It is currently Tue May 30, 2017 7:12 am


UCM engine glow

Questions & Tips on painting, converting and photographing models
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

Seret

  • Posts: 29
  • Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:34 am

Re: UCM engine glow

PostMon Mar 20, 2017 9:01 am

Charistoph wrote:In addition, while they may operate in space, there are other considerations that need to be made, that WE may not be aware of. We don't know all the principles of their starship construction any more than a Brit from 1785 would understand the principles for the HMS Hood by just having a model of it in their hands.


Hmmm. This assumes that the ships were designed with some kind of consistent internal technical logic, which I don't think they are. Whoever at Hawk designed them gave the different fleets a different external aesthetic, but the basic template is just a retread of the dominant trope in sci-fi ship design, which is "make a boat in space". I'm not seeing anything in the designs which shows they've sat down and had a good think about the engineering.

Turrets I'm kind of ok with, although if it has to be in an enclosed armoured mount a ball would make more sense than a turret with limited movement in one axis. It's the PHR broadsides that really do my nut in though. They're just so obviously copied from sailing ships that you might as well just put the bloody sails on it too. Even if there's some reason all the guns have to be positioned on a big wide array, why the hell is that down both sides of the ship? The array should be mounted pointing forwards. The only reason to put it down the sides if your main design goal is "we must play sailing ships in space". I'm just glad they gave the PHR fleet enough other options so you don't have to take the broadside ships, as they're otherwise a really cool looking force.
Offline
User avatar

L. Sabia Byrne

  • Posts: 190
  • Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 1:38 pm

Re: UCM engine glow

PostMon Mar 20, 2017 2:12 pm

Well just as a thought, I would rather have Daves designs on my table than a collection of 'Skylabs' throwing lead/laser at each other :lol:
You're going to need a MUCH bigger gun my friend!

http://brushesandbayonets.blogspot.co.uk/
http://www.solarismedia.tv
Offline

Kelbesq

  • Posts: 93
  • Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:18 pm

Re: UCM engine glow

PostMon Mar 20, 2017 2:47 pm

Seret wrote:Turrets I'm kind of ok with, although if it has to be in an enclosed armoured mount a ball would make more sense than a turret with limited movement in one axis. It's the PHR broadsides that really do my nut in though. They're just so obviously copied from sailing ships that you might as well just put the bloody sails on it too. Even if there's some reason all the guns have to be positioned on a big wide array, why the hell is that down both sides of the ship? The array should be mounted pointing forwards. The only reason to put it down the sides if your main design goal is "we must play sailing ships in space". I'm just glad they gave the PHR fleet enough other options so you don't have to take the broadside ships, as they're otherwise a really cool looking force.


Side mounted makes way more sense in space if you are actively attempting to orbit your target. I'm not really sure this plays out effectively in Dropfleet, but I've never really tried. It certainly seems more likely if you are in a small ship circling a larger one to avoid firing arcs.

Ideally ships in space could rotate in any direction with easy, much like you see strike craft in BSG or Babylon 5. If you can spin freely and maintain a completely independent direction travel because of momentum, and ya know, space, there less downside to having most your guns on one side. Maybe this falls apart and is less practical on cruiser sized ships. Maybe it would make the game boring. Purely from a sci-fi design perspective, you should be able to either swivel most of your guns to bare, or swing your ship around to bring most of them to bare without impacting your momentum. I'm sure there is room in the lore/science for some massive co-axial weapon system that is just too big effectively place on a turret as well (i.e. the F(n) guns in Dropfleet).
Offline
User avatar

Seret

  • Posts: 29
  • Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:34 am

Re: UCM engine glow

PostMon Mar 20, 2017 2:49 pm

L. Sabia Byrne wrote:Well just as a thought, I would rather have Daves designs on my table than a collection of 'Skylabs' throwing lead/laser at each other :lol:


I would have no problem with a ship that looked like cobbled together space junk, but I've also got no problem with ones that look like a Ferrari. That's just aesthetics, and everybody will have their own tastes (I don't like the Scourge ships, I'm sure some folks love 'em). What bugs me is when they just copy all the tactics and weapons straight over from naval warfare. And it's not even modern naval, for some weird reason it's the stuff from centuries ago. Whose idea was that, and why does everybody just go along with it?

There are other spaceship games that are starting to break the mould a bit, but not many. DFC is one of the less-heinous offenders, which is what originally drew me to it. There's some great stuff in there, like weapon ranges being related to stealth and EW, but there's also some really disappointing bits IMO.
Offline
User avatar

Seret

  • Posts: 29
  • Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:34 am

Re: UCM engine glow

PostMon Mar 20, 2017 2:56 pm

Kelbesq wrote:Ideally ships in space could rotate in any direction with easy


Exactly. So if we take it for granted that there's some good reason PHR ships need to have their guns down the side instead of at the front, why aren't we allowed to start the game already side on, putting the enemy to your front inside the fire arc? Why can't ships in DFC spin easily on the spot?

