"Do We Have Spaceship Gaming All Wrong" Topic

If one were to take current military hardware in both air and sea and extrapolate far into the future, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that spaceship warfare would be conducted by small frigate class ships armed with long range ballistics, drones, etc.

Would these large battleships ala Gothic and Firestorm Armada be just as useless as Battleships are now. And ships would never get within visual range of one another, making direct fire useless other than for shooting down incoming ballistics?

Of course we have spaceship gaming all wrong. We always have, right from the start of doing most spaceship gaming on a 2d surface. Still, it's about fun and "rule of cool"… right? If there's one thing that big starships are, its COOL!

On a slight tangent, there seem to be a few of these topics recently trying to apply real, hard, logic to sci-fi miniatures combat gaming. Never a good idea, IMHO.

"Do We Have Spaceship Gaming All Wrong"

Probably, but does it really matter? Remember we are talking about science fiction, and science fiction is replete with big spaceships shooting the *** out of each other.

On a slight tangent, there seem to be a few of these topics recently trying to apply real, hard, logic to sci-fi miniatures combat gaming. Never a good idea, IMHO.

Agreed, they are toys and games and make believe.
Pew pew lasers!

When it comes to spaceship gaming its more about aesthetics rather then realism.

SpaceSHIPS are a weird concept by itself, considering the fact that space exploration is exclusively tied to a nation's Air Force, not navy ;)

Yeah, there are Space rules that allow you to use actual space physics. They aren't my cup of tea and are generally far less popular than ones which allow you to replicate the movies or TV series.

Thanks,

John

The Risen Empire books from Westerfeld have a great ship battle near the end of the first book that feels like a great extrapolation of what your situation might look like in the far future. Sort of a 'realistic' 40k.

Considering that there hasn't ever been a space war, or even any real spaceborne weapons systems, then yes, we are almost certainly doing it wrong in every respect.

Of course, given your examples… I don't think either of those games is attempting to be a "simulation", or even distantly realistic. I mean, Battlefleet Gothic is intentionally silly AFAICT, and though I don't know a lot about Firestorm Ammada, I've seen little that makes me think it's supposed to be anything more than a quick, fun, shoot 'em up.
-Kle.

Yeah but even Sci-Fi and Fantasy have to acheive a level of suspended disbelief. So the question should be, when playing a spaceship battle does it feel like a space battle to you?

For me it feels like it when the ranges are in miles not yards, there are ships on the table and there is mention of things like bridge, engine room and life support.

Though I am easily pleased..

\0/

Extrapolating out current technology then almost all spaceship combat rules are a mess. (one exception – that shown in the Transhuman Space setting for GURPS is probably pretty darn good, but it is mapless to begin with). Since most scifi spaceship games start by breaking at least one scientific rule to begin with – well then all bets are off.

Space warships of the future are going to look like my iPhone. Some sort of economical slab, with no discernible "turrets" or weapon hardpoints. I suspect that most "weaponry" would focus on things like sending signals that frack up the opponent's software (if there is even still "software" as a concept by then), and thus disable his systems. That's a whole lot more efficient and economical than trying to hit him with bullets, missiles, or zap-zap.

Alas, "Fire Virus!" just doesn't make for cool Sci-Fi dialog….

While I do think that we are largely getting space combat wrong, I don't think that space combat is going to be all small ships. You run into economies of scale that have tended to make ships larger.

Between Rocketpunk Manifesto and Atomic Rockets, it looks like the most efficient size for a spaceship is several kilotons, maybe even 10,000 tons dry mass. Wet-navy missile boats are maybe 300 tons gross mass.

The space warfare in Ian M Banks 'Culture' series mainly features large(ish) numbers of small/medium sized ships, plus drones etc. Big ships just make big targets.

Actually I'm starting to think one of the big issues with our view of space combat is how we classify by size.

Its really helpful to view ships as modular in design. You have a certain number of engines and an amount of reaction mass (fuel, if you like). That determines how fast you can change directions and how many times you can do it before you're drifting. Then you put on as many weapons and armor and everything else as you like. That all reduces your acceleration (and makes your fuel worth less). You can respond by adding even more fuel, but that fuel ALSO slows down your acceleration.

So you can have what we think of as a fighter, or a fast corvette, or whatever you want to call it, that has a single engine, only a small weapon or two, and light armor, and not much space for people/everything else. Its low mass, high acceleration, and probably pretty good delta V. You can design a ship that has pretty much identical characteristics but its weapons are twice as big and its armor twice as think by doubling the fuel and engines (approximately- square cube law and the mass of the fuel changes that a bit). Effectively a 'Heavy fighter.' You can do that to the point where the ship LOOKS like what we think of as a battleship but it acts more like a fighter in combat.

