Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The relative power level of From the Depths.
2017-05-12, 07:15 AM
Post: #101
RE: The relative power level of From the Depths.
(2017-05-10 09:15 AM)BioPhoenix Wrote:  As for missiles and bombs. Anything radar-guided is vulnerable to decoys, however, and anything with radar guidance or self-propulsion (or a significant IR signature) is vulnerable to LAMS. Camera-guided missiles do not presently exist in FTD, but if they did it would be reasonable to assume the retroreflection sensor would generate warnings on them. As for GPS guidance, it may be unwise to assume the GPS system would still be functional in the midst of this invasion given FTD craft's impressive space capability, mentioned below...

Modern ECM is far more advanced than what FTDs appears to mount. In particular the short range and high inaccuracy of FTDs radar puts it below even the capabilities of models available during WWII. This is one of the incongruities of FTDs in a lot of ways they are less advanced, in others they're hideously advanced

(2017-05-10 09:15 AM)BioPhoenix Wrote:  This would be possible. Helicopters are fairly vulnerable targets, however, and they'd have to disable the craft's weapons before attempting a boarding operation. And that runs the risk of invoking the dreaded (Too Damaged!) status and failing to capture. But this is very possible and would give Earth tech a significant advantage on account of suddenly having whatever was left on the captured vehicle.
I agree, taking a Helo up close would be bad news, i assumed they would have destroyed the weapon emplacements, Or, simply had dudes on standby until we got lucky. The only technology I can see earth really wanting for itself is the replication tech. The rest might be cool, but clashes with the standoff weapons most militaries use and the tactics they've built around them.

(2017-05-10 09:15 AM)BioPhoenix Wrote:  
(2017-05-10 05:08 AM)Lincrono Wrote:  we've given FTDs liberties with the physics, but an all RTG army would mean both inefficient vehicles and a lot less of them due to the expense. FTDs invaders don't have unlimited resources, just like earth militaries do not
Earth also has a preponderance of harvestable resources that Neter as depicted by game mechanics does not. Earth has natural resources everywhere compared to Neter's near void of anything noticeable. Trees. Friggin' sand. Giant White Flayer style saws would make for very efficient tree harvesters, entrenchment tools, digging devices and so forth... And they don't even use any power... Somehow.

I'm going to group the whole 'supply-line' game vs RL argument here. I'll say again, including clear game mechanics like out of play, blockading, etc goes against the spirit of allowing needed physics. As someone who has done does a fair bit of structural engineering i can tell you that a lot of FTDs ships would rip themselves apart, not to mention things like having no physical connections between components, using internal combustion engines in space, etc. Those things I think are fair to overlook the rest is egregious. Especially because it would apply both ways. For example, you mention that soldiers wouldn't be any different than ram-bot. Sure, that changes if I give each one of those guys a drone or RC car. including those mechanics crosses a line, it's no longer about FTDs tech VS earth tech and instead becomes about who can think up more exploitative interpretations of a mechanic that we all already exploit to some degree. That's a significantly less interesting discussion

(2017-05-10 09:15 AM)BioPhoenix Wrote:  
(2017-05-10 05:08 AM)Lincrono Wrote:  Assuming you can get them into the upper atmosphere, which is doubtful given earth's gravity. If you did modern missiles have proven capable of shooting them down.
All that's necessary to get to the upper atmosphere is constant force of at least 9.8 Newtons per kilogram. Earth ships ramp up to escape velocity because applying a huge amount of force all at once is more practical than a continuous upward force with our current abilities. FTD craft are not burdened by needing to carry huge amounts of reaction mass with them due to propulsion component mechanics and can simply fly upward and keep flying.

In theory, yes, but FTDs jets and dedi-blades don't operate in thin atmosphere. If i take the hard game based limits they'll stop at about 1km, I don't think that's fair so i'll assume they'd start dropping off around the 60,000ft mark. even that high up gravity is still very strong (objects in orbit are not actually 'floating' they are falling around the planet). I do not actually believe that a craft using Ion engines would be able to provide the necessary thrust to keep up that constant 9.8 N force. esp since we don't actually know how much FTDs craft weigh. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume craft designed for low gravity planets with shallow atmospheres would struggle to achieve escape on a larger planet.


