XXXX games

[Frank]

EXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate space games. You know, Elite, Masters of Orion, Privateer and Freelancer (on a smaller, first person point of view scale) and such.

While the economic, storyline and political part of those games are generally reasonably well done, most of the flying around and battling in space is more alike a pre-computer WWII jet fighters simulation, or a graphical spreadsheet calculation that completely disregards things like distances involved. Very few of them offer something that is even a bit like how real combat in space might be.

How would a real space battle look like, for example when we went out in our Einsteinian ships and happened onto some nasty or otherwise aliens that fought back? Or even when different fractions in our solar system met, trigger happy?

 

[Npl]

EXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate space games. You know, Elite, Masters of Orion, Privateer and Freelancer (on a smaller, first person point of view scale) and such.

While the economic, storyline and political part of those games are generally reasonably well done, most of the flying around and battling in space is more alike a pre-computer WWII jet fighters simulation, or a graphical spreadsheet calculation that completely disregards things like distances involved. Very few of them offer something that is even a bit like how real combat in space might be.

How would a real space battle look like, for example when we went out in our Einsteinian ships and happened onto some nasty or otherwise aliens that fought back? Or even when different fractions in our solar system met, trigger happy?

Have you played Frontier? IMHO thats just about it would work like. The main culprit are the distances and the velocities, for "close combat", either you approach a ship relatively slowly or you accelerate so you dont have to wait as much, but then you catch up and pass the enemy and you have to accelerate towards him again. Thanks God Frontier had an Autopilot that could level your speed to the enemy.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Battlecruiser 300.... oh wait, nevermind.

A friend of mine was hooked on a game years ago called, I think, Homefront or Homeworld? Something like that anyway. From looking over his shoulder I would guess it went into the spreadsheet category?

Well, parsec might have been interesting had it ever been completed. I really liked the idea of a stargate type universe where each gate jumped you to another server... sort of had a UT type of feel to it, but in space, and with a sort of graphical server browser.

Shame it died.

 

[Frank]

Yes. But mostly, I think that you would only be able to direct such a thing on a strategic scale, and let your computers and other hardware care about the tactical thing. Which is probably why it isn't done at all. An attack in space would most likely take days or longer, and taking decisions in a very abstract way well in advance.

Fire a drone, that would accelerate slowly (stealthily) towards the likely position of an enemy, transmit an intelligence update every so often, and when it get's close, it releases all the destructive hardware it has, while you line up the target with your fusion drive.

Or something like that. But never close combat at all. What would be the point? Launch some heavy nukes instead.

Immobile objects are nearly invisible in space, so getting close to something important would probably not be advisable.



In either case, there is no manual flying, aiming or whatever involved, for whatever reason. You would be reduced to expanding plasma long before.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

You need to play Warhead, Independence War, Independence War 2, or maybe even Terminus. They all did Newtonian physics combat far better than Freelancer or Frontier.

 

[Frank]

You need to play Warhead, Independence War, Independence War 2, or maybe even Terminus. They all did Newtonian physics combat far better than Freelancer or Frontier.

I'm looking out for IW2. It's very hard to get, though. While probably still very arcady and limited in scope, that seems to be the best one.

How would you envision a real, future space battle?

 

[DemoCoder]

A real battle would be beyond visual range. Capital ships would never come close enough to see one another, and it's unlikely even fighters would exist. Realistically, given plausible technology (unlike Trek where ships fly so close together in space they almost touch), battles would be conducted over long range using nuclear or conventional missiles, and simply be a case of overloading a capital ship's defenses.

Ask yourself what a real Naval Battle looked like in WW2, such as the Battle of Midway. It didn't involve Carriers and Battleships going toe-to-toe. It involved long range scouts, figher/bombers, and subs.

The space equivalent of a "sub" getting in close for a killshot is a cloaked/stealthed ship.

Anyway, suffice it to say that most real-time 3D space games have it wrong.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

I'm looking out for IW2. It's very hard to get, though. While probably still very arcady and limited in scope, that seems to be the best one.

It's not arcadey or limited in scope. It does full six degree of freedom newtonian physics with a bit of tweaking of the scales to make it more approachable. You can enable the computer assist that makes the ship fly a bit more like a plane (within the physics boundaries), or turn it off and use the advantages of fighting in all dimensions.

There's even a mod you can get that unlocks all the gates and lets you trade and fight in free roaming mode. It's a classic.

How would you envision a real, future space battle?

At non-relatavistic speeds, probably run by ultra high accelerating drones/missiles for attack (either concussive, nuclear or plain old kinetic), and energy weapons or high firing rate kinetic rounds for defensive fire and (the unlikely event) of close range combat.

 

[Frank]

A real battle would be beyond visual range. Capital ships would never come close enough to see one another, and it's unlikely even fighters would exist. Realistically, given plausible technology (unlike Trek where ships fly so close together in space they almost touch), battles would be conducted over long range using nuclear or conventional missiles, and simply be a case of overloading a capital ship's defenses.

Ask yourself what a real Naval Battle looked like in WW2, such as the Battle of Midway. It didn't involve Carriers and Battleships going toe-to-toe. It involved long range scouts, figher/bombers, and subs.

The space equivalent of a "sub" getting in close for a killshot is a cloaked/stealthed ship.

Anyway, suffice it to say that most real-time 3D space games have it wrong.

