The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Mon Sep 25, 2017 3:06 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:59 am 
Offline
Safari Exhibit
Safari Exhibit
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:53 am
Posts: 114
Location: Earth, Sol system
I understand if they didn't have time to test-fire the main gun when the Cynthetic Certainty was called in so quickly, but it might have been a good idea to use spare CPU cycles to run those simulations earlier.

_________________
Armed with my right and left bear arms and the Coat of Arms.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:00 am 
Offline
Arctic Exhibit
Arctic Exhibit

Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:10 pm
Posts: 35
I think she's running sims related not just to firing, but firing it while within an enclosed space (and with unshielded friendlies fairly close)

A potential worry might be that a ship mounted plasma lance is an upsized version of Schlock's weapon, which as we've seen earlier on in this arc can be dangerous to lifeforms not even hit directly by the beam due to ionizing radiation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:12 am 
Offline
Monkey House Exhibit
Monkey House Exhibit

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 5:29 am
Posts: 516
I'm more surprised the tank hasn't yet fired to disable the main gun. It's not like there is going to be any loss of life from that.

Unless the tank's ALSO suffering from too many critical overkill weapons. Which is less smart, if the Allstar was gearing up for non-lethal war.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:22 am 
Offline
Intern
Intern
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2003 3:55 pm
Posts: 1262
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Uh huh, Cindy's gonna take too long, and the tank will fire first. Say Farewell to Cindy folks... :twisted:

_________________
The MacNut
Artist and writer of The Vanguard, a space opera superhero comic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 11:14 am 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 10:01 pm
Posts: 735
Reaver225 wrote:
I'm more surprised the tank hasn't yet fired to disable the main gun.

In-game possibility--the main gun is not part of the standard design for a Dragon-class, and the All-Star's agents haven't properly identified that as a viable attack path.

_________________
I used to be Junius Gallio, until I messed up retyping my password in the Great Password Reset. Nice to be back.

" I gotta stop doing mathematics while sober."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:35 pm 
Offline
Monkey House Exhibit
Monkey House Exhibit

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 8:53 pm
Posts: 368
Cindy is noticeably larger than the heavy tank, and mounts an annie plant that looks almost as big as the tank is. I can easily see how a smaller opponent can pose a significant threat to a larger one. Especially since Cindy has to devote more space to thing like life support and propulsion. But if the heavy tank can destroy a small warship, which has its shields up, in one shot I will call shenanigans.

At that point why would anyone build those small warships if they are so inferior to a smaller dedicated combat platform. The Dragon class is supposed to be a workhorse cruiser not some kind of glass cannon. Though I suppose it could be argued that the main gun upgrades its firepower to the point where it can threaten things that could blow it away like a glass cannon.

All that said the simulations are probably targeting data. Cindy likes to make very precise shots, and she'll probably need to if she's going to use her main gun inside. On top of that is the fact that the last suborned unit did not explode the way she predicted. So any simulations she made beforehand for Urtheep units is probably invalid.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:55 pm 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 10:01 pm
Posts: 735
Arcanestomper wrote:
But if the heavy tank can destroy a small warship, which has its shields up, in one shot I will call shenanigans.


Why not? One of Kevyn's epaulet grenades took out a tank. (We won't talk about what the other one took out.)

The big advantage that the tank has in this combat is that Cindy's in an environment that a Dragon-class ship is not designed for. Limited maneuverability, limited weapons options (for fear of killing the friendlys on the ground), and limited ability to respond to a device that normally it would not interact with at all.

_________________
I used to be Junius Gallio, until I messed up retyping my password in the Great Password Reset. Nice to be back.

" I gotta stop doing mathematics while sober."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:23 pm 
Offline
Monkey House Exhibit
Monkey House Exhibit

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 8:53 pm
Posts: 368
Black Sheep wrote:
Arcanestomper wrote:
But if the heavy tank can destroy a small warship, which has its shields up, in one shot I will call shenanigans.


Why not? One of Kevyn's epaulet grenades took out a tank. (We won't talk about what the other one took out.)

The big advantage that the tank has in this combat is that Cindy's in an environment that a Dragon-class ship is not designed for. Limited maneuverability, limited weapons options (for fear of killing the friendlys on the ground), and limited ability to respond to a device that normally it would not interact with at all.


Well for one thing we just learned that tank armor can deflect a "lot." If warship armor can't do the same, then it is surprisingly thin in comparison. Generally I would expect warships to have relatively heavier armor as they have more power to spare in moving things around. In the same way that tanks have relatively heavier armor than infantry.

Also Kevyn's epaulet was described as being a miracle of nano-engineering, designed by one of the leading scientists, and by this point weapon engineers, in the galaxy. I would not expect standard tanks to mount that kind of firepower to weight ratio.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:04 pm 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:02 am
Posts: 679
Arcanestomper wrote:
Black Sheep wrote:
Arcanestomper wrote:
But if the heavy tank can destroy a small warship, which has its shields up, in one shot I will call shenanigans.


Why not? One of Kevyn's epaulet grenades took out a tank. (We won't talk about what the other one took out.)

The big advantage that the tank has in this combat is that Cindy's in an environment that a Dragon-class ship is not designed for. Limited maneuverability, limited weapons options (for fear of killing the friendlys on the ground), and limited ability to respond to a device that normally it would not interact with at all.


Well for one thing we just learned that tank armor can deflect a "lot." If warship armor can't do the same, then it is surprisingly thin in comparison. Generally I would expect warships to have relatively heavier armor as they have more power to spare in moving things around. In the same way that tanks have relatively heavier armor than infantry.

Also Kevyn's epaulet was described as being a miracle of nano-engineering, designed by one of the leading scientists, and by this point weapon engineers, in the galaxy. I would not expect standard tanks to mount that kind of firepower to weight ratio.

