The Mass Effect 3/BioWare Thread

[Angthoron]

Space warfare wouldn't even be anything like naval or air warfare, so historical accuracy makes no difference.

It'd still be more close to air warfare than that - heavily reliant on mobility, since a bunch of smaller and faster interceptor vessels would punch holes in a capital ship while it'd try to aim. And yeah, sure, you could arm capital ships with fast-tracking turrets and so on, but at the same cost you could probably provide enough firepower to wipe it out and keep most of the force intact.

It's kinda why we don't make giant fucking tanks.

The capital ship would use lasers to destroy the interceptors instantaneously.

Assuming it can track the interceptors fast enough, and there's enough tracking turrets to take out all attackers quickly, sure. Otherwise it shoots down a couple or none at all and then eats all sort of death-related goodness. In any case, this is giving the whole thing way more thought than it deserves - it's just enough to say that whatever the case is, a formation displayed in the trailer is retarded, cap ships or not.

It doesn't need to track them if it's using lasers. And because of its vastly larger size the power output it can put out will be immense so it doesn't even need to target exactly there, just somewhere around there with its laser, probably at a distance where the interceptors won't even get to notice something started shooting at them. Rules and precedents of terrestrial combat simply would not apply in space combat, so it's silly to get hung up on that.

EDIT: Also, there's two reasons why we don't build giant tanks, and neither of them are because of bombs or bazookas: Gravity and terrain. Neither of which are an issue for giant space battleships.

Agh, I never asked for this! But fuck it, I'm drunk so let's continue the spherical cow in vaccuum discussion.

Of course, my opinion's largely based on stuff like Helmsman Saga, which sort of follows the way a space war transforms from mainly immensely powerful cap ship combat towards smaller-ship combat as the war progresses (newer, faster, smaller ships are way faster to mass-produce to overwhelm/outmaneuver fleets of older-tech giant battleships even if they have weapons that can vaporize you by shooting anywhere near), so it's only one way of looking at it. It does make sense though - you can't keep churning out cap ships with most up-to-date tech on it at the same rate as you would smaller ships, which leads to a more modern small ship fleet and a rapidly aging large ship fleet. Unless we assume no-one makes any R&D, of course, like in Star Wars universe, or that combat wouldn't be tailored specifically to destroy larger, more powerful vessels.

On the other hand, if we go from "Fleets started with smaller ships and then gradually came to capital ships", that's another way to look at it altogether - you start out with support fleets of aged smaller vessels and a "fist" of super-modern heavy ships that fucks everything up in its path.

Thing that caught my eye with the trailer, though, is that there doesn't seem to be a support (or attack) fleet of smaller vessels that can take opportunity shots while larger ships are engaged, so essentially the combat is intended to be either "one on one" or "wall on wall" turn-taking shots by cap ships, which makes zero fucking sense when going against a completely unknown adversary. No frontal scouts to report enemy formations either, I'd imagine, not with commanders like that - just a cool column after column of AWESOME spaceships.

Oh well, this is happening in a setting where you're seriously saying that what mankind should do is fight or die when they request your input into the tactics, so I guess that's somewhat better than Shep's suggestion in any case, he'd probably request that the Reapers take the Collar formation while the Alliance forms up as Fists.


Edit: Also, what Average Manatee said.

 

[Average Manatee]

Space warfare wouldn't even be anything like naval or air warfare, so historical accuracy makes no difference.

It'd still be more close to air warfare than that - heavily reliant on mobility, since a bunch of smaller and faster interceptor vessels would punch holes in a capital ship while it'd try to aim. And yeah, sure, you could arm capital ships with fast-tracking turrets and so on, but at the same cost you could probably provide enough firepower to wipe it out and keep most of the force intact.

It's kinda why we don't make giant fucking tanks.

The capital ship would use lasers to destroy the interceptors instantaneously.

