PDA

View Full Version : In Starship Warfare,is the size matter ,bigger the better?



ckwongau
December 24th, 2004, 01:14 PM
:) I know the Prometheus is big , but not as big as a mothership.
If 303 go up against a mothership ,one on one.Who has the advantage?

:) I mean smaller fighers like F302 has better manoeuvribility but the mothership has powerful shield ,so how many F-302 needed to do significant damage on a mother ship without using the tricks in "Fallen"

:( Asgard can no longer be confidence in victory when the Goa'uld got superior number



:( One thing about Sci-fi show that disappointed me is the Starship battles. most of the starship battle is just the same.May be With exception of Babylon 5, :D i mean B5 the series has the best realistic battle scene that actually move me.
All the other space battle from shows like , DS9, Voyage and Battlestar Galactica is pettery much just the same most of the time.

:( Two ship fire at each other until the shield of one ship can't take it any longer. The enemy ship unsally never win, because the ship either got away and retreat until their shield is at maximum again.
:rolleyes: The bigger the ship , the more damage it can sustain before .
:D I mean the only other Star Trek strategy that has been use and over use is the one Commander Riker use in his academy stimulation, use a planet's gravity field to cloak the ship.

:rolleyes: I wish the writer can invent something new .
:D Captain Sheridan was good at blowing things up, i mean the Earth destory were too ugly to be powerful,the Whitestarship just too fast and too manoeuvrable , starfury were too cool .B5's ship doesn't have shield, but the organic ship got automatic repair.But the best strategy they use were putting telepath with shadow implant on the enemy destoryer.

:eek: it was original when SG1 use an F302's hyperdrive to fly pass the Mothership 's shield.But how many time can they use that trick?


:cool: minor Prometheus unbound spoiler
*
*
*
I know the Prometheus is big, the aliens mention it a few time in Prometheus unbound
*
*
*
:rolleyes: But just how big ?
is it bigger than the Titanic , or bigger than a few jumbo jet.
:rolleyes: do u kow that the Romulan Warbird is about twice the size of the Entreprise.


:rolleyes: At the end of the day ,does Size really matter? or the number of the fleet given the technological gap between Earth and Goa'uld.

Erik Pasternak
December 24th, 2004, 01:18 PM
Size is not a major factor in my opinion. If you're intrested in Prometheus's size, click here (http://www.stargate-tech.net/starships/earth/x303.htm).

TechnoWraith
December 24th, 2004, 04:17 PM
Your ship's capabilities, as well as the capabilities of the ship's captain that count in a starship battle.

A good captain knows what his ship is capable of. Both offensively and defensively. He knows when he's outgunned, or when his ship's weaponry outguns his oponent's. He also knows how to use his ship in the best manner to achieve the maximum effect. And a good captain also knows when it's time to run.

In terms of the ship, there are myriad number of variables that determine how a ship will do in battle. The first being whether or not it was designed for combat in the first place. (A gao'uld cargo ship is by no means a warship of any kind. But an Al'kesh or a Hatak is ready to beat the snot out of just about anything). Among the variables (outside of design) that effect battle-readiness are weapons, shielding, maneuvering(sp?) capabilities, size, and whether or not the ship is accompanied by fighters (or capable of launching fighters).



:( Asgard can no longer be confidence in victory when the Goa'uld got superior number.
The reason the Asgard can no longer guarantee victory is because the Gao'uld have adapted their technology to counter the Asgard weapons (mostly shielding).




:) I know the Prometheus is big , but not as big as a mothership.
If 303 go up against a mothership ,one on one.Who has the advantage?
Near the end of Lost City (season 7), the Prometheus is seen flying toward Anubis's ship (where it is being fired at by lasers). From the angle of approach, it appears that Anubis's ship is much bigger than Prometheus. If Anubis's ship is a mothership, than I would have to agree with you in the assumption that Prometheus is indeed smaller than a Goa'uld mothership. So I would have to reluctantly say that the Gao'uld would have the advantage.

aAnubiSs
December 24th, 2004, 07:10 PM
The single most important thing is reactors, without power one can't use anything. That's usually dealt with building bigger and bigger ships.

TechnoWraith
December 25th, 2004, 06:06 PM
The single most important thing is reactors, without power one can't use anything. That's usually dealt with building bigger and bigger ships.

Absolutely essential for any ship, I might add. Power is the lifeblood of any ship, so with a puny power source, your ship's not gonna accomplish much.

Beatrice Otter
December 25th, 2004, 10:39 PM
Absolutely essential for any ship, I might add. Power is the lifeblood of any ship, so with a puny power source, your ship's not gonna accomplish much.
Also, while it's true that quality is better than quantity, sometimes quantity has a quality all its own. A squadron of F-302s is far more effective than a single one, as a fleet of motherships is more effective than a single one. This applies on an individual scale as well. The larger a ship is, the more batteries (as in, weapons emplacements) it can hold. Which affects the rate of fire it can maintain and (possibly) the number of targets it can engage at once.

