Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people
* FAQ    * Search   * Login 
Want to support this site? Click

Quote of the Week: "In the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own." - Alexis de Tocqueville, French writer (1805-1859)


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: 40k starships questions PostPosted: 2012-06-04 04:47pm
Offline
Youngling
User avatar

Joined: 2012-06-04 03:42pm
Posts: 63
i know? that most of it has already been discussed in 40k sticky, but most information concerning what i want to clarify is a bit outdated

1. weapon firepower- as i know from most 40k starship treads, it varies from gigatons-low teratons(we are talking about exterminatus scale firepower- not tactical bombardments)- still need some clarification
2. weapon range- effective combat range and maximum possible and projectile speeds and masses
3. and the most important for me- starship durability.for how much time can a ship handle bombardment from a ship of similar firepower? BFG implies it to be hours, but in execution hour and shadow point it was enough sometimes just several hits for a cruiser grade ship to be crippled
And the main problem here is contradiction of sources, as battlfleet koronus, despite having some interesting and detailed stuff just extremely violently retcons most starship data(freakin goodbye to brute force exterminatus for example)- so, what source is more valid- batllfleet koronus or BFG with novels&
and yes, i know the issue of unconsistency of 40k fluff, but still, there can be some averaged numbers

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: 40k starships questions PostPosted: 2012-06-04 06:15pm
Offline
Sith Marauder
User avatar

Joined: 2011-04-22 11:04pm
Posts: 3943
Location: Ocularis Terribus.
1. Varies greatly from source to source, book to book, and sometimes page to page.

2. Varies greatly from source to source, book to book, and sometimes page to page

3. Ships are usually pretty damn durable, unless built by the Eldar or Dark Eldar or required by the plot.

It's 40K, and their policy towards canon is a great big belly laugh. No one can agree if the Horus Heresy is a secret kept closely guarded by the Astartes chapters, Inquisiton and Lords of Terra, a widely disbelieved ancient legend, a good campfire story or general knowledge. Why should they be any more consistent regarding how fast a ship can move?

The man you want to talk to is Connor, he's done more than anyone to try and make sense of the madness. But I bet this thread gets rolled into the sticky.

Seriously though, in-universe the capabilites of ships vary greatly because there are a large number of ship-types of varying age, made from different materials and with different levels of technical sophistication, because technical knowledge is hoarded in the Imperium. Some starships are barely space-worthy crude iron where sweaty men have to haul ammo to the guns, and some are made from ceramite with all the bells and whistles, and these two ships can be the same class. Some ships are tens of millenia old, with technology from the height of the Imperium or the Dark Age of Technology, and some are crude copies of the former ship, made by people who don't come close to understanding the technology.



"Any plan which requires the direct intervention of any deity to work can be assumed to be a very poor one."- Newbiespud

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: 40k starships questions PostPosted: 2012-06-04 06:36pm
Offline
Emperor's Hand
User avatar

Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Posts: 7143
Location: Zone:classified
Yeah something that has to be remembered that in-universe there's no such thing as standard ship design in the Imperium, but rather a bunch of similar designs that get filed under the same label as each spacedock has it's own interpitation of the same basic design (due various reasons).



I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: 40k starships questions PostPosted: 2012-06-04 09:21pm
Offline
Sith Marauder
User avatar

Joined: 2011-04-22 11:04pm
Posts: 3943
Location: Ocularis Terribus.
I don't think there's anything we'd call "standard" in the Imperium. No standard world, vehicle (maybe the Rhino) army, chapter, there's very little you can say about the imperium without some sort of qualifier being added.

There was a story about a tribe of men on a Feral World, who hand mine iron and leave it at the altar of the sky gods (actually the AdMech, who live in an orbital shipyard facility) and how after 11 years of hard work, they were rewarded by a new star, a new Luna-class cruiser leaving orbit. I think (hope) there were other tribes/nations contributing, but do you think a ship built thus will compare to a similar one from Mars?



"Any plan which requires the direct intervention of any deity to work can be assumed to be a very poor one."- Newbiespud

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: 40k starships questions PostPosted: 2012-06-05 03:11am
Offline
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2008-02-15 10:36am
Posts: 2319
IronStar wrote:
1. weapon firepower- as i know from most 40k starship treads, it varies from gigatons-low teratons(we are talking about exterminatus scale firepower- not tactical bombardments)- still need some clarification


Exterminatus often uses technobabble weapons (such as virus bombs), which makes it difficult to average out raw firepower.

In various books, the stated yields of various capital ship weapons range from kilotons to hundreds of gigatons. The effects decribed can vary similarly broadly.

Quote:
2. weapon range- effective combat range and maximum possible and projectile speeds and masses


Stated ranges in various books have varied from dozens of kilometres to hundreds of thousands, to my knowledge. For stationary targets (such as planets), I believe even longer ranges have sometimes been mentioned. Projectile velocities can vary from tens of kilometres per second (torpedoes and fighter-launched missiles in Execution Hour) to "near lightspeed" (nova cannons in numerous books; one other also somewhat contradictorily claims a velocity of 5,000 kilometres per second for these weapons, if I recall correctly).

Quote:
3. and the most important for me- starship durability.for how much time can a ship handle bombardment from a ship of similar firepower? BFG implies it to be hours, but in execution hour and shadow point it was enough sometimes just several hits for a cruiser grade ship to be crippled


No idea.

Quote:
and yes, i know the issue of unconsistency of 40k fluff, but still, there can be some averaged numbers


Well, as Ahriman said, Connor is probably your best bet. (Although these days, even he appears not to take this as seriously as he once did.) Me, I think the universe as a whole is hopelessly contradictory and impossible to derive any reasonably sensible or consistent numbers from. :P



"But there's no story past Episode VI, there's just no story. It's a certain story about Anakin Skywalker and once Anakin Skywalker dies, that's kind of the end of the story. There is no story about Luke Skywalker, I mean apart from the books."

-George "Evil" Lucas

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: 40k starships questions PostPosted: 2012-06-05 05:10am
Offline
Youngling
User avatar

Joined: 2012-06-04 03:42pm
Posts: 63
Ahriman238 wrote:
Ships are usually pretty damn durable

some sources pls?

Quote:
The man you want to talk to is Connor, he's done more than anyone to try and make sense of the madness. But I bet this thread gets rolled into the sticky.

Yeah, i ve read a lot of his posts and treads- his work is awesome, he is the only one i know to do a quantification work on 40k. About sticky- i also wanted to propose it. Maybe you should create some starship quantification tread?(something like that exists in sticky for 40k overall, but it was uncomplete and long time dead as i know).