(2017-05-10 09:15 AM)BioPhoenix Wrote:  
(2017-05-10 05:08 AM)Lincrono Wrote:  A few ASAT missiles or something dramatic like detonating the ISS and we'll turn all the available orbits into catastrophic debris fields FTDs craft are vulnerable to sabot shells going 800m/s they will not survive thousands of metal slugs traveling 7000m/s. Shields might stop them, but they don't stop ramming ships so we could use satellites as makeshift kinetic impactors and once we have a debris field set up it will be nearly impossible to establish ships in that orbit. That's me being generous, i'm only willing to stretch FTDs physics allowances so far, i'm not buying the 'no reentry stuff'
A debris field would be effectively high-velocity fragments and thereby susceptible to shields... Thus denying space to Earth vehicles but not to FTD vehicles.
Satellites as makeshift kinetic impactors would be useful if ramming FTD vehicles wasn't hard-countered by the rammed ship having rams in the point of impact and also FTD spacecraft having a lot more freedom to maneuver than real satellites.

ASAT missiles. high-velocity fragments depends on if they're counted as parts of a vehicle or as projectiles. even if you can counter the damage with rams, a high energy impact could still de-orbit FTDs craft. FTDs is free of complex orbital mechanics, but this isn't a requirement for the craft to function. It is safe to assume that FTDs craft would still be at the mercy of newtons laws because this doesn't 'break' them.

(2017-05-10 09:15 AM)BioPhoenix Wrote:  While I fully agree that bringing in blockade / battle / out-of-play mechanics is kind of silly, I also think that rejecting it out of hand would set a very significant precedent. It's a game mechanic in the name of making entertaining battles. Other things that fall into this category are the limited battle ranges, muzzle velocities, restricted accuracies and high resource burn rates that are all both clearly designed to allow ship battles to take place at ranges that are entertaining to watch, and so bountifully helpful for arguing for the level of advantage that earth vehicles would have over FTD vehicles. Openly rejecting out-of-play mechanics opens the door for openly rejecting these and calculating the effects of FTD systems based on the real-world shell calibers and how much high explosive, depleted uranium or what have you can be crammed into a cylinder with a height of C and a radius of C/2.
out of play mechanics only exist to prevent everyone's games from melting the CPU. Blockading exists to prevent players from abusing this to pop up right next to the enemy HQ. Max ranges are not actually all that well enforced, shots out to 10k and even 15k are possible with manual gunnery, LUA, or a mod (which is why i've typically been giving FTDs a longer range than 5km) but even those fall far short of typical RL standoff ranges

as for range/accuracy/muzzle velocity, your argument doesn't really hold up. Sure, battles look better at close range, but even at the common tournament range of 1.5-2km it's difficult to get shots of all the ships, and youtubers and such tend to focus on one ship at a time. If good looking battles was the goal there is no reason to make the distance beyond 1.5 km. Accuracies are not actually all that restricted with 1m or less very easy to attain, that's actually fairly good, and of course we have guided weapons and hit-scan PAC/Laser. furthermore, the velocity of the larger cannons is actually pretty close to what it was in reality. The kicker is that in reality hit rates were extremely low. There is a reason that in reality cannons gave way to missiles and planes carrying heavy bombs. IRL no reasonable armor thickness can withstand what a plane can easily mount and missiles trump cannons because range + pinpoint accuracy is just so far beyond what even the best modern cannons can do. If these kind of standoff technologies existed in FTDs you would see a similar disappearance of heavily armored ships, the rise of carriers, and the waning of the battleship age
[/quote]

(2017-05-10 09:15 AM)BioPhoenix Wrote:  
(2017-05-10 05:08 AM)Lincrono Wrote:  regarding LAMS i'm going to err on the side of LAMS would struggle against RL missiles. most FTDs missiles are going about 100-200m/s the average RL missile is traveling 6-13 times that fast.
LAMS is hitscan and target acquisition would happen at ranges in excess of 1km, and even a speed of 2600m/s gives a good 15 frames to lock before firing the LAMS at that range. (At 40 fps. I've noticed that things change with slowdown - continuous lasers still fire once per frame even if it takes more frames to represent the passage of one game second.)

