What's in the pipe for the RPG?
Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.
New Game Books?
Sat, 2016-02-20 14:59
#1
New Game Books?
Sat, 2016-02-20 17:11
#2
A while back they posted this
A while back they posted this link on the EP twitter page : http://eclipsephase.com/project-status . I haven't seen a way to get to it on this site though, weird.
Also....AHHHH!!!!! SPACE COMBAT BOOOK!
—
Current Status: Highly Distracted building Gatecrashing systems in Universe Sandbox!
Sun, 2016-02-21 09:16
#3
Thanks!
Thanks!
Mon, 2016-02-22 00:21
#4
Crime book!!
Crime book!!
—
Exhuman, and Humanitarian.
Sun, 2016-02-28 18:16
#5
I've heard that an Argonaut
I've heard that the Argonaut book is supposed to be on the way... for a long time now. No idea what's going on there because news about it has been in short supply.
Mon, 2016-02-29 14:05
#6
God I can't wait for X-Risks,
God I can't wait for X-Risks, I want to see exactly how horrifying these writers can be for exsurgents. And hell maybe I can finally get a decent grip on that Ozma campaign that's been rattling around in my head for a while now.
—
"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.”
-Abraham Lincoln, State of the Union address
Mon, 2016-02-29 14:35
#7
oh man, X-risks and a Crime
oh man, X-risks and a Crime book, dream come true!
—
Exhuman, and Humanitarian.
Tue, 2016-03-01 22:43
#8
Let's speculate wildly!!
So they haven't decided on a title for the Crime book or Space Combat. What do you suppose they will be ? I'll start...
Crime book - Darkcast
It's a setting unique term for an illegal activity, seems pretty straightfoward.
Space Combat- ummm... 3Jane's Warships of the Solar System ? :)
Okay, this one is tougher as there are a lot of directions you could take with a title. It would probably have something to do with Direct Action or Gorgon Defense Systems ( particularly Gorgon - as extropians they deal with Inner and Outer system interests) .
—
Current Status: Highly Distracted building Gatecrashing systems in Universe Sandbox!
Tue, 2016-03-01 22:54
#9
Chernoborg wrote:So they
Well, I tried the in-universe naming approach with "An Ultimate's Guide to Combat", and it triggered certain people. Of course, that might be the Ultimates for you, but I suspect that many of those people might also be bothered by hypercapitalism-centric materials, not to name any names.
Wed, 2016-03-02 01:56
#10
There's part of me that hopes
There's part of me that hopes against hope that the space combat book will be written entirely from the perspective of members of the Jovian Navy.
—
"I wonder if in some weird Freudian way, Kojak was sucking on his own head."
- Steve Webster on Kojak's lollipop
Wed, 2016-03-02 11:12
#11
Kojak wrote:There's part of
I'd be cool with it.
Wed, 2016-03-02 12:38
#12
Kojak wrote:There's part of
Kudos to the writers if it's written from the perspective of characters that aren't blatant caricatures, and instead professionals who actually know what they're talking about, ie Michael Ironside's character in Starship Troopers.
—
"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.”
-Abraham Lincoln, State of the Union address
Wed, 2016-03-09 14:25
#13
Chernoborg wrote:Space Combat
I misread this as 3Jane's Whaleships of the Solar System and had a hearty laugh.
Due to the Transhuman Kickstarter stretch goals leading us to announce many projects in advance, we have too many announced projects. This leads to the perception that not much is happening, when in reality, a ton is happening: but not on every project all the time.
Whittling down the project list (by finishing projects!) and then working on announcing projects much closer to their release date. :-)
Wed, 2016-03-09 15:24
#14
AdamJury wrote:I misread this
Hunting the great white surya?
—
My artificially intelligent spaceship is psychic. Your argument it invalid.
Wed, 2016-03-09 16:24
#15
Adam Jury wrote: I misread
Hey, I'll gladly take credit for any good laughs something I wrote caused, no matter how inadvertently!
The beautiful part of it is that in Eclipse Phase all the interpretations of that could be true!
- Ships dedicated to hunting whales (BOO!)
