Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

General thoughts on Si-Fi combat

 Post subject: General thoughts on Si-Fi combat
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:49 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 2933
Location: Colorado, USA
Hey guys I wrote this some time ago and I still think it's a pretty interesting what if.

The conclusion that I draw is that none of the sci-fi games in existance captures a true advance form of combat that may exist when humanity has developed a space civilzation.

What are your thoughts.

Begin old post...

Ironically, I?ve been thinking a lot about sci-fi combat recently and then I saw this post and it really sparked my interest. To the point I have been thinking about ground combat in an era of space travel.

My next few comments are really my ideas on how a sci-fi game might/should look like. These are just my opinions and musing but maybe these ideas will strike a cord with the designers of this potential mini line.

First idea:
In the era of space travel the Navy is king. The Army/Marine should be a secondary force. As mentioned in this thread before, many planets would simply submit once space control was lost either because of food and/or trade. Can you imagine a major city like Seattle/London being cut off from all major shipments into or out of the city? Even in WWII the city of Lenningrad was able to hold out because it was never truly isolated from reinforcement and supply, a situation that would be difficult to accomplish with an enemy flotilla in orbit.

Second idea:
I do believe that reliable and accurate orbital support can be done on the sci-fi era game. So many sci-fi games gloss over orbital support by saying that it is too devastating, thus the attackers wishing to capture the planet ?intact? hold back on the uber weapons. Or the orbital support is too inaccurate. I say rubbish! If we can make an ICBM accurate we can sure target military forces from the orbit. The distance from orbit to ground is probably less than the distance between ships during space combat. Now the ships may not be able to use their spinal mounts on a military target but maybe there are other classes of ship with more dedicated and smaller weapons for the purpose. Besides what happens when the enemy doesn?t care about preserving the people, the infrastructure, or even the planet?!

Defender: You can?t bombard us we are a valuable habitable planet with billions of people and an intense industrial base. So you have no choice but to launch a bloody invasion and fight our ground forces.

Attacker: We have everything we need and beside we can?t breathe your air, bye.

Defender: No wait!...KABOOM!!

Third idea:
Now many plants will be self sufficient and if the culture is smart they wouldn?t allow their planets to become planet wide mega cities dependent on external supplies. Now to keep these planets from being bombarded and being forced to submit under threat of seeing all anything important to them simply plinked from orbit they will need to have some kind of defense. As such planets may/should have planetary defenses.

Now no matter how big a ship is a planet is bigger so it can have some very big guns or missiles pointed up toward the sky. In fact the power of these weapons would make any starship commander think twice before approaching it.

But for a planet to be protected would require a complete defensive web because if just one part of exposed it would make all the rest vulnerable to attack. Any planetary defense weapon would only be able to cover so much sky. The analogy I like to think about is a medieval siege; once the walls were breached it was over.

To break through this defense and to preserve the navy we have to send in the Marines. This is why we have ground forces.

Forth idea:
So here we have the marines/army/shock force/etc. Their job is to crack this defense to that the Navy people can park a ship in orbit and convince the rest of the people to stop fighting. This is by no means an invasion of conquest where we have to attack every major city. This is more like a really big raid. So we have the first type of battle, the battle for the defense installations.

I have tried to play out in my mind how this battle would develop. The question I have would the attacker have to get close to the facility or simply hit it from a distance. If we assume the attacker only has to get near enough to deploy ballistic artillery then the battle is real interesting. The defender cannot sit in bunkers and wait for the attacker. They have to have a mobile response force capable of meeting the enemy at a distance from the base.

In that case the battle for the planetary defenses becomes a completely mobile battle with two very maneuverable forces. I find that scenario very interesting.

Fifth idea:
The second type of ground battle will be occupation. Even with massive orbital support there can always be grunt work. While the enemy won?t be able to mass armored divisions against the occupying forces there can always be battle. Recent events have shown us that.

Sixth idea:
I believe any interstellar culture will have the ability to leave orbit easily. It should be as easy as driving a truck from one spot to another today. Because of that, I believe any interstellar culture would have mastered anti-gravity technology.

Entering and leaving orbit will be as easy as we see in Star Wars or Star Trek. The brute force method of rocket motors or even high attitude aircraft with rocket motors won?t work in the long term. Anti-gravity technology would be as common as the Internal combustion engine is today.

