[Snail]

I completely disagree. I think that Volition had TNT in mind, but both did not know what they were talking about, and did a half-assed job writing the tech descriptions.

Yeah, I can do as much damage as the Little boy by firing, what, 8 Fury rockets? And a tiny fighter can withstand that*?

* that's not even counting shields

[Zoltan]

I completely disagree. I think that Volition had TNT in mind, but both did not know what they were talking about, and did a half-assed job writing the tech descriptions.

Yeah, I can do as much damage as the Little boy by firing, what, 8 Fury rockets? And a tiny fighter can withstand that*?

* that's not even counting shields

I said they did a half-assed job with the descriptions, especially in FS1. Just look at the tech entry for the Avenger.

[redsniper]

What don't you guys find appealing about hurling dozens of nuclear bomb-equivalent warheads nonchalantly? It just makes FS that much more epic.

[Snail]

Also, the GRM-1 (Rebel Bomb) is described as "a conventional explosive." It does more than 2kt damage at the very, very, least.

[Woolie Wool]

Yeah.  I wouldn't trust those numbers.  1) They are ridiculously high and 2) They create inconsistencies when comparing them to actual damage (compare the fury to the harbinger).

Yes, but I don't think the kilotons of FS are kilotons of TNT, but some other stuff.

I completely disagree. I think that Volition had TNT in mind, but both did not know what they were talking about, and did a half-assed job writing the tech descriptions.

In sci-fi debates about games, fluff always beats in-game mechanics, because in-game mechanics must be balanced while fluff only answers to the storyline.

I completely disagree. I think that Volition had TNT in mind, but both did not know what they were talking about, and did a half-assed job writing the tech descriptions.

Yeah, I can do as much damage as the Little boy by firing, what, 8 Fury rockets? And a tiny fighter can withstand that*?

* that's not even counting shields

What makes you think a FreeSpace fighter is built out of steel or any material we can currently fabricate?

[Snail]

What makes you think a FreeSpace fighter is built out of steel or any material we can currently fabricate?

I didn't say that. i just said something that big shouldn't plausibly be able to withstand nuclear bombs. But I won't continue this argument since I've got more important things to dooooo...

[SadisticSid]

Pfft. If the dinkiest fighters possessed that level of firepower then why was the Lucifer blowing the hell out Vasuda Prime such a big deal? The GTA could have slipped a squad of Apollos with Furies inside the atmosphere and raze all the cities on the planet to the same effect.

[Woolie Wool]

Because 2kt rockets really aren't up to the job of planetary sterilization. The beam cannons were far more powerful than the multi-gigaton Harbinger bombs of FS1. Also, the GTA was almost certainly unwilling to lay waste to planets that could be resettled with Terrans. 2kt rockets would blow up a lot of the cities, but it wouldn't really hurt underground bunkers and it wouldn't kill EVERYONE, not by a long shot.

[Polpolion]

Now I'm not one to understand explosion physics in outer space fully, or even normal explosion physics, but I have a hunch that the force exerted by the explosion would be affected by space in a way that would favor the person being shot at.

AFAIK, most of the damage that comes from nuclear bombs of today come from either radiation or the shockwave. IIRC, the main explosion, while big, is relatively small compared to the affected area. The nuclear devices in WWII were also detonated IIRC above the surface of the Earth, so the shockwave would affect a greater area. In FS2 however, the missiles detonate upon impacting the surface of the hull. I'm not sure how much that would affect the damage of the warhead, probably some.

Shockwaves by definition are energy carried through some medium, and thus either space in FS2 is filled with some liquid (that'd explain sound too ), or the shockwaves can't exist, although the bomb shockwaves only tend to support my "liquid space" hypothesis. Come to think of it, liquid in space would allow beam canons to work, as well.

I am thus forced to conclude that the armour and sheilding on the spacecraft are excellent means of absorbing damage.

[Admiral_Stones]

I'd rather think it was launched above earth to avoid hundreds of tons of rubble and dirt getting catapulted into the air and obstructing the sunlight.
Well, that's the logical approach. Your approach may be true however considering it was the USA.

[Colonol Dekker]

Realistic collision mod would be preferable to re-balancing the damage......

[Warp Shadow]

Isn't that what I said?

