Free Allegiance Forums

In space you don't get any (nearly) free vector correction as you do in an atmosphere. With distance/speed/mass I'm sure it would be easy enough to make any lrm missile nearly impossible to hit, and run out of fuel trying to decide where the hell you're pointing next. Providing you are nimble enough in relation to the missile.

I wouldn't think missiles only accelerate, either. There'd be a cruising speed matched to available delta-V and target characteristics. I mean big missiles for big targets would be, well, lumbering along, preparing for a possible course correction and only after some treshold burn the last fuel. In anycase, an active targeting radar would be picked up and the missile potentially chewed up by close range defences, just like now. Small missiles for small targets would still have to be for close range and nimble or they'd not keep up or not have enough fuel, etc.

Sure, if you have the stealth and eyes you could shoot a missile at a substantial fraction of a light speed at a stationary (as in relativistic) target and give it no chance, but that does not apply in our game.

I for one think Newtonian physics would be welcome to this game.

In theory, space missiles would use the same explosive principles as an underwater torpedo. Fuel + Oxygen. ...Or what ever is used for propulsion in those virtual engines.

I'm curious how effective the explosive pressure would be in a vacuum. The change in pressure would dissipate rapidly outside of the hull.

If the projectile is designed to pierce the hull prior to detonation, then it would be a different matter. Inside the hull, there would be additional burnable oxygen, the pressure is already pushing out, and there would be additional surface area for push factor. Big badda boom!

Jonan wrote:QUOTE (Jonan @ Mar 9 2007, 09:11 PM) In space you don't get any (nearly) free vector correction as you do in an atmosphere. With distance/speed/mass I'm sure it would be easy enough to make any lrm missile nearly impossible to hit, and run out of fuel trying to decide where the hell you're pointing next. Providing you are nimble enough in relation to the missile.

That's just a very dumb programed missile.

Jonan wrote:QUOTE (Jonan @ Mar 9 2007, 09:11 PM) I wouldn't think missiles only accelerate, either.

In the atmosphere you have to accelerate, because the air does slow you down (2,7*10^19 molecules per cm^3). In interstellar space you have a vacuum (1 molecule per cm^3).

Jonan wrote:QUOTE (Jonan @ Mar 9 2007, 09:11 PM) I for one think Newtonian physics would be welcome to this game.

And will make this game unplayable and boring.

QUOTE That's just a very dumb programed missile.[/quote]?
QUOTE In the atmosphere you have to accelerate...,[/quote] You didn't seem to get it. Do I re-explain, suggest a re-read or pass?
QUOTE And will make this game unplayable and boring.[/quote]I appreciate the argument. It leaves nothing left for me to say.

FlingPu wrote:QUOTE (FlingPu @ Mar 9 2007, 09:14 PM) In theory, space missiles would use the same explosive principles as an underwater torpedo. Fuel + Oxygen. ...Or what ever is used for propulsion in those virtual engines.

I'm curious how effective the explosive pressure would be in a vacuum. The change in pressure would dissipate rapidly outside of the hull.

A exploding torpedo does produce a giant shockwave (> water is accelerated > high mass hitting the ship hull), which does damage the ship.

In vacuum you don't have a shockwave, just high speed fragments of the torpedo/msl itself and dust from the explosion.

FlingPu wrote:QUOTE (FlingPu @ Mar 9 2007, 09:14 PM) If the projectile is designed to pierce the hull prior to detonation, then it would be a different matter. Inside the hull, there would be additional burnable oxygen, the pressure is already pushing out, and there would be additional surface area for push factor. Big badda boom!

All you need is kinetic energy... Why do you need an explosion to destroy a target?

pkk wrote:QUOTE (pkk @ Mar 9 2007, 09:32 PM) That's just a very dumb programed missile.

You discripe a missile action like the autopilot in Allegiance:

You are in a pod, a fig tries to pick you up with autopilot.

Now just change your course up/down and see what the autopilot does.

up, down, left, right, ... the Fig is getting slow and slower.

The msl will waste fuel, like you did discripe, just a dumb msl.

pkk wrote:QUOTE (pkk @ Mar 9 2007, 03:52 PM) All you need is kinetic energy... Why do you need an explosion to destroy a target?

More damage? Fun factor? Self satisfaction? /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

Seriously, I'm not sure what you mean. Here's an example:

If you set a small explosive (fireworks) on an apple and ignite it... it's going to crater the outside. If you embed the explosive inside of the apple, you've got applesauce.

Pkk

Yea yea yea (dismissive hand wave), but how would you solve the issue, then? And btw, don't do this
QUOTE (2,7*10^19 molecules per cm^3).[/quote] stuff, please. It doesn't tell much more about your ability than google skills, and it stinks of a derogatory comment.

Edit: typo

Newtonian physics is not good? Haven't you people heard of Elite or Independence Wars?

Warhead. A classic.