As such I see the sci-fi ground combat vehicle being an anti-gravity vehicle. The best reference for me is the Renegade legion miniatures. These vehicles may be simply the tank that hovers above the ground or be something really different. Imagine a cross between an Apache combat helicopter and a M1A1 tank. Anti-gravity may give you a hybrid armored vehicle that has both the abilities of a helicopter and a tank. Something similar to the Terminator movies hunter-killer units that we see flying over the legions of terminators.

As such I don?t think we should see any tracked vehicles in a sci-fi game where space travel is a common occurrence.

Seventh idea:
Ok mecha is cool. I love my battletech minis, but with all honesty I think the mostly likely mecha in a universe of space travel is not a huge one. The anit-grav tank/assault shuttle should be king of the battlefield. Now the idea of armored infantry or combat walkers is fascinating and I think it has quite a niche in the sci-fi world. I envision it would be the size of a battletech protomech or Space Marine dreadnought. In this fast paced combat the combat walkers are the immediate fire support for the infantry. The mecha would be armed with heavy machine guns, motors, light anti tank weapons, and maybe some not so light anti tank weapons. It will carry these weapons with decent mobility for a leg unit and the armor to withstand at least machine guns. The mecha would fulfill the role that our current day heavy platoons or fire support squads do today but in a much more mobile package. Allowing the base infantry to be more mobile or better armored sense they don?t have to carry a M60, a 60mm mortar, or javelin anti-tank rocket. Some cultures may have no standard infantry at all and only use combat suits.

Last idea:
Keep it real. While it seems to be to be a silly request for a sci-fi game or miniatures I do believe it has some merit. I love when the miniatures and the fluff make sense for their game universe. The introduction text of Dirt Side II is an excellent example. In that text the author drew some conclusions about the potential future based on current trends and made some assumptions. Based on those assumptions it made the why behind the rules and the minis more clear. While I don?t need realistic rules or a detailed explanation of how a fusion engine works I do like it to make a logical sci-fi sense. Case in point, why to we have gaint combat walkers to carry Storm Troopers into battle when a grav APC will work just as well if not better. It looked cool I know.

So that?s it for me. Sorry for taking your time on a long winded post. But I hope it sparks some ideas when you start designing those miniatures which I know will make us drool and wish for larger bank accounts. Good luck in your effort.

-Lou

...End old post

There you have it guys


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: General thoughts on Si-Fi combat
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:59 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:13 pm
Posts: 283
Location: North Wales, UK
Very interesting, thanks for posting that, there are some very good ideas in there.

To be honest, the army and air force would be so dependant on the navy I would suggest they may not exist. The degree of interaction required between the three for any successful operation would make this very useful. At the very least most of the training exercises would be combined. The air force/navy difference is also moot I guess :) I would not see ground forces determining sucess in any campaign really, as your navy can attack pretty much any ground target with sufficient force to neutralise it. Which means technically infantry taking and holding ground is almost meaningless, unless you want to keep that ground intact. But then again your defenders would know that they could be blown to tiny pieces with ease, so surrender would be likely. And if you cannot have a target, then in theory you would remove the enemies ability to keep it (barring humanitarian issues).

Engagements between rival fleets could be interesting, but ultimately at very long distances. Due to the size of space, it is unlikely fleets will ever meet away from static objectives, namely planets. In space, detection will be key, and you will be able to do it from a long way away, as there isnt all that much to interfere (there are things, suns, black holes whatever will distort sensors a fair bit, so using them could be useful). Once you have detected an enemy, you can launch missiles from huge distances away, until some missiles start getting through (they 'roll back' the defences with numbers or just stealth).

One big problem you have defending a planet, is that your opponent knows exactly where you are. He launches missiles from a huge distance out, with a travel time of 24 hours (using purely momentum for most of the trip), then moves so the launch vessels of the missiles cant be tracked, the missiles are launched in the general vicinity of the planet, in a sense with Semi-active radar homing, as soon as they near the planet, they lock onto ships, engage their terminal phase boosters and hit the ships in seconds.

Its all very hypothetical, and makes some big assumptions, but thats certainly how I see it, and to be honest I don't know how much fun that would be to wargame. Ive done some research into this (not enough it must be said, but there is only so much time in the day...) as Im writing my own starship combat rules, and its tricky. It becomes a battle of sensors and intelligence gathering, where tiny advantages in technology make a huge difference (if your missiles have a slight edge in stealth over their sensors, they are in trouble).

One thing I have ignored is any kind of FTL (Faster Than Light) travel, keeping the assumption this is impossible. This does throw things into confusion, as I feel it takes us back to very close range engagements between big battleships and the like, or at least can, as your ships can just jump in right next to them, without shots being fired as they close...but to be honest the details of that are tricky as the science is totally unknown.

