Drunkard's Walk Forums

Full Version: [IMG] INVADER!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
So, for various reasons we know that a lot of old style aircraft have been converted into fen areospace capable.
The Roughriders, even after the war, in fact seem to continue that trend.
Which lead me to thinking.  There seem to be 2 main types of combatants during the war years that appear 'on screen' to date.  Fen vehicles that have been weaponised, or 'large construction' heavy 'warships'.  But almost nothing in between, which is surprising.  Ben Rhoades, in particular, with his manic blue hair adaptation of airfraimes of all sorts seems like the type that might come up with something like this:
[Image: a26080112001.th.jpg]
Of course I can mostly see it being used during the war, and mostly only as a 'Door Knocker'; designed to strafe and suppress exterior defenses (with extreme predjudice!) while the busses loaded with marines make their ingress?
Hear that thunder rolling till it seems to split the sky?
That's every ship in Grayson's Navy taking up the cry-

NO QUARTER!!!
-- "No Quarter", by Echo's Children

Ace Dreamer

How much of the issue might be that air frames are regarded as relatively fragile, and have a big area you need to 'wave?

People might regard their buses etc as quite tough, and, that might affect them? Or, are they still relatively fragile?

Should air frames be more maneoverable in space than busses, etc, seeing as they are designed for 3D movement?
--
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" - Hawkwind
Ace Dreamer Wrote:How much of the issue might be that air frames are regarded as relatively fragile, and have a big area you need to 'wave?

People might regard their buses etc as quite tough, and, that might affect them? Or, are they still relatively fragile?
Handwaved vehicles tend to be extremely tough, even without forcefields.

And there's a special strain of handwavium out there that's designed to provide even more armour to whatever it's applied to. This strain first appeared in late-autumn 2008, and spread from its origin point so quickly that almost nobody remembers who created it. (Which suits Noah Scott just fine - he doesn't want anybody realizing this particular strain of handwavium was seeded with something that Doug Sangnoir left behind.)

Ace Dreamer Wrote:Should air frames be more maneoverable in space than busses, etc, seeing as they are designed for 3D movement?
We've never addressed maneuverability, only top speed...

It makes sense to me that something built for 3D movement would be more maneuverable in three dimensions than something built for 2D movement would be.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

HRogge

robkelk Wrote:Handwaved vehicles tend to be extremely tough, even without forcefields.

And there's a special strain of handwavium out there that's designed to provide even more armour to whatever it's applied to. This strain first appeared in late-autumn 2008, and spread from its origin point so quickly that almost nobody remembers who created it. (Which suits Noah Scott just fine - he doesn't want anybody realizing this particular strain of handwavium was seeded with something that Doug Sangnoir left behind.)

Still, there will be differences between Fenspace crafts designed similar cars, aircrafts and ships (especially the later will have a higher armor to mass ratio ^^).
While pondering this, I wonder if it doesn't have *some* benefit, perhaps the extra mechanical advantage that can be had by mounting thrusters further from the centreline of the craft, as well as providing somewhere to hang weapons from.

I always thought that most fightercraft used 'wings' because it helped them fly like 'aircraft' in space.... which has some real advantages when it comes to intuition, as well as giving the ability to change vectors without having to first completely nullify their momentum in the current direction. It makes them easier to fly, but limits them to traditional dogfighting maneuvers.

While A-drives have some real maneuvering advantages, but lack the acceleration of speed drives, and are much tougher to change heading. It's facing is independant of it's direction of travel. Nice for surprising people.

Weirding it up are the Helicopters, which have most of the advtanges of speed drives when it comes to changing directions, while at the same timehaving most of the advantages of A-drives where it can travel in any direction, while pointing its weapons in another. Too bad it's at half the top speed of most similar-sized combat spacecraft.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
I think you have the drive types flipped Dartz. Accelleration drives follow 'traditional' ballistics while Speed Drives act more like most movie starfighters
Hear that thunder rolling till it seems to split the sky?
That's every ship in Grayson's Navy taking up the cry-

NO QUARTER!!!
-- "No Quarter", by Echo's Children
That's not what I meant...

