View Thread
 Ship Proximity Kills
|
|
| Warman1 |
Posted on 06-11-2005 19:19
|
 Posts: 146 Joined: September 08 2005 |
One of the things I believe we should have in the mod is the ability to get damaged by another ship's dieing explosion. It makes sense that if a massive ship such as a shipyard or other large sized ships were to explode other ships in the area would be damaged, destroyed, or at least disabled. I was thinking that you could have the explosion be able to damage/kill/disable people up to a certain range, and then just disable them outside of that range. |
|
|
|
| Inert |
Posted on 06-11-2005 22:06
|
 Posts: 388 Joined: September 08 2005 |
The explosions are misleading.. as in reality ships do not explode on death commonly. Except for the smaller vessels like corvettes and fighters, which are nearly cockpits on engines. |
|
|
|
| shiny_darkness |
Posted on 06-11-2005 23:19
|
|
Posts: 14 Joined: September 10 2005 |
Just a little fact: the USS San Francisco hit an underwater mountain and it's reactor didn't go. This is a perfect example of how much it takes for a ship to really blow up like they appear to in game. http://www.fas.org/images/sub/sub1.jpg http://www.fas.org/images/sub/sub2.jpg Edited by shiny_darkness on 06-11-2005 23:23 |
|
|
|
| Itharu |
Posted on 07-11-2005 00:00
|
 Posts: 363 Joined: September 23 2005 |
I dunno........ You've got a violitile Fusion Reactor, or sevral jetting out plasma all the the time and I don't think there's much chance someone on board is going to want to press the 'shut down reactor' button if it's still working. Just like a nuke reactor is more likely to melt down than explode, there's still the chance it can explode. Both Cases of such have been prested in real life and have been the only two to occur. -Fear the Might of the Imperial Cortharian Fleet
|
|
|
|
| blackness |
Posted on 07-11-2005 17:50
|
|
Posts: 23 Joined: September 27 2005 |
Well what about onboard ammo supplies, arizona went kablooey with a good hit. |
|
|
|
| Itharu |
Posted on 07-11-2005 21:45
|
|
Posts: 363 Joined: September 23 2005 |
Quote blackness wrote: Well what about onboard ammo supplies, arizona went kablooey with a good hit. I could only see that happening with ships that are loaded on missiles and torpedos. Other than that, I don't think railgun ammo and Ion cannons could produce that much explosive / concussion force. And thinking a little further, I would hope that a ship would have it's missile storage facilities well protected to prevent such a disaster. -Fear the Might of the Imperial Cortharian Fleet
|
|
|
|
| October Storm |
Posted on 07-11-2005 22:45
|
|
Posts: 2 Joined: November 07 2005 |
First off the reason the reactor didn't go off when that sub rear-ended a mountain is because the reactor and its cooling system are located in the stern, far from the heavily damaged bow. I'm a physics undergrad and from what I know of fusion reactors it would be unlikely for them to blow up in a big way. The key thing here is that the conditions for fusion are very demanding, very high temperatures and pressures, and that as soon as the reactor can not longer sustain those conditions (say due battle damage, the reactions would quickly fizzle out. And even if you assume relatively high density for the reactants, the plasma escaping from the reactor should only do localized damage. Missiles and torpedoes cooking off is a very different matter. Depending on the the designs of the warheads aboard and how many are set off by a given hit, the effect can range from the ship being partially or totally gutted (depending on the effectiveness of damage control) but otherwise in one piece to being completely blown apart (resulting in significant collateral damage). It all really depends on where the ship was being hit. Magzine hit = boom, control/power/life support systems hits = derilect. |
|
|
|
| Nemmerle |
Posted on 07-11-2005 22:45
|
|
Posts: 113 Joined: September 16 2005 |
I'd expect other critical systems to be equally well protected, so if you achieve a kill then it stands to reason that you're likely going to be hitting the ship with enough force to breech the missile storage facilities. |
|
|
|
| blackness |
Posted on 07-11-2005 23:05
|
|
Posts: 23 Joined: September 27 2005 |
Mainly I think the developers realized that although unrealistic, it looks really cool! And, well it gets rid of all that crap just flaoting around in space too. |
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 07-11-2005 23:11
|
 Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
For the -stock game- correct. For PDS, note the very slow disintegration process for large ships. They might get even slower so if you don't like that, speak up. |