Quote:
Seriously though, in-universe the capabilites of ships vary greatly

yeah, i know it too(heard even about steam turbines used in some occasions), but still, after reading A LOT of Connor s work, some frames can be made(like "average" weapon firepower i believe to be from low gigatons to low teratons)

Quote:
There was a story about a tribe of men on a Feral World

its a story from a BFG. And starship(and not only) production speed is an issue, where sometimes one source contradicts itself.

Darth Hoth wrote:
Exterminatus often uses technobabble weapons

Not always at all. There are many occasions of usage of brute force exterminatus via bombardment with starship "conventional" weaponry.

about weapon ranges and projectile speed- in BFG it is stated, that shots from weapon batteries(which include "mass drivers" mentioned nearby) cover "tens thousands km" almost instantly. I remember Connor made some conservative calculations based on BFG info. About stationary- in Necron 4th edition codex one planet was bombarded with torpedoes and kinetic projectiles from multi AU distance.
Despite GW has no canon policy at all, i still think that codexes are more reliable sources than novels/

And what can we do with Koronus numbers? As i said, they violently contradict most calculations based on previous sources- so its possible only to nitpick them using Koronus numbers or send Koronus to hell(that what people on many 40k forums prefer)

Anyway, as i wrote before, i think its is a good idea to create a starship quantification tread/
Thanks for replying, i appreciate it very much.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: 40k starships questions PostPosted: 2012-06-05 10:28am
Offline
Emperor's Hand
User avatar

Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Posts: 7143
Location: Zone:classified
Ahriman238 wrote:
I don't think there's anything we'd call "standard" in the Imperium. No standard world, vehicle (maybe the Rhino) army, chapter, there's very little you can say about the imperium without some sort of qualifier being added.

There was a story about a tribe of men on a Feral World, who hand mine iron and leave it at the altar of the sky gods (actually the AdMech, who live in an orbital shipyard facility) and how after 11 years of hard work, they were rewarded by a new star, a new Luna-class cruiser leaving orbit. I think (hope) there were other tribes/nations contributing, but do you think a ship built thus will compare to a similar one from Mars?

thanks to the difficulties with warp based communications it's pretty much impossible enstablish any working imperium wide standard, so each forgeworld and spacedock just makes their own standards based on certain basic needs



I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: 40k starships questions PostPosted: 2012-06-06 09:29am
Offline
Sith Apprentice
User avatar

Joined: 2002-08-01 05:03pm
Posts: 14042
IronStar wrote:
i know? that most of it has already been discussed in 40k sticky, but most information concerning what i want to clarify is a bit outdated


As long as 40k is an ongoing concern as far as fluff goes, you have to get used to the idea things get 'outdated'.

Quote:
1. weapon firepower- as i know from most 40k starship treads, it varies from gigatons-low teratons(we are talking about exterminatus scale firepower- not tactical bombardments)- still need some clarification


Ranges from terajoules/watts to petatons-plus (more if you want to adopt the 'starships blowing planets up' as conventional firepower or include cyclonics as shipboard armaments.) You aren't going to get more precise than that, and I doubt you should, since the enemies faced can vary as can the tasks. I've long since doubted expecting there is one set 'yield' for ship to ship firepower, because there are so many ways you can try to attack or damage a ship (omindirectional blasts vs focused attacks, penetrating and non-penetrating hits, cutting and piercing vs just blasting chunks off, etc.)

Hell depending on the task sub-kiloton exists and is useful (tactical bombardments mainly.) so the actual range could be 'tons' to however high is felt appropriate - gigatons works to cover most cases (even most exterminatus) if you feel teratons is too excessive (but you can argue teratons as well. As I said it need not be mutually exclusive.)

Petatons is a bit iffier, but it can be allowed for certain weapons (like nova cannon) or very extreme interpretations, but i've kinda fallen off using that as mainstream firepower.


Quote:
2. weapon range- effective combat range and maximum possible and projectile speeds and masses


Effective range for broadside weapons is around tens of thousands of kilometers (althoguh thousands of km is not unheard of.) Maximum is hundreds of thousands of km. Lances tend to be a bit longer ranged for some ships or some cases (as do other weapons like lasers), so it's quite possible that 'max range' for broadside weapons vary - slower moving macro cannon projectiles (and melta weapon analogues0 probably have shorter ranges than laser or plasma broadsides. Torpedoes seem to sit at somehwere between hundreds of thousands and millions of kms, depending on source and interpretation.

torpedoes move at tens or hundreds of km/s. Projectiles can vary, but probably move at thousands to tens of thousands of km/s (faster than ordnance since they don't get the advantages or weaknesses of ordnance, but it may be some broadsides move at lower velocities in some cases.) you aren't going to get more precise than that and you probably shouldn't. this is also relative velocity rather than absolute, the speed the ships move at must be accounted for more than likely as well. Bombardment cannon rounds can move at nearly a quarter c, and nova cannons can move at close to lightspeed for some, 'near-realtivistic' in some other cases, and there is always the 5000 kps nova cannon from Warriors of ultramar, but Nova cannons are not a single class of weapons.

Macro cannons mass from tonnes to hundreds of tonnes. Torpedoes can range from 100 tons to several thousand, possibly more depending on some size/dimensions. Bombardment

Quote:
3. and the most important for me- starship durability.for how much time can a ship handle bombardment from a ship of similar firepower? BFG implies it to be hours, but in execution hour and shadow point it was enough sometimes just several hits for a cruiser grade ship to be crippled


Going by ship to ship battles can be tricky - those cna range form days to weeks depending on source, but be misleading because it doesnt' say how long that is spent in manuvering and pursuit between attacks - sometimes there's little manuvering and lots of fighting, sometimes there is long periods of travel and manuver with brief periods of fighting. minutes to hours of sustained combat seems to be fairly common, although actual 'bombardment times' can range from seconds to hours depending on source.

It's also hard to measure damage in 40K ship terms because of how the defenses work. void shields aren't hit points in the sense that they absorb attacks then are gone - they absorb a certain amount of punishment in a certain amount of time - the parameters of which can vary depending exactly on how you figure voids work - eg the warp-displacement type voids seem to operate differently than the 'absorb deflect gunfire via forcefields' type voids.) as well as by the fact armour composition and performance can be variable (in protective quality, thickness, etc.) Armour is not uniform across the ship - some areas are better armoured than others (EG the prow) whilst others seem to be by necessity poorly armoured- some broadside weapons need to be able to turn and track or to be 'pushed' out the gunport, so that implies the gun deck armour might be relatively thin.) Also some systems - like thrusters, sensors, guns of all kinds, etc are going to be by necessity exposed to damage more easily than the hull.

