type of game

Admin: Is this a single planet based game or universe based game?

I will have more questions once the above is answered.

seaborgium wrote:Admin: Is this a single planet based game or universe based game?

I will have more questions once the above is answered.

Was explained to me to be a universe based game. That,s why the original wording was changed. Sadly its what makes AF so odd since none are space worthy.

I know I am not asked, but the way I see it is that each player has an empire of multiple planets and battles take place by large spaceships landing on enemy planets and sending their land units and airforce to destroy enemy players.

Spaceships consume large quantities of fuel, and they would have to remain in orbit to attack, which might make their attacks less accurate, or they would have to use rockets that can be shot down, whereas if the technology is good enough to shoot down all incomming rockets, incomming = attacking the planet or attacking the invading spaceships, then it sounds reasonable that the spaceships would deploy soldiers and tanks to combat the enemy. Also tanks spend much less fuel than spaceships.

Another things is that you need to send troops into cities if you want to loot or capture them, if you got only a spaceship hoovering around then you are not going to capture a city.

So Aderan Wars can be considered a universe game focused on land based combat.

AF update is only 1 part of my asking.
Please let admin answer.

Nomad wrote:

seaborgium wrote:Admin: Is this a single planet based game or universe based game?
I will have more questions once the above is answered.

Was explained to me to be a universe based game. That,s why the original wording was changed. Sadly its what makes AF so odd since none are space worthy.

Universe based game but most of the action is done on the planet surfaces, as kenzu explained.
You send big ships which bring the actual units/aircraft.

The big ships are nondescript as well as their method of propulsion is handwaved as being practical only on large vessels

Ok so this is a universe game....
I guess we could take the hangers are the spaces on the big ships. Now that would have been an explanation the masses could have understood.

seaborgium wrote:Ok so this is a universe game....
I guess we could take the hangers are the spaces on the big ships. Now that would have been an explanation the masses could have understood.

Maybe the spaceships can operate as large bases, that land and deploy troops and the hangars are then located on them. Because if they were in space, then they could not send helicopters for example, and despite what most sci-fi want to tell you it seems unreasonable that small jets would be outfitted with systems capable of flying to space. Sounds very inefficient to me.

seaborgium wrote:Ok so this is a universe game....
I guess we could take the hangers are the spaces on the big ships. Now that would have been an explanation the masses could have understood.

That makes no sense what so ever. How can bombers hit Hangers located in space on massive ships?

LONG range weapons

Though this game is claimed to be a Universe based game rather than based on a single planet I think this analysis of false. The major functions of the game are operated as if we are all on one planet and we each have our own little island of land based troops, and soon we'll have helicopters and other mods of flight that occur in an Earth type atmosphere and are not suited for interstellar travel. Also knives, grenade launchers, and tanks are all types of land based warfare, and would be completely illogical if true space ships were involved that could eradicate entire armies with a single shot of their laser beams and other high tech weaponry. The initial theme of the game is sci-fi, yet once one really gets down to it, the game plays more like a WW2 simulation, with a handful of major alliances which act a supreme powers and axis of evil, and members who choose not to join one of these alliances are like the neutral countries in WW2. The economic system and the military system are all closer to a single planet type game based around the time of world war 2, and the new updates of fighters, bombers and helicopters are not even close to advancing this game into science fiction, nor do they help the claim that this is a universe based system and not a single planet based game, where we all strive for domination, yet no one person can claim dominion over all the rest.

You can think I'm wrong if you like, but it seams to me that there is more evidence for my position than there is for the position of Admin that this is a universe type game.

Vex wrote:Though this game is claimed to be a Universe based game rather than based on a single planet I think this analysis of false. The major functions of the game are operated as if we are all on one planet and we each have our own little island of land based troops, and soon we'll have helicopters and other mods of flight that occur in an Earth type atmosphere and are not suited for interstellar travel. Also knives, grenade launchers, and tanks are all types of land based warfare, and would be completely illogical if true space ships were involved that could eradicate entire armies with a single shot of their laser beams and other high tech weaponry. The initial theme of the game is sci-fi, yet once one really gets down to it, the game plays more like a WW2 simulation, with a handful of major alliances which act a supreme powers and axis of evil, and members who choose not to join one of these alliances are like the neutral countries in WW2. The economic system and the military system are all closer to a single planet type game based around the time of world war 2, and the new updates of fighters, bombers and helicopters are not even close to advancing this game into science fiction, nor do they help the claim that this is a universe based system and not a single planet based game, where we all strive for domination, yet no one person can claim dominion over all the rest.

