Ul-l-l-l-l-tra realistic space warfare

[catbarf]

This is an idea of mine that I've been kicking around for a while. What about a realistic space game? Some may say that it has already been done, but I disagree- I'm talking realistic down to tiny details. Full inertia, no shields, no aliens, rotating gravity sections on ships, no easy 'warp drive' so no stuff outside solar system, railguns, Xasers, capital ships that outrun fighters but take a lot longer to stop moving . This really has never been done before, and if approached correctly it could sell quite well.

If you want to know something of what I'm talking about, take a look at the game Nexus: The Jupiter Incident. Although the game has aliens, for a good chunk of the game you play as oldschool humans with relatively low technology, and very realistic ships. Here's some pictures of the vessels:

http://www.planet-fiction.de/Menschen.393.0.html

 

[Xorrandor]

Some may say that it has already been done...

And some would be right . Have you looked at Attack Vector? It fulfills everything except the "no warp drives" rule, but since you never warp in the middle of a game anyway, that's not a big issue in my book.

Well, and it doesn't have fighters at all, because realistic physics means you'll never bother making them instead of missiles...

http://www.adastragames.com/

 

[Slightly Norse John]

Those ships look pretty unrealistic- typically science fictional, in other words- to me.
The place you want to go to look at is Projectrho.com, which also goes by the title of 'Atomic Rocket'. The front page is utter fifties kitsch, most of the rest of the site is a straight- forward analysis of the requirements and problems of hard SF.

For the exact opposite, go to theforce.com (which has the supreme merit of not being infested by maniac fans) and look for the power output figures for an Imperator- class star destroyer. It is not comforting, to realise just how far from reality (scientifically possible) and feasibility (engineering possible) most science fiction has got. The gulf between practical and what-we-see-on-TV is, quite literally, astronomical.

 

[Mr Evil]

yeah fighters never make sence, if you were to perform a space speed record youd build somthing with hight out put boosters, it makes no differance on the craft behind the boosters bar fuel loading, ie the fastest ship would probablly be the biggest, manouverability would go to smaller ships but differance would be neglagable as it revolves around relitive mass to thrust.

 

[catbarf]

Those ships look pretty unrealistic- typically science fictional, in other words- to me.

They sport Thrusters on both rear *and* fore of a ship (so you can slow down :roll: ), gravity sections for storage and crew, and no obvious weapons sticking out, garish color schemes, bridges at the front of the ship, ships wider than they are lengthwise... etc. etc. etc. I don't see what you're talking about, if you mean that they don't have that 'near-future space shuttle-y' kind of look, well that's because the game is set some 200-odd years in the future, and I wouldn't expect them to look similar. A new Ford convertible looks quite different from the Model T, and that was only 100 years ago, *and* the car did not revolutionize travel- nowadays you can fly, or go by sea, or train, or whatever, but in space the only way to get around is in a space vessel.

 

[BuShips]

Those ships look pretty unrealistic- typically science fictional, in other words- to me.
The place you want to go to look at is Projectrho.com, which also goes by the title of 'Atomic Rocket'. The front page is utter fifties kitsch, most of the rest of the site is a straight- forward analysis of the requirements and problems of hard SF.

For the exact opposite, go to theforce.com (which has the supreme merit of not being infested by maniac fans) and look for the power output figures for an Imperator- class star destroyer. It is not comforting, to realise just how far from reality (scientifically possible) and feasibility (engineering possible) most science fiction has got. The gulf between practical and what-we-see-on-TV is, quite literally, astronomical.

John, projectrho.com is owned by Winchell Chung, who is a great fan of AV:T and is a contributor to the science that is used in the game. The main author (Ken Burnside) has used the contents of Winchell's site for source material and has had (iirc) Winchell make up an orbital planetary system map for a strategic version of the game. Attack Vector: Tactical is in my opinion the most accurate to date game system to play that attempts to create the feel of tactical space combat using all three dimensions and Newton tossed in to boot :wink: . A spin-off of the game engine was used to make the Honor Harrington game Saganami Island Tactical Simulator. A full disclaimer here is that I wrote an article for the Nexus Journal #1 incorporating the use of neodymium magnets and preschool LEGO bricks so that actual ship miniatures could be substituted for the paper box minis and to also make full visual use of the third dimension that is built into the game. My solution was for the really eccentric of us gamers, but I'll confess right now to that sin :wink: . I scratch-built my own miniatures and made up a set for the author to use, where he "graced" me with a comment that "... Darrel (sp)Phillips is a maniac when it comes to miniatures." I laughed when I saw that remark. Guilty as charged I suppose, stated in a humble tone. I would place the game in a specialised market for those that have played science fiction games that want the emphasis more on "science" than on "fiction", but the game is clearly not made for the masses.

 

[Xorrandor]

Those ships look pretty unrealistic- typically science fictional, in other words- to me.

You might want to say which ships you're talking about. That way the right people will start acting defensive

I thought the heat sinks in AV:T were brilliant, one of those "a-ha" moments where you realize you've been missing something big. I mean, I never did very well in thermodynamics in school, but I definitely should have seen the heat dissipation problem coming...

It is not comforting, to realise just how far from reality (scientifically possible) and feasibility (engineering possible) most science fiction has got. The gulf between practical and what-we-see-on-TV is, quite literally, astronomical.

AV:T uses drives that produce up to 4.5 TW of energy for the cruisers. They note that the entire human race currently (i.e. 2000 CE) produces around 12 TW. And that they're pushing the fusion torch above what is physically likely, for combat mode thrust. So, yeah, scary amounts of improvement needed to hit Star Wars. Aim for Firefly instead; the stories are better too .

