@@JDeeGaming bro, that's a nice game, but it still it feels like child's play.. More like "naval battle in space setting" than a "battle of spaceships". Right? I mean, spaceships, in reality, would be fully automatic with no human crews (that saves a lot of space and mass, which is otherwise taken by living quarters, kitchens, life support, escape pods, etc). Spaceships would never be painted in those merry orange juice colors, but instead would be painted completely black or, maybe, would have some "star - resembling" camouflage, for the obvious reason of concealment against optical sensors. Space battles would probably unfold in seconds or tens of seconds, because ships in the space would go at speeds like 10-20 kilometers per second, so there would be a little time window for engagement. Space ships would manoeuvre very rarely, because of how limited the fuel is. And lastly, all that funny weaponry of various missiles, pdts and stuff, would not be present - real battleships would simply use low-yield nuclear warheads. If one of those hits the ship directly or explodes in its vicinity, that's game over for the ship. Are there any realistic spaceship battle games out there, which are not child's play like "yay let's take naval ships and throw them into space"? Could you please recommend one?
@@k283 no point painting your ship black radar will see you anyway. Human crew is a good idea as then they can make there own choices you just need enough supplies to make whatever trip to a place you can resupply. If you use a drone you have to give orders to it that could take hours or even days depending on how far away from it you are. If yours spending millions on a combat space craft nothing beats a human crew. Pdts would be used to shoot down those nuclear warheads you just mentioned and weapons like rail guns could also be used as something that couldn't be shot down by said pdts. Also large amounts of fuel would be absolutely necessary for combat maneuvers. Also if you looking for a realistic space combat game children of a dead earth might be what your looking for
@@sacman4611 > no point painting your ship black radar will see you anyway Not necessarily; real spaceships will probably use various ray-breaking surfaces and materials, like today's stealth technology, thus making the radar less useful in some situations. So optical spotting methods would be viable, like "scanning the space with a bunch of small telescopes simultaneously in all directions, done by onboard computers". This way a bright-orange ship could be visually spotted, if illuminated by a nearby star, from a great distance.. > Human crew is a good idea as then they can make there own choices That is correct for today (which is part of a reason why we have manned combat aircrafts today), but wrong for the future. In the future, when spaceships are common, the level of AI would be unimaginable, thus completely eliminating the need for human crew. Commander would only need to give a general task to an AI, like "destroy the target at coordinates X Y Z; travel mode = silent, engagement rules = hold fire unless fired upon". And that's it; the AI would do all the necessary decision making during the mission, and *far* better than humans. Because AI never sleeps, never rests, never experiences fatigue, etc. Note that a *huge* portion of a manned spacecraft is essentially a habitat for humans. An unmanned spacecraft would be, what, x10 or x20 times smaller? > If you use a drone you have to give orders to it that could take hours or even days depending on how far away from it you are Yup, but that's today. In the future they would be completely autonomous and human-independent. If in 2018 we had an AI that drives a car, what powerful AIs will we have in 2318. With quantum computers as powerful as today's NASA or Amazon superclusters, and sized like a wallet. And if you mean that orders must be changed mid-mission, then communicating with a manned spaceship would take hours or days just the same. > Pdts would be used to shoot down those nuclear warheads you just mentioned It would be way too close though; if it's several kilometers, then the ship could be within blast range, and moreover, the relative speeds of a spaceship and an incoming missile would probably be immense, like 20-30 kilometers per second. Using a PDT is hardly an option; instead, usage of countermissile (also nuclear) is preferable, given that it is launched preemptively. > Also large amounts of fuel would be absolutely necessary for combat maneuvers Don't you think it's highly unrealistic that such maneuvers would be needed in the first place? We model the future space battles pretty much upon WW2-era dogfights, which is dumb. Imagine that your fleet took off a planet, gaining first space velocity, for example 8 km/s. The enemy fleet took off another planet, for example at 10 km/s. If the two fleets move more or less towards each other, their relative speed would be 18km/s for each ship. They probably won't detect each other until, let's say, 400 km apart (because of stealth measures and jamming if needed). That distances would give a window of around 22 seconds for a battle. After that the two fleets would simply zoom past each other, making any further engagement impossible, as you your munition would have to decelerate from 8km/s to 0 km/s and then accelerate to more than 10km/s in the opposite direction to catch up with enemy fleet. The only way to increase the "battle window" is for one fleet to decelerate, and no one will do that unless they are suicidal; the faster you move - the harder it is to hit you, so neither fleet would decelerate; and maybe they both would even accelerate more upon detecting enemy. Another reason why you don't need sharp maneuvers in space, is that there is no air. Surprising, right? In the atmosphere, you can make a sharp U-turn, using the wings of an airplane. It is possible because there's atmosphere. But in space you cannot do such U-turn; if you tried that, you would simply make your spaceship spin, while still moving in the same direction with the same speed, but now spinning. To change direction to the opposite one, you need to decelerate to all the way to 0km/s, and then accelerate in the opposite direction. That eats up a lot of energy and time (doing it too fast will put an immense strain on a spaceship frame, possibly breaking it), and you're basically a static target during that time; a sitting duck. Same goes for another maneuvers: in the atmosphere you can crank and yank sharply because you use surrounding air to do that, but in vacuum of space those maneuvers are incomparably more energy demanding and slow. Thus, there simply would be no need in intense maneuvers, as the whole encounter would take seconds, within which weapons and countermeasures would be deployed. By automatic AI, probably. That's another reason for redundancy of human crew; human brain will be absolutely no match for the future AIs in terms of considering all factors and making the right decision within a couple of nanoseconds. In short, space battle will be vastly different to what naive games like this one imagine; they pretty much either take WW2 fighter planes to the space (like Star Wars), or throw Cold War era naval ships into the space. > children of a dead earth Thanks, I'll have a look!