You can think I'm wrong if you like, but it seams to me that there is more evidence for my position than there is for the position of Admin that this is a universe type game.

It was land based and 1 planet in the beginning, and still geared that way in all honesty. That there is no arguing. Admin just adjusted it to push it to a space based so later things such as planets, territories, and all the rest could be added. Personally I think its foolish to have a "spaceport/starport" when you dont have space ships, but now Admin says we all have them, even before we can build a gun we have space ships?

But its a game, so not everything has to make sense.

Hangars are on the ground, for long term maintenance?

Mission:
Load fighters into big ships
ships fly to other planet
fighters do mission
big ships fly back home
fighters back into hangar for maintenance


I'm not really a fan of beam weapons, looks silly to me.

Vex wrote:Though this game is claimed to be a Universe based game rather than based on a single planet I think this analysis of false. The major functions of the game are operated as if we are all on one planet and we each have our own little island of land based troops, and soon we'll have helicopters and other mods of flight that occur in an Earth type atmosphere and are not suited for interstellar travel. Also knives, grenade launchers, and tanks are all types of land based warfare, and would be completely illogical if true space ships were involved that could eradicate entire armies with a single shot of their laser beams and other high tech weaponry. The initial theme of the game is sci-fi, yet once one really gets down to it, the game plays more like a WW2 simulation, with a handful of major alliances which act a supreme powers and axis of evil, and members who choose not to join one of these alliances are like the neutral countries in WW2. The economic system and the military system are all closer to a single planet type game based around the time of world war 2, and the new updates of fighters, bombers and helicopters are not even close to advancing this game into science fiction, nor do they help the claim that this is a universe based system and not a single planet based game, where we all strive for domination, yet no one person can claim dominion over all the rest.

You can think I'm wrong if you like, but it seams to me that there is more evidence for my position than there is for the position of Admin that this is a universe type game.

Ok, lets imagine you have big ships that have powerful weapons, capable of eradicating entire armies, and cities. I am thinking nuclear weapons here.
You sure you can loot the enemy and capture their cities by nuking them? Don't you think an army with tanks and airforce would come handy? You don't want to nuke a planet, you want to loot it and exploit its resources, crush the resistance without destroying its production, so that you can farm them.


If you imagine that in the future, when empires control multiple planets, there will be fighters shooting lasers at each other (star wars style), then I believe it's very far from truth. I think ships will instead use guided missiles, which they will fire at their enemies, with high accuracy of hitting. Spaceships will be of medium size, and they will definitely not be massive, because its better to have more smaller ships than one massive one, due to the fact that one missile can destroy the whole ship. Think about naval warfare. Before superpowers were trying to make bigger and bigger ships, with better and better armor, but once missiles became standard weapon of the navy, they started to focus on smaller ships, which are equally deadly as the big ships. Same with tanks, all models of massive tanks have failed, because current main battle tanks have weapons that can penetrate any armor, and making a big tank would be a waste of resources as it could be defeated by the MBT.

The galactic wars portrayed in science fiction are often similar and they tend to stick with low level of realism related to weapons. Let's face it guys. Why on earth would anyone want to use some ridiculous laser weapons for soldiers, when projectile weapons are so efficient. and why should lasers be used for tanks and ships, if missiles are very efficient?

You really thing keeping poor weapons which require "bullets" are better then laser or beam weapons that have no moving parts and are not limited by ammo?

I'll take an army with laser or beam weapons over your army with modern munitions any day.

As for space ships, I'll take one with Photon torpedos and lasers over one with a nuke any day since it could never detonate close enough to my ship to ever be effective since I can simple shoot it, or let my deflector shields deal with it.


Its common knowledge "Nukes" are horrible weapon due to the damage they create to the surrounding area, the long term effects, the fact they can not be used in close combat, and the fact if you get hit carrying one then you have killed yourself when it detonates.

Special Agent 47 wrote:You really thing keeping poor weapons which require "bullets" are better then laser or beam weapons that have no moving parts and are not limited by ammo?

