Radiation exists, and its a health-hazard, but then again so are sunburns, car crashes, food poisoning, and axe-wielding psycho murderers. I don't see very many people stop going outside, driving in cars, eating out, or staying in hotels because of those threats

I’ve tried real hard to find where and when President Carter received a PhD in Nuclear Physics. In every bio of him I’ve read so far none have mentioned it. In fact, the only PhD’s that were awarded to him that I can find have ‘honoris causa’ next to them. For those that can’t read Latin that means they were honorary degrees, and they were awarded after his presidency.
So how does that make him a nuclear physicist during his presidency?
What's even more confusing to me is what this all has to do with whether or not Cap Ship should be researched?

Politics, Religion, and Sports

Topic drift: Learn to love it

No magic needed, you have a well established space faring culture that could make all sorts of ships of ALL sizes . . .
Then war happens . . . start making war ships . .
The researched Cruisers and Frigates are systems that a Cruiser or Frigate is built around. (in game these ships will counter the other aliens! special ships). The bigger ships ADD the new tech . . though even then you need to research to build the Dreadnought? (I think, I forget)
This all flows and follows just great . .
Heck if the a modern nation was attacked they would use there navies that they had and add to it when possible . . . IN WWII we did not need to make Aircraft carriers and BB’s because we did not research them yet?!? We had them! You build more. You modified what you had with newer tech (radar!) and if you had time built new ships made for the new tech . . but there is no order to that (big vs small).

Sorry, I couldn't understand your argument.

rofl para, you convert whatever you have into war machines, it doesn't matter what size it is. any "new" ships made are just old ones refitted with newer technology and if you have time, you make an entirely new ship that is made for that technology.

thats what he said, but I only agree with it to modern thought, though, IMO it wouldnt work quite so well in space

you can't add heavy weapons willy nilly. the hull where they are attached has to be able to hold and handle said weapon when fired. this may not be a big deal with energy weapons. but missile and rail guns would require so called hard points.

It has been done in the past with both ships and aircraft (non combat versions turned into combat versions)
Also, it does not stop there . .
I also meant the ABILITY to build big ships is already there . . this is different then having to research the ability to make large hulls. . . this allows ships to be easily redesigned (putting in hard points, or different engines etc.) from existing known working hulls (ie a bunch of variants on one hull design) . . In fact navel ships are becoming more modular . . the next gen is boasting “mission exchangeable” hard points. Not just easily made variants but slap it in and go weapon and sensor systems installed as needed for the mission at hand. Again I point out that our current idea of what is considered sci-fi hi-tech seems to be lagging our real current developments (and fixated on other rather totally impossible items)
Now large ships do require more investment and a capable construction facility . . but it you already have this it is a very small jump to military versions. (again you are not discovering?! Large ship design here just changing focus) it is the weapon and support systems that require the REAL high level research . . mating it with a ship is much more of an engendering task (which may need some new tech but nothing at the level as the weapon systems)
Again this is fitting with the storyline, staring with a battleship and (as you may not have noticed) the later cruisers are specific counters to ships we have not seen yet from other factions . . so it follows game play also.

Let me just throw some blood into this shark's feeding frenzy by pointing out that civilian ships and military ships are going to be designed completely differently -- civilian ships don't have to worry about anything but efficiency, military vessels have to worry about battle damage. Redundant systems, blast doors to seal off every single small compartment, etc etc etc.

But that is a rather large generalization, "designed completely differently”
A more accurate way stating the difference is “They may be designed somewhat differently and constructed basically the same”

Civilian ships do not have to worry about damage and need redundant systems? Damage control? Sealable compartments? Hard points?, even armored Hulls??
Want examples Of civilian ships with all of the above? (you may want to take a quick look first - it is quite interesting)

Also the bulk of the factors going into the hull does not matter if it is Civilian or Military . . Hydrodynamic flow and hull shape, Size (displacement), superstructure, appropriate material science ( strength, fatigue, bonding, corrosion etc), etc . . also power systems (excluding nuclear - but that is a odd ball since that is restricted), Screws, other superstructure features, and hard points for very large hunks of machinery, etc can be very similar if not the same.
The main difference is the focus of construction, layout and possibly materials etc. Putting in additional bulkheads, using armor grade steel in some places, needing different hard points, adding room for additional redundant systems are just construction differences. . the bulk of the construction stays the same. It is when you put in the additional systems . . power plant (sometimes), weapons, sensors, etc does the basic hull become a warship. (an over simplification but not that far off is a guy with a welder that makes ships, he follow just a different blueprint, his job does not change at all )

