Hard Light Productions Forums

Hosted Projects - FS2 Required => Blue Planet => Topic started by: Mars on May 31, 2011, 01:24:35 am

Title: UEF armor?
Post by: Mars on May 31, 2011, 01:24:35 am
I tend to think, and am backed up within in game dialog, of GTVA ships being covered in heavy armor plating (collapsed-core molybdenum apparently) and blowing off small nuclear explosions.

Are UEF ships supposed to possess a similar level of armoring?

By that I mean, were they originally imagined to be?
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: Liberator on May 31, 2011, 01:53:27 am
One would assume so.  Of course the GTVA blew of nukes in FS 1 and 2, what do you think a Harbinger is.  The thing about nukes is that the vast majority of their damage comes from the atmospheric shock wave they generate.  Take that out of the equation and it's a bit easier to design a system or material that would shrug off the thermal emission and mitigate the radiation component as well.
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: Mars on May 31, 2011, 01:54:46 am
One would assume so.  Of course the GTVA blew of nukes in FS 1 and 2, what do you think a Harbinger is.  The thing about nukes is that the vast majority of their damage comes from the atmospheric shock wave they generate.  Take that out of the equation and it's a bit easier to design a system or material that would shrug off the thermal emission and mitigate the radiation component as well.

Nukes were not the point - my question was: are UEF ships roving space tanks to a similar extent to those of the GTVA
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: SypheDMar on May 31, 2011, 03:47:04 am
Well, if you look at the Karuna's HP (85,000) and compare it to the Deimos (80,000) and then compare their length, it would not seem to be the case. However, you should wait for someone with more backing other.
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: Deadly in a Shadow on May 31, 2011, 03:49:39 am
One would assume so.  Of course the GTVA blew of nukes in FS 1 and 2, what do you think a Harbinger is.  The thing about nukes is that the vast majority of their damage comes from the atmospheric shock wave they generate.  Take that out of the equation and it's a bit easier to design a system or material that would shrug off the thermal emission and mitigate the radiation component as well.

Nukes were not the point - my question was: are UEF ships roving space tanks to a similar extent to those of the GTVA
Tanks?

Well in that case, it's like british tanks against german tanks. The UEF ships are very vulnerable to beam cannons. But if the Tevs lose their beamz, they are fu**ed. But they have Steele, that's the problem.
UEF ships seem to be more vulnerable to bombz/torpedoes too.
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: Flak on May 31, 2011, 04:09:00 am
They certainly are, beams and massed maxim strikes are probably the only real threat to them. Most of them can fight off strike crafts on their own without fighter escorts. They probably more vulnerable if the hull damaging bombs/missiles behaves like the real life counterpart where they move at much higher speed and for most HEAT/HESH warheads, most of the damage is done by kinetic energy rather than explosion.
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: NGTM-1R on May 31, 2011, 07:29:10 am
They certainly are, beams and massed maxim strikes are probably the only real threat to them. Most of them can fight off strike crafts on their own without fighter escorts. They probably more vulnerable if the hull damaging bombs/missiles behaves like the real life counterpart where they move at much higher speed and for most HEAT/HESH warheads, most of the damage is done by kinetic energy rather than explosion.

It's long been a line of thought that most of the protection on these ships comes from multiple-hulling and compartmentalization, rather than sheer armor plate, and that you get the most lethality out of direct-fire non-explosive weapons.

This is partially because we can't think of a way to do a damn thing to slow a nuke down save to ensure it's not in direct contact with the next layer of protection.
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: General Battuta on May 31, 2011, 07:41:39 am
All Blue Planet warships - whether GTVA or UEF - were generally conceptualized as both heavily armored and heavily compartmentalized. Crew spaces make up a minority of the ship's volume.

Ships are layered in a sandwich of ablatives, shock dispersal, non-Newtonian fluids, radiation tanks, and old-fashioned physical belts of metals and ceramics. The armor is studded with sensors, integral electronic warfare systems, and conformal shield generators of the type seen on the FreeSpace 1 Stiletto bomb, which propagate through the hull rather than above it.

Damage control to the armor proper is difficult under combat circumstances. UEF warships take one approach - damaged hull areas are sealed with layers of rapidly coagulating polymer coating, like a scab. This can't match the original armor plating but will stop incoming weapons fire to a degree. GTVA ships rely on their integral shield systems to recruit and bind repair fragments. Damage control is rarely conducted at the surface of the ship.

