Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests

Wedges, missiles, sidewalls

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Wedges, missiles, sidewalls
Post by cralkhi   » Wed Mar 19, 2014 11:08 pm

cralkhi
Captain of the List

Posts: 420
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:27 am

OK so ship sidewalls destroy missile wedges (and thus are stronger than missile wedges), but are clearly weaker than ship wedges.

So what distinguishes a sidewall from a wedge? Forts have spherical sidewalls so a sidewall isn't necessarily connected to an active wedge. Is it just wedge = used for propulsion, sidewall = defense only, or are they actually different things?


Also... countermissiles destroy missiles by mutual wedge interaction. So now as missile ranges get longer and thus countermissiles become more and more important... could you get an edge by making missiles bigger and with stronger wedges, so existing countermissiles' wedges were insufficient to destroy them?

(Yes, the other side would figure it out quickly and build bigger countermissiles. But you might have a window of opportunity while they designed, built, and got the new countermissiles to all their ships.)

Or would the smaller number you could carry and potentially increased vulnerability to point defense lasers outweigh the benefit of being immune to existing countermissiles?
Top
Re: Wedges, missiles, sidewalls
Post by Uroboros   » Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:07 am

Uroboros
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:56 am

Countermissiles have insanely powerful wedges for their size, which is one of the reasons they burn out so quickly. I don't think you could design a long-range missile with enough power to burn out the other side's countermissile wedges short of designing a missile the size of an LAC, which presents it's own problems, making it large enough to be vulnerable to actual missiles as well as grasers/lasers, and expensive enough to make accountants gibber. Though, I could be wrong.

As well, try designing a ship that basically shoots other ships. It's really not pretty.

Sidewalls are just used for defense. Wedges are primarily used for propulsion, though they are an important part of defense, because nothing can penetrate the bands.
Top
Re: Wedges, missiles, sidewalls
Post by MaxxQ   » Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:15 am

MaxxQ
BuNine

Posts: 1553
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:08 pm
Location: Greer, South Carolina USA

cralkhi wrote:OK so ship sidewalls destroy missile wedges (and thus are stronger than missile wedges), but are clearly weaker than ship wedges.

So what distinguishes a sidewall from a wedge? Forts have spherical sidewalls so a sidewall isn't necessarily connected to an active wedge. Is it just wedge = used for propulsion, sidewall = defense only, or are they actually different things?


Biggest difference is that a wedge is so powerful, nothing gets through, not even energy weapons, whereas a sidewall only "bends" incoming energy weapons fire. Sometimes it bends the beam enough to generate a miss. Almost always, it diffuses the incoming energy, so that even if it *does* hit, it's not quite as powerful as a hit through no sidewall would be.

OTOH, if the sidewall is strong enough, and the incoming fire is weak enough, say cruiser-weight missiles against SD-power sidewalls, the beam might not get through at all. Uprated Mk16s would be an exception, as their laserheads are pretty much as powerful as Mk23 laserheads, only differences being the power of the nuke generating the x-rays, and the number of actual laserheads (six for the Mk16 and ten for the Mk23).

They're generated differently as well (impeller nodes have nothing to do with sidewall generation), so I wouldn't really equate a sidewall with a wedge, other than the fact that both are gravitically-based

cralkhi wrote:Also... countermissiles destroy missiles by mutual wedge interaction. So now as missile ranges get longer and thus countermissiles become more and more important... could you get an edge by making missiles bigger and with stronger wedges, so existing countermissiles' wedges were insufficient to destroy them?

(Yes, the other side would figure it out quickly and build bigger countermissiles. But you might have a window of opportunity while they designed, built, and got the new countermissiles to all their ships.)

Or would the smaller number you could carry and potentially increased vulnerability to point defense lasers outweigh the benefit of being immune to existing countermissiles?


You probably *could* do that, but as you mention in your last paragraph, you would end up carrying fewer missiles. To generate a larger wedge, you would need to increase the power available, which means a larger reactor or larger (or more, or both) capacitors, probably larger impeller nodes (which creates their own problems since the impeller nodes can't project beyond the widest point on the main body of a missile - launch tube clearance), and so on.

Of course, because you now have larger missiles, you will also need larger launch tubes and handling and storage spaces, further cutting down on the total number carried.

The same drawbacks also apply to CMs that may be upgraded. Although in some ways, I have my doubts that CMs *would* need to be upgraded much, if at all. IMO, it's not so much that the wedges of both CMs and missiles are the same size (or that the CM wedge is larger), but just that within a certain percentage either way, it generates mutual destruction.

IOW, it may be that a CM wedge can be as much as 25% smaller than a missile wedge, and still kill it. I have nothing to back that up, and as far as I know, we haven't discussed that within BuNine or with David - it's just my own impression based mostly on the fact that pretty much *any* CM can take out any regular missile, regardless of which missile it is.