Size also affects damage control--the same hit to a smaller ship will do more damage than to a larger one, simply because it hits a larger proportion of the shi's systems. Also, larger ships tend to be able to fit better armor/protective systems aboard. It's like the difference between a destroyer and a battleship--a battleship not only has more (and bigger) guns, its armor is thick enough that it will simply shrug aside hits that would sink a destroyer.

Technology matters, of course. An Asgard ship the size of an F-302 could undoubtedly kick the ass of a ship several times the size of the Prometheus, built solely with human tech (or tech we've reverse-engineered). But once you have roughly similar tech levels, a larger ship will almost always be able to take out a smaller one.

ckwongau
December 26th, 2004, 01:42 AM
One more advantage for a bigger ship , is that it has room to add new stuff onto it as SGC discover new technologies.

:rolleyes: Remember the Hebredan Ion drive , Carter wanted it so much, and i was wondering , if they are going to add the ion drive onto Prometheus,we saw General Hammond order the crew to use emengcy thruster in "Lost City pt 2"
And retro rocket.We were never told much about the Goa'uld sub light engine,only without the sub-light engine, the mothership will lost control as it exit the hyper space, F302 use aerospike eengine and rocket booster in space for sub-light speed.

:rolleyes: The Hebredan doesn't use Stargate until now, they must have good sub-light engine for long distance travel.

:rolleyes: I think there is room for the Prometheus to add an ion drive engine.

:rolleyes: And what about the ship from Nightwalkers, the unfinish superstructure look advance , and since only the Earth government US, Russia has access to Naquadah at the time , how did those cloned Goa'uld expect to power the ship without naquadah? They were building a big ship to transport a town full of Goa'uld.I think the Goa'uld was building a ship using only Earth material , if the military can adopt that technology and use it on Prometheus, it could solve the BC303 program's dependence on Naquadah and other non-earth material.

:rolleyes: My point is that X303 with an X means experimential , the ship is still growing and improving. It's size allow rooms for improvment.

DownFallAngel
December 26th, 2004, 07:34 AM
All I have to say is 'Remeber the Defiant'. That little ship kicked ass!

BackStageJim
December 26th, 2004, 08:39 AM
LOL

"Size is not a determing factor of intelligence" Spock, TOS

po134
December 26th, 2004, 11:22 AM
sure that you have to get a ship with a certain size, to carry all your device ... but a bigger ship is not better, you just have to get a very small power device, as a ZPM and a very small and powerfull hyperdrive engine and you could even put it in a puddle jumper :) ! But the thing is, if you carry weapon as the puddle jumper do, you don't have enough supply ... so it depends on your technology, for the tau'ri size is important to carry their weapon and their F-302 :) !

1138
December 27th, 2004, 07:55 AM
Given the same level of technology, I'd say a larger ship would be able to carry more weapons, have a more powerful reactor and generally take more damage before it can be destroyed. But with vastly different levels of technology, it's much harder to compare. But if the ships are ramming each other, mass wins.

Sela
December 27th, 2004, 03:21 PM
In ships as in life, I have always gone on the assumption that bigger is always better. ;)

However, I do like the relatively smaller ships like the Defiant, the Millienium Falcon and any number of Alkeshes. (Alkesh-i?)

BackStageJim
December 27th, 2004, 06:57 PM
A cargo ship with ZPM powered shields, weapons, and population could be a dame fine fighting vessel. Again, the size issue is carrying staff, and none system integrated weapons (human design, thus inferior to Gou’ald).

Now if I could only get a captains chair installed, and perhaps seat-belts.

Daryl Froggy
March 6th, 2006, 06:48 PM
If this discussion is assuming that all tech for all races is virtually the same then yes size does matter but only to a point. At this point the power it takes to move the ship and shield it will become more expansive than the ship has room to expand.

A medium sized craft can do twice the amount of things at half the cost in both lives lost per-ship and in resources lost per-hip. Thus is my belief, bigger may look cooler but smaller can stay around longer.:mckay:

P.S. correct me if you think I'm wrong.

the fifth man
March 6th, 2006, 08:01 PM
Size means nothing. IMO, shields and weapons capabilities are all that matter. A fighter vessel (let's say an F-302), for example, with superior shields and weapons could easily take out a much bigger ship (like a Goa'uld Ha'Tak).

PG15
March 6th, 2006, 08:11 PM
I know this is an old thread, but just look at the end of "Exodus" and how that Alkesh handle the Ha'tak.

kmiller1610
March 7th, 2006, 02:15 AM
A bigger ship makes a bigger target. Smaller ships blow up faster. Smaller ships in great numbers flown with great skill can take down any large ship that does not have other small ships to defend it. From the Armadas of ancient times to the aramadas of WW2 to the fleet battles of B5, it's all the same.

I'll take a fleet of White Stars for most jobs......


"Who am I? I'm Susan Ivanova, Commander, daughter of Andrei and Sofie Ivanov. I am the right hand of vengeance, and the boot that is gonna kick your sorry ass all the way back to Earth, sweetheart. I'm death incarnate and the last living thing that you're ever going to see. God sent me."