I'll take an army with laser or beam weapons over your army with modern munitions any day.

As for space ships, I'll take one with Photon torpedos and lasers over one with a nuke any day since it could never detonate close enough to my ship to ever be effective since I can simple shoot it, or let my deflector shields deal with it.


Its common knowledge "Nukes" are horrible weapon due to the damage they create to the surrounding area, the long term effects, the fact they can not be used in close combat, and the fact if you get hit carrying one then you have killed yourself when it detonates.

Really and where are you laser beams? Do you realise that to create a laser beam you need energy and to store energy you need a battery. So you will need ammo anyway, it will simply look different.

Photon torpedos? What the hell is that supposed to be? A torpedo which will shine on me? Do you even know what photons are?
Oh deflector shields, another of those common sci-fi things, because it requires much less energy to create a massive energy shield around the ship, which will push away everything, than having small missiles that defeat approaching missiles.

I don't think people would mind firing nukes at enemy spaceships in deep space. The surounding area is only space, and I believe the radiation created by nukes in a war between spaceships will not influence the radiation in the universe much.

How are you going to get hit by the nuke you fire if it detonates hundreds or thousands of kilometres away?

Special Agent 47 wrote:You really thing keeping poor weapons which require "bullets" are better then laser or beam weapons that have no moving parts and are not limited by ammo?
Yes, see reasoning below

I'll take an army with laser or beam weapons over your army with modern munitions any day.

As for space ships, I'll take one with Photon torpedos and lasers over one with a nuke any day since it could never detonate close enough to my ship to ever be effective since I can simple shoot it, or let my deflector shields deal with it.


Its common knowledge "Nukes" are horrible weapon due to the damage they create to the surrounding area, the long term effects, the fact they can not be used in close combat, and the fact if you get hit carrying one then you have killed yourself when it detonates.

Everything requires ammo, just not necessarily in the form of a bullet. A nuclear reactor that can only fit on an aircraft carrier with the corresponding fuel is just as much ammo as bullets are.

Even in sci-fi you can have two types of weapons, the star-wars/whatever else laser type and the usual projectile types.

Laser types are borderline impossible for handheld size in atmospheric use as lasers by definition would dissipate in the air as they pass through it. Obviously you can solve this by having a sufficiently focused beam, but then again when you get into the really small surfaces, even ordinary microparticles in the air would block most of the energy before it reached the target.
Dense jungle, sandstorms, rain, hello uselessness!
Boeing Yal-1 is a good working example, however even here you will see that it does not actually destroy anything, it can only heat and soften it up and hope that the missile breaks up from its high velocity

Practical example, I have a 1000 mW laser pointer at home. I can burn through a sheet of paper as long as it is NOT white. White surfaces reflect most of the light that shines on them. A laser works on the principle of focused light heating one tiny spot and burn through it. If it gets reflected, it cannot heat up and burn, hell I bet first countermeasure created would be rapid response reflection systems to return laser power right back where it came from (You can't really do the same with a bullet)
Lasers in personal combat, maybe awesome, but impractical as they are too easily neutralized.

And lasers of the style, shoot one on a tank and the tank explodes is just funny as the only way you could achieve that was by superheating the tank material rapidly causing the tank not to explode in the usual sense, like a bomb blowing up where you have a chemical reaction, but rather that you would force the material to expand rapidly, but rather burst apart. Still, the energy requirements ... I would not want to be standing next to that battery/generator.

Reimagined Battlestar Galactica did well enough without any lasers
The Battlestars had simply a massive amount of guns which shot projectiles and enemy cylons
Soldiers as well as cylons used normal projectile based weapons in close combat encounters
All fighters used machine guns and any high ordnance rockets fired usually got shot down before they reached their targets.

There's also the fact that you can neutralize a laser being shot at you.
Now a Relativistic_kill_vehicle, have fun preventing that from hitting you
Or a ship mounted Railgun emplacement (Having a projectile fly at 2.4 km per second, at those speed you already have a KE penetrator where current known explosives are unable to even compete if we're talking space/low oxygen environment battles)

Mass beats energy, mostly because you really need a shadton of pure energy to stop a bit of mass.
22

Admin wrote:

Special Agent 47 wrote:You really thing keeping poor weapons which require "bullets" are better then laser or beam weapons that have no moving parts and are not limited by ammo?
Yes, see reasoning below

I'll take an army with laser or beam weapons over your army with modern munitions any day.