You can do the same thing, more or less, with the traditional 'battleship.' which is mostly armor and guns. Can start off small, with a tiny little 'tank' that is mostly weapons and armor and only a bit of fuel and engines. Then you can build it up to a battle ship.

To represent that you need at least "in the overall flow" realism in a game. I for one find the many variations that can be had in such a system to be a bit more interesting… leave non-vector movement and sea-like warfare to, well, sea warfare games. =D

I totally disagree with all of the above. I think most Sci Fi writers have it right in that any vessel capable of sustaining human life in space will necessarily need to be a "ship" that people can live on for decades if not centuries.

Yes. Communications and other hi tech data will allow combat or warfare to occur at great distances but the actual complement of people and civilization will need to be via a "ship". No different than it was for Earth's early explorers who endured voyages that lasted months to cross the ocean and years in terms of a "round trip".

As for "combat" if the above is correct then at some point it will not only be optimal to destroy an enemy's actual "ship" or armada but hopefully capture or salvage it. So proximity will be vital. i.e. the equivalent of the modern day "boots on the ground".

Finally, almost all sci fi eras that I familiar with assume some of kind historical apocalypse that actually knocks mankind back several hundred years in technology. So the large "fleet" size ships are an amalgam of their present technology (i.e. dreadnought like ships) and futuristic applications of rediscoverd or preserved technology (i.e. near warp cores, railguns, etc.).

Another aspect of these large ships would presumably be their ability to carry massive electronic jamming and countermeasures that could disable or destroy most "drones" or ballistic missiles at great distances.

Thus once again there would be the need to get "danger close" and deliver a package before any jamming or counter-measures could be effective, i.e. the modern day nuclear submarine.

Even today, for all practical purposes only third world countries or pacifist states are actually completely vulnerable to drones and long range ballistics. Meaning most have the ability to know when they are deployed against them and respond with disproportionate force if necessary. Just like we can see when Russia or China start arming or fueling a ballistic missile in their silos. And while most drones may be able to avoid ground "radar" I doubt that they are invisible to space based satellites something Iraq, Afghanistan and Lybia do not have. Both Russia and China have satellites though.

As another point, about the minimum mass for the equivalent of a spacegoing PT boat is almost 1000 tons, once you add all the remass and weapons (and the reactor to power it all). It might be 500 tons or less empty, but you still need to push a kiloton of STUFF around at mission start.

"Do We Have Spaceship Gaming All Wrong"

Yes, but if everyone playing is having fun, then you're gaming it correctly.

Al | link

I imagine larger ships to be used to transports for troops and civilians and one these wouldn't take part in a combat role.

Then you would have a class of ships that would act as carriers for drone crafts. These would be maybe medium sized but also wouldn't take part in direct combat, but rather act as the the control, launching and repair point for unmanned vehicles.

Your vessels that take part in direct combat would be drones or small manned vessels that specialize in cloaking, detection, ballistic delivery and avoidance, they would be fast and maneuvrable and pack a big punch. They would want to screen and protect the carrier and transport classes. I imagine that ballistic delivery would get much more complex and you would be able to deliver unmanned ballistics across galaxies. It would be interesting to be able to individualize your ships to have special capabilities to counter other ships' capabilities.

No real way to tell if we have it all wrong but as a friend says whenever someone asks why a game is what it is his comment is "shut up and play".

If you want small ships and drones go for it. I think it would be just as much fun as any other space game.

My biggest difficulty with suspension of belief lies not in the size of ships but in design. A lot of ships we see would tear themselves apart. The engine pods on the Star Trek Enterprise for instance. I dont know what material the pylons are made of but the mass of the engine would snap them like matchsticks with changes in velocity/direction. I still play with them.

Al

If we assume that space maneuver and combat are constrained by currently understood laws of physics, then yes, we have it all wrong.

Most space games don't make that assumption, however.

Another issue to deal with in the fluff is how space travel actually occurs and the consequences and limits that it would have on combat. For example if people travel through wormholes or some sort of singularity event, they have to be able to create black holes, and then could you create black holes as an offensive weapon?

Also I agree that large ships would have to exist to sustain life of a colony or to project force onto planets. But I don't imagine that these same ships would want to take a direct combat role. That would be left to the fighters I mentioned above.

And yes the physics of ships can be odd, but I guess cone shaped ships aren't as exciting. Perhaps the Soryllians from Firestorm Armada are the most aerodynamically accurate ships.

to get it right it would be the most boring game you ever played. days spent closing into range, with one minute of weapons fire from hell, and days moving around for another pass. and that is with ships that can move .2C and unlimited power to push 2Gs or 4.

Of course we have it all wrong. In the future some third world country will send up and rocket and we well blow it shreds. Game, set, and match. I will still play Star War and look forward to the new X-wing game coming out in a month or two. Nothing to do with physics of space flight or anything based on reality just good old fashion American ingenuity.

VR
James Mattes

Only if you played it in real time Ouzel. at the right scale it'll work just fine.

