Silveus

[quote who="ManSh00ter" reply="8" id="1904227"]Bobucles, you are trying to counter my arguments by invoking the rules which apply in today's world, when I am talking about a world which has as much in common as our has with ancient Greece. Supply and demand? Yes, I actually took that in acount. Marx stipulated that the advance of technology shall one day spell ruin for capitalism. It's actually quite simple - the basis of all costs is the amount of effort and energy required to produce a give

I forget what game i played, and i don't think it was an RTS but they had it so that the fleet reforms when one of your ships get destroyed so the fleet always looked like the smaller ships were surrounding the larger ones. So i know the fleet formation thing can work. I am not sure how hard it would be to implement the idea that you can't shoot through other objects, that might be sorta hard when every ship has to check to see if it can fire before it does.

[quote]DR. B the british already have a working prototype of an elctromagnetic field that disintgrates anti-tank grenades russia already has a prototype plasma weapon and that Boeing is working on one. I can't even begin to describe how many things are wrong with those two statements. -Dr. B[/quote] 2 People seem to know what they are talking about with the Electro Magnetic field. I confess i got the plasma weapon thing from Wiki so it could be wr

And now that i have Responded to Dr. B I am going to make a list of reasons that Space fighters would still be used. 1. They are cheap. Strike craft are going to cost a fraction of the cost of even the smallest frigates. While a frigate may be overall more cost effective it doesn't actualy mean anything if you can't afford the entire frigate. Small groups such as coprate security forces and police forces can afford to field more fighters than they could frigates and their figh

[quote who="Bigglesworth_XIII" reply="21" id="1903905"] Your overlooking one major advance. The atomic bomb has been around for 50 odd years now, and has had the potential to remove all life from the planet, and so far, no-one has pushed the button. Nuclear warfare is frequently overestimated. It could damage cities, but it could not kill everything on Earth. Take my word for it; I've worked intimately with nuclear weapons and I know what they can and cannot

[quote who="Legerdemain" reply="18" id="1903866"]Nobody else gets to speak in this thread until they've read this. [/quote] Altho that article was interesting, i do not beleive it was terrible valid. The author runs through the entire history of naval warfare specificaly commenting on how there are periods of little change followed by periods of intesne rapid change that redefines the whole concept. The auther even points out that weapons advanced in such a way that people from t

@ ManSh00ter Your forgeting a concept of scale. Right when humanity starts going into space we are only going to have 2-3 planets. in the event of war no one is going to want to completly destroy one. Even if one side started to loose horribly they still probably wouldn't resort to somethin

[quote]No I didn't. Check the ships: Karrastra Destructor - Planet Bombing Damage: 23[/quote] My bad, i don't play Vasari, well ever and i thought that was their HC at first. I still think that making it so ships can't fire through each others shield bubbles and better use of the fleet formations you could effectivly use the smaller ships to shield the capital ships.

Current fighter planes work well enough, if we can get space fighters to work at the same level i am sure they will do fine. the fighter doesn't need to be able to literaly turn a 180 degree or come to a complete stop in seconds. aslong as a space fighter can mimic the menuvarability of current aircraft they will wtill be usable.

[quote]Another thing you aren't calculating for is the cost of the research of all those ships, the cost of the labs, etc etc etc.[/quote] They are talking about late game. if you can't make a Kanrak Assailant in the late game because you haven't researched it your doing something wrong. However you did forget to include that the capital ship can attack planets.

[quote who="Bobucles" reply="7" id="1902558"]Space Fighters do have important and vital uses outside the arena of deep warfare. Some roles will likely be in common with modern aircraft. You have transports. Even though they technically aren't fighters, on the other side of the coin they are prime targets for fighters, thus there's a good reason to keep some around. Fighers are the most mobile of weapons platforms, which is essential if ground troops are relying on a heavy punch when they need

[quote]Don't mistake my point. I'm not advocating the use of ballistic warfare in space, I'm arguing against all warfare in space. It's pointless, uneconomical, and mutually destructive. Terrestrial wars are much cleaner. -Dr. B[/quote] Not that i am agreeing with the Doomday missile theory, but i am pretty sure that when he said "terrestrial Wars are much Cleaner," he ment that in a sacarstic Sense and it more or less applied to wars today, not wars in the futu

