One thing I always missed in GalCiv2 was the lack of interceptors as a weapon. We all know a fighter can travel to another star which means they are not a one crew craft. There has to be a pilot, navigator, engineer, maybe some gunners. So my impression is the traditional Fighter in GalCiv probably has a crew of 3-10.
But what about truly one man craft that are short range slower than light? So I have some ideas.
1) an interceptor bay would be a large expensive module placed on a ship, multiple allowed. Relatively medium tech.
2) they would provide an across the board offensive increase by some balanced % for an entire fleet.
3) This would allow you to build a carrier that enhanced the whole fleet.
4) it really just behaves as an offensive modifier but the coolness value is there. Everyone wants Tie fighters and Colonial Vipers, even if it's just for show.
5) Quite a number of variations of techs could be researched: Interceptors, Advanced Interceptors, Bombers and so on. Each simply adding more of a modifier at each tech like the Stellar Marines does.
6) You can even add a planetary structure called Interceptor Base that would increase the offensive ability of ships in orbit or increases the HP or something, and can add a soldiering bonus when invaded. Makes it realistic...
A lot can be done with this without adding to much fuss to keep track of. I'm looking forward to hearing others ideas regard the topic.
FTL drives and communications are well-within the bounds of currently-accepted science, but everything that could produce the effect is currently theoretical.
For instance, current theories predict that there are billions of mini wormholes per square meter, that conceivably could be used for transportation if they could be inflated to the size of an EM wave (So we could pass information through it). There are also the hypothesized "Naked singularities" which can be used as stellar-scale wormholes.
Then there's negative friction.
Alcubierre (Spelling? I always mess that up?) drive, similar to in-game warp drive.
And others.
Just because something is 'realistic' doesn't mean it isn't fantastic!
I agree that manned fighters are silly in space, but why are AI drones not an option. Removing the biological parts means that g forces are not a problem for abrupt vector changes and removes the need for Life Support. Uplinked Targeting allows for highly accurate shots to be taken without the limitation of organic sight.
It's a question of EW and fuel capacity. If the EW is too strong, then there are issues with keeping in touch with or in control of the drones. The drones further require enough fuel to return to the carrier after performing their mission (unless your drones are not intended for reuse, but then it becomes difficult to distinguish the 'drone' from a missile variant).
Beyond that, whether drones are practical when fighters are not still requires that something similar in scale to a fighter would be able to make a reasonably significant contribution to the battle. If something of that scale cannot carry a sufficiently potent weapon, say due to insufficient power capacity, then it doesn't really matter whether you send in a manned or unmanned version of the craft since it isn't going to buy you anything anyways.
Directional accuracy in pointing the weapon is a very significant issue when dealing with extreme-range engagements. Even if we assume a perfect prediction algorithm, very minor errors in the aiming direction of a weapon can result in missing the target by a significant amount, particularly if the engagement range is some number of light-seconds. If we do not assume a perfect predictive algorithm (which is much more reasonable than assuming a perfect one), then the speed at which we can aim the weapon in the desired direction is an additional factor impacting the accuracy of our fire, and generally speaking is a competing objective to high directional accuracy. We further need to be able to compensate for vibrations in the vessel which could throw off the aim, whether caused by normal ship operations, our other weapons firing, or by successful enemy hits.
Also, your point regarding exoplanets? Kind of misses the point. Exoplanets aren't trying to mess up the sensor readings; presumably, two sets of warships engaging one another would attempt to distort or deceive the opposing side's sensors to the best of their ability. Even a minor error in target speed, direction of travel, or maneuvering indicators could cause significant error in aiming based on a predictive algorithm being used to target where a vessel will be several seconds in the future based on data several seconds old.
I felt that fighters/carriers were the biggest thing missing from Galciv 2. They're ludicrously cool staples of the science fiction space empire genre, and to not include them would make far less sense than how "unrealistic" the ships themselves would actually be. I very nearly shat myself with delight when I found that fighters/carriers would be included in Galciv 3. Go Stardock!
They would have been in galciv2 if more people had taken the poll on including carriers.
Sure.
everything that involves wormholes/timetravel/FTL in current science involves something like negative mass, negative gravity, infinite energy or some other exotic resource that, which at this point is really not even close to being able to being tested in any way. It's just speculative mathematics based on one of several current theories, which may be accepted as the current best candidates, but are nowhere near proven or even tested.
I'd say were orders of magnitude closer to manipulating gravity now that the higgs field is confirmed, then we are to interstellar travel of any kind. We can now say that with the higgs field established, we may "soon" detect gravitons. and then "soon" thereafter we might be able to manipulate the graviton in the same way we manipulate photons/electrons today. Lot's of ifs and maybes. There is currently no analogy of how to get to negative mass or negative energy that i know off. we don't have negative light or negative electricity for example.
Alcubierre drive is one of the more fleshed out options suggested but that still requires a few grams of exotic matter. I also seem to recall it's not possible to interact with the bubble making things like stopping a problem.