Take the bow sonar unit of a new frigate/cruiser
WWW Link

It is a unit that is attached to a rather standard hull shape used for years. .that unit is a military high grade very high tech item! but the hull it attaches to is the same basic shape and constructed in a manor not appreciably different from other more “Civilian” ships . . and a normal Bow could easily replace it.
Also many Civilian ships LNG/ LPG tankers, for example, employ some tech that military ships do even go close to . . Massive tanks of special materials that carry gas at temperatures as low as −164 °c. Ppassenger or research ships employing stabilizers that are fitted for reduce rolling, even bow thruster for improved maneuverability and docking.

Now if you are talking BLEEDING edge then sure a military version of anything could far outstrip a “typical” civilian counterpart. $$ and focused purpose tipicly do (possibly some new technique of construction - and this has happened) and the civilian counterparts will start using this new technique, if applicable, in short order.
Even aircraft manufactures use very similar techniques in making common fighter craft and passenger liners. (bleeding edge one may be done differenty but it is NOT a nassesity)

What I am talking about here is technique and manor of construction not content of the construction (though there are exceptions) That is what I think you may have unintentionally bundled in and what I have issue with.

???

Okay, let's compare a small/medium sized passenger jet versus a B2 Stealth bomber. You think they have the same basic construction? The bomber is built around minimizing cross sections/radar signal. The passenger jet is built around fuel efficiency versus seating number versus cheapest building cost.

Sure, they both have backup systems. But they both do their jobs vastly better than the other could ever do.

Also

Here is another example:

How about a tank versus a similar powered tractor. Sure they both use tracks. I suppose you could put armor plating/weapons/optics/sensors/powerplant/different gearing on the tractor, but it would still suck. The tank was designed with a low profile to decrease target size. You can't retrofit the frame of the tractor to do that. Well, maybe you could replace the frame on the tractor as well...but then you've basically turned the tractor into something totally different...at a much higher price then if you had just bought the tank outright.

Alright, how about a logistics versus tactical structure example.

So, for our real world examples, we will compare a ship port (Refinery/Trade Port) versus a military air base (hangar). Okay, I am not sure this is even worth comparing. Anybody here think that converting a ship port to a military airfield would be easy? Anybody think that they have the same basic design and requirements? Anybody think that they would work nearly as well as they did with their original purpose?

I didn't think so

if you guys will reread my post i said heavy weapons. sure you can put a 5' deck gun on almost any ship. but anything bigger and you can't.

If you read what I wrote I already conceded that some (not the bulk by no means!) are different, and may require different construction techniques. And I also stated that these techniques often trickle to the common use quite quickly.
So, I find this already a non issue and a corner case (how many B2 Stealth bombers are there VS. f16s or more general all ground attack planes? or the entire fleet of cargo carriers? Na, I will not quibble over the minor and noted exception when the majority (and what I am talking about) fits the model.


Again you did not read my post . . you are talking about design (a VERY specific and narrow bleeding edge one that may very well require new construction techniques) I am not.
Read again . . . I am not

I am stating that the BULK of the military is constructed as any other civilian design vehicle. (Possibly to higher standards . .or . . not? If you hear some stories I hear). of course they have different purposes but the technology that goes into making them is not in any way radically different. Boeing IDS construction facilities has striking similarities to Boeing facilities making 777’s . . ponder that . . .
Again basically (with a few exceptions) the dock worker, materials, and building techniques needed to build, say a war ship, is little different and in some cases the same as building civilian ships. This follows to most other vehicles that have a civilian counterpart. The systems are what make them truly different.
(for example Subs do not so do not follow this trend)