-- Ivanova in Babylon 5:"Between the Darkness and the Light"

Ancient 1
March 7th, 2006, 04:02 AM
I believe it was in: It's Good to Be King that the Ancients proved that size doesn't matter when the single drone of one PJ took out a mothership of ....damn.....whatever Goa'uld Wayne Brady was posing for....crap! Still can't remember. :confused:

Ouroboros
March 7th, 2006, 09:21 AM
If tech levels are similar then yes, a bigger ship will tend to outperform a smaller one in straight up combat but the issue is so much more complicated than that.

If you're making your ships big you have to look at things like how difficult it will be to build the big ship vs say 2 smaller ships or if you have engine tech that can push that much weight. If you're making your ships small then you have to look at things like how much they can hold in supplies for the crew and fuel and if they can actually mount weapons powerful enough to make them worth building.

In general you're probably best off with a mixed fleet that includes both small and large ships. Each have their strengths and weaknessess and having both let's you slot them in to the situations where they'll work best. You also want to try and combine mixed ship types together in battlegroups as much as possible so they can compliment each other's abilities.

Scyld
March 7th, 2006, 09:32 AM
A cargo ship with ZPM powered shields, weapons, and population could be a dame fine fighting vessel. Again, the size issue is carrying staff, and none system integrated weapons (human design, thus inferior to Gou’ald).

Now if I could only get a captains chair installed, and perhaps seat-belts.

Human design is not necessarily inferior to the Goa'uld. We don't have much in the way of energy weapons, but projectiles can be just as, if not more effective. The difference? Projected energy weapons are sexier.

ckwongau
March 7th, 2006, 10:30 AM
If tech levels are similar then yes, a bigger ship will tend to outperform a smaller one in straight up combat but the issue is so much more complicated than that.

It is hard to say about the Tech level,After "Ethon"
The Rand nations were technological equal to Earth's 1950's but with the Ori design specification, they are able to build a Satelite weapon with powerful shield .The fleet of F-302 did nothing to it.
The Sateilite 's powersource was mystery, it seems the Ori brought the weapon to life.It was their inferior communication that allow SG1 to desable their system
But with a powerful shield, and ineffective Earth nuclear missile, if the Missile were intercepted before reaching the target , the warhead won't detonate.

Are space Figher such as F-302 effective?
Most powerful small space fighter like X-wing fighter, Star Fury are in B5 and StarWar unverses where shield are not indestructable like on Stargate.
But it seems shield are getting more and more powerful in Stargate

Apophis ,Anubis ,Asgard and Ori , each one of their shield are getting more and more powerful and offensive weapons are almost remain the same .
Railgun is kind of weak,missile are useless, and the scientist never figure out the secret of Energy weapon

carcatcher
April 3rd, 2006, 11:45 AM
The only advantage that size has is the ability to absorb impact energy over a larger area, meaning 1 missile could destroy a fighter but only annoy a large ship, but if you had an equal amount of tonnage worth of fighters attacking a single large ship, the large ship with all of its increased firepower can still only target and fire upon as many ships as it has guns available, whereas all of the fighters can target and fire at once and independenly of each other. The big disadvantage of the fighters is that they need a base of operations nearby to resupply from.

I think the key issue is the power source, the more you have, the more you can use. The smaller the power source(physically, not power wise), the smaller the ship you can run and the more room you can devote to weapons and defence.

freyr's mother
April 3rd, 2006, 11:48 AM
To an unshielded ship, size does matter, too a shielded ship; its not that much of an issue. If the ship is large and shielded than its just a bonus.

Atlantis_Man
April 3rd, 2006, 02:04 PM
Im gonna have to say the most important thing is speed, how fast the ship can go, that it can dodge shots, position itself well to open fire, deploy itself to planets and systems when needed.
Obviously power shield would be nice but why bother when the enemy can hit you, but you would need some heavy weapons, take the Puddle jumper for example, high speed and loaded with drone, perfect example of what I mean now you simple have to adapt that to the larger scale and as some one said "Remember the Defiant," small but speedy and bloody hell did she pack a punch!

Exiled Master
April 3rd, 2006, 03:43 PM
It's not the size of the dog in the fight or the size of the the fight in the dog; it's when the dog and the fight are the same size. (That probably doesn't make sense:S) My point is, it's all about balance and flexibility. A bigger ship makes a bigger target. A smaller ship won't be able to support giant weapon systems and shields. All this goes out the window when you throw in nukes. Ultimately it's about the level of technology in your ship. Several modern patrol ships could have sunk the entire Spanish Armada at its peak.

NakedJehutyV2
April 3rd, 2006, 05:04 PM
the 303 and 304s suck against everything cept fighters.


only good thing is the asgard shields


hell damn earth weapons have no effect on wraith ships with no shields PATHETIC and ARROGANT!

