Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Science of the SG Space battles

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Science of the SG Space battles

    You can dismiss this as the rantings of a mad man. But, I've just been reading some articles on weapons advancements and the lot and podcasts and videos talking about scifi battles. I’m putting down my thoughts for fun. Feel free to correct if you disagree.

    Now, the physics of space change a lot of the game. In combat, the rule of the game is to kill the bad guy and not get killed. Simplified, its shoot him and not get shot in the process. Easiest way to not get shot is to stay away. Missiles are becoming increasingly popular because you can hurl them from a long distance, forget about them (fire and forget weapons), and never endanger your people. But, depending on your tool, there is max range. Artillery shells can only go so far. Aircraft can only fly a certain distance before needing to refuel. The ability to detect things also has a range to it. In space, the game changes. I like a quote from Mass Effect. To paraphrase, if you shoot a nuke in space, somebody’s going to have a bad day. It may be next month. It may be next year. It may be the next decade. But somebody somewhere is going to have a bad day.
    Not only that, but in the void of space with no horizon, detection systems will also be much further
    In space, battles are speculated take place at absurdly long distances, distances so large that it takes several seconds or even minutes for the information to travel. Ships will see where their enemy is seconds or even minutes ago. Space war will turn into looking at the ‘shadow’ of the enemy vessel, try to predict where it will be, then fire. And combat will be tricky as you not only need to predict where the enemy is now but where the enemy will be by the time your weapons fire gets there. Weapons will become barrages of missiles in a general area and defenses will be counter missiles exploding to destroy the barrage mid flight. Firing multiple missiles could improve chances but range will be dictated by how realistic it is to predict where to fire. If the shadow you see is fifteen minutes in the past, then there’s no point in trying to figure out where they are now.

    That is where the game changes once you include certain technologies. The two biggest ones I’m thinking of are shields and hyperdrive. Ships are staying far away from each other because they can’t take that much damage. With shields, you can afford to take a few hits. Now it is more efficient to close the distance and start firing shots you know will land. And if things go wrong, you have the hyperdrive to bust you out.
    The shields also influence things like ship size since smaller ships are more easily maneuverable and harder to hit. You can afford to make bigger ships as long as you can make stronger shields. Battles will still take place at distances longer than in the atmosphere but closer than without shields. We never really got distances mentioned in SG-1 but in one episode, they parked a Tel’tak to ring aboard a mother ship, Carter said they were several hundred kilometers away (and even gave a nice camera angle for visual reference). However, many ships have Orbit-to-surface capabilities and the distance to high earth orbit is 35 thousand km. Meaning ship engagements are taking place anywhere from several hundred to tens of thousands of kilometers.

    Along with defenses, offensive will also be spiking up. In particular, I’m thinking of explosive weapons. Air makes a really big difference. No oxygen means the explosions will be smaller, even with oxidants. It also means no shockwave. You can see an example of the smaller boom with the Goa’uld-buster nukes that barely covered half a 300m long Ha’tak. This means you better break out the big guns if you want to make any sort of impact. I wish we could’ve seen what a MKX Gate-buster could do to a capital ship. But explosions direct their energy in all directions so it’s not energy efficient. This may be why the beam weapons are so powerful as they direct all their energy straight into the target. That means a beam weapon with less energy could do more damage to a target than an explosion.

    Also, it seems like most capital ships in stargate prefer arrays of smaller guns that can double as anti-fighter weapons rather than a few larger anti-capital ship guns. The Ori mothership (and eventually the 304’s) is the only exception but even they still possess an array of pulse weapons along with their beam weapon.

    I guess this leads me to the final thought for the day in this long and pointless thesis paper you probably didn’t bother reading through: fighter craft. The purpose of the fighter craft greatly depends on the capital ship. With shield technology, the ability of fighters has been reduced. You might have noticed that when two Ha’tak duke it out, they don’t send out death gliders as their only armament are twin staff cannons. However, F-302’s are occasionally used against capital ships but I believe the increase in confidence is due to their ability to delivery a more explosive ordinance of naquadah enhanced missiles. However, they are only seen doing this on occasion. When used against capital ships, they are usually performing precision strikes such as destroying the hyperdrive without destroying the ship. Wraith hive ships are an exception to this and have been seen launching swarms of darts against capital ships. This actually works for wraith due to the sheer quantity of the darts they don’t mind disposing of. The combined fire power of that many darts could actually begin to make a difference against capital ships. Perhaps not as much as a dedicated anti-ship gun but its combined power can add up. A punch to the face is more devastating than a bee sting (allergies aside), but I’m sure we’d all be scared to piss off a bee hive. Also, the darts serve as a point defense system, intentionally blocking weapons fire and shooting down missiles.