@@k283 In space there's not much to hide with in an open vacuum radar will pick you up easy no questions asked you can bouse the radar waves back but that's kinda the whole point of radar anything you do will look different from open space and that's all you need. Also if s missile is coming at you with a speed difference of 20 km/s a second you can simply move out of the way assuming your craft has more fuel than the missile you can adjust your course to be out of the way easy as. Or you could Match its speed to make pdts effective and if the ai you mentions becomes as good as you say leading the missile and lining its path with bullets or simply painting it with a laser till it explodes will be pretty easy. Nukes are also pretty eh in space the explosive radius is awfull outside of a atmosphere and whille it can send radiation enough to definitely harm space craft up to 80km of where it detonated heat shielding will soak it up nicely.
My experience with this fleet has been getting shredded by 450s, missile mag dumped, or perma jammed by invisible DD until death... So it was nice to see it do well. Definitely be one of the more challenging starter fleets.
If you've got an ally throwing down with the other teams big boys wouldn't it be worth it to target said heavy ship and take out it's radars and stuff with HE/RFP? I mean a big ship represents a significant points investment and unless a smaller ship is an imminent threat it seems to follow that degrading the bigger ship so your allies take less damage and destroy it faster would be more useful. You can always split the party and run down the light ships that aren't also piling into the fight later.
HE-RPF doesn't work to strip surface modules. All surface modules are protected by the full armor of the hull, meaning HE-RPF can't even scratch an Axford or Solomon. The devs added this feature very early on because battles devolved into surface-stripping contests and waiting around to see whose DC could bring weapons back online faster.
How difficult is it to find players for multiplayer in this game? Is there random matchmaker or only player hosted battles? Player count doesn't look very promising.
There are usually enough people online at all times to find a match, and the Discord server for the game is quite active so you can plan sessions with people there. If there are no matches, you can spend hours just designing good fleets.
Best times are Europe/North America although there are still games being hosted during the quiet hours (South East Asia). Weekends see an increase in players. If you want to coordinate games there is a looking for game channel in the discord or if you host, they will come.
@@tranquilclaws8470 ship design in games has taken up a LOT of my life, starting on the zx spectrum building cars to fight a friends car with, setting up your car ship space marine w...whatever can be as much fun as testing them in battle.
They have taken an overnerf during the Major Missile update. Waiting to see what the dev team does to start to bring them back into the long range support role that they intended them to be.
I can safely say that are a lot more people out there better then me, who play way more often. I have been playing since Jan 22 and in the discord since then so I have picked up a few things
Chaff alone don't saves you. Even against radar missiles only. If you loose your launcher for chaff or just your radar your are screwed. Against a missile only CH with 200 semi radar seeker missile oak dies fast. You get jammed and spammed and you die ;)
the devs owe JDee a great debt of gratitude for these tutorials, a lot of people find JDee's videos extremely useful to learn this brilliant game.
I appreciate that!
@@JDeeGaming bro, that's a nice game, but it still it feels like child's play.. More like "naval battle in space setting" than a "battle of spaceships". Right?
I mean, spaceships, in reality, would be fully automatic with no human crews (that saves a lot of space and mass, which is otherwise taken by living quarters, kitchens, life support, escape pods, etc). Spaceships would never be painted in those merry orange juice colors, but instead would be painted completely black or, maybe, would have some "star - resembling" camouflage, for the obvious reason of concealment against optical sensors. Space battles would probably unfold in seconds or tens of seconds, because ships in the space would go at speeds like 10-20 kilometers per second, so there would be a little time window for engagement. Space ships would manoeuvre very rarely, because of how limited the fuel is.
