by CIWS on 26-09-2005 23:25 If the fireball can't be seen from orbit you obviously aren't trying hard enough.
There is no 'overkill' only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload'. -Schlock Mercenary |
|
|
|
| Methuselah |
Posted on 26-09-2005 23:27
|
|
Posts: 53 Joined: September 07 2005 |
Why would you spend trillions upon untold trillions designing, developing, constructing and then creating nanotechnology solely for the prupose of providing you with another warfighting weapon when a two dollar bullet will kill you target just as well, or in our case a multi million 'dollar' frigate. Nanotechnology is a no-no for a number of reasons, not least the societal effects of such a technology and its practical medical applications, but also the ethical application of a weapon which could in theory be used to sterilise an entire planet. Besides which, I imagine that from a standing start their acceleration in space would be all but worthless, and as has already been stated they would be nigh on unable to defend themselves from any nearby EW fields. |
|
|
|
| yasotay |
Posted on 26-09-2005 23:55
|
 Posts: 637 Joined: September 09 2005 |
This discussion reminds me of the 'bomb pumped laser' discussion of many eon ago. From a practical perspective how would you impliment it? Would require new visual presentation? How do you know you are attacked? How do you defend against it? Hot key? Lots of what if? that go into a significantly different attack capability. From a military perspective it would be a weapon of short utility as the oppostion would quicky come up with the counters mentioned above. Sorry I agree this one is a bit too far. |
|
|
|
| Inert |
Posted on 26-09-2005 23:56
|
 Posts: 388 Joined: September 08 2005 |
Frankly I don't know what you're referring to MDD. There was no mention of any nanotech in any timeline except as nanobots which repaired hulls. Which are in use today. Frankly if you ever sat and watch your battlecruiser heal on its own, it's not a pretty sight. So by reverse-engineering that, you'd have the same effect, except backwards. Which is still not a pretty sight. Resource collectors in homeworld 1 used a phased disassmbler array (PDA) which was a series of high energy fusion torches. They broke up components to atoms and sucked them in. Nowhere did they use nanomachines. Secondly, the mothership and all construction bays use machinery to put together units. They never used nanomachines either. In fact, on mission three if you watch the cutscene, you can see a gunship being put together. A repair frigate can repair by reversing a PDA system, using up resources to fire atomic metal components and meld them together, "patching up" hulls. If I sound a bit pushy about it, I don't mean to. But if there is proof that there's nanotech used as disassemblers or assemblers, I'll gladly hand over your bragging rights.  |
|
|
|
| Glacialis |
Posted on 27-09-2005 00:42
|
 Posts: 368 Joined: September 02 2005 |
Nanotechnology simply means very small technology. Wouldn't you say that assembling a ship molecule by molecule qualifies as nanotechnology? |
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 27-09-2005 01:16
|
|
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
Quote From a military perspective it would be a weapon of short utility as the oppostion would quicky come up with the counters mentioned above. Discussing it in depth and attaining such a conclusion, would be the intent of this thread. There will be more in future and this discussion was, all in all, conducted very professionally. Thank you. |
|
|
|
| Thorin |
Posted on 27-09-2005 02:23
|
|
Posts: 414 Joined: September 02 2005 |
shame, Norse! Giving me ideas like that... Actually, I always speculated that the race that the planetkillers belonged to were a sort of hive race of some sort, and was responsible for the Progenitor mothership's breaking into massive hull fragments. EDIT: Also, nanotechnology like this could be derived from commercial molecular robot technology. So you wouldn't be spending trillions soley to erode a few inches of armor away, you'd be creating complex antimicrobal machines or nanoprospectors. Edited by Thorin on 27-09-2005 02:26 |
|
|
|
| Inert |
Posted on 27-09-2005 02:34
|
|
Posts: 388 Joined: September 08 2005 |
Well like mentioned above, nanomachines work at a poor rate regardless. If our own nanobots can't repair fast enough, there's not much reason to use them as attackers since they deal as much damage as they repair. |
|
|
|
| Jump to Forum |