Stick to ship combat and no fighters.

[stumason]

Would still prefer drones over fighters. They dont need sleep, food and entertainment. They can do harder maneuver (high gravity turns etc.) and they dont know fear.

I have been puzzled by the constant references to g forces when talking about manned fighters...

In a Universe where (as stated before) the races clearly have some mastery over space-time (and therefore gravity) in order to achieve FTL, some kind of inertial dampening system isn't to far fetched.

Even without it, automated craft still suffer from the effects of G-forces. At 20-30 G's sustained, most craft will rip themselves asunder (as a comparison, the F-15 maximum designed G-load is 9... it can take more than that, but not much more and not for long - like a person)

 

[Teleros]

You seem to be basing your argument on the assumption there is any propellant at all.

That is a reasonable one to make under the circumstances. First for a generic sci-fi setting, and second for Stellaris and all the glowing engines at the back they have.

As for bang vs buck, consider this..

1 missile = 1 bang (and that is assuming you were even able to track/target the enemy anyway)

1 fighter = several missiles and the ability to choose the target late in the day, as well as deliver it closer to the target without the bother of giving away your position to the enemy by targeting them from the capital ship = more bangs.

1. I have consistently advocated for missiles capable of launching submunitions.

2. In the real world, there is no stealth in space. "Giving away your position" is not something you need to worry about, because any vaguely competent enemy will know where you are.

A missile is a one hit wonder and requires the use of a larger (more expensive) ship to launch it

Fighters require even more expensive ships to launch them. And what makes you think a missile need be a one-hit wonder? A decent software package is all you need to enable it to loiter.

on top of all the other gizmo's you need to track and engage the target.

Put in/on the missile, obviously. At realistic space combat ranges the communications lag is too great (barring FTL comms) for all targeting data to be sent out from a mothership.

A fighter can loiter on station

See above.

without any specific target

If there's no specific target, why are you launching fighters? They have pitiful endurance due to life support limitations.

They are also more expendable.

Missiles are less expendable than fighters? Say what now?

So they would be useful in patrol/recon/escort missions.

This is the only reason to have fighters in space, basically.

Incidentally, going through your post... honestly, basically it's a rehash of arguments people have made earlier in this thread. If you want more detail, read my replies to them.

I have been puzzled by the constant references to g forces when talking about manned fighters...

Eh, it's still a concern, because a star fighter will in all likelihood be more massive than a drone or missile, and that means the inertial forces it experiences in any given manoeuvre will be stronger. The g-forces experienced by a 2m long object will be much less than those experienced by a 20m long object if they're both attempting the same manoeuvre.

 

[stumason]

That is a reasonable one to make under the circumstances. First for a generic sci-fi setting, and second for Stellaris and all the glowing engines at the back they have.

Unfortunately, if we're going down a "realistic" route of argument (as seems to be the case) then much of those glowy engines we see in Sci-Fi are pointless - take Star Trek for example. A great many ships have these "glowy" bits on them, but none are using them like a traditional thruster and most propulsion types involve the use of warp engines, only using thrusters for precise maneuvering.

2. In the real world, there is no stealth in space. "Giving away your position" is not something you need to worry about, because any vaguely competent enemy will know where you are.

Huh? How have you come to that conclusion?

Fighters require even more expensive ships to launch them. And what makes you think a missile need be a one-hit wonder? A decent software package is all you need to enable it to loiter.


Put in/on the missile, obviously. At realistic space combat ranges the communications lag is too great (barring FTL comms) for all targeting data to be sent out from a mothership.

At which point it ceases to become a missile and becomes an unmanned fighter.... Now you're adding sensor suites, an AI which can make combat decisions etc...

If there's no specific target, why are you launching fighters? They have pitiful endurance due to life support limitations.

Another massive assumption. Assuming the craft has some kind of reactor (it's not likely to be an internal combustion engine...) it could power a life support system for an extended (or even unlimited period). Using certain catalytic materials and bio-tech, one could fashion a pretty long-lived life support system, given the tech level of the game anyway. At the moment, we have no real issue designing life support systems that could take men to Mars now.

Missiles are less expendable than fighters? Say what now?

Missiles in the traditional sense, you're quite right. They cost a lot less than drones or fighters... But remember, you're putting all manner of shiny toys on your missiles now and they have become drones (with the associated cost) yet you still want them to slam into their target? Why not take the rather small developmental step and bring them back after expending their "sub-munitions" you spoke of earlier? That way, you don't have to keep building costly "missiles" with all these toys on, you can build cheap ones to be launched from your fighter..ahem, I mean "missile...

Incidentally, going through your post... honestly, basically it's a rehash of arguments people have made earlier in this thread. If you want more detail, read my replies to them.

I did - all 15 pages... Yet I still have the right to comment, no? Your argument is silly.

Eh, it's still a concern, because a star fighter will in all likelihood be more massive than a drone or missile, and that means the inertial forces it experiences in any given manoeuvre will be stronger. The g-forces experienced by a 2m long object will be much less than those experienced by a 20m long object if they're both attempting the same manoeuvre.