_Owen_
April 3rd, 2006, 06:21 PM
I would say yes, in general size does matter. If one ship is bigger than another, there can be more room for more technology, or more advanced technology. Also if a small ship attacks a big ship it has to destroy more to win, whereas the big ship has the advantage because it doesn't have to destroy as much. I'm sure there would be certain situations where you have a small but incredibly advanced ship, armed to the teeth with everything you could find go up against an advanced, but not as advanced, gigantic ship. In which case the small ship could likely win.

jhkplaya888
April 4th, 2006, 08:24 AM
bigger the ship the better you are...take for example the asgard ships are bigger then the guaold n they kill them, the guaold ships are bigger then ours they kick our asses...so do the wraith, also the most famous scene is with the ori there ships r freaken huge n they kicked all our asses...
also the asgard can kick the guaold asses with there oneal class ship
________________________________________________________________________________ ______
{Mod Snip}

jhkplaya888
April 4th, 2006, 08:26 AM
the 303 and 304s suck against everything cept fighters.


only good thing is the asgard shields


hell damn earth weapons have no effect on wraith ships with no shields PATHETIC and ARROGANT!
ya earth weoponds r g@y they suck balls, we should beg the asgard for there wepond or find some in the ancients or use there drones, or better yet make ships for the asgard n keep some


{Mod Snip}

Milleniumlance
April 4th, 2006, 12:14 PM
the 303 and 304s suck against everything cept fighters.


only good thing is the asgard shields


hell damn earth weapons have no effect on wraith ships with no shields PATHETIC and ARROGANT!

the only thing stoping the Mk. VIII is the Darts...it was seen in Seige pt.3 that the nukes work on ships if used and impemented properly...higher velocity missiles would work, fired in salvos of atleast 4-5.

freyr's mother
April 4th, 2006, 02:06 PM
the only thing stoping the Mk. VIII is the Darts...it was seen in Seige pt.3 that the nukes work on ships if used and impemented properly...higher velocity missiles would work, fired in salvos of atleast 4-5.

I'd say maybe 8 or 9 because theres like 1000 darts flying around outside willingto commit suicide in order to protect the hive.

cobraR478
April 4th, 2006, 03:21 PM
Its depends on the power consumption of the technology. Bigger reactors may be useful, but if the power requirements of the technology increase more than the power output of a large version of the same power source does, then obviously you would want smaller ships. Just because your engines are twice as large does not mean you will go twice as fast. ;) You might end up going slower.

A Lost Cause
April 4th, 2006, 03:39 PM
Its depends on the power consumption of the technology. Bigger reactors may be useful, but if the power requirements of the technology increase more than the power output of a large version of the same power source does, then obviously you would want smaller ships. Just because your engines are twice as large does not mean you will go twice as fast. ;) You might end up going slower.


Similar to what he said, you want the most efficiency. IE, you want the smallest ship possible without sacrificing any crucial systems, which is why I am slighly confused at many ship designs in stargate.
bigger is easier to hit, so smaller is better so long as you are not sacrificing too much, as stated in the first sentence its all about efficiency. if you can make a ship thats the size of a puddle jumper with the same shields and weapons as one the size of a mothership, why make a mothership? all it does is waste resources and becomes an easy target. Personally, i think the design for the Ori ships has gone the wrong way, i was hoping for something the size of a puddle jumper which would hop out of the supergate and whoop some oversized alkesh butt, i was greatly dissapointed.

IcyNeko
April 5th, 2006, 12:34 PM
This goes back to naval warfare (circa 1800's). Back when our ships were wooden, the question of size was pretty easy. Sloops (smaller, versitile vessels with slightly less powerful guns, but a huge speed advantage) often destroyed more powerful ships that were larger, had more men, and more guns. The reason was that the sloops could sail circles around the bigger ships, and the crew had a harder time firing on the sloops. Sure, it took less hits, but if the enemy couldn't hit it to begin with, then the larger enemy was the one at the disadvantage.

In space combat, it's all about your tech (which some people get, but overall most people still miss the point). Pulling out the fact that the Earth Vessels are as big as the Hatak mothership is like saying my Airsoft pistol is as big as a real Military pistol. Same size, big difference in tech.

When Anubis was attacking Earth in his mothership, the weapons fire came in energy bolts. That weapons fire could be dodge by a jumper or another ship that's more mobile. Given that this is true, the jumpers' missiles could have easily torn holes in anubis's ship and blown it to pieces. Heck, a PuddleJumper could take out the entire Earth fleet. Here's a classic example of smaller ship taking out a larger ship.

Da Vikster the Ori
April 5th, 2006, 12:56 PM
Well, the more advanced a ship is, the greater it's power requirements and so the more advanced the power core needed etc, so a Hatak could have proportionally the same amount of extra energy as an aurora-class ancient battleship....

Once again, size is better. especially for ramming.

And technology is more important though. Those of u who saw camelot know that the deadalus class ships are way smaller than Goa'uld ships, yet Hataks were destroyed in a single shot by an ori laser weapon, but it took several to destory the korolev....

Size doesnt matter if technology is better

jenks
April 5th, 2006, 01:00 PM
bigger the ship the better you are...take for example the asgard ships are bigger then the guaold n they kill them, the guaold ships are bigger then ours they kick our asses...so do the wraith, also the most famous scene is with the ori there ships r freaken huge n they kicked all our asses...
also the asgard can kick the guaold asses with there oneal class ship


Gonna have to disgree with that, I think Hive ships are alot bigger than asgard ships, and my quess would be that an Asgard ship would pwn a Wraith one...

