>>64651878
How else am I going to S2 spam?

More like radial launch cells since there is no vertical. Under thrust they'd be perpendicular to 'gravity' as well.

>>64651878
I mean, there's no real distinct "vertical" or "horizontal" in space to start with?

>>64651944
You're right, it should be called orthogonal launch.

>>64651878
>does a missile magazine which allows each cell to fire independently without limits to rate of fire bar thermal considerations make sense in space
gee whizz anon I sure wonder, they don't have to be orthogonal either, you can stick one in the "front" of your ship or in the "back", though you'd probably want an armored "nose" so orthogonal cells still probably make the most sense

>>64651878
>Do VLS cells make sense in space?
I think torpedo bays mounted fore and aft make more sense because one of those will be helped by thrust.
Making your launch bays wide instead of deep might assist some designs, it's just a design trade-off sacrificing surface real-estate for internal real-estate of a tube reloading mechanism and torpedo magazine.
The launch cell is a somewhat simpler technology with a smaller footprint and that could well be an influential factor in the design.

>>64652039
>though you'd probably want an armored "nose" so orthogonal cells still probably make the most sense
I think real estate might be contested on the fore and aft, there's a lot of shit you'd want to pack in those areas and not much space to do it.
Lateral faces will have more spare space probably.

>>64651878
>vertical
>in space
Auto fail.

>>64651878
>>64651944
>>64652039
>>64652040
If it's zero-gravity, and there's no aerodynamic drag in space; why would you not have an armoured core and missiles just hanging off the sides?

>>64652039
>armored "nose"
I miss the days of Neb where you could fill your entire bow with crew quarters so you could face tank anything

File: the bug home world is down.jpg (42 KB, 475x282)

42 KB JPG

>>64652044
Obviously Up is towards our own base.
Which makes it a poor choice to point our missiles at really.

>>64652048
>If it's zero-gravity
Zero-G doesn't mean zero physical forces.
Inertia and centrifugal force exist and your design has to accommodate mechanical stresses induced by those.

>and there's no aerodynamic drag in space
Not strictly true, free hydrogen is up to 3 atoms per m3 in deep space but it's much higher in our solar system. When you're going fast enough, even hydrogen atoms pack a bit of a punch, both abrading your forward surfaces and creating a form of drag.
There's also all sorts of loose debris that you need to assume will be around gravity wells and such, basically anywhere worth going in the first place will have the potential for orbital debris, even a lagrange point will have a trash field.
This means that you're designing your space craft as tanks, expecting to take impacts on the forward armour but being able to leave your sides weaker and your rear can be made of glass, at least as far as "atmosphere" is concerned.

>why would you not have an armoured core and missiles just hanging off the sides?
Crew quarters certainly need to be armoured and shielded but whether everything else has to be too has a lot to do with your space craft technology.
Maybe it can be unshielded and in vacuum and your engineers don suits to work there, maybe you want it all pressurised and shielded and they wear onesies. Maybe your tech makes that easy or maybe it's impossible.

>>64652048
You'd do that with the missiles you intend to launch prior to an engagement, but once you're liable to get hit you'd want to prevent sympathetic detonations doubling the effective warhead size of the missile coming in to kill you
>>64652042
That is my point anon, aside from thrusters, point defense guns/lasers and offensive mass drivers "front" would be contested by the bulk if not all of your armor. Any internally stored missiles would be the point-defense kind, minimal mass, minimal volume, requiring external shielding prior to use.
>>64652040
You'd likely heavily armor "torpedoes" and they'd probably be fine just slung on the outside where there's no volume constraints and launched at max range

>No up in space!!!1

Retards never hear of orbital poles.

>>64652082
That's just being pedantic

File: Mk13LauncherDiagram-129418878.png (576 KB, 853x1022)

576 KB PNG

>>64651927
That introduces a complex feed mechanism (weight and reliability) which is the exact reason they were ditched on sea craft to make way for VLS cells. It would also make it more difficult for the missiles to get clear of the spacecraft. There's no air resistance in space, so there's no loss in velocity for being launched perpendicular to the direction of travel. Engagement distances are also so long that the mininal amount of fuel spent turning the missile is inconsequential.

There's no reason to not use VLS.

