[Nightmare]

Remember, reliable beats powerful - and nuclear fission is comparatively reliable to other forms of Sci-Fi WMDs as far as the technical requirements go - with the notable exception of the asteroid strike of course. No vaccum or magnetic containment required.

That massively depends on the scale of your setting. Of course a weapon that never hits is useless, but if you have one that kills everything in 1 hit changes everything as long as you can make sure that 1 does find its target.

[General Battuta]

We’re talking about whether you would need military spacecraft, not the upper limits of imaginary bombs.

[0rph3u5]

Of course a weapon that never hits is useless, but if you have one that kills everything in 1 hit changes everything as long as you can make sure that 1 does find its target.

Ah, no. What you just decriped is the contamination of the area of engagement and possibly your objective with unexploded munitions.

What you want from a weapons system is that a) it deploys its payload to the target, b) the payloard effects its target, c) the payload does not effect your own forces at any stage, d) the payload does not effect non-combatants at any stage, and e) the deployment of the weapon system does not affect whatever objective you were trying to achieve. While ideal the number of times you need to effect a target is close to 1, but considering paramters c) and d) a weapon that needs to hit a target more often might be preferable.


Now we are talking about the GTA, and following the trend that "Terrans" denotes a "gone bad" branch of humanity, it reasonable to assume that consideration d) might be out of the window (its practically required unless you view N1 Harbinger purely as weapon of deterrence).

[Nightmare]

We’re talking about whether you would need military spacecraft, not the upper limits of imaginary bombs.

 

I legit have no idea what this discussion's about. The title kinda implies that it *is* about the upper limits of imaginary bombs; then it was something like "are nukes powerful enough to fight advanced civ in sci-fi settings", now it appears like some meshup.

[starlord]

The reason I started this topic was mostly to discuss the delivery method of the harbinger before the advent of the ursa as it appears in FS1.

[DefCynodont119]

I'd imagine the GTA and PVE would have dedicated Planetary bombardment ships, that have never been used and ideally are not supposed to be used.

[Mongoose]

From a purely fluff-writing standpoint I always felt like the Tsunami and Harbinger descriptions would make more sense if they were switched.  I mean what sounds more like a devastatingly-powerful ultimate weapon: "Crazy complicated and dangerous matter-antimatter warhead," or "It's a nuke, but bigger!"?

(Also the whole "salted warhead" part of the Harbinger description makes no sense given what those weapons would actually be used for...unless you think about the Harbinger's original role as a planetary bombardment weapon, which raises some truly disturbing implications.)

[Nightmare]

I think it makes sense that the Harbinger is more powerful. Antimatter was probably new to GTA, the tech description hints that the containment is unstable; GTVA struggled to create enough Antimatter decades later.

[General Battuta]

We’re talking about whether you would need military spacecraft, not the upper limits of imaginary bombs.

 

I legit have no idea what this discussion's about. The title kinda implies that it *is* about the upper limits of imaginary bombs; then it was something like "are nukes powerful enough to fight advanced civ in sci-fi settings", now it appears like some meshup.

Lol cmon dude, your own post:

My personal guess is that neither PVN nor GTA had any significant military/space navy assets before fighting that war, simply because there was no real necessity for it.

[Nightmare]

Yeah my guess was that they did not have much of navy assets; so they had no actual bomber to carry really big bombs like the Harbinger - the only ones being the Apollo bomber variant (if we assume it's canon) and the Athena that only carries Stilettos.

Of course it would be rational to decide to stop space exploration once it comes to interstellar travel until you have means to defend yourself; but history often went in a way that "safety" and "progress" are not being treated as equally important, especially since you don't know what you have to prepare for - even if the Terrans had contained themselves to Sol they could have bumped into something like the Ancients (or just more powerful Vasudans) and still get stomped.

[starlord]

I believe that antimatter truly matured with the coming of the Helios.

As for harbinger development, one could also suppose that the harbinger as it was known before was different in aspect (maybe it was later made in a warhead), and strategically deployed, very much like the meson bombs in fs2.

[General Battuta]

Yeah my guess was that they did not have much of navy assets; so they had no actual bomber to carry really big bombs like the Harbinger - the only ones being the Apollo bomber variant (if we assume it's canon) and the Athena that only carries Stilettos.

Of course it would be rational to decide to stop space exploration once it comes to interstellar travel until you have means to defend yourself; but history often went in a way that "safety" and "progress" are not being treated as equally important, especially since you don't know what you have to prepare for - even if the Terrans had contained themselves to Sol they could have bumped into something like the Ancients (or just more powerful Vasudans) and still get stomped.

The first applications of space are military, and as long as one ship can nudge an asteroid onto a collision course, early warning and deterrence are going to be major functions of whatever space presence you've got.

[Nightmare]

Don't doubt that; but just like starlord said such a weapon is more of a strategic than a tactical one (in terms of FS).

[Mito [PL]]

Early warning as a function of a network of sensor/comm nodes spread throughout solar systems? Sure, that makes sense.

Although to be fair, I don't think any ship in Freespace has got enough actual effective thrust to "nudge" an asteroid onto a collision course easily enough, at least not something that wouldn't simply burn down in the atmosphere.


Also note: in FS1, the cruisers carrying Tsunami prototypes have really huge explosions. That's fine, after all, they're loaded with antimatter bombs. But now let's consider the bombers carrying the warheads, they should explode violently like that as well... Someone might make a mechanic out of this.

[Thaeris]

I was wondering that: it is stated that the harbinger was already used before the deployment of the ursa.