Yes, LAMS is hitscan, however it's got pretty high inaccuracy for a laser and there's the question of how effective would they be against RL missiles (damage wise). Furthermore, a minority of FTDs vessels carry LAMS systems. You also have the potential for sea-skimming missiles coming in under the minimum detection altitude and that's before even discussing torpedoes, including nuclear torpedoes.


Personally, I think better questions to ask are along the lines of: can Earth forces move fast enough to counter faster FTDs moves, what about FTDs forces attacking away from modern military bases. Do modern militaries have enough initial weapon stocks to hold the first wave, can they produce enough afterwards? Maybe infighting weakens earth's hold.


I was also actually surprised that you find infantry more dangerous. given how many times my rambot dies by accident and the absolute dominance at close range i don't think i'd want to be a soldier going toe-to-toe with the regenerating, shell spewing, death machines. much better to pelt with missiles at range.

-Do not bring forth an argument as fact that can be disproven with a 10 minute Google search.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-05-14, 10:46 AM (This post was last modified: 2017-05-14 10:51 AM by BioPhoenix.)
Post: #102
RE: The relative power level of From the Depths.
(2017-05-12 07:15 AM)Lincrono Wrote:  Modern ECM is far more advanced than what FTDs appears to mount. In particular the short range and high inaccuracy of FTDs radar puts it below even the capabilities of models available during WWII. This is one of the incongruities of FTDs in a lot of ways they are less advanced, in others they're hideously advanced
My guess is that it's a game balance / range limiting issue like why APS guns are so incongruously short-ranged and low-muzzle-velocitied for their caliber. (CRAM cannons on the other hand... Don't have any kind of basis in reality.) Cameras have a fairly accurate detection range but people have complained about them being overpowered, for example.
I don't expect flares to work against modern thermal imaging missiles, but radar buoys might work against modern radar-guided missiles of both active and passive varieties.

(2017-05-12 07:15 AM)Lincrono Wrote:  I agree, taking a Helo up close would be bad news, i assumed they would have destroyed the weapon emplacements, Or, simply had dudes on standby until we got lucky. The only technology I can see earth really wanting for itself is the replication tech. The rest might be cool, but clashes with the standoff weapons most militaries use and the tactics they've built around them.
Tractor beams. The potentials are insane, albeit largely civilian. I could see gravirams being useful for less-lethal high-caliber munitions at the civilian level as well; not to mention LAMS defenses and shields, because modern tanks and various lighter armored vehicles still have armor (and expect to take small-arms fire) and anything with armor or that could be subjected to small-arms fire could benefit from a shield. Destroying the weapon emplacements would work assuming it didn't do too much damage to incite autoscrap. It's a common enough tactic for players to use in the campaign.

(2017-05-12 07:15 AM)Lincrono Wrote:  I'm going to group the whole 'supply-line' game vs RL argument here. I'll say again, including clear game mechanics like out of play, blockading, etc goes against the spirit of allowing needed physics. As someone who has done does a fair bit of structural engineering i can tell you that a lot of FTDs ships would rip themselves apart, not to mention things like having no physical connections between components, using internal combustion engines in space, etc. Those things I think are fair to overlook the rest is egregious. Especially because it would apply both ways. For example, you mention that soldiers wouldn't be any different than ram-bot. Sure, that changes if I give each one of those guys a drone or RC car. including those mechanics crosses a line, it's no longer about FTDs tech VS earth tech and instead becomes about who can think up more exploitative interpretations of a mechanic that we all already exploit to some degree. That's a significantly less interesting discussion
Honestly... I frankly do not know where to draw the line between game-mechanic and tech. I do believe that if it's just and completely FTD tech versus Earth tech and based entirely on Earthly physics, completely rejecting all forms of obvious game mechanic whatsoever and trying to instead approximate FTD designs as closely as possible, then you would have to completely redesign any craft being ported over on the inside and probably scrap even the basic voxel mechanics, but the result would be complete dominance from FTD because of its advanced nanotechnology, all of the things in the Miscellaneous category as a whole, the existence of heavy armor and effective energy weapons, and to a lesser extent its adequately competent indepentent AI and AI interfaces. (I am assuming that things like the Ammo Input Feeder component and missile launch tubes use something like small repair tentacles to reload. If true this would result in less space needing to be used in gun loading mechanisms. I also do not want to even think about how one would make CRAM cannons confine to realism so I am ignoring them.)
A notable weak point there would be detection systems, because changing everything to real-world physics doesn't actually have that much effect on detection mechanisms... But on the other hand, you don't need accurate detections to launch a volley of seeker missiles in the general direction of something, and lasers would be much more effective as LAMS (and otherwise - but less so without accurate detection) since real-world lasers don't need long barrel optics to achieve their accuracies. They simply don't function the same way. It would indeed devolve into standoffs, but FTD-tech craft would have better active and passive defenses and better logistical capability.