[quote]A modern carrier (e.g. US carrier in the Gulf) is not that powerful. It basically has point defence weapons and that is about it. But it is the most protected ship in the fleet. Why? because it can be the most dangerous due to the fire power it can project via its planes. If 100 planes shoort air to surface missiles at it, its gonna have a bad day.[/quote] I am happy some one brought up a present day capital ship. the Nimitz Class Super Carrier is the most powerful warship that

Ok given your super missiles can effectivly destroy my fleet, there are still going to cost tons of money. And like nukes there are only a viable option if your the only one who has them. Its a theory that will never be relized. lets say you do shread my fleet and the costs aren't even worth mentioning. i am just going to get mad and shoot super missiles back at you. Its a theory that prevents war by being used as a threat but its not a theory that actualy allows any one to win,

[quote]@Silveus So i get 32 minutes to start picking them off with lasers, spewing out flak and Chaff, turn on some ECM, build a wall infront of them, shoot my own missiles at them, evade them, and then hit them with traditioanl point defense weapons when they come in range. I am going to shread your missiles and i am going to do a better job the closer they get to me. When the missiles launch from the Saturn bases, they give out a heat signature. You get this heat signa

Not really sure. Using my example your luanching them from saturn at my fleet leaveing earth. I am certianly going to notice when a few hundred missiles light up. Assuming you missiles are fast then they have big stronge engines which have a huge heat signature. I will spot your missiles the second they leave orbit. and unless your puttinga FTL engine on them they can't go faster than light. as previously stated in this thread it takes light 32 minutes to get from earth to jupitor. so lets as

Bigglesworth_XIII I am going to maintain that that makes no sense. While just spewing out Swarms of missiles at anything that comes at you is possible a valid defensive technique, despite being hugely expensive, it has no offensive value unless your ok with destroying everything. For the sake of this making some sense i am going to assume that your missile people aren't crazy and aren't out to destroy everything. Yes missiles can destroy any ship providing you can overwh

[quote who="Bigglesworth_XIII" reply="17" id="1900755"]Space fighters ceased to be a practical combat vehicle with the invention of the self-guided missile. Whatever you can put inside a space fighter, I can put inside a space missile. This scales up as far as you want it to go. space battleship big space battleship space deathstar You can quibble over details until

The mobility the fighters move would be better than what we have today, and for the most part that's enough. I like to assume that by the time we are in space colonizing other planets that we can minaturize life support to te point where it is atleast an option. If if the life support ends up being to large to effectivly fit in the ship we could just accept the fact that unless the pilot docks with his carrier within 5 minutes he is going to die. I am not sure on the actual termi

I think Bobucles ment Hostile Space as something like an astroid field or inside of a gravity well, no just space in general. In regards to boarding enemy ships, yes that would be done by shuttles, but fighters could distract the ship and hid the shuttles long enouhg to get were they are going. As a tactical concept this is really unlikely, but its not impossible that a ship could have a fleet admiral on it that some one wants to take as a hostage of sorts. And as unlikely as this is

As pointed out gravity has almost no effect in the lage empty expanses of space. But why would ships be fighting in the middle of no where? Most Space battles would take place near some form of objective. excluding ambushing an enemy fleet in transit most battles would take place near a planet, moon or large astroid, something of vallue that one side controls and the other wants to take away. Near a planet gravity would play a role and would put the massive battleships at a disadvanta

I have had that exact problem. the icons blink in an out all. you can still tell whats going on buts its very anoying and distracting. i restarted sins and it went away.

Unfortantly every one has a agenda to serve and that makes almost al information biased in some way. despite that we have to ground oursleves somewhere. we have to just take some information at face value because if we are sceptical of everything then we get no where. atleast i need to assume that if terrorists got a truck of nuclear waste and dumped it somewhere that the govement would tell us. because if i can't expect the govement to do that then i can't trust anything it says. and y

don't know what to say about the spiders, but you seem to be implying that they had some kind of weird mutation that made them agressive or something. having not seen this i can't make any kinda point on that. but a mutation to effect the behavior in that way is super rare. most mnutations just kill the host. i would venture that that was just bad luck that you slept in a room with freakishly agressive spiders. my knowledge of how nuclear waste is transported is limited but i would like

i never said i was for nuclear plants being built all over the place. i just said they aren't as bad ad most people make them out to be. and yes wikipedia has people who check the info for accuracy, but that doesn't mean its 100% accurate, since i know that wikipedia doesn't have nuclear technicians doub;e checking. but all i said was that wikipedia shouldn't be taken as absoulute fact. my main problem was with green peace. i have no doubt that green peace did say that and that it is on wikipedi