>>64651927
nerd

File: sage-plant.jpg (177 KB, 700x700)

177 KB JPG

>>64652076
This is the stupidest post on the board. Congratulations and herbs in all fields.

ai posters should be executed btw

>>64652086
Why yes, much easier than adding something insightful.

>>64652082
Poland doesn't even have a space program, retard!

>>64652081
>prevent sympathetic detonations
That's dne before the missile is even built by selecting insensitive explosives and propellants. It's a non issue. Even modern IHE won't sympathetically detonate when packed together and touching. Future bullshit might as well be sand without being internally set off.

>>64652091
>There's no reason to not use VLS.
HLS makes more sense.

>>64652091
>That introduces a complex feed mechanism
By radial launch cell, anon meant that the VLS fires outwards along the radius of the craft's cross-section. Radially. Which some other anon called Orthogonal on roughly the same reasoning.
They didn't mean a turret.

File: UFBS-010 Heimdall.jpg (85 KB, 842x645)

85 KB JPG

>>64651878
It doesn't need to make sense, as long as I can keep a giant wave cannon on the bow, everyone can put whatever they want on the ship

>>64652110
That's not a real acronym, so you're going to have to spell it out. 90° launchers are unquestionably better.

>>64652118
You're right.

>>64652109
Insensitive just means harder to set off not impossible, and often they can still burn quite energetically and explosively once confined. Also I don't know of any insensitive high performance liquid rocket propellant/oxidizer combo

>>64652147
Near fucking impossible. I've worked with IHE munitions and have actually blown them up. A normal, HE 155mm shell takes 1 brick of C4 haphazardly applied externally to set off. The same projectile filled with IHE requires a pyramid of 6 blocks initated from the top to set off, and even then it's possible to just trow chucks of IHE across the range. I've also seen tests where they purposefully drop the 155 on concrete, causing a crack in the IHE filler (verified by xray). When they applied the C4 to detonate it, the explosion stopped at the crack and they were left with a projectile base full of IHE. That tiny crack in the bare HE-to-HE contact was enough to stop the detonation from propagating.

Modern IHE simply does not want to go off. Future materials specced for space travel will be even safer.

File: 2556596778_preview_202207(...).jpg (165 KB, 1216x851)

165 KB JPG

>>64651878
Short answer, yes. There's some issues like not being able to service the missiles from the inside but you gain in practically by not needing to depressurize the cells before launching.
>>64652048
Big risk of the missiles being sandblasted by debris or solar flares.
>>64651891
My Fellow Space Commander.
>>64652053
I mean, you can still kinda do that with Reinforced DC Lockers and arguably it works better due to being tougher.
>>64652091
>There's no reason to not use VLS.
Probably the biggest issue. It works now so why reinvent the wheel?
>>64652119
> a giant wave cannon on the bow,
Alright but the only ships that mount those are destroyers.

>>64652194
You're talking about the warhead, but there's an equally energetic propellant mix in the missile. Modern insensitive solid propellants are a thing, sure, but they still eventually catch fire and burn. Any hypothetical missile will likely have to use liquid propellants for performance and guidance reasons though, and insensitive liquid propellants are just not nearly as easy

>>64651878
why not just fire lumps of ice using co2

>>64652091
>There's no reason to not use VLS.
If yoo, for some reason, need to reduce the amount of external parts and have a requirement to only have a minimal 'gun port', then you'd need something like a single tube with a hatch, and an internal reloading mechanism.

No idea why, but since this is all scifi let's leave it to the authors.

>>64652227
>Any hypothetical missile will likely have to use liquid propellants for performance and guidance reasons
That doesn't follow at all. Liquid fuels introduce a fuck load more maintenance, complexity, and life span issues that don't need to exist. Solid, IHE propellants are also being developed and theres no reason to think that they won't be worked out by the time space cruisers are a thing. At most, the only need for liquid propellants is a limited amount for the kill vehicle's RCS. Even then, it could be replaced by small, solid motors like on the FGM-77 dragon.

>>64652299
Throttleable solids are a meme, for precise intercepts you need at minimum a throttleable liquid rocket. We're talking much longer ranged, variable trajectories, you can't do that with solid fuels alone. Given a non-cooperative target with significant TWR, the missile will also likely need a relightable engine too

Is there any way to overcome the advantage that being able to fire all of your tubes more or less at the same time provides?