IcyNeko
April 5th, 2006, 01:19 PM
Well, the more advanced a ship is, the greater it's power requirements and so the more advanced the power core needed etc, so a Hatak could have proportionally the same amount of extra energy as an aurora-class ancient battleship....

Apples and Oranges. Hatak's are composed of inferior technology.
Besides, you could pack an ancient beam weapon on the Daedalus as it's only weapon, incorporate the asgard shield, and tie it in with a ZPM and boom. You can take out any ship larger than itself (cept for Asgard and possibly Orii). Energy doesn't mean you need a bigger reactor. Heck, a ZPM is smaller than a naquadah reactor and generates 1000x more energy.


Once again, size is better. especially for ramming.
Don't ever pilot a ship. No government would appreciate your tactics. Not even the wraith (unless you're a dart pilot).

Avatar28
April 6th, 2006, 01:48 AM
:rolleyes: Remember the Hebredan Ion drive , Carter wanted it so much, and i was wondering , if they are going to add the ion drive onto Prometheus,we saw General Hammond order the crew to use emengcy thruster in "Lost City pt 2"
And retro rocket.We were never told much about the Goa'uld sub light engine,only without the sub-light engine, the mothership will lost control as it exit the hyper space, F302 use aerospike eengine and rocket booster in space for sub-light speed.

:rolleyes: The Hebredan doesn't use Stargate until now, they must have good sub-light engine for long distance travel.

:rolleyes: I think there is room for the Prometheus to add an ion drive engine.

:rolleyes: And what about the ship from Nightwalkers, the unfinish superstructure look advance , and since only the Earth government US, Russia has access to Naquadah at the time , how did those cloned Goa'uld expect to power the ship without naquadah? They were building a big ship to transport a town full of Goa'uld.I think the Goa'uld was building a ship using only Earth material , if the military can adopt that technology and use it on Prometheus, it could solve the BC303 program's dependence on Naquadah and other non-earth material.

:rolleyes: My point is that X303 with an X means experimential , the ship is still growing and improving. It's size allow rooms for improvment.

You know, I'm not sure they HAVEN'T gotten those ion engines. I mean, look at this image. It's of the F-302 in intruder.

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j75/Avatar28/intruder641.jpg

Now they are WAY out of any planet's atmosphere in interplanetary space. So there's no way even an aerospike engine will work. They still require SOME atmosphere. Yet the "conventional" engines are still lit up. Add to that the fact that a solid rocket is not throttleable. You light it and it burns until it goes out. You can't slow it down or stop it. If they were using just that, no way could they pull the moves they do out there.

Along the same lines look at Ethon
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j75/Avatar28/ethon0123.jpg

Here the solid rocket shows to be ignited. However you also have the glow from the main engines as well. Again, the only way they could possibly be burning is if they carried their own oxygen (which cuts into fuel/weapons storage and makes for a BIG boom if something goes wrong) and I just don't see them putting LOX on a fighter craft if at all avoidable.

And then there's a glow in the engines in this picture as well, also from Ethon.
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j75/Avatar28/SG1-915-0012.jpg

Pharaoh Atem
April 6th, 2006, 05:56 AM
bigger the ship more weapons you can put on it

smaller ship can evade easier and attack more often

Auralis
April 6th, 2006, 10:43 AM
Size is irrelevant.
What matter is power generation potential and its use.

IcyNeko
April 6th, 2006, 12:10 PM
Size is irrelevant.
What matter is power generation potential and its use.
Oh good, someone who finally gets it. :D


Props!

V-MAN
April 6th, 2006, 12:17 PM
the only thing stoping the Mk. VIII is the Darts...it was seen in Seige pt.3 that the nukes work on ships if used and impemented properly...higher velocity missiles would work, fired in salvos of atleast 4-5.

Or perhaps some sort of "intelligent" missile that is able to maneuver past the darts and directed energy weapons fire instead of flying in a nice crappy straight line :rolleyes: .

The lastest cruise missiles are able to do this to a certain degree (deploying countermeasures to defeat missiles and performing high G turns) and we have had missiles that can be remote controlled for years.

Imagine 5 mark VIIIs fired from the Daedalus that are remotly piloted by 5 fighter pilots on the Daedalus who are watching a live video feed from the nose of the missile they are controling. I would bet good money on at least 1 of them scoring a hit.

IcyNeko
April 6th, 2006, 12:27 PM
The Wraith darts can intercept them. The number of darts greatly outnumber and can best the skill(s) of pilots. :P

V-MAN
April 6th, 2006, 12:31 PM
The Wraith darts can intercept them. The number of darts greatly outnumber and can best the skill(s) of pilots. :P

If that were true then they would have managed to intercept the F-302s but they couldn't because of the superior dog fighting skills of the human pilots, the same ones that could remotly pilot the missiles.

The only counter to the would be to some how interfear with the remote link.

cobraR478
April 6th, 2006, 12:35 PM
Our *real* technology is generally getting both smaller and more advanced. There's a reason why we don't build huge things in the real world. Its not practical. Now, obviously, there is a limit as to how small you can build something as well. The general idea is to decide what you want something to do, then figure out a way to do it as small and as cheap as possible. Building something larger for the sake of having more power is inefficient.