Incidentally, at one point Nick did contemplate having a second layer, like the Deco layer in Kingdom Hearts' gummi-ship designer, specifically for things like drive shafts and resource pipes. I think it's gonna be in Forgotten Shores.

(2017-05-12 07:15 AM)Lincrono Wrote:  In theory, yes, but FTDs jets and dedi-blades don't operate in thin atmosphere. If i take the hard game based limits they'll stop at about 1km, I don't think that's fair so i'll assume they'd start dropping off around the 60,000ft mark. even that high up gravity is still very strong (objects in orbit are not actually 'floating' they are falling around the planet). I do not actually believe that a craft using Ion engines would be able to provide the necessary thrust to keep up that constant 9.8 N force. esp since we don't actually know how much FTDs craft weigh. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume craft designed for low gravity planets with shallow atmospheres would struggle to achieve escape on a larger planet.
Perhaps surprisingly, Neter's gravity is quite close to Earth's. The low-gravity-like behavior you may see on Neter is a result of some extremely high drag forces; I tested the gravity based on the fall rates of a CRAM cannon shell, which does not experience drag, and a very-low-downward-drag collection of blocks dropped from a tractor beam. You can set up Earth-like game constants in the game configuration settings; I did so and was still able to hover or get into orbit with ion thrusters alone, on RTG power alone even. But tractor beams. It might take a few hours to get anything you're towing up there but once up there you're golden.

(2017-05-12 07:15 AM)Lincrono Wrote:  ASAT missiles. high-velocity fragments depends on if they're counted as parts of a vehicle or as projectiles. even if you can counter the damage with rams, a high energy impact could still de-orbit FTDs craft. FTDs is free of complex orbital mechanics, but this isn't a requirement for the craft to function. It is safe to assume that FTDs craft would still be at the mercy of newtons laws because this doesn't 'break' them.
Particle or no, they'd be considered fragments just as much as the spall from a HESH round is fragments. As for being de-orbited see above point about ion engines. It would be a temporary relocation.


(2017-05-12 07:15 AM)Lincrono Wrote:  out of play mechanics only exist to prevent everyone's games from melting the CPU. Blockading exists to prevent players from abusing this to pop up right next to the enemy HQ. Max ranges are not actually all that well enforced, shots out to 10k and even 15k are possible with manual gunnery, LUA, or a mod (which is why i've typically been giving FTDs a longer range than 5km) but even those fall far short of typical RL standoff ranges

as for range/accuracy/muzzle velocity, your argument doesn't really hold up. Sure, battles look better at close range, but even at the common tournament range of 1.5-2km it's difficult to get shots of all the ships, and youtubers and such tend to focus on one ship at a time. If good looking battles was the goal there is no reason to make the distance beyond 1.5 km. Accuracies are not actually all that restricted with 1m or less very easy to attain, that's actually fairly good, and of course we have guided weapons and hit-scan PAC/Laser. furthermore, the velocity of the larger cannons is actually pretty close to what it was in reality. The kicker is that in reality hit rates were extremely low. There is a reason that in reality cannons gave way to missiles and planes carrying heavy bombs. IRL no reasonable armor thickness can withstand what a plane can easily mount and missiles trump cannons because range + pinpoint accuracy is just so far beyond what even the best modern cannons can do. If these kind of standoff technologies existed in FTDs you would see a similar disappearance of heavily armored ships, the rise of carriers, and the waning of the battleship age
I do admit it's true that out-of-play mechanics were clearly designed mostly to prevent melting computers; and that blockading was at least in part designed to prevent its abuse. (Other things it prevents include a slower ship escaping a faster ship indefinitely by remaining out of play.) However, if that was the only reason and realistic battle ranges were desired, Nick could've easily made the squares 50km a side, battle entry range 50km, and blockade range 10km and had realistic velocities for APS shells and missiles along with greater ranges for lasers and higher accuracy for everything. (CRAMs would still have no grounding in reality, I'm sure.) Clearly there must be some reason for that, and, I say again, it's to make battles look cooler.