As for space ships, I'll take one with Photon torpedos and lasers over one with a nuke any day since it could never detonate close enough to my ship to ever be effective since I can simple shoot it, or let my deflector shields deal with it.


Its common knowledge "Nukes" are horrible weapon due to the damage they create to the surrounding area, the long term effects, the fact they can not be used in close combat, and the fact if you get hit carrying one then you have killed yourself when it detonates.

Everything requires ammo, just not necessarily in the form of a bullet. A nuclear reactor that can only fit on an aircraft carrier with the corresponding fuel is just as much ammo as bullets are.

Even in sci-fi you can have two types of weapons, the star-wars/whatever else laser type and the usual projectile types.

Laser types are borderline impossible for handheld size in atmospheric use as lasers by definition would dissipate in the air as they pass through it. Obviously you can solve this by having a sufficiently focused beam, but then again when you get into the really small surfaces, even ordinary microparticles in the air would block most of the energy before it reached the target.
Dense jungle, sandstorms, rain, hello uselessness!
Boeing Yal-1 is a good working example, however even here you will see that it does not actually destroy anything, it can only heat and soften it up and hope that the missile breaks up from its high velocity

Practical example, I have a 1000 mW laser pointer at home. I can burn through a sheet of paper as long as it is NOT white. White surfaces reflect most of the light that shines on them. A laser works on the principle of focused light heating one tiny spot and burn through it. If it gets reflected, it cannot heat up and burn, hell I bet first countermeasure created would be rapid response reflection systems to return laser power right back where it came from (You can't really do the same with a bullet)
Lasers in personal combat, maybe awesome, but impractical as they are too easily neutralized.

And lasers of the style, shoot one on a tank and the tank explodes is just funny as the only way you could achieve that was by superheating the tank material rapidly causing the tank not to explode in the usual sense, like a bomb blowing up where you have a chemical reaction, but rather that you would force the material to expand rapidly, but rather burst apart. Still, the energy requirements ... I would not want to be standing next to that battery/generator.

Reimagined Battlestar Galactica did well enough without any lasers
The Battlestars had simply a massive amount of guns which shot projectiles and enemy cylons
Soldiers as well as cylons used normal projectile based weapons in close combat encounters
All fighters used machine guns and any high ordnance rockets fired usually got shot down before they reached their targets.

There's also the fact that you can neutralize a laser being shot at you.
Now a Relativistic_kill_vehicle, have fun preventing that from hitting you
Or a ship mounted Railgun emplacement (Having a projectile fly at 2.4 km per second, at those speed you already have a KE penetrator where current known explosives are unable to even compete if we're talking space/low oxygen environment battles)

Mass beats energy, mostly because you really need a shadton of pure energy to stop a bit of mass.

not here to argue nor really get involved in this convo, but as a licensed gunsmith, I just want all of you to know that Battlestar Galactica got it wrong... gunpowder will not burn in the absense of oxygen... bullets don't work in space...

& for those of you who might not know this, bullets are not waterproof either, drop a gun in water, you got a 50-50 chance the bullet will fire, that goes down every second that ammo stays underwater.


2

kingkongfan1 wrote:

Spoiler:

not here to argue nor really get involved in this convo, but as a licensed gunsmith, I just want all of you to know that Battlestar Galactica got it wrong... gunpowder will not burn in the absense of oxygen... bullets don't work in space...

& for those of you who might not know this, bullets are not waterproof either, drop a gun in water, you got a 50-50 chance the bullet will fire, that goes down every second that ammo stays underwater.

Gunpowder doesn't need oxygen. The saltpeter that forms the major component of gunpowder has chemical characteristics that allow it to release molecular oxygen when it is heated. Accordingly, gunpowder will indeed explode in space if you heat it enough, and many simple gunpowder firearms that work on Earth would likely also work in space.

just sayin . got that from yahoo answers though so cant say how right that is

Kingofshinobis1 wrote:

kingkongfan1 wrote:

Spoiler:

not here to argue nor really get involved in this convo, but as a licensed gunsmith, I just want all of you to know that Battlestar Galactica got it wrong... gunpowder will not burn in the absense of oxygen... bullets don't work in space...