I think it's one of those situational things, like, yes a scalpel *could* kill a bear, but normally you would never get close enough to use it.

In this case, the bear is locked in a room far too small for it, and is worried about hitting it's friends.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:07 pm 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 10:01 pm
Posts: 735
Arcanestomper wrote:
Well for one thing we just learned that tank armor can deflect a "lot." If warship armor can't do the same, then it is surprisingly thin in comparison.


Not necessarily. Tank armor on the M1 Abrams is sloped--while the thickness is the major protection, the slope is a significant factor in deflecting shots. Real-world cruiser armor is considerably thicker, but it's not sloped, so it loses that factor.

Now, I never served in the military (they sent me home at MEPS). I doubt there are any rounds that will fail against tank armor that will penetrate a naval cruiser--but I don't know for sure. But our tanks mostly concentrate on anti-tank rounds: who says the tank is only carrying anti-tank rounds?

Quote:
Also Kevyn's epaulet was described as being a miracle of nano-engineering, designed by one of the leading scientists, and by this point weapon engineers, in the galaxy. I would not expect standard tanks to mount that kind of firepower to weight ratio.

But once Kevn's epaulet was used, it was publicly known that that level of ordinance could be packed into that small a package.

And remember, we experimented with man-portable nuclear weapons (the Davey Crocket being the best known example).

_________________
I used to be Junius Gallio, until I messed up retyping my password in the Great Password Reset. Nice to be back.

" I gotta stop doing mathematics while sober."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:09 pm 
Offline
Monkey House Exhibit
Monkey House Exhibit

Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:40 pm
Posts: 584
Location: Land of the webbed feet
Arcanestomper wrote:
. . . If warship armor can't do the same, then it is surprisingly thin in comparison. Generally I would expect warships to have relatively heavier armor as they have more power to spare in moving things around. In the same way that tanks have relatively heavier armor than infantry. . . .

Well, in current equipment tanks are relatively more heavily armored than warships.

One of the things driving that is keeping the warship afloat, which starships won't need to worry about, but the much larger internal volume required by non-combat-essential systems will still be a major issue.

A tank is pretty much pared down to armor, power, mobility and weapons with a few spaces shoehorned in for the crew to sit in . . . This one won't even have that, nor the small and limited life support systems needed by normal tanks.

Starships, OTOH, need space to accommodate all of that plus three crews, and their support personnel, and stores for extended voyaging . . . there's a lot more room required inside the armor, and that means a lot more non-armor structure, and all of this cuts into the mass and volume available for armor and weapons.

One of the advantages ships do have is that extra volume . . . a shot can penetrate the armor and not hit anything mission-critical, which is not the case for a tank.

--FreeFlier


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:54 pm 
Offline
Janitor
Janitor
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:44 pm
Posts: 2239
I suspect the tank is yet another diversion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 11:14 pm 
Offline
Monkey House Exhibit
Monkey House Exhibit

Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 8:10 am
Posts: 362
Black Sheep wrote:
Arcanestomper wrote:
Well for one thing we just learned that tank armor can deflect a "lot." If warship armor can't do the same, then it is surprisingly thin in comparison.


Not necessarily. Tank armor on the M1 Abrams is sloped--while the thickness is the major protection, the slope is a significant factor in deflecting shots. Real-world cruiser armor is considerably thicker, but it's not sloped, so it loses that factor.

Now, I never served in the military (they sent me home at MEPS). I doubt there are any rounds that will fail against tank armor that will penetrate a naval cruiser--but I don't know for sure. But our tanks mostly concentrate on anti-tank rounds: who says the tank is only carrying anti-tank rounds?

Quote:
Also Kevyn's epaulet was described as being a miracle of nano-engineering, designed by one of the leading scientists, and by this point weapon engineers, in the galaxy. I would not expect standard tanks to mount that kind of firepower to weight ratio.

But once Kevn's epaulet was used, it was publicly known that that level of ordinance could be packed into that small a package.

And remember, we experimented with man-portable nuclear weapons (the Davey Crocket being the best known example).



Just because something is known doesn't mean it can't still be a miracle of etc.

All it means in context is its very advanced, with some implications of rarity. And really, who besides Kevyn would wear one at all times *beside his head*?

Honestly, a bigger miracle is that one was never tagged in a firefight and went off, since the nano bottles antimatter is stored in is somewhat fragile, and antimatter is inherently extremely reactive. It cannot be made inert, merely contained.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 6:58 am 
Offline
Safari Exhibit
Safari Exhibit
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:53 am
Posts: 114
Location: Earth, Sol system
Chainlynx wrote:
I think she's running sims related not just to firing, but firing it while within an enclosed space (and with unshielded friendlies fairly close)

Arcanestomper wrote:
All that said the simulations are probably targeting data. Cindy likes to make very precise shots, and she'll probably need to if she's going to use her main gun inside. On top of that is the fact that the last suborned unit did not explode the way she predicted. So any simulations she made beforehand for Urtheep units is probably invalid.

Yeah, apparently the cause of the delay wasn't really "I've never fired it before." but rather not having models on file of what it would do to that particular kind of tank.

evileeyore wrote:
I suspect the tank is yet another diversion.

Seems likely, since Cindy said it had passed up on several chances to damage her.

Kendrakirai wrote:
Honestly, a bigger miracle is that one was never tagged in a firefight and went off, since the nano bottles antimatter is stored in is somewhat fragile, and antimatter is inherently extremely reactive. It cannot be made inert, merely contained.

They store antinuclei inside fullerenes. The fullerenes should be very durable against mechanical violence, but they are combustible. If they burn, then the antimatter inside will be released.

_________________
Armed with my right and left bear arms and the Coat of Arms.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group