- Ships built for the use and habitation BY whales
- Ships that ARE whales!
Oh, don't mistake my enthusiasm for impatience. I know you guys have a lot going on and can wait quite a while till the next book drops. Good work takes time and the books have been consistently worth the wait.
To continue the Title game... maybe something like Liu's Doctrines : Orbital Combat - presented as an excerpt from Teilhard Liu from Rimward. That could be as part of a series for whenever combat is the subject , like a Book of Five Rings or Art of War for EP.
—
Current Status: Highly Distracted building Gatecrashing systems in Universe Sandbox!
Thu, 2016-03-10 03:41
#16
The Paradox of the Spacy: Why
The Paradox of the Spacy: Why Build Military Ships when you can accelerate space junk?
Thu, 2016-03-10 11:17
#17
MrWigggles wrote:The Paradox
Because in EP fuel is critically important. When you fire a bullet from a gun the energy comes from the propellant and in many ways that is what is doing the damage. The slug, on the other hand, is simply a vehicle for delivering this energy. As a result space junk doesn't really deliver a whole lot more 'bang for the buck' over just shooting someone.
Now space junk does have one big advantage and that's the fact that you can put a whole lot of energy into it. The problem is that to do that you have to be pretty far from your target so that you have the time to load it up with all that energy.
I'll refer you to the 'there's no such thing as stealth in space' argument on Atomic Rockets and agree to skip all the arguments about internal heat, stealth materials, etc. so we can just focus on engines. In short, any kind of engine that is being used to accelerate the space junk will be immediately apparent to everyone in the system, giving them more than enough time to nuke the space junk into vapor long before it ever reaches them.
Try and start in really close so that they won't have time to react? Well, you're back to basically a sudden acceleration to very high speeds to deliver the energy over a relatively short distance, or more or less a bullet from a gun. Now ask yourself which is it better to invest the energy in; an object specifically designed to take that energy and deliver it on target or a random object which is not designed to take the stresses involved and which may fracture and which is also imbalanced and not as accurate?
—
My artificially intelligent spaceship is psychic. Your argument it invalid.
Thu, 2016-03-10 19:52
#18
Ah, but accelerating space
Ah, but accelerating space junk is immeasurably cheaper then the means to defend against space junk. There is more space junk then there is things to defend from it. You dont need big rocks to do big damage. Force is mass times acceleration. Just accelerate lots of 50lbs rocks, and they'll all become kinetic kill weapons.
Thu, 2016-03-10 23:44
#19
You can defend against a 50
You can defend against a 50 lb rock with another 50 lb rock, so no, it isn't more expensive.
What's more, accelerating space junk is really only effective against targets that can't move. Since the question is 'what is the purpose of warships in such an environment' I would posit that one of their functions is to shoot people accelerating 50 lb rocks. :)
—
My artificially intelligent spaceship is psychic. Your argument it invalid.
Sun, 2016-03-20 11:32
#20
Lazarus wrote:You can defend
No you can't use another rock to kill rocks, or more precisely, you shouldn't.
The idea of accelerating space junk to ubersuperspeeds to destroy targets is somewhat good if the target is enough stationary(planetlike stationary, a simple RCS fart in your space station will protect you against such tactics) or doesn't have defenses to destroy it while coming to you.
But such defenses should be lasers, why?
Everytime you throw a missile or a kinetic projectile into the direction of the enemy you are creating space garbage, and whats worse, every space station or ship destroyed contributes to the kessel syndrome that can render any kind of orbit around a space object useless and therefore making such entity unacessible to others.
In the space faring world of EP a Kessel syndrome would be more of an annoyance than anything else since all the space garbage can be ultimately disintegrated with lasers. BUT, it can be a valid tactic if you want to:
-Clean an orbit of low deltaV targets
Like spacestations and satellites, if they have defenses then is a question of how much projectiles did you let invade the orbit and how much can their lasers shoot before getting too hot or being simply unable to deal with all the tiny objects going their way, in the end it would be more like a natural selection of the most protected and rich stations(althought you risk destroying them though) leaving any orbital security with much less places to hide inside their own infraestructure.
