Bingo! Give Stratteggi a supersized cookie...unless he is into healthy eating, in which case make it a regular garden salad with house dressing.
So Matty_P, if you want ship collision = draw type tactics because you think they are realistic, then you are looking at the wrong game.
Besides, it isn't like ship collision tactics would actually represent realistic space combat anyway. Let me give you a little lesson (lecture
) on what REALISTIC warfare in space would be like (based on present day and near future technologies).
For one, you can't hide from your opponent in space because your ship emits a huge heat signature that is easily detected over hundreds of thousands of kilometers (although mines/bombs that have had a long time to cool to close to background might be effective against stationary targets or if you know exactly where they will be). Still, radar in space will also be pretty damn effective without any atmospheric interference to deal with.
In fact, one of the most difficult problems for space travel is how to get rid of the heat build up in your ships because a vacuum doesn't transfer heat well (think of a thermos full of coffee). So power plants that use steam turbine technologies (such as nuclear power plants) probably aren't going to be used in space anytime soon (no easy way to turn the steam back into water AND get rid of the heat). As is, we are stuck with solar power and what are basically nuclear batteries....which isn't all that bad since we don't have to power huge super death beam weapons.
Secondly, most battles would occur at crazy long ranges. Offense would be with missile attacks. Now, there are different types of present day warheads we could use, such as nuclear, shrapnel or powerful X Ray Laser Beams (powered by nuclear warheads).
So, particle beams are out since it is impossible to keep same charged particles together over a long distance, there is also a bad effect on your ships total hull charge, and finally the beam would require huge power that needs a huge power plant for which we can't get rid of the heat.
Plasma weapons are basically like guns that shoot steam...and are about as useless as well.
Projectile weapons (either propellant or electromagnetically powered) have huge effective ranges and punch, but would only be useful as space siege weapons. It would simply be too hard to hit a moving/dodging target at 500 000 km. You basically would have to throw out an unrealistic amount of fire to stand even a small chance of hitting anything.
Anyway, I can't think of any other weapon systems right now.
Defense would consist of evasive maneuvers (a small correction in target trajectory would force incoming missiles to use huge amounts of fuel to compensate). Point defense systems such as laser and projectile weapons would also be used. Laser PD would suffer from low power, huge power requirements and the need to get rid of heat build up, while auto guns would be a bit short on range.
Here is something that usually makes people sad about realistic space combat. Strike Craft in space will not happen. It is way too fuel intensive to send a craft hundereds of thousands of km to attack something and then come back (especially if there are ANY maneuvering corrections along the way). It is infinitely better to send a missile/drone weapon that is meant as a 1 way device.
So, does realism still look like a lot of fun to play? Well, maybe for a nut job like me, but most people would not buy a realistic game like described above. I mean, people like their graphics, explosions and sound effects. Games need to cater to what people want.