Assuming it can track the interceptors fast enough, and there's enough tracking turrets to take out all attackers quickly, sure. Otherwise it shoots down a couple or none at all and then eats all sort of death-related goodness. In any case, this is giving the whole thing way more thought than it deserves - it's just enough to say that whatever the case is, a formation displayed in the trailer is retarded, cap ships or not.

It doesn't need to track them if it's using lasers. And because of its vastly larger size the power output it can put out will be immense so it doesn't even need to target exactly there, just somewhere around there with its laser, probably at a distance where the interceptors won't even get to notice something started shooting at them. Rules and precedents of terrestrial combat simply would not apply in space combat, so it's silly to get hung up on that.

EDIT: Also, there's two reasons why we don't build giant tanks, and neither of them are because of bombs or bazookas: Gravity and terrain. Neither of which are an issue for giant space battleships.

Real space combat wouldn't be anything like this. It would be with ships that are millions of miles away from each other, and it would be about dodging around randomly hoping the lasers missed. 1000 smaller ships would be infinitely more powerful than 1 larger ship. Furthermore, and real space battle would be entirely conducted with unmanned drones that could sustain far more G's then fragile humans. Basically, the first one to detect and fire always wins (assuming the other is unaware). If detection is simultaneous, the one who can avoid damage the best wins. Small ships have the detection advantage and the maneouverability advantage, while possessing no real disadvantages.

Overall space combat actually isn't that tactically different from modern day combat, the difference is that you can't hide underground to avoid bombs and that lasers/mass drivers hit you instantly and with infinite range.

Lasers ALWAYS have to be focused to a thin beam. Even the slightest problem with focus multiplies over millions of miles to turn a deadly laser into a minor heat anomaly.

EDIT: I forget that Mass Effect has shield generators. If the protection/mass ratio for those can outweigh entire enemy damage output then the best thing to do would be to use a Death Star-sized ship at all times. But talking realistically, large ships are absolutely horrible ideas and small ships would dominate.

 

[hoopy]

It becomes overwhelmingly obvious how intricately woven the sum parts of the Mass Effect series are. I found myself continually shaking my head in awe as things came together, not only from Mass Effect 2, but from Mass Effect itself.

"It becomes overwhelmingly obvious how intricately woven the sum parts of the Transformers series are. I found myself continually shaking my head in awe as things came together, not only from Transformers 2, but from Transformers itself."
-- Roger Ebert, in an alternate reality where all film critics are braindead cretins who know as much about cinema as I know about brain surgery

Mass Effect 3 marks the culmination of the most engrossing, engaging and entertaining story ever told in gaming's winding history.

"Saw 3D marks the culmination of the most engrossing, engaging and entertaining story ever told in cinema's winding history."
-- Roger Ebert, in an alternate reality where all film critics undergo a memory wipe every five years or so

 

[Angthoron]

EDIT: I forget that Mass Effect has shield generators. If the protection/mass ratio for those can outweigh entire enemy damage output then the best thing to do would be to use a Death Star-sized ship at all times.

Oh yeah, they have those? No idea really - but if that's the case then yeah, small ships are kind of fucked unless someone designs weaponry that's particularly designed to go around that problem (and way wars tend to work, that's eventually done).

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Space warfare wouldn't even be anything like naval or air warfare, so historical accuracy makes no difference.

It'd still be more close to air warfare than that - heavily reliant on mobility, since a bunch of smaller and faster interceptor vessels would punch holes in a capital ship while it'd try to aim. And yeah, sure, you could arm capital ships with fast-tracking turrets and so on, but at the same cost you could probably provide enough firepower to wipe it out and keep most of the force intact.

It's kinda why we don't make giant fucking tanks.

The capital ship would use lasers to destroy the interceptors instantaneously.

Assuming it can track the interceptors fast enough, and there's enough tracking turrets to take out all attackers quickly, sure. Otherwise it shoots down a couple or none at all and then eats all sort of death-related goodness. In any case, this is giving the whole thing way more thought than it deserves - it's just enough to say that whatever the case is, a formation displayed in the trailer is retarded, cap ships or not.