What that means is that in order to do what you are asking about, you may need to increase missile size by as much as 50-100% (if not more), and that would reduce the number carried by 25-50%. I don't think any ship commander would want to decrease his missile load by that much, even if he was sure he could get most (if not all) of his missiles through the CM screen. After all, there's still point defense and ECM. Sure, there would be more missiles making it through, but not much more, and reducing your complement by up to half means you still might not have enough to take out the ship(s) you're shooting at.
Top
Re: Wedges, missiles, sidewalls
Post by kzt   » Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:41 am

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11337
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

cralkhi wrote:Also... countermissiles destroy missiles by mutual wedge interaction. So now as missile ranges get longer and thus countermissiles become more and more important... could you get an edge by making missiles bigger and with stronger wedges, so existing countermissiles' wedges were insufficient to destroy them?

No.
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/164/0
Top
Re: Wedges, missiles, sidewalls
Post by MaxxQ   » Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:56 am

MaxxQ
BuNine

Posts: 1553
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:08 pm
Location: Greer, South Carolina USA

kzt wrote:
cralkhi wrote:Also... countermissiles destroy missiles by mutual wedge interaction. So now as missile ranges get longer and thus countermissiles become more and more important... could you get an edge by making missiles bigger and with stronger wedges, so existing countermissiles' wedges were insufficient to destroy them?

No.
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/164/0


I hadn't seen that before, but it kinda backs up what I was saying above. In order to do something like that, you would need to make the missile and its wedge so large as to be impractical... kinda like the size difference between Honor's CL Fearless vs. the Peep dispatch boat in OBS. She blew the DBs nodes but aside from probably taking a few hundred hours off her own nodes, suffered no problems with her own wedge.
Top
Re: Wedges, missiles, sidewalls
Post by kzt   » Thu Mar 20, 2014 1:30 am

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11337
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

MaxxQ wrote:I hadn't seen that before, but it kinda backs up what I was saying above. In order to do something like that, you would need to make the missile and its wedge so large as to be impractical... kinda like the size difference between Honor's CL Fearless vs. the Peep dispatch boat in OBS. She blew the DBs nodes but aside from probably taking a few hundred hours off her own nodes, suffered no problems with her own wedge.

There is lots of cool stuff there.

I think there is also at least an implied "maximum mass" for "missile drives" that is a lot less than the size of shrike, which would seem to be the first ship large enough to crush a CM wedge (based solely on the fact that people don't seem to kill shrikes with CMs). So you end up with a Medusa B scale ship with 160 "missiles" accelerating at 700G. Which will simply be crushed by thousands of MDMs long before they get into range.
Top
Re: Wedges, missiles, sidewalls
Post by crewdude48   » Thu Mar 20, 2014 4:15 am

crewdude48
Commodore

Posts: 889
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:08 am

MaxxQ wrote:
I hadn't seen that before, but it kinda backs up what I was saying above. In order to do something like that, you would need to make the missile and its wedge so large as to be impractical... kinda like the size difference between Honor's CL Fearless vs. the Peep dispatch boat in OBS. She blew the DBs nodes but aside from probably taking a few hundred hours off her own nodes, suffered no problems with her own wedge.


Not quite.

http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/entry/Harrington/152/1

Has to be a bigger size difference than that.
________________
I'm the Dude...you know, that or His Dudeness, or Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
Top
Re: Wedges, missiles, sidewalls
Post by MaxxQ   » Thu Mar 20, 2014 9:52 am

MaxxQ
BuNine

Posts: 1553
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:08 pm
Location: Greer, South Carolina USA

crewdude48 wrote:
MaxxQ wrote:
I hadn't seen that before, but it kinda backs up what I was saying above. In order to do something like that, you would need to make the missile and its wedge so large as to be impractical... kinda like the size difference between Honor's CL Fearless vs. the Peep dispatch boat in OBS. She blew the DBs nodes but aside from probably taking a few hundred hours off her own nodes, suffered no problems with her own wedge.


Not quite.

http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/entry/Harrington/152/1

Has to be a bigger size difference than that.


Ah... I *really* need to go back and read these agin. It's been awhile...
Top
Re: Wedges, missiles, sidewalls
Post by Theemile   » Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:51 pm

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5060
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH

kzt wrote:
MaxxQ wrote:I hadn't seen that before, but it kinda backs up what I was saying above. In order to do something like that, you would need to make the missile and its wedge so large as to be impractical... kinda like the size difference between Honor's CL Fearless vs. the Peep dispatch boat in OBS. She blew the DBs nodes but aside from probably taking a few hundred hours off her own nodes, suffered no problems with her own wedge.

There is lots of cool stuff there.

I think there is also at least an implied "maximum mass" for "missile drives" that is a lot less than the size of shrike, which would seem to be the first ship large enough to crush a CM wedge (based solely on the fact that people don't seem to kill shrikes with CMs). So you end up with a Medusa B scale ship with 160 "missiles" accelerating at 700G. Which will simply be crushed by thousands of MDMs long before they get into range.


Classic LACs in the 10K ton range also seem to be CM proof - or their vulnerability to them was never mentioned AFIK. But we are still talking about an 800:1 mass ratio between a CM and a classic LAC.
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just as difficult as refitting a standard SLN SD to those standards. In other words, it would be cheaper and faster to build new ships."
Top

Return to Honorverse