Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

Why not have EMP emitters? Detection systems? Shields? and satellites?

Discussion in 'Suggestions and Feedback' started by RX1334, Jan 30, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. RX1334 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    14
    If shields are such a big problem in the community, why not have counteracting systems such as EMP emitters? This way shields wont be completely god-like and there would be a new way of battle. Also, what about detection systems? We are in a world 60 years from now and we cannot detect other ships in space, ludicrous. There should also be Satellites that can be controlled from a limited distance as recon. With all of these added there would be infinite possibilities of things to add, there should also be a larger amount of stuff added to the reactor system. Like output, cooling, fuel, repairs and so on.
     
  2. busboy Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    67
    The game is in alpha.

    EMPs don't discriminate.

    Just because there are no sensors now doesn't mean there won't be. There are ore detectors and antennae...detectives call that a clue...

    A satellite, by definition, orbits something. You want drones/probes.

    Regarding reactor issues: again, alpha.
     
  3. RX1334 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    14
    Yes, alpha does limit things but a probe would be great for recon missions and so on, shields though...... i think shields can be added but they can only act as a split second stopper. As in it will only take one significant hit from a rocket and will falter, acting as only a relief system. Each shield generator will be able to take one hit while shield generators cannot overlap to create an infinite bubble, once a shield gen is overloaded, it will either take the full concentration of a few large generators to recharge or will need 15 minutes to recharge. The recharge phase will not generate a bubble therefore, shield gnes can then be destroyed. Wouldn't this solve the OP problem about shields?
     
  4. busboy Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    67
    "OP" is one of these recent online gamer terms that makes no sense to me.

    "OP shields". OP means "overpowered." How do you declare anything that is fictional as "overpowered?" There is nothing real in which to compare it.

    To briefly answer your question, however, Space Engineers seems to take place in a technology level that exists prior to the invention of energy shielding. Trying to talk about hypothetical of recharge rates, overloading, concentrations, and bubbles is a moot point.
     
  5. Thalion Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    255
    OP regarding the balancing. Shield which cannot be pierced by 100 cannons are OP, because it is out of balance in favor of the shields.

    Shields => EMP => EM resistance plating => anti EM plating warheads => etc.
    This will eventually lead to a never ending demand for countermeasures, because one system is unbalanced and needs to be countered and the counter is unbalanced because the counter counters the system, so there will be a counter counter measure etc. ^^
     
  6. Leonhardt Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,930
    Easy. You compare it to other fictional things in the game.

    Welcome to video game design.
     
  7. DMMWolf Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    300
    And now we have hit the button on the head. the Demand for shields is nothing more than an Arms race. Make a bigger/better gun, Make bigger/better armor to stop it, Repeat.
     
  8. Vermillion Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,131
    So the only reason to add EMP emitters is to stop shields, and the only reason to add shields is so EMP emitters will have something to shut down.
    OR
    The devs can add neither and save themselves a lot of work for a majority-hated mechanic with no purpose.
     
  9. Jakejud Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    114
    This
     
  10. Vrmithrax Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,017
    Ding! We have a winner! :)
     
  11. Rbrown782 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    12
    I also liked the idea of capital ships having energy weapons and shields with the shields only being of any use against energy weps. So ammo would be the downside of projectile weapons and range and havering to cut thru shields is the downside of energy weps.
     
  12. Gentry Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,167
    how does a shield stop a laser but not light
     
  13. tomxp411 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    239
    An electromagnetic weapon (laser or EMP) is actually going to be most effectively stopped by mechanical means: ablative armor, chaff, or reflective surfaces.

    A physical weapon may be most effectively stopped by EM defenses, such as point defense lasers or EMP cannons.

    So the correct thing to say would be something like "Use shields to stop projectiles" and "use armor to stop lasers."

    Based on info that's already out there on the web, and stuff we've already talked about on this forum (for example, using high-intensity magnetic fields to shred metallic, non-ferrous projectiles), I'd say that the paper-scissors-rock game favors physical defense for energy offense, and vice-versa.

    So you could build up a ship with energy shielding, only to have that shielding ripped through by lasers. Or you could build up a ship with massive hull armor, only to have it torn through by a couple of missile salvos.

    And for those who whine about "realism"...I once again point out the Star Wars missile defense program, current military research in to Electromagnetic defenses, and Boeing's new real-life laser cannon. EM weapons and shields are REAL STUFF right now... it's no longer science fiction.
     
  14. radam Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,207
    Any weapon is most easily stopped by destroying it.
     
  15. Gentry Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,167
    rubbish
     
  16. tomxp411 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    239
    Did you actually READ any of the links I already posted on the topic?