>>64652382
Internal weapon stores? It's not really better so much as a different approach.

>>64652270
CO2 gets pretty inefficient. Yeah, it'll kick the ice out of the ship but the war will be over before the ice hits anything. Assuming someone doesn't just nick the ice for reaction mass.

>>64651878
The missile launch orientation doesn't really matter because it will correct its course once clear of the ship and the launch velocity is likely very small compared to the delta v of the missile. Meaning that "VLS cells" are a matter of convenience to allow a ship to have a simple launch mechanism that allows for the rapid fire of the magazine.

>>64652040
Submarine torpedo bays have a much slower launch rate as the tubes are reloaded and the racks of missiles stored inside the magazine are not packed tighter than a VLS array. You also need machanisms to move the missile from storage to the launch tube, which is weight, complexity, and time.

>>64652076
>have an armoured core and missiles just hanging off the sides?
>Crew quarters certainly need to be armoured and shielded but whether everything else has to be too has a lot to do with your space craft technology.
All-or-nothing armor scheme is the obvious answer. Whatever minimum all-round nuclear flash coating is deemed the minimum necessary. Propellent tanks with baffles, sections or self-sealing. Patch drones for repairs. Limited actual kinetic armor for critical systems or umbrella armor to protect a shadow of the ship's volume from a specific defense direction.

>>64652194
Just out of curiosity why would you assume everyone would use simple explosives in space combat when low yield nuclear weapons make vastly more sense? Especially considering how in a scenario where space combat is possible, holding orbital supremacy over a planet is effectively the same as holding air supremacy over a country? Why dink around with something as weak and requiring such relative precision when a 5kt warhead will damage everything within a km, with the added bonus of disrupting enemy comms and sensors for a little while? Why even fuel missiles with conventional fuel at all when you could put a refined nuclear ramjet a la Project Pluto in them? Why would you ever fire at incoming missiles with anything other than a dual stage boosted high yield weapon to ensure maximum kill radius?
>it's going to be like Macross but with nukes

File: Yellowstone, but SPACE.jpg (3.28 MB, 6513x4592)

3.28 MB JPG

>>64651878
Fuck it, I'll post in this thread instead of trying to make a new one. This looks to be the /k/ approved sci-fi thread of the week.

I've been drawing these pictures of space colonies with nature in them for fun. The concept is as follows:

>Artificial planetoid is created by finding a big enough asteroid or building a big structure and covering it with asteroid dirt
>Pylons are put up, major pylons (not pictured) act as space elevators while minor pylons (pictured) are placed in a lattice.
>More mass is added to the planetoid to serve as a mantle/crust, gravitation mass (giant fucking rods of mostly iron) is brought into the core via the space elevators. The pylons are built deep into the planetoid, so they don't crumble as gravitation mass is added.
>a net of electromagnets is strung across the pylons to not only keeps stellar radiation out, but also push against gasses and keep air in (this also keeps the mag-net from sagging and breaking).
>the whole system is adjusted and maintained so that the planetoid can be terraformed and inhabited, so you can have place an earthlike environment in any system you want.

Now, I wish to pose a question: what's the best way to seize control of the colony without destroying it and all the Earthlike goodness growing on it?

>>64652751
>seize control of the colony without destroying it
Infiltrate and subvert economic and political positions of power and socially ostracize anyone who notices.

>>64652751
Blockade it and cut off access to any outside fuel, fertilizer, or ice supplies. It's a stable asteroid, they're not terribly high in fissionables, naturally occurring water, petrochemicals, organic nitrogen compounds, or soil biomass. Without a steady supply they'll eventually run out of one of those things.

I liked your drawing enough to save it BTW.

>>64652751
Blockade, the colony is a closed system with limited resources

What game is this? Nebulous?

>>64652860
Yeah although I got it from googling "VLS space ship"

>>64652727
Nuclear weapons are expensive and tend to have fratricide issues. Nuclear propulsion is also incompatible with warheads because of the radiation causing premature fission.

Would the missile's acceleration capabilities be competitive in space combat, where conditions are favorable for electromagnetic and optical weapons?

>>64652751
>best way to seize the colony without destroying the earthy goodness
Why are we protecting it? It was built, it can be rebuilt. Unless we're talking about some plucky space pirates with no industrial capability.
Can those pylons work horizontally to cut off access to certain areas of the asteroid? If so I'd just hack the pylons and shut them off until you stop getting signs of life in particularly civilized areas then turn them back on when you need boots on the ground.