Many AI ships in the campaign do, in fact, prefer to close in to practically point-blank range. (Particularly anything with mid- to low-gauge CRAM cannons, mines, or an aerial AI.) But even for those that prefer longer ranges, and even for tournament craft, it's easy to fly the camera over and look at any given enemy ship then back to your own without a lot of hassle, and a lot of tournament managers do in fact do just that. Also think of why something like Star Wars has space dogfights so similar to WWII close-range dogfighting despite the futuristic setting and lack of air in space, and why in general there are so many more media with warfare based on or inspired by WWII dogfights than on modern and especially BVR plane combat.

It occurs to me that, with the increasing use of VTOL craft, VTOL drones, and other acrobatically capable air vehicles that can suspend themselves on thrust alone, we may be passing the age of the conventional aircraft and aircraft carrier model and entering the era of the type of craft which presently dominates in FTD's meta: The forward-broadsiding dodgy-as-fudgemuffins thrustercraft. Ours are just a lot smaller. Tongue

(2017-05-12 07:15 AM)Lincrono Wrote:  Yes, LAMS is hitscan, however it's got pretty high inaccuracy for a laser and there's the question of how effective would they be against RL missiles (damage wise). Furthermore, a minority of FTDs vessels carry LAMS systems. You also have the potential for sea-skimming missiles coming in under the minimum detection altitude and that's before even discussing torpedoes, including nuclear torpedoes.
It has accuracy to within 1 meter at a range of 110 meters. The majority of player-made capital ships have LAMS, and FTD munition warners don't have a minimum detection altitude as far as I can tell. The damage from a laser weapon is potentially very high especially in short bursts; even my post-DWG corvette (60k material cost) has competent enough short-burst LAMS to take on small numbers of CRAM shells, so frankly when speaking of a more serious destroyer, much less a battleship, I doubt low damage would be an issue. I wouldn't be surprised if real missiles had the equivalent of higher armor class than FTD ones due to stronger materials being involved in their construction; armor class is not much of an issue for lasers, though, since they can trade space for AP at a 1:1 ratio. Torpedoes (except nuclear torpedoes) would be a non-issue to any kind of thruster-craft, as I assumed that funny H-shaped warp drive superweapon thing that can effectively match the speeds of Earth fighter jets in Neter's soupy air was; though if it was a ship rather than a thrustercraft being considered, in-game, sonar-guided torpedoes can be detected and destroyed with LAMS as easily as missiles can through the use of the passive sonar component. (Wire-guided torpedoes would be as immune to countermeasures as LUA-guided and beam-rider torpedoes are today.)

As for nuclear weapons as a whole... I can honestly say I have no idea what the effects would be on FTD craft. Nuclear weapons actually serve fairly poorly against main battle tanks, which is why the neutron bomb was developed. I imagine it would be possible to design FTD craft with similar outer-hull durability; though they would certainly be stripped of anything soft on the outside by a blast and present turret/explosion mechanics are not really in favor of the survival of their turrets. (If this were ignored it would increase their potential durability dramatically.) Nuclear weapons do their blast damage from a super-bright, super-hot flash, a super-powerful concussive blast front, and an electromagnetic pulse to boot.

(2017-05-12 07:15 AM)Lincrono Wrote:  Personally, I think better questions to ask are along the lines of: can Earth forces move fast enough to counter faster FTDs moves, what about FTDs forces attacking away from modern military bases. Do modern militaries have enough initial weapon stocks to hold the first wave, can they produce enough afterwards? Maybe infighting weakens earth's hold.
I doubt it would even be an invasion scenario outright. It could be Neter craft, possibly branches of player forces or possibly Scarlet Dawn type, arrive in Earth orbit and start doing things. If it was player forces, I am certain that they would start manipulating various real-life factions.
...Actually ya know what I like that Scarlet Dawn invasion scenario. The Scarlet Dawn, instead of showing up above the skies of Neter, shows up in Earth orbit and starts landing somewhere out of the way and conquering. Perhaps especially somewhere where the local military technology is well below modern par, allowing them to get a foothold.