And lastly, all that funny weaponry of various missiles, pdts and stuff, would not be present - real battleships would simply use low-yield nuclear warheads. If one of those hits the ship directly or explodes in its vicinity, that's game over for the ship.
Are there any realistic spaceship battle games out there, which are not child's play like "yay let's take naval ships and throw them into space"? Could you please recommend one?
@@k283 no point painting your ship black radar will see you anyway. Human crew is a good idea as then they can make there own choices you just need enough supplies to make whatever trip to a place you can resupply. If you use a drone you have to give orders to it that could take hours or even days depending on how far away from it you are. If yours spending millions on a combat space craft nothing beats a human crew. Pdts would be used to shoot down those nuclear warheads you just mentioned and weapons like rail guns could also be used as something that couldn't be shot down by said pdts. Also large amounts of fuel would be absolutely necessary for combat maneuvers.
Also if you looking for a realistic space combat game children of a dead earth might be what your looking for
@@sacman4611
> no point painting your ship black radar will see you anyway
Not necessarily; real spaceships will probably use various ray-breaking surfaces and materials, like today's stealth technology, thus making the radar less useful in some situations. So optical spotting methods would be viable, like "scanning the space with a bunch of small telescopes simultaneously in all directions, done by onboard computers". This way a bright-orange ship could be visually spotted, if illuminated by a nearby star, from a great distance..
> Human crew is a good idea as then they can make there own choices
That is correct for today (which is part of a reason why we have manned combat aircrafts today), but wrong for the future. In the future, when spaceships are common, the level of AI would be unimaginable, thus completely eliminating the need for human crew. Commander would only need to give a general task to an AI, like "destroy the target at coordinates X Y Z; travel mode = silent, engagement rules = hold fire unless fired upon". And that's it; the AI would do all the necessary decision making during the mission, and *far* better than humans. Because AI never sleeps, never rests, never experiences fatigue, etc.
Note that a *huge* portion of a manned spacecraft is essentially a habitat for humans. An unmanned spacecraft would be, what, x10 or x20 times smaller?
> If you use a drone you have to give orders to it that could take hours or even days depending on how far away from it you are
Yup, but that's today. In the future they would be completely autonomous and human-independent. If in 2018 we had an AI that drives a car, what powerful AIs will we have in 2318. With quantum computers as powerful as today's NASA or Amazon superclusters, and sized like a wallet.
And if you mean that orders must be changed mid-mission, then communicating with a manned spaceship would take hours or days just the same.
> Pdts would be used to shoot down those nuclear warheads you just mentioned
It would be way too close though; if it's several kilometers, then the ship could be within blast range, and moreover, the relative speeds of a spaceship and an incoming missile would probably be immense, like 20-30 kilometers per second. Using a PDT is hardly an option; instead, usage of countermissile (also nuclear) is preferable, given that it is launched preemptively.
> Also large amounts of fuel would be absolutely necessary for combat maneuvers
Don't you think it's highly unrealistic that such maneuvers would be needed in the first place? We model the future space battles pretty much upon WW2-era dogfights, which is dumb. Imagine that your fleet took off a planet, gaining first space velocity, for example 8 km/s. The enemy fleet took off another planet, for example at 10 km/s. If the two fleets move more or less towards each other, their relative speed would be 18km/s for each ship. They probably won't detect each other until, let's say, 400 km apart (because of stealth measures and jamming if needed). That distances would give a window of around 22 seconds for a battle. After that the two fleets would simply zoom past each other, making any further engagement impossible, as you your munition would have to decelerate from 8km/s to 0 km/s and then accelerate to more than 10km/s in the opposite direction to catch up with enemy fleet. The only way to increase the "battle window" is for one fleet to decelerate, and no one will do that unless they are suicidal; the faster you move - the harder it is to hit you, so neither fleet would decelerate; and maybe they both would even accelerate more upon detecting enemy.
Another reason why you don't need sharp maneuvers in space, is that there is no air. Surprising, right? In the atmosphere, you can make a sharp U-turn, using the wings of an airplane. It is possible because there's atmosphere. But in space you cannot do such U-turn; if you tried that, you would simply make your spaceship spin, while still moving in the same direction with the same speed, but now spinning. To change direction to the opposite one, you need to decelerate to all the way to 0km/s, and then accelerate in the opposite direction. That eats up a lot of energy and time (doing it too fast will put an immense strain on a spaceship frame, possibly breaking it), and you're basically a static target during that time; a sitting duck. Same goes for another maneuvers: in the atmosphere you can crank and yank sharply because you use surrounding air to do that, but in vacuum of space those maneuvers are incomparably more energy demanding and slow.