Ive kinda gone off on a tangent to your post CC, but thats largely because I do agree with most of what you posted...





_________________
Reaversbane (or RB for short...)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: General thoughts on Si-Fi combat
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
A lot of 'future war' revolves around counter measures. If missiles, rockets etc can be countered, what then - you have to adopt new ways of attacking. Take OGRE, here nukes are survivable/counterable.

Going to the ground your orbital ship has launched its counter measures to the fusion bomb proximity missiles, survived and now is using its mass drivers to attack the city - is it so far fetched if you have the high level of tech you have talked about your anti grav beams can't stop 'em dead, that your point defence micro nukes can't vaporise them before they hit, and so on? Here lucky hits, supply problems and can you deal with rising back ground radiation problems are paramount.

First establish what tech your setting has, then how you attack with it and get round it.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: General thoughts on Si-Fi combat
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 4:10 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:13 pm
Posts: 283
Location: North Wales, UK
It depends on whether you see counter measures able to deal with things to any reasonable degree. There certainly isnt a great deal of historical precedent, except where the defenders tech level is a good deal higher.

The whole point is, detection and prevention are an 'opposed' task, which have a chance of failure, which means the attack methods will succeed to one degree or another. The only chance you have is to reduce the success rate to managable levels. Current naval tactics depend on fleet positioning and pickets to detect and intercept missiles, it depends whether that would still work with the distances and numbers involved.

is it so far fetched if you have the high level of tech you have talked about your anti grav beams can't stop 'em dead, that your point defence micro nukes can't vaporise them before they hit, and so on?


Very hard to say. The tech I suggested isnt really that far fetched, its simply extrapolated from what we can do today. You would be able to do something. We have the technology now to do a lot. The latest versions of the Standard missile are getting frighteningly fast, and can intercept most things, although ICBM's travelling at Mach 20 is questionable (Well I dont know anyway :D ). But the current principle of 'rolling back' the defences still applies. You are a static target, and just a couple (or even one) nuclear warhead through does a huge amount of damage.

At the end of the day, it is purely specualtion for speculations sake, as we just can't realistically predict tech levels and abilities. Its still fun though :D Most space wargames simple pick a historical periods style of combat and use that, which makes sense really (history repeating and all that :) ). BFG, for instance, is not unlike WW1 engagements really (Im not convinced the fighters are deadly enough to be WW2), which makes sense for the way the setting works. We can invent whatever spangly tech we want, as long as its fun to play...

_________________
Reaversbane (or RB for short...)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: General thoughts on Si-Fi combat
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:03 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36989
Location: Ohio - USA
Well you know my idea of Sci-Fi Combat ... Hammer's Slammers  ... 'nuff said ! :D :laugh:

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: General thoughts on Si-Fi combat
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 4:43 pm
Posts: 7258
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Hi Luis,

You should buy the GURPS Traveller Mercenary book. It lists out most of your ideas or at least ideas similar to yours.

Quote (Cuban Commissar @ 22 Mar. 2006 (20:49))
Hey guys I wrote this some time ago and I still think it's a pretty interesting what if.
The conclusion that I draw is that none of the sci-fi games in existance captures a true advance form of combat that may exist when humanity has developed a space civilzation.
What are your thoughts?


I think that we will never be able to do more than guess at what future combat will look like as it's impossible to guess what sorts od societal and technological advances will occur, let alone how we will take to those changes.

Quote (Cuban Commissar @ 22 Mar. 2006 (20:49))
First idea:
In the era of space travel the Navy is king. The Army/Marine should be a secondary force. As mentioned in this thread before, many planets would simply submit once space control was lost either because of food and/or trade.
Can you imagine a major city like Seattle/London being cut off from all major shipments into or out of the city? Even in WWII the city of Lenningrad was able to hold out because it was never truly isolated from reinforcement and supply, a situation that would be difficult to accomplish with an enemy flotilla in orbit.


Self-sufficiency is a big part of any sort of "rebel" culture succeeding in breaking away from the "evil empire." No food = no victory.

It will be interesting to see what the interstellar equivalent to "globalization" will look like. We're all interdependent on each other at some level these days.