But, hang on, aren't you building your drone fighters..sorry, I did it again, I mean missiles with all these sensors, submunitions and AI packages? For all intents and purposes, that is going to be the same mass as a fighter, minus a small amount for a pink squishy thing and his life support...

 

[Teleros]

Unfortunately, if we're going down a "realistic" route of argument (as seems to be the case) then much of those glowy engines we see in Sci-Fi are pointless - take Star Trek for example. A great many ships have these "glowy" bits on them, but none are using them like a traditional thruster and most propulsion types involve the use of warp engines, only using thrusters for precise maneuvering.

Well, Star Trek at least does use a reactionless drive for FTL (ie the Warp drive). But yes, it is another annoying (or possibly just budget-conscious) thing on these shows. Personally I think great streams of plasma or whatever would look stunning, especially in massed fleet formations.

Huh? How have you come to that conclusion?

From page 10:

A starfighter - any starfighter - that tries to sneak up on Earth from Mars will be spotted by the defender's telescopes unless they are terminally stupid:

1. There horizon basically stretches to infinity. Unless you're sneaking up behind a large celestial object... but that's what probes and such are for.
2. Space is about 3 degrees Kelvin. Exhaust from an engine or the cockpit of a starfighter is, at a bare minimum, going to be 300 Kelvin. This will radiate heat into space, which can be detected.
3. Space not being full of atmosphere, you need either heat sinks or heat radiators to avoid cooking your starship. See point #2.

#1 won't realistically change whatever happens, because space is big and all that. #2 won't either, because the laws of physics are very well understood when it comes to, you know, the temperature of stuff and the laws of thermodynamics. #3 is the only way you can get stealth in space, by (a) positing unrealistically efficient designs (which is only a partial solution I might add - a crewed starship will STILL radiate at 300 Kelvin because the crew won't want to freeze to death), and/or (b) having some fantastic means of removing waste heat that involves completely new scientific theories unrelated to what we know already (eg in my sci-fi setting, I have them dump it in hyperspace).

...

For even more on why stealth in space is horribly unrealistic, I recommend the Atomic Rockets website. They have a nice section on that page about why it won't work. But for example, a single modern telescope dish can spot a 20 watt power supply that's 18 billion kilometres away in... one second flat, and we can scan the entire sky in about four hours, again with just modern technology.

At which point it ceases to become a missile and becomes an unmanned fighter.... Now you're adding sensor suites, an AI which can make combat decisions etc...

Yup.

Another massive assumption. Assuming the craft has some kind of reactor (it's not likely to be an internal combustion engine...) it could power a life support system for an extended (or even unlimited period). Using certain catalytic materials and bio-tech, one could fashion a pretty long-lived life support system, given the tech level of the game anyway. At the moment, we have no real issue designing life support systems that could take men to Mars now.

Oh sure, we can make a life support system that can take people to Mars, but you'll notice the people on that trip would be either asleep or able to exercise and such if cryogenic suspension isn't an option.

As for self-sustaining life support systems... maybe. A human requires something in the region of 500 litres of pure oxygen a day (never mind the thousands of litres of nitrogen we inhale too), which is quite a lot for an algae tank or whatever to keep up with.

However, there's yet another issue to deal with here: the mass/size of the life support system. If I'm designing an interceptor starfighter, I might only budget a day's worth of life support, because no interceptor should be out that long without returning home for resupply. Obviously I'd want a lot more life support for my recon / patrol fighters, but the point is that a big life support system is expensive in terms of the capabilities of the fighter, even if money's no object.

Missiles in the traditional sense, you're quite right. They cost a lot less than drones or fighters... But remember, you're putting all manner of shiny toys on your missiles now and they have become drones (with the associated cost) yet you still want them to slam into their target? Why not take the rather small developmental step and bring them back after expending their "sub-munitions" you spoke of earlier? That way, you don't have to keep building costly "missiles" with all these toys on, you can build cheap ones to be launched from your fighter..ahem, I mean "missile...

Basically, I think you're being too generous with the low cost of going from missile/drone to fighter. All your missiles are going to want sensors and such, because otherwise they're (a) sitting ducks if their parent missile/drone/fighter is killed, and (b) because of the lag that'll occur between said parent and the missile. So either way, I think that is basically a sunk cost.

As for bringing them back afterwards, that runs into the issue of delta-v and propellant mass etc. If I want my fighters or missiles or w/e to return to their mothership after a mission, then they need twice as much propellant as those on a one-way mission. This means they're bigger and more massive, which means easier to target and less manoeuvrable, all things being equal. The mothership also needs hangars, repair slips and all that jazz to handle the returning fighters or w/e. One-way missiles can convert all that hangar space into missile magazines - or even more launchers.

I did - all 15 pages... Yet I still have the right to comment, no? Your argument is silly.

I'm not sure you did read all the responses if you're talking about why there's no stealth in space though.

But, hang on, aren't you building your drone fighters..sorry, I did it again, I mean missiles with all these sensors, submunitions and AI packages? For all intents and purposes, that is going to be the same mass as a fighter, minus a small amount for a pink squishy thing and his life support...