(2017-05-12 07:15 AM)Lincrono Wrote:  I was also actually surprised that you find infantry more dangerous. given how many times my rambot dies by accident and the absolute dominance at close range i don't think i'd want to be a soldier going toe-to-toe with the regenerating, shell spewing, death machines. much better to pelt with missiles at range.
If we're going by game mechanics... Heck yes infantry are much more dangerous. Of course it would be terrible to do from their perspective, but at the same time, think about it from Rambot's perspective. FTD AI cannot target infantry, and the dreaded aimbot NPCs of yore are no more. To defend against them an FTD vehicle would literally have to have its crew - usually very limited in number, even with the very generous assumption that there even is more than one commander present - take command of any applicable weapons and aim manually at them. And unlike Rambot, Earth infantry actually have weapons that can scratch enemy vehicles from the outside - HEAT munitions, even. And all that is before we factor in the fact that Earth actually has terrain. It might be useful as raw materials but it's also useful as camouflage.
This goes out the window if you look at certain fluff like SD actually mass-producing pilots for their vehicles instead of making literally everything AI or White Flayers having enough population to use them liberally as kamikaze pilots and other horrible things, but that is not reflected in in-game behavior at this time so I have ignored it.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-05-14, 06:03 PM
Post: #103
RE: The relative power level of From the Depths.
This is just going in circles...

[Image: Screenshot_2017-03-12_12.08.10.png]

I'm gonna cuddle you meow :3
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-12-11, 10:11 PM
Post: #104
RE: The relative power level of From the Depths.
Sorry if this counts as commenting on a dead thread, but if Neter were to fight against Planet Earth and each side followed their respective rules of physics, then I believe that Neter would win for a few specific reasons.
1. We could get to them but they couldn't get to us. The scarlet dawn clearly had space travel, but we can't really do the same kind of thing.
2. The player character can respawn an infinite amount of times and is a robot, meaning that he doesn't need to breathe.
3. There are resource zones with infinite resources and RTGs have infinite power creation.
4. Vehicles don't care much about heat, I have a basic fuel refining building that heats to 50k degrees and the wood that I built the foundation with doesn't even smolder.
The way I see it, whoever was attacking Earth could just build a drone factory on Mars that would create an endless supply of RTG powered drones that would come to Earth and attack in endless waves. Earth wouldn't even be able to fight back, and they would slowly get worn down until a final assault could finish them off.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2018-02-07, 08:08 PM
Post: #105
RE: The relative power level of From the Depths.
I am also under the impression that an FTD invasion force can defeat Earth. Here are my thoughts:

If we consider a "conventional" FTD build, humans have three advanatages:
  • Range: Human armies can engage targets far beyond the 5km limit for FTD AI, making them unable to retaliate against targeted missiles.
  • Infantry can easily board an FTD ship and knock out it's AI, then reverse-engineer the ship for their own purposes.
  • You can't rule out home-soil advantage.

Of course, an FTD invasion force has advantages of it's own:
  • Ultra-cheap fuel can cover logistics costs, and considering that our invasion force is spacefaring, they can utilize all of the other planets as resource bases.
  • It took 4 years to build the Bismark. An FTD force building a Bismark-sized dreadnought can build it in less than 10 minutes. Factoring in the time to design the dreadnought (1 week) and time to gather resources (with all of Neter being used, you can easily gain 1M resources in the span of an hour), even then humans are outmatched in the building department.
  • As FTD shields are more effective against high-speed projectiles, there's no doubt that most attacks, even supersonic missiles, will be rendered harmless by shields. The reason FTD missiles penetrate shields are low speed (assuming an FTD missile speed of 150 m/s).