It doesn't need to track them if it's using lasers. And because of its vastly larger size the power output it can put out will be immense so it doesn't even need to target exactly there, just somewhere around there with its laser, probably at a distance where the interceptors won't even get to notice something started shooting at them. Rules and precedents of terrestrial combat simply would not apply in space combat, so it's silly to get hung up on that.

EDIT: Also, there's two reasons why we don't build giant tanks, and neither of them are because of bombs or bazookas: Gravity and terrain. Neither of which are an issue for giant space battleships.

Real space combat wouldn't be anything like this. It would be with ships that are millions of miles away from each other, and it would be about dodging around randomly hoping the lasers missed. 1000 smaller ships would be infinitely more powerful than 1 larger ship. Furthermore, and real space battle would be entirely conducted with unmanned drones that could sustain far more G's then fragile humans. Basically, the first one to detect and fire always wins (assuming the other is unaware). If detection is simultaneous, the one who can avoid damage the best wins. Small ships have the detection advantage and the maneouverability advantage, while possessing no real disadvantages.

Overall space combat actually isn't that tactically different from modern day combat, the difference is that you can't hide underground to avoid bombs and that lasers/mass drivers hit you instantly and with infinite range.

Lasers ALWAYS have to be focused to a thin beam. Even the slightest problem with focus multiplies over millions of miles to turn a deadly laser into a minor heat anomaly.

EDIT: I forget that Mass Effect has shield generators. If the protection/mass ratio for those can outweigh entire enemy damage output then the best thing to do would be to use a Death Star-sized ship at all times. But talking realistically, large ships are absolutely horrible ideas and small ships would dominate.

There's one big issue you're completely over-looking: Power supply. And this is why the big ship would win in space combat, because it could project further (just this alone renders all small craft useless), mount better sensors, move faster and protect itself better. And the beam itself may be thin, but at the kind of power it takes for it to inflict serious damage it will also have immense effect on its surroundings as heat diffuses from it. Small ships would be fried to crisp just by being in the proximity of the kind of energy levels needed for laser or other sort of energy weapon at extreme distances. It also bears mention that Gs would not be a factor in space combat.

 

[treave]

Meanwhile on BSN: discussions about inbreeding. That will give soon results compareable to Tali's sweat stuff.

Show, don't tell. Meaning, post some Best Of BSN quotes.

Exactly, that's what this thread is all about.

I saw it on BSN few years ago, or someone came out with the same idea. It was much more detailed there. Eg. that the point of extermination was to prevent the living beings from messing with that whole 'dark energy', which could cause some catastrophe affecting entire universe and the reapers themselves. If it's a part of Karpyshyn writing, then it makes much more sense than this new shit.
The new ending is so bad, that even the quoted variant, which isn't too bright and original, seems to be better.

Yeah, this does sound almost exactly like a certain anime I will not mention here...

Even in its current form, there's a strong anime/jRPG inspiration behind Mass Effect 3. Namely in the way it deals with issues by having increasingly outlandish and overly dramatic resolutions.

 

[Angthoron]

There's one big issue you're completely over-looking: Power supply. And this is why the big ship would win in space combat, because it could project further (just this alone renders all small craft useless), mount better sensors, move faster and protect itself better. And the beam itself may be thin, but at the kind of power it takes for it to inflict serious damage it will also have immense effect on its surroundings as heat diffuses from it. Small ships would be fried to crisp just by being in the proximity of the kind of energy levels needed for laser or other sort of energy weapon at extreme distances. It also bears mention that Gs would not be a factor in space combat.

Mm, no, I'm not. Assuming the weapons would be lasers, how long can the weaponry be operational without losing efficiency, from how many points, and with what sort of a recharge? Again, what distance is operational for this type of weapon, and how does it fare against agile targets that know the strength of defending vessel? How precise is the targetting/predictive fire? Would the ships come with anti-sensor tech, a-la, say, Normandy?