The "small amount" of mass for the life support will in fact be quite considerable...

1. A day's supply of air will mass about 14kg, excluding storage containers.
2. The average South Korean man (the lightest according to Wikipedia) will mass about 69kg, excluding clothing, space suit, etc. In the USA it's ~88kg.
3. Being really generous and assuming everything else the pilot needs weighs only as much as a modern ejector seat, that's still another 59kg (ACES II ejection seat).

So, using hilariously generous estimates, we're at an extra 142kg. Better hope your pilot isn't wearing a modern space suit though, because that's another 50kg - without the life support stuff.

And you also have to factor in how all this mass will affect the flight characteristics of your craft, because how you distribute the mass is quite important, and it'll also mean a bigger craft etc.

 

[sterrius]

People linked the atomic rocket and i must say its a excellent site for any sci-fi fan out there. Really, go check and read to get some real science behind the sci-fi .
I see that site once or twice every year and the text there is very good.


Fighters will be in the game because they are fun to the setting, not because of realism! If it can be put in the setting without breaking the immersion and gameplay it will be very likely to be done.

So it don´t actually matter if they are people or drones, heck, they can be BOTH with gameplay advantage for choosing one vs the other.

Only real barrier here is the immersion. How is paradox going to explain in a way we can buy the lore.

Well, if people can explain in a cool way how lightsabers and blaster rifles work (And you have tons of info on the technology etc if you look for it), i don´t think it will be to hard to explain a space fighter and drone co-existing and having some kind of role in the game.

Of course i vote for a battle that mainly consist of Big ships, with fighters being only a support role.
I would of course like a race that focus on fighters, its always fun to fight a mosquito swarm and see a laser shot from a big ship kill 5 fighters in one shot.

I remember a lot a game called Imperium galactica 2, it was a super cool and fun game around 2000 and i loved using fighters to swarm the enemy. (And see them blow up by the thousands as a big ship was a better strategy).

It was a game that in 1998 was already doing this kind of battle. (And for me its still one of the top5 4x games you can get ).

 

[Safehold]

Part of the reason why China or other nations close to superpower status, don't have working carrier groups, is because of the manpower costs, not the material costs of fueling carriers or constructing them. If China had started in 2008, it would take them right about now to have .5 to 1.5 carrier crews trained semi ready.

The time it takes to train good pilots is calculated in the transition between generations, not in the year it takes to lay down a ship hull. And the time it takes to train good carrier crews, is multiplied by the amount of training each cadre needs for it. Thus a single cadre crew, with the first carrier group, must be made first, experience acquired, then the carrier group is dismantled so that the cadre crew can disperse and train 5 other carrier crews until those carriers are made.

What tends to happen to people who like to put their best pilots and crews on a ship or fighter, and they all end up dead sooner or later in the war, is the Marianas Turkey Shoot.

In a FTL civilization where scientists and leaders are limited to 30 per civ, manpower would usually be the bottleneck, not energy, credits, or minerals.

As for immersion, for me that would be on how they are used and how they are seen, in the real time combat in the system. Not the lore explanation about their tech specs, if any. If one can't even see the fighters, they are just invisible dust motes.

 

[stumason]

Well, Star Trek at least does use a reactionless drive for FTL (ie the Warp drive). But yes, it is another annoying (or possibly just budget-conscious) thing on these shows. Personally I think great streams of plasma or whatever would look stunning, especially in massed fleet formations.

Indeed, it would

A starfighter - any starfighter - that tries to sneak up on Earth from Mars will be spotted by the defender's telescopes unless they are terminally stupid:

1. There horizon basically stretches to infinity. Unless you're sneaking up behind a large celestial object... but that's what probes and such are for.

But that doesn't mean you can see everything, does it? Quite often, asteroids aren't seen until very late, if at all.

2. Space is about 3 degrees Kelvin. Exhaust from an engine or the cockpit of a starfighter is, at a bare minimum, going to be 300 Kelvin. This will radiate heat into space, which can be detected.

Once again, assuming there is any exhaust in the first place.. As for the cockpit, to make it more efficient (so you're not having to continually heat the cockpit due to losses) I would think some form of insulation could be used to minimise heat dissipation.

It would be an awesome feat of monitoring to be able to pick up such a small heat source, with all the other stuff in space, when you have to look in all directions at once.

3. Space not being full of atmosphere, you need either heat sinks or heat radiators to avoid cooking your starship. See point #2.

Quite, but you seem to think that these would be easily picked up by monitoring stations in short order. You seem to forget that heat is EM radiation, so travels at the speed of light - given our ships in the game will have FTL (even the fighters, otherwise they'd take days to get from planet to planet, much less across a star system) this is an entirely redundant argument. The heat signature would arrive at the destination after the fighter.

#1 won't realistically change whatever happens, because space is big and all that. #2 won't either, because the laws of physics are very well understood when it comes to, you know, the temperature of stuff and the laws of thermodynamics. #3 is the only way you can get stealth in space, by (a) positing unrealistically efficient designs (which is only a partial solution I might add - a crewed starship will STILL radiate at 300 Kelvin because the crew won't want to freeze to death), and/or (b) having some fantastic means of removing waste heat that involves completely new scientific theories unrelated to what we know already (eg in my sci-fi setting, I have them dump it in hyperspace).