What's more, even if the hull/armour outside takes damage this does not mean the ship is easily destroyed, as it doesn't account for the structural design of the ship - where are the systems buried, how much redundancy is there, and what is the thickness of walls and armour between decks and hulls and shit. It is possible (and i'm sure its happened). And then there's other 'redudnant' force field defenses like powerfields which can augment physical structures in some cases (like from Battlefleet Koronus.) and of course it depends on the weapon in question - lances are designed to be penetrative but fairly localized in many examples (either just stabbing straight through the ship from one side to another, or they slice/rake across/through the ship) Whereas battery fire tends to be lesss penetrating and makes up for it in volume.



Quote:
And the main problem here is contradiction of sources, as battlfleet koronus, despite having some interesting and detailed stuff just extremely violently retcons most starship data(freakin goodbye to brute force exterminatus for example)- so, what source is more valid- batllfleet koronus or BFG with novels&and yes, i know the issue of unconsistency of 40k fluff, but still, there can be some averaged numbers


and it's going to remain a problem as long as you're holding out for absolutes. as i said before, as long as 40K is an ongoing concern things are going to be prone to change. You either stick to some sort of 'personal canon' approach or you assume most/all the stuff can apply in some way or another and deal with it on a case by case basis. 'inconsistency' isn't going to go away, nor is it going to make anything nice and simple. That's just the way some universes -40k in particular - work, and when you have so many authors contributing to a shared universe, that's going to happen.

It also means that the answers you get are, by necessity, vague, because they will depend on source. But it's not that great a problem, because you shouldn't be expecting a great deal of precision anyhow - order of magnitude in these matters is very much VERY PRECISE by sci fi calc standards even if it is ludicrous by 'real' scientific standards. Approximations rather than absolutes, and all that.



Image

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: 40k starships questions PostPosted: 2012-06-06 02:32pm
Offline
Youngling
User avatar

Joined: 2012-06-04 03:42pm
Posts: 63
Thanks for replying Connor, most of what you have written here is what i wanted to hear.
Quote:
adopt the 'starships blowing planets up' as conventional firepower or include cyclonics as shipboard armaments

i dont remember examples of blowing planets except planetkiller and nostromo incindent, and arent cyclonics a torpedo weapon, shot from prow or depends on source as usual? And something i forgot to mention- are there some missile weapons except torpedoes?
Quote:
Bombardment cannon rounds can move at nearly a quarter c

Its shame for me as a 40k fan since 2004 not to know it, but is a bombardment cannon some distinct type of naval weaponry or just a turreted macro cannon like these on broadsides? And where quarter of c stated(or calculated from)?
As to the "averaged" projectile speed, i use as a guideline a statement from BFG, that "weapon battery shots cover tens thousands km almost instantly" including mentioned in BFG "mass drivers"

About durability- thanks for pointing at the ship s internal structure, wonder why i didnt think about it before.

Concerning inconsistency- sometimes it can be a really good thing, cause allows that "personal canon" thing( for example, i dont like IA at all except some minor stuff and don t extrapolate these numbers to all 40k and even find some in universe explanation for not doing so)

And the last- can you advice some novels(except Execution hour and shadow point) with some interesting space stuff?

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: 40k starships questions PostPosted: 2012-06-06 09:36pm
Offline
Padawan Learner
User avatar

Joined: 2004-10-06 02:56pm
Posts: 279
Location: Toronto, ON
List of space battles off-hand that were reasonable and a fair length: Relentless and Cadian Blood are both one-shots. Dark Mechanicus, Sabbat Martyr, Salvation's Reach and Dark Creed all had significant portions of the novel dedicated to the space battle.

Oh, and Gildar's Rift comes to mind, though I detested that novel and thought the space bit felt contrived and poorly thought out.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: 40k starships questions PostPosted: 2012-06-07 04:02am
Offline
Emperor's Hand
User avatar

Joined: 2004-02-11 11:11am
Posts: 6972
Location: Intensive care
Elessar wrote:
List of space battles off-hand that were reasonable and a fair length: Relentless and Cadian Blood are both one-shots. Dark Mechanicus, Sabbat Martyr, Salvation's Reach and Dark Creed all had significant portions of the novel dedicated to the space battle.


To add a few:

Gaunts Ghosts: Sabbat Martyr had a nice skirmisch between 2 battleships and their cruiser support fleet.

Some Horus Heresy novels had a few detailed skirmisches as well
- Flight of the Eisenstein
- Battle for the Abyss
- one of the short stories in Age of Darkness (iirc)
- One of the two Dark Angel novels (iirc the second, Fallen Angels)



Image

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: 40k starships questions PostPosted: 2012-06-07 07:07pm
Offline
Sith Apprentice
User avatar

Joined: 2002-08-01 05:03pm
Posts: 14042
IronStar wrote:
Thanks for replying Connor, most of what you have written here is what i wanted to hear.


Welcome

Quote:
i dont remember examples of blowing planets except planetkiller and nostromo incindent, and arent cyclonics a torpedo weapon, shot from prow or depends on source as usual? And something i forgot to mention- are there some missile weapons except torpedoes?


mainly its Nostramo and a few kinds of cyclonics (IIRC there was one torp that blew up a necron tomb world). There was also the 100- nova cannon bombardment proposed to take out St josemane's hope, although the context is a bit open to debate as to whether it meant mass scattering the planet or just decimating the surface (or the surface and the curst, or whatever.)

And yes cyclonics are mostly torpedo weapons - or at least, they get launched out of torpedo tubes. They'be been known to be launched from Cobra class destroyers, cruisers, battleships, planetary defence platforms (in context of anti-starship role, from the Bleeding Chalice Soul drinkers novels), and so on. And they can vary from 'planetary destruction' yield to 'take out a city' yield, and in quantity from 'single warhead to wipe out entire hive fleet' to 'large scale barrage of cyclonics patterned to cover entire planet.'

Heck there are even different KINDS of cyclonics - matter/energy conversion, radiation, 'raw plasma', and others, so they're not purely technobabble weapons (despite what some portray them as.) There are also other kinds of exterminatus munitions IIRC deathwatch mentions 'crust bursting' warheads for example.

i think my favorite form of Exterminatus was the antimatter bombs dumped into a gas giant setting off some sort of CME-like event to exterminatus a bunch of inhabited moons from Daenyathos - simply for the sheer excess of it.