Thus, there simply would be no need in intense maneuvers, as the whole encounter would take seconds, within which weapons and countermeasures would be deployed. By automatic AI, probably. That's another reason for redundancy of human crew; human brain will be absolutely no match for the future AIs in terms of considering all factors and making the right decision within a couple of nanoseconds.
In short, space battle will be vastly different to what naive games like this one imagine; they pretty much either take WW2 fighter planes to the space (like Star Wars), or throw Cold War era naval ships into the space.
> children of a dead earth
Thanks, I'll have a look!
@@k283
In space there's not much to hide with in an open vacuum radar will pick you up easy no questions asked you can bouse the radar waves back but that's kinda the whole point of radar anything you do will look different from open space and that's all you need. Also if s missile is coming at you with a speed difference of 20 km/s a second you can simply move out of the way assuming your craft has more fuel than the missile you can adjust your course to be out of the way easy as. Or you could Match its speed to make pdts effective and if the ai you mentions becomes as good as you say leading the missile and lining its path with bullets or simply painting it with a laser till it explodes will be pretty easy. Nukes are also pretty eh in space the explosive radius is awfull outside of a atmosphere and whille it can send radiation enough to definitely harm space craft up to 80km of where it detonated heat shielding will soak it up nicely.
My experience with this fleet has been getting shredded by 450s, missile mag dumped, or perma jammed by invisible DD until death... So it was nice to see it do well. Definitely be one of the more challenging starter fleets.
Wow! 4 catastrophic reactor failures! What a sight when one of them goes up.
Before I started doing multiplayer my bench mark of a successful fleet composition was if it could beat Task Force Birch
To me it's TF-OAK. Those ships are so tough.
@@bdpat100 To me it's Sycamore. I hate missiles.
Starter TF-Oak is the best imo. Hard to destroy with missiles with good PD coverage, and devastating with the combined 14 450mm canons.
A nice and simple fleet to play. I agree its one of my favourite starters.
It's less micro and more forgiving. But you have no missiles and no scout. Like JDee said, easier for you and your enemy.
If you've got an ally throwing down with the other teams big boys wouldn't it be worth it to target said heavy ship and take out it's radars and stuff with HE/RFP? I mean a big ship represents a significant points investment and unless a smaller ship is an imminent threat it seems to follow that degrading the bigger ship so your allies take less damage and destroy it faster would be more useful. You can always split the party and run down the light ships that aren't also piling into the fight later.
HE-RPF doesn't work to strip surface modules. All surface modules are protected by the full armor of the hull, meaning HE-RPF can't even scratch an Axford or Solomon. The devs added this feature very early on because battles devolved into surface-stripping contests and waiting around to see whose DC could bring weapons back online faster.
How difficult is it to find players for multiplayer in this game? Is there random matchmaker or only player hosted battles? Player count doesn't look very promising.
There are usually enough people online at all times to find a match, and the Discord server for the game is quite active so you can plan sessions with people there.
If there are no matches, you can spend hours just designing good fleets.
Best times are Europe/North America although there are still games being hosted during the quiet hours (South East Asia). Weekends see an increase in players. If you want to coordinate games there is a looking for game channel in the discord or if you host, they will come.
@@tranquilclaws8470 ship design in games has taken up a LOT of my life, starting on the zx spectrum building cars to fight a friends car with, setting up your car ship space marine w...whatever can be as much fun as testing them in battle.
looking forward to Tf-Ash then!
TF Ash is going to be my hardest challenge I think. I rarely play them.
Is there a way to get the starter fleets back? I accidentally saved over Oak.
If you validate the steam files it will bring them back but not impact your other fleet files.
I haven´t seen many railguns lately, are they too weak now?
They have taken an overnerf during the Major Missile update. Waiting to see what the dev team does to start to bring them back into the long range support role that they intended them to be.
@@JDeeGaming okay thanks
If I remember right there is a good radar on one of the 3 ship ; ]
Went back and had another look, one has a spyglass the other 2 frontlines. A good combo.
So Jdee how did you get so good at this game
I can safely say that are a lot more people out there better then me, who play way more often. I have been playing since Jan 22 and in the discord since then so I have picked up a few things
Isn't chaff meta defeated by electro optical seekers?
It is. EO is not distracted by chaff.
Chaff alone don't saves you. Even against radar missiles only. If you loose your launcher for chaff or just your radar your are screwed. Against a missile only CH with 200 semi radar seeker missile oak dies fast. You get jammed and spammed and you die ;)
Everyone's an enemy to JDee lol
I try to be fair to all :D