|
|
|
| blackness |
Posted on 07-11-2005 23:14
|
|
Posts: 23 Joined: September 27 2005 |
I like the long death animes I just dont like my ships still attacikng a dead or dieing ship sometimes they go back to attack again. It gets annoying, is that fixible? If not fixable i'll just micro manage more. |
|
|
|
| Warman1 |
Posted on 07-11-2005 23:16
|
|
Posts: 146 Joined: September 08 2005 |
Well if I remember correctly an explosion in an enclosed space is more powerful in that confined area then if it were in an open space. So a fusion reactor going critical and exploding would probably tear very large holes in the hull and send chunks of it flying like a massive Claymore mine. |
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 07-11-2005 23:17
|
|
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
@ blackness What is getting annoying here is your persistence in complaining extensively on what is "annoying" without considering the larger picture of the situation at hand. I believe that this is a fixable condition, or do I need to micromanage you? @ Warman If you read the post of someone with knowledge of reactor systems above (ie, someone automatically entitled to comment on such issues), your post would be structured differently. Right now, you assume that a reactor is an explosive device. If it were then there would be devices and engineering methods designed to prevent such catastrophic explosions in the first place. Edited by TelQuessir on 07-11-2005 23:19 |
|
|
|
| October Storm |
Posted on 07-11-2005 23:27
|
|
Posts: 2 Joined: November 07 2005 |
Actually the ammo magazines in ships tend to be the most heavily armor portions, the logic being that critical systems can be repaired or replaced back at dry dock. For example several of the capital ships "destroyed/sunk" at Pearl Harbor were recovered, repaired, and recommissioned for use during the closing days of WWII. However if the ship simply blows itself to pieces due to an magazine hit, there is little more to do than sell the debris for scrap. Also the location of the hit(s) is more important than raw damage taken when determining if the ammo magazin will go off. A broadside may do a ton of damage, but it will likely be spread out over the entire target ship and fail to focus sufficient firepower to penetrate the magazine. In contrast a well placed torpedo may set everything off on a lightly armored ship or a even heavier one that has been soften up before hand. Given the extreme difficulty of modelling this, the most I could see the devs doing would be to insert a % chance for a ship to completely blow-up upon destruction. |
|
|
|
| Inert |
Posted on 07-11-2005 23:35
|
|
Posts: 388 Joined: September 08 2005 |
I would see no reasons for torpedoes/missiles to be stored. During the exile war, it took at most 8 seconds to produce and arm a heavy fusion missile. There should be at most two missiles at any one missile launcher, so those self-destructing (an odd chance) would not do much damage. It is unlikely that all of them, or a sufficient number of them, to all be damaged and cause explosions to ripple through a ship and cause it to explode. As for kinetic ammunition being volatile, that is untrue. Kinetic ammunition are merely shaped metal to be fired. They use magnetic launchers, so there is nothing that could explode at all. Unless kinetic rounds are explosive, there is no real worry about magazines being hit. |
|
|
|
| Itharu |
Posted on 08-11-2005 00:07
|
|
Posts: 363 Joined: September 23 2005 |
Quote Inert wrote: I would see no reasons for torpedoes/missiles to be stored. During the exile war, it took at most 8 seconds to produce and arm a heavy fusion missile. There should be at most two missiles at any one missile launcher, so those self-destructing (an odd chance) would not do much damage. It is unlikely that all of them, or a sufficient number of them, to all be damaged and cause explosions to ripple through a ship and cause it to explode. I'm a little skeptical about that whole make as you need it. HW:1 did have the Missile destroyers making their own ammunition when their stores of 32 missles had been deplteded. But those ships were specifically designed for making and firing missles only. My guess from PDS standards of ships, they don't seem to have the capacity to have all their weapon systems and a manufacturing bay onboard to make missiles. Perhaps on a BC or Carrier, but I wouldn't suspect on anything lower classed than that. As for the reactor thing, I think we're getting stuff mixed up. Fusion; Combing stuff together at great speeds, pressures and tempratures to cause a buch of hyrdogen to make Helium releasing engery either using Lasers or a particle accelartor. Fission: The breakdown of matter to release energy, typically using Dense radioactive elements such as Uranium and Plutonium. -Fear the Might of the Imperial Cortharian Fleet