    THIS STUFF IS REAL. It's not like in Star Trek. You don't get a glowing egg around your ship. But this stuff IS currently in R&D labs. There's absolutely NO reason to believe that it wouldn't be deployed in the field by 2077.

    If you don't believe me, go read up and then explain how the Ministry of Defense is full of rubbish. Until you can claim to know more than scientists at the freaking English Government, I don't think you get to say "rubbish." Go Read UP and tell me that EM protection systems don't exist. I suppose you also have more combat experience than the Israelis.

    Likewise, real life laser cannons.

    So please explain the rubbish part again...
     
  17. Gentry Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,167
    but that is just energized plating.

    Just because bad journalism calls it a forcefield doesn't make it one.
     
  18. tomxp411 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    239
    Let's see: The defensive system is pure energy based, and the incoming projectile is destroyed or diverted before it actually touches the target being defended. The Trophy system is not "polarized hull plating." It is an active defensive system that uses targeted EM pulses to destroy incoming projectiles. (You'd know that if you had watched the video or read the article.)

    Think about this: the laser (the other thing people are bitching about) was invented in 1958 - 56 years ago. TODAY, that device is a fully functional weapon of war.

    Trophy is already more capable than the 1956 lasers. Where will that system be in 2077, 64 years from now?

    Just like sci-fi blaster, phasers, and turbolasers, which look and act nothing like real lasers, sci-fi force fields don't act a lot like Trophy. That doesn't mean Trophy isn't a real-life force field, and that Space Engineers shouldn't include extrapolations of the real thing.

    Besides, real life spacecraft of the future will more than likely use a system very much like Trophy to protect against hull breaches. That makes "force fields" a lot more realistic than 8 foot thick hull armor assembled like Lego bricks, which will never, ever happen in the real world.
     
  19. Leonhardt Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,930
    Sounds like you're playing the wrong game, then, partner.
     
  20. DMMWolf Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    300
    On the Topics of how real is it as it applies to current day Laser weaponry.....
    However, using the Trophy system as an example of an energy Barrier is wrong...
    The Trophy system tracks incoming projectiles then Launches a Physical Countermeasure at the Target. There is no Force-field type effect involved. It is essentially an advanced AI coordinating an advanced tracking system and equally advanced point defense system.

    As for the article on Toms Guide, I cannot find a reference to the alleged item of research on the DSTL's website so I do question the legitimacy of the article. But it does lend credence to the argument that Magnetic anti-weapon barriers are possible in the near future and not just science fiction.
     
  21. tomxp411 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    239
    Holy carp... in the video, they totally made it out that Trophy was an EM type weapon. Thanks for pointing that out...

    turns out that Rafael has 3 different types of active defense systems based on the same idea: Trophy, Iron Fist, and Iron Dome. All are awesome. And I want these in mah game.
     
  22. DocTanner Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    763
    I would love to see advanced point-defense systems in game. Even a laser-based one. That's so much better and more interesting than an "HP bubble" shield.
     
  23. tomxp411 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    239
    Agreed. An EM point defense system is probably the best way to protect a ship in space.

    As to an HP bubble... I don't think those will ever exist IRL.
     
  24. Skeloton Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,069
    Isnt there a laser based rocket/missile countermeasure already? works on making the explosive prematurely explode or trick guided missiles into hitting dirt or maybe I read something didn't bother to let the info sink in.
     
  25. Leonhardt Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,930
    Yes, those do exist.
    and they're not star wars deflector shields
    so they'd be perfect.
     
  26. Skeloton Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,069
    The only sci-fi shielding I ever liked was ME's Kinetic Barriers because no matter how out there they actually were, they still felt like they had some realism to them.
     
  27. RX1334 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    14
    Another reason to have EMPs is that you can disable ships for a short span of time to enable boarding parties and fighter groups. Of course, the Construction of EMP emitters will be very costly.
     
  28. radam Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,207
    Wouldnt it be more fun if you actually had to engineer a boarding vehicle that has to evade and endure defences?

    Btw, in space there is cosmic background radiation and solar flares so everything has to be EMP shielded anyway!
     
  29. RX1334 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    14
    That is why they have EMP warheads, they penetrate then explode(emit). When did i say that it had to travel through space?
     
  30. DutchVictim Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    284
    "Ah yes, Kinectic Barriers. We have dismissed that claim."

    Good memories though. *sigh* Maybe i should replay ME Trilogy again someday...
    But i loved the way the how they tried to explain the various sci-fi techniques to real life physics. Even though it was obvious rubbish, it was still enjoyable and it felt somewhat real.
    On topic though, EMP's are unnecessary to counter shields and there are way more better alternatives to counter projectiles than magic bubbles only.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.