If they do, then the cap ship can ignore them until it's being ass-raped from point-blank with no chance to retaliate. Frankly, a small fleet of Normandies could rape an entire battle fleet of cap ships assuming they can get through cap ship shields (if these exist) and I'm surprised no-one tries to mass-produce them. Sure, they're expensive, BUT THE PRIZE.

 

[Average Manatee]

Space warfare wouldn't even be anything like naval or air warfare, so historical accuracy makes no difference.

It'd still be more close to air warfare than that - heavily reliant on mobility, since a bunch of smaller and faster interceptor vessels would punch holes in a capital ship while it'd try to aim. And yeah, sure, you could arm capital ships with fast-tracking turrets and so on, but at the same cost you could probably provide enough firepower to wipe it out and keep most of the force intact.

It's kinda why we don't make giant fucking tanks.

The capital ship would use lasers to destroy the interceptors instantaneously.

Assuming it can track the interceptors fast enough, and there's enough tracking turrets to take out all attackers quickly, sure. Otherwise it shoots down a couple or none at all and then eats all sort of death-related goodness. In any case, this is giving the whole thing way more thought than it deserves - it's just enough to say that whatever the case is, a formation displayed in the trailer is retarded, cap ships or not.

It doesn't need to track them if it's using lasers. And because of its vastly larger size the power output it can put out will be immense so it doesn't even need to target exactly there, just somewhere around there with its laser, probably at a distance where the interceptors won't even get to notice something started shooting at them. Rules and precedents of terrestrial combat simply would not apply in space combat, so it's silly to get hung up on that.

EDIT: Also, there's two reasons why we don't build giant tanks, and neither of them are because of bombs or bazookas: Gravity and terrain. Neither of which are an issue for giant space battleships.

Real space combat wouldn't be anything like this. It would be with ships that are millions of miles away from each other, and it would be about dodging around randomly hoping the lasers missed. 1000 smaller ships would be infinitely more powerful than 1 larger ship. Furthermore, and real space battle would be entirely conducted with unmanned drones that could sustain far more G's then fragile humans. Basically, the first one to detect and fire always wins (assuming the other is unaware). If detection is simultaneous, the one who can avoid damage the best wins. Small ships have the detection advantage and the maneouverability advantage, while possessing no real disadvantages.

Overall space combat actually isn't that tactically different from modern day combat, the difference is that you can't hide underground to avoid bombs and that lasers/mass drivers hit you instantly and with infinite range.

Lasers ALWAYS have to be focused to a thin beam. Even the slightest problem with focus multiplies over millions of miles to turn a deadly laser into a minor heat anomaly.

EDIT: I forget that Mass Effect has shield generators. If the protection/mass ratio for those can outweigh entire enemy damage output then the best thing to do would be to use a Death Star-sized ship at all times. But talking realistically, large ships are absolutely horrible ideas and small ships would dominate.

There's one big issue you're completely over-looking: Power supply. And this is why the big ship would win in space combat, because it could project further (just this alone renders all small craft useless), mount better sensors, move faster and protect itself better. And the beam itself may be thin, but at the kind of power it takes for it to inflict serious damage it will also have immense effect on its surroundings as heat diffuses from it. Small ships would be fried to crisp just by being in the proximity of the kind of energy levels needed for laser or other sort of energy weapon at extreme distances. It also bears mention that Gs would not be a factor in space combat.

No, not at all.

~ all weapons in space have infinite range. Not at all related to power supply
~ Sensors aren't related to power. When you power a radar system, you put power into the waves you send out. You aren't sending out radio waves in space, you are simply receiving light and other electromagnetic radiation.
~ Move faster? With greater mass? Larger craft will be much, MUCH slower than a small disposable fighter.
~ Effect on surroundings? Lasers heat up space now? Sorry no.
~ Gs aren't a factor? lolwut?