While being exactly why I meant. Acceleration drives maneuver like real spacecraft, mostly according to newton's laws. While speed drives don't..... they behave more like aircraft, banking, rolling and looping as if they were flying aerodynamically. I think the ability to actually change the direction of travel much quicker than an A-drive would make them common. Acceleration drives have to completely nullify velecoity on one direction, while accelerating in the other to turn to a new heading. Acceleration drives bank right....
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
actually, the only time an A-Drive has to completely cancel its vector is if your reversing course or decellerating. the rest of the time vector math applies where you can just turn the ship and apply thrust in a new direction to change your flight vector
Hear that thunder rolling till it seems to split the sky?
That's every ship in Grayson's Navy taking up the cry-

NO QUARTER!!!
-- "No Quarter", by Echo's Children
robkelk Wrote:
Ace Dreamer Wrote:Should air frames be more maneoverable in space than busses, etc, seeing as they are designed for 3D movement?

We've never addressed maneuverability, only top speed...

It makes sense to me that something built for 3D movement would be more maneuverable in three dimensions than something built for 2D movement would be.
Especially since many people would expect aircraft to be more manuverable in space than, say, a car.  At least subconsciously.  And Wavium would react to that feeling.
___________________________
"I've always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific." - George Carlin

Ace Dreamer

So, if you wave-up a Flying Saucer/UFO, that modern myth says can make sudden stops, right-angle turns in mid-flight, and even suddenly disappear. All while giving weird or no images on radar. Then, that is what it can do? [grin]
--
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" - Hawkwind
I do believe those are the performance characteristics of the various flying saucers in Fenspace, yes...
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
If you want Ben's Blue Hair Moments regarding aircraft, try this one on for size: http://en.wikipedia.org/w...orthrop_P-61_Black_Widow

This little beasty would be perfect for ferreting out stealth targets. It's original intended purpose was to be a 'night time' interceptor... this being at a time when midair engagements in the middle of the night were just about unthinkable.

And as a precursor to the BAT Lancer-class ships... THIS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-58_Hustler

Slightly smaller than a Lancer, the Hustler-class is all about pure brute force, as it has double of the same engines the Blackbird-class uses. The only problem was that for optimum performance it needed an auxiliary reactor, usually carried in an external pod. Staying true to the original design, this secondary pod also doubled as a disposable bomb bay (aux reactor, pod, and all can be jettisoned and self-destructed to cover an escape).
[Image: b58080212001.th.jpg]
[Image: p61080212001.th.jpg]
Hear that thunder rolling till it seems to split the sky?
That's every ship in Grayson's Navy taking up the cry-

NO QUARTER!!!
-- "No Quarter", by Echo's Children

Ace Dreamer

I'd originally thought of late mark Bolos (XXV+), with a drive pod (reactor & speed drive)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_%28tank%29

Unfortunately, the main gun (rated in megatons per second) is pretty fundamental to the Bolo. Given the non-weapons limitation of handwavium it seemed pretty pointless to even think about a Bolo - neither the infinite repeaters, or the lightest anti-personnel weapons, looked feasible.

I guess, even so, that a Bolo with fully armoured hull and battlescreen, maybe with an acceleration instead of a speed drive, could do a quite effective ramming run (a 'Move Through' attack to use 'Hero Systems' terminology) on anything less crunchy than a solid metal or rock asteroid. In its secondary roles, the sensor systems and recon drones, could prove very useful.

So, the general point, super tech hull, yes, super tech drive, yes, super tech defences, yes, super tech weapons, a quite definite 'NO!".

And this means any weapons are pure hard tech, or whatever you can trick handwavium into letting you get away with?

(Mind you, a beam weapon that turned the enemy hull into puff pastry might have a certain terror factor... Maybe a line of Bolos with Weapons Of Mass Deconstruction could be useful... (That is deconstruction of the enemy's sanity [grin]).)

