Author
|
Topic: Scale (Read 38595 times)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 1387
|
 |
Re: Scale
« Reply #108 on: May 02, 2005, 09:15:39 pm » |
|
"It's likely that the pixel artist placed the window lights there to make it look sci-fi. It could also be christmas lighting, as used in Alien (The belly of the planet lander).
Also, on fortresses, the windows were often made as small as possible to prevent the enemy from lobbing in cannonballs through the windows. It's also reasonable to believe that they don't need windows at all in the future, since they can use cameras and thus not have the weakness of exposed windows"
Yes that's what I was saying. I have always been a bigger fan of the ships in the "Aliens" universe, than star trek ships where they have cut a half million port holes. I guess they find structural integrity to be less valuable than natural lighting.
"Yes, that would work. But it's somewhat arbitrary to ignore the Scout and accept the Cruiser. It's consistant to ignore both."
You just said the scout art is too small, you're the one who wanted to ignore it.
"The cruiser has zappers. There's no visible turrets other than on the Orz. The Arilou has a turret underneath."
It doesn't really matter if you want to call them "zappers", they still do the same thing.
"During the Civil war, the Monitor pretty much revolutionized sea warfare. Ships no longer had to turn to shoot. Up to this point, turning the ships into position has been a major problem during battle. With a turret you could shoot at any point when within range. You don't see any battleships nowdays without turrets do you?
Having a single gun pointing forward on a 300 meter battleship would make a ship seriously vulnerable to fighters.
Yamato was one of Japan's most pretentious overkill ships. Guess what? It didn't have a single gun running the entire length of the ship."
It is vulnerable to fighters and it turns faster than a turret (perhaps it has internal force dampeners). Again, powerful turrets might blow you off course.
"With 300 meter ships, a lot of ships would be able to carry fighters and scout ships, and many modern battleships this size does. They also have defence against them."
Defenses like say, point defense lasers, frag crystals, auto cannons, rapid fire lasers, and engines that can leave those fighters in their dust? As far as carrying fighters, the question comes, why would you want to?
"Isn't it just the Vindy that's automated though? Anyways it's still an indicator favouring my position."
No, your starbase is heavily automated, as well as dreadnaughts. It is highly likely that the tech-worshipping humans would also use a lot of it in their vessels. If not, a cruiser even the size of yours would be way under crewed.
"Not sure how to solve the infinite supply though. Maybe suspension of disbelief. Infinite ammo is something people are used to accepting."
Perhaps cruisers synthesize materials as done on the starbase.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arne
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 520
Yak!
|
|
Re: Scale
« Reply #110 on: May 02, 2005, 11:58:26 pm » |
|
You just said the scout art is too small, you're the one who wanted to ignore it.
Yes, but I'm consistantly ignoring both the Scout size and the Cruiser size suggested by those pics. It's obvious that they cared more about getting the proportions and ship balances right in melee than they did in getting the ship stat pics right.
It is vulnerable to fighters and it turns faster than a turret (perhaps it has internal force dampeners). Again, powerful turrets might blow you off course.
It?
The Mauler certainly doesn't have a problem getting of course. It's apart of it's strategy. There were stories of WW2 warships getting pushed sideways a lot during salvoes. This didn't make them drop turrets.
Defenses like say, point defense lasers, frag crystals, auto cannons, rapid fire lasers, and engines that can leave those fighters in their dust? As far as carrying fighters, the question comes, why would you want to?
Oops, you forgot Mycon, Vux and even UrQ themself... no wait, they're getting completely owned by fighters. I guess the architect of those massive spacehulks screwed up, unless they didn't expect fighters around because the ships are pretty small as they are.
My point with turrets is, with a turret you can always fire. Being able to do little damage at any time has historically proved more valuable than being able to do a lot of damage only under certain conditions (where you might need to expose yourself) (as far as battleships goes anyways).
It's rare with weapon systems that are so large proportionally that they need to be fixed along the axis of the ship/plane, other than on fighters (tank/train-busters specifically).
When playing Syreen and being chased by fighters or a plasmoid, you have to spin around, shoot, spin, thrusts, spin, shoot. You have to do this with a lot of ships. The builders of the ships would have realized this isn't practical, and crammed on some turrets if they could. I guess they couldn't cuz the ships are rather small.