    Just putting down food for thought and curious what other people had to say.

    sigpic
    Stargate spin off series: Stargate Millennium
    https://www.fanfiction.net/u/5580179/StargateMillennium


    #2
    Originally posted by StargateMillennium View Post
    Firing multiple missiles could improve chances but range will be dictated by how realistic it is to predict where to fire. If the shadow you see is fifteen minutes in the past, then there’s no point in trying to figure out where they are now.
    No, because missiles can carry their own sensors. In essence, a missile is a miniature-spaceship (minus everything that makes spaceships suck, like humans), and if you can build a spaceship capable of reaching a certain target, then you could certainly build a missile. There is essentially no upper range on missiles, other than a purely practical one. If a civilization had FTL that could cross the galaxy in 10 minutes, they'd be firing missiles across galaxies.

    Secondly, lasers would be a serious thing to account for. While it certainly wouldn't be like in the movies (it would be more akin to laser welding, IE a sudden bright spot appears on the enemy ship). It would be less kill-certain than a hitting missile, but ammo-wise and weight-wise they'd be vastly superior. Whether we'd fight with missiles, lasers or a combination basically is determined by either how quickly we can manufacture superior engines or more efficient and better lasers.

    Originally posted by StargateMillennium View Post
    With shields, you can afford to take a few hits. Now it is more efficient to close the distance and start firing shots you know will land. And if things go wrong, you have the hyperdrive to bust you out.
    Practically speaking, no. It would basically be the same tactics. The only time that close combat would occur if an enemy happens to exit close to the defender, but practically speaking the odds of that are astronomically low.

    Originally posted by StargateMillennium View Post
    With shield technology, the ability of fighters has been reduced.
    In space, fighters combine the worst aspects of missiles and capital ships. Not only are they small so they can't pack really heavy weapons, their operational capacity is limited. If you spend all the fuel to get a fighter to the enemy, then you need to spend fuel to cancel out all the speed you built up, and then once more spend fuel to return.

    It's more practical to strip out the human, weapons, life-support and other stuff and just plainly fire a missile. More material-efficient, space-efficient, fuel-efficient and more effective.

    In planetary settings, the horizon makes ship-to-ship engagement limited, but in space there's practically infinite viewing distance.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by thekillman View Post
      No, because missiles can carry their own sensors. In essence, a missile is a miniature-spaceship (minus everything that makes spaceships suck, like humans), and if you can build a spaceship capable of reaching a certain target, then you could certainly build a missile. There is essentially no upper range on missiles, other than a purely practical one. If a civilization had FTL that could cross the galaxy in 10 minutes, they'd be firing missiles across galaxies.
      Fair enough. But, wouldn't fuel in conjunction with distance and enemy movement be a range factor for a missile. For example, if I see a ship whose distance would put him, say, fifteen minutes in the past. If I launch it at that shadow and he stays in the same place, the missile engines just need to do one burst to move in a straight line then he goes boom but I could've relied on something cheaper that shoots straight. If he only moves a tiny bit, then the missile's targeting and minor course correction will do the trick. But, if he's been moving all this time, isn't it possible the missile will run out of fuel in an attempt to constantly course correct over such a long distance? Or are you thinking about hyperspace missiles cuz I'm thinking about pre-hyperspace technology.

      Originally posted by thekillman View Post
      Practically speaking, no. It would basically be the same tactics. The only time that close combat would occur if an enemy happens to exit close to the defender, but practically speaking the odds of that are astronomically low.
      I guess we'll have to see what the tactics will bring. I keep thinking about aerial fights. With AAM's, the Air Force thought all fights will take place at long range and even built fighter craft with only a missile-only armament. But they took place both at long range and close quarters so they went back to installing guns on the fighter jets. I guess this topic will be heavily influenced by conversation above that as battles will probably take place in the sweet zone that maximizes weapon efficiency and minimizes getting hit.