Yes, I agree. Although I think drones would fill most roles, like the "sub" equivalent. And things like smart, semi-mobile mines, scouts that turn into kinetic suicide missiles, etc. Very few humans would be involved in the actual fighting, unless one of the capital ships get hit. And I think that reducing the hardware that does the actual fighting would prompt surrender or diplomacy.

 

[Frank]

It's not arcadey or limited in scope. It does full six degree of freedom newtonian physics with a bit of tweaking of the scales to make it more approachable. You can enable the computer assist that makes the ship fly a bit more like a plane (within the physics boundaries), or turn it off and use the advantages of fighting in all dimensions.

There's even a mod you can get that unlocks all the gates and lets you trade and fight in free roaming mode. It's a classic.

Ok, I'll look some more for it.

At non-relatavistic speeds, probably run by ultra high accelerating drones/missiles for attack (either concussive, nuclear or plain old kinetic), and energy weapons or high firing rate kinetic rounds for defensive fire and (the unlikely event) of close range combat.

And don't forget lasers and engines! If the "tube" is long enough, and/or the focussing good enough, those are (near) lightspeed and have almost unlimited range. Although you would want spotters for targeting.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Ok, I'll look some more for it.

There's a few second hand on Amazon UK, so they are about.

And don't forget lasers and engines! If the "tube" is long enough, and/or the focussing good enough, those are (near) lightspeed and have almost unlimited range. Although you would want spotters for targeting.

Problem with that is it compromises your ability to steer, and lights you up to everyone else around you. Plus your engine is not going to have unlimited range.

 

[Frank]

Problem with that is it compromises your ability to steer, and lights you up to everyone else around you.

Absolutely.

Plus your engine is not going to have unlimited range.

That very much depends on the type of engine. If it emits a tight beam of particles close to c in a vacuum, it might reach a very long way. Dispersion is the killer in both cases, of course. But your engine is most likely the most powerful beam weapon you have around.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Absolutely.


That very much depends on the type of engine. If it emits a tight beam of particles close to c in a vacuum, it might reach a very long way. Dispersion is the killer in both cases, of course. But your engine is most likely the most powerful beam weapon you have around.

Does that help you when your target is sitting tens or hundreds of millions of miles away and has seeded the space around you with drones armed with nukes waiting for a target - like an enemy engine?

The problem with any beam weapon (even the huge one you are using as an engine) is that you have to get relatively close to your target when most engagements will probably happen light seconds or minutes apart.

 

[Frank]

Does that help you when your target is sitting tens or hundreds of millions of miles away and has seeded the space around you with drones armed with nukes waiting for a target - like an enemy engine?

The problem with any beam weapon (even the huge one you are using as an engine) is that you have to get relatively close to your target when most engagements will probably happen light seconds or minutes apart.

Agreed. Drones it is.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Agreed. Drones it is.

Yeah, when you're in space and talking about newtonian combat over large distances, velocity and acceleration is the key, and for that you can't have soft squishy pilots involved. You can't even really use them via telepresence unless you can deal with the communications lag.

 

[Frank]

It all boils down to strategy, lucky guesses, and who has the best intelligence and hardware. Or very much of both.

 

[Arwin]

Warhead was great. One of the few games I actually finished. Also introduced the concept of the fish-eye lense to me.

You can play it for free now using Steem, the Atari ST emulator, on the PC, or even on the PSP if you have a hohmebrewable version using Castaway (easy to get these days with the new downdater).

But you better use STeem on the PC, because that game really needed the mouse and keyboard for accurate control. It wasn't easy, but it gave you a great sense of immersion, not in the least because it never felt like it was a game, in the sense that things were dumbed down in any significant way.

Loved it.

 

[Guden Oden]

At non-relatavistic speeds, probably run by ultra high accelerating drones/missiles for attack (either concussive, nuclear or plain old kinetic), and energy weapons or high firing rate kinetic rounds for defensive fire and (the unlikely event) of close range combat.

Now where have I heard all that before?

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Now where have I heard all that before?

Oh it's been used by all sorts of SF authors. Jack Haldeman in the Forever War, Vernor Vinge in "Realtime", etc. Heck, the US has been designing drone and telepresence aircraft just so they can take the physical limitiations of the pilot out of the equation. Even a cruise missile isn't that far off from being a semi autonomous drone.

 

[Frank]

For all current fighter planes, the pilot is the main bottleneck.

For many years, commercial jet liners can take off, fly and land completely on autopilot. It's mostly that for the public perception (and probably pilots liking to fly them and wanting to keep their jobs) that there is a pilot in the cockpit.

Even worse: most well recorded flight disasters of the last century with state of the art planes were due to the pilot fighting the computer. Cutting the pilot out of the loop is the best thing that can be done at the moment to make flights safer...

And robot planes don't disagree strongly against becoming a kamikaze plane. With the vastly increased flight dynamics and target retention electronics (ie. the smart computers), simple kinetic kills (hitting the target head on) have become the most reliable way to take it out.

Unmanned planes can be much smaller and simpler. And if faillure is an option as well, vastly cheaper. You get much more, without the possibility of bad propaganda (pilots killed). Win/win!



For space, you have to add the vast communications lag and the improbability of rescueing pilots out on engagement. You can, at most, give general strategic instructions and let the plane/drone figure out what to do. You don't want to hamper it by putting a human inside. And how do you get that human inside in the first place when it's almost certain he/she won't survive the encounter?