Fires on Ships - Your Opinion Needed!

[Harmony]

It’d be stupid for critical areas (magazines, the reactor room, et cetera) not to be constantly and completely vented of all atmospheres that can fuel fires as a precautionary measure; and during general quarters, every section that needn’t be habitable would definitely be “empty”.

Molten metal fragments from a direct penetration of the ship’s armour (spall) would appear to be the main mode of “burns” to the crew and “burn” related critical hits to areas that lack atmosphere, it’s relatively instantaneous though; there’d be no spreading of fires like on the many naval battles in the pacific that resulted in catastrophic damage for example. It'd be more like when the battleship Hood blew up.

 

[Reaverman]

It'd be more like when the battleship Hood blew up.

Thats what you get, when you take a 6/6 crit. Get 24 of damage, and 24 crew...and the weapon is TD

 

[Triggy]

It’d be stupid for critical areas (magazines, the reactor room, et cetera) not to be constantly and completely vented of all atmospheres that can fuel fires as a precautionary measure; and during general quarters, every section that needn’t be habitable would definitely be “empty”.

Molten metal fragments from a direct penetration of the ship’s armour (spall) would appear to be the main mode of “burns” to the crew and “burn” related critical hits to areas that lack atmosphere, it’s relatively instantaneous though; there’d be no spreading of fires like on the many naval battles in the pacific that resulted in catastrophic damage for example. It'd be more like when the battleship Hood blew up.

I can just imagine these vented compartments needing repairs so the repair teams suit up in protective clothing and the compartment is flooded with air to allow easier work causing a flash fire with heated combustible materials already present. (I know they wouldn't do this but the image is fun)

Okay, this is vaguely annoying

Opinions are split, and the majority are moving in the wrong direction for my liking

(snip)

Deal?

Ahh Matthew, shattering the illussion of the People's democratic Republic of Mongoose in true ALan Rickman style :lol:

You've got a deal though on the S&P article

LBH

I think the main concern is the extra bookkeeping with any potential payoff not necessarily being worth it. This is not to say that it wouldn't be worth it but it does show that a lot of players here find one of the best things about ACtA is that it is such a straightforward game to play that you can enjoy the flow of the tactics and action more.

 

[Voronesh]

Yes totally agree here.

ACTA is fast, and thats the best part about it.

Creating extra bookkeeping, without really offering any tactical depth is not something that is appreciated too greatly.

 

[Kadorak]

I originally voted for allowing fires, but I retract my vote on further thought. I think ACTA has a lot of room for extra bookkeeping or complexity without ruining the game, at least in the form of many more distinct traits, but persistent fires don't really add anything. If I was going to keep track of something turn to turn, I'd prefer something with more tactical implications, like not being able to turn in one direction (but still in the other)

I really don't see the game atmosphere being boosted by fires either. Maybe in a SFB or B5W like game with very detailed ship tracking where you could track the fire spreading through multiple compartments and systems, but in such an abstract form I really don't see fires adding any 'feeling' to the game.

 

[TrueCentauri]

Concernig the S&P article, I will wait for it.

I just read the Nasa website on microgravity combustion. See the link below.

http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/combustion/index.htm

A candle burns 10 times slower. The smallest combustion ever was seen in space ( :shock: ! (0,5 Watt which is 1/100th of a candle). They had the longest lived combustion in space ( :shock: ! I believe 81 minutes).

It is all so flimsy, and the people there were so happy that the fire continued to burn

And as a final pay-off they investigate water mist, which should be highly effective in putting out (space) fires. :lol:

An important so far undiscussed difference in effect between space fires and 'earth' fires, is that because of convection earth fires expand exponentially
And this is the reason why fires are potentially so dangerous - remember the football tribune fire in which 60 people were killed (I don't remember the stadium). While flames were already seen on the tribune the people still watched the game and the game continued because nobody thought that fire could expand so quickly...

In gravityless space the mechanism of convection doesn't exist. The method of oxygen supply is by diffusion, and this will not increase (decrease is more likely), let alone increase exponentially. So how can fires get 'out of control'?

Turn off the artificial gravity, and the fire is under control.

Fires could exist on EA-ships and stations because of rotation in the hull some gravity is created that cannot turned off easily. However, if the gravity on board is lower than 1 earth standard gravity, convection will also be smaller, and fires would take longer time to grow out of control.

This also means that the Churchill could be on fire like in the show. She still had her rotating hull rotating. I can imagine that the EA ships are equipped with a rotating emergency break as a means for fire-fighting. And, damn, it was damaged during the battle or simply 'out of order' - those damn budget cuts -

So, the only race without artificial gravity should suffer most of fires. Why is this allways the humans????? :x

Concerning LOX, which is very combustable, also in space, because oxygen diffusion is very, very easy, any hit on this would lead to an explosion like the space-shuttle or the appollo 13. But this would not lead to the type of expanding fires we seem to discuss here.

Taking a lot of LOX on board of a ship is tempting on one side, but not likely on another. LOX needs to be maintained at very low temperature. If you would need it for oxygen supply or fuel, I rather would take water with me, use a nuclear reactor to make electrically split oxygen and hydrogen, and send these gaseous substances to the machinery that need them.

Anyway, a nucleair reactor would be great propulsion, also for thrusters, it can just superheat any gas, very efficient and with a high thrust/weight ratio. Nice way to get rid of my excess CO2

My conclusion, taking into account the fusion reactors and the outer space unfriendly surrounding, radiation is far far far far more a healthhazard than fire for any crew. :roll:

Who likes expanding fires on his ship and realism at the same time should play a wet-water navy battle.