& for those of you who might not know this, bullets are not waterproof either, drop a gun in water, you got a 50-50 chance the bullet will fire, that goes down every second that ammo stays underwater.

Gunpowder doesn't need oxygen. The saltpeter that forms the major component of gunpowder has chemical characteristics that allow it to release molecular oxygen when it is heated. Accordingly, gunpowder will indeed explode in space if you heat it enough, and many simple gunpowder firearms that work on Earth would likely also work in space.

just sayin . got that from yahoo answers though so cant say how right that is

yeah, the idiots that like to put false info on the net so that those who dont know any better like to copy-paste it... put some gunpowder in a vacuum & light it see what happens, did it as a science experiment in school, didn't work then, wont work now, I don't care what the internet says, bullets are not airtight nor are they waterproof...

Well all I can say are that in terms of this discussion and what has been already posted is that SA47's Laser beams, Proton Torpedo's and Deflector Shields are as valid as Admins imaginary space vehicles that cannot be seen or built but can transport an army across space to simply disembark all of the units so that a conventional land based war can take place.

If there are space ships involved then it is only logical that appropriate technology will have been developed to combat them in some way. In real life we don't have that technology developed yet but then again while we have some technology around space travel we have nothing that will move the amount of units that we do.

The most plausible answer since we have only just discovered flight is that we are all on the same planet and on the same landmass.

I guess these "bullet" bearing armies are still using solid rocket fuel to run their "spaceships" as well. I mean it just takes years of production to produce the tons of the stuff needed to make 1 trip. These planets must truly be massive and made up heavily by the components to make gunpowder and rocket fuel.


Its a game, so really it does not have to make sense, but honestly this senerio make the least sense of any of this type of game is all I have to say.

kingkongfan1 wrote:not here to argue nor really get involved in this convo, but as a licensed gunsmith, I just want all of you to know that Battlestar Galactica got it wrong... gunpowder will not burn in the absense of oxygen... bullets don't work in space...

& for those of you who might not know this, bullets are not waterproof either, drop a gun in water, you got a 50-50 chance the bullet will fire, that goes down every second that ammo stays underwater.

Did it say anywhere the bullets before they enter the barrel after being shot are in vacuum?
It would actually make some sense trying to use the vacuum/atmosphere difference in pressure to give the bullets some extra speed (though i'm just speculating)

I wasn't discussing the propellant mechanism much, only the ammo, railguns would explain the mechanism since you dont need oxygen, the "explosions" from the shooting could simply be plasma from whatever air was around the shell as it got shot (since I assume galactica doesn't have feeding belt/ammunition storage in a vacuum, so some air would be around the shell as it gets fired)

Imo transportation and weapons are very different stories (though partially linked, I agree)

Spoiler:

on the show I watched, the guns were mounted on the outside of the ships.exposing them to the vacuum of space...

you are correct insofar as what you say about the trajectory & damage done being increased if a bullet could be fired in space, also saw a show on history channel about the railgun & you are quite correct there

funny part is that those who were WORKING (not just fans) on BSG were not all on the same page about this railgun story

some say it is railgun tech, some say it isn't

I personally don't think that bullets would be used in space either. Consider this: battles between people are usually fought on the ground within the distance of a couple hundred metres, tanks can engage in battles of a couple kilometres (with their modern weaponry), jets can engage in battles over a couple tens of kilometres. (A fighter jet is unlikely to use machine guns anymore, because the targets will be destroyed by rockets long before machine guns can be used. I am not talking about attack aircraft though)

In space, ships will most likely engage in much bigger distances. Could be hundreds or thousands of kilometres away. Firing a bullet, or a stream of bullets might not be necessarily efficient, because ships could evade that by changing course all the time. Rockets however make more sense as they can change the direction of their flight, and enemy cannot escape, has to shoot it down.

If bullets are really used, they will most likely much larger than those in a rifle, and could be sophisticated enough to carry the necessary oxigen, or having the gun feed them oxygen when firing each time.

There could be an update which requires players to build transport ships before they can attack other players. This would remove the awkwardness of being able to attack others without having built any ships. But do we really want to add this update? Sounds very unnecessary to me.

What do you think?