If you spaceship is radiating that much heat, it sounds like it is of poor design. Surely they should be insulated as to preserve energy and not to have to constantly heat the ship as it loses it to space?

For even more on why stealth in space is horribly unrealistic, I recommend the Atomic Rockets website. They have a nice section on that page about why it won't work. But for example, a single modern telescope dish can spot a 20 watt power supply that's 18 billion kilometres away in... one second flat, and we can scan the entire sky in about four hours, again with just modern technology.

One dish, the entire sky, in four hours? No, you can't for the simple fact is your not even facing half the sky for several hours at a time. Unless you're talking about some sort of orbital monitoring station?

Oh sure, we can make a life support system that can take people to Mars, but you'll notice the people on that trip would be either asleep or able to exercise and such if cryogenic suspension isn't an option.

I was making the point that if we can do it now with our caveman tech, then a race that has masters FTL would probably have a better handle on it.

This is the crux of the matter - your basing your opinion on contemporary technology and science - which is silly in a Universe that has FTL and other advanced tech.

As for self-sustaining life support systems... maybe. A human requires something in the region of 500 litres of pure oxygen a day (never mind the thousands of litres of nitrogen we inhale too), which is quite a lot for an algae tank or whatever to keep up with.

With today's tech, yes... Genetically engineered super-algae from the far future though? Think outside the box, man.

However, there's yet another issue to deal with here: the mass/size of the life support system. If I'm designing an interceptor starfighter, I might only budget a day's worth of life support, because no interceptor should be out that long without returning home for resupply. Obviously I'd want a lot more life support for my recon / patrol fighters, but the point is that a big life support system is expensive in terms of the capabilities of the fighter, even if money's no object.

If we built one today, yes.... Once again, advanced tech from a race that can travel the stars is probably a lot better than our own.

Basically, I think you're being too generous with the low cost of going from missile/drone to fighter. All your missiles are going to want sensors and such, because otherwise they're (a) sitting ducks if their parent missile/drone/fighter is killed, and (b) because of the lag that'll occur between said parent and the missile. So either way, I think that is basically a sunk cost.

Correction, I wasn't going from missile/drone to fighter, but rather you were going from missile to drone/fighter. See the subtle difference? A drone is a fighter sans pilot.

As for bringing them back afterwards, that runs into the issue of delta-v and propellant mass etc. If I want my fighters or missiles or w/e to return to their mothership after a mission, then they need twice as much propellant as those on a one-way mission. This means they're bigger and more massive, which means easier to target and less manoeuvrable, all things being equal. The mothership also needs hangars, repair slips and all that jazz to handle the returning fighters or w/e. One-way missiles can convert all that hangar space into missile magazines - or even more launchers.

Once again with the propellant argument..

I'm not sure you did read all the responses if you're talking about why there's no stealth in space though.

I wasn't talking about stealth at all.. In fact, that is the first time I even typed it!. Granted, I may have skipped a few posts along the 15 page route though..

The "small amount" of mass for the life support will in fact be quite considerable...

1. A day's supply of air will mass about 14kg, excluding storage containers.
2. The average South Korean man (the lightest according to Wikipedia) will mass about 69kg, excluding clothing, space suit, etc. In the USA it's ~88kg.
3. Being really generous and assuming everything else the pilot needs weighs only as much as a modern ejector seat, that's still another 59kg (ACES II ejection seat).

So, using hilariously generous estimates, we're at an extra 142kg. Better hope your pilot isn't wearing a modern space suit though, because that's another 50kg - without the life support stuff.

And you also have to factor in how all this mass will affect the flight characteristics of your craft, because how you distribute the mass is quite important, and it'll also mean a bigger craft etc.

[/quote]

An extra 200Kg on a ship that is likely to weigh in at a many times that (F15, again for example, weighs in at 12,700Kg unloaded) is not a great deal to worry about. I am also not sure "flight characteristics" are that much of a concern in zero G, you know.

 

[AG_Wittmann]

What is the Pro for having a fighter? The pilot cant do much in space without the help of a computer/ai, they will dont fight in a small area of (example) 15 km x 15 km x 5 km like in the atmosphere of a planet.

Na, i would prefer missiles and submissiles, they are cheaper, dont need training and i can massproduce them, they dont know fear or ethical qualms. Oh, and they can operate for years in space without supply. Jump to the borderzone of a system, launch some hundred thousands of missiles, when they reach their speed, they go inactive for some months and near the target they reactivate theirself and surprise bomb party.

I think, when mankind will bring war into space, we will battle mostly near planets and another bases, but not in open space like some sea battles. And the rest of the war we do surprise attacks like pushing asteroids/comets to the targets or swarms of missiles.

 

[AKicebear]

Why not allow all forms of tech, and buff/neg them accordingly? Not sure why this needs to be so black and white...

