Legends of Pegasus - What sots 2 should have been?

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[nikomas]

You read any of the Honor Harrington series...

So read a bit of the first book, the science behind their space combat doesn't really jive with me, specifically their whole impenetrable shielding deal. Even normal shielding takes a lot for me to buy in a "Realistic" setting, and I dont think it makes for very interesting combat when 80-90% of a ship is basically impervious to enemy fire aside from very specific circumstances. To me that feels like the easiest route to get around the whole "Naked hulls in space blown to bits by missiles" problem.

Surprisingly, while I'm not the biggest halo fan I did read the fall of reach (That book was waaaaaay better than the games stories btw) and while I dont remember why, the space combat surrounding the defense of Reach was a very well written scene if I can remember right.

I think one of the funniest bits was while they couldn't take out some ships, the force of their focues railgun fire (or macs - Magnetic accelerated Cannon, same shit really) managed to knock them in the path of other ships... It was a fun read I guess, that's the part I remember anyway.

I'll check out the lost fleet later perhaps... Then again, maybe things change later on, thems a lot of books

[Spartan_Marine88]

So read a bit of the first book, the science behind their space combat doesn't really jive with me, specifically their whole impenetrable shielding deal.

Shields are far from impenetrable however they are really tough and its easier to go around then through. They also follow the idea that you can't shoot out what an enemy can't shoot in. Also if you had ready, due to the shields being particle based, they had very little effect on laser weaponry.

[Demon767]

wtf I didnt know we had particle based shields     

[nikomas]

Shields are far from impenetrable however they are really tough and its easier to go around then through. They also follow the idea that you can't shoot out what an enemy can't shoot in. Also if you had ready, due to the shields being particle based, they had very little effect on laser weaponry.

Uhm... So what was that entire wedge deal about then? The entire friggin top and bottomside of the ships is invurnerable when they are up and so far in the earliest book the only way to effectively take down their broadside shields is a suicidal Laser attack. Meaning at longer ranges the only vurnerable spots is the forre and aft.

Maybe they get heavier guns later on, but I'm not a big fan of that first bit, thats all.

[brn4meplz]

Do the Top and bottom(relative positions) carry any armament? because if they don't leaving the shields on seems fine. I'm going off what Spartan said but it seems like they need to stop protecting themselves to attack an enemy vessel.



And Yes, the Halo books(at least the first one) handled Space combat pretty well. I like that the author thought about things in a full dimensional environment. Rather then just fairly static.


While I love Star Wars I'm not particularly impressed with it's outlook on space combat. Even lower for me is Star Treks outlook on space combat.


I'd like them to do something in the Mass Effect lore for Space combat. They fleshed out so much of the information in the first 2 games regarding weapon systems and fleet sizes and cultural outlooks to not try and play that up. Having said that though they could really ruin it with overloading that biotic shit into the Space combat.

[Spartan_Marine88]

Do the Top and bottom(relative positions) carry any armament? because if they don't leaving the shields on seems fine. I'm going off what Spartan said but it seems like they need to stop protecting themselves to attack an enemy vessel.

I think they do carry an armament and need to roll shields, if i remember correctly (been a while) but that would render other areas unable to fire. (However if that side has had its weapons blown off no need to have it unshielded.)

To really explain the wedge you would need to read it, but most of the combat is done to be similar to old broadside combat styles.

[Poppi]

How far do you want to look into the future?

200 years? 3000? 60000? Millions?

This is what becomes important. When science reaches a certain level it becomes magic. If you want to talk about books based on humans, manning ships, while having all of this other tech, it's merely military fiction or space opera.

Hell, we don't even need pilots anymore now! You don't really need people manning tanks or anything else either. Why do you think a spacecraft, built for war, would include more than a couple people plugged into it to monitor what the AI is doing? If they even went that far.

Stating  is stupid. For all you know there might be no space ships, and we just fold our way through space to land immediately where we want, destroying planets with a wave of a hand.

Base it on what we can currently accomplish, and known technologies, and you get a very different picture that will probably extend for the next 100 - 200 years.

i agree that real world technology is far beyond what we think it might be.
people in the 90s thought the future will be cybernetics and computers on our wrists that we can plug into the internet.

but 15 years later fuck cybernetics stem cells and organic synthetic material and smart phones demolished all the old theories.

People dream about living up to 120 years old, but next thing on our list might be to live forever. And i dont mean to store our brains in a HD and be reborn. I mean like not to age at all.

Turns out science fact is far more hard to imagine than science fiction.

[Sachaztan]

You can either have a discussion that is based on current scientific knowledge (which means NO FTL amongst other things) or just make wild mass guessing.

In the first scenario you can actually have a meaningful discussion whilst in the second scenario you wont get anywhere.
"I think all space combat will be decided by obliterating matter through psychic powers" "There will be drones with FTL drives that can annihilate entire galaxies"...

[Spartan_Marine88]

You can either have a discussion that is based on current scientific knowledge (which means NO FTL amongst other things) or just make wild mass guessing.

have you been living under a rock, or just decide to ignore Boson research.

[AmPM]

Cybernetics is actually a decent chunk of DARPA research, nerve controlled replacement limbs and part for Vets.

We have smartphones which are basically the old cyberpunk wrist computers.

