A lot of people wrote wrote a lot of stuff on the subject:
Has it occured to anyone what the logical consequences of a universe where
most ships can sneak up on a planet are? I discussed this with Laserlight, and
he accused me of recently reading a good bit of Pournelle.
Logically, if ships are difficult to detect then they can get close to their
targets easily. This makes them impossible to defend against. If there is no
way to defend against sneak raids, then there is no
rationale for multi-planetary political systems. Why bother, when the
government can't defend you? And why would anyone who can acquire an armed
ship do anything but raid planets? It doesn't take long for this
to descend to mass piracy, with planet-bound serfs liable to whoever
pops into orbit today and demands whatever they want. Is this what is desired?
There are few good space battle scenarios, but if it scratches your itch, you
are welcome to it.
I prefer a universe where incoming raiders can be detected, and where the FTL
jump has a fairly large energy signature as well. It just fits better. YMMV.
As for the squabbles about sensor technology in 2183...
In 1817 the state of the art of sensor technology was an 18-year old kid
on a horse on a hill wearing tights and a ridiculous hat. What makes you think
he could imagine a sonar suite? Why should we be able to predict the details
of a sensor system equally far in our future?
On 20-Apr-00 at 11:10, John M. Atkinson (john.m.atkinson@erols.com)
wrote:
> In 1817 the state of the art of sensor technology was an 18-year old
Hand waving is fine, just don't expect your handwaving to be any better than
anyone elses hand waving.
Here is what I would like, skip all the hard science, hand waving, it works
this way in the present day so it will work this way in the future.
I want tension as ships close. I want a period of "Is that a dreadnought or a
heavy cruiser pretending to be a dreadnought". I want my opponent to possibly
wonder, is everything on the board is is something sitting, weapons and
systems down, waiting for me to blunder into it much as Weber does in his
books.
Sure, a ship lights off its drive and we get clues. If we know our opponent
and we see contact BR549 accelerating at thrust 2 we can make a fair guess
there is a capital ship in the group. We get a little closer we can see that
the mass of the ship, assuming nobody is playing EW games to make themselves
appear
bigger/smaller to our sensors. We get in firing range we
get to see the ship. We get close and we can estimate damage (look at the
SSD).
Does this sound reasonable? Do you like a little tension and imperfect
information in the game or do you want to be omnipotent?
I want to be able to have a battle. In the situation you are discussing ships
will NEVER fight save as a last ditch defense. You pop in system, I know what
ships you have, I decide if I have more capabilities than you do and, if I do
I stay, if I don't I leave. You look at me and realize I have 2 SDNs to your
BDN, you leave. It would require a fool to stay. So now the game is down to: I
pop in with more my opponent leaves or does a quick pass to blow up a ship or
2 with SMs before hitting the road.
> Roger Books wrote:
wrote:
> > In 1817 the state of the art of sensor technology was an 18-year old
I guess it's mostly a question of why you play space combat games. To be
honest, I play them because of the ways that space combat is
DIFFERENT from ground/sea/air combat now, not because of the
similarities. That's also the reason that I like vector movement -
vector movement is the one part of space combat that is ENTIRELY different
from anything we've seen before. I'm interested in how tactics change when you
DO know what ships the opponent has, and what mass they are, before you enter
combat. You have one theory as to how space sensors will affect space warfare.
Maybe it's the case, maybe not. Either way, I prefer to keep as much science
in the game as possible
(which is why my ships don't often mount screens - I see lasers as more
likely than particle beams, and it's damned near impossible to screen against
lasers), because without the science the game doesn't have as much flavour
(IMO). That's also the reason I'm involved in this debate. I am extremely
interested in HOW science works in the GZG-verse, and I find it
extremely interesting to see the different beliefs. Still, I think it's
important to remember how much we already know. If you choose to handwave away
space sensors, that's fine. After all, it's a generic
game, and we're all free to re-write the rules. In these debates,
however, I'm interested in trying to establish, based on what can be done now,
what things are likely to be like (not certain, just likely). I'm learning
quite a lot from these discussions. That's why I'm getting involved in them.
Sorry, that got a bit preachy.
> On 20-Apr-00 at 11:51, Brian Quirt (baqrt@mta.ca) wrote:
> I'm interested in how tactics
It won't change, it won't occur. If you could drop the "I have an equal point
value" viewpoint you would see what I am working toward. Here, I'll annoy a
few people on the list.
> That's also the reason I'm involved in this debate. I am
I'm not handwaving away space sensors, you are handwaving away enhancements to
stealth technology. 30 years ago the thought of hiding a jet was ludicrous.
Now a stealth bomber slips through enemy detection with an almost
insignificant radar shadow. Who knows what stealth enhancements the future
will bring.
My handwaving is just as good as yours. You choose which pieces of science you
want to enhance to get perfect sensors. I choose the pieces I want to enhance
to get stealth.
> Has it occured to anyone what the logical consequences of a
Observation, not accusation. The logic is laid out in Larry
Niven's N-Space, IIRC.
> Logically, if ships are difficult to detect then they can get
Not necessarily. They could be difficult for ships to detect, but much easier
for satellites to detect (multiple platforms for a long baseline, wide
aperature, not built to undergo high gee
thrust). The raiders wouldn't be able to detect ships on a
regular basis except close to a planet (where shipping routes merge), so you
could park your navy close to the planet and defend shipping. I personally
like that model better than the "they're in the system, so we can see them"
model. Now, in a war situation, the raider could do a high velocity strike,
but that yields you no booty and may have political consequences.
> Roger Books wrote:
> I want tension as ships close. I want a period of "Is that a
That's fine. Tension is good. But total surprise should be only possible if
someone is totally asleep at the wheel.
> I want tension as ships close. I want a period of "Is that a
I look at it akin to submarine warfare. Certain things (engines, movement
against the background of stars, active sensors, etc) are detectable by
passive sensors. Turn on your active sensors and you can start lighting up
targets and getting _real_ information - but you're also standing out
like a lighthouse on a moonless night.
Of course there's also things like directional sensors, "painting" with a
laser (a very directional sensor) etc..
---
> The effervescent John Atkinson wrote:
> Logically, if ships are difficult to detect then they can get close to
...
Yeehah. 10 points to the man. Another corrolary is that system defense would
not consist of fleets, but rather Planet based mega-guns or missile
swarms,
designed to pick off atteckers at 40+ MU.
> I prefer a universe where incoming raiders can be detected, and where
better. YMMV.
Gimme that universe.
and...
> In 1817 the state of the art of sensor technology was an 18-year old
Speculation on the Hard SF tech of possible actual methods for detection and
evasion is all well and good, but for a 22nd/23rd century sim with the
openness of FT, PSB is good for me.
Roger counters with an argument for less info for longer, and feels that we'd
never have battles if lots is known at a distance. Two things: 1) "So now the
game is down to: I pop in with more my opponent leaves or does a quick pass to
blow up a ship or 2 with SMs before hitting the road." Why not? Seem like the
lions share of Cold war (and no small number of Hot war)encounters should work
this way in RL. FT games don't have to represent the average encounter. 2) "In
the situation you are discussing ships will NEVER fight save as a last ditch
defense." Nah. I've seen quite a few scenario descriptions that don't require
the desperation setup.