 

[Teleros]

But that doesn't mean you can see everything, does it? Quite often, asteroids aren't seen until very late, if at all.

No, but asteroids have had billions of years to cool down to the background temperature of space.

Once again, assuming there is any exhaust in the first place.. As for the cockpit, to make it more efficient (so you're not having to continually heat the cockpit due to losses) I would think some form of insulation could be used to minimise heat dissipation.

Well, you can insulate it, but you'll still get what's called black body radiation.

You may not want to insulate it however, because unlike devices in our atmosphere, there is no convection to carry waste heat away, meaning it builds up. In reality the problem for everything from satellites to the space shuttle has been how to avoid cooking the interior due to waste heat .

It would be an awesome feat of monitoring to be able to pick up such a small heat source, with all the other stuff in space, when you have to look in all directions at once.

As I noted, we can pick up the Voyager 1 heat signature with a single dish, and can scan the entire sky in about four hours. Add in more telescopes and such (if only to monitor your own native space traffic) and it becomes trivially easy to do the same in a setting like Stellaris.

Quite, but you seem to think that these would be easily picked up by monitoring stations in short order. You seem to forget that heat is EM radiation, so travels at the speed of light - given our ships in the game will have FTL (even the fighters, otherwise they'd take days to get from planet to planet, much less across a star system) this is an entirely redundant argument. The heat signature would arrive at the destination after the fighter.

Oh, if you can travel at FTL then you're absolutely correct. Well, if you can travel at FTL and either there are no FTL sensors, or they're not fast enough to give enough warning (ie travelling at twice the speed of light vs FTL sensors working at 1,000x).

I think an example of this might be Star Wars actually - FTL in Star Wars is many millions (if not billions) of times faster than light, so even with FTL scanners, an attacking force can arrive before the defenders have mobilised.

That said, the obvious counter to the above is for the defenders to be always mobilised and expecting an attack at any instant.

If you spaceship is radiating that much heat, it sounds like it is of poor design. Surely they should be insulated as to preserve energy and not to have to constantly heat the ship as it loses it to space?

As above, if you don't remove the waste heat you'll boil your crew alive. For example, you want a cockpit to be around 300K, because that's around what we humans are comfortable in. The surface of a black body emits roughly 448 watts per square metre at 300K, and whilst you can lower that quite a bit (eg polished silver would emit roughly 9 watts per square metre), that'll still show up.

One dish, the entire sky, in four hours? No, you can't for the simple fact is your not even facing half the sky for several hours at a time. Unless you're talking about some sort of orbital monitoring station?

Sorry if I wasn't clear. One dish is all that's required to pick up a 20W power source at 18 billion kilometres, but to scan the entire sky requires all our telescopes.

I was making the point that if we can do it now with our caveman tech, then a race that has masters FTL would probably have a better handle on it.

My point is just that life support for a trip to Mars will either be very bulky (to permit room to exercise etc, plus to store foodstuffs etc), or require a crew that is asleep and thus not doing anything .

This is the crux of the matter - your basing your opinion on contemporary technology and science

It's the only reference material we have though. And some of it won't be expected to change much - think about how isolation affects people for example. That'll be true whether we can zip around at a million times the speed of light or not.

With today's tech, yes... Genetically engineered super-algae from the far future though? Think outside the box, man.

Even with super-algae or w/e, you still need to feed them nutrients and keep them in their optimum environment.

If we built one today, yes.... Once again, advanced tech from a race that can travel the stars is probably a lot better than our own.

Even assuming they have super-tech, the life support stuff is still going to mass more than no life support (because you're using a computer).

Correction, I wasn't going from missile/drone to fighter, but rather you were going from missile to drone/fighter. See the subtle difference? A drone is a fighter sans pilot.

Yeah I think this is just a bit of confusion as to what we're each talking about. When I say "fighter" I mean something with a squishy pilot in it. When I talk about missiles or drones, I refer to things piloted by on-board computers.

Once again with the propellant argument.

Yes, but we are seeing trails from starships in Stellaris, so it seems sensible to assume they're using propellant.

Still, if you want to consider reactionless drives, you may still have a problem if the drive requires more energy to move more mass, which can result in needing more reactor mass, larger batteries, or whatever other means of supplying power you use.

(There's also the problem that reactionless drives turn every tramp freighter into a super-dino-killer asteroid, but that's by the by ...)

I wasn't talking about stealth at all.. In fact, that is the first time I even typed it!. Granted, I may have skipped a few posts along the 15 page route though..

It was just in response to that bit where you asked how I came to "that" conclusion (ie no stealth in space). NP .

An extra 200Kg on a ship that is likely to weigh in at a many times that (F15, again for example, weighs in at 12,700Kg unloaded) is not a great deal to worry about.

Don't forget I was being as generous as I could.

Anyway, you'll find it has a noticeably larger impact on space fighters than on aircraft. On an aircraft, it'll tend to reduce the maximum speed by a small fraction. On a spacecraft though, it'll reduce the maximum acceleration (there being no practical speed limit unless we're positing high-c-fractional fighters). For example, let's suppose the difference is between accelerating at 100m/s/s and 95m/s/s - it's not much, but after 10 minutes the first one is going 3,000m/s faster than the latter, and has travelled an extra 900 kilometres.