And yes, there are broadside mounted missile weapons that are distinct from ordnance and torpedoes. Attack craft have their own torpedoes, missiles and bombs as well.

Quote:
Its shame for me as a 40k fan since 2004 not to know it, but is a bombardment cannon some distinct type of naval weaponry or just a turreted macro cannon like these on broadsides? And where quarter of c stated(or calculated from)?


Bombardment cannons are turreted weapons (or spinal in some cases) primarily mounted on Astartes STrike cruisers and battle barges, although some dedicated planetary bombardment vessels, Arbites ships, and even Inquisition vessels have them. They're giant, turreted linear accelerators that hurl explosive payloads at the target. The speed stated was 'execution Hour', although in context that was in their 'anti ship' role. They can be used (effectively) against starships, but they tend to be shorter ranged than most other weapons. I believe they get a mention in the rogue trader RPG as well.

The HH novel 'fallen Angels' mentions bombardment cannon rounds being 5x more massive than macro cannons, and the BFG Armada stuff pertaining to the Hammer class Battlekroozers note that bombardment cannon, torpedoes, and nova cannons all have similar proportions.

Quote:
As to the "averaged" projectile speed, i use as a guideline a statement from BFG, that "weapon battery shots cover tens thousands km almost instantly" including mentioned in BFG "mass drivers"


As a rule i tend to use that as well, especially if we're talking about the 'Age of sail' approach to loading and firing broadside weapons (good luck hitting a target tens of thousands of km away, moving at kilometers per second, and taking minutes to reach the target.) There's also the not-so-minor difference between ordnance and weapons batteries, but some people insist that only beam weapons have that 'instant' thing, and projectiles do not.

Quote:
About durability- thanks for pointing at the ship s internal structure, wonder why i didnt think about it before.


Remember that even within a particular class (EG Lunars) there's lots of room for variation due to inconsistencies of technology and design. As a rule most 40k starships (or at least the really valuable ones) are not mass produced designs, so how they absorb punishment (and the degree to which they can) will vary. Case in point - the absence or presence of power fields as mentioned in (IIRC) Battlefleet Koronus as hull enhancement.

Quote:
Concerning inconsistency- sometimes it can be a really good thing, cause allows that "personal canon" thing( for example, i dont like IA at all except some minor stuff and don t extrapolate these numbers to all 40k and even find some in universe explanation for not doing so)


As a rule I find it bad policy to 'pick and choose' which sources you do and don't obey. There's the obvious problems of cherrypicking, but the fact is not everyone ignores those sources and sooner or later you have to deal with them. IA books have lots of problems but a fair number of authors use the numbers and stats from them, and people will cite them as counterarguments.

Quote:
And the last- can you advice some novels(except Execution hour and shadow point) with some interesting space stuff?


There aren't really any 'pure' Navy novels aside from the rennie ones. The only other one is the Relentless by Richard Williams, but that isn't so much 'starship fights' as it is just 'a day in the life of a naval crewman' from bottom to top. It can be interesting in a way, but you don't read it expecting another bfg novel.

Most 40K novels have some smatterings of starship combat, whcih is about all you can expect. The ones mentioned are probably the most 'battle heavy' - Dark creed and Dark disciplie both have it. sabbat Martyr and Salvation's Reach from the Ghosts is fairly heavy in it. As is cadian blood (IG novel.) The first two gray Knights novels have lots of ship to ship combat (at least the first one does towards the end.) The ultramarine novels warriors of ultramar and chapter's due have ship to ship combat.

the space marine battles novels gildar rift, Battle of the fang, and rynn's world also have some ship to ship stuff, although I'm not sure the brief stuff would be worth it except perhaps Gildar rift, where it's more prominent.)

Horus Heresy has a fair bit too. Battle for the Abyss is filler, but almost completely starship stuff. fallen Angels has it. know no fear has some ship to ship stuff as well IIRC. as does deliverance lost and flight of the Eisenstein.

other than that there is LEt the galaxy Burn which has a few 'naval' oriented short stories - two gav thorpe ones about a marauder bomber squadron, Andy Chambers' ancient history, and i think one or tow others.

Oh and there are the Andy Hoare Rogue trader novels - Rogue Star, STar of damocles, and Savage Scars. the range and number data is a bit weird (it makes World war 2 warships look long range dfor the most part) but its space combat.



Image

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: 40k starships questions PostPosted: 2012-06-07 07:42pm
Offline
Sith Apprentice
User avatar

Joined: 2002-08-01 05:03pm
Posts: 14042
Elessar wrote:
Oh, and Gildar's Rift comes to mind, though I detested that novel and thought the space bit felt contrived and poorly thought out.


The space battles were probably one of the better aspects of the book, particularily since it greatly reduces the level of general Space marine wank in the book . there's only so many times seeing BOB MARINE BADASS chainswording his way through hordes of cannon fodder enemy xyz without something to break it up or vary the pace.

It's one of the bigger problems of alot of the CSM novels out there (Iron Warriors and Word bearers both spring to mind.)

As I mentioned already, the concept of the 'human controlled starship' was the most bizarre part.



Image

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: 40k starships questions PostPosted: 2012-06-08 12:42am
Offline
Padawan Learner
User avatar

Joined: 2004-10-06 02:56pm
Posts: 279
Location: Toronto, ON
Connor MacLeod wrote:
The space battles were probably one of the better aspects of the book, particularily since it greatly reduces the level of general Space marine wank in the book . there's only so many times seeing BOB MARINE BADASS chainswording his way through hordes of cannon fodder enemy xyz without something to break it up or vary the pace.

It's one of the bigger problems of alot of the CSM novels out there (Iron Warriors and Word bearers both spring to mind.)

As I mentioned already, the concept of the 'human controlled starship' was the most bizarre part.

I detested the book as a whole, but it's like saying what's the best part of a shit sandwich. At least with CSM novels, the rival Marines felt like serious challenges (certainly the case with the White Consuls). I appreciated the fact that they gave a proper nod to the immense experience that someone like Kol Badur would have in annihilating standard-pattern Strike Crusiers. Especially given the huge numeric disparity; a reminder why Legion >> Chapter.

Comparatively, Gildar Rift had cannon fodder CSM.
[Reveal] Spoiler:
I didn't even bother counting the losses sustained by the Red Corsairs. The quoted number of casualties at the end for the Silver Skulls was pure wank. What was it, like 17? With 5 of those directly attributable to Huron? And I think 9 were obviously from the downed Thunderhawk early. God that was awful.