With these advantages, here's how an FTD force can defeat Earth:
  1. Utilize Mars as a resource point to construct resource dreadnoughts, each carrying 5 million Material and designed to defeat modern weapons through shields and armor.
  2. Send at least 20 of said dreadnoughts to Earth. The dreadnoughts would have to be designed to defeat aformentioned missiles with shields and armored bulkheads.
  3. Upon touchdown (on coastlines), each dreadnought then begins assembling surface dreadnoughts and drones to shut down ports and supply lines. While the AI does have a 5km limit, it is entirely possible to build weapons that can match modern weapons (namely, 500mm Rail-boosted sabots).
  4. Once ports and coastlines are secure, land invasion can commence. Here, an FTD force can mitigate the 5km engagement limit via terrain, and bring naval calibre weapons against Earth-based tanks and infantry (just try pitting a 152mm against a 500mm cannon tank. Not fun.).
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2018-02-09, 05:08 PM (This post was last modified: 2018-02-09 05:19 PM by MizarLuke.)
Post: #106
RE: The relative power level of From the Depths.
Necro? (Oh well, I got a signature out of it anyway)

Also FtD has the advantage of capital ships having 3-6 layers of metal and heavy armor, while modern battleships don't even have half a meter in most places. Plus, of course, lasers, PACs, over the top in fire rate 500mm spamguns which can't be countered by shields. Plus, CRAMs can get through 3 or meters of metal armor if they are strong enough, so a single CRAM could easily pendepth through the outer bulkhead of a battleship and make it through a few chambers to the middle, where it would explode and literally break the ship in half.

(2017-04-20 06:54 PM)Hikari Wrote:  I made something that has an impact of a type 1a supernova. The projectile already breaks laws of physics by going way past the speed of light.

2000mm HE Dakka Enthusiast
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2018-02-09, 08:09 PM
Post: #107
RE: The relative power level of From the Depths.
Hmm.
Maybe a fallen science fiction empire which could keep the technology,
or in the fringes of some galactical civilisation.
Currently my favourite game, with some breaks.
Especially when you had to modify or rebuild all of your units again, but that new feature or bugfix came out. Big Grin

From the Depths english playlist starts here, before that it's hungarian:
https://youtu.be/Ltdx0yVI9cA?list=PLImar...ZokVtdBa73
MULTIPLAYER!

[Image: 6yFiDvF.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2018-04-15, 10:07 PM (This post was last modified: 2018-04-15 10:12 PM by Toothless The Night Fury.)
Post: #108
RE: The relative power level of From the Depths.
merp!

dont forget modern day military primarily use carries and jets and missiles, railguns are a thing (and so are lasers but the lasers took several seconds to shoot down the drone which was flying in a line https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBuiPZm6hK4 ), but we cant mount railguns to ships yet becuase of their enengny draw, and they are purely kenitict projectiles (which will bounce even harder than normal cannons). carriers can be decimated by even a tiny sub with a lot of HE torps, and lasers can fry any jet, and LASMS will be able to stop missiles, as well as explosive flak cwis, there is this micro fighter on the workshop ( https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/f...earchtext= ) which reaches 800m/s and has a pac, and it is more manoverbal then any jet i can think of, we can also make TINY 200m/s+ "fighters" that fly in space and spawn nukes, there is also APS death shotgun things which can take 20% off the onyx throne. and Ive managed to "warp" 20KM with a 2K cram cannon's recoil (I did this with the old lazerus the one that looked like the helicarrier) and we have RTGs, so getting to another planet isnt a problem Tongue earth will put up one hell of a fight, but we might be able to crack the planet in half with enough cram recoil rams

When in doubt shut up keep calm and use more daka.Tongue
(2017-12-07 11:38 AM)-ACHTUNG- Wrote:  Afterwards I concluded that those Campaign designs spend too much of their material cost in Aesthetics instead of actual combat ability...
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2018-04-16, 05:18 PM
Post: #109
RE: The relative power level of From the Depths.
Necro? Could you also please try using complete sentences, not run-ons?

Given the links and rambling, I thought it was an adbot at first before I noticed it was someone with a actual profile and many posts.

(2017-04-20 06:54 PM)Hikari Wrote:  I made something that has an impact of a type 1a supernova. The projectile already breaks laws of physics by going way past the speed of light.

2000mm HE Dakka Enthusiast
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2018-04-26, 06:50 AM
Post: #110
RE: The relative power level of From the Depths.
Reading this old thread makes me want to play HARPOON ...

... or maybe I should just try and learn to play modern air naval ops for once.

Sorry for necromancing.

Imperium Age of Sail Campaign Custom Campaign Dev Idea

Check it out here!
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)