I am also not sure "flight characteristics" are that much of a concern in zero G, you know.

It's because the centre of gravity will shift due to the uneven distribution of mass. In the air you can correct this tendency with flaps on the wings and such, but in space you need small engines dotted around the ship to correct for this movement (or some reactionless drive equivalent).

 

[SharpFish]

This is the crux of the matter - your basing your opinion on contemporary technology and science - which is silly in a Universe that has FTL and other advanced tech.

Most of your arguments have been dealt with further up the thread, but I wanted to respond to this. Of course arguments made here are based on current tech, because that is the nature of science fiction, to examine the implications of prospective future tech in a reasonably credible manner. And as was pointed out by up-thread, by myself among others, is that all these arguments for fighters etc. are based on a scenario which does not apply, namely that terrestrial vehicles may move in one of two mediums, air and water. When there is only one medium, vacuum, the point of there being a functional distinction between big and large ships ceases to exist.

This whole question then is not about projecting tech forward, but about trying top preserve a particular balance of technology that occurred for a very short historical period. Why even bother? It is quite likely that even within most of our lifetimes, air power may cease to be significant because an abundance of laser-type weapons renders them obsolete.

No good reason has been offered for preserving this particular technical balance other than the feeling that it will be "fun". Which is fine; that is precisely the sort of reason that IS pertinent to a game. But there is no good science fictional reason as such.

 

[Shaktari]

But there is no good science fictional reason as such.

science fiction by its nature is made up, so are you asking for a good made up reason for fighters? ok challenge accepted. And I will even do my best to use in game possible logic to give a good science fictional reason for star fighters.

my species has created an FTL drive ( warp drive, worm hole creation, or hyper drive) in the process we created a sub light drive that allows us to travel, what would normally take days in mere hours or even minutes, example ( earth to pluto in a week as opposed to 15 years). The smallest we can make the drive is fighters sized, it is just impossible to make this drive missile sized.

This means my fighters have a far greater effective range of combat (hundreds of thousands of kilometers possibly even millions of kilometers as opposed to just thousands of kilometers).

You attack my species with missile armed capital ships, no fighters; your effective combat range is roughly 30,000 km at best. (The maximum range of current missile technology is 17,000 km I think? Someone might need to double check that for me please) however I have fighters, fighters that are less expensive, and far faster to make then your frigates.

More importantly, fighters with an effective combat range of millions of kilometers, meaning I can just launch wave after wave of fighters strikes against you, destroying your battle line for hours, possibly days before you can even get close to mine. Now by the time your battle line catches up to mine, you’re just a bunch of wrecks, having been pounded again and again by my missile armed fighters, and now you get to face a battle line that is fresh, and unwounded, with fighters to help on top of the battle line. I win the space battle having sacrificed some fighters for capital ships.

That is why fighters can exist in science fiction ^.^ again if you haven’t read it, I recommend the duology In death ground, and The shiva option, by david weber and steve white for a good representation of that.

 

[SharpFish]

science fiction by its nature is made up, so are you asking for a good made up reason for fighters? ok challenge accepted. And I will even do my best to use in game possible logic to give a good science fictional reason for star fighters.

Sigh. This is all just repeating arguments that have already been discussed, and which I, frankly, think have been dealt with sufficiently. My point was not that it is impossible to imagine some scenario where fighters may work, if you jigger the assumptions just right, the point is that there is no good scientific scenario about which it is useful to speculate.

Let's look at yours:

my species has created an FTL drive ( warp drive, worm hole creation, or hyper drive) in the process we created a sub light drive that allows us to travel, what would normally take days in mere hours or even minutes, example ( earth to pluto in a week as opposed to 15 years). The smallest we can make the drive is fighters sized, it is just impossible to make this drive missile sized.

Fine. Now, remember how I pointed out that everything is moving in a single medium? So the issue of whether it can be built small enough for a missile is not important; what is important is whether it can be built big enough for a cruiser or a battleship. Seeing as you didn't specify any upper limit, this seems to be the case. So I can now build ships that are just as fast, just as manoeuvrable as your "fighters", only they are vastly larger, tougher, and carrying much more firepower.

Look, there's no frictional drag in space, so the only factor that determines a vessel's performance is the *proportion* of overall mass that is "engine", to use terms fairly loosely. If your X-wing is, say, one third engine, and yet I can build a Star Destroyer that is also one third engine, then my SD will have exactly the same performance as your X-wing. The whole concept of "fighter" is redundant; all the things that made it distinct are gone.

That is why fighters can exist in science fiction ^.^ again if you haven’t read it, I recommend the duology In death ground, and The shiva option, by david weber and steve white for a good representation of that.

I have not said that fighters don't appear in fiction, only that the underlying logic for them is very weak. They appear for two main reasons, the first being a model with which are familiar, and the second being that it places a human life in close contact with the enemy. These are both useful for writing stories, but they are rather less useful for making games, because in games the players have to be able to think about the setting from the inside, and so the logic has to be much tighter.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

If we assume that extremely long range missiles with conventional engines would be very vulnerable to accurate anti-missile countermeasures I could see a reason for short ranged fighters armed with energy or other similar closer ranged weapons.

