Space fightercraft in RPGs.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

That depends on what you consider "prime" real estate. Two species who don't live on the same types of planets could very well consider this no great loss.

 

Then if they're not competing for the resources, why are they going to war against each other in the first place?

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

Then if they're not competing for the resources' date=' why are they going to war against each other in the first place?[/quote']

 

 

Just because they don't use the same planets for living space doesn't mean they won't fight over resources. Or shipping lanes. Or religion. Or politics. Or a dispute over which end of an egg to crack open first.

 

Or maybe it's not about anything and they just don't like each other very much....

[dmjalund]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

...cause if you're gonna destroy a planet, why screw around?

 

because destroying planets is SUCH a turn on!

[Manic Typist]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

I agree in a limited warfare scenario. OTOH if you have no way of communicating with the enemy (say they are aliens)' date=' you may need to go for the KE kill. It's important to remember that you only have the enemy's sensibilities protecting you.[/quote']

 

Not really. You have your technology and tactics protecting you. Cracking open their planet is counterproductive UNLESS you for some reason don't need that planet (so either it's completely uninhabitable for your species, or the cost of taking it in a manner that it is still useful afterwards is too high).

 

Assuming the other species is automatically antithetical to your way of life (perhaps they're religious zealots out to kill all life unlike their own, even if you share completely different atmospheres and thus have very LITTLE reason to go to war and almost every reason to cooperate economically), planets can still be useful bits of real estate to set up biodomes and such on.

 

Besides, do you really want to be the kid in the interstellar club who used relativistic weapons? Because that's the sort of thing that would make your neighbors leery, and probably incline them to treat you in turn before you could possibly do it again.

[Markdoc]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

That depends on what you consider "prime" real estate. Two species who don't live on the same types of planets could very well consider this no great loss.

 

On the other hand, they also have relatively little to fight over, either.

 

Edit: I see this has been raised already, but the point is still valid: species that evolve under such different conditions that their planets are useless to each other probably are not going to have a lot of things in common - and going by what little evidence we have (ie: this planet) - species or cultures that don't have a lot to do with each other mostly just ignore one another.

 

cheers, Mark

[Outsider]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

They may not live in the same sort of atmosphere/gravity, but surely they can still fight over the rare sources of handwavium that they both need to make their FTL drives work.

[Markdoc]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

They may not live in the same sort of atmosphere/gravity' date=' but surely they can still fight over the rare sources of handwavium that they both need to make their FTL drives work.[/quote']

 

Could be, of course: we can't really say much about technology that hasn't been invented yet, but if they live in wholly different types of environments, how likely is it that their technology will be similar?

 

cheers, Mark

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

Doesn't reduce the amount of energy required to accellerate something to near the speed of light. It would be more effective to use anti-matter bombs

 

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacegunexotic.php#Antimatter~Efficiency

 

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacegunexotic.php#Relativistic_Weapons

 

At .86c, the KE of a missile is equal to the rest mass, which means it contains as many joules of energy as an equivalent amount of antimatter. KE = .5( m*v^2). Also, this comes down to the efficiency of engines vs. anti-mater as a weapon. In a hard sci-fi setting, engines are at least a given.

 

Not really. You have your technology and tactics protecting you. Cracking open their planet is counterproductive UNLESS you for some reason don't need that planet (so either it's completely uninhabitable for your species, or the cost of taking it in a manner that it is still useful afterwards is too high).

 

Assuming the other species is automatically antithetical to your way of life (perhaps they're religious zealots out to kill all life unlike their own, even if you share completely different atmospheres and thus have very LITTLE reason to go to war and almost every reason to cooperate economically), planets can still be useful bits of real estate to set up biodomes and such on.

 

Besides, do you really want to be the kid in the interstellar club who used relativistic weapons? Because that's the sort of thing that would make your neighbors leery, and probably incline them to treat you in turn before you could possibly do it again.

 

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/aliens.php

 

Invading a planet is counter productive. You would need to spacelift enough troops and equipment to fight an entire world. Unless your suggestion is to use smaller scale “conventional” munitions to try and demolish infrastructure after taking dominance of the high orbitals. I can see that being an option but a very wasteful one. Remember there should be more habitable worlds than there are species to inhabit them (due to terraforming).

 

I would rather be the survivor in the interstellar club than the one who goes extinct. If you can’t communicate, how can you trust them? And why would you trust them? They have no reason to trust or value humans.

 

If you are talking about fighting another human planet, then I can see reasons not to KE kill (space Geneva conventions), but why not for aliens?

 

Again, i'm talking from a hard sci-fi setting, because we've already established anything goes in soft sci-fi and you can have your space fighters.