The answer is of course "boats don't move like that". Sure, but space ships do.
Offline

Kelbesq

  • Posts: 93
  • Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:18 pm

Re: UCM engine glow

PostMon Mar 20, 2017 3:27 pm

The cruisers in game are ~1km long and presumably extremely massive, so I get that turning instantly might not be practical. The game would need to be a way to keep track of momentum in order to handle moving one way while facing another. The need to keep 1/2 thrust moment or greater unless station keeping seems like an attempt to address this, but is clearly a simplification. A move realistic ship would either have thrusters on several sides, or "turn and burn" to slow down. I assumed station keeping was do a full burn on reverse thrusters. Trade offs had to be made to keep the game from bogging down, but the broadsides seems to suffer for it =/.
Offline
User avatar

Charistoph

  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 7:47 am
  • Location: Morning-side Table of Heck

Re: UCM engine glow

PostMon Mar 20, 2017 3:37 pm

Seret wrote:
Charistoph wrote:In addition, while they may operate in space, there are other considerations that need to be made, that WE may not be aware of. We don't know all the principles of their starship construction any more than a Brit from 1785 would understand the principles for the HMS Hood by just having a model of it in their hands.


Hmmm. This assumes that the ships were designed with some kind of consistent internal technical logic, which I don't think they are. Whoever at Hawk designed them gave the different fleets a different external aesthetic, but the basic template is just a retread of the dominant trope in sci-fi ship design, which is "make a boat in space". I'm not seeing anything in the designs which shows they've sat down and had a good think about the engineering.

Considering how consistent the designs are, internally to the faction, it is hard to argue that they don't have a consistent internal technical logic. As I said, there is so much we don't know about how they work, and our designers don't know either. But they are good to look at, and at this point, that takes priority.

Seret wrote:Turrets I'm kind of ok with, although if it has to be in an enclosed armoured mount a ball would make more sense than a turret with limited movement in one axis. It's the PHR broadsides that really do my nut in though. They're just so obviously copied from sailing ships that you might as well just put the bloody sails on it too. Even if there's some reason all the guns have to be positioned on a big wide array, why the hell is that down both sides of the ship? The array should be mounted pointing forwards. The only reason to put it down the sides if your main design goal is "we must play sailing ships in space". I'm just glad they gave the PHR fleet enough other options so you don't have to take the broadside ships, as they're otherwise a really cool looking force.

Weapon mounts are highly dependent on space. If you are looking at a ship that focuses its firepower forward, it should be wide. If your ship is long because of the technical logic of your systems, then having more, slightly less powerful, guns in a broadside and having fewer, but more powerful, guns forward makes sense. Sure, turrets may compensate for that by mounting the gun outside of the hull (or at least a significant portion with a '3d' turret like a ball), but they have their own limitations, like getting in each other's way and can be limited in firing arc depending on the power of the system.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?

Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Offline

Attackmack

  • Posts: 96
  • Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: UCM engine glow

PostMon Mar 20, 2017 3:43 pm

Charistoph wrote:Well, one has to consider that people will design asthetics in to whatever they can.

In addition, while they may operate in space, there are other considerations that need to be made, that WE may not be aware of. We don't know all the principles of their starship construction any more than a Brit from 1785 would understand the principles for the HMS Hood by just having a model of it in their hands.



I would assume that since the entire society of the UCM is dedicated to effective warfare with limited resources I dont think they would ever let aesthetics play any part in the production of their fleet. Im trying hard to come up with a paint scheme for their ships that looks good while still playing on this idea; Painting them is a waste of resources. Unless the paint is actually a useful countermeasure, radar absorbent or such.

This is less the case in a future where anti-gravity removed the difficulty of getting into orbit but the process to paint these behemoths still a big undertaking, more so when stretched thin and short on paint!

That said, just because we arent allowed to bring these ships into atmosphere during combat theres nothing saying that perhaps they CAN go into atmosphere but being a slow and vulnerable process that just isnt applicable during combat.


But most of all, they look cool. More so then i can imagine a "realistic" ship would look.
Offline
User avatar

Seret

  • Posts: 29
  • Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:34 am

Re: UCM engine glow

PostMon Mar 20, 2017 3:45 pm

Kelbesq wrote:The cruisers in game are ~1km long and presumably extremely massive, so I get that turning instantly might not be practical.


If you can push a vehicle that size to escape velocity, the energy required to rotate is absolutely trivial. A ship 1km long rotating at 5G would be able to a full 180 in about 11 seconds.

Kelbesq wrote:A move realistic ship would either have thrusters on several sides, or "turn and burn" to slow down.


Indeed it would, or some kind of system akin to a reaction wheel that could rotate the ship. Being able to rotate easily is pretty much compulsory for manoeuvring in space. As you mention, if you only have rearwards facing engines then dropping an orbital layer requires a ship to do a 180 and burn retrograde.

Tracking momentum vs facing wouldn't be hard, you could easily come up with a base that did that.
Offline

jimmcbratney

  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 7:39 pm

Re: UCM engine glow

PostMon Mar 20, 2017 6:42 pm

Maybe this game isn't for you.

You may prefer a more concrete simulation rather than an abstract game.

You might try Attack Vector: Tactical or Saganami Island Tactical Simulator instead.
PreviousNext

Return to Painting and Modelling

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests