View Thread
 Ship Proximity Kills
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 12-12-2005 23:50
|
 Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
I was referring more to the reactor's operating characteristics and that more than a hundred control rods "disappeared".
Edited by TelQuessir on 12-12-2005 23:50 |
|
|
|
| Vor_Rhonin |
Posted on 21-12-2005 02:43
|
 Posts: 42 Joined: November 14 2005 |
Catastrophic Reactor Failure Considering what happened at Chernobyl, imagine what it would do on a ship. Whether it is the coolant system, the fissionable material, or something else is besides the point. I don't think that it would be possible to cut any of those sections out of a reactor system. And since they have to be together to work, when one fails catastrophically the entire system is effectively kaput. I will need to get a hold of a 'Nuc Bubblehead' ( preferable one of the engineers) to find out those technical details for sure. Edited by Vor_Rhonin on 21-12-2005 02:49 If you think that you are in a 'no win' scenario, it just means that you haven't been creative enough yet.
If you can't beat a problem directly, try flanking it. Any problem can be solved with the proper application of |
|
|
|
| nospacebar14 |
Posted on 21-12-2005 07:22
|
 Posts: 7 Joined: September 02 2005 |
It seems like a more workable probability of a warship exploding in battle when destroyed would be about 10%, because normally a massive explosion is a notable, and singular event in a battle. For instance, at Pearl Harbor, almost all you hear about is the Arizona blowing up. Mention the Bismark, and people think of the Hood catastrophically breaking in half. If you're playing a multiplayer game online, I could see maybe one or two massive explosions all game, depending on its length -- they'd be more like landmarks. "Man, I knew I was through when my battlecruiser blew up like that." Somebody mentioned that differentiating the models from their living counterparts could be a problem in the midst of battle. Well, why not just have them turn "upside down"? It seems like ships in the game don't like to turn upside down, and so it be easy to tell which ones were dead if they were upside down. Also, you could put all of the model deformation and such on the ventral side, because its more likely for people to look "down" on the battle than "up" at it because of the other RTS games we all play. |
|
|
|
| Vor_Rhonin |
Posted on 22-12-2005 22:44
|
|
Posts: 42 Joined: November 14 2005 |
"Dead" vessels Another idea would be to create ship models that are missing huge sections (the entire forward half or the engine) or perhaps blown in half with small debris pieces between. Instead of the vessel creating the current debris, they generate these derelict models. Multiple designs would need to be created due to the various ships in use. If you think that you are in a 'no win' scenario, it just means that you haven't been creative enough yet.
If you can't beat a problem directly, try flanking it. Any problem can be solved with the proper application of |
|
|
|
| Inert |
Posted on 22-12-2005 23:28
|
 Posts: 388 Joined: September 08 2005 |
@Vor_Rhonin: Already suggested by various other people. Idea rejected on the basis that too much texturing/modelling time would be needed for such an endeavour. |
|
|
|
| Vor_Rhonin |
Posted on 24-12-2005 02:59
|
|
Posts: 42 Joined: November 14 2005 |
:topic: This line of thought deserves to be continued. But it has nothing to do with 'proximity kills'. Let's move this line of thought to the "I.F.F. - M.I.L.E.S." thread. Edited by Vor_Rhonin on 24-12-2005 03:00 If you think that you are in a 'no win' scenario, it just means that you haven't been creative enough yet.
If you can't beat a problem directly, try flanking it. Any problem can be solved with the proper application of |
|
|
|
| EvilTediz |
Posted on 31-12-2005 22:31
|
 Posts: 12 Joined: December 12 2005 |
Well it depends alot on the exact situation that the ship could blow up. I think the 50/50 is the best way to go. But I think we should be able to take drifting hulks and bring them to our shipyard. If they're our own ships we simply repair and commission them. However if it is the oposite sides ship we could get a hybrid/reverse-engineered ship that uses the intact weapon/system mounts and new put of there when the ship was repaird. Also for a ship to be completely derilect it would have to be just about completely gutted out unless the reactor was damaged. By the way anyone know Daniel's Navyfield account name and server? Edited by EvilTediz on 31-12-2005 22:33 The Panzer IV rocks!
...........___................ ...____|.+..|>-----=... [color=whit |
|
|
|
| The Casualty |
Posted on 01-01-2006 02:13
|
|
Posts: 47 Joined: December 29 2005 |
That sounds like an awful amount of coding to do... On top of that, the liklihood of some shipyard engineers piecing together a combat-ready hull out of a quite damaged and overstressed one would not be worth it economically. However, harvesting the debris chunks could be quite profitable. Jeez, dragging it off topic again, sorry. I think proximity kills should be in the game, but more in the form of shrapnel damage to hull armor and subsystems than any sort of pushback force or all-out "chain reaction" explosions. I mean, when these ships go, I imagine it being like a big hand grenade. Since space is a vaccum you don't necessarily have the shock trauma caused by explosive movement of the air around the explosion, but you would have quite alot of bits and pieces flying around rapidly from the explosion's thrust. Larger chunks probably wouldn't disintegrate outright like alot of the smaller stuff and would be going quite fast... Imagine refridgerator sized bits of hull, support equipment, plumbing, maybe even whole compartments smashing into nearby vessels and creating a debris field that would be folly for a strike craft to fly through. Granted, damage from said objects most likely wouldn't cause great harm to large ships considering the tolerances they are built to, but for strike craft the results of flying through a debris field could be disastrous, like a modern fighter flying through a swarm of birds. |
|
|
|
| Vor_Rhonin |
Posted on 01-01-2006 19:16
|
|
Posts: 42 Joined: November 14 2005 |
When a explosion occurs, there is a expanding sphere of gas (the explosion itself) which would quickly dissapate in the vacuum of space. Depending on the size of the explosion, there could be some "shock trauma" to vessels too close. The amount of damage inflicted would depend on the size of the explosion, the size of the vessel in the effected area, and the distance between the two. The blast radius would be a lot smaller than it would be in an atmosphere.