IcyNeko
April 6th, 2006, 12:55 PM
True. But then why do the Asgard vessels get larger and larger? Possibly because they build it in case they have to relocate a population en masse? They certainly don't need some of those rooms...?

thegreatKull
April 6th, 2006, 03:29 PM
i think yoda put it best "size matters not" lol. i think that the remote missile thing is a good idea but itll take a little bit more manuverable engine on the missile, cause other wise the pilot would just be controling it in a general direction, not to mention a good control interface, point defence weapons wouldnt be a bad idea either cause you could use a super unstable lasing material so there would be more explosive potential to it.

Ouroboros
April 7th, 2006, 09:40 PM
If the Wraith can jam the Asgaurd teleporter they could probably jam the hell out of the connection on any kind of remote controlled missile.

The best bet for getting a nuke through is to build a railgun big enough to throw one or a MIRV type warhead that breaks apart into a bunch of smaller warheads, or one big one and a bunch of decoys, when it gets into their PD range.

AtlantisForever
April 8th, 2006, 12:36 AM
hmmm maybe but i agree it could hold alot more F-302's and more weapons but the bigger the ship is the bigger the problems can be..

carcatcher
April 8th, 2006, 05:02 AM
The biggest problem that I see with getting bigger is that you reach a point where more power is being consumed by support services ( ventilation, heat, water recycling, cooking, etc.) than what is provided for the weapons and shields. The best battlecraft has the most powerful and efficient power-generator with the most powerful shields, weapons, and hyperdrive (no good being powerful if you can't get there in time) tied directly in. The only other thing you would need is some room to put in some refugees, a place to put your head and a washroom. The ship doesn't need to be able to support a crew for more than a week or so and the crew doesn't need to be large, since any battlecraft is really only a support craft anyway.

cs-comm
April 8th, 2006, 12:25 PM
Larger ships alow space for larger power generators, weapons and cargo holds. A larger ship can carry heavier armour and stronger shields then a smaller ship. While smaller ships are generally faster since it is easier to accelerate a smaller mass, larger ships with more guns can throw walls of fire that are impossible to dodge.

Furthermore, a larger ship implies more advanced engineering capabilities since it much harder to keep larger ships intact while they accelerate (not to metion accelerate them in the first place).

cobraR478
April 8th, 2006, 12:31 PM
Larger ships alow space for larger power generators, weapons and cargo holds. A larger ship can carry heavier armour and stronger shields then a smaller ship. While smaller ships are generally faster since it is easier to accelerate a smaller mass, larger ships with more guns can throw walls of fire that are impossible to dodge.

Furthermore, a larger ship implies more advanced engineering capabilities since it much harder to keep larger ships intact while they accelerate (not to metion accelerate them in the first place).
All of these ideas are assumptions based on stuff we have literally no idea about. In reality, if interstellar travel ever does happen, we will have a particular range of sizes for a ship based on many variables. Most likely, its going to be better to have three ships with 1/3 the mass of that big super ship you want to build.

EDIT: The one thing we do know is that humans ALWAYS look for a smaller, cheaper way to make the same thing.

cs-comm
April 9th, 2006, 05:51 AM
Most likely, its going to be better to have three ships with 1/3 the mass of that big super ship you want to build.

It would depend on their purpose ie what they're designed for. A larger ship would be better for some things and smaller ships for other things.


EDIT: The one thing we do know is that humans ALWAYS look for a smaller, cheaper way to make the same thing.

Of course! That's why modern supercarriers are smaller then their WWII counter parts... Smaller is better for things like computers, cell phones and consumer products but not everything; bigger isn't always better either.

Exiled Master
April 9th, 2006, 12:01 PM
I think it's about how many different things a ship can do. If it has a :replicatoranime01: disruptor, you can make a bigger one. If it has a staff weapon, you can make a bigger one. There is a principle to developing systems like a space ship: Better, faster, cheaper: Choose two.

IcyNeko
April 9th, 2006, 12:18 PM
Here's a thought. The old computers (ENIAC) filled an entire room and could barely do operations. Then we found better materials to make it out of, more conductive materials and suddenly the computer went from a room to half a room. Nowadays, computers are smallter than a cell phone (which are computers in and of themselves), and run 1000x or more faster than the old computers tha filled a room. And they do better heat disappation.

Notice how Atlantis controls use crystals? It's been speculated that crystal-based technology is the future, being that they allow for more data transfer with minimal heat. They were experimenting with a 6 - 10 Ghz Diamond-based processor a while back...

What I'm saying is... everything gets smaller with the advancement of technology. If the Tauri made ships with equivalent power to an asgard mothership, it would be the size of a solar system and run on nuclear energy.

As technology advances, things shrink in size until the only parameter that defines their size is their use.

carcatcher
April 9th, 2006, 01:34 PM
some say big, some say small. We have both already! With some weapon upgrades and a little more power production, we can compete with what we have already!

nickak2003
April 9th, 2006, 01:38 PM
Effeciency is directly related to size, as you make systems larger, the less effecient they become. At some point it makes sense to make a series of smaller devices. This principle also applies to ships as a whole. A super huge ship like a wraith hive ship would need to have a special design to it. In order to maintain decent effeciency, it would need lots of duplicated, redundant, smaller systems throughout the ship, rather than having single large master systems.