In the future you'll be seeing warships on both sides employing more active countermeasures too.
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: Snail on May 31, 2011, 07:43:01 am
What about the mainhalls? Those are frikken huge and have retarded big ass windows. :P
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: -Norbert- on May 31, 2011, 09:14:37 am
Those aren't windows, they are just really big screens, to the people inside can see what's going on outside :p
On a more realistic note, the designers of the mainhall were probably just trying to make it cool, without caring about how it workes with the actual ship models.
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: Snail on May 31, 2011, 09:20:49 am
I imagine in a combat scenario areas like that are maybe compartmentalised or evacuated or something
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: Ypoknons on May 31, 2011, 10:03:22 am
Damage control to the armor proper is difficult under combat circumstances. UEF warships take one approach - damaged hull areas are sealed with layers of rapidly coagulating polymer coating, like a scab. This can't match the original armor plating but will stop incoming weapons fire to a degree. GTVA ships rely on their integral shield systems to recruit and bind repair fragments. Damage control is rarely conducted at the surface of the ship.
So that was what was actually happening in Delenda Est when the frigates did their self-repair routines?
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: Qent on May 31, 2011, 11:02:29 am
So that was what was actually happening in Delenda Est when the frigates did their self-repair routines?
Not to mention The Blade Itself. :P
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: PsychoLandlord on May 31, 2011, 12:22:59 pm
Is there an upper limit to how many times a UEF ship is capable of deploying those polymers over a given area, by chance? In terms of fluff, of course.
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: General Battuta on May 31, 2011, 02:46:47 pm
Ideally the repair system would suffer diminishing returns over time to represent the loss of key structural elements. You can't build the entire ship out of excreted resin!
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: PsychoLandlord on May 31, 2011, 03:10:00 pm
Well yeah, thats obvious, but I was asking how much material a UEF warship, lets say a Karuna for sake of ease,  generally carried to allow for such repairs. That resin has to come from somewhere. :)

My last post wasn't terribly clear on that point though, was it?
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: General Battuta on May 31, 2011, 03:20:52 pm
Yes, there should be limited volumes. Presumably it is stored in the same place as the Narayana's magazines.  :nervous:
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: PsychoLandlord on May 31, 2011, 04:50:50 pm
Hammerspace it is, then. :P
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: NGTM-1R on May 31, 2011, 05:30:57 pm
Is there an upper limit to how many times a UEF ship is capable of deploying those polymers over a given area, by chance? In terms of fluff, of course.

I would imagine the more serious limit is in the size of the wound it can provide adequate cover for. That's the technical limitation on similar systems in reality. If the hole is too large you have to send in people with a framework for it deploy over.
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: General Battuta on May 31, 2011, 05:50:02 pm
Indeed so. There's nothing written down about how that situation is handled. If forced to elaborate on it I'd pick one of two options -

1) For more human drama and grit, damage control parties and drones to set up frameworks (this would be a hell of a task)

2) For more plausibility, it's probable that both systems are capable of some form of gross self-organization, with the GTVA variant establishing its framework through the projected hull ghost, the UEF variant building its own skeleton as it goes. It's not nanotech at all, but it could probably be manipulated crudely via external EM since it was always envisioned as being activated with charge.

Talented damage control is a big unsung factor in the history of big ships fighting each other and I expect we'll continue to do more with it.
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: PsychoLandlord on May 31, 2011, 06:03:11 pm
Talented damage control is a big unsung factor in the history of big ships fighting each other and I expect we'll continue to do more with it.

You are most assuredly correct there, and it would be awesome to see damage control begin to play a major part in Capital Ship engagements  in the future, though I don't know how one would factor that in in any meaningful way outside of TBI-esque capship missions.
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: AtomicClucker on May 31, 2011, 06:51:10 pm
From a historical perspective, damage control teams played a vital role in keeping a ship going (though it's up to debate, it's one reason American ships in WW2 had a decisive advantage over their Japanese counterparts).

Could serve a possible plot point?
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: NGTM-1R on May 31, 2011, 07:13:54 pm
From a historical perspective, damage control teams played a vital role in keeping a ship going (though it's up to debate, it's one reason American ships in WW2 had a decisive advantage over their Japanese counterparts).

Could serve a possible plot point?

Depends on how you look at it. Superior damage control is not a cure-all. One of the reasons it worked for the US in WW2 was that combat was reasonably slow-paced. There were lulls in the action to let the D/C guys work. A ship actively taking fire cannot conduct even temporary repairs, but give a half-hour to work and you can accomplish much. This doesn't really jibe with FS combat where ships lack the ability to break an engagement on their speed or the conditions to buy themselves a few minutes for repairs.

A lot of the advantage of superior D/C is also tied up in things that are not directly related, like better systems engineering and redundancy. Neither side in BP builds their ships sloppily.
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: General Battuta on May 31, 2011, 07:38:21 pm
We will be allowing (and have already used) some damage control under fire, on the grounds that FSverse ships can repair complex systems near-instantaneously with just a bit of outside assistance like the support ship. Warships are huge and able to pack in this sort of stuff internally. (The aforementioned fluff is an effort to explain how it works).

