Am I the only one who thinks it would be nice if space was a bit 3D?

[Me_]

It's something that's always bothered me about Star Destroyers - they are not ships in the sea and yet, they all face the same way "up" and "down". Only small ships actually turn "around" or "to the side" of the standard way.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d9/ImperialstarDestroyer480ppx.png
Why are all of those ships the same way up?

I guess it might be shocking to see a Space Dragon come at you "belly-up", buut in space there is absolutely no reasone why it wouldn't. There is no sea-surface for it to rise out of, so there is no real up or down.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

While a nice thought, I don't think it'd serve any intuitive purpose given the gamespace is an effectively 2D, flat plane.

Leave subjective ups and downs to games that can properly simulate it, like Kerbal or Space Engineers.

 

[LordMagus]

Aside from aesthetics, it's the way the shielding and armouring is designed, as well as the locations of the guns. That means you face and fly a certain way.

 

[grommile]

Why are all of those ships the same way up?

Genre conventions.

 

[GloatingSwine]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d9/ImperialstarDestroyer480ppx.png
Why are all of those ships the same way up?

So that the command ship can give navigational orders relative to itself and every ship in the fleet can follow them effectively

 

[Elimdur]

"Am I the only one" ...who thinks that "Am I the only one" posts get kind of old pretty fast?

But on the topic: I also think the ship design is a bit weird for vessels in space - having all the weapons on the upper side of the hull...

 

[Zarathustra_the]

"Am I the only one" ...who thinks that "Am I the only one" posts get kind of old pretty fast?

But on the topic: I also think the ship design is a bit weird for vessels in space - having all the weapons on the upper side of the hull...

But that is design choice, remember Star Destroyers are designed for warfare against planets, a large hanger facilitates this. sure, raw bombardment means you redirect the angle of the ship, but much like the battleship bombardment, all the weapons on top with the hangers beneath is more about simultaneous and combined operations.

 

[The Founder]

But that is design choice, remember Star Destroyers are designed for warfare against planets, a large hanger facilitates this. sure, raw bombardment means you redirect the angle of the ship, but much like the battleship bombardment, all the weapons on top with the hangers beneath is more about simultaneous and combined operations.

There is also the part that a hangar is basically a giant hole in your hull. You really do not want it point towards the enemy.
The clone wars venator class cruisers had exactly that designflaw: Hangar on the topside.

But on the topic: I also think the ship design is a bit weird for vessels in space - having all the weapons on the upper side of the hull...

You have to focus your guns and armor on some side. If you build a sphere ship that has the same weapon and armor into every direction, you are outmaneuvered and -produced by enemies that did not make that mistake. Full Coverage is only interesting for AA/Antifighter weapons.
A AA/AF Ship can have much more, much smaler guns. And much weaker armor, considering what will be shoot at it (extremely armorpiercing weapons and small guns). But as a result is vulnerable to enemy big ships.

 

[dying0d]

There is also the part that a hangar is basically a giant hole in your hull. You really do not want it point towards the enemy.
The clone wars venator class cruisers had exactly that designflaw: Hangar on the topside.


You have to focus your guns and armor on some side. If you build a sphere ship that has the same weapon and armor into every direction, you are outmaneuvered and -produced by enemies that did not make that mistake. Full Coverage is only interesting for AA/Antifighter weapons.
A AA/AF Ship can have much more, much smaler guns. And much weaker armor, considering what will be shoot at it (extremely armorpiercing weapons and small guns). But as a result is vulnerable to enemy big ships.

Don't forget spherical ships increase surface area relative polyhedron design shapes making anti ship weapons more effective as there is more area to hit.

This plays into build cost, and also increases cost for aa machinations as there will be more to cover aa wise than a smaller, more arrow like design(as lost Sci fi uses arrow shapes and such, or star trek style bubble arrows)

And others are right, fleets move relative a command ship, and that means it decides what is "up" concerning it's fleet. This is for both tactical and strategic reasons (easier cic, quicker decision and maneuver coordination in response to enemy fleet movements and weapons targeting)

 

[SadeRat]

I would like to see fleets arrayed across an advancing 3D surface rather than a flat formation of rows and columns- visually. Imagine a chevron two or three ships deep and 15 ships wide, stacked five high. Or perhaps you could visualize the formation as a small segment of the surface of an imaginary sphere. The ships would still all be right-side up and the gamespace would still be 2D, I just think it would be a neat way to present fleets. It would add some visual depth to battles. It would also make it easier for Devs and modders to give us more control over when various ships in our fleet reach firing range. I'm tired of fighting half a battle with half my fleet still out of range because they were in the back when the battle started.