>>64652727
Nukes have drastically less effectiveness when they don't have an atmosphere to transmit energy though. Space nukes would have to rely on thermal flash or neutron designs meant to kill crews. The second is effective, but cruel and the first isn't nearly as effective as you'd think.

There's also political concerns to worry about. Your neighbors on Earth may not take kindly to you stationing tons of nuclear weapons in orbit. Kinetic weapons don't have those concerns while also affording larger targeted areas.

>nuclear ramjet
There is no air to ram in space. I'm assuming you mean a nuclear thermal rocket, in which case the maintenance and requires cryogenic, liquid fuels. As with ICBMs, solid fuel is just easier.
>5kt within 1km
That's extremely close in terms of space distance.
>orbital supremacy
Anything in low earth orbit is extremely vulnerable to planet based missiles while having a much more limited ability to shoot back. Hanging out in LEO is suicide. Big space craft shooting missiles only make sense in translunar operations.

>>64652751
How big of an artificial planetoid are you making? From what you describe, you're way off in science-fantasy land and answering that kind of stuff is pointless.

>>64653693
Not to mention he doesn't offer a single word to explain why they made this boondoggle instead of a rotating habitat, or a few million, for the same mass.
Hell, why the fuck are they making a magnetic field on site and not making a much smaller satellite producing a magnetic field to shield with its 'shadow'?

>>64653466
>>64653688
Thanks for the effort posts, that makes sense.

>>64653494
>It was built, it can be rebuilt
>>64652751
Depending on the victor's tolerance for repairing the outer shell and replacing lost gas, they could swiss cheese much of the colony to make it unlivable.

The colonists themselves are probably rather hardy and have spacesuit equipment to survive vacuum for extended periods, however, they may be willing to surrender if new king, same as the old king.

>>64652751
The gravitational mass idea sounds completely retarded, unless you use science-fantasy gravity generators or neutronium. To get a surface gravity comparable to Earth's you need an amount of mass comparable to the Earth. If you want to cheap out and get something that's just potentially liveable long term, you have to get a Mars's worth of mass on that planetoid.

If you want it to be hard sci fi, just build O'Neill cylinders inside large asteroids, using the rock for additional shielding like everyone else

>>64653688
could nuclear shaped charges like those in terra invicta work?

>>64652751
>Now, I wish to pose a question: what's the best way to seize control of the colony without destroying it and all the Earthlike goodness growing on it?
long-range mag-net penetrating missiles, with tandem warheads
first stage contains MIRVs which disperse an aerosolised bioweapon over a large area, which exclusively infects humans, intended to wipe out the bulk population whilst keeping other organics intact
second stage contains racks of miniature uavs, with some being designed to deliver a shaped charge to the heads of the survivors, others being designed with logistics in mind, and a larger, more complex drone which functions as a sensor-fusion control suite orchestrating the first two types, which can hijack existing infrastructure and cannibalise in-situ resources to produce more drones
soldiers, drones, and queens, forming hives which use the colony against the colonists

you just keeping pelting the planetoid with hive-forming missiles until there's no-one left, or so few that the arrival of your actual forces have an easy time mopping up

>>64652119
>Heimdall.jpg
You can't fool me, some dev put his tacticooled AR into the game and pasted on some greebles so nobody would notice.
But we did.

the biggest problem with VLS as it is on naval ships is that in space, you're gonna blast all those hot exhaust gases back onto the ship, which is a big nono in space

>>64654038
Anon cold launches are way easier in space

>>64651891
Is there unironically any reason to run anything but a S2 Cello/S2 Axford with S3H Ocello Killers at this point?

From the most recent tournament and some games i played it seems everyone on ANS just either greeds extremely hard on PD or assumes fighters and ruddles will be the biggest missile threat so they just pack SDMs and just enough PD to stop rockets
Protectorate PD is ass in general and the faction is very reliant on softkill and Ocellos to provide PD coverage with Auroras
And apparently a CR75 with 3x signal amplifiers can just burn through any comms jamming normally so you can just run CMD/ARAD backup guidance and be immune to everything but offset jam from escorts. Even Killjoys won't work I think as the CMD track will recognize it's a missile

Any reason why i shouldn't just build 1 CC and 1 CH and then fiddle with optimizing rockets?