On a tangent it's also worth noting that - while not strictly under the provenance of damage control - UEF fighters tend to be much more colicky and fuel-hungry than their GTVA equivalents, which are built for sustainability and logistical ease.
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: Ypoknons on May 31, 2011, 10:29:37 pm
Now wouldn't that be fun - you were about to finish off a Deimos, but the Hood jumps in, you start pounding that, but the Deimos has repair itself to 65% hull and some of its subsystem and is now pounding the hell out of the Naras you were supposed to be protect.
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: Mars on May 31, 2011, 11:41:23 pm
I could definitely see that happening, and being quite fun. It was already done, to a certain extent with in Delande Est. "Damage control you have X minutes" I recall reading.

Plus, think of the Imperiuse, its entire garrison of fighters was rebuilt in time for it to wipe the floor in that same mission.

I am definitely holding out for a battle between the Atreus and one of the Solaris class vessels (and perhaps their escorts), involving lots of firepower and lots of terse combat messages; damage control, putting out fires in Section 12004, overheating beam cannons, magazine jams and all the rest.
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: Scotty on June 01, 2011, 12:04:03 am
Plus, think of the Imperiuse, its entire garrison of fighters was rebuilt in time for it to wipe the floor in that same mission.

Or, you know, they could have just flown more in....
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: Mars on June 01, 2011, 12:11:59 am
Plus, think of the Imperiuse, its entire garrison of fighters was rebuilt in time for it to wipe the floor in that same mission.

Or, you know, they could have just flown more in....

True enough
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: -Norbert- on June 01, 2011, 02:52:22 am
Hm... any chance to add damage controll subsystems to the capships, so the player can slow down or completely disable the enemies ability to self repair?
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: headdie on June 01, 2011, 03:52:48 am
Hm... any chance to add damage controll subsystems to the capships, so the player can slow down or completely disable the enemies ability to self repair?

you could do it now with a subsystem called damage control and using sexps
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: NGTM-1R on June 01, 2011, 06:13:10 am
Hm... any chance to add damage controll subsystems to the capships, so the player can slow down or completely disable the enemies ability to self repair?

Since redundancy is one of the key features of how to do it right, this sounds good but nobody would actually build it that way. :P
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: Fury on June 01, 2011, 06:50:23 am
Hm... any chance to add damage controll subsystems to the capships, so the player can slow down or completely disable the enemies ability to self repair?

Since redundancy is one of the key features of how to do it right, this sounds good but nobody would actually build it that way. :P
Indeed. I've always felt it to be moronic that large ships spanning hundreds of meters, even kilometers in length have navigation, weapons, communications, etc subsystems easily blown off by few hits from small fighter guns. Giving player other targets than just turrets can be all good and well, but effects should be localized and temporary at best.
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: headdie on June 01, 2011, 06:53:16 am
Hm... any chance to add damage controll subsystems to the capships, so the player can slow down or completely disable the enemies ability to self repair?

Since redundancy is one of the key features of how to do it right, this sounds good but nobody would actually build it that way. :P

It could represent things like machine shops and stores of larger components/spare equipment, perhaps have 2 or three locations for them on larger ships
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: Destiny on June 01, 2011, 06:59:27 am
It'll make more sense if they actually stored it inside the ship where it can't be hit by outside fire, unlike how the weapons/comms/sensors and pretty much everything can. Then you'd have to make the black, top layer of armor of the Deimos destroyable and shoot the captain himself

Plus, think of the Imperiuse, its entire garrison of fighters was rebuilt in time for it to wipe the floor in that same mission.

Or, you know, they could have just flown more in....

True enough

Attached to the undersides of a Diomedes, too! I think Steele planned (or the CO of the Imperieuse) for the Imperieuse pretty well, despite the ship's fighters being eaten a lot. Possibly the Imperieuse was restocked by transferring squadrons off from other ships like perhaps, the Hood or even the Atreus, but most likely the other Anemoi left in the system. I can't imagine how long the Imperieuse had to wait in lying so long, alone. Must've been sad and cold days, poor them.
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: -Norbert- on June 01, 2011, 08:52:47 am
Hm... any chance to add damage controll subsystems to the capships, so the player can slow down or completely disable the enemies ability to self repair?

you could do it now with a subsystem called damage control and using sexps
I know it's possible. I wanted to know what people (and especially the BP team) are thinking about the idea of adding those subsystems.

It could represent things like machine shops and stores of larger components/spare equipment, perhaps have 2 or three locations for them on larger ships
That was exactly what I was thinking of. The armor sealing liquit and the spare parts and all that stuff has to be stored somewhere. Centralizing everything in a single position would reduce the response time and increase vulnerbility, but spreading it around too far would mean any automated system would need way too much room. It would also make restocking a nightmare.
While I'm no expert on internal ship logistics, I think having several, but few storage  rooms is the best compromise between efficiency and security.
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: The E on June 01, 2011, 10:36:15 am
From a modding pov, adding those subsystems is easy.