Edited by Vor_Rhonin on 02-01-2006 10:35 If you think that you are in a 'no win' scenario, it just means that you haven't been creative enough yet.
If you can't beat a problem directly, try flanking it. Any problem can be solved with the proper application of |
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 03-01-2006 04:10
|
|
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
PDS ships are powered by fusion reactors while NGCS ones have solid and liquid fuel chemical rockets along with fission and fusion reactors. With this data in mind I can customise death effects per class to achieve a higher level of realism. Individual ships for scenario and SP campaign play can also have individual death effects differentiating (for instance) a ship with a full load of rocket fuel and one with no fuel (immobile or has expended all its rocket boosters). I will also make use of the catastrophic destruction percentage chance feature of HW2 for capital ships. |
|
|
|
| ColonelCurt |
Posted on 21-01-2006 19:51
|
|
Posts: 9 Joined: January 21 2006 |
I'm pretty new here, but I thought I'd mention something about the exploding ships. Even if we assume that the ship would explode for some reason (reactor, onboard munitions, etc) and throw bits of itself out like shrapnel, the chances of it actually being able to do any damage seems remarkably small to me. First, consider the amount of space involved. No matter how much debris a ship might throw out when it exploded, the battlespace is so huge that another ship would have to be almost right on top of it to be at serious risk of being hit by flying debris. And lets just assume that a ship WAS hit by flying debris. It probably wouldn't even notice. The kinetic weapons in PDS throw ultra-heavy rounds at velocities much faster then anything a shipboard explosion would likely produce. I can't imagine shrapnel from an explosion even coming close to the damage potential of most of the existing weapons, and we all know how much punishment from those weapons most PDS ships can take. From my point of view, only a fighter or corvette sitting at point-blank range to a catastrophic explosion of a super-capital ship would even notice it, damage-wise.
No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy
|
|
|
|
| Itharu |
Posted on 22-01-2006 16:23
|
 Posts: 363 Joined: September 23 2005 |
Quote ColonelCurt wrote: I'm pretty new here, but I thought I'd mention something about the exploding ships. Even if we assume that the ship would explode for some reason (reactor, onboard munitions, etc) and throw bits of itself out like shrapnel, the chances of it actually being able to do any damage seems remarkably small to me. First, consider the amount of space involved. No matter how much debris a ship might throw out when it exploded, the battlespace is so huge that another ship would have to be almost right on top of it to be at serious risk of being hit by flying debris. And lets just assume that a ship WAS hit by flying debris. It probably wouldn't even notice. The kinetic weapons in PDS throw ultra-heavy rounds at velocities much faster then anything a shipboard explosion would likely produce. I can't imagine shrapnel from an explosion even coming close to the damage potential of most of the existing weapons, and we all know how much punishment from those weapons most PDS ships can take. From my point of view, only a fighter or corvette sitting at point-blank range to a catastrophic explosion of a super-capital ship would even notice it, damage-wise. Aside from obvious high velocity debris flying about and from an explosion, the point of radiation effects seems to have been slightly overlooked. In PDS when using reactors and plasma, there's going to be a fair amount of radation from thermal to gama being expended, all having effects on ships in the region. In NGCS, I'm guessing there will be less radiation from explosions more debris being flung about. Space junk is one of the leading factors to sattelight failure. Anything with a good mass and velolcity will cause signifigant damage. Something the size of a golf ball traveling at about 27,000km/h will make a good dent if not nice hole in anything it hits. -Fear the Might of the Imperial Cortharian Fleet
|
|
|
|
| ColonelCurt |
Posted on 23-01-2006 02:17
|
|
Posts: 9 Joined: January 21 2006 |
I don't think the radiation effects of a ship exploding would be anywhere near as destructive as the various DEWs ships take hits from. After all, the ship isn't designed to explode and do damage. Even if the ship's reactor were go explode, which would effectively be a fusion bomb, the ship's hull would absorb a significant amount of the energy during the breakup. The amount of radiation in the battlespace is already going to be pretty high, given the amount of missiles and torpedoes that are usually flying around. I'm not saying there wouldn't be any radiation hitting other ships, I just don't see it being significant enough given how well protected they are against radiation when it is being deliberately fired at them.
No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy
|
|
|
|
| Jump to Forum |