I'm having trouble thinkning of a sci'fi where they have weapons on fixed mounts and large ships. I think there was a Mauler type of ship in a SW xomic, and there's always deathstar of course.
No, your starbase is heavily automated, as well as dreadnaughts. It is highly likely that the tech-worshipping humans would also use a lot of it in their vessels. If not, a cruiser even the size of yours would be way under crewed.
No, the starbase has been modified (if not built) by the UrQ. The Commander seem very impressed that the shipyards are automated and much more effective than normal human workers in vac-suits. It's probably not human technology.
6-40 Crew is perfectly reasonable for ships of my suggested scale. I'm using numbers from real ships, and common sci-fi, plus hull space calculations. I'm not guessing.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 03, 2005, 12:00:47 am by Arne »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobucles
Guest
|
|
Re: Scale
« Reply #111 on: May 03, 2005, 01:53:47 am » |
|
I'm having trouble thinkning of a sci'fi where they have weapons on fixed mounts and large ships. I think there was a Mauler type of ship in a SW xomic, and there's always deathstar of course. Lots of Japanimation depicts their space battleships as having a spinal main cannon, a ton of turrets, and a fleet of fightsrs. The SDF-1 "Macross" and Nadesico are two fictitious ships that come to mind. The main cannon is designed to puncture capital hulls, (or in those cases as an ultimate cannon) while the turrets handle more vulnerable targets. Some pics:
http://www.midnightanimation.com/gallery/robotech/unspacy/sdf1.html The macross. The two parts in front separate and power the main cannon.
http://www.akira.ru/nadesico/gallery/nadesico.htm The nadesico. The two front nacelles power the main cannon.
Of course, those are huge, honking flagship types. The Vindicator wasn't designed for war, but the advanced tech makes it just as good. The Sa-Matra, a precursor warship, doesn't seem to have any such main cannon either, although the standard armanments far surpasses anything that other races have.
The Ur-Quan dreadnoughts, despite being the largest warship, aren't really meant to be huge. The Ur-Quan do not like being near each other due to their killing instincts, so they would rather have more ships to give them some breathing room, rather than a huge and uncomfortable ship, prone to mutiny.
There could be a hyperspace penalty for having huge ships. Sending a larger ship through hyperspace could conume a huge amount of fuel compared to a ship with just half the signature. Such a setup would favor a large amount of small ships, which would consume less fuel than one huge ship. Also, there could be design issues with making hyperspace engines beyond a certain size. Comparing offensive and defensive investments could favor smaller ships, as opposed to putting all of your eggs in one basket. Any number of things could favor smaller ships over larger ships.
There are a few things that would favor larger ships. One such thing could be powerful, easy to produce and hard to penetrate armor. With antimatter available, this is nearly impossible at best. Energy shielding is another, as large and powerful shields can absorb an unlimited amount of damage from weak enemies. Shields aren't very common in SC2, though.
About turrets and multiple guns...
That may have been a design desision to make space combat easier. Turrets are a pain for one player to handle, so instead almost all of them shoot straight foward. Multiple guns would also be a pain to handle, so ships are given just two weapons to deal with. A single player can't just pick up a controller with a hundred buttons and try to do space combat.
It came with an ion cannon 'out of the box'. This may have been chosen by the humans who oversaw construction, though. Ion gun? Ooohhhh.... you mean the precursor ion torch. I thought that was for precursor ship maintenance. It just happens to be a little powerful for performing maintenance on normal ships. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Arne
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 520
Yak!
|
|
Re: Scale
« Reply #112 on: May 03, 2005, 02:26:54 am » |
|
Yes, I realize they made the ships simple because it wouldn't be playable if the player had to micro-manage 40 turrets. So they designed the ships as fighters, and that's why I think they should be small. WYSIWYG, sorta.
The ships could indeed be hundreds of meter and mostly have a forward weapon, but then I'd expect to see smaller and larger ship classes. With small ships, you can only go larger. To prevent larger ships, I'll have to make up a rule to prevent ships from getting large. It's better than having to make one up for both smaller and larger though.
The hyperspace penalty was what I thought of too. Some ships already are invulnerable, so more armour mass wouldn't protect them better either.