And a bit more on topic, the ship battles were just sudden. Everyone was either in range or magically not. They arrived/appeared/escaped as plot dictated, with awful foreshadowing in the case where it was alleged tactical mastery. There was no attempt to explain the maneuvering in space... ugh, just awful. It made the first short story in Execution Hour seem like hard sci-fi in terms of modelling.

So yeah, basically I'm saying avoid Gildar Rift even if it has plot in space. I really enjoyed the space-based battles in Dark Creed and Dark Mechanicus. I forgot about the battle in Chapter's Due, but that's probably because it was so short.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: 40k starships questions PostPosted: 2012-06-11 02:48am
Offline
Youngling
User avatar

Joined: 2012-06-04 03:42pm
Posts: 63
Quote:
There was also the 100- nova cannon bombardment proposed to take out St josemane's hope

I dont know much about that incindent- but wasnt that nova cannon bomb been rejected due to some reasons?


Quote:
Heck there are even different KINDS of cyclonics - matter/energy conversion, radiation, 'raw plasma', and others, so they're not purely technobabble weapons (despite what some portray them as.) There are also other kinds of exterminatus munitions IIRC deathwatch mentions 'crust bursting' warheads for example.

Hmm, thats an interesting one- so cyclonics happen to be not some technobable, but just overpowered torps(and yeah still depends on source as usual)

Quote:
i think my favorite form of Exterminatus was the antimatter bombs dumped into a gas giant setting off some sort of CME-like event to exterminatus a bunch of inhabited moons from Daenyathos - simply for the sheer excess of it.

Never heard about this one, where is it from? And were there really antimatter bombs? So, antimatter and all that stuff is not unknown in imperium- and i believe their at least starship reactors to be based on some kind of annihilation- cause in EVERY source i remember, fucked up "fusion" reactor integrity always causes freakin vaporizing explosion- its impossible with fusion reactors(as i know in such case the reaction just ceases- correct me if i wrong)/

About bombardment cannons- so i see, these are not simple macro cannons. And that range thing stated for projectile weapons is a bit confusing for me- its space, after all. But are there some turreted versions of macro cannons? Cause there are some relatively big cannons in frontal sections of some escorts(the most notable is cobra destroyer) and on most official arts ships actually have a shitload of turreted cannons

Quote:
As a rule i tend to use that as well, especially if we're talking about the 'Age of sail' approach to loading and firing broadside weapons (good luck hitting a target tens of thousands of km away, moving at kilometers per second, and taking minutes to reach the target.) There's also the not-so-minor difference between ordnance and weapons batteries, but some people insist that only beam weapons have that 'instant' thing, and projectiles do not.


I believe projectiles not to be instant, but still relatively fast- my personal opinion on average projectile speed based on that BFG citation and its application to some stated combat ranges and some novels is somewhere between 50000-80000 km\sec(but i think that i overestimate that). About "Age of sail" approach- despite all that shit with "battle lines" BFG imposes doesnt work where such things as lances and long range strike crafts and not so fucked up sensors technology(still depends on source) exist- but, that s all wh40k is about.


Quote:
As a rule I find it bad policy to 'pick and choose' which sources you do and don't obey. There's the obvious problems of cherrypicking, but the fact is not everyone ignores those sources and sooner or later you have to deal with them. IA books have lots of problems but a fair number of authors use the numbers and stats from them, and people will cite them as counterarguments.


Actually, i ve already encountered long time ago everything you wrote here. Yeah, cherrypicking is not good, but turdpicking is even worser. And one of the reasons why i hate IA(actually there are few good moments that i really like but they dont excuse all shit) and Coronus is that they are the real bible of all 40k haters. Several weeks ago i encountered the vs debate, where one guy proved that UNSC roflstomps Imperium-you can guess what were his main sources- and there s a fuckton of such examples. And theres no way they realize that theres no freakin 40k canon policy and a lot of other sources.
Thanks a lot for novels, and maybe after my exams i ll create a big starship quantification tread if you dont mind.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: 40k starships questions PostPosted: 2012-06-14 09:20pm
Offline
Sith Apprentice
User avatar

Joined: 2002-08-01 05:03pm
Posts: 14042
Elessar wrote:
I detested the book as a whole, but it's like saying what's the best part of a shit sandwich. At least with CSM novels, the rival Marines felt like serious challenges (certainly the case with the White Consuls). I appreciated the fact that they gave a proper nod to the immense experience that someone like Kol Badur would have in annihilating standard-pattern Strike Crusiers. Especially given the huge numeric disparity; a reminder why Legion >> Chapter.


Frankly the only thing I *liked* about the CSM novels was the Imperial sides, and this goes for both Anthony Reynolds and Graham McNeill both. They utlimately degenerate into CSM killfests and the only person who has ever made that amusing was Bill King writing about Kharn, and that had the virtue of also being a short story. CSM stories as a rule suck ass from my own not-unbiased opinion, with the sole exception of ADB and some aspects of the HH.

Quote:
Comparatively, Gildar Rift had cannon fodder CSM.
[Reveal] Spoiler:
I didn't even bother counting the losses sustained by the Red Corsairs. The quoted number of casualties at the end for the Silver Skulls was pure wank. What was it, like 17? With 5 of those directly attributable to Huron? And I think 9 were obviously from the downed Thunderhawk early. God that was awful.


Frankly if the worst thing you can say is 'CSM killed lots of normal guys in the other novels, whereas tons of CSM got killed here', I'd say thats a pretty weak argument to call it a shitty story. The same thing happens in Gaunt's Ghosts and a number of other novels and yet I've never heard complaints (or rather I have but they were frankly silly complaints. Anytime someone complains that someone like Abnett doesn't write Space Marines or Primarchs right I want to roll my eyes.) Fuck one of the most boring parts of the Iron Warrior/Word Bearer novels was how they kept reiterating the kill counts and how (for some bizarre reason) normal humans were just ungodly able to ever kill them, even though by their own accoutns a squad firing on full auto should be able to mow down a CSM even if the fucker is kililng some of their men.

Quote:
And a bit more on topic, the ship battles were just sudden. Everyone was either in range or magically not. They arrived/appeared/escaped as plot dictated, with awful foreshadowing in the case where it was alleged tactical mastery. There was no attempt to explain the maneuvering in space... ugh, just awful. It made the first short story in Execution Hour seem like hard sci-fi in terms of modelling.