Quote (Cuban Commissar @ 22 Mar. 2006 (20:49))
Second idea:
I do believe that reliable and accurate orbital support can be done on the sci-fi era game. So many sci-fi games gloss over orbital support by saying that it is too devastating, thus the attackers wishing to capture the planet ?intact? hold back on the uber weapons. Or the orbital support is too inaccurate. I say rubbish! If we can make an ICBM accurate we can sure target military forces from the orbit. The distance from orbit to ground is probably less than the distance between ships during space combat. Now the ships may not be able to use their spinal mounts on a military target but maybe there are other classes of ship with more dedicated and smaller weapons for the purpose. Besides what happens when the enemy doesn?t care about preserving the people, the infrastructure, or even the planet?!
Defender: You can?t bombard us we are a valuable habitable planet with billions of people and an intense industrial base. So you have no choice but to launch a bloody invasion and fight our ground forces.
Attacker: We have everything we need and beside we can?t breathe your air, bye.
Defender: No wait!...KABOOM!!


This will probably be the scenario of the future, but it makes for a lousy planetary surface combat game.

Quote (Cuban Commissar @ 22 Mar. 2006 (20:49))
Third idea:
Now many planets will be self sufficient and if the culture is smart they wouldn?t allow their planets to become planet wide mega cities dependent on external supplies. Now to keep these planets from being bombarded and being forced to submit under threat of seeing all anything important to them simply plinked from orbit they will need to have some kind of defense. As such planets may/should have planetary defenses.
Now no matter how big a ship is a planet is bigger so it can have some very big guns or missiles pointed up toward the sky. In fact the power of these weapons would make any starship commander think twice before approaching it.
But for a planet to be protected would require a complete defensive web because if just one part of exposed it would make all the rest vulnerable to attack. Any planetary defense weapon would only be able to cover so much sky. The analogy I like to think about is a medieval siege; once the walls were breached it was over.
To break through this defense and to preserve the navy we have to send in the Marines. This is why we have ground forces.


Citywide burgs don't seem to be a good idea in my book.

The arcology seems like amuch better idea.

They're very vulnerable in many ways and the existing metroplexes have as many pros as cons. Think of Los
Angeles being the look of the future. No thanks!

Quote (Cuban Commissar @ 22 Mar. 2006 (20:49))
Fourth idea:
So here we have the marines/army/shock force/etc. Their job is to crack this defense to that the Navy people can park a ship in orbit and convince the rest of the people to stop fighting. This is by no means an invasion of conquest where we have to attack every major city. This is more like a really big raid. So we have the first type of battle, the battle for the defense installations.
I have tried to play out in my mind how this battle would develop. The question I have would the attacker have to get close to the facility or simply hit it from a distance. If we assume the attacker only has to get near enough to deploy ballistic artillery then the battle is real interesting. The defender cannot sit in bunkers and wait for the attacker. They have to have a mobile response force capable of meeting the enemy at a distance from the base.
In that case the battle for the planetary defenses becomes a completely mobile battle with two very maneuverable forces. I find that scenario very interesting.


We have that today. It's called nexus warfare and it's been used in Iraq. Take out the enemy's vital infrastructure and you essentially have him under siege. His only remaining choice is an insurgency and those are very costly and often produce little result other than active defiance.

Targetting enemy civilians is also unethical, which means if you want to be a "good guy," terrorism isn't an option.

Quote (Cuban Commissar @ 22 Mar. 2006 (20:49))
Fifth idea:
The second type of ground battle will be occupation. Even with massive orbital support there can always be grunt work. While the enemy won?t be able to mass armored divisions against the occupying forces there can always be battle. Recent events have shown us that.


And technology is making it tremendously harder to be a rebel. It's just too darn hard to hide anymore and heavy equipment is relatively easy to detect and will probably be even more easy in the future. This leaves rebels with manpack weapons, which leaves them with insurgency rather than open and effective warfare... unless, of course, their enemy is lazy or incompetent.

Look what happened to the Taliban and Al Qaeda when they pushed things too far.

Quote (Cuban Commissar @ 22 Mar. 2006 (20:49))
Sixth idea:
I believe any interstellar culture will have the ability to leave orbit easily. It should be as easy as driving a truck from one spot to another today. Because of that, I believe any interstellar culture would have mastered anti-gravity technology.
Entering and leaving orbit will be as easy as we see in Star Wars or Star Trek. The brute force method of rocket motors or even high attitude aircraft with rocket motors won?t work in the long term. Anti-gravity technology would be as common as the Internal combustion engine is today.


OK.

If you're going to have an interstellar economy and culutre, you will need to be able to enter and exit the atmosphere economically.