My main gripe with large ships though, is the design. The detailing on the ships would be absurd at that scale.
So, I guess I don't see any reason to go big. The ships don't look big, don't behave big, and don't have to be big.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 03, 2005, 02:51:45 am by Arne »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
fetid_breath
Zebranky food
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 29
Current Livelihood: Anyway I want. I can now code!
|
|
Re: Scale
« Reply #113 on: May 03, 2005, 03:59:25 am » |
|
I haven't read all of the eight pages, but here is my main thought on ship sizes.
I think that the smaller a space ship is the better. Larger ships need more material then smaller ones, obviously. If you are going to make 100's of Earth Cruisers, then for the sake of money, labor, and time you should make them as small and efficient as possible, but not too small that it hampers their battle value. Take this example: The U.S.A. needs to build 1,000,000 cars as fast as they can, because these cars fight an evil that is threatening to destroy the country. Now, would the government decide that we are going to build 1,000,000 semi-trucks or 1,000,000 little easy to make cars that do the job well enough?
Lastly, you have to factor in that Earth's government should treat their building materials as if they are limited, because the government will never know when they will run out of materials to build with.
Ok, there is my view. Hope it isn't to confusing.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The only similarity between me and Kazon is the fact we both have fetid breath in the morning.
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
|
Re: Scale
« Reply #114 on: May 03, 2005, 04:42:23 am » |
|
"Yes, but I'm consistantly ignoring both the Scout size and the Cruiser size suggested by those pics. It's obvious that they cared more about getting the proportions and ship balances right in melee than they did in getting the ship stat pics right."
I think you've got that backwards. The melee proportions are ones that will give the player some idea of which ships are bigger or smaller, while allowing the gameplay to be very fun.
"It?
The Mauler certainly doesn't have a problem getting of course. It's apart of it's strategy. There were stories of WW2 warships getting pushed sideways a lot during salvoes. This didn't make them drop turrets."
It = Ur-quan Dreadnaught. The mauler is not exactly a marvel of combat engineering. Maritime ships are partly in a gas body, and partly in a liquid body. They will not get blown very far, but a spacecraft in a vacuum will.
"Oops, you forgot Mycon, Vux and even UrQ themself... no wait, they're getting completely owned by fighters. I guess the architect of those massive spacehulks screwed up"
Why would they carry weapons against fighters, if they don't have to face fighters (with exception to the scouts).
"My point with turrets is, with a turret you can always fire. Being able to do little damage at any time has historically proved more valuable than being able to do a lot of damage only under certain conditions (where you might need to expose yourself) (as far as battleships goes anyways)."
Apparently, some species agree with you (earthing, orz, arilou, etc.), while others don't.
"I'm having trouble thinkning of a sci'fi where they have weapons on fixed mounts and large ships."
That's ok, SC does not necessarily have to be like everything else. Remember, SciFi is just guess work, it's not fact (hence the name).
"6-40 Crew is perfectly reasonable for ships of my suggested scale. I'm using numbers from real ships, and common sci-fi, plus hull space calculations. I'm not guessing."
If you have never toured the inside of a real life starship before, then you probably are guessing. If you brought a roman naval officer aboard a modern warship, he might wonder why you had so few oarsmen.
"About turrets and multiple guns...
That may have been a design desision to make space combat easier. Turrets are a pain for one player to handle, so instead almost all of them shoot straight foward. Multiple guns would also be a pain to handle, so ships are given just two weapons to deal with. A single player can't just pick up a controller with a hundred buttons and try to do space combat."
There you have it, that is the real life reason the ships behave the way they do in the game. It's just a matter of fun, gameplay. The spec art shows what they are really supposed to look like (that's its job!)
"Yes, I realize they made the ships simple because it wouldn't be playable if the player had to micro-manage 40 turrets. So they designed the ships as fighters, and that's why I think they should be small."
Fighters that carry as many as 42 crew, can transport entire colonies, punch holes in small moons, carry hundreds of nukes, carry turrets, hold and launch 41 fighter of their own, and have names like cruiser or dreadnaught?
"The ships could indeed be hundreds of meter and mostly have a forward weapon, but then I'd expect to see smaller and larger ship classes."
