Caseck

Jack?

Optical Camouflage or "Chameleon" type surfacing would not be a significant power requirement. Following the postulation of LED and Plasma type displays, it wouldn't have excessively large power consumption. It would require a good CPU, but one thing that seldom seems to get mentioned, is that such a system would require the user to know where his opponent is looking at him from! At least, in order to project a "Perfect" image to the observer! In addition, multiple viewpoints could more easily see through the camouflage, as the CPU would be required to compromise between the viewpoints to give the best overall chance of remaining undetected. Such camouflage would probably in no way detract from Armour capability, but probably would not itself be armoured. (Such a unit would lose camouflage from hits that would otherwise be completely superficial.)

Sure. We have stuff like that today. In a "High Tech" world, maybe they can even crawl around and hide? Wouldn't that suck! Or chase after you? That gives new meaning to deployable minefield! Then again, maybe you could remotely deploy UGS that way. (Unmanned Gun Systems=UGS?)

I think you're on the right track. Of course, the ability to customize your vehicles to a great extent, means recon and intelligence becomes much more important. Figuring out what your opponent is capable of, and the ability to vary from battle to battle, making each one a unique experience.

You don't need to understand particle physics, to understand a few things about gaming mechanics. The one that so many people have a hard time with, is BALANCE... The reason BALANCE is so hard to achieve so many times, is because instead of having a set of ground rules to base everything off of, they try to make up everything on the fly, as they go along. The better you have your base rules set down, the easier it is to achieve "Balance" in a game. To the point that, if your rules are specific enough, even players can design units for the game, without fear of disturbing the "Mystical Balance" of the game... That is why this IS a big deal. Some day young grasshopper, you will understand... A good example of this is Battlefield 2. They have Engineer units, and Special Ops units in that game, because Armor was "Too Powerful" they gave them both the ability to kill armor. In effect, both are more powerful against vehicles than the supposed "Anti-Tank" infantry in the game. Terrible balance. Of course, their answer will be "Patch It." Or they'll just leave it lame like it is now. Who knows? But fundamentally, they didn't set down a base set of rules, or have a good understanding of what the hell they were doing. I know that's a totally different game from this, but a good example of people making things up on the fly, because they felt it provided "A Good Gaming Experience" rather than being in any way realistic. They ended up being neither balanced, nor presenting an exceptional gaming experience. If they did, they would KNOW, that infantry in a city environment will CHEW UP any vehicles that aren't closely supported with infantry. But the weapons available to the infantry are poorly modelled, so it is an utterly unrealistic game, even though it looks cool. And if I seem "Into This" that's because the military--past, present, and future, isn't just my hobby. It's my life, and my job. [ August 05, 2005, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: Caseck ]

Really, the biggest question regarding this game is simple. How cheap is LIFE? Or does it vary by faction? If life is cheap, you'd see little emphasis on survivability for infantry. If life is NOT cheap, you would see much more emphasis on things like networked point defenses for infantry and powered armor. How cheap is a life in Drop Team?

Antimatter is a cool thought. Specifically, I expect we're talking about anti-electrons or anti-protons. Either of these two technologies are currently postulated, and we've created these particles on an atomic level. "How do we make them?" You might ask... Simple! You take hydrogen atoms and whip 'em around in a superconducting supercollider and crash 'em together until they break down into quarks. The quarks recombine 'cause they don't hang out by themselves, and once in so many collisions, you get an anti-proton or anti-electron. (I was an infantryman, not a physicist, so somebody will need to bail me out on the specifics.) Anyway, we have developed methods for storing anti-electrons in theory. Since both anti-electrons and anti-protons have a net electric charge, they can be stored. Science fact. Cool stuff, eh? Remember, when either of these antiparticles comes in contact with it's counterpart, it "annihilates", the two combine and release pure energy. Pretty cool! Or not cool, depending on if this is a controlled or uncontrolled occurance! Anyhow, it requires GOBS of energy to create these particles. The manufacturing facility for antimatter would be HUGE! All our current methods for creating it are astronomically inefficient. Unless the live-ships have the ability to park near a sun, and convert photons BACK into antimatter, they would need to get their fuel from somewhere else... Food for thought.

What are dropships powered by? Do they use antimatter with hydrogen as reaction mass, or older technology?

