.png){kind=avatar}
Energy vs Ballistic
- Thread starter Daekeyas
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Lasers do technically spread as a result of passing through a medium but this is insignificant outside an atmosphere.
- 4
Even a fraction of a degree is significant over hundreds of thousands or even millions of km:
Lasers do not have infinite effective range for weapons application, as explained by Ham and others here.
Photons act as both a particle and a wave, and focusing enough energy into a beam so that it damages a target doesn't mean the photons are stacked one particle next to each other. Some common experiments with this concerned whether light was a wave or a photon, so they put light through an aperture or opening with gold, and checked the target background.
Any kind of focus crystal or tech that makes a coherent beam that applies damage to a target, tends to also over focus. Meaning the more the light is forced to converge to a point or line, the more they separate out as distance increases. So you could maybe put a flash light beam out at higher distances, but even the best LED flashlights at full focus, will bloom to large square radius the farther away it hits the target.
The more you force the light beam to converge, the more it will diverge after a certain point. Even if people could make a parallel beam of photons stacked in a line, parallel to each other in a line, the stream of photons would still split off and do its own thing as it travels.
As for high particle physics... you don't really need that background. Just get a flash light and shine it through an aperture, focus and de focus it and test it at 1 meter, 5 meters, and 10 meters for the radius of effect and illuminated surface area. Science isn't really science if normal people cannot check it using their own tools, if they have to rely upon some God figure in particle physics to tell them the dogma.
As for vacuum, it would affect photons far less. But there's still gravity and space time, EM radiation, dust, etc.
Photons act as both a particle and a wave, and focusing enough energy into a beam so that it damages a target doesn't mean the photons are stacked one particle next to each other. Some common experiments with this concerned whether light was a wave or a photon, so they put light through an aperture or opening with gold, and checked the target background.
Any kind of focus crystal or tech that makes a coherent beam that applies damage to a target, tends to also over focus. Meaning the more the light is forced to converge to a point or line, the more they separate out as distance increases. So you could maybe put a flash light beam out at higher distances, but even the best LED flashlights at full focus, will bloom to large square radius the farther away it hits the target.
The more you force the light beam to converge, the more it will diverge after a certain point. Even if people could make a parallel beam of photons stacked in a line, parallel to each other in a line, the stream of photons would still split off and do its own thing as it travels.
As for high particle physics... you don't really need that background. Just get a flash light and shine it through an aperture, focus and de focus it and test it at 1 meter, 5 meters, and 10 meters for the radius of effect and illuminated surface area. Science isn't really science if normal people cannot check it using their own tools, if they have to rely upon some God figure in particle physics to tell them the dogma.
As for vacuum, it would affect photons far less. But there's still gravity and space time, EM radiation, dust, etc.
- 1
Yes, it is true. In millions of km, lasers with regular wavelength become unusefull at all. But if the use gamma\rentgen(0.001nm - true good laser
) lasers the 10mm in diameter beam grows only to 25sm(really not so many) on MILLION km(I made some calculations, with found equations). Beam with larder diameter obtain smaller effect.With future tech(I saw this lasers in Stellaris) it really could work at long distances.
At very big range, of cource it only missles. If they find the enemy after this hours...
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
It's quite simple. Since both fleets can evade roughly equally and light dispersion affect both parties in an identical faction, neither side can be effective with their weapons until they get fairly close to each others. Not at millions of kilometers that is the possible range of a projectile/beam, but at a short enough distance that evasive maneuvers become tricky and weapons start being actually effective.
In general, the fancier the equipment, the less able it is to withstand high acceleration and magnetic fields. Missiles aren't the fanciest of equipment, but good chance that a decent mass driver would render them mostly ineffective. You can always reinforce the missile to protect anything fancy...but that means increasing the cost. I'd think it'd be cheaper to slap more fuel on the ride than it is to reinforce them.
I hope devs won't force all ballistics into one characteristic like short range, same with energy weapons.
There should be wide range of weapons with different possibilities in all weapon types even if ultimately some will excel in some areas.
I want Impactors from SOTS, if long range accuracy is a problem there is always option of AI assisted targeting(like that could ever end up badly). Not many weapons allow you to 'push' enemy ships into planet's orbit to force them to crash.
There should be wide range of weapons with different possibilities in all weapon types even if ultimately some will excel in some areas.
I want Impactors from SOTS, if long range accuracy is a problem there is always option of AI assisted targeting
(like that could ever end up badly). Not many weapons allow you to 'push' enemy ships into planet's orbit to force them to crash. 
One thing people seems to forget often about missiles in space: They don't actually need extra fuel to fly to keep on flying. They only need enough fuel to accelerate to a decent speed and to steer. So you could theoretically shoot them at very long ranges with a respectable hit rate.
Of course, good physics don't always make good game balance.
Of course, good physics don't always make good game balance.
- 2
The space equivalent of line infantry
. Now if only we could get ramming ships with space bayonets...- 1
It doesn't really matter if 'in space nothing wears away at a physical force,' ballistic weapons are so slow that they only stand a chance of hitting nearby targets, targeting anything further away is just too difficult (they'll be able to see it coming and adjust course). Missiles get to adjust their course as they travel, so they have longer range. Lasers are just fast.
- 2
Typically plasma weapons are shown doing damage through heat ablation rather than kinetic shock. I'd say that makes them energy weapons.
No. Not in the sense that it slows something traveling in a straight line down.
There is gravitational friction between orbiting bodies.
I would hazard a guess it is
Kinetics travel slow relative to the speed of light so they have a short effective range beyond which whilst they have are easy to dodge as their course can be predicted even if they have functionally the same kinetic energy
Laser and other Beams Travel at the speed of light so have a longer effective range
Plasma based weapons, on the tin, say the lose containment with range
"These new accelerators launch projectiles of high-energy plasma with improved containment fields. This results in less energy leakage as the projectile travels in space towards its target."
Missiles are self propelled and have on-board guidance, so have the longest effective range as they can adjust for manoeuvres of the target ship
Kinetics travel slow relative to the speed of light so they have a short effective range beyond which whilst they have are easy to dodge as their course can be predicted even if they have functionally the same kinetic energy
Laser and other Beams Travel at the speed of light so have a longer effective range
Plasma based weapons, on the tin, say the lose containment with range
"These new accelerators launch projectiles of high-energy plasma with improved containment fields. This results in less energy leakage as the projectile travels in space towards its target."
Missiles are self propelled and have on-board guidance, so have the longest effective range as they can adjust for manoeuvres of the target ship
No, lasers are supposed to be coherent, which is something different, and are ideally about parallel. While the coherent part is not that difficult, if you think that actual lasers are even close to being perfectly parallel you are downright delusional. I don't know what fantasy dreamworld lasers you are working with, but the ones I work with sure as hell are not. Even the best lasers we have here on earth are just "good enaugh" for scientific purposes on the scales we use them on.
I don't know if it is even possible for a laser to be consistently perfectly parallel because there is allways the random chance of quantum physics involved and the chance for even the most expertly crafted laser with hand placed atoms to emit a perfectly parallel laser beam is miniscule and certainly not big enaugh to be called consistent.
- 2
And to think all the OP wanted to know about was game play mechanics. I guess he's been schooled by all you arm-chair theoretical physicists.