Oh and great job!!! Now you've exposed Free Space's secret shame! Why did you have to reveal to everyone that Free Space is a game about a little kid playing with his spaceship toys in the bathtub?!

[Akalabeth Angel]

Tech Description:

Small, fast dumbfire missiles - fired in swarms - GTA fighters can carry more Fury missiles than conventional missiles, due to their small size - used for distraction and other tactical measures - very small payload (3 Kt).

And by "some other guy", you mean me both times right?

  Oh you both times? I thought it was someone different. I dunno how to quote two posts at once so I just get lazy and say it was someone else so I dont get people saying "waaah, I didnt say that." . . . anyway, yeah 3 kt? Not likely. It's like the Star Trek fans claiming that the photon torpedo does a crap load of damage too when anyone who sees them in action onscreen knows that's not the case.

[Zoltan]

Tech Description:

Small, fast dumbfire missiles - fired in swarms - GTA fighters can carry more Fury missiles than conventional missiles, due to their small size - used for distraction and other tactical measures - very small payload (3 Kt).

And by "some other guy", you mean me both times right?

  Oh you both times? I thought it was someone different. I dunno how to quote two posts at once so I just get lazy and say it was someone else so I dont get people saying "waaah, I didnt say that." . . . anyway, yeah 3 kt? Not likely. It's like the Star Trek fans claiming that the photon torpedo does a crap load of damage too when anyone who sees them in action onscreen knows that's not the case.

Yes, the tech descriptions are pretty ridiculous, but they're supposed to be taken as canon. Oh well...

And I don't mind the whole two person thing, I just thought it was kind of funny. Actually now that I think of it, I like being called two people, it makes me fell twice as important.

More on topic, I really like the idea of more realistic collisions; not totally realistic though, this is FreeSpace after all.

[Colonol Dekker]

Isn't that what I said?

Oh and great job!!! Now you've exposed Free Space's secret shame! Why did you have to reveal to everyone that Free Space is a game about a little kid playing with his spaceship toys in the bathtub?!

 



No......................






Maybe.

[redsniper]

I'd rather think it was launched above earth to avoid hundreds of tons of rubble and dirt getting catapulted into the air and obstructing the sunlight.

It's called an airburst detonation, and it's done so that more of the energy from the explosion will affect it's target. If the bomb detonated at ground level a significant portion of the energy would be wasted on making a crater in the ground. By detonating the bomb high up in the air that energy instead goes to knocking down buildings and such.

One nuclear bomb wouldn't throw up enough dirt and dust to cause too much obstruction of sunlight. On the other hand, a full-on nuclear war, even with airburst detonations, would (AFAIK) kick up enough dust to kill most or all plant life on Earth.

[TrashMan]

In sci-fi debates about games, fluff always beats in-game mechanics, because in-game mechanics must be balanced while fluff only answers to the storyline.

Logic and reason >>>>>>> any fluff

I think someone at [V] put kT instead of T by mistake and other weapon descriptions just propagated from there. This is like SW tech numbers fluff - utter bull****

[Woolie Wool]

Logic and reason can be overriden by things that happen in game. Otherwise, half the things that happen in FS are impossible, like glowing blob guns, subspace, etc. Whether you like it or not, 200 gigaton turbolasers ARE canon.

Also, explosions would be MUCH smaller in space because there's no air.

Sometimes you have to accept magic-tech.

[blowfish]

But when you compare the damage stated in the tech description of the Fury and the Harbinger to their actual damage, the numbers don't add up.  That's why I don't trust that stuff.

[Polpolion]

In sci-fi debates about games, fluff always beats in-game mechanics, because in-game mechanics must be balanced while fluff only answers to the storyline.

Logic and reason >>>>>>> any fluff

I think someone at [V] put kT instead of T by mistake and other weapon descriptions just propagated from there. This is like SW tech numbers fluff - utter bull****

Not necessarily. If you made a video game or movie that reflects the US president's politics with 100% accuracy, it might not be logical, but it'd be accurate. Most of the time, they don't have fluff just for the sake of having it.

...Admittedly though, in SW if the capships can generate enough power for shields to maintain while being impacted by hundreds of 200 gigaton laser bolts, then the ship can use that power for a weapon to penetrate the shielding of a similar vessel and destroy it in a single shot. Destroy the death star in less than 30 seconds with no friendly casualties anyone?