You cant just plug thousands of nuclear reactors together though and expect to have a zpm like powersource. As the size of the whole thing increases, the practical power output is going to decrease, as distances increase and masses increase, and resource requirements increase.


As technology advances, things shrink in size until the only parameter that defines their size is their use.

Well things are generally only made as large as necessary, given technology. The only time size is favored is when there is a desire to hold more things. For instance, battleships and bombers used to be favored for size. Now that weapon effectiveness as incerased though, we have bombers with only a small number of bombs, and each bomb may have its own target.

One thing that I think hasnt been expressed much in scifi is range. In space you have potential for some really long ranged weapons, you may have missiles able to travel across systems if not galaxies, and energy and projectile weapons with very long range. In the future, if it is ever scifi like, all one force will need to do is learn the location of their enemy, and then overwhelm them with weapons, perhaps from distant hidden locations. There wont be any gunslinging battleships or battles at highnoon as featured on stargate. It will be phenomenally easy, easier than it is now, to target civilian populations. If wars are ever fought, the military defenders will probably be the last to know. Which of course lends its self to a complete change in the way society works, but yada yada.

cobraR478
April 9th, 2006, 01:40 PM
It would depend on their purpose ie what they're designed for. A larger ship would be better for some things and smaller ships for other things.



Of course! That's why modern supercarriers are smaller then their WWII counter parts... Smaller is better for things like computers, cell phones and consumer products but not everything; bigger isn't always better either.
Well, they are different levels technology, with a different optimum range for size. Which, I believe, I accounted for in one of my posts. There was an optimum size for WWII battleships, and there is an optimum size for modern battleships. They aren't bigger for the sake of being bigger.


Obviously larger ships would have their uses, but they would most likely be as small as the technology would allow them to be for their given purpose.

nickak2003
April 9th, 2006, 02:01 PM
essentially, ranges will be so great that there will be no such thing as defense, and certainly not in terms of starships, and therefore size does not matter.

cs-comm
April 9th, 2006, 07:42 PM
Well, they are different levels technology, with a different optimum range for size. Which, I believe, I accounted for in one of my posts. There was an optimum size for WWII battleships, and there is an optimum size for modern battleships.

So you agree that bigger can be better. No one would be stupid enough to assume that war is so one-dimensional that smaller would be better in every case or that bigger would be better in every case.


They aren't bigger for the sake of being bigger.

It would be odd for a technologically advanced space faring race to build something bigger for the sake of being bigger. Like I said before, if you make a ship bigger it would be because you want to fit more guns, make those guns more powerful, to have better shields, armour and power generators.


essentially, ranges will be so great that there will be no such thing as defense, and certainly not in terms of starships, and therefore size does not matter.

Ever heard of counter-battery fire? Why would increased range negate any defenses? Historically as weapon ranges increased new defenses and tactics were developed that countered those new ranges.

Avatar28
April 9th, 2006, 08:16 PM
Here's a thought. The old computers (ENIAC) filled an entire room and could barely do operations. Then we found better materials to make it out of, more conductive materials and suddenly the computer went from a room to half a room. Nowadays, computers are smallter than a cell phone (which are computers in and of themselves), and run 1000x or more faster than the old computers tha filled a room. And they do better heat disappation.


I guarantee you it's a LOT more than 1000 times faster. The fastest modern CPUs, such as the Athlon 64 FX60 or Pentium D 950 are almost 15000-20000 times faster than the original 4.77 MHz 8088 processor of the original PC-XT. It, in turn, was way faster than Eniac.

ENIAC could execute 5,000 additions, 357 multiplications, and 38 divisions in one second

While not an entirely meaningful comparison (raw instructions per second are actually a bad basis for cpu comparison), an Athlon 64 FX60 overclocked to 3.0 GHz (from 2.6) can perfom something of the order of 27000 MIPS (millions of instructions per second), that's 27 BILLION instructions per second. BIG difference.


Physically, ENIAC was a monster. It contained 17,468 vacuum tubes, 7,200 crystal diodes, 1,500 relays, 70,000 resistors, 10,000 capacitors and around 5 million hand-soldered joints. It weighed 30 short tons (27 t), was roughly 8 feet (2.4 m) by 3 feet (0.9 m) by 100 feet (30 m), took up 1800 square feet (167 m2), and consumed 150 kW of power.

According to the same article of 2004, a bit of silicon chip measureing .02 inches square has the same computing power.

IcyNeko
April 9th, 2006, 09:33 PM
THanks for pointing out that I just commented off the cuff. My point is that as tech improves, the size of everything goes down. Same thing with weapons technology.

Bravo for the research though. :D

Avatar28
April 9th, 2006, 09:44 PM
Thanks. Just pointing out that the the differences were even greater than you had suggested.