>>64654038
The missile turns after launch making the missile exhaust actually offset from the ship. Also literally never a problem because there are a million ways to mitigate what can't be simply ignored.

>>64654201
>competitive pvp drains all the fun out of novel and interesting game mechanics
Tale as old as time

>>64654391
>competitive military tactics drains all the fun out of novel and interesting battles
This goes back to the invention of weapons.

>>64654391
>Sitting at 8km and orbit-dodging while firing guns for the entire match is fun
>Managing cruise strikes and direct salvos across different types of missiles with low magazine depth and coordinating with jamming is not
Hmmm

File: b86bawmer.png (79 KB, 356x208)

79 KB PNG

>>64654201
I have a lot of fun with stealth bombers and fucked up Corktorps. Generally use BSSJ and EO with a range of 5km and maneuv as high as I can crank it. A flight of 4 bombers will dump 8 of those fuckers and that will generally knock out most ships; I find most people playing Protectorate neglect to bring dazzlers. Is it optimal? Probably not. Is it fun when you get the drop on a Cello from behind a small rock turn its hull into goatse? You bet.

>>64651878
How is Nebulous anyway? I wanna get into it, but I heard that you can ONLY play Multiplayer, and that everyone that plays multiplayer has a thousand hours and that any fun you can have as a new player has been completely optimized out of the game.
It looks so cool, but I fucking hate competitive games. I just wanna relax and dick around with semi-realistic ships in space

>>64655486
There's no singleplayer Campaign...yet. However, you can play matches against the computer as much as you want in Skirmish mode.

>>64655562
Is the Skirmish mode at least half decent, or is it one of those games where the AI is completely braindead?

>>64655580
Hard Mode AI is better than some players. Mind, there are some Very stupid players but it's at least competent.

>>64655588
Alright, I might check it out then. My biggest fear was there was NO single player at ALL, including a skirmish mode, and that you could only play multiplayer.
I might at least give it a shot then. Thanks, Anon

>>64651878
you mean like putting missile in canisters instead of some kind of a reloading system?
honestly i think they'll just be strapped to the outside of military spacecraft with a simple latch mechanism holding them in place. maybe with some redundancy where the strut holding the middle can pyrotechnically detach if the latch japms.


there's really no reason for complicated mechanisms for missiles beyond the ability to rigidly attach/detach. unless you're using missiles that you fuel up before launching like ones with crygenic fuels of something that the missile cant hold long term.


i think even in such a case you could have a small missile airlock and an arm to grab them and launch them

>>64655486

>>64655710
Gives them protection from space weather and enemy lasers.

>>64651878
Not the way they are depected in your pic.
They do make sense in external missile pods where they can vent out the back and don't fuck up your maneuvering.
Just call them launch cells or missile pods though, vertical only makes sense when you know where up is.

>>64655486
Honestly I only started playing last year and I found the community was pretty alright for newcomers. Everyone starts at the same rank of Midshipman (or "Middie"), and during my time I'd have
>people offering to swap teams with me so I could be on one with higher veterancy
>teams letting me experiment with ships/play styles so I could get in a groove; weren't getting aggro about a noob ruining their ratios
>people pointing me to helpful ship templates for the styles I wanted to play
Multiplayer and the playerbase are generally pretty forgiving when it comes to new players. I think a lot of the issue is (and this is the mistake I'd make myself) when you're getting the hang of it was that you tend to focus more on just making single beefed out ship that as soon as it dies you're just spectating. It's a valid strat, mind, but while you're still learning it can be a bit rough losing your only ship 5 minutes into a match.
But if you do decide to dip your toes into multiplayer, anon, it would be an honor to die alongside you in the cold vacuum of space (as I have done hundreds of times before)

>>64655904
I'll definitely give it a shot. It's on sale now so it's perfect.
I usually just go by what the Steam reviews say, and all the top ones are pretty negative about the community and complaints about sweats.
Given the fact there's like 80 players online at any given time, I'm sure I'll see you there soon enough lol

>>64655236
ur build sucks lol

>>64655915
>I'm sure I'll see you there soon enough lol
Always good to fight alongside a fellow /k/ommando
But I'll also apologize in advance if we are on opposite sides because I'm >>64655236
So if you see a bunch of torpedos heading for your ship all labeled "Sorry :(" (you can customize your missile names too), well, that was me lmao
But also if this threads still up I can post some of my templates (i can catbox them, they are just JSON files) if you want. They're not great, I focus more on wacky combos rather than meta

>>64656058
It does and I don't care. I play vidya to have fun

File: Mk-26-missile-launcher-003.jpg (359 KB, 1200x1057)

359 KB JPG

>>64651878
Arm launcher bros we will return to glory!

>>64653993
>covering a space!city you want to take over in bioweapons
do you have brain damage?

No.
There's no drag or gravity in space, which means that the safest configuration for a missile is to face opposite your likely vector while engaging the enemy.
If you expect to engage the enemy while flying backwards to keep distance, point missiles forward.
If you expect to mostly try to close distance, face missiles backwards.
This means that any missiles that fail to light the propellant will naturally travel away from the ship as opposed to being armed and trying to move closer to the ship (that's you, you're on the ship).

>>64654201
weird to see people talking about my build LOL, the kj timing is really rough (around 0.3 seconds at 6.5k) and its unsoftkillable at 5k~ish. one of the tourney players was playing with 3x spc ss6 with 1 dl? per salvo and that pens better than ss8, altho cringes the internals way too hard for how hard backline grums s2cello

>>64656126
You sound like one of the sweats the steam reviews were talking about

>>64656109
I always liked how The Expanse did torps.
https://youtu.be/XuqEX1PnG9I?t=5

>>64655599
There's a coop campaign in the works
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05rc5j9QxAA

>>64656245
I thought the campaign was canceled, what happened to that?

>>64656058
>50k damage
>one bomber loss
>Sucks
Obvious troll is obvious.

>>64656163
It's like Honor Harrington but a smaller scale.

>>64656280
The CONQUEST MODE was canceled. Basically, calculating the dynamic orbits got too complicated so Lys axed it.

Campaign is basically just a mission pack but it's still coming.

>>64656280
Conquest mode was axed, campaign is being developed
Conquest was just bigger multiplayer skirmish on a system-scale and apparently was a nightmare to develop/balance/make fun so it got shitcanned.
Campaign is coming along nicely and planned to release early Q2 2026.
But the dev miscommunicated and everyone assumed conquest=campaign so a part of the community got really pissy about it and they won't get over it no matter how much you explain it.
>>64656126
Okay i'm mostly up to speed with the meta but don't grasp the SPC shorthand, care to explain my brother?
I'm currently fidgeting around with a salvo size 9 Ocello with either a Cluster decoy launcher S2 and/or a normal decoy launcher S2 in the salvo depending how spiky the target is. Seems to pen very nicely, i'm routinely gutting beamstones and smaller with 1x salvo especially with how greedy and skeletal ANS tends to run them.
Altough i struggled hard when i ran across a BB with 2x PD Sprinter escort which put up so much flak i couldn't get a hit until they got degraded by other assets. Not sure what i could have done there but i doubt anything but a S3H would have gotten through.

>>64651878
Who puts VLS cells in the aft of the ship behind the bridge wtf?

>>64656406
The front mounts are for giant space gun turrets, obviously. Then you can absorb incoming 450mm HE fire with the bow and return fire with your own guns while the fragile VLS cells remain protected by the Axford's enormous armoured hips.

Why yes, Nebulous is pretty goofy when you look into the details of it. It got a bunch of media attention a while back as an expanse-like game, but in reality it is a cold war naval mashup in spaaaaaace that takes UI cues from Homeworld.

File: 1280px-Etienne-Louis_Boul(...).jpg (467 KB, 1280x907)

467 KB JPG

>>64653693
3,000 kilometers in diameter or less. Mars-sized to Luna-sized. There have to be consessions in regards to scale.
>>64653781
>why
Because the point of space habitation is to get people out of the space submarine and onto something that can let them feel wind blowing through their hair.
>why the fuck are they making a magnetic field on site and not making a much smaller satellite producing a magnetic field to shield with its 'shadow'?
Because the sattlite would have to be close enough that it'd end up being held up by a pylon anyway, or it would have to generate enough of a field against the sun's rays that it would experience the fun parts of Newton's laws while being in a synchronous orbit with the object you don't want your unintentional solar-sailor slamming into.
>>64653940
>If you want it to be hard sci fi, just build O'Neill cylinders inside large asteroids
But I don't want kilometer long panes of glass and systems of mirrors to keep my colony lit, I want fancy pictures of megastructures lit in the gentle blues and yellows of dawn and set ablaze in the orange, red and purple of twillight.

