[Mars]

I don't know if there's a better place to post this, or if it was answered before or not. Are your weapons balanced (each has its own distinct advantages and disadvantages) or are some better than others (is the Subach HL-12 actually worse than the Luyten D-9 for example)

[Woomeister]

The R1 weapons generally get stromger as you get to use them, the Luyten is a bit stronger than the Subach IIRC.

R2 weapons are balanced against each factions weapons. The Vasudan Haptekh cannon is weaker than the Subach when used in combo with another weapon (subach and prometheus for example) but is far more energy efficeint than its Terran counterpart. The Terran Valiant cannon is less powerful than the Vasudan Khonsu cannon, but the Khonsu is a balistic weapon and so requires rearming while the Valiant is energy based. The Valiant can be more effective in extended battles since it's not ammo based, but it does less damage overall.

[Woomeister]

Well Freespace has never been accurate there

[Mefustae]

Since it is ammo based, that means that the rounds will travel through space forever since there is little to no friction in space.

Wrong.

First you've got gravity wells [from planets and such], which can definitely alter the trajectory of said projectile. Second you've got quite a bit of friction, namely from dust and errant debris that permeates the universe, which would indeed serve to slow down said projectile. Third, it wouldn't keep on going forever, it is a statistical impossibility that it will be able to traverse the entire universe without encountering an asteroid, planet, star, etc.

This is a common misconception regarding stellar physics, just like how conventional lasers would look in space [you wouldn't see them], or the effectiveness of Nuclear Weapons in space [they'd do s*** all unless detonated right on the enemy hull].

[Wanderer]

This is a common misconception regarding stellar physics, just like how conventional lasers would look in space [you wouldn't see them], or the effectiveness of Nuclear Weapons in space [they'd do s*** all unless detonated right on the enemy hull].

Ever heard of flash or rather the thermal radiation caused by nukes? Nuke doesnt need to go off right on the target. Its enough that it is reasonable close.. to incinerate the target. Not to mention ionizing radiation

[Mefustae]

When you're dealing with a target with armour up the wazoo to resist cosmic and solar radiation and soforth, thermal radiation isn't going to be exactly decimating. Really, what I was saying, was that the shockwaves and soforth, the most destructive forces from a Nuke outside the blastwave, don't translate to Space all that well, and radiation isn't going to get the job done, either.

[NGTM-1R]

Yeah, a nuke would require skin-to-skin contact to be effective.

That said, when particles are 1km apart at least (i.e. density of your average real nebula) the odds of striking any single one are close to nil. If there is friction, it is insignificant over the first several lightyears. Maybe more.

[spartan_0214]

umm, the explosive force of the nuke in question (whether it be an H- or an A-bomb) would be the only damaging factor. First, you'd have to get the shields down of the ship (if it has any), and then the explosive force would do about the damage of a semi-automatic burst of a higher powered laser weapon. Needless to say, you'd be better off with a meson bomb. . . .

and yes, the projectile would continue moving forever, because of the gravitational slingshot effect of planets and stars, and would only be slowed down by solar wind, but also, the solar wind might also be a contributing factor. . . .

[Mefustae]

That said, when particles are 1km apart at least (i.e. density of your average real nebula) the odds of striking any single one are close to nil. If there is friction, it is insignificant over the first several lightyears. Maybe more.

Point, but it depends on the location from which said projectile originates. If you send one out towards the center of a galaxy, it'll without doubt pass through a bloody large number of solar systems, meaning the chances of encountering an area of high-particle density [relative to the rest of space, of course] - such as an asteroid field or simply the Oort clouds surrounding said systems - are somewhat high.

[StratComm]

No they are not.  There's nothing in space that even begins to approximate a planetary atmosphere as far as effects of drag, etc are concerned.  Solar wind has to act on HUGE sails (things that make Colossus-sized ships small in comparison) to do anything at all to a spacecraft, and that's one of the more powerful forces that act on the (stellar) void.  The ort cloud, much like our solar system's asteroid belt, is actually very sparce compared to what we see in movies and such, to the point that it's extrordinarily rare for two bodies to even be within visual range of one another.  There's a whole lot of just emptyness out there.

[Mefustae]

Point well made, but I still stand by my assertion that an unguided projectile could not pass through the entire universe without hitting something.

[Goober5000]

Odds are that it won't, IMHO.  The universe is pretty big.

[StratComm]

Yeah, the ratio of occupied space in the universe to "empty" space (discounting gluon fields and the quantum stuff that's happening at the zero-point level, of course) is basically 0.  For every line that intersects an object, there are an infinite number more that don't.