Ouzel – This is one of the things Transhuman Space adresses, battles are of two types with the first working just like you describe (there is not coming around for a second pass either). The second assumes that both ships start in orbit at relatively slow speed (relatvie to each other) and allows for more manuevering.

TS also handles the weaponry well, the most deadly weapon is a large spray of some kind or radiation weapon – I forget the details but it knocks out the target's electronics and if the crew did not get into the "storm cellar" they get fried as well. The "Storm Cellar" is a small, densely shielded, area of the ship for when the sun sends out a burst of radiation or combat is at hand.

old fashion American ingenuity.

eh what, was the X-wing built in America and shipped to a galaxy far far away?

Yeah but even Sci-Fi and Fantasy have to acheive a level of suspended disbelief.

Really.

You're saying that it's possible to play Battlefleet Gothic and suspend your disbelief.

The space warfare in Ian M Banks 'Culture' series mainly features large(ish) numbers of small/medium sized ships, plus drones etc. Big ships just make big targets.

Sna?
There are some truly gigantic warships in the Culture novels. Even Killer-class ROUs are 200 meters, and GOUs are bigger. Not to mention that non-purpose-built warships also fight, and things like GSVs are very big, indeed.

eh what, was the X-wing built in America and shipped to a galaxy far far away?

Nah, just to Burbank.
-Kle.

Yeah, aint it great?

Long Distances?

Not!

We are already getting REALLY good at shooting down things that are flying at us.

In space, a maneuvering object is going to stand out quite a bit.

True, while it is not maneuvering, there are all manner of things that one can do to hide an object, but this makes it difficult to hit an object that changes it's trajectory even by a little bit.

And, it may not be "seconds of weapons fire from hell."

Materials technology for things like Fusion technologies are going to produce some formidable materials.

Anything that could stand up to the Wigner Effect, for instance, is probably going to be able to shirk any kind of directed energy weapon as if it was water off a ducks back (to use an old saying).

But…

Most people who create these things (spaceship games) aren't exactly on the cutting edge of science and technology.

Most of these people are taking their queue's from Sci-Fi or from aging engineers who are still using 1970s/80s era technology as the basis for their assumptions.

Anything that could stand up to the Wigner Effect, for instance, is probably going to be able to shirk any kind of directed energy weapon as if it was water off a ducks back (to use an old saying).

Hey, Cog Comp is back! I thought your account was locked?

-Will

Oh no, not again!

taking their queue's

Hey! That's MY line!

I always compared spaceship combat to submarine warfare.

Well, submarine warfare without the stealth isn't a totally bad model.

To one extent it's like a modern naval game. You detect incoming, fire off countermeasures and pray you don't get hit, because if you do get hit, you're screwed.

You have limited delta-V to chase your target, too. This means that you need something to use as a maneuver restrictor, to force your target into a position that you can whomp them without them being able to whomp you.

In Federation Commander, each hex is 10,000 km leading to absolutely mind-numbing fire ranges. How could you see, much less hit, something at that distance? As Douglas Adams said, space is Big. How do 'sensors' actually work? At least, that's what I wonder.

On size, I remember my uncle (an aerospace R&D engineer) looking at my lego-built spaceships and pointing out that the bigger, the better. The bigger ships would produce much more of the power you would need to move through space. . .the frigate sized ships would barely be able to poke along (this is assuming conventional propulsion, I guess).

I disagree that there will not be stealth.

It is too easy to pocket heat and send it somewhere else.

Especially with a machine operated ship.

Not to mention the existence of aero-gels that are a nearly 100% effective insulator.

Once the firing starts, then there would be no stealth.

But with our current weapons, that is going to be at ranges of 2 to 20km.

In Star Trek, remember that they are using "Sub-Space" sensors that work faster than light, and can be wonked-up with all kinds of gizmos.

How does a protoplasmic sub-etha radar-sneaky warp-invisibility field work anyway?

…Show me the math!

Whatever technology you assume, the ranges are going to dictated by how close you can be before you can guarantee a hit- ships will try to stay out of that range. Low thrust engine technology will somewhat paradoxically lead to longer combat ranges, since low thrust means less ability to dodge. Higher thrust engine technology pushes the effective range in.

In general though, I do agree with the original poster- whatever weapons you use, whatever semi-magical technology you want to invent, it doesn't make a lot of sense to put a human on the pointy end. In fact, as technology increases putting a man in the missile makes less and less sense. Most of the actual shooting and dying will be done by autonomous unmanned craft, with humans (or post-humans) riding herd in some command platform as far back as they can afford to be. You'll have repair platforms, tankers, all that jazz, but they'll still in all likely hood be totally automated or nearly so. Unmanned platforms have been serving us great in space for 50 years, and will continue to do so in the future.

Here is a blog post that sums up a lot of these ideas very well-
link

-Will

Probably yes especially seeing as no one has yet built a military spacecraft let alone used one in anger. Guessing arsenal ship's are probably quite likely – tricked out with big smart missiles with multiple independently targeting warheads and miscellaneous unmanned craft. We'll probably build smaller stuff to avoid 'all eggs in one basket' syndrome and try to provide some umbrella cover. This assumes science as we currently know it.

Personally I'm in the "if your having fun your doing it right" camp.

wminsing, I read that blog post very nice.

I would also expect a high degree of specialization among the missile delivery ships and missile types. For example: different ordinance depending on the proximity to planets, some missiles themselves are stealth, some platforms distinctly for sensing and some for cloaking. And then a whole different type for space to planet and space to space type of ordinance.

wminsing, I read that blog post very nice.

I would also expect a high degree of specialization among the missile delivery ships and missile types. For example: different ordinance depending on the proximity to planets, some missiles themselves are stealth, some platforms distinctly for sensing and some for cloaking. And then a whole different type for space to planet and space to space type of ordinance.

Yes, I expect that drones would be specialized depending on role. You'd have them split between engine type, which dictates performance envelop (delta-v vs. thrust), payload, which dictates tactical role, and mass. The most basic drone type is probably a chemical or nuclear thermal engine drone filled with kinetic sub-munitions, basically a glorified missile. On the higher end of the scale you'd have drones with miniaturized versions of whatever drive your ship uses (for similar delta-v) and more complex weapons (possibly it is a bus for other drones) or other systems (Electronic Warfare, sensors, etc). Regardless of which technical assumptions you make (kinetics vs. dew, armor vs. weapons, stealth vs. no stealth) the actual math of space combat is rather grim, and it makes sense to push the actual shooting part off to automated and 'expendable' platforms as much as possible .

-Will

The closest game on the market..that's playable…is AdAstraGame's Attack Vector.

And even then they have large amounts of handwavium to make the game 'fun' instead of 'I shoot, you die.'

100 years from now, assuming anybody has a space program that has combat spacecraft, they will no doubt look at our assumptions and snicker, just as we do when we look at what people in 1900 thought the year 2000 was going to look like.

100 years from now, assuming anybody has a space program that has combat spacecraft, they will no doubt look at our assumptions and snicker, just as we do when we look at what people in 1900 thought the year 2000 was going to look like.

Well, either that or they'll wargame them for laughs the way we do with Victorian Sci-Fi!

eh what, was the X-wing built in America and shipped to a galaxy far far away?

Exhibit A: YouTube link

And even then they have large amounts of handwavium to make the game 'fun' instead of 'I shoot, you die.'

I disagree that they have *large* amounts of handwavium. What they have is a near-magitech nuke-fusion thermal drive… generating something like 8m/s/s delta-V. That's a high-terawatt drive energy, more power than is being generated on earth today, and you need something that powerful if you want the delta-V to avoid what Ken Burnside called the delicate dance of Parking Garages armed with cruise missiles.

Everything else flows from known technology, but you are talking about a 'game' designed around maneuvering instead of shooting. Some people *really* don't like maneuvering games.

Well,

I think some of your initial assumptions are off.

Yes the New Jersey for the US is no longer in service. But lets compare her at 887 feet, displacing 45,000 tons to a nimitz carrier 1092 feet displacing roughly 100,000 tons. The US is one of the most modern navies, but their main capital ship is still a big one. Some people have pointed out about econmies of scale needing larger ships for power and that may be true. A nuclear carrier's escorts are unable to keep pace with her if she is running all ahead full.

The New Jersey was updated with cruise missles and phalanx defense systems. I would wager that she would still be very relevant. The operating costs were a large factor in her being mothballed. Big ships require a lot of people and money. With other nations trimming down their military, you can assume risk with smaller vessels. So if no one else has them it becomes harder to justify the need. A US missile frigate can't match the New Jersey in total magazine capacity. She also can't stand up to punishment. A zodiac with packed explosive will wreck a modern ship, but BBs were built for a slug fest. The small ships are relying on countering the threat, but countermeasures aren't 100 percent.

The other part is everyone is mesmerized by smart missiles that go through a key hole and blow up a coffee cup in the hand of a bad guy while leaving the neighborhood intact. The cost difference between an 18 inch shell and cruise missiles is nuts. Yes cruise missles have a much longer ranger but there are rocket assited rounds that are still a fraction of the cost and help bridge the gap. With conflicts being televised now, watching an artillery barrage destroying city blocks isnt politically acceptable.

In the end though I go back to the carrier. They are the largest combat ships ever built and still relevant. The escorts are designed to compliment and protect the carrier. I am not aware of any plans to scrap all of them for catamarans. As to the future, no clue. Maybe nanobots fired through a rail gun that maneuver independantly and consume your enemy via their airways.