 

[dying0d]

I would like to see fleets arrayed across an advancing 3D surface rather than a flat formation of rows and columns- visually. Imagine a chevron two or three ships deep and 15 ships wide, stacked five high. Or perhaps you could visualize the formation as a small segment of the surface of an imaginary sphere. The ships would still all be right-side up and the gamespace would still be 2D, I just think it would be a neat way to present fleets. It would add some visual depth to battles. It would also make it easier for Devs and modders to give us more control over when various ships in our fleet reach firing range. I'm tired of fighting half a battle with half my fleet still out of range because they were in the back when the battle started.

Yep. I'd love to at least have planar formations, like sots 2 did. But that would also mean there would need to be rework on combat to make that meaningful

 

[Nyarlathotep78]

Why are all of those ships the same way up?

Well, wouldn´t it be a bit confusing if somone reports a contact on "starboard" or "eleven o´clock" if it would be otherwise?

 

[Me_]

Well, wouldn´t it be a bit confusing if somone reports a contact on "starboard" or "eleven o´clock" if it would be otherwise?

Wut? Starboard as well as is based on where something is relative to your ship, so no, it would not be. It would mean exactly the same thing. And using a clock makes no sense if something may just as easily be above or below you.

Not to mention that no sensible spaceship pilot would use 2-D relative positions.

But that is design choice, remember Star Destroyers are designed for warfare against planets, a large hanger facilitates this. sure, raw bombardment means you redirect the angle of the ship, but much like the battleship bombardment, all the weapons on top with the hangers beneath is more about simultaneous and combined operations.

Um, that is expanded universe stuff. In movies they are clearly mostly used for space combat in which case they should attack with their belly towards the enemy, as the belly is where most of the guns seem to be.

So that the command ship can give navigational orders relative to itself and every ship in the fleet can follow them effectively

Wut? Are you telling me that in the far future noone will have read Ender's Game? And people would still think in nautical terms, even though the age of sail will be long over. The coordinades they would use would be transferred via a computer and either:
all positions would be set based on a pre-determined single point or
all positions would be given relative to your ship along with the receiving ship's positions relative to you - for a computer recalculating that to position relative to the receiving ship is less than a blink.

Genre conventions.

Yeah, I know. Still, silly as heck.

Aside from aesthetics, it's the way the shielding and armouring is designed, as well as the locations of the guns. That means you face and fly a certain way.

Nope. Weapons and shields are positions where you want them and someone wants them to be postitioned that silly way. If everyone used this single-minded design, then a single ship that would subvert it could destroy an entire fleet, which is why noone would actually build ALL ships that way (only specialized ones). It would be forgivable to have a ship class with this design (say, Star Destroyers), but to use this design for entire fleet makes it vulnerable to a methaphorical single photon torpedo strike.

 

[dying0d]

In star trek, they use the star as the origin in system, and the term mark to denote angle relative the age of sail 2d plane the ship is on to denote positions of other things and systems they travel to.

And everything else is conjecture, as we can't even imagine what other species may utilize as far as combat/navigation or even design.

As for canonical star wars, the underside was heavily armed and armored, while the top side was mostly aa stuff on star destroyers. Most the heavy hitting turbo lasers were mounted along the outer edges and bottom of the ship, presumably as the few scenes depicting the big guns shooting showed that much heavier fire was coming from these regions. It also makes sense given they "hid" the bridge on the "top" of one, away from major fire and using the Shields and armor of the ship to occluded direct fire from other ships.

As far as stellaris, or gaming convention on this, it is not something easily included in the game, and would be for more advanced players who can handle 2 dimensional geometry. Ie space shooters such as the x series and the like that are meant to simulate this kind of thing.

This is a strategy game and the amount of complexity adding an extra axis would add would be immense, which is why the turn based cousin of this game SotS, used planes instead of a full blown model. For battles to be both tactical in nature, and utilizing all 3 available axis', would be a nightmare in the scope of what you have to manage in this game. It would mean battles would have to be instanced and run seperately somehow from the galaxy map as they run now


All that being said, I'd like more use of the third axis on the galaxy map as far as placement of systems are concerned. If the rest of the battle stuff is doable (tactical 3 axis battles) also would be cool. But it has its drawbacks as well

 

[The Founder]

Um, that is expanded universe stuff. In movies they are clearly mostly used for space combat in which case they should attack with their belly towards the enemy, as the belly is where most of the guns seem to be.

The belly has the hangar hole. And hte bridge officer would have no way to watch the combat. Not one military or civilian ship in use right now puts the navigation bridge into the ship, where there is no way to look outside.

Wut? Are you telling me that in the far future noone will have read Ender's Game? And people would still think in nautical terms, even though the age of sail will be long over. The coordinades they would use would be transferred via a computer and either:

Nope, in the Distant PAST of Star Wars, nobody read or watched Enders Game. Because it did not exist yet.

Nope. Weapons and shields are positions where you want them and someone wants them to be postitioned that silly way.