[phookz]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

If the habitat can't dodge' date=' you can just accelerate them to near light speed from very far away. If the hab. isn't using laser-based point defense it will need to hit a .99c object with a much slower one. Not only that, but the drones are much cheaper than the habitat. Planets are of course, death traps (unless they can move).[/quote']

 

That type of acceleration is going to take a while, assuming a hard sci-fi setting. In that case it's just a matter of detecting the launch, even from very far away, and launching your point defense counter measures. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying that is where the tactics come in play. Every offense will have a suitable defense.

 

Now if we're talking Space Opera, then all bets are off and bases are as defensible as the plot needs them to be. Typically this means ignoring physics and stating that FTL ships have missiles and lasers that are decidedly slower than real-life munitions today. Fighter craft are necessary to get beyond a bases defenses, etc. I'm not saying this is a bad thing - I love the genre, but it's very different from what is likely to happen in a hard sci-fi setting.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

That type of acceleration is going to take a while' date=' assuming a hard sci-fi setting. In that case it's just a matter of detecting the launch, even from very far away, and launching your point defense counter measures. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying that is where the tactics come in play. Every offense will have a suitable defense.[/quote']

 

First I want to completely agree with you about Space Operas.

 

As far as the section of material you quoted, i was referencing velocity, not acceleration. I then went on to reference ion engines as an example of a low acceleration but reasonably long distance propulsion system. While there is no stealth in space, and thus your target will know your missiles are incoming (unless you launch it fantastically far away, so the heat bloom is not noticed)

 

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacewardefense.php#Point_Defense~Missile_PD

 

Clearly it is possible to intercept one missile with another, especially as a .99c missile will not be "dodging". It's going to come in a straight line, especially if you use a missile with a higher acceleration (which would be practical for short range interception).

 

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacewardetect.php#Why_Not?~Thrifty_Engine_Burns

 

OTOH if you have years of time to wait for the missile to travel, you can boost before and coast in. If they don't detect the initial heat bloom, a post acceleration missile will be traveling almost as fast as the information about the missile, minimizing defenders reaction times.

 

I may be misunderstanding something here, if I am please tell me.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

Remember there should be more habitable worlds than there are species to inhabit them (due to terraforming).

 

I would rather be the survivor in the interstellar club than the one who goes extinct. If you can’t communicate, how can you trust them? And why would you trust them? They have no reason to trust or value humans.

 

I'll see your AtomicRocket and raise you with one of my own:

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/aliens.php#The_Fermi_Paradox~The_Killing_Star

 

Most specifically the excerpt from the novel "Run to the Stars," and the counterarguments listed in "The Killing Star" section. Basically, you're course of action is the way that pretty much GUARANTEES you WON'T be the survivor in the interstellar club, since all the other members and future members would gang up on you.

 

Pet peeve with stuff like this: talking about how alien aliens are (They won't have our values!) and then make assumptions about them (They'll assume we are just as potentially murderous as they are!). Aliens will be ALIEN. You can't predict their psychology except as an entertaining scenario. For example, maybe they'll never consider attacking us because they were always the top predator of their planet. Nothing could ever kill them except each other. They idea of another creature being lethal could be incomprehensible to them.

 

These sort of scenarios demonstrate that, from both a practical/logical and an idealistic perspective, it makes the most sense to NOT attack first. Because you'd be risking the entire species unnecessarily.

[austenandrews]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

Somewhere in the Pentagon is a detailed plan for how to nuke the UK. If someone has the ability to obliterate you, the chance of it happening must always be considered.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

One real world characteristic of military vehicles and weapon systems is that, under battlefield conditions, many of them turn out to be sub-optimal, sometimes because they were designed for the last conflict and not for the current one. Some may field obsolete but proven miltech, others may deploy advanced but untested/unproven miltech, etc. It's entirely possible that, even in a drone-heavy environment, armed small manned craft may still be around and even be a major factor in a space battle.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

I'll see your AtomicRocket and raise you with one of my own:

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/aliens.php#The_Fermi_Paradox~The_Killing_Star

 

Most specifically the excerpt from the novel "Run to the Stars," and the counterarguments listed in "The Killing Star" section. Basically, you're course of action is the way that pretty much GUARANTEES you WON'T be the survivor in the interstellar club, since all the other members and future members would gang up on you.

 

Pet peeve with stuff like this: talking about how alien aliens are (They won't have our values!) and then make assumptions about them (They'll assume we are just as potentially murderous as they are!). Aliens will be ALIEN. You can't predict their psychology except as an entertaining scenario. For example, maybe they'll never consider attacking us because they were always the top predator of their planet. Nothing could ever kill them except each other. They idea of another creature being lethal could be incomprehensible to them.