Quote (Cuban Commissar @ 22 Mar. 2006 (20:49))
As such I see the sci-fi ground combat vehicle being an anti-gravity vehicle. The best reference for me is the Renegade legion miniatures. These vehicles may be simply the tank that hovers above the ground or be something really different. Imagine a cross between an Apache combat helicopter and a M1A1 tank. Anti-gravity may give you a hybrid armored vehicle that has both the abilities of a helicopter and a tank. Something similar to the Terminator movies hunter-killer units that we see flying over the legions of terminators.
As such I don?t think we should see any tracked vehicles in a sci-fi game where space travel is a common occurrence.


The mobility advantages seem great until you think that what you can see, you can destroy.

Tracked and wheeled vehicles will still have their place.

And even the vaunted grav tanks will hug the ground in combat. Their biggest advantage is in high speed mobility to and from the combat zone.

Quote (Cuban Commissar @ 22 Mar. 2006 (20:49))
Seventh idea:
Ok mecha is cool. I love my battletech minis, but with all honesty I think the mostly likely mecha in a universe of space travel is not a huge one. The anit-grav tank/assault shuttle should be king of the battlefield. Now the idea of armored infantry or combat walkers is fascinating and I think it has quite a niche in the sci-fi world. I envision it would be the size of a battletech protomech or Space Marine dreadnought. In this fast paced combat the combat walkers are the immediate fire support for the infantry. The mecha would be armed with heavy machine guns, motors, light anti tank weapons, and maybe some not so light anti tank weapons. It will carry these weapons with decent mobility for a leg unit and the armor to withstand at least machine guns. The mecha would fulfill the role that our current day heavy platoons or fire support squads do today but in a much more mobile package. Allowing the base infantry to be more mobile or better armored sense they don?t have to carry a M60, a 60mm mortar, or javelin anti-tank rocket. Some cultures may have no standard infantry at all and only use combat suits.


Powered armor is probably feasible, but walkers are not very feasible if you have grav tanks.

And we haven't even considered drones, robot fighters or other unpiloted combatants.

Quote (Cuban Commissar @ 22 Mar. 2006 (20:49))
Last idea:
Keep it real. While it seems to be to be a silly request for a sci-fi game or miniatures I do believe it has some merit. I love when the miniatures and the fluff make sense for their game universe. The introduction text of Dirt Side II is an excellent example. In that text the author drew some conclusions about the potential future based on current trends and made some assumptions. Based on those assumptions it made the why behind the rules and the minis more clear. While I don?t need realistic rules or a detailed explanation of how a fusion engine works I do like it to make a logical sci-fi sense. Case in point, why to we have gaint combat walkers to carry Storm Troopers into battle when a grav APC will work just as well if not better. It looked cool I know.


Good point.

The best we can really do is extrapolate from existing conditions. It's all magic and fantasy until it becomes reality anyway.

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

_________________
6mm Sci-fi:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/6mm ... nWarGames/
My Personal Blog:
http://6mm-minis.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: General thoughts on Si-Fi combat
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:45 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 2933
Location: Colorado, USA
Quote (MaksimSmelchak @ 23 Mar. 2006 (15:50))
Hi Luis,

You should buy the GURPS Traveller Mercenary book. It lists out most of your ideas or at least ideas similar to yours.

It's soo hard to orginal these days.... :D

Thanks for the replies Maksim


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: General thoughts on Si-Fi combat
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 3:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:45 pm
Posts: 11147
Location: Canton, CT, USA
Although it's hard to predict accurately what the future battlefield will look like, I firmly believe that in the near future UCAVs will be very common in aerial combat, specifically ground attack missions. They have already demonstrated that capabilty. I also anticipate seeing robots on the battlefield within about 20 years and maybe even prototype powersuits.

Orbital weapons will become accurate enough to perform precision orbital strikes, but I think there will always be a need for ground pounders. Even now we possess the technology to lay waste to vast areas, but you still need the grunts to occupy objectives.

I do agree that to have a truly interstellar culture, reaching outer space will have to be as commonplace as commercial air travel.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: General thoughts on Si-Fi combat
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 6:26 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 2933
Location: Colorado, USA
Quote (MaksimSmelchak @ 23 Mar. 2006 (15:50))
The mobility advantages seem great until you think that what you can see, you can destroy.

Tracked and wheeled vehicles will still have their place.

And even the vaunted grav tanks will hug the ground in combat. Their biggest advantage is in high speed mobility to and from the combat zone.