 

[xeoran]

Check out the Half Life 2 Mod Hull Breach. Its FPS and not finished but they have some amazing ideas in their forums for ships, inter planetary warfare etc.

I would love to see an ultra realistic space game like this though as MGP already ahve ACTA I find it unlikely it will be made.

 

[angelus2000]

Same on the Honor universe game. It may be far future but if youve ever read the books, you'll know its space combat is based on real-world principles (barring hyperspace, but even that's fairly well grounded in theoretical physics). Missles are primary weapons, thrust and maneuver takes into account inertia, no fighters, etc.

 

[Paladin]

I'd like to see a decent 3D version of space combat with minis on adjustable "pillars"/"rods" so that you get the true feeling of "space". 2D maps leave the games flat. BADOOM! CHING!

 

[BuShips]

Angelus2000 and Paladin, you should look into a game called "Saganami Island Tactical Simulator" by Ad Astra Games. For angelus2000, it is a licensed game of the Honorverse, and for Paladin it is a true 3D game system, incorporating X, Y and even Z :wink: . As far as 'adjustable "pillars"/"rods' my LEGO pre-school brick solution mentioned before here does indeed work, and is fuly proportional to the map, as long as you use a 1.5" hex grid for a base.

Here is an example of a Manty BC pitching up while rolling to port at some distance above the table surface. Neodymium magnets are used to attach the miniature to the tilt blocks and the tilt blocks to the verticle "altitude" blocks. The secret of having this stay stable is the use of a sheet metal base under the hex map so that the bottom-most magnets can attach anywhere on the play surface. Sure it's a bit "fiddly", but it did solve the problem and does work in use. I've played with a lot of ideas over the years, like using telescoping antennas as adjustable height poles, but then the bases are clunky on a map and the ship is hard to position in the various orientations that would be necessary. For instance, my method allows a full fifty optional ship orientations, including that of being fully inverted in flight (knowing that inverted is a relative term, heh).

 

[Xorrandor]

Same on the Honor universe game. It may be far future but if youve ever read the books, you'll know its space combat is based on real-world principles (barring hyperspace, but even that's fairly well grounded in theoretical physics). Missles are primary weapons, thrust and maneuver takes into account inertia, no fighters, etc.

I don't know, the gigantic impenetrable shields above and below each ship kind of ruin the "hard science" feel for me. The reaction-less drives don't help, either. Don't get me wrong, I really like the books, but I don't think they qualify as ultra-realistic. Especially when the same guys make Attack Vector, and for less money .

About the only things AV:T might lack from the list at the beginning:
1) No spin modules for gravity. These would probably be locked down (like the radiators) under combat thrust anyway, so it only really makes a difference in the construction rules. It might even be in the model, I don't recall.
2) Hyperspace exists. Since it can only be reached at specific points in space, and combat never occurs there, this doesn't really affect the game either.
3) No xasers. I've seen weapon tables that go into the UV, I think, but no x-ray lasers. The basic rules have all lasers in the IR, actually, due to efficiency issues. There are people who claim the efficiency curve is too steep, but that's an engineering, not a physics, argument.
4) Capital ships that outrun fighters. No fighters means no outrunning them

 

[Soulmage]

Ultra-realistic space combat wouldn't be very exciting I don't think.

Standing off and blasting at each other with rail guns at extreme ranges. More of a math excersize really!

 

[oreso]

The atomic rocket site is recommended to all.

Why have humans at all? Without them you no longer have a pressurised pimple like a fault-line in the middle of your ship ready to burst into space, you no longer need all that tedious life support crap like air, heat, food, water, etc, and your ship can now accelerate at a decent rate without your pilot exploding, and you no longer have to ferry the fragile little apes to and from costly gravity wells when they get bored.

And yeah, Ken Burnside has said that the ranges are probably far too low and the thrusts far too high for realism, but a simple war of attrition with little manoeuvring is not all that fun to play.


Speculating myself, for the heat issue, Ken's AV:T designs arent that optimal cos the spikes would be reabsorb some of the radiation they emit. Better to have a flat cross methinks (two planes perpendicular to one another).

Because of the attition and heat thing i see disposable weapons being a big factor. Your rail guns are insulated from the rest of the ship and fires for one turn, and when it is empty and its barrels are smoking hot it then pops its seals and floats off. Lasers do the same by venting coolant gas.

Carriers would carry the big radiators and all that fuel, and the little ships would be its missiles. They would arrive at a battle cold (they are insulated from the carrier) and when the littler ships have fired they will suicide.

It just aint age-of-sail-in-spaaaace is it?

 

[The King]

How call you call space combat realistic when it doesn't exist. I think the most realistic such game that was ever published is Air War from SPI but yon only simulates supersonic planes and you even have the position of the sun to take into account.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/1629

 

[Locutus9956]

Full Thrust ftw, sure it aint HYPER realistic but if you play it with vector movement its pretty damn good without requiring days of calculations to actually DO anything

 

[Xorrandor]

Full Thrust ftw, sure it aint HYPER realistic but if you play it with vector movement its pretty damn good without requiring days of calculations to actually DO anything

Eh, it has shields, and fighters. As for the vector system, it works OK, but I actually find the hex-based systems to be easier for me. When I gave a squadron identical orders, and saw them slowly drift apart as user-error crept into positioning, I decided it wasn't working quite right...

I suppose if you want cheap and easy, you can try Hard Vacuum. I think it's free, and it includes vector movement and fuel (for some factions, anyway). It's not what I would call hyper-realistic (Space Nazis Must Die! Russian Foo-Fighter Recovered From Crash Site!), but it does a better job than some games out there.