[If this is an inappropriate addition to this thread, apologies.]
--
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" - Hawkwind

HRogge

The difference between a "Bolo tank" and a low flying spaceship is just point-of-view.
uhhh.... More like armor and armament to me. *wink*
Hear that thunder rolling till it seems to split the sky?
That's every ship in Grayson's Navy taking up the cry-

NO QUARTER!!!
-- "No Quarter", by Echo's Children

Ace Dreamer

HRogge Wrote:The difference between a "Bolo tank" and a low flying spaceship is just point-of-view.
I think you'll find that a Bolo has almost always got better defences - the better ones can survive near-misses from tactical nukes.  32ktns of tank...  There is also an element of determination, almost inevitability, about Bolos, which very few spaceships that I can think of, even those with battle-hardened and ready AIs that regard the ship as their body, can match.  Off-hand, I'd be thinking about Ian M. Bank's 'Culture' ships, with their Minds...
--
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" - Hawkwind
Okay, you guys got the blue haired freak in me going on this.

What is a Hellbore other than a directed nuclear explosion? I think I might be able to cook up something like that.

Let's see, we'd need a barrel to begin with. One that is strong enough to contain that much explosive power (I'm not think of anything other than kinetic force right now, so just bear with me). So, in that case we'll need to figure on how large we want the bore for a given megatons/sec and from that we can figure out how strong the barrel has to be. Ergo, from that we can figure out what sort of materials and in what quantity we need them in.

Heat is an issue. To say nothing of the radioactive energy. Therefore, let's line the barrel with magnetic field generators, and the lining of the barrel can be protected with ceramic tiles, much like those used on the space shuttle. We can use a liquid or even a gas cooling system to help get the heat moved out in a quick and timely fashion.

Finally, the ammunition and firing mechanism. Heavily enriched weapons grade fuel, two component, one single explosion triggers the whole thing. Yep, like a fire cracker in a pop bottle.

All components are handwaved with a specific task in mind. Very low quirk, tried and true production methods. However, they may gestalt into a greater quirk. Gunnery myths may play into effect here. Like all gunners must not shave on the day of a planned shoot. A blood sacrifice (just a prick of the finger) may guarantee the effectiveness of a gun's operation. (No joke, my 5" Gun School instructor once had a gun that would never seem to work right until someone pricked their finger on a sharp protrusion on the loader drum.)

Bear in mind, if the Roughriders field anything remotely resembling this, it's gonna be far-flung infinities material. 2100's at the bare minimum.

Thoughts?
...

...

...

Umm, how about its above my paygrade? cause, seriously, I'd brought up the a-26 concept cause I'd found a model and thought that many forward facing coilguns (or heck, even space refited Ma Deuces) might have a useable application somehow.
Hear that thunder rolling till it seems to split the sky?
That's every ship in Grayson's Navy taking up the cry-

NO QUARTER!!!
-- "No Quarter", by Echo's Children
blackaeronaut Wrote:Okay, you guys got the blue haired freak in me going on this.

What is a Hellbore other than a directed nuclear explosion? I think I might be able to cook up something like that.

Let's see, we'd need a barrel to begin with. One that is strong enough to contain that much explosive power (I'm not think of anything other than kinetic force right now, so just bear with me). So, in that case we'll need to figure on how large we want the bore for a given megatons/sec and from that we can figure out how strong the barrel has to be. Ergo, from that we can figure out what sort of materials and in what quantity we need them in.

Heat is an issue. To say nothing of the radioactive energy. Therefore, let's line the barrel with magnetic field generators, and the lining of the barrel can be protected with ceramic tiles, much like those used on the space shuttle. We can use a liquid or even a gas cooling system to help get the heat moved out in a quick and timely fashion.

Finally, the ammunition and firing mechanism. Heavily enriched weapons grade fuel, two component, one single explosion triggers the whole thing. Yep, like a fire cracker in a pop bottle.

All components are handwaved with a specific task in mind. Very low quirk, tried and true production methods. However, they may gestalt into a greater quirk. Gunnery myths may play into effect here. Like all gunners must not shave on the day of a planned shoot. A blood sacrifice (just a prick of the finger) may guarantee the effectiveness of a gun's operation. (No joke, my 5" Gun School instructor once had a gun that would never seem to work right until someone pricked their finger on a sharp protrusion on the loader drum.)

Bear in mind, if the Roughriders field anything remotely resembling this, it's gonna be far-flung infinities material. 2100's at the bare minimum.