I would argue that point defenses are simply based on having the volume for a suitable weapon system to have it installed as fire control. In other words, YES. They SHOULD have them, as well as supressive weapons! But here's the asterisk: At the same time, the cost differential of an airframe versus a ground vehicle is extreme. You lose a dropship, you just cost yourself a butt-load of resources. Do you understand how much "money" in resources would go into making a suborbital ship like that? In effect you're asking to put rocket pods on the space shuttle, if you think of it in an aggressive role. Not to say it couldn't be done by someone with the cash. But just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD! I agree dropships should be armed. I agree point defenses are perfectly feasable for ANY kind of ship. But I disagree that anyone would want to take one straight into combat. It is your escape route, and an expensive one at that. To a certain extent, I would trade some internal volume for SOME kind of defensive capability. I'd have the best bang for the buck. But I would hesitate to step over the line from supressive to offensive, just based on cost. Money=resources. Remember that. Especially if these ships are equipped with fusion, much less antimatter engines, you're talking the difference in cost between an M1 tank and a B2 bomber. Would you fly a B2 into small arms range? I would field smaller surface craft on the ground, rather than risk my trip home! Those would be the gunships! More conventionally powered, flying below any surface beam weapons, hiding behind terrain and the curvature of the earth. If Newton sets the rules dictating HOW things work, remember, good old Ben Franklin (The almighty dollar) should dictate the WHY! When you get lost in the technological playground, and don't know who to turn to, remember, Ben Franklin is always there to guide you! You just have look at the numbers and let him talk! Work it on a design basis, and these things become apparent! Without a design sequence to ground you in the practicalities, it's easy to get lost on the "Balance" battlefield! On that note, a caution on point defenses. Regardless of how big or small they are, point defenses exponentially move a weapon system up to the "Big Ticket" item. They are PRICEY! The cost of the M61 20mm gun on CIWS (Phalanx) is irrelevant compared to the price of the radar and fire control system and computers... (Not to mention maintenance.) They will get cheaper in time, but they'll still be PRICEY! My word of caution: All weapons and systems should be DESIGNED ON PAPER, before anyone gets to model them... Play it by the numbers, and you won't go wrong! Two sets of laws should dictate: Newtons laws, and the law of supply & demand... I hope I'm still providing food for thought... [ August 01, 2005, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Caseck ]

Networked point defense: Basically, the idea of a very mobile, small caliber based point defense interwoven on a unit level. Especially with very high velocity weapons with rapid rates of fire. (Read: Gauss or Rail type weapons, on a small scale.) This combined with even todays computer technology, makes a lightweight microwave point defense system a possibility. When combined with the additional weight available to a powered armor/exoskeleton type of system, it would allow an infantry type unit to field point defenses. In an infantry formation, with designated sectors of fire, a unit could give itself a resonable point defense against lighter weapons systems. (Like mortars, and smaller ATGMs and rockets.) Hardening of heavy artillery shells/ATGMs could get around this, but lighter weapons systems would probably have a more difficult time doing this. Three ways around a point defense. Either bash through it with hardened rounds, or oversaturate it with the number of rounds. Or sneak a round in that it can't see. Didn't know Steakly wrote a second Armor book. I'll have to look for it. In a way, you folks are walking in the footsteps of an old pen & paper "Sci-Fi" wargame for miniatures called Striker by long defunct GDW. It had a sophisticated set of rules for design sequence and engineering based on real physics. (The bigest leaps the game made was in the field of fusion power generation, and gravitics.) But all the weapons systems were based on real power outputs/shell velocities and 1/2mv2, and penetration of solid steel. Good old Newtonian physics. The game never needed balancing, because the design tables were completely balanced, so you could design to your heart's content and never worry about creating "A Mysterious Zapotron Ray" that would screw up the game. Using that base you could design anything from tanks to aircraft to helicopters and even to a limited extent, boats. Anywhere from WWI tech through the fusion age. Good food for thought if you can find a copy. If you don't stray too far from Newton, you can't go wrong as far as realism. [ August 01, 2005, 06:36 AM: Message edited by: Caseck ]

On armored exoskeletons/powered armor: Powered armor is an interesting concept. In many ways, I'd agree, it's like infantry magnified. Mobility, protection, and firepower are enhanced out of all proportion to regular infantry. Powered armor could allow low bounding flight or "jumps" for properly equipped armor. (limited by reaction mass/fuel) Heavy weapons--especially recoiless or missile weapons make them able to deal serious damage. Armor could be sufficiently thick to make them effectively immune to small arms fire, if not lighter anti-tank weaponry. If sufficient technology exists, these units could even deploy mobile point defenses. [networked point defenses are an interesting concept, especially in an infantry formation context.] Regular "foot" infantry can still be sneaky when equipped with either fuel-cell powered exoskeletons, or unpowered combat armor with "chameleon" type EM surfacing. Either way, these armors would evolve to provide not just environmental protection, but also ballistic, radiation, and stealth protection. One thing that would seem to remain the same between such future infantry and current infantry, is that powered armor would still suffer from limited ammunition supply dictated by the limited volume available for what they can carry. On the same note, however multiplied the capabilities of such armour becomes, it is still limited in it's weight and ground pressure and thickness of it's armour, and if the armor is too large, operations in urban areas become progressively more clumsy. Vehicles would in all probability still outrun and outgun such units. It is only in the basic infantry staples; taking and holding ground, reconnaissance, and fighting from an ambush, that such units would still outfight AFVs. John Steakley's novel "Armor" specifies two types of powered armor: A) Light highly mobile scout armors (stealthy and jump capable, with enhanced detection capabilities, but still protected against virtually all small arms.) Heavier "Grunt" armor, much greater protection and firepower, but significantly less mobility, and generally not jump capable. The powered armor in Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" (not to be confused in any way with the awful movie of the same title) is equipped with a variety of small yield nuclear missiles and bombs, as well as being jump (and drop) capable. [ July 17, 2005, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: Caseck ]