There is no need to mention that the more objects destroyed the more they contribute to this tactic.
-Deny anyone from entering or exiting the planet
Keeping track of the space debris is easy, predict its constant change is not, and since you're using it to attack a certain enemy position cleaning the garbage will be hard. First you can't use anykind of missile or satellite since it would only be fighting fire with fire, if you use lasers you would be giving their; position, size, type and power to the enemy making them vulnerable to a counterattack(even if they're mobile the enemy intelligence can try to track them). So you can't clean your own orbit and your defenses are kind of useless in this situation, the only one who can actually use the orbit is the enemy by employing their own lasers but it will only mean that they get to say which orbit is safe so forget about escaping by using a polar orbit and you can bet that they will surround the planet on 360º to have a complete control on what comes in or out in their own orbits.
Now, this is the usual thing with a lot of moder warfare. The fact that you can convert the enemy into dust with an artillery barrage doesn't mean you should, some strategic targets are valuable for their infrastructure, meaning that the orbital industry of a certain planet is valuable enough to make this tactic counterproductive, and if the enemy objective is a planet without atmosfere it means that you would subject the surface to a kinetic bombardment that can have a similar effect that it does on orbit making your own objectives useless.
And of course there are defenses against this like having specialized kill-sats for these low-mass/high speed/swarm targets, or adding armor to your orbital thingies. But since this is a provoked Kessel effect what we are looking for is to overcome those defenses with quantity, so this warfare is more related to economy than actual warfare(as usual?), so it might actually be kinda more expensive than just "spacejunk".
Also you can use this for other purposes like terrorism(no big powers involved just wanting to do some damage), or a form of sanction since taking out all the space debris would be a time consuming task that you would be forced to do instead of other thing and that without taking into account all the colateral damage that would happen anyway.
Space garbage is really serious business I would say, just like a spaceship at 14% the speed of light can crack a moon a lot of small pieces of metal can block a planet spaceport for days or months.
Sun, 2016-03-20 12:14
#21
The Kessel syndrome really
The Kessel syndrome really only occurs in the orbit around a planet (and pretty much low orbit at that). Smashing rocks together would probably occur way outside of that and while the debris would remain in orbit around the Sun it would have a nearly insignificant impact upon the amount of tiny orbiting bodies filling the solar system.
Lasers still are a better choice given that they still have a lower contributory effect to space debris and because their long term use is theoretically cheaper than even throwing rocks to counter other high speed rocks. However, it is unclear as to whether the laser technology of Eclipse Phase is advanced enough. Yes, there are man portable laser weapons but generally physical weapons tend to dominate. At the risk of pure speculation the generally accepted tactic may be to throw a physical object to 'crack' or otherwise divert the incoming rock followed by lasers used to clear the resulting debris.
—
My artificially intelligent spaceship is psychic. Your argument it invalid.
Mon, 2016-03-21 09:46
#22
Bringing a Rock to a Seeker fight.
SpaceJunk Combat is terrible in EP.
First you need a piece of junk in the correct position and orbit to even get started. Then you need to intercept without someone wondering what you're doing with that piece of SpaceJunk.
Assuming you manage this, it's still terrible because your either;
A) Close enough to hit the target without the Junk being intercepted... which means your target can see you acting suspiciously at a range where they can't intercept your weapons fire, and you can't react to theirs, or...
B) You're far enough away for them to intercept your SpaceBrick. They don't even need to match your projectile, they just need to send out a smaller, faster one which intercepts off-center to make you miss.
Or use laser/particle beam point defense - it's cannon that EP weapons are at least good enough for that.
It's also worth remembering that "Stationary" installations are still going to have reaction control jets to tweak/maintain their orbit - so if they have even a bit of time they can just burn Normal/Antinormal a bit and move into a different track.
Even actual railguns/mass drivers have this problem - if you can use them then you're vulnerable to them. Using energy weapons or railgun-launched missiles is infinitely preferable.
—
In the past we've had to compensate for weaknesses, finding quick solutions that only benefit a few.
But what if we never need to feel weak or morally conflicted again?