      Originally posted by thekillman View Post
      In space, fighters combine the worst aspects of missiles and capital ships. Not only are they small so they can't pack really heavy weapons, their operational capacity is limited. If you spend all the fuel to get a fighter to the enemy, then you need to spend fuel to cancel out all the speed you built up, and then once more spend fuel to return.

      It's more practical to strip out the human, weapons, life-support and other stuff and just plainly fire a missile. More material-efficient, space-efficient, fuel-efficient and more effective.

      In planetary settings, the horizon makes ship-to-ship engagement limited, but in space there's practically infinite viewing distance.
      Hence why in stargate, the use of fighters against capital ships is not really seen. The only instances the Tau'ri use them is for precision strikes either against unshielded ships or they used a hyper jump to get through the shield. The question is whether this could work for the Wraith. Then again, come to think of it, not even the wraith use darts against capital ships. The only time is when the two swarms of darts were already out of the bay and heading off to do something when a fight broke out, when Teyla intentionally sent out darts to die, and the other time was the battle of Asuras where it as an all-or-nothing attack.

      sigpic
      Stargate spin off series: Stargate Millennium
      https://www.fanfiction.net/u/5580179/StargateMillennium

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by StargateMillennium View Post
        Fair enough. But, wouldn't fuel in conjunction with distance and enemy movement be a range factor for a missile.
        No, not really. The rocket equation is deltaV=Ve * ln (M) with Ve the exhaust velocity and M the mass ratio. A ship, whether it's a 10m ship or a 10km ship, with the same exhaust velocity and same mass ratio it could reach the same targets. And a missile doesn't need to carry additional crap, it can just be a bomb on a rocket engine. If your ship can reach mars from earth, then a missile with similar parameters (and scaled down) would too.

        The best bet for the ship is to try and shoot it down, not dodge it.
        Originally posted by StargateMillennium View Post
        I keep thinking about aerial fights.
        It doesn't really work like aerial fights. Or ships. Or submarines. Or ground combat. it would be it's own, whole new thing. A playground like naval combat, except vision range is infinite in every direction. A true 3D environment so it's not quite like air combat. And an environment where a dreadnought could keep up with a tiny fighter.
        Originally posted by StargateMillennium View Post
        Then again, come to think of it, not even the wraith use darts against capital ships.
        The wraith cannot fully hide their weak spots behind armor, so even darts can do some critical damage with luck. But mostly, hiveships are not designed for warfare.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by thekillman View Post
          No, not really. The rocket equation is deltaV=Ve * ln (M) with Ve the exhaust velocity and M the mass ratio. A ship, whether it's a 10m ship or a 10km ship, with the same exhaust velocity and same mass ratio it could reach the same targets. And a missile doesn't need to carry additional crap, it can just be a bomb on a rocket engine. If your ship can reach mars from earth, then a missile with similar parameters (and scaled down) would too.

          The best bet for the ship is to try and shoot it down, not dodge it.
          The missile may travel further than in atmosphere but a ship should still be able to travel further than a missile. If a missile was trying to reach a target, it would probably have a constant burn to increase speed and catch up. But a ship would probably travel using just bursts from their engine. Once they reach a certain speed they can just turn the engine off and cruise. It may not be as fast but it'd be more fuel efficient.

          Also, the way a ship flies is limited by design. The greater delta V is in relation to Ve, the greater the mass ratio has to be. If you want to accelerate to a specific point, you need more engine than payload. For a fighter, that's fine since the payload is comparatively small. But the mass ratio of a ship is going to be lower. The point of a ship is to have large payloads and in order to move large payloads you'll end up with more engine/fuel tank than ship.