Thoughts?

Sounds a lot like a Casaba Howitzer that isn't incinerated by the first shot. I'd laugh if the wave quirked so all it did was leave the target singed black on the surface and unharmed. The alternative is unnerving.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
blackaeronaut Wrote:What is a Hellbore other than a directed nuclear explosion?
A tunneling device that only works in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_(disa ... on)#Places]a very few locations?

Okay, maybe not... but maybe handwavium thinks that way?
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
and also needs one of the songs listed on that page as well?
Hear that thunder rolling till it seems to split the sky?
That's every ship in Grayson's Navy taking up the cry-

NO QUARTER!!!
-- "No Quarter", by Echo's Children
Star Ranger4 Wrote:Umm, how about its above my paygrade? cause, seriously, I'd brought up the a-26 concept cause I'd found a model and thought that many forward facing coilguns (or heck, even space refited Ma Deuces) might have a useable application somehow.
Hah!  Sorry about that.  Someone drops Bolos into the convo and I go nuts.  :p
Really, though, if Ben wants a 'door knocker' craft of that sort... he'll wave up some A-10 Warthogs.  I think the fact that most of the fuselage on those things being taken up be the gun itself makes it worthy on its own.  Also, armor and redundancy.  This would be a fighter craft that is all but impossible to shoot down or even mission-kill.  Plus, I'd ditch the 30mm Gatling gun in favor of something far more beefy - a 105mm coil gun.  Now that is a door knocker!  Sure, it'd only be able to caryy, what, about six or eight rounds?  But if you hit a target with even just a small flight of these little monsters, their hardened placements are gonna be crying 'mommy' in no time.  And if we need to, we can equip them with one or two coil gun pods in the 20mm range (probably the same ones the F-EZigs use).  That'll put down anyone that thinks they're easy pickings despite their (relatively) slow speeds.  (Might be slow, but holy hell can they turn!)
Also, is it just me, or does the sound of 'F/A-18 Suzumebachi' (Japanese name for the Giant Asian Hornet) sound a lot better than 'F/A-18 Super Hornet'?  Reason being that I stumbled upon this: http://combatace.com/topi...ishi-fa-18m-suzumebachi/
blackaeronaut Wrote:
Star Ranger4 Wrote:Umm, how about its above my paygrade? cause, seriously, I'd brought up the a-26 concept cause I'd found a model and thought that many forward facing coilguns (or heck, even space refited Ma Deuces) might have a useable application somehow.
Hah!  Sorry about that.  Someone drops Bolos into the convo and I go nuts.  :p
Really, though, if Ben wants a 'door knocker' craft of that sort... he'll wave up some A-10 Warthogs.  I think the fact that most of the fuselage on those things being taken up be the gun itself makes it worthy on its own.  Also, armor and redundancy.  This would be a fighter craft that is all but impossible to shoot down or even mission-kill.  Plus, I'd ditch the 30mm Gatling gun in favor of something far more beefy - a 105mm coil gun.  Now that is a door knocker!  Sure, it'd only be able to caryy, what, about six or eight rounds?  But if you hit a target with even just a small flight of these little monsters, their hardened placements are gonna be crying 'mommy' in no time.  And if we need to, we can equip them with one or two coil gun pods in the 20mm range (probably the same ones the F-EZigs use).  That'll put down anyone that thinks they're easy pickings despite their (relatively) slow speeds.  (Might be slow, but holy hell can they turn!)
Well, a Warthog does traditionally carry a shitload of bombs/missiles as well as it's tankbuster gun.  Just add the gunpods onto a couple of the ordanance hardpoints.
  
___________________________
"I've always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific." - George Carlin
hmm... I'll have to look, I just might have a Hog in the cache of stuff I've gotten the rest of this from. A howizer sized coilgun? that not a doorknocker, thats a KNOCK DOWN THE DOOR AND THE WALL BEHIND IT knocker. Or "Doors? We make our OWN"
Hear that thunder rolling till it seems to split the sky?
That's every ship in Grayson's Navy taking up the cry-

NO QUARTER!!!
-- "No Quarter", by Echo's Children
Pages: 1 2