[quote]How about a tank versus a similar powered tractor. Sure they both use tracks. I suppose you could put armor plating/weapons/optics/sensors/powerplant/different gearing on the tractor, . . .[snip]
And? the military has tractors and such, and the technology of making a take track is no different then civilian designs (and it is a rather tried and true design that has not changed much in a long time. So yes, ANY civilian company that makes large tractors should be able to construct to spec the tracks and chassis for a tank . . . the tracks and chassis are very the “low” tech parts . . even the power plant is not complex (even the M1s turbine is not special) . . Now the armor plating/weapons/optics/sensors ARE and would need to be married into the design. But the chassis no problem for any competent company.
Thanks for the example this is a good one!

you have to really read what I said, retrofit a tractor? Wha??? who do you think are maing the "frame" of the tanks? Did you know that car and heavy vehicle manufacturers make tank parts all over the planet?
In WWI and WWII ships, planes, tanks, etc where all made in civilian factories using mundane materials and average factory workers? Today it is an exclusive to big business contractors, but they use the same tools as everyone else.


I simply do not follow your point here, please restate.

/end a rather massive rant . . er sorry


Yes, anything larger would need allot of work . . and retro fitting was only one aspect to my over all point. Also it is getting easier to add weapons systems as they are becoming more modular.

My conclusion and opinion is that any large commercial Civ as successful as the one stated in the background story of Sin’s should have not problems reworking ship construction factories to construct most anything they would need (they have ALL of the skills) The only problem they would have is the weapon/sensor systems as this would be a new field for them. So on the onset on hostilities they should be able to put out bulk amounts of craft with fair but lack luster weapons systems. (win by numbers here may be a good tactic here, because quality will not be there) with the economy steaming it is likely that advances and ideas would come quickly and upgrades will be made fast. Problems are bulk may not suffice with a superior foe and only act as a delaying tactic till they can come up to speed(again near storyline) and so on . .

Yamamoto, on December 7th 1941 speaking to his commanders concerning the bombing of Pearl Harbor "I fear we have accomplished nothing but to awaken a sleeping giant"

America's civilian factories were sitting idle and in disrepair. Within 90 days the car factories were producing trucks, the tractor factories were producing tanks and aircraft, ports were producing warships in less than 9 months.

All of this in the backdrop of 2 major war machines that had been producing high end high tech weapon systems for at least 6 years in Europe and for over 20 years in Asia, they had the advanced factories, weapons and research online from day one!

Do you remember what happened to the "advanced war machines?"?

exactly what hitler knew would happen. which is why he allied with the japanese. so that they could keep us out of the war.

Whether or not Caps are too easy to get, decisions should not be made until we are playing multiplayer.

Play against a skilled human opponent on a small viable multiplayer map* , and then ask yourself if the Cap ships are still as easy to get.

In Supcom forexample , its easy vs AI to get experimentals out. I would therefore say it might be too easy. However play a human opponent and id probably think its alot harder to get.

Some people however will only play singleplayer on bigass maps. They will complain that they get caps out even before they meet another race or goto war. I agree its too easy and they would probably want caps to be harder to get , or atleast have some that are unreachable until certain points in the game. Its all too eliminate monotony.

But if this becomes true , then caps will be too hard to attain in small single-setting multiplayer and this would be disastrous.

The only thing I can think off as a solution to both type of players is two set of rules for each play, or a scaling mechanism depending on the size of map.

Assuming A) space vessels and civilian ships not designed with the worry of being shot at (as opposed to accidents happening):

A civilian ship (if its designed by smart people interested in maximum cost efficiency) will have their life-support spaces (places where people can live) made airtight against possible leaks. A military vessel will have their life support spaces divided up too, but instead of just sealing them off they will actually armor inside the ship where they are sealing off. Weapons grade lasers and the like don't just melt or (in the case of railguns) smash their way into the ship; razor sharp hyper-velocity fragments (i. e. take your hand off if its in the way, even if the splinter isn't actually sharp) will be sent flying all over the place.

A civilian vessel will place critical systems -- hull, drive, probably life support spaces as well -- near the "skin" of the ship, for easy access and repair in case of accident / needed maintenance. A military vessel will put those wherever they can be the best protected, even if thats in the center of the ship where repair / replacement will be very difficult / impossible, because that increases the chance of the ship coming home.

A civilian vessel will have backups for critical systems, yes. But it won't use multiply redundant systems, designed to operate completely independently while also being cross linked (e. g. you may have several different drive control systems, all with independent control runs, but the runs will be cross-connected so you can route around damaged sections through the runs for the other (possibly disabled) systems). A smart military designer would do that, if possible.

A civilian ship won't be very heavily armored -- any armor it might have would be focused against micrometeorite degradation. Need I explain why a military ship would do things differently? (Or that you can't simply slap armor onto something that wasn't designed for it?)



Let me just point out that its quite possible to retool a factory to build something other than what it was originally meant to build (especially when the items in question are related). That doesn't change the fact that they are completely different items.

Lets also take, as an example, the idea of a gaming computer Vs. a "plain" desktop computer, such as released by Dell or Gateway.

Gaming computer would have a highly powerful CPU; desktop computer would have something "strong enough" for word processing, running windows, and browsing the internet. Sure, there will be a quite a bit of overhead in that, because adding in that extra speed is cheap compared to the marketing advantage you get from it.

Strong GPU would be faced by -- quite possibly -- not even having a GPU slot.

A strong, capable motherboard on the one side, would be faced by a motherboard thats "just good enough" -- low memory speed, a few PCI slots, probably not any PCI-E or AGP slots (though some of the higher end ones do have those, most of the low end ones using an integrated video chip don't bother installing a PCI-E slot even if the board can use one).

Lots of fast memory Vs, again, memory "just good enough" -- slow, and probably not much of it since you can cache off the disk drive.

Even if you wanted to upgrade the desktop ("civilian") computer to a gaming ("military) one, you can't -- not without replacing just about everything from the motherboard up. Depending on the company, you might even have to replace the case -- I've heard of companies that use proprietary designs for their cases and motherboards, so they aren't interchangeable with their own hardware (i. e. their own desktop Vs. gaming motherboard either won't fit on the same screws, or the same backing, etc etc), much less external hardware.

Am I the only one who thinks this topic thread which is very important to gameplay ,is drifting towards something completely irrelevant?

Topic drift: Learn to love it. Besides, the devs have already stated that researching cap ships is in.

Ron Lugge
You just did not follow what I have said at all . .

And your Computer example is . . . way out there. . . and utterly wrong.

I should know I make computer systems for both civilian companies and the military. Guess what . . THEY ARE THE SAME!! From workstation to server farm the only variance is normally the software that is picked or some peripherals.

and mjl1817 got it totaly correct!


This is the point! and I have to hand it to mjl1817, that he had a better example. It is was the civilian factories and the economic might waiting to be unleashed that allowed the US to come up to speed. Normal workers in normal civilian factories turned out the bulk of the war effort. These people know how to work in a factory, the factories had the equipment to build what was needed, Yes the plans changed and yes equipment may had to be retooled but that happens periodically anyway. but the NORMAL people working in civilian factories did the work!
civilian companies make military equipment the technique and manner of construction (except for some bleeding edge cases) is no different.

I though to make this point since (much to some dismay) people think there is some "magic" to military equipment. There is no magic. Often because of the need for robustness military equipment is inferior to consumer versions in all BUT robustness.(so your gaming/desktop computer analogy is often backward - DELL being the military version and Alienware civilian) Most often the motto is tried and true (the bulk of the military), rather then bleeding edge (the flashy minority part)
Ps. also I make gaming rigs on the side for people on top of my day job. . . I guess you do not deal with computer hardware on a daily basis . . you might want to refrain from going there.

and again this real world model shows how SIN's story line and current game play is perfectly understandable and even mirrors history.
Now games like Supcom (one of my favorite I moded TA like a fend) and allot of other RTS and 4X games . .it is all about progression . . this is quite fine and is fun . . but it is NOT the only way to play . . having persistent units what may only change minor weapons and loadout is becoming popping up more often in RTS gaming.

I think that was beaten to death
I can't wait to see what is in the next beta . . . though I am getting pulled into another beta and some side moding.

It was an analogy, nothing more. Of course the computer equipment on board military vessels is much the same -- computers pretty much have to be computers, design is determined by function and processing information is processing information. The differences are in how much information computers process how fast, for the most part.



I think you're misunderstanding my point: that necessity for robustness is the difference I'm talking about. And its going to be a fairly major difference in design and construction.

I say we forget about this one Ron. We already know that Ironclad is going to have cap ships researched. Yay for us.