          Originally posted by thekillman View Post
          It doesn't really work like aerial fights. Or ships. Or submarines. Or ground combat. it would be it's own, whole new thing. A playground like naval combat, except vision range is infinite in every direction. A true 3D environment so it's not quite like air combat. And an environment where a dreadnought could keep up with a tiny fighter.
          What I was trying to reference was that things in practice end up different than the way they plan, much like how aerial battles were thought to now only take place at long range. It's speculated that space battles would take much longer than any regular battle partially because of the distance between the ships. And if ships manage to get shields and hyperdrives, the battles just became even longer. So wouldn't it be more efficient to begin to close the distance to try make things more efficient?
          Last edited by StargateMillennium; 16 January 2018, 02:15 PM.

          sigpic
          Stargate spin off series: Stargate Millennium
          https://www.fanfiction.net/u/5580179/StargateMillennium

          Comment


            #6
            Oh, by the way. I know we're disagreeing and all but I'm having a lot of fun with this discussion and just imagining how things could be. I hope you are too.

            sigpic
            Stargate spin off series: Stargate Millennium
            https://www.fanfiction.net/u/5580179/StargateMillennium

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by StargateMillennium View Post
              The missile may travel further than in atmosphere but a ship should still be able to travel further than a missile.
              That would depend on missile and ship design, as well as mission design. deltaV-wise, a missile is superior to a ship. IE if a ship had enough deltaV to reach mars, a missile of similar proportions could do too. But since the missile has less dead weight, it could probably reach further.

              That doesn't mean you may want missiles that can go that far. For instance, lighter missiles would accelerate faster. Ships would not be able to accelerate for more than about 10g in short bursts, but electronics have survived up to 100g. A missile, thus, could accelerate faster. Less dead weight, so better deltaV.

              Originally posted by StargateMillennium View Post
              If a missile was trying to reach a target, it would probably have a constant burn to increase speed and catch up. But a ship would probably travel using just bursts from their engine. Once they reach a certain speed they can just turn the engine off and cruise. It may not be as fast but it'd be more fuel efficient.
              No, not really. A certain amount of deltaV is necessary to go from earth to, say, mars. If you don't accelerate to a sufficient speed, then you won't make it regardless of how you intend to get there (ie bursts or not).

              Sure, efficient transfer windows exist (every few years there's a transit window to mars, where the inter-planetary distance is shortest. And you could also use a minimum-energy trajectory to get there more cheaply). But if you were flying in outer space, then a missile could simply outperform a ship.


              Originally posted by StargateMillennium View Post
              Also, the way a ship flies is limited by design. The greater delta V is in relation to Ve, the greater the mass ratio has to be. If you want to accelerate to a specific point, you need more engine than payload. For a fighter, that's fine since the payload is comparatively small. But the mass ratio of a ship is going to be lower. The point of a ship is to have large payloads and in order to move large payloads you'll end up with more engine/fuel tank than ship.
              Yes, but a missile only has to go one way, reducing the fuel need exponentially, which reduces the amount of material needed. A fighter is still limited by it's occupant. A missile is not. A missile doing 100g would have much higher hit chances than a fighter.

              Originally posted by StargateMillennium View Post
              What I was trying to reference was that things in practice end up different than the way they plan, much like how aerial battles were thought to now only take place at long range.
              Doesn't mean it will go differently every time. In the past, the military applications of certain things were often used in a way similar to what came before.



              Originally posted by StargateMillennium View Post
              It's speculated that space battles would take much longer than any regular battle partially because of the distance between the ships.
              I think the issue here is that the cart is put before the horse.

              Ship battles will take place at long range because ships are at long range. A ship in orbit of the moon and a ship in orbit of earth, would start fighting as soon as they could. They wouldn't wait until they saw the white of their eyes. At a light-second distance (300 000km), lasers would still hit their targets effectively instantly, so you could easily build a powerful laser and burn through the enemy skin at that distance. Especially since armor is heavy and thus expensive. A missile doing 10g (100m/s/s), burning for 100 seconds would achieve a speed of (100 m/s/s *100s =10 000m/s = 10km/s). It would thus hit in 30 000 seconds. (about 10 hours). 10 hours is a lot of time for a laser to burn into a missile skin. Or a ship skin.