There's good reasons why combat today is all in carriers that launch fighters and not huge battleships. Space
combat magnifies the advantage 100 fold more.

Oh yeah, they have those? No idea really - but if that's the case then yeah, small ships are kind of fucked unless someone designs weaponry that's particularly designed to go around that problem (and way wars tend to work, that's eventually done).

Yeah, even theoretically shields would still not help, 1 weapons on 1000 ships being better then 1000 weapons on 1 ship, but since Mass Effect shields are of course made of magic who knows what the fuck the odds are.

 

[meanwhileInPoland]

"The Galaxy's falling to pieces. What does Shepard do? Goes clubbing..."



fuck this gay earth. if citadel is destroyed in every ending where is sheploo gonna clubbin? jersey shore with vega mcmusle?

 

[villain of the story]

Baah, three games, all that epic bullshit and they don't even have Star Wars' equivalent of Death Star or even better, Farscape's equivalent of Wormhole weapon. Mass Effect can suck my balls.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

No, not at all.

~ all weapons in space have infinite range. Not at all related to power supply
~ Sensors aren't related to power. When you power a radar system, you put power into the waves you send out. You aren't sending out radio waves in space, you are simply receiving light and other electromagnetic radiation.
~ Move faster? With greater mass? Larger craft will be much, MUCH slower than a small disposable fighter.
~ Effect on surroundings? Lasers heat up space now? Sorry no.
~ Gs aren't a factor? lolwut?

There's good reasons why combat today is all in carriers that launch fighters and not huge battleships. Space
combat magnifies the advantage 100 fold more.

Oh yeah, they have those? No idea really - but if that's the case then yeah, small ships are kind of fucked unless someone designs weaponry that's particularly designed to go around that problem (and way wars tend to work, that's eventually done).

Yeah, even theoretically shields would still not help, 1 weapons on 1000 ships being better then 1000 weapons on 1 ship, but since Mass Effect shields are of course made of magic who knows what the fuck the odds are.

And yet underwater combat is all about huge vessels with nuclear reactors on board, and it has a lot of similarities with space combat. I don't know what you mean by "small", but anything without a proper autonomic power source (which takes up serious space) won't be able to cut through plain ol' armor with its puny laser, not to speak of theoretical anti-laser defenses. Scale makes a difference when building things. I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, but it's not impossible to envision a situation where a large enough ship can afford to make itself virtually invulnerable to anything not sporting power of the same ballpark.

Although a more interesting question would be about planet defense. A ship can dodge attacks, use shields to limit damage, and just plain avoid detection. But what stops the enemy from driving a small meteor into your planet or space station?

 

[villain of the story]

~ all weapons in space have infinite range. Not at all related to power supply

LOLWUT. Only projectiles and even they will deviate and possibly slow down as they go through gravitational fields of astral bodies. Some may even end up orbiting other stuff LOL. Energy attacks wouldn't be infinite, that's not how physics work. You need to concentrate very large amounts of energy into a single dense ray to cause even a dent on anything, much less serious damage and over great distances. The further you aim, more energy you need. However that's not the only issue. You would also need a remarkable amount of cooling and spend at least several magnitudes of more energy on the entire setup just to keep it from overheating and malfunctioning, much less use it rapidly or continuously for any considerable amount of time. You couldn't possibly mount an energy weapon worth shit even on an X-Wing, not even for point blank attacks.

But of course, this is space magic so anything is possible I guess.

Projectiles will keep being the primary way of causing immediate material damage for a very very long time. Battlestar Galactica did the really sensible thing by sticking to bullets.