I actually found the space battels far more palatable than Andy Hoare's Rogue Trader space battles. Or some of Ben Counter's for that matter.

Quote:
So yeah, basically I'm saying avoid Gildar Rift even if it has plot in space. I really enjoyed the space-based battles in Dark Creed and Dark Mechanicus. I forgot about the battle in Chapter's Due, but that's probably because it was so short.
[/quote]

Well thats your opinion and you're entitled to it.



Image

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: 40k starships questions PostPosted: 2012-06-14 09:41pm
Offline
Sith Apprentice
User avatar

Joined: 2002-08-01 05:03pm
Posts: 14042
IronStar wrote:
I dont know much about that incindent- but wasnt that nova cannon bomb been rejected due to some reasons?


Mainly becuase, IIRC they couldn't amass the alpha strike. It was in the 13th Black Crusade guidebook by Andy Hoare, which I covered in one of the supplemental threads I think (the one where the Sabbat Worlds, tActica Imperialis, etc. are covered, I'm too lazy to dig it up and it shoudl be locatable via search function or google.)


Quote:
Hmm, thats an interesting one- so cyclonics happen to be not some technobable, but just overpowered torps(and yeah still depends on source as usual)


most 'technobabble' weapons are not exactly zero energy, they're 'technobabble' mainly because they utilize their power in some exotic, non brute force way that involves melting/pulverizing/vaporizing/burning shit. For example the magical 'matter ot energy' conversion Cyclonics are still generating energy, even if its some exotic/magical way of doing so. Hell even virus bombs can produce massive firestorms as a byproduct.

I'm also not quite sure I'd call them overpowered torps either. They apparnetly aren't much bigger than regular torpedoes (else they wouldn't fit into launch tubes) but the destructive mechanisms are up for debate. (and saying they are raw plasma doesnt mean much since 40k plasma is weird shit by definition.) It could be they trade off other performance traits (guidance, engine performance, range, etc.) for increased payload, which may be one reason they aren't commonly used in ship to ship combat.

Then again there are all those tatical cyclonics (although mostly Gav Thorpe, and he calls them 'cyclotronic' for some reason, which makes me think he's saying they're giant exploding particle accelerators or something) that 'merely' destroy cities.


Quote:
Never heard about this one, where is it from? And were there really antimatter bombs? So, antimatter and all that stuff is not unknown in imperium- and i believe their at least starship reactors to be based on some kind of annihilation- cause in EVERY source i remember, fucked up "fusion" reactor integrity always causes freakin vaporizing explosion- its impossible with fusion reactors(as i know in such case the reaction just ceases- correct me if i wrong).


Was in the Daenyathos limited-edition storybook Ben Counter wrote as a sort of prequel/prelude to the Soul Drinkers series (and as a massive spoiler to what would happen in Phalanx apparently.) A few interesting details, but honestly you didn't miss much.

A few other sources have mentioned antimatter. One of the old Space Hulk WD entries for (I think) 2nd edition or osmething had mention of antimatter bombs used to destroy space hulks, and I'm pretty sure the Deathwatch RPG mentions antimatter being used as well.

Quote:
About bombardment cannons- so i see, these are not simple macro cannons. And that range thing stated for projectile weapons is a bit confusing for me- its space, after all. But are there some turreted versions of macro cannons? Cause there are some relatively big cannons in frontal sections of some escorts(the most notable is cobra destroyer) and on most official arts ships actually have a shitload of turreted cannons


There seems to be more to them than simply being turreted macro cannons, since they're distinct from macro cannons. It could be they are primarily planetary bombardment and the munitions. Macro cannon fire macro shells, and bombardment cannon fire magma bombs. Magma bombs seem to be bigger and more powerful per-shell and you can fire volleys of them (possibly) from a single cannon, but that's all the difference I remember. Oh and not all bombardment cannon are turreted. In the Ultramarines novels for example the Vae Victus bombardment cannon are spinal mounts like nova cannon.

As for being shorter ranged, that's hard to explain, but I always figured it either referred to fire control or guidance or maybe even the velocity (who knows maybe macro shells do travel faster, that would fit with the 'tens of thousands of km/s in an instant' bit after all.) Or it may just be one of those things, like the way 40k ships are supposed to go into low orbit to be able to accurately bombard (meaning you hit within a km of your target - he says sarcasticaly) with lightspeed lasers and lances. As if hundreds/thousands of km is going to make a huge difference compared to tens of thousands of km.


Quote:
I believe projectiles not to be instant, but still relatively fast- my personal opinion on average projectile speed based on that BFG citation and its application to some stated combat ranges and some novels is somewhere between 50000-80000 km\sec(but i think that i overestimate that). About "Age of sail" approach- despite all that shit with "battle lines" BFG imposes doesnt work where such things as lances and long range strike crafts and not so fucked up sensors technology(still depends on source) exist- but, that s all wh40k is about.


Beyond certain limits, I'm not too picky baout specific velcoities because projectile broadside weaponry and their ammo vary. Dumb fires will generally need higher velocity to compensate for their unguided nature. Railguns and mass drivers are bount to require even more velocity because they are - in all probability - rely on direct hits to score damage. Macro cannon sometimes are known to score direct hits, but they can also rely on close-proximity effects (you just have to get them roughly in the vicinity, although the nature of this apparent 'stnad off' capability is up for debate - ominidrectional explosions, some sort of shaped charge/jet effect like the Casaba howitzer or a bomb pumped laser, etc.) Missiles and guided shells (which have been mentioned in more than a few sources) could probably get away with lower velocities (which would even be an advantage if they have to amke lots of course changes) - you probably could even get away with low enough velocities permitting them to bypass shields the way ordnance does, even though BFG never strictly permitted that.

Quote:
Actually, i ve already encountered long time ago everything you wrote here. Yeah, cherrypicking is not good, but turdpicking is even worser. And one of the reasons why i hate IA(actually there are few good moments that i really like but they dont excuse all shit) and Coronus is that they are the real bible of all 40k haters. Several weeks ago i encountered the vs debate, where one guy proved that UNSC roflstomps Imperium-you can guess what were his main sources- and there s a fuckton of such examples. And theres no way they realize that theres no freakin 40k canon policy and a lot of other sources.
Thanks a lot for novels, and maybe after my exams i ll create a big starship quantification tread if you dont mind.