              The missile would have to burn quite long at 10g to hit the enemy ship in a fairly meaningful amount of time. Which is possible for sure, but that problem is only worse for fighters since they couldn't accelerate at 10g for anything more than short bursts.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by StargateMillennium View Post
                I like a quote from Mass Effect. To paraphrase, if you shoot a nuke in space, somebody’s going to have a bad day. It may be next month. It may be next year. It may be the next decade. But somebody somewhere is going to have a bad day.
                I may be wrong, but this makes it sound like you think there's a danger of a nuclear reaction occurring because a nuclear weapon goes off course. Apologies if I assumed incorrectly, but otherwise that's not necessarily the case when it comes to nukes. Nukes need to be triggered in order to detonate and the mechanism for triggering a reaction is very precise, so an impact will not cause a standard nuclear weapon to go off. This is a misnomer often propagated by B movies where characters have to be very careful around nuclear weapons and not do anything that might cause them to accidentally go off in order to generate drama. As a result, when you have movies like The Avengers where a character attempts to use a rocket launcher to stop a nuclear missile armed jet you have people complaining about how "stupid" that character is because it's their belief that he could have caused the nuke to go off when, in fact, he couldn't have.

                That said, missiles fired at ground targets are often intended to detonate above the target because they do more damage that way so they use altitude sensors, timers, or radar to determine when to trigger the bomb. Certain warheads can be designed to trigger on impact and it's possible to be lazy and irresponsible by using that design for missiles intended to be fired in space at enemy ships. It's also possible, though, to make warheads that won't go nuclear if they miss their target and, at some point down the road, crash into a planet or find their way in the path of an incoming ship. Whether they ruin someone's day or not is another matter (see below).

                Additionally, I looked up the quote you were paraphrasing and while they mention nukes, they're not talking about nukes as a potential problem:

                Gunnery Chief: This, recruits, is a 20-kilo ferrous slug. Feel the weight. Every five seconds, the main gun of an Everest-class dreadnought accelerates one to 1.3 percent of light speed. It impacts with the force of a 38-kilotomb bomb. That is three times the yield of the city buster dropped on Hiroshima back on Earth. That means Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-***** in space. Now! Serviceman Burnside! What is Newton's First Law?

                First Recruit: Sir! A object in motion stays in motion, sir!

                Gunnery Chief: No credit for partial answers, maggot!

                First Recruit: Sir! Unless acted on by an outside force, sir!

                Gunnery Chief: Damn straight! I dare to assume you ignorant jackasses know that space is empty. Once you fire this husk of metal, it keeps going till it hits something. That can be a ship, or the planet behind that ship. It might go off into deep space and hit somebody else in ten thousand years. If you pull the trigger on this, you're ruining someone's day, somewhere and sometime. That is why you check your damn targets! That is why you wait for the computer to give you a damn firing solution! That is why, Serviceman Chung, we do not "eyeball it!" This is a weapon of mass destruction. You are not a cowboy shooting from the hip!

                Second Recruit: Sir, yes sir!


                The idea that he is attempting to express is that a hunk of metal 20 kg in size (approx. 45 pounds) can do more damage than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima because of the speed at which it is launched. You could apply this logic to any missile fired at high speeds in space. It's worth nothing, though, that this is not a nuclear reaction problem, it's a kinetic energy problem. This concept is a relativistic kill vehicle. If you're interested you can read a bit about it here where they use Mass Effect as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_kill_vehicle.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Xaeden

                  It was a misquote on my end. I was trying to reference the second half of the Gunner Seargent's quote which is essentially that weapons fired in space don't just vanish. You miss a shot on the ground as long as you aren't close to a populated area, it'll arc and hit the ground and be neutralized. In space, if you miss a shot, the weapon will keep going with the same velocity until someday, somewhere, it hits something.

                  sigpic
                  Stargate spin off series: Stargate Millennium
                  https://www.fanfiction.net/u/5580179/StargateMillennium

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I think we're arguing about two different things. Let me rephrase. If two capital ships in the void of space see each other at a distance, the firing range of their missiles will be based on the missile's engine and fuel tank. Can the missile reach the target before it runs out of fuel? If the ship is in missile range, it will catch up and hit the target. If outside of missile range, stationary, and remains stationary, the missile will run out of fuel midflight but it will keep going until it hit its target. But if the target is out of range and is already in motion or starts moving, even if the missile's targeting system locks on and course corrects, it will run out of fuel then float off in in its last trajectory directions and miss. And a ship can travel distances a ship-to-ship missile can't since in space since they can just accelerate themselves to a certain velocity then stop the engine and let themselves cruise though a much slower the fuel efficiency would let them travel further without burning out their fuel.

                    Originally posted by thekillman View Post
                    I think the issue here is that the cart is put before the horse.