 

[Pope Amole II]

We shouldn't also forget that, unless we go for a totally AI controlled ships, human crew will require a lot of stuff for their sustenance, meaning air, water, food, sanitary facilities, some recreational space since you can't sit all cramped up for 24/7, and, unless we're talking about insanely advanced miniaturisation, systems providing those will require heck of a lot room so, no matter how hard you will want it, you won't be able to build a fleet consisting entirely of fighters. Now, whether those will be fleets of millennium falcons or imperial destroyers (not that I'm a big SW fans, but at least this way everyone will get the scale) is a big question, but I'll bet on the larger size since the aforementioned facilities are not easily reduced in size (especially since you will need to store quite a lot of provision for a long battle raids) and, on the military ships, you will also want to have some backup versions of them (so one lucky hit of the CO2 recycler would not murder your entire crew), meaning that all of that stuff just won't fit into a smaller size ship.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

YO DAWG I HEARD YOU DON'T LIKE KILLBOTS SO WE MADE KILLBOTS TO KILL YOU BEFORE YOU MAKE KILLBOTS!

My brian. My fucking brian just shat itself.

Welp, time to drink.

 

[Average Manatee]

~ all weapons in space have infinite range. Not at all related to power supply

LOLWUT. Only projectiles and even they will deviate and possibly slow down as they go through gravitational fields of astral bodies. Some may even end up orbiting other stuff LOL. Energy attacks wouldn't be infinite, that's not how physics work. You need to concentrate very large amounts of energy into a single dense ray to cause even a dent on anything, much less serious damage and over great distances. The further you aim, more energy you need. However that's not the only issue. You would also need a remarkable amount of cooling and spend at least several magnitudes of more energy on the entire setup just to keep it from overheating and malfunctioning, much less use it rapidly or continuously for any considerable amount of time. You couldn't possibly mount an energy weapon worth shit even on an X-Wing, not even for point blank attacks.

But of course, this is space magic so anything is possible I guess.

Projectiles will keep being the primary way of causing immediate material damage for a very very long time. Battlestar Galactica did the really sensible thing by sticking to bullets.

Thats a problem of focusing, not power. Presumable once you have FTL travel you can manufacture things to sub-nanometer precision and then the lasers don't diffuse until they start to run into matter.

Projectiles can easily be aimed to correct for gravitation, this is simple computer map stuff. Though missiles that are self-correcting for enemy movements are more likely. Even if lasers are so big, 1,000 missiles would have been more effective then lasers anyway. You are correct that sticking to missiles or mass drivers is the sensible option for any space battle with technology we can conceive.

Pretty much every good sci fi author knows that mega ships are unusable compared to the battleship->fighter system that's already in place now. A single bomber in the present day can destroy a ship 1000s of times its size (or entire cities if we go nuclear). Anyone who thinks future weapons won't have an even more deadly ratio is just stupid. Hell, we can already synthesize antimatter (storage is a bitch though), weaponizing that leads to destruction several orders of magnitude greater that will blow the shit out of anything that isn't protected by magic.

No, not at all.

~ all weapons in space have infinite range. Not at all related to power supply
~ Sensors aren't related to power. When you power a radar system, you put power into the waves you send out. You aren't sending out radio waves in space, you are simply receiving light and other electromagnetic radiation.
~ Move faster? With greater mass? Larger craft will be much, MUCH slower than a small disposable fighter.
~ Effect on surroundings? Lasers heat up space now? Sorry no.
~ Gs aren't a factor? lolwut?

There's good reasons why combat today is all in carriers that launch fighters and not huge battleships. Space
combat magnifies the advantage 100 fold more.

Oh yeah, they have those? No idea really - but if that's the case then yeah, small ships are kind of fucked unless someone designs weaponry that's particularly designed to go around that problem (and way wars tend to work, that's eventually done).

Yeah, even theoretically shields would still not help, 1 weapons on 1000 ships being better then 1000 weapons on 1 ship, but since Mass Effect shields are of course made of magic who knows what the fuck the odds are.

And yet underwater combat is all about huge vessels with nuclear reactors on board, and it has a lot of similarities with space combat. I don't know what you mean by "small", but anything without a proper autonomic power source (which takes up serious space) won't be able to cut through plain ol' armor with its puny laser, not to speak of theoretical anti-laser defenses. Scale makes a difference when building things. I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, but it's not impossible to envision a situation where a large enough ship can afford to make itself virtually invulnerable to anything not sporting power of the same ballpark.