My question is, how would it have been deployed? By capital ships? Transports?

In my headcannon, I imagine Cardinal Spear's Gorgon as the early GTA "big bomber." Like most of my projects, working on the Gorgon didn't get very far. However, the design I had in mind (replacing the Medusa model, of course) consisted of the following:

1. Substantial central fuselage with an engine mounted at the rear. There is a single turret on the upper hull as well as the lower hull. There is a stepped cockpit area, not unlike that of an attack helicopter, though the WSO does not have much of a forward view. There are two bays in the central fuselage, one being the forward-mounted self-defense bay (mounts the Vulcan cannon, rockets, or missiles) and the heavy ordnance bay. The latter is where you'd deploy your huge munitions, or perhaps even kinetic kill vehicles onto a planetary target. This was intended to be a bit like a free-fall bomb bay in terms of its design. For Cardinal Spear in particular, it's the bay from which you'd lay mines, etc. Probably had some sort of fancy name like "Multidirectional Ordnance Projector," or other such jazz.

2. Two stub-mounted engine and launcher pods. Two additional engines, along with the fuselage unit, were to power the Gorgon. These pods also housed a more conventional launcher array as you'd see in other GTA bombers. They also housed the plasma cannons, which are delightfully overpowered in Cardinal Spear.

...Of course, then I'd have to come up with why it disappeared from service (cannon fodder, unreliable, old, etc.). But meh.

Others have already suggested the bomber/strike fighter version of the Apollo or even the Athena - this would have to be done via an external rack. Not sure of the size of the Harbinger in relation to the spacecraft in question, but I hardly think that was a legitimate question for any Volition developer, ever. However, you've got a nice spot between the lower engine nacelles on the Apollo, and the Athena is wide open from below (though ground clearance may be an issue - but again, size... do we even care lol?). My headcannoning would offer that in the era of unshielded fighters, unshielded ordnace which gets shot up tends to explode violently beneath the host craft when the pilot attempts to arm it. It is a rare munition which gives and takes, after all.

The best candidates here, which have already been suggested, are the Fenris or Leviathan, or perhaps even a destroyer in orbit. FS, being fighter-centric, is unfortunately not very kind to the big ships, and their capabilities are often seen as limited at best.

[General Battuta]

Although to be fair, I don't think any ship in Freespace has got enough actual effective thrust to "nudge" an asteroid onto a collision course easily enough, at least not something that wouldn't simply burn down in the atmosphere.

They absolutely do, since they can sustain acceleration indefinitely and that means indefinite (but large) delta-V.

e: also, perhaps ironically, stuff burning up in the atmosphere is the best planet-killer, since you can superheat the atmosphere and cook everything above the topsoil

[DefCynodont119]

stuff burning up in the atmosphere is the best planet-killer, since you can superheat the atmosphere and cook everything above the topsoil

Nah dude covering the surface with as much black Albedo-reducing dust/paint as possible and then letting the planet fry itself is the way to go, it takes a while, sure, but it's nice and permanent. 

(please don't take this seriously)

[0rph3u5]

From a purely fluff-writing standpoint I always felt like the Tsunami and Harbinger descriptions would make more sense if they were switched.  I mean what sounds more like a devastatingly-powerful ultimate weapon: "Crazy complicated and dangerous matter-antimatter warhead," or "It's a nuke, but bigger!"?

I have the opposite reaction - the Tsunami being less powerful despite being made using the potentially more dangerous payload is more an idicator of a line of thought, a) you produce more warheads with the antimatter you've got and b) again reliable beats potentially powerful: anti-matter needs to be tightly controlled as to not set of a matter-antimatter anihilation - it needs to be kept in a container with a vaccuum inside and magnetically suspended so your portion of antimatter does not touch the walls of the container under any circumstances; the ammount of failure sources with such a payload is pretty high.

stuff burning up in the atmosphere is the best planet-killer, since you can superheat the atmosphere and cook everything above the topsoil

...but top soil is potentially one of the things you most want from a planet - Soil is after all much more than just "dirt", but an ecosystem unto itself and highly-valuable _{(I am really turning Green as I age)}

Listen, it doesn't matter if you can potentially destroy a planet, it matter if by doing so you actually achieve someting. Making a planet uninhabitable for generations or even permanently generally doesn't get you things you want from control of planetary body - starting with an economical way of exploiting its mineral ressources, and ending with having space to put a population (which, you know, should be able to sustain itself in new envoirment - preferably in a manner that produces more than it cost the rest of your civilisation)

Also note: in FS1, the cruisers carrying Tsunami prototypes have really huge explosions. That's fine, after all, they're loaded with antimatter bombs. But now let's consider the bombers carrying the warheads, they should explode violently like that as well...

The warheads on a bomber probably have safeties to prevent any accidential, full-yield detonation of the warhead due any number of potential failures.

Someone might make a mechanic out of this.

That's trivial, use the set-explosion-option SEXP in combination with a get-secondary-ammo check ... when-argument and dial up the trigger count; mechanic done. Really uninteresting to make and also too much work on the balancing side.

[General Battuta]

"Above the topsoil" actually does mean "above the topsoil", not "including the topsoil." Burrowing animals would probably be fine, seeds too.

[0rph3u5]

"Above the topsoil" actually does mean "above the topsoil", not "including the topsoil." Burrowing animals would probably be fine, seeds too.

How much more do I need to do signpost humerous intent to you? - the entire line about top soil and soil in general was an attempt to bring levity to the discussion...