The "mother" ships would usually launch their offensive weapon in the form of drones at slightly beyond engagement ranges and attack enemy ships while the ship itself mainly carry defensive weapons against missiles and drones.

A smaller craft would be able to use more acceleration since it can endure more G force than a larger ship, especially if it carry no crew. In space with huge distances on the range of tens of thousands kilometers then size will matter quite allot even when you fire lase based weapons. At least when you deal with known physical knowledge. A smaller craft could also be made more durable to energy weapon impacts based on needing much less internal space for pretty much everything and use more reflective and powerful armour not possible on a larger craft to the same efficiency.

But using fighters as we know them today using real physical world knowledge to dogfight is space are just a pure fiction without severely breaking the laws of physics.

 

[Shaktari]

Fine. Now, remember how I pointed out that everything is moving in a single medium? So the issue of whether it can be built small enough for a missile is not important; what is important is whether it can be built big enough for a cruiser or a battleship. Seeing as you didn't specify any upper limit, this seems to be the case. So I can now build ships that are just as fast, just as manoeuvrable as your "fighters", only they are vastly larger, tougher, and carrying much more firepower.


Look, there's no frictional drag in space, so the only factor that determines a vessel's performance is the *proportion* of overall mass that is "engine", to use terms fairly loosely. If your X-wing is, say, one third engine, and yet I can build a Star Destroyer that is also one third engine, then my SD will have exactly the same performance as your X-wing. The whole concept of "fighter" is redundant; all the things that made it distinct are gone.

I think your mashing together a bunch of different ideas of science, and just filing it all under friction. Which you are right, friction is really not much of a factor in space, how ever mass, and the energy to move that mass is.


From what I gather, what you are saying, is that a battleship, can maneuver, accelerate, decelerate, and turn just as fast as a fighter?


even in space it doesn't work that way. The square-cube law goes into affect, the mass of a ship goes up by the cube of the length of the ship. As ships get larger, they get drastically more massive, and so cannot maneuver, accelerate, or decelerate as quickly as a fighter. As the require exponentially more energy to achieve the same results.



In order to move a fighter sized ship you would need smaller engines and it would take less energy. In order to move a battle ship, it would take exponentially more energy, and time, and more distance traveled to get that battleship up to the same speeds. even if the proportion of the engines is the same. In addition my fighters are going to use a significant less amount of space to make a left hand turn then your battleships? and they could do it at faster speeds.


also remember you never use just fighters, the fighters are to weaken, harass, and finish off weakened ships of the line at extreme to long range; ranges missiles just cant reach. In close combat they are used for all the same things, and to make the job of my enemy capital ships that much harder.


As the enemy ships now have to choose, do i focus on all the missiles coming at me, letting the fighters thru with their own missile payloads. all the fighters coming at me, but letting all the capital missiles through, or do i split my resources and hope for the best.


And there is still the range issue, your capital ships, still have a max range of 30,000 km, where as my combined forces have the ability to attack you for hours of even days before you have a chance to respond and fire your own missiles back at me.

 

[SharpFish]

From what I gather, what you are saying, is that a battleship, can maneuver, accelerate, decelerate, and turn just as fast as a fighter?

Yes, exactly. Because of the absence of drag. If you stood on the deck of a modern aircraft carrier and kicked a football into the ocean, this would have no effect on moving the ship. If you did the same thing on a that exact same carrier floating in microgravity, it WOULD cause the ship to move, ever so slightly, and ever so slowly.

even in space it doesn't work that way. The square-cube law goes into affect, the mass of a ship goes up by the cube of the length of the ship. As ships get larger, they get drastically more massive, and so cannot maneuver, accelerate, or decelerate as quickly as a fighter. As the require exponentially more energy to achieve the same results.

You will recall that I referred to the PROPORTION of the ship's MASS, not length, that is dedicated to propulsion. Yes, big ships are massive, and need more energy. Thus the engine is appropriately massive to move a more massive ship. And that's the only thing that matters - what percentage of each design is engine. In an atmosphere or on water, you can't just slap on a second engine and get twice the performance, because of drag and related factors, but in space you can do exactly that. If you have engine tech that can put out say 10G of acceleration at say 30% of mass, then it can do the same regardless of the absolute quantity of mass.

In order to move a fighter sized ship you would need smaller engines and it would take less energy. In order to move a battle ship, it would take exponentially more energy, and time, and more distance traveled to get that battleship up to the same speeds. even if the proportion of the engines is the same.

No. Because there is no drag, every erg of energy output is translated directly into Delta V, or change in velocity. So there is no exponential factor at work. If a 1000kg ship with 300kg of engine can accelerate at 10G's, then a 10,000,000 ton ship with 3,000,000 tons of engine can also accelerate at 10G. Even worse: a 10,000,000 ton ship with 3,500,000 tons of engine will be faster and more manoeuvrable than your "fighter".