So that tanks have the strongest armor in the front and turret, the weakest at the bottom, top and and is just a "silly design"?
Or could it be that decades of tank warfare and warfare preparations have reavealed that to be the most ideal armor placement for open warfare?

So the design is bad against IED's and mines? Well, duh! It was never designed to counter those.
We need to make a new design that is better suited for that. What, that design sucks for open warfare? Well, duh again! Same reason, different direction.

Every tank, every helicopter, every ship and every soldiers bodyarmor is designed by the same principles:
Strongst defenses in the direction you are facting the enemy fire from. Wich will likely be the direction you will fire towards too. Ideally that should be one direction - the front.
Because armoring both sides as heavy just ends up doubling the weight and material for the same protection.

 

[Almond_Brown]

A ship is built with a Floor, a Ceiling and Walls. There orientation has to be set such that if you wish your ship to travel upside down at some point, the ceiling will have to be the same as a Floor.

Even with artificial gravity in place, who the hell wants to be walking on the walls of a ship, or be sitting sideways at their work station, unless everything rotates independently, an overly complex and likely expensive addition for designers for sure, of the axis of travel...

 

[dying0d]

The belly has the hangar hole. And hte bridge officer would have no way to watch the combat. Not one military or civilian ship in use right now puts the navigation bridge into the ship, where there is no way to look outside.


Nope, in the Distant PAST of Star Wars, nobody read or watched Enders Game. Because it did not exist yet.


So that tanks have the strongest armor in the front and turret, the weakest at the bottom, top and and is just a "silly design"?
Or could it be that decades of tank warfare and warfare preparations have reavealed that to be the most ideal armor placement for open warfare?

So the design is bad against IED's and mines? Well, duh! It was never designed to counter those.
We need to make a new design that is better suited for that. What, that design sucks for open warfare? Well, duh again! Same reason, different direction.

Every tank, every helicopter, every ship and every soldiers bodyarmor is designed by the same principles:
Strongst defenses in the direction you are facting the enemy fire from. Wich will likely be the direction you will fire towards too. Ideally that should be one direction - the front.
Because armoring both sides as heavy just ends up doubling the weight and material for the same protection.

You beat me to what I was going to mention, that design isn't solely about where things are wanted/ought to be.

Ship design in this regard, would factor in materials and efficiency as well, unlike in the video game world where resources are near infinite, reality isn't like that. And to use as few resources to achieve maximum effectiveness be the goal.

Be that full 360 degree coverage of weapons(would place and design their mounts in a way to use the fewest possible to achieve this) or the more plausible outcome, ships specialized for roles, as to make efficient use of energy generation and fuel on board. Ships designed akin to destroyers to swat out fighters and bombers, maybe dedicated anti missile ships, dedicated missile ships themselves (because let's be real, missiles are probably the most accurate space weapon that we as humans would use, we have targeting and guidance down to a science itself, we just have to make em space borne and increase yields) dedicated carriers and gunships as well.

Not saying there wouldn't be a capital ship that's capable of many of these roles on their own, just in terms of marterial usage, this is how you getaximized results with minimal material, Highly specialized ships, which is the continuation of your point on tank armor, but in space.

There is left out fleet tenders, and tankers that keep ships remotely Susie's, because space is big ya know... and adding habitat stuff would make a military vessel all that less efficient, so ships that are solely designed to grow food/process waste, make water in space, process and store fuel, ammunition/batteries/whatever else would be needed, are also a concern.

 

[dying0d]

A ship is built with a Floor, a Ceiling and Walls. There orientation has to be set such that if you wish your ship to travel upside down at some point, the ceiling will have to be the same as a Floor.

Even with artificial gravity in place, who the hell wants to be walking on the walls of a ship, or be sitting sideways at their work station, unless everything rotates independently, an overly complex and likely expensive addition for designers for sure, of the axis of travel...

Wouldn't gravity make that relative? You just define what the inside of the ship is, and artificial gravity would enforce it, so that floors will always be floors, no matter ship orioentation?

 

[The Founder]

Wouldn't gravity make that relative? You just define what the inside of the ship is, and artificial gravity would enforce it, so that floors will always be floors, no matter ship orioentation?

Not entirely. There more you override natural order, the more work that antigravity system will have to do near a natural gravity well. And the wierder it will get if you are loosing Artificial gravity while near a natural source.
KISS - keep it simple, stupid. One of the most important rules of design.

 

[rcasale]

"Am I the only one" ...who thinks that "Am I the only one" posts get kind of old pretty fast?

But on the topic: I also think the ship design is a bit weird for vessels in space - having all the weapons on the upper side of the hull...

I believe the ship designs make perfect sense. You can present the armored 'top' towards the enemy, while keeping the vulnerable exposed components protected on the 'bottom' (such as radiators and other sci fi doo dads). Because of the ranges involved (especially in Stellaris) space battles are effectively 2d. The enemy fleet is just some random point in the distance.