                    Ship battles will take place at long range because ships are at long range. A ship in orbit of the moon and a ship in orbit of earth, would start fighting as soon as they could. They wouldn't wait until they saw the white of their eyes. At a light-second distance (300 000km), lasers would still hit their targets effectively instantly, so you could easily build a powerful laser and burn through the enemy skin at that distance. Especially since armor is heavy and thus expensive. A missile doing 10g (100m/s/s), burning for 100 seconds would achieve a speed of (100 m/s/s *100s =10 000m/s = 10km/s). It would thus hit in 30 000 seconds. (about 10 hours). 10 hours is a lot of time for a laser to burn into a missile skin. Or a ship skin.

                    The missile would have to burn quite long at 10g to hit the enemy ship in a fairly meaningful amount of time. Which is possible for sure, but that problem is only worse for fighters since they couldn't accelerate at 10g for anything more than short bursts.
                    But a laser suffers from diffraction and rapidly loses energy with distance. I mean, ships would start firing the moment they are in max firing range. But they would try to position themselves at effective firing range or try to move relatively closer to maximize weapons efficiency. Don't get me wrong, that's still and absurdly long distance but with shields, they can be a bit more confident in doing so.

                    I have to head out in a few minutes so this part is going to have to be written quickly. Two ships that enter the max possible firing range would start shooting each other. But they aren't the most efficient. Lasers would likely lose a significant amount of energy and projectiles can miss. So you move closer to try to optimize your weapons. But you can't move too close since optimizing your weapons also means optimizing their weapons. And if you had shields to block and hyperdrives to run, you can afford to move closer. When I say closer, I just mean reduce the distance between the two, not close quarters.
                    Last edited by StargateMillennium; 18 January 2018, 08:49 AM.

                    sigpic
                    Stargate spin off series: Stargate Millennium
                    https://www.fanfiction.net/u/5580179/StargateMillennium

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by StargateMillennium View Post
                      If two capital ships in the void of space see each other at a distance, the firing range of their missiles will be based on the missile's engine and fuel tank.
                      Yes

                      Originally posted by StargateMillennium View Post
                      Can the missile reach the target before it runs out of fuel?
                      Yes, assuming the missile is designed to do this. Presumably a ship would have a few missile types (depending on ship size), ranging from a few interceptors with incredibly high acceleration and low fuel (to catch incoming missiles) to a few long-range missiles that could hit targets lightseconds away.
                      Originally posted by StargateMillennium View Post
                      And a ship can travel distances a ship-to-ship missile can't since in space since they can just accelerate themselves to a certain velocity then stop the engine and let themselves cruise though a much slower the fuel efficiency would let them travel further without burning out their fuel
                      This depends on missile design. If you can design a ship to reach a target, you can certainly design a missile that can hit it. Missiles have superior flight characteristics, so odds are that if your ship can reach the enemy, so can your missiles. Designing missiles that couldn't, would be stupid.

                      The practical upper limit for range is intercepting capability, IE you don't want to give your enemy too much time and too many opportunities to shoot it down. On the other hand, you always want to fire when out of harm's way, so the practical lower limit for missile range is however far the enemy cannons can fire.

                      For lasers, this means you want to design missiles that can hit from at least a few lightseconds away.
                      Originally posted by StargateMillennium View Post
                      But a laser suffers from diffraction and rapidly loses energy with distance.
                      Depends on parameters. If you want to fire first, then use lasers. The design would probably be bulky, and cost power but if you could design efficient lasers then you could use them for a lot of useful things.

                      Of course, what works depends heavily on how technology develops. Missile effectiveness is determined by point-defense effectiveness. Laser effectiveness is determined by missile effectiveness. Kinetic weapons do have a role (since bullets won't stop, long-range kinetic bombardment is always useful), but because of speed limits you would likely not see it used to kill ships.

                      Odds are though, that missiles would dominate.

                      Originally posted by StargateMillennium View Post
                      And if you had shields to block and hyperdrives to run, you can afford to move closer.
                      Both cost power though, and power creates heat. Using those could easily lead to your ship getting cooked. Besides, if you can tell the fight is going to be lopsided (and odds are, it will), it's better to run anyway.

                      It also seems to me that because of the power problem, stationary defenses would be incredibly, incredibly powerful.
                      Last edited by thekillman; 18 January 2018, 10:16 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X