|
|
|
|
| Warman1 |
Posted on 08-11-2005 00:11
|
|
Posts: 146 Joined: September 08 2005 |
Quote TelQuessir wrote: @ Warman If you read the post of someone with knowledge of reactor systems above (ie, someone automatically entitled to comment on such issues), your post would be structured differently. Right now, you assume that a reactor is an explosive device. If it were then there would be devices and engineering methods designed to prevent such catastrophic explosions in the first place. Well not all systems are failsafe completely. Besides if we are going to go on that premise, then why not have the ships just be permanently disabled. If possible they could keep moving "on inertia" until they hit the edge of the map. Smaller units could explode as usual since they dont have the structure to withstand being shot up. Also if one system or another of a fusion reactor failed, wouldn't there be a large possibility be large that the plasma would escape from the reactor into areas not built with the heat/energy resistance of the inside of the reactor? |
|
|
|
| enterprise |
Posted on 08-11-2005 14:41
|
 Posts: 81 Joined: October 10 2005 |
well well... i think that those ship are using an eps grid to transmit energy to all system on board. this type of fusion reactor i think that use hydrogen or at least deutherium to operate and this two substances are very volatile and when the ship blow up i think that those tank full of hydrogen will enter in contact whit the exposed core of the fusion reactor and i think that for shut down a core at milions of kelvin degrees there isn't a simple device but it's a gradualy process. in the middle of a battle when the ship is seriously damaged i don't think that all system of the reactor are full operative and do you see what appen when a fusion reactor get out of control? a little smily sun  with a lot of gamma radiaton and ionized plasma.now i know that a ship have system that prevent this circumnstances but a big ship with many weapon system that drain a lot of energy require a big reactor or at least multiple reactor system and i think that when a shipyard blow up in a radius of 10 kilometers all will be destroyed and if this will be the truth for pds i think that all the admiral of each faction will engage hyperspace and get away their frigates with fighters escort. may be a good new type of combat in space with a more realistic combat betwen heavy ship. if anyone play at "nexus: jupiter incident" he will say that when a battleship or a base blow up will be a good idea take away from it  |
|
|
|
| yasotay |
Posted on 08-11-2005 15:15
|
 Posts: 637 Joined: September 09 2005 |
Ah the dead ship discussion returns! Geez Tel' its been at least eight months or so on this one! Other than the wonderful discussion of ship design (it really is good stuff and I am capturing it for my story) the truth is that all those dead ships tend to choke computers as is mentioned above. There has been at least three incarnations of the discussion about dead ships and development of dead ship models, etc. I really like the current solution very much. Dying ships do not stop fighting. There are many historic accounts of ships still firing even as they went under. It really is an elegant solution to the otherwise "ho hum" base case. I always thought that a 50/50 chance of exploding was the best idea, with the unexploded ships slowly moving toward the edge of the map where they just disappear. So no salvage for you! I thought smoking wreaks tilted at an odd angle and drifting out of the fight would be a wonderfully satisfying visual. I would only expect this of capitol ships as frigate and below are far too numerous for this effect. Of course as a person with no talent for this sort of thing, I was never able to derive a good solution, and those with talent had far bigger priorities from Tel. Edited by yasotay on 08-11-2005 15:16 |
|
|
|
| Cobalt Shiva |
Posted on 08-11-2005 18:05
|
 Posts: 118 Joined: September 07 2005 |
Regarding the matter of ships being damaged by nearby explosions - very unlikely. Remember that each 'meter' in the HW2 engine is actually a full kilometer. Even ships with their hulls nearly touching (1 'meter' apart are a full kilometer away! Capital ships, which typically never get closer than a few hundred meters (few hundred kilometers) would almost never be in blast range of each other.
"This is tactical control..."
|
|
|
|
| Jump to Forum |