 

These sort of scenarios demonstrate that, from both a practical/logical and an idealistic perspective, it makes the most sense to NOT attack first. Because you'd be risking the entire species unnecessarily.

 

OTOH, you also risk the entire species by NOT attacking. Unless you have some kind of guarantee that the "other" species you've just discovered won't attack first. (What kind of species makes such guarantees? And what species would take the risk of believing them? Ours, apparently.) While it may not be possible to 'understand' aliens, we can understand the concept of risk management, and good risk management means assuming that they understand it as well. Because assuming they don't, or can't, is too high a risk.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

So you're essentially saying that as soon as aliens are detected we should immediately obliterate them just for existing on the assumption that they will do the same to us? In that case we're doomed anyway because if the attacks are launched at the same time they'll cross paths and both sides will be destroyed.

[Outsider]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

In other news, Earth and Earth orbit based sensors continue to detect no signs of intelligent life in other star systems...

 

[Michael Hopcroft]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

In other news, Earth and Earth orbit based sensors continue to detect no signs of intelligent life in other star systems...

 

 

Or, for that matter, in this one.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

So you're essentially saying that as soon as aliens are detected we should immediately obliterate them just for existing on the assumption that they will do the same to us? In that case we're doomed anyway because if the attacks are launched at the same time they'll cross paths and both sides will be destroyed.

 

You may have just resolved the Fermi Paradox.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

OTOH' date=' you also risk the entire species by NOT attacking. Unless you have some kind of guarantee that the "other" species you've just discovered won't attack [i']first.[/i] (What kind of species makes such guarantees? And what species would take the risk of believing them? Ours, apparently.) While it may not be possible to 'understand' aliens, we can understand the concept of risk management, and good risk management means assuming that they understand it as well. Because assuming they don't, or can't, is too high a risk.

 

That completely ignores the argument being made, which is that IF you attack you have no way of being certain you got ALL OF THEM. And once you've gone down that path, you WILL be on everyone's hit list, ever. Hence, while it makes sense to have contingencies.... it makes no sense to strike first unless you can guarantee you will get every member of the species and be able to do so without anyone ever tracing it back to you. Which you can't.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

That completely ignores the argument being made' date=' which is that IF you attack you have no way of being certain you got ALL OF THEM. And once you've gone down that path, you WILL be on everyone's hit list, ever. Hence, while it makes sense to have contingencies.... it makes no sense to strike first unless you can guarantee you will get every member of the species and be able to do so without anyone ever tracing it back to you. Which you can't.[/quote']

 

Optimistically, yes... assuming two races encounter each other after both have established self-sustaining populations off their respective homeworlds, then the first-strike is ultimately self-defeating. OTOH, if one of them is still dependent on its homeworld, then the first strike is going to be viable. And a truly well-established species spread across the galaxy may or may not care if they're on everyone's hit list, since by this argument, they'll be pretty much impossible to wipe out completely.

 

And how does a species become widespread and well-established and stay that way? Possibly by getting there first, then hunting down and killing off potential competitors before they become too powerful. Regardless of whether their motives make sense to us, it would only take one advanced species with an outlook like this to make the galaxy a very dangerous place. That's the risk, and the only way to avoid it is to spread out to other star systems.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

These are fair points.

[dmjalund]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

It would only take one advanced species with an outlook like this to make the galaxy a very dangerous place. That's the risk' date=' and the only way to avoid it is to spread out to other star systems.[/quote']The idea of us ves them only becomes species vs species after it is no longer country vs country or race vs race, thus someone with this attitude would not have survived their nuclear era.

[Sundog]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

The idea of us ves them only becomes species vs species after it is no longer country vs country or race vs race' date=' thus someone with this attitude would not have survived their nuclear era.[/quote']

 

You wish! Don't forget the old Arab saying: Me against my Brother, My Brother and I against our family, our family against the other families in our clan, all our clan against the rest of the Tribe, our Tribe against the other tribes, all Tribes against outsiders.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

Sometimes people need a break from these boards. Either that or they explode in some spectacular way that makes Dan Ban them forever. Hopefully Nyrath will be back' date=' I really enjoy his projectRho site.[/quote']

 

Yes, I was on the list of people who needed a break. Now I never stopped working in HERO -- if anything, I've been more active than ever. But I needed to get away. I'm hoping to maintain my return at long last. Post some new projects. Figure out how to blog.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

Yes' date=' I was on the list of people who needed a break. Now I never stopped working in HERO -- if anything, I've been more active than ever. But I needed to get away. I'm hoping to maintain my return at long last. Post some new projects. Figure out how to blog.[/quote']

 

Welcome back! We missed you, but while you were out we had some target practice....