But given the way these systems work in BP fluff (as in, they're integrated into the armor at a very basic level), there is no singular subsystem to take out, no single spot you can hit for massive damage.
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: PsychoLandlord on June 01, 2011, 02:44:35 pm
My admittedly sleep-deprived mind is trying to come up with ways to utilize semi-realistic Damage Control outside of scripted events in fighter-pov missions, and while there are some interesting uses for it I keep thinking that having a capital ship bump itself back up a few thousand hitpoints while the player is getting fighters off his ass is going to annoy people.

As a scripted story event in a mission it could have some decent effects on immersion and realism, as well as an excuse for more dialog, but if it was to occur randomly in anything outside a capship mission it sounds troublesome. IMO, anyway.
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: General Battuta on June 01, 2011, 02:50:06 pm
By and large agreed.
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: Scotty on June 01, 2011, 03:20:29 pm
I think Steele planned (or the CO of the Imperieuse) for the Imperieuse pretty well, despite the ship's fighters being eaten a lot. Possibly the Imperieuse was restocked by transferring squadrons off from other ships like perhaps, the Hood or even the Atreus, but most likely the other Anemoi left in the system. I can't imagine how long the Imperieuse had to wait in lying so long, alone. Must've been sad and cold days, poor them.

There's this handy dandy gate to the rest of GTVA space that could leak Tev fighters like a sieve if they had any more logistic capability to support them.  In other words, when the resources required to handle a fighter are freed up when the fighter is destroyed, it makes sense to bring in more.  Given how much stuff a freighter or logistics ship could conceivably carry, it probably took only a few days at most to comlpetely resupply the Imperiouse's fighter complement.  Repairing the ship itself, however, would probably take more time.
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: Snail on June 01, 2011, 03:52:56 pm
I'm not sure the Imperieuse was fully stocked when it reappeared at Saturn. It didn't launch all that many fighters anyway. Just a couple token defense wings.
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: General Battuta on June 01, 2011, 03:56:36 pm
I'm not sure the Imperieuse was fully stocked when it reappeared at Saturn. It didn't launch all that many fighters anyway. Just a couple token defense wings.

Mackie is not a token :colbert:

Plus you'll note that the bazillion bombers jumping in are not from the Carthage air wing.
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: Snail on June 01, 2011, 04:00:54 pm
Plus you'll note that the bazillion bombers jumping in are not from the Carthage air wing.
Orite.

Forgot about them. :(
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: Destiny on June 02, 2011, 01:34:32 am
Yeah, the Yangtze's last moments were sad.
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: -Norbert- on June 02, 2011, 05:26:33 am
From a modding pov, adding those subsystems is easy.

But given the way these systems work in BP fluff (as in, they're integrated into the armor at a very basic level), there is no singular subsystem to take out, no single spot you can hit for massive damage.
As I understood it the delivery system for the liquid is integrated into the armor, but the liquid must still be stored somewhere. If it's stored inside the armor itself, it would either take away a lot of protection (were you have a storehouse/tank you can't have a protective armor layer) or it would seriously limit the available storage space for the sealant. Unless the sealant doubles as the liquid to lessen kinetic impacts, but then repairing the hull would reduce the protection, which would be... not very smart.
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: headdie on June 02, 2011, 04:55:33 pm
From a modding pov, adding those subsystems is easy.

But given the way these systems work in BP fluff (as in, they're integrated into the armor at a very basic level), there is no singular subsystem to take out, no single spot you can hit for massive damage.
As I understood it the delivery system for the liquid is integrated into the armor, but the liquid must still be stored somewhere. If it's stored inside the armor itself, it would either take away a lot of protection (were you have a storehouse/tank you can't have a protective armor layer) or it would seriously limit the available storage space for the sealant. Unless the sealant doubles as the liquid to lessen kinetic impacts, but then repairing the hull would reduce the protection, which would be... not very smart.

depends.  If the foam is pressurised and sandwiched between the armour/structure layers what you would get is a passive system for sealing everything from small cracks to probably a mid sized breach while probably providing some shock dispersion in areas that are not or low damaged.  if you then fit pressurised tanks to the system it would be able to fix multiple breaches. 

Also the armour would be designed with this in mind so either the armour layer would be thicker to give space for the sealant or the ship designers will just accept the reduced penetration protection for the increased capacity of the ship to take damage and remain effective.
Title: Re: UEF armor?
Post by: ZeroCooL on June 13, 2011, 02:24:10 pm
Yeah, the Yangtze's last moments were sad.

lol my little brother gave him grief when he saw that the ship left alone