Even so, though, that's not always the case. As engineering capabilties increase, sometimes things get bigger. E.g. ships, cranes, construction equipment, buildings, etc.

nickak2003
April 10th, 2006, 01:09 AM
Ever heard of counter-battery fire? Why would increased range negate any defenses?
[/quote]
Well this is assuming that the batteries are able to defend the entire area simultaneously, that you are able to bring them to effectiveness before theyve been destroyed, and that they can be at all effective to begin with. In space, attacks could be coming from any and every direction. It seems like there must be weapon systems that would render counter-batteries useless.

There are bound to be weapons systems and in specific configurations or in conjunction with particular strategy or tactics that cannot be practically defended against -especially in the vastness of space where you can pick your battles. For instance, super massive shells or missiles travelling at enormous speeds. It may not be possible to fend against several such weapons on different arbitrary vectors, perhaps in addition to other kinds of weapons and offense.

Theoretically it should be possible to overwhelm any sort of battery or defense. If you draw a circle, and call the perimeter, defense, and then draw a second circle of arbitrary size around it, and call that offense, you can see a large difference in ratio. This concept seems to lend it self perfectly to any sort of ranged combat, and maybe combat in general. Its possible to fit huge amounts of offense into small amounts of defense. The bottom line is that there are way more forms of offense than forms of defense.



Historically as weapon ranges increased new defenses and tactics were developed that countered those new ranges.

What, camo and guerilla tactics? guerilla tactics do not seem applicable, and camo, once youre spotted, youre dead. There arent any counters to range other than hiding, avoiding hits, and really thick armor which often loses its defense after some amount of hits. History shows that offense is more powerful than defense and that intelligence is more powerful than either.

LOKI LOKI
April 10th, 2006, 02:21 AM
Back to the origional point about size in the lost city hammond seems confident that the prometheus can take on a few alkesh and Hatak so they were outnumbered and also much smaller than the Hatak without it making much difference because we had the advanced asgard shields. However our lack of (good) offensive weapons and slow speeds (related to what the engines are capable of) is down to our ships being too small and underpowered with a ZPM we do ok so i think our ships need to be bigger with a larger power core to utilise our current tech better

cs-comm
April 10th, 2006, 02:06 PM
Well this is assuming that the batteries are able to defend the entire area simultaneously, that you are able to bring them to effectiveness before theyve been destroyed, and that they can be at all effective to begin with.

A shield could defend an entire area at the same time. Counter-battery fire is when you shoot back at the enemy with your guns so you can destroy theirs. Perhaps if a shields was erected that blocked incoming fire and then you return fire with your own guns.


It seems like there must be weapon systems that would render counter-batteries useless.

Why must there be weapon systems that would render counter-batteries useless? In order to do that a weapon would have to hit every defensive weapon at the same time (very quickly) and come without any warning? Are you proposing a weapon that is perfectly invisible and can also destroy an unlimited amount of enemy weapon systems nearly simultaneously? Explain how if such a weapon was built it couldn't be used to defend against itself.



snipped: repetition of "there must be a weapon" argument -especially in the vastness of space where you can pick your battles.

It is also harder to attack someone in all that vastness since they would be harder to find. Try to remeber that both sides can pick their battles.

This could be considered an instance when smaller ships would be more desirable since they would be able to attack faster and then escape ie hit-and-run.


For instance, super massive shells or missiles travelling at enormous speeds. It may not be possible to fend against several such weapons on different arbitrary vectors

Except if you had a shield or armour that covered you entire ship thus defending it from attack "on different arbitrary vectors".


perhaps in addition to other kinds of weapons and offense.

I'm glad you've realized that a multi-dimensional offense would be far more effective then using a single type of weapon.



Theoretically it should be possible to overwhelm any sort of battery or defense. If you draw a circle, and call the perimeter, defense, and then draw a second circle of arbitrary size around it, and call that offense, you can see a large difference in ratio. This concept seems to lend it self perfectly to any sort of ranged combat, and maybe combat in general. Its possible to fit huge amounts of offense into small amounts of defense. The bottom line is that there are way more forms of offense than forms of defense.

That was one of the most ridiculous paragraphs I've ever read. Comparing the cirmcuference of two circles? War is never that one-dimensional. There are numerous facter that affect the effectivess of a weapon. You have to know were your enemy is, you have to know what defenses your enemy has, you have to know what offensive capabilites you enemy has, you have to know how many enemies you're attacking. No weapon is so perfect that it can destroy every enemy no matter where they are no matter what defenses they have.



There arent any counters to range other than hiding, avoiding hits, and really thick armor which often loses its defense after some amount of hits.


You forgot to mention shooting back (counter-battery fire).



History shows that offense is more powerful than defense

Then why isn't every offense a success? Seems like history has shown that that offense and defense evolve together with offense continually attempting to get around new defenses and new defenses continually attempting to block new offenses.



and that intelligence is more powerful than either.


Great you just admitted that now offensive weapon is perfect and that for every weapon there is a defense.

Now to a point about whether or not bigger is better (the topic of this thread, remeber?): a smaller ship would be harder to hit but a larger ship can take more damage and dish out more damage too. It seems the best tactic would be to pair small ships with big ones like modern navies or the Wraith (hive ships + cruisers)