Lacking a strict canon hierarchy the way SW does, you can't really stratify sources the way Star Wars does, although people do in fact try to do this anyway (EG the codexes and studio materials being primary evidence, etc.) although it has about as much bearing as any other approach. I actually consider 40K's lack of a canon policy to actually be an advantage because it forces a case-by-case evaluation of evidence and requires one to looka t the big picture rather than fixate on particular sources (although people still do this, whether its trying to pretend Gaunt's Ghosts is the standard for 40K everything, or trying to use IA to grimdarkify the 40K military.)

IA has a ton of flaws in it, but it's also had some interesting tidbits I found interesting and even worthwhile as well. Any source will ultimately have both good and bad stuff in it - I've found more than my share of frustrating things in Abnett's novels (his attitude on how lasguns work is pretty grating, to be honest.)

The worst thing that could hpapen in 40K is if it adopted a SW style canon policy, right down to a holocron analogue.



Image

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: 40k starships questions PostPosted: 2012-06-17 11:40pm
Offline
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2004-12-25 02:47pm
Posts: 2236
Relating specifically to planetary surface bombardment for purposes of killing ground troops, the effects seem to be rather underwhelming.

True, the "Lance Strike", "Melta Torpedo" in the older codexes, and the generic "Orbital Bombardment" in the newer codexes are likely to describe tactical support of ground forces designed to be used very near to friendly troop formations (close space support, if you will), but even if we just chalk those up to game mechanics, there doesn't seem to be much between these underwhelming ship-to-surface attacks, and full-out continent-busting conventional firepower. And then there's the Exterminatus-specific attacks, but let's leave those aside.
There's also depictions of ground troops digging in with sufficient fortifications that orbital bombardment doesn't seem to be able to dislodge (or annihilate!) them.

Furthermore, there's that Krieg stuff about "forbidden atomics". Why would conventional nuclear fission or thermonuclear fusion attacks be forbidden, when there are clear examples of ordnance application that far surpass this, all the way from messing up significant landscape all the way to sterilizing entire planets in perpetuity?

Basically what I'm pointing out is a gap between tactical bombardment and planet-fucking attacks. They don't seem to employ anything in between, and in fact seem to have a taboo against it, which seems somewhat odd.


Edit: Ok, I wish I'd read Connor's posts more thoroughly before posting. There's mention of Gav Thorpe's fiction describing city-killing "cyclotronic torpedoes". I'm not familiar with those specific works, so a quick question.. what was the attitude toward those attacks? Was it treated as trivial and routine, or a big decision sort of thing?



"..history has shown the best defense against heavy cavalry are pikemen, so aircraft should mount lances on their noses and fly in tight squares to fend off bombers". - RedImperator

"ha ha, raping puppies is FUN!" - Johonebesus

"It would just be Unicron with pew pew instead of nom nom". - Vendetta, explaining his justified disinterest in the idea of the movie Allspark affecting the Death Star

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: 40k starships questions PostPosted: 2012-06-18 09:12am
Offline
Youngling
User avatar

Joined: 2012-06-04 03:42pm
Posts: 63
Cykeisme wrote:
Relating specifically to planetary surface bombardment for purposes of killing ground troops, the effects seem to be rather underwhelming.

True, the "Lance Strike", "Melta Torpedo" in the older codexes, and the generic "Orbital Bombardment" in the newer codexes are likely to describe tactical support of ground forces designed to be used very near to friendly troop formations (close space support, if you will), but even if we just chalk those up to game mechanics, there doesn't seem to be much between these underwhelming ship-to-surface attacks, and full-out continent-busting conventional firepower. And then there's the Exterminatus-specific attacks, but let's leave those aside.
There's also depictions of ground troops digging in with sufficient fortifications that orbital bombardment doesn't seem to be able to dislodge (or annihilate!) them.

Furthermore, there's that Krieg stuff about "forbidden atomics". Why would conventional nuclear fission or thermonuclear fusion attacks be forbidden, when there are clear examples of ordnance application that far surpass this, all the way from messing up significant landscape all the way to sterilizing entire planets in perpetuity?

Basically what I'm pointing out is a gap between tactical bombardment and planet-fucking attacks. They don't seem to employ anything in between, and in fact seem to have a taboo against it, which seems somewhat odd.

thermonuclear fusion attacks be forbidden, when there are clear examples of ordnance application that far surpass this, all the way from messing up significant landscape all the way to sterilizing entire planets in perpetuity?[/quote]

Actually, its clearly stated in BFG that cruiser grade vessel can "turn city into glass" or smth like that- i think, that Imperium does not use level of firepover betveen tactical and exterminatus(lets call that medium level "strategic") cause of the very objects and purposes of war- which are economic- cities, fabrics, agricultural resourses- Imperium needs these intact- tactical bombardment will damage these, while strategic destroy or render inusable for a long time. And i think you know, that continent-fucking levels of bombardments(exterminatus) are rarely used- ONLY when Imperium is unable to take desired objects back and their presense in enemy hands is even less desired.

About krieg nuclear stuff- you almost answered you question- cause there are other mass produced wepons that dwarwe nukes in terms of firepower(that IoM plasma-bombs stuff which i believe to be antimatter) and whats more important- they do not cause radioactive contamination so its possible to provide relatively close support.
About fortification- theatre void shields are employed in such cases quite common, and most powerfull of these can endure continent busting bombardment for days.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: 40k starships questions PostPosted: 2012-06-18 09:38am
Offline
Youngling
User avatar

Joined: 2012-06-04 03:42pm
Posts: 63
Quote:
Then again there are all those tatical cyclonics (although mostly Gav Thorpe, and he calls them 'cyclotronic' for some reason, which makes me think he's saying they're giant exploding particle accelerators or something) that 'merely' destroy cities.

i would rather call these strategic, and still what encounters more often- continent busting yield cyclonics or city busting?



Quote:
Was in the Daenyathos limited-edition storybook Ben Counter wrote as a sort of prequel/prelude to the Soul Drinkers series (and as a massive spoiler to what would happen in Phalanx apparently.) A few interesting details, but honestly you didn't miss much.

Antimatter could explain at least some of that wierd plasma shit- like these reactors- they are definetly not thermonuclear.
And about reactors- what about power generation?(i only remember that you once stated them to be solar grade- and still very conservative and that "1000 times more powerful than conventional nuclear" bit from somewhere.

Quote:
As for being shorter ranged, that's hard to explain, but I always figured it either referred to fire control or guidance or maybe even the velocity (who knows maybe macro shells do travel faster, that would fit with the 'tens of thousands of km/s in an instant' bit after all.) Or it may just be one of those things, like the way 40k ships are supposed to go into low orbit to be able to accurately bombard (meaning you hit within a km of your target - he says sarcasticaly) with lightspeed lasers and lances. As if hundreds/thousands of km is going to make a huge difference compared to tens of thousands of km.

