/civ4xg/ - Stellaris, Civilization & 4X Strategy General

are you the same person who couldn't read two sentences about why carriers are big?

Why even waste time with glassing with those physics
Why not just make a bigass slipspace drive and just crack a planet in half

for you

>runways in space

no I was arguing with that faggot

Because muh plot.

If that were true you'd see navies creating huge amounts of smaller ships. Not investing in carriers. Being in space or on the ocean changes nothing in that regard.

slipspace was weaponized twice in the games already

>carriers
air craft carriers you fucking retard. Holy shit, they aren't spewing out a bunch of fighter boats

So did HOI4 outsell Stellaris or is this confirmed for Paradox's best game of all time. OF ALL TIME?

Do explain the apparently huge difference between strike craft and planes.

No idea.
For the lulz, go ask the autists in /gsg/

It'll trigger them into flining shit everywhere.

>If that were true you'd see navies creating huge amounts of smaller ships
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houbei_class_missile_boat

Different victory conditions, different civ types with different starting techs, different units, bonuses for different events, etcetera.

Why would they care?
Its not like the hoi series is anything really good
They couldnt even get supply and naval AI to work in 3

9/11 isn't a fucking joke

sea vs air

rocketpunk-manifesto.com/2007/08/space-fighters-not.html

Are you retarded?

are you?

Okay fampaitachi.

There is no ocean in space dipshit.

(You)

That's half the reason.

The other half is that they flipped their shit when Stellaris was released becasue they couldn't handle a 4X in their thread.

You should have just said you were fucking retarded in the first place and I would have known not to bother.

we were literally just talking about about real life navies eg air craft carriers
>le space isnt an ocean lmao
idiot

lasers don't have that kind of range, and are shitty weapons in general

you're looking at missile spam, nuclear lances and particle beams I'd say

a "fighter" would have a much higher dV though, so it would still be a good platform for delivering weapons

You know those things that come out of hangers in stellaris? They are called strike craft retard. I asked what the difference between them and planes were.

There is no horizon in space.
Subsequently you don't need fighters to extend your range.
There is no water, nor air in space.
Subsequently you don't need fighters to use a 'faster' medium for weapons delivery.
There is no top speed in space.
Subsequently you don't need fighters to go fast.
There is no clutter and ambiguity to confuse automated system in space.
Subsequently you don't need fighters to visually inspect the target to identify it and establish ROE.
There is no apparent gravity in space.
Subsequently you don't need fighters because there are no hard upper limits on the size of your weapons platform.
Do I have to go on?

What kind of reaction did you intend on me having from this image?

Well it was only weaponized once. New Mombasa got fucked because the Prophet was panicking cause his entire fleet go wiped out and just wanted to gtfo and didn't care much about the collateral.

well in the context of what we were talking about; there are real life naval (on the ocean) strike crafts. You asked what the difference between them and planes were. I explained and then you got snippy.

>radiation fucks up computers
>cant just fly about with drones
>humans would be considered too high risk because you'd be flying to certain death
>military craft go low-tech and start using clockpunk drones

>there is no clutter in space
>space is empty

If you want to remain slightly realistic, the requirements for reaction mass makes fighters impossible.

There sure are a lot of burning buildings, concealing terrain features and panicking sandnigger civilians walking into the line of fire in space.
Fucking retard.

you know you can shield electronics right?

most serious long range spacecraft would probably generate their own magnetic field anyway

almost forgot
>no gravity
>no top speed and friction means inertia stops existing

While there is no top speed in space, mass and intertia still exist and the heavier an object in motion the more energy required to change directions.

Future space combat will probably involve lots of very small, well armed drones deployed from a "mothership" unless we develop some form of instantaneous weapon. Otherwise you're shooting at signatures hours or even days old in the vastness of space.

I don't think any space battles will occur within visual range except under very strange circumstances.

>If that were true you'd see navies creating huge amounts of smaller ships. Not investing in carriers
Carriers are literally bases for huge amounts of smaller ships high capable in mobility area (they are so capable that they can fly).

do you know what space consists of? fucking space it's named after it

>no top speed
>zip about at 50k km/h
>hit a fist-sized rock
>the bridge is gone

>carriers are useless because lasers
Does it really need to be explained why lasers are terrible weapons?

>the heavier an object in motion the more energy required to change directions
The heavier a ship the bigger a drive system it's going to pack.
Doesn't matter how big you are if the TWR and mass ratio stay the same.

probably you'll need to close, missiles and drones can be shot down, slugs can be evaded

but dodge this motherfucker

>start as individualist, materialist science directorate
>want to go full blown exploration and science ala Star Trek Federation
>literally every neighbor are a mix of xenophobe spiritualist military and other shit that doesn't mix well with mine
>mfw

Knew I should have gone with space Hitler

>what are forward shields
we have learnt since titanic

please do explain, like I have half a foot in the door to put a ballista on my corvettes

>shields
Ok, just waiting for you to invent them

>carriers are useless because lasers
Carriers are useless because anything a fighter can do a missile can do better.
Here's you 'carrier' senpai:
rocketpunk-manifesto.com/2009/08/space-warfare-vii-kinetics-part-2.html

What does this have to do with stellaris?

plasma barriers are already a thing

I will when I invent militaristic space travel

Lasers work be transferring energy in the form of heat. All you need is something to reflect the heat. Something that already exists and we can barely leave our planet.

>Lasers work be transferring energy in the form of heat
Already wrong, not an argument.

That is the correct mfw to use.