There are small classes, like that "motorboat" you were complaining about. You can't get much smaller than that. And 300 meters is pretty damn big, on the other side of the scale.
"My main gripe with large ships though, is the design. The detailing on the ships would be absurd at that scale."
You don't need to go nuts with the '70s star-destroyer/battlestar-galactica style. Not every every square inch needs to have a micro-structure painted on. You're current drawings have plenty of detail for 5-300 meter long craft. Some ships might even be very smooth. You don't have to redo all your art, just because it might turn out that the ships are bigger than you had once believed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Culture20
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 917
Thraddash Flower Child
|
|
Re: Scale
« Reply #116 on: May 03, 2005, 07:02:09 am » |
|
During the Civil war, the Monitor pretty much revolutionized sea warfare. Ships no longer had to turn to shoot. Up to this point, turning the ships into position has been a major problem during battle. With a turret you could shoot at any point when within range. You don't see any battleships nowdays without turrets do you?
Having a single gun pointing forward on a 300 meter battleship would make a ship seriously vulnerable to fighters.
The Monitor design was given a turret soley because it (and its intended prey, the C.S.S. Virginia) had a turning radius of ~2 miles. It's possible that designers of a spaceship that can turn on a dime decided the turret was an out-moded relic (its also possible that alien cultures never concieved of a turret as a design; it could be just the Humans, Arilou, and Orz, and the Arilou and Orz might have gotten the idea from humans [Orz via Androsynth]).
Regarding anti-fighter turrets: Fighters don't play into SC combats because no race uses them except the Ur-Quan, and every race except Humans already had their ship designs & production facilities for those ships before the war. All ship weapons prior to humans were designed to battle other cap-ships. Chenjesu probably asked Humans what tech they had that could blast through neutronium-titanium alloy hull, and the humans pulled out their nukes. Then when the Chenjesu explained the ships the enemy used, the Humans added the Star Wars lasers to the mix, being the only ships with good defense against the Ur-Quan fighters.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
michael
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 200
|
|
Re: Scale
« Reply #117 on: May 03, 2005, 07:11:32 am » |
|
" The Monitor design was given a turret soley because it (and its intended prey, the C.S.S. Virginia) had a turning radius of ~2 miles. It's possible that designers of a spaceship that can turn on a dime decided the turret was an out-moded relic (its also possible that alien cultures never concieved of a turret as a design; it could be just the Humans, Arilou, and Orz, and the Arilou and Orz might have gotten the idea from humans [Orz via Androsynth]). ' didn't think about the moniter but I was going to point out that we might be the only race that
thought of turrets and we moved past them because we liked nukes better.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Arne
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 520
Yak!
|
|
Re: Scale
« Reply #118 on: May 03, 2005, 12:49:53 pm » |
|
I'll try to shorten this dowm I got a meeting with my accountist in a few.
just because it might turn out that the ships are bigger than you had once believed.
And if romans were to make a space game, they would use oarsmen and catapults in their designs. Their ships would be like wooden galleys floating in space. When turning, they'd shout and shift oars, whip the slaves or whatever. Thier ship would probably have a similar amount of crew as real galleys. Maybe they'll have some high-tech weapon like a mirror death beam.
Likewise, if a modern person makes a game, and make the ship dogfighters, they're probably not something else just because they can be. Occam's Razor.
If you make the ship smaller, they fit into common standards quite well, IMO. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. I guess we just have a different perception of ducks.
I've been arguing a bit for larger ships and smaller motorboats too, just to explore the arguments, I don't think the Scout is like a small motorboat, or that the vindy can shoot moons to bits.
For the record, My smallest selfsustaining ship is 10-15, largest is perhaps 75, except the vindy which is 140. Most ships are around 40. My ships are not really fighter, although I'd like them to be. Theyre just barely small enough suit the dogfight style gameplay. If it wasn't for the crew numbers, I'd make them smaller, like fighters, but now it is as it is.
I'll make both larger and smaller versions of the ships though, because it seems reasonable. Since I'm not doing a dogfight game primarely, I can slap on turrets on the larger ship classes.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 03, 2005, 04:10:25 pm by Arne »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
michael
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 200
|
|
Re: Scale
« Reply #119 on: May 03, 2005, 08:23:14 pm » |
|
remember that turrets would knock ships off course in space.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
