Space combat, games and realism

[Kuokkanen]

Around here has been discussion about those things. So I thought to open new thread for it. So compare Starshatter to other space sims and which ones are most realistic.

SpaceWar! has all the glory to be first space combat simulation and first digital computer game in the world (made in 1962 for PDP-1 mainframe/minicomputer). What I have read and understood about it, two starships fight around the blackhole/sun/planet (can't remember which one) and there is also inertia. Basically very simple game which can be hardly called simulation.

Warhead (1989) is some serious fighter simulation game. There is inertia, fighter can be accelerated to amazing speed and primary combat weapons are missiles which are fired from distances of several kilometers, though few times might be chance to see glimpse of enemy starships. You can get game with author's blessing from URL below (Atari ST version recommended, Amiga version don't work):
http://koti.mbnet.fi/ktalo/kapseli/peli ... rhead.html

Even in this millennia Rules of Engagement (1991) made me great impression. Though starships are available only one per weight class (like light cruiser and heavy cruiser), amount of controls, options and realism can freak out if manual is not readed. Combat takes place in entire star systems with all the asteroids, planets and sun. Fastest ships can accelerate near light speed but accelerattion is faster than human body could possibly tolerate without artificial gravity.

Energy weapon fires bolts at speed of light, but they are easy miss in over 500 000 km distance. Missiles and boarding parties are there too. It don't take many shots to cripple light ship even if own ship isn't much better. Even without fighters there are few interesting realistic details, like time delay with message transmissions, interference caused by sun's radiation and some undisciplined ship captains who choose not to follow orders. Interface looks very much like control panels seen in TNG and makes me wish to own touchscreen monitor.

Starfleet Command (1999) comes close with ROE. There is no time delay with message transmissions and manual don't have word about sun's effects to ship's sensors. But there are enough controls and buttons to drive many people crazy (including Diabolico). There are many familiar things from Star Trek including starships, weapons, tractor beam, transporter and energy management. SFC is based to board game Starfleet Battles and follows its rules as closely as it is possible for real time computer game. Battles are fought in sub-warp speeds (unfortunately).

Game has some realistic elements, though maybe not as many as in ROE. For example phaser shots travel even hundreds of thousands kilometers instantly. Of course they don't do much damage and there is good chance for miss. Communications and electronic warfare are too straightforward: there is no time delay with message transfers and only use for ECM is to have more energy for it than opponent has ECCM to overpower it. Asteroids and planets can be used to cut off line of sight, but large amounts of space dust don't have any other effect than small damage to shield when going fast. Long range sensors can be used to detect enemies, but said enemies don't even know they are being scanned (though in one mission own crew reports they are being scanned, but it's just scripted event). Probe is good thing to have: when it is launched at enemy ship, some details are to be seen about the ship, like specific model of the ship and weapons.

If in SS is light weight energy management, in SFC it is heavy weight. As one specific engineering officer of the Constituon-class starhip says: "She's giving all she got!" Limited energy sources are to be shared between impulse engines (speed), shields, weapons, electronic warfare, tractor beam, electronic warfare, long range scanners and few other systems. Starship combat is much like we have seen in TV/whitescreen: combat between just 2 ships takes forever. I'd blame Star Trek background about that one.

Starshatter is made up according modern navies we have today. Role of different combat elements are there as they should be (what I can understand with common sense). 3 dimension space is also good thing to have. But that's about it. Starship combat looks about same like it is in Star Trek but with shorter distances.

Space Combat is fairly new game made by author of X-Plane. Name of the game is slightly misleading becouse practically shooting asteroids is only combat there is. Flight model of various ships feels realistic however and so far that is the only point of the game: to offer feeling what it is like to control real space fighter or larger space craft.
http://www.x-plane.com/SpaceCombat.html

What realistic space combat should be? In my opinion one of the most dangerous element would be stealth bombers with their huge stealth nukes. Stealth fighters on patrol would detect incoming signals. Fighters would detect that signals are radar waves and where they are coming from. Powerful cameras with sufficient zoom would detect largest starships, like carrier. With this information bombers would be alerted and guided towards target. Stealth nukes would be fired and accelerated before enemy starsihips can detect their heat trace.

Alternatively (stealth) firecontrol craft would use camera/telescope to locate target and then deliver information with dish antenna to own starships beyond active radar distance. Starships would fire multiple stealth nukes towards painted targets.

[Burzmali]

How does anyone do anything "stealth" in space, realistically? The moment you light up your engines, something is bound to notice the exhaust. The faster the acceleration, the faster you get noticed. Even then, a big fixed background like space means that any emissions are easy to notice and any active radar has a useful range much closer to it's detectable range than in an atmosphere. I guess you could work up a system of autonomous craft that hide near debris or asteroids to bushwhack nearby targets.

[se5a]

not if they use a newtonian sink for propoltion.

[Burzmali]

Still, the 2nd law of Thermo will catch up with you pretty quickly is you aren't venting an ungodly amount of heat via exhaust.

[Necromancer]

ORIGINAL: Burzmali
How does anyone do anything "stealth" in space, realistically?

If it was me... leave your main engines off as you approach the target, using bursts of cooled gas to maneuver... sure, your maneuverability is cut way down...but the object is to not be seen... leave the main engine for retreat if you get spotted... of course at that point it might be too late for you.

Necromancer

[DamoclesX]

Well, stealth would be relative, as in the fact that your ship still is gonna absorbe any/all radiation and energy around you.

Thats what stealth material does, it absorbes/refelcts, the only problem is on earth there is not NEAR the amount of solar radiation floating around there is out there, your ship would light up like a roman candle and probably burst into flames without some massive heat sinking, and that would require massive power.

A pneumatic ship, using material that reflected EVERYTHING would be your best bet, however your still gonna shine like a star because you ARE reflecting everything.