If Ta Erog wants to argue that civilian ships/structures have some similarities with military ships/structures therefore = both types are 100% interchangeable, then let him. We will see how well his logic holds up in the beta 3

well i think ta missed a point, the American factories were in a state of disrepair, so they were retrofitted with new parts and machinery and 'weak' tanks were cranked out like mad. BUT, there is a huge difference between standard frigs and cap ships. its not like taking a normal frigate and tossing some armor and systems onto it, capital ships have TONS of weapons and other 'things' that the normal frigates dont have. You cant take a small factory made for producing small frigates and say 'ok, now youre making a giant ship.'

PS@ron, dell's gaming rigs are much higher in quality than most companies.

Yes, their gaming rigs are good gaming machines... if way overpriced But they are just as bad as most companies at releasing desktop machines that can't be upgraded to gaming machines, or so I've heard

First Dell tends to be more conservative on the construction of there systems (save on repair in the long run), then other companies. That is why I used them as an example. . The higher quality is the stability not the performance. Also since they tend to make some custom destine changes upgrading must be done through them ( this is a business decision not a tech one) There are more “generic” mother boards and components out there then most people would think. And they fill the full gambit of simple to high end. (point is if you buy a proprietary system you must buy proprietary upgrades this means $$ for the comp.) . . . Most gaming rigs (and allot of low-medium end systems) are made of “generic” (read standard) parts so are entirely upgradeable and modifiable. I make a mean system balancing performance and price and quite easy to upgrade.

Also again your idea what goes into a "military" computer has little basis in reality. I should know I work on the systems! And my colleagues here have had there hand in construction on quite allot of our current computer, radar, aerospace and missile systems currently used in the US military.
So, really I am telling it like it IS.


YES YES I am agreeing here. . WTH? A Willys-Overland JEEP is a Willys-Overland JEEP! Willys-Overland = car manufacture. A Sherman tank was not the best design but that is all they had so on 1942 they went into full production . . .Normal workers in normal factories / shipyards . . Turning out a war effort . . . it was the economic and industrial potential that feeds a war effort . . . IF those factories where not here and if they did not have people that could do the basic jobs needed then there would have been no massive surge of equipment and craft.

Paradoxnt

I may have to recant my compliment on the quality of discussions possible here. "both types are 100% interchangeable"? and "well his logic holds up in the beta"? this is a bit childish and quite erroneous.
The discussion I proposed was based on an early decision SIN's made on having a full range of ships buildable early in the game. I defended this concept vs a more unrealistic but popular trend in RTS and 4x games to research and attain larger (read more powerful - another fallacy in reality) units later in the game.
I showed that economy and construction capability has much more to say about how a big craft is constructed then overall tech (the tech is manly the weapon/sensor systems) (one off craft/bleeding edge and are not mass produced can be an exception)
I pointed out real life examples. Here is another . .
Take the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, the oldest US Naval Shipyard. They make some of our newest ships. . and USE the SAME techniques of construction as other high end civilian Shipyards around the world to construct there ships. (current techniques include prefabricated sections a massive change in technique not limited to either civilian/military yards) . The designs are different; the systems they are installing are different. . but the guys with the plasma torch is the same.

This I find it interesting that people have a hard time reading a post fully, comprehend what they are reading (I may have to take some blame here since I do write these quickly - waiting on my next test case to finish running etc) and problems responding with a level headed response in a discussion. These concepts are not black and white, have historical elements and are hindered but the common (and gamming) trend / way of thinking.
Like in the BB discussion, BB’s have allot of propaganda, pride, fascination, and Ego assonated with them . . and where the poster child of bigger = better. People respond hostilely when shown that bigger <> better, and that BB in WWII played a role but a relatively small one vs the concept of it being the might/heart of the navy as they where designed to be in which they never attained. This really freaks people out, as like this current discussion because it goes against what they “believe/want” to be true or have gotten so used to they do not want to hear anything else. But regardless of how you feel, reality is another thing. When it comes to a civilian / military divide in equipment and craft it is not cut and dry (nor magical) and in some cases (as it would seem in computers systems) inverse on what you may believe (or understand from movies?)
Being in the industry this may seem more apparent from my point of view . . . but at least we could have a calm discussion about the apparent misconception. . . . if not . . . well your loss.