Idea: CIC

[zmohner]

I was just wondering if anyone had thought of doing a ship with a BSG-style Combat Information Center (CIC), rather than doing a traditional bridge with windows and such; you know, with information readouts and stuff. Thinking about it, I realized that there'd be no way a heavy warship's command center would be vulnerable like a traditional bridge, when it could just as easily be hidden away in the bowels of the ship, keeping the command center as far away from potential damage as possible. I mean, it seems to me like combat in space would be much like submarine combat; there'd be no real need to visually pick out enemies, especially since the ranges are often so long as to render the "Mark I Eyeball" next to useless when compared to the onboard sensor equipment. Granted, it's generally more entertaining to see your enemy blow up and all, but I think it'd be cool, if just for a change of pace and whatnot. Just a thought.

[2Harry]

Hmm.... yes, thats exactly what I have been doing (when I'm not working or playing GalCivII, that is). I've got some ships that logically would all have CIC's.

My fighter is a sphere, about 30 ft in diameter. 6 engines, all oriented 90 degrees from each other on each of the six major axis. Pilots are buried at the center of that spherical armour. Thrust vectoring would allow any 5 of them to accelerate the ship in any direction. In theory, losing any number of engines ( up to 6!) would still let the remaining ones thrust the craft, although at a significantly reduced rate.

Warships would continue the same philosophy: sherical or cylindrical hulls with hemi-spherical caps at each end. No unneccesary protrusions, no sharp edges. Like a medicinal cold capsule: only bigger, like about 1.5 km. long for a battleship. And everything buried, buried, buried inside that massive curved armour. Curved to reduce radar signature but mostly to shrug off beam and projectile weapons.

Engines, inside the hull again with thrust vector nozzles sticking out; like a harrier jump-jet. Many engines: redundantcy; back-ups

Weapons the same way: energy weapons with the big, expensive parts inside the hull with easily replaced aiming and directional projection "nozzles" on the outside. Armoured missle ports that snap open, squirt a missle and snap shut. ( My big quandry: to turret or not to turret? I've been reading up on naval design history. What were the factors that lead to old "wet" navies moving from hull-buried cannons to deck-mounted turrents? Would these factors still apply to some future space going navy? I'm still trying to decide).

No windows. OK for cruise ships but not for warships! Crews quarters and action stations are deep inside. Info comes from remote sensors on the hull and by data linked drones. Multiple stations (redundant) of only a few people in each, connected by tunnels that can be isolated by blast doors. Action stations are small space craft in their own right, that rotate on gimbals inside the main ship as the thrust changes directions. They become lifeboats, blown clear of the ship when everything goes south.

That's the ships I've been making. They aren't hard to model, of course, but the defing is a different storey. Getting all those thrust flares in the right place, at the firing at the right time and at the right size ( they need to be the same size as the "main" engine flares), is a tedious operation. The ships are brutally unattractive but they are what I always imagined them to be when I read David Weber and Fred Saberhagen novels so, to me anyway, they look very "realistic".

Just a comment to your thought.

Cheers!

[Adonnay]

The Galactica has windows... as seen in the episode where one raider tries to ram the bridge. They look out the windows and see it coming.

Besides that I think warships still need to have windows in case some vital sensors or electronics are out or flawed due to interferences. The "old" Galactica had some kind of blast shield they could pull up to prevent damage to the bridge... that makes more sense.

[Xveers]

ORIGINAL: 2Harry
Weapons the same way: energy weapons with the big, expensive parts inside the hull with easily replaced aiming and directional projection "nozzles" on the outside. Armoured missle ports that snap open, squirt a missle and snap shut. ( My big quandry: to turret or not to turret? I've been reading up on naval design history. What were the factors that lead to old "wet" navies moving from hull-buried cannons to deck-mounted turrents? Would these factors still apply to some future space going navy? I'm still trying to decide).

The main factor was that as ships got more and more armored, they needed bigger guns to cause damage, and being able to mount them in a broadside in numbers needed became impossible. As well, other items became noticable. You could have a solider armored flank, without the large collection of weak spots for gunports. You also have to pay for fewer guns as well.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: zmohner

Thinking about it, I realized that there'd be no way a heavy warship's command center would be vulnerable like a traditional bridge, when it could just as easily be hidden away in the bowels of the ship, keeping the command center as far away from potential damage as possible.

You aren't only person who has thought about this. I believe in aircraft carriers is CIC (or what ever is it called) deep inside ship while bridge (or more like control tower) is used to monitor and control traffic.

I mean, it seems to me like combat in space would be much like submarine combat; there'd be no real need to visually pick out enemies, especially since the ranges are often so long as to render the "Mark I Eyeball" next to useless when compared to the onboard sensor equipment.

Most of combat in Galactica happens within visual range and same goes for Starshatter: fighters and missiles are oversized to make seeing and hitting them more easier (I have blasted couple torps aimed at carrier). What you have described is realistic approach and unfortunately there aren't many games which take this seriously. However there are few of them.

From fighter combat simulations I can name Warhead. Frontier (other name: Elite 2) and sequel First Encounters (other names: Elite 3, Frontier 2) have good physics but combat part don't exactly match Warhead. Rules of Engagement serie is like sitting at CIC station on starship and visuals of other ships are limited to small colored dots on nav and combat screens and zoomed view of targeted ship. Combat in 2d plane only without inertia. Starfleet Command is somewhere between Rules of Engagement and Starshatter. Maneuvering is limited to 2 dimensions without inertia and visuals are close to even with Starshatter. Combat distances are thousands kilometers and energy management has significantly more weight than in Starshatter. Star Trek look and feel is nice bonus: just being able to command own Constitution or Excelsior class starship with little bit of realism makes games worth their price.

[edit]Addition
I've Found Her is fighter combat simulation which gameplay is very much like Starshatter's fighter combat. Except there is only one fighter to fly: Aurora-class Starfury. There is no limitations with speed either. Unfortunately mission success is again up to player: teammates don't seem to do anything to stop enemy shuttle which is on collision course against Nova-class ship.

[Adonnay]

And the turrets have a much better firing arc. With the ships becoming larger and more slugglish it would be a pain to wait for the ship to turn to fire a broadside. And you could never aim all your guns at the enemy which renders half of your guns useless and degrading them to useless ballast. With modern turrets you can target as many different targets as you have turrets or turn all turrets on one single target. And you don't have to weaken your hull with all those gun ports, if one of those ports would be it might be catastrophical. If one of your turrets is hit only the turret is los (mostly).