Our tech isn't that far ahead of what people imagined 15 years ago, in fact, it's pretty close. Whether or not it is mainstream or marketable are different things entirely (see flying car).

I mean if you want to imagine weapons of the future, why not singularity generators, they can be used to move the ship in any direction and provide a nice means of destroying stuff as well as screwing with any incoming fire.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

I, for one, think that FTL travel will be nearly impossible to achieve within the century. Yes, we study boson particles, and yes, we can do the most basic experiments to reproduce them for fractions of fractions of a second, but we are nowhere near the level of being able to harness them for he purposes of FTL travel. Not to mention once we have reached te stage where if (big if) we can harness them for such purposes, it opens up a whole other can of worms, of creating a vessel powerful enough to withstand the immense amount of force that would be produced during FTL travel. I'm fairly certain even Hawking didn't see FTL travel in huanity's future for a long tie.

AmPM, please don't spew random science like you think you know something about it. Generating a singularity and then using it would not only be an incredible risk to all matter in its vicinity, but would require a paradigm shift in the core principles of physics itself, in addition to massive advances in the fields of particle physics and quantum mechanics to even think of containing such a particle, much less harnessing it for use.

[Spartan_Marine88]

I, for one, think that FTL travel will be nearly impossible to achieve within the century. Yes, we study boson particles, and yes, we can do the most basic experiments to reproduce them for fractions of fractions of a second, but we are nowhere near the level of being able to harness them for he purposes of FTL travel. Not to mention once we have reached te stage where if (big if) we can harness them for such purposes, it opens up a whole other can of worms, of creating a vessel powerful enough to withstand the immense amount of force that would be produced during FTL travel. I'm fairly certain even Hawking didn't see FTL travel in huanity's future for a long tie.

You are most likely right, just had to comment on Sach archaic belief that FTL drive is impossible. We have to achieve a decent inter system drive first.

[Smokaz]

One thing is for sure: future space combat will be decided by psychic powers that destroy entire solar systems.

[Smokaz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_vision

Wow, awesome.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_vision

Wow, awesome.

Not exactly the cutting edge of technology anymore.

[AmPM]

AmPM, please don't spew random science like you think you know something about it. Generating a singularity and then using it would not only be an incredible risk to all matter in its vicinity, but would require a paradigm shift in the core principles of physics itself, in addition to massive advances in the fields of particle physics and quantum mechanics to even think of containing such a particle, much less harnessing it for use.

And Vermi's super high IQ misses the point entirely! If you want to talk "fantasy" science, you have to allow all possible technologies to the table, you can't just pick and choose which ones you want. If one can dampen inertia, why not be able to create gravity wells? If you want to break the speed of light without folding space/extra dimension (which are as far fetched as FTL anyway) you can't just say, "Well, my far fetched future science is right, yours is wrong".

[Smokaz]

I bet Vermillion has access to some amazing technology.

[AmPM]

Didn't you know? He's a fucking genius!

I'm sure he's got his own personal particle shielded spaceship/time machine.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

And Vermi's super high IQ misses the point entirely! If you want to talk "fantasy" science, you have to allow all possible technologies to the table, you can't just pick and choose which ones you want. If one can dampen inertia, why not be able to create gravity wells? If you want to break the speed of light without folding space/extra dimension (which are as far fetched as FTL anyway) you can't just say, "Well, my far fetched future science is right, yours is wrong".

No, I can, because the difference between good science fiction and bad science fiction is that good science fiction is rooted in scientific, or at least physical probability. Good science fiction authors explore the far corners of the physics spectrum, using probable advancements in the various fields to determine how the characters in the books achieve FTL travel or engage in combat in space. Authors like Isaac Asimov (coincidentally an influential scientist) did this sort of thing. Bad science fiction authors essentially dump their elements onto the reader with little or no explanation to their existence. For example, a good science fiction author would write "The tachyon propulsion system accelerated the ship to light speed", while a bad science fiction writer would write "The ship's engine accelerated to light speed because it was powered by psychic people who can destroy galaxies, k?". One must also take into account suspension of disbelief. Is the reader willing to believe that at some point in the future, psychic people will destroy galaxies? How far is the average reader going to let "possible" be pushed?

Aside from the obvious embellishment, bad science fiction authors don't bother to do the research or work to at least make a decent attempt to root their work in the frontiers of science, or even pseudoscience. Good science fiction is science fiction that makes a convincing prediction of future technology based on both the laws of physics and the willingness of the reader. Good science fiction authors have even managed to predict the course of future science. Examples include Jules Verne, H. G. Wells, and Isaac Asimov. The trash you mention would not belong in such a category as good science fiction.

tl;dr learn science (if they still teach that in 'Merica), also don't become an author.

[AmPM]

Have you not read his Foundation series? It includes psychic mind control in space. Along with many more fanciful elements.

Perhaps you should read more and type less.

Also, for anyone interested, Vermi's rant comes down to "good scifi is based on semi scientific principles, bad scifi doesn't bother explaining."

Damn you Aliens, Star Wars, Star Trek, Battlestar, most novels and all games for not explaining elements that are not important to plot!

Vermi, I would say that good scifi, is scifi that allows you to imagine what might be. It allows your mind to look at things from a different perspective and to become part of an engaging story. I do not think good scifi is a novel that reads like a technical manual.