Yes of course a small error in aiming will make you miss by a large amount. But systems with the required precision already exist today in several fields, both in optical systems and in precision manipulation of things. Compensating for vibrations and all that is also a thing that is required for various things today. All that would be required of these technologies is that they are improved to be good enough for the demands of a space weapon. What reason is there to assume this technology wouldn't see similar increases as material sciences, energy sciences and all the other fields required for a space weapon of this kind to exist in the first place?
Like you said, any problems in aiming will be due to wrong/lack of information in where to aim, but making the shot go where you aimed won't be the problem.
Gaunathor. That is insane. Everyone check out the 7½ year old link Gaunathor gave us. How do you do this every time without fail? Lol. Karma for Gaunathor the controller.
This goes to show the player is always right and we don't forget about what we want until we get it. (was SD really that stubborn to denounce the pleas of the customer repeatedly?)
DARCA.
All of those things exist. but we don't know how to make them in significant amounts;
Negative energy (and by extension, mass, if we were to somehow extend the effect) can be created with the Casimir effect.
Dark Energy behaves as negative gravity in some situations.
Infinite energy exists, in a very strange/unconventional way, within every single singularity as they have infinite energy density (but zero area...). We can't interact with it, only the very powerful forces directly "outside" it though.
Everything in science fantasy is pretty far-fetched; assuming some current hypothesis to be justified in such a setting is more than reasonable. Maybe not in real life by any means, but here? Meh.
We have tentatively confirmed the existence of gravitons through analysis of binary pulsars I believe, by measuring the "gravity waves" they emit. I'm not yet an expert in the field, so you'd have to investigate that for yourself
"Negative energy" is actually pretty mundane; gravity behaves as negative energy (that is, an object exposed to kinetic [positive] energy will be pushed away, while something affected by gravity will be attracted towards the source).
If I'm remembering correctly, the main problem with the drive, aside from the negative mass required in the ship, you require 'beacons' also filled with negative mass on the way to your destination.
You know what I do when I face problems with theoretical physics? I get back to studying and working on my degree, while actual scientists work on the problems. I don't think any of us here can give an informed opinion on the subject.
Darca, forgive me, but it's the next day and I just now got the joke! I was thinking "What poll? I don't remember any carrier poll..." hehehe
Doesn't the casimir effect merely create a negative energy density compared to it's surroundings? which is explained with zero point energy / virtual particles?
I do wonder if it's ever going to be possible to find out if singularities really do have infinite densities, or are merely approaching infinity/there is some funky unknown business going on. Just about everything else in nature is quantized or has limits in some way, it always struck me as weird that there could be a infinity. Probably not.
I also don't think you can describe negative energy in that way. It's just a convenient way to describe force vectors in mechanics. Gravity is still doing its normal positive thing. You even say that when you say "behaves as".
I had to quit studying science cause of reasons now i'm stuck to watching lectures on youtube pretty much.
Given the state of drone tech in RL here on Sol 3, my suspicion is that 'one person' fighter craft will never compete well with drones. GalCiv is not a hard science based game franchise. I would prefer that fighters not be apart of the game. I would prefer that auto-drones be used instead. By 'auto' I mean drones that can function without direct control from a 'handler' located somewhere else. Game play wise, I agree with Paragon" fast zipping things that go 'pew pew' can be fun.
yes, yes down with the stupid organics and AIs! Put DARCA's in command of your vessels for we will not betray your faith in us.
Unless a genetically modified person built for this type of thing gets neurological connected to the craft the pilot will die. But...how effective can something fight in space such as a craft piloted by a AI or even a smelly organic? Space is big and opponents are small and the craft is going fast. I know the only way to deal with the speed is to generate a magnetic field so it doesn't stretch the faster it goes and eventually malfunctions/dies.
So with cloning, over population, and alot of machinery laying around, I don't care what goes in my fighters since they are battle fodder anyway and there are BILLIONS in my empire and maybe there might be a THOUSAND fighters in a large empires. (but I would prefer drones for fighters and troops for a sifi effect.)
The tiny hulls (fighters) are not necesarily manned in GalCiv, at least for custom civilizations (I read of Yor scoutships being manned by a single unit). Or any other hull. You don't use population to "eject" them from the planet (colony/tranports just for cargo) so as far as the inner storytelling of each game, all the ships may be automated. I certainly enjoyed creating Cylon Raiders in GalCivII (cybernetic as they are in nature).
Unless Stardock goes out of the way jus to add ship components to create drone versions of the ships/hulls that offer some kind of twist/alternative/variation to the usual ship warfare/travel/etc.
Well in real life the future of air combat will be unmaned fully autonomous drones, for the simple reason they will be able to withstand higher G forces than planes with a squidy human or alien in and unlike remote drones not need constant communications.
In space combat we already see drones of a sort in GC2 e.g. missile tech, no reason missiles shouldn't have AI and the ability to evade attempt to intercept them.
Actually "Pandoras Star" and "Judas Unchained" are excellent sci-fi books that I think do a great job of depicting a not too far feteched set of space battles using various weapons including programable drones diverted energy nukes, etc. Those books buy the way are great and well worth a read if I can plug Peter F. Hamilton here.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