None of those would do shit to protect against an impact of that power
And most of them are actually just radiation shielding, not projectile shielding

reflective armor might have some effect but not a great one, the coating would need to be perfect too

it's shit because it takes a lot of energy to do little damage, and at interplanetary distances they diffuse extremely quickly to the point of uselessness for anything but navigation

lasers that go to the moon already reach 60km radius from a point emitter on earth

Space isn't a true vacuum, it's full of all manner of dust and gases, sure they're pretty far spaced out and the friction is practically negligible in most cases, but it's there.

The bigger a ship the more fuel you need to make it do anything.

Unless we develop an unlimited energy source of course.

Lasers take a long time to actually kill something, especially if its armored. They use a massive amount of energy as well. With today's tech with the best ship mounted laser available it takes 3 seconds within visual range to kill a plane with a laser.

I hope you're not >implying you can reflect a laser with a mirror or something. No, you don't want to reflect the laser, you want to absorb the heat. In space that's kinda hard since you can't radiate heat well, but at the same time that's another strike against lasers since lasers build up an exorbitant amount of heat.
Carbon Carbon is the only reliable way to shield something from long term laser focusing, but that shit is expensive as dick to make.
Ablative armor would be much more reasonable as a defense against lasers, it would be a "can this not fall off before their ship overheats" game of cat and mouse in a sense.

but there's an ocean of spacetime newfriend!

Is there a relatively painless way to change my empire's ship appearance? I didn't see any console commands relating to it.

I'm getting advanced enough that I can stand up against fallen empires, I like the Mammalian designs but I'm feeling that I want some more weird looking ships like the custom golden/white molluscoid ships or something.

rocket engines don't scale that way, there's a reason irl space probes are tiny and use high isp low thrust shit like ion drives

I wonder if that was intentional by the team or if it was just the guy writing the text files being cheeky and sneaking it in

Either way, well played

>No, you don't want to reflect the laser, you want to absorb the heat. In space that's kinda hard since you can't radiate heat well, but at the same time that's another strike against lasers since lasers build up an exorbitant amount of heat.

Fans, a series of massive ship mounted fans to keep the hull from overheating during laser attacks.

What part of
>you can't radiate heat in space
are you not getting man.

Very little space combat in stellaris makes much sense when you bring cold hard logic into it.

It's designed to look good and fit the bill. In reality it's hard to say what exactly you'd use when you theoretically have weapons that are pinpoint accurate and travel at the speed of light.

>Fans, a series of massive ship mounted fans to keep the hull from overheating during laser attacks.

What. the. fuck.

AIR MOTHERFUCKER THERE IS NO FUCKING AIR

The reason being it would be prohibitively expensive to launch them otherwise or they wouldn't be able to be launched in one piece.
Per-kilogram-to-orbit cost scales inversely with launcher size.

elite has a fancy active radiator that uses some kind of microwave convertor to dump heat fast

>can't radiate heat in space
then why do you get cold in space

Who even metioned Stellaris?
This is Space Propulsion Analysis and Design general.

a lot of the lines in the game are kind of intentionally hypocritical or a little bit silly

the insult lines are always a little silly wink/nod for instance, when a species which has no real discernible face, says they can't tell what part of you is your face.

you don't understand, the bigger the engine the more it weighs, the more it weighs the bigger it needs to be

it scales nonlinearly, at some point you can't add more fuel or bigger engines to push more fuel and bigger engines, for purely practical reasons

Militaristic spacecraft would just be orbital defenses and missile launchers/asteroid tugs at our current technological level
Everything else would be incredibly slow, expensive, and/or unreliable
A nebula might allow for some interesting battles, though, if the gas clouds are dense enough for smaller ramjet-like ships to operate

Call me when we have the technology to do that because right now we'd burn more energy trying to do that than we would leaving orbit.

Because space is cold as fuck and your body radiates heat. Also the vacuum of space splits you open.

you don't, space would be neutral at best, scalding hot in direct sunlight at worst

lasers are shit weapons though, they may go at the speed of light but that doesn't make them better

You're confusing deltaV with simple upscaling of designs.
Twice as big rocket with twice as many engines and twice the fuel has the same deltaV and TWR but carries twice the payload.

Material to reflect heat already exists. The Apollo program for instance used a thin layer of aluminum on the landing vehicles to reflect heat.

so your body in space, radiates heat, but you can't radiate heat in space. gotcha

>I never went past The Magic School Bus when it came to learning science

Are you pretending to be retarded? The entire point is that the ONLY real way to lose heat in space is to:

Eject materials that conduct heat from the craft, reducing the heat of the craft (dumping coolant after it's heated up, for instance)

Radiate (heat, as radiation, leaving the craft, as infra red radiation) heat very slowly from large surfaces.

There are no air currents, air or solid objects to conduct the heat to, so that only method is either removing hot material from the craft or radiating heat slowly via radiation.

>lasers are shit

are we talking stellaris or IRL here?

Who gives a shit about your literal tinfoil hat shield when you can just blow fuckers away with a bomb-pumped xaser.

it doesn't scale that way

>our current technological level
1970 says hi

spills the beans for me genius, make sure to read the conversation to know exactly what you're butting into :^)

You mean convection doesn't work in space. Radiation can be used to get rid of heat in space, astronauts have radiators in their suits.

WHY WONT YOU LET US IN

WE JUST WANT A MULTICULT GALAXY FREE OF non-energy based lifeforms

LET US IN YOU ORGANIC RACISTS

>Orion
is a long distance travel craft that takes years to speed up and slow down

Ships are not organic, yes. The only way they can get rid of heat naturally is via radiation which is a very slow process. Otherwise you need heat sinks which are then ejected from the ship or cooled by other means internally.

Correct. That would classify as ablative armor however, which I already addressed.

Space is like -270 degrees Celsius dude.

orion is an orbital battleship with extremely high dV and a nuclear arsenal to rival a small nation

ITT: anons can't tell the difference between heat and temperature