Jump to content

Burke

Members
  • Posts

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Converted

  • Location
    New Orleans

Burke's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (1/3)

0

Reputation

  1. Burke

    Shrike in vacuum

    Yeah, I was mainly just commenting on an interesting feature that could occur in zero-atmosphere. Cannon rounds will certainly be effective in that situation also, but even in a best case scenario they can only impact at their muzzle velocity. Rockets, however, will continue to eject mass, and with no air resistance conservation of momentum requires that the rocket keep accelerating indefinitely. So you could get some unreal velocities with rockets over the distances we're talking about for DropTeam, which could mean the lowly Shrike is by far the deadliest weapon on near-vacuum worlds.
  2. There might be some very interesting gameplay on worlds with virtually no atmosphere. Specifically, the Shrike's rocket motor will continue to provide a force and the projectile will never reach a terminal velocity (assuming this is modeled correctly in the game). Out of curiosity I tried to estimate the impact velocity we could see from this type of rocket, assuming it was generally similar to, say, a TOW. With similar weight, exhaust velocity, etc a Shrike rocket engaging an enemy 1km distant could probably reach an impact velocity in excess of mach 7 (2500 m/s). Compare this to the muzzle (not impact) velocity of our best APFSDS kinetic energy anti-armor rounds, which is around 1800 m/s. The rocket wouldn't mechanically be designed to deliver the same type of pressure as a depleted uranium APFSDS or something, but it would close with the target extremely quickly, have enough KE to punch through many AFVs, and deliver high explosives on top of this. The different atmospheres should definitely add a new and interesting element to armored combat.
  3. Thanks for the reply; this sounds like an excellent way to handle it. Is there any plan for developers or beta testers to post an early AAR? I'm still having a bit of trouble getting a feel for how multiplayer games with several players work in practice. For example, are indirect fire support assets/dropships usually just left to the AI, while most of the human players operate in first-person view close to the battle? Do most of the human players shift between vehicles frequently during the games? [ October 14, 2005, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Burke ]
  4. Very much looking forward to this game! A couple questions about how indirect fire is being simulated: (1) With such large maps, atmospheric resistance will have an enormous effect on ordnance, especially during indirect fire. Will the units have the capability to automatically estimate a path for the projectile given the atmospheric conditions? (2) How realistically will air/atmosphere resistance be modeled? Do all planets just have a constant atmospheric density, or will the density realistically change with altitude? Will the atmospheric resistive force be the same for all projectiles (proportional to the velocity squared or something), or are you modeling drag forces specifically for each shell? Basically my question is: will we need to play the game with a giant stack of artillery tables handy? (Which might be pretty fun). Or will much of this be automated?
  5. One book I'd recommend against is Backwater War: The Allied Campaign in Italy by Edwin Hoyt (listed on BFC's site). In terms of research and factual data it's probably fine, but the style of writing is so horrific I had to put it down. Virtually every sentence is poorly worded and often full of ridiculous cliches. It read like a fifth-grader reporting on the war in Italy. Two books that I have found enjoyable are The Battle of Sicily by Mitcham and Stauffenberg and Drop Zone Sicily by William Breuer. The later is extremely readable and engaging, though as you'd expect its scope is limited to the airborne assault on Sicily.
×
×
  • Create New...