Argee that the grave vehicles will still hugg the ground in combat.  But there ease of movement to and from the immediate battlefield as well as dealing with obstacles currents vehicles struggle with today, like rivers and mountains, will make them dominate.  I also imagine the maintenance of these vehicles to be easier than a tarcked vehciels because there is no contact with the ground and possiblity no moving parts for the actual engine movement device.  

The tracked and wheeled vehcile thing is were I disagree with most of my esteemed Sci-fi friends.  I think those things will be as common in a high tech society as a horse and buggy is today.  And they would have no place in a "modern" armed forces.

Bush wars maybe, much like the Techinals found in West Africa.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: General thoughts on Si-Fi combat
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 7:04 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36989
Location: Ohio - USA
All good points ... I see GEVs being as hard to maintain as tracked !  IMO, Drake does a good job of "seeing the future".  Sci-fi like Epic, GZG, etc. is a hi-tech version of today.  All arms, Naval/Space/Air and Ground will all have their place ... We were like Slammers in SW Asia and the Ally/Tallies like the irregular forces in a Slammer's story ...  Hi-tech - low tech, ACV - Tracks, Lasers - Bolters, Humies - Aliens,  etc., etc. the dieing won't change ... :alien: :;):

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: General thoughts on Si-Fi combat
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:09 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 2933
Location: Colorado, USA
Legion just need to clarify something...

I'll start reading my Slammers book here real soon but I'll ask you this now.  

The vehciles in Slammer verse are GEVs, Ground Effect Vehicles.  They ride on a cushion of air floating a few feet/inches (??) above the ground.  

Is that correct?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: General thoughts on Si-Fi combat
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 5:04 am
Posts: 571
Location: Calgary Alberta Canada
Quote (Dwarf Supreme @ 24 Mar. 2006 (07:56))
Although it's hard to predict accurately what the future battlefield will look like, I firmly believe that in the near future UCAVs will be very common in aerial combat, specifically ground attack missions. They have already demonstrated that capabilty. I also anticipate seeing robots on the battlefield within about 20 years and maybe even prototype powersuits.

I think that the UAV and/or remotes are only truly going to be a viable option in a high-tech vs low-tech confrontation.

While it might be doable to pilot a UAV from orbit or another confrontation it would become a bit more complex in a situtation where your dealing with a near-peer in technological sophistication and who can introduce electronic warfare into the theatre of operations.

If you can't connect to a remote to operate it via whatever medium you use it's just as effective as having blown it out of the sky.

_________________
The Cheese! The Cheese!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: General thoughts on Si-Fi combat
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:28 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 5:04 am
Posts: 571
Location: Calgary Alberta Canada
Quote (Cuban Commissar @ 24 Mar. 2006 (12:09))
The vehciles in Slammer verse are GEVs, Ground Effect Vehicles. They ride on a cushion of air floating a few feet/inches (??) above the ground.  Is that correct?

That is indeed the case CC... it's why the vehicles are sometimes referred to as "blowers" in the novels.

_________________
The Cheese! The Cheese!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: General thoughts on Si-Fi combat
PostPosted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 6:55 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36989
Location: Ohio - USA
Yes, that is true ... GEVs/ACVs(Air Cushioned Vehicles) do ride cms/inches above the ground.  "H" is correct !     If you have VOL.1, you'll see pics from Treadaway's Handbook of the "Blowers", Combat Cars, etc.    :D

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: General thoughts on Si-Fi combat
PostPosted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 10:41 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 2933
Location: Colorado, USA
Quote (Heresiarch @ 24 Mar. 2006 (14:26))
Quote (Dwarf Supreme @ 24 Mar. 2006 (07:56))
Although it's hard to predict accurately what the future battlefield will look like, I firmly believe that in the near future UCAVs will be very common in aerial combat, specifically ground attack missions. They have already demonstrated that capabilty. I also anticipate seeing robots on the battlefield within about 20 years and maybe even prototype powersuits.

I think that the UAV and/or remotes are only truly going to be a viable option in a high-tech vs low-tech confrontation.

While it might be doable to pilot a UAV from orbit or another confrontation it would become a bit more complex in a situtation where your dealing with a near-peer in technological sophistication and who can introduce electronic warfare into the theatre of operations.

If you can't connect to a remote to operate it via whatever medium you use it's just as effective as having blown it out of the sky.

More and More the UCAV will operate indepently using mission specific software

I also imagine that most airborne weapons will be a over the horizen for range.

UCAV

UCAV 2

UCAV 3


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron

Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net