In addition my fighters are going to use a significant less amount of space to make a left hand turn then your battleships? and they could do it at faster speeds.

Only inasmuch as the larger vessel is physically bigger, so it's turning circle will be larger, yes. But they will be the same in degrees per second.

As the enemy ships now have to choose, do i focus on all the missiles coming at me, letting the fighters thru with their own missile payloads. all the fighters coming at me, but letting all the capital missiles through, or do i split my resources and hope for the best.

I'm not arguing specifically in favour of missiles, because the same issues apply. But, assuming the balance above, big ships can simply run away from smaller "fighters", if they need to, because they can be just as fast and just as nippy.

And there is still the range issue, your capital ships, still have a max range of 30,000 km, where as my combined forces have the ability to attack you for hours of even days before you have a chance to respond and fire your own missiles back at me.

This is a separate issue; a kinetic projectile will travel forever until it hits something, so again there is no "range" in an absolute sense, only probabilities of intercept.

 

[Shaktari]

Shaprfish i am just going to have to respectfully agree to disagree with you, i think your ignoring a few scientific laws of physics and science to get your argument to work, but at this point, i think we can agree this thread is done? maybe? all the discussions have been put and made, and its just going to come down to what paradox puts in their game.

i for one hope fighters and carriers are in the game, providing long range support but if something gets in close they get wrecked. you wouldn't have fighters to control or build or anything but you could build carrier ships with different modules, modules would allow different bonuses for different combat rolls, depending on what types of fighter fits in those modules.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

No. Because there is no drag, every erg of energy output is translated directly into Delta V, or change in velocity. So there is no exponential factor at work. If a 1000kg ship with 300kg of engine can accelerate at 10G's, then a 10,000,000 ton ship with 3,000,000 tons of engine can also accelerate at 10G. Even worse: a 10,000,000 ton ship with 3,500,000 tons of engine will be faster and more manoeuvrable than your "fighter".

This is blatantly not true because you assume that mass and volume are the same thing and in reality they would differ in so many ways in different types of crafts.

The way you describe the acceleration would ONLY be true if all crafts were perfect spheres and had the same relation of density of the all parts and inner spaces of the craft.

I bet that a craft specifically designed to be relatively short ranged (compared to a large space ship) would be designed to handle G forces much more efficiently than a big ship could ever hope to be built. This means that a smaller craft would be far easier to design with that purpose which include everything from a missile to a super giant space ship.

This of itself means that a smaller ship would be able to use more speed than a larger ship if they are designed for that purpose.

It will also be true when you look at how durable material is that some shapes and mass sizes will be easier to engineer than other for that same reason. So... the more mass you apply to the same craft the more mass you will often need to dedicate to the superstructure for each G force you want the ship to handle.

You could basically say that the more supporting system or range you design a ship for and the more crew you stick into it the less it will be able to handle stress on the hull and the more mass for armor will you need to stick on the hull to withstand the same amount of damage across the area of the ships outer hull.

 

[Teleros]

my species has created an FTL drive ( warp drive, worm hole creation, or hyper drive) in the process we created a sub light drive that allows us to travel, what would normally take days in mere hours or even minutes, example ( earth to pluto in a week as opposed to 15 years). The smallest we can make the drive is fighters sized, it is just impossible to make this drive missile sized.

So make bigger missiles / drones .

But yes, you can tweak things such that fighters become more plausible .

Fine. Now, remember how I pointed out that everything is moving in a single medium? So the issue of whether it can be built small enough for a missile is not important; what is important is whether it can be built big enough for a cruiser or a battleship. Seeing as you didn't specify any upper limit, this seems to be the case. So I can now build ships that are just as fast, just as manoeuvrable as your "fighters", only they are vastly larger, tougher, and carrying much more firepower.

That may not work very well. If you're using a reaction drive, typically the mass of the starship will increase much faster than the engine exhaust (think 100 cubed vs 100 squared or w/e). Some reactionless drives may also work on similar principles (if only to deliberately avoid fighter-speed battleships ).

 

[Aumnivers]

I'm going to admit that I haven't had the time to actually read through much of this thread so I'm not sure if these arguments for fighters have already been made before, but:

1. We don't (at least, I think we don't?) really know how common and easily acquired expert systems and artificial intelligence technology will be in Stellaris. Nor do we know what kind of propulsion systems will be available, what kind of waste heat management systems there will be, or if it's even going to be hard enough sf to care about waste heat.

2. Missile guidance isn't infallible. If your missiles search for heat signatures, the enemy might be capable of putting out chaff and heating it to the same temperature as their ship with lasers. If your missiles have radar, then, again, chaff, but the hulls of hostile ships might be coated in a radio-absorbant material, and decoy drones are cheap. If your missiles search for exhaust plumes, the enemy might just have some sfnal reactionless drive. If your missiles use some exotic method of sensing the target, the enemy, as long as they know what your scanner does, can probably come up with some elaborate way to foil it.

3. Sure, pilots aren't infallible either, but they're capable of semantic thought while the computers on your torps care only about syntax.