>>64652057
wouldn't you have an "up" based on the poles of the systems star? Everything will be in the same orbit, right? North will always be up. Everything should align to the star.

>>64651878
Space warfare with aliens is just going to be me and birdy letting you. Our bodies will be absolutely insane at that point. The creator will have made us Gods that give you special "tech" that defies the laws of physics. You guys just think it's super high tech stuff but we are just manipulating the simulation to make you think that. because we like you.

>>64656756
>Because the point of space habitation is to get people out of the space submarine and onto something that can let them feel wind blowing through their hair.
A rotating habitat with 1g from centrifugal force will more closely replicate Earth
>Because the sattlite would have to be close enough that it'd end up being held up by a pylon anyway, or it would have to generate enough of a field against the sun's rays that it would experience the fun parts of Newton's laws while being in a synchronous orbit with the object you don't want your unintentional solar-sailor slamming into.
This does not counteract the downside of being orders of magnitude more power and material to generate the field around what you want to protect.
IIRC it was calculated you could shield Mars as well as Earth is artificially with like 60 tons of copper at a Lagrange point.

>>64656400
spc -> strike planning center
you can pen the pd of TF Oak (the starter) with salvo size 6 buffed by 3 SPC, mixed salvo one cmd/d one cmd/ssj (or cmd/d again) two cmd/hoj two cmd/sah; you can pen side-on with 2x blankets for standoff jam + ss8 1 cmd/d 1 cmd/ssj 3 cmd/hoj 3 cmd/sah. if you're in the main discord for the game you can ask in the shipyard chat, someone will show you the most effective build lol
as for the bb... adding extra decoys in the salvo will give you better pd pen against flak. s2cello's greatest weakness is salvo size and density, so penaids are more important than, say, a rolloff liner or WSB, so you're on the right track with adding decoys

>>64656777
>wouldn't you have an "up"
Don't pretend you don't know where down is.

File: 1759297612691732.jpg (124 KB, 1200x800)

124 KB JPG

>>64655734
i dont think thats a concern you would not make missiles where wether could permanently do any damage to them because then they wont work in an actual fight.

as for protection your important surface mounted systems would be guns,radar,telescopes and protection would probably be handled by a big shield (think something shaped like an umbrella and held on a small robotic arm so it can be pointed in any direction relative to the ship). you'd wanna use shields for stealth anyway. but it makes sense to have a laser-protection layer under the stealth top layer.

there's already versions of this in orbit with inflatable stealth shields but i feel like that was mostly done because thats the easiest way to deploy it

>>64651878
Realistic space combat would be beam weapons and relativistic mass drivers. The Apollo spacecraft of the 60s moved at 25,000 mph. In the future, we would probably move even faster. So you have two ships moving fuck fast in 3D space. Space is yuuge. You need to detect the enemy ship while trying your best to hide your signature from him. If you managed to do this, you only have a few seconds to fire your lazer or mass driver before he flies out of range. Missiles are too slow for this kind of warfare.

>>64657068
Thanks anon, i added more SPC's to both my Ocello and Axford, replaced the missiles using self jammers with more decoys and placed the jammer on the ships themselves.
Will test more in the evening when people are actually on to play against, but in the testing range the overall mixture seems to pen much better when put against TF Oak and the 2x Ocello OSP one i forget the name of.

Still unhappy with the magazne depth on the axford - Ocelokillers cost a fuckton and eat a lot of the missile budget. But I will fuck around and maybe tweak them a bit more to hopefully be 5pts less expensive at least.
Current loadout is EO/Cruise/2xRadar Absorbtive coating but i see a lot of people running radar seekers and decoys on their which might be more optimal and i'm not convinced how actually effective the radar coating is.

>>64657990
>radar coating
IIRC you used to be able to make some absolutely disgusting high speed S3H that were almost undetectable until they hit visual range, but I don't think that play works anymore