Although a more interesting question would be about planet defense. A ship can dodge attacks, use shields to limit damage, and just plain avoid detection. But what stops the enemy from driving a small meteor into your planet or space station?

Those underwater craft are used to launch ballistic missiles 1000s of miles away. And underwater combat is pretty much the opposite of space combat.

Autonomous power sources take up lots of space? You have an incredibly small craft, you have a very small need for thrust. Acceleration is inversely related to mass, a ship 1/10th the size needs 1/10th the power source. Except that if we use robot ships only meant for in-system battles we can scrap life support, extended fuel supplies, armor (they are disposable, remember), and other things, so it actually needs less power per space. Take a look at unmanned drones we use already, then remember space doesn't have to deal with gravity or drag and that that there isn't any reason a mini-nuclear reactor wouldn't be available in the future.

As mentioned before, planet defense is an oxymoron if you can accelerate something to .99c. The only defense against a large mass driver is the same defense we have against nuclear attacks in the present day: MAD. With the exception of planet-wide magic/shields.

 

[villain of the story]

Distance = power. Focusing also takes power, by the way. Mere act of focusing an energy beam through any medium produces heat (apart from the operational heat of such an energy weapon setup itself), which requires cooling to stabilize which takes a lot of energy and deteriorates the medium at any rate anyway. Read up on telescopes for the simplest examples. They have massive cooling systems in place to keep the mirrors stable. A space mission was undertaken just to replace the cooling system in Hubble Space Telescope. The bulk of those active laser weapon systems developed by DARPA and installed in airplanes and ships to hit incoming hostile projectiles and non-volatile small targets (this part is unconfirmed, though) consists of their cooling systems. Nothing comes free or easy. Everything is a matter of power-energy.

And the very idea of an FTL drive is just so much LOL, much less any structure capable of withstanding an FTL "jump".

So yeah, missiles.

 

[Comrade Goby]

http://www.twitch.tv/gamingdirectuk/b/310521017

About 3 hours of derp effect 3

 

[RPGMaster]

Go to 2:05. Shepard gets nightmare about the kid he knew for a whole minute of so.

Some high quality EMOTIONAL ENGAGEMENT THERE.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Distance = power. Focusing also takes power, by the way. Mere act of focusing an energy beam through any medium produces heat (apart from the operational heat of such an energy weapon setup itself), which requires cooling to stabilize which takes a lot of energy and deteriorates the medium at any rate anyway. Read up on telescopes for the simplest examples. They have massive cooling systems in place to keep the mirrors stable. A space mission was undertaken just to replace the cooling system in Hubble Space Telescope. The bulk of those active laser weapon systems developed by DARPA and installed in airplanes and ships to hit incoming hostile projectiles and non-volatile small targets (this part is unconfirmed, though) consists of their cooling systems. Nothing comes free or easy. Everything is a matter of power-energy.

And the very idea of an FTL drive is just so much LOL, much less any structure capable of withstanding an FTL "jump".

So yeah, missiles.

You're so silly man, space has a mean temperature of 3 Kelvin, so why would you need cooling?

If anything, you'd be happy the excess heat would help keep the ship warm.

 

[Average Manatee]

Distance = power. Focusing also takes power, by the way. Mere act of focusing an energy beam through any medium produces heat (apart from the operational heat of such an energy weapon setup itself), which requires cooling to stabilize which takes a lot of energy and deteriorates the medium at any rate anyway. Read up on telescopes for the simplest examples. They have massive cooling systems in place to keep the mirrors stable. A space mission was undertaken just to replace the cooling system in Hubble Space Telescope. The bulk of those active laser weapon systems developed by DARPA and installed in airplanes and ships to hit incoming hostile projectiles and non-volatile small targets (this part is unconfirmed, though) consists of their cooling systems. Nothing comes free or easy. Everything is a matter of power-energy.

And the very idea of an FTL drive is just so much LOL, much less any structure capable of withstanding an FTL "jump".

So yeah, missiles.

I'll admit that I don't know much about the inner workings of how lasers are constructed, but the telescopes are the opposite of lasers. They are receivers, not emitters. Emitting a focused laser is as simple as having a small enough aperture. Furthermore, even telescopes are merely limited by the materials we can use now, not by physical limits. I'm pretty sure carbon nanotubes can fix this problem already (carbon nanotubes are actually magic as far as modern day science is concerned). Certainly if we can accept FTL travel we can expect similar material science advancements.

You're so silly man, space has a mean temperature of 3 Kelvin, so why would you need cooling?

If anything, you'd be happy the excess heat would help keep the ship warm.

No, space doesn't have temperature. The only loss of heat is blackbody radiation, which is incredibly slow. Things in space that are in the sun get really, really hot (conversely they cool down to pretty cold temperatures as they get in the earth's shadow, but they don't nearly reach 3 kelvin). In fact, without good heat transfer a satellite can have as much as a 500 kelvin heat differential between the side of the satellite facing the sun and the side facing away. Another reason why unmanned space ships are much more efficient for any kind of space combat.

 

[Mangoose]

Current day satellite sensors using superconductors require a shit load of cryogenic cooling.

 

[Wyrmlord]

For a dev so hated by the truly oldschool elite (95%) in this here forum, which played all screenshots on Mobygames, to have a 152 page thread dedicated mostly to a single game? Truly Codex cannot forgive a dev that didn't release the best RPG in fucking years for 2 years. This is how shitty those Bioware games are.

What actually happened was that a couple of Mass Effect and The Old Republic threads were merged into a single mega thread, which is part of the reason the number of pages ballooned. The other reason was that people took the hint and understood they should keep all BioWare related discussion, not just Mass Effect discussion, in one thread.

Even though Suchy started the thread as a The Old Republic thread, my Jersey Shore Mass Effect thread was merged with his, which is why I am shown as the topic creator.

Now, if this were not a 154 page thread, it would easily have been ten 15-page threads. You feel me? The lesser of evils.

 

[villain of the story]

Once again, you are doing selective reading. Existing laser system already suffer from cooling problems. The bulk of their size and energy consumption is cooling. And focusing a beam isn't about aperture size. Aperture is a wasteful approach which is best utilised when dealing with classical optics (eg. lasers and other energy beams fall into quantum optics category). You waste deviating beams and only let the right ones pass through. Focusing an energy beam takes reflectors and refractors (most commonly a specialised lens) and the basic principles aren't much different. Either way, the medium is subject to thermal expansion which compromises beams and to material deterioration.

You're so silly man, space has a mean temperature of 3 Kelvin, so why would you need cooling?

If anything, you'd be happy the excess heat would help keep the ship warm.

Manatee explained it. Additionally, see this past discussion with extensive explanations:

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/seti-is-dead.58648/page-4

 

[Cowboy Moment]

Seriously bros, I thought "keeping the ship warm" would give it away.

 

[Average Manatee]

Once again, you are doing selective reading. Existing laser system already suffer from cooling problems. The bulk of their size and energy consumption is cooling. And focusing a beam isn't about aperture size. Aperture is a wasteful approach. You waste deviating beams and only let the right ones pass through. Focusing an energy beam takes reflectors and refractors (most commonly a specialised lens) and the basic principles aren't much different. Either way, the medium is subject to thermal expansion which compromises beams and to material deterioration.

Again, I'm not an expect, but I see no problems unsurmountable by basic material and manufacturing advancement. Something as simple as a 100% reflective material would easily fix any problems. Certainly if you can already control gravity such advancements would be hardly unheard of. Hell, we already cloaking devices in the present day.