I can explain that by the fact, that GW and co are lazy about such stuff


Quote:
Beyond certain limits, I'm not too picky baout specific velcoities because projectile broadside weaponry and their ammo vary. Dumb fires will generally need higher velocity to compensate for their unguided nature. Railguns and mass drivers are bount to require even more velocity because they are - in all probability - rely on direct hits to score damage. Macro cannon sometimes are known to score direct hits, but they can also rely on close-proximity effects (you just have to get them roughly in the vicinity, although the nature of this apparent 'stnad off' capability is up for debate - ominidrectional explosions, some sort of shaped charge/jet effect like the Casaba howitzer or a bomb pumped laser, etc.)

Hmmm, there are even various kinds of kinetic wepons- i thought, that macro cannons and mass drivers vere the same(arent macro railguns too? cause i dont think that they are dumb enough to use powder-based wepon in space)



Quote:
I actually consider 40K's lack of a canon policy to actually be an advantage

maybe, i encountered opinion at dakk-dakka, that there cant be any consistency in wh40k at all due to the very nature of that universe. And i personally hope too that GW will never use SW canon methodology- maybe its a silly fanboysm, but i dont want wh40k to be turned into the worsest incarnation of grimdark- the silly one, where that grim makes to laught- and all that could be quite possible[/quote]

Quote:
IA has a ton of flaws in it, but it's also had some interesting tidbits I found interesting and even worthwhile as well. Any source will ultimately have both good and bad stuff in it - I've found more than my share of frustrating things in Abnett's novels

About IA- i read some parts of volumne 11 and i actually liked it(still need to read it entirely)- except for shitty speed of eldar aircraft- i dont think that eldar propulsion is inferior to modern

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: 40k starships questions PostPosted: 2012-06-19 09:26pm
Offline
Sith Apprentice
User avatar

Joined: 2002-08-01 05:03pm
Posts: 14042
IronStar wrote:
Actually, its clearly stated in BFG that cruiser grade vessel can "turn city into glass" or smth like that- i think, that Imperium does not use level of firepover betveen tactical and exterminatus(lets call that medium level "strategic") cause of the very objects and purposes of war- which are economic- cities, fabrics, agricultural resourses- Imperium needs these intact- tactical bombardment will damage these, while strategic destroy or render inusable for a long time. And i think you know, that continent-fucking levels of bombardments(exterminatus) are rarely used- ONLY when Imperium is unable to take desired objects back and their presense in enemy hands is even less desired.

About krieg nuclear stuff- you almost answered you question- cause there are other mass produced wepons that dwarwe nukes in terms of firepower(that IoM plasma-bombs stuff which i believe to be antimatter) and whats more important- they do not cause radioactive contamination so its possible to provide relatively close support.


'atomics' is actually not a well defined topic, much like most 40K weapons. sometimes it means 'nuclear' weapons like fission explsoives or thermonucelar weapons, but it cna also mean weird shit (like being tied to geothermal power as well in some sources). I doubt it includes pure fusion (given plenty of sources mention them, and hell, atomics, being used.) Like most things its a case-by-case basis. Funny example, the 13th Black crusade book describes the prisoners on St Josamane's hope making some sort of home made bomb - which basically looks like a Tellar-Ulam nuke design (although replacing some elements with other stuff, like from melta weapons. I remember some pyrum-petrol elements involved.)



Also continent destroying firepower isn' t neccesarily the same thing as exterminatus - you can 'destroy' a continent technically without actually wiping out all life on a planet, and by FFG materials a single grand cruisr can lance an entire continent in a single salvo. Nevermind battleships (like Caves of Ice, unless you take 'barrages' ot mean multiple separate orbital bombardments perfomed back to back for some reason. :P)



Image

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: 40k starships questions PostPosted: 2012-06-19 09:44pm
Offline
Sith Apprentice
User avatar

Joined: 2002-08-01 05:03pm
Posts: 14042
IronStar wrote:
i would rather call these strategic, and still what encounters more often- continent busting yield cyclonics or city busting?


Unstated. for all we know some cyclonic bombardments are large numbers of the 'lower yield/less powerful' types. I imagine like most things it depends on the source and author, so it probably can be conducted in any number of ways.

For that matter what the difference is between 'cyclonic' plasma bombardments (or any other brute force method) and conventional torpedo plasma warheads is a big question mark.

Quote:
Antimatter could explain at least some of that wierd plasma shit- like these reactors- they are definetly not thermonuclear.



It could, but I tend to assume plasma is something completely different from antimatter. Plasma grenades, for example, have some weird, sustained, blobby type of matter-to-energy conversion process (although I suspect it was not intended to be 'literally' energy - they just tend to have weird ways they describe plasma and not pay attention. But we can't invoke out of universe to explain in universe without breaking suspension of disbelief, so..) Nevermind that plasma tends to be distinct from antimatter, much the same way 'plasma' is not neccesarily the same thing as fusion (they've been spoken of as distinct too. Nevermidn that 'fusion' can also mean magical sort sof fusion - the magic powder fusion from the Salamanders novels, or 'fusion- melta' analogies, meaning some weird pyrum-petrol reaction.) Again 'thermonuclear' is a specific kind of nuclear reaction, and not neccesarily the same thing as pure fusion (what I've heard termed 'fourth generation nuclear weapons' in fact.)

We know of other forms of power generation anyhow - nevermind the cyclonic 'matter to energy' conversion, but there's also stuff like conversion beamers.

That said: I've actually started figuring that plasma reactors are similar to antimatter in some way - it has to be artificially produced and it works more akin to a 'battery' - used when they need more energy (or emergency power), but they may rely on reduced plasma reactor outputs (or even just pure fusion) for the majority of cases. Hydrogen is far more plentiful than 40K plasma (or antimatter) so it would work for a vast majority of cases. Even combat cases.

Heck, we know they still use fusion reactors and fusion engines in some cases, it could be a case of reliability/ease of fuelling vs raw power or performance.

Quote:
And about reactors- what about power generation?(i only remember that you once stated them to be solar grade- and still very conservative and that "1000 times more powerful than conventional nuclear" bit from somewhere.


Back then I tended to assume it meant like our sun, but obviously as others (like Necron Liord in the past) have noted, there are different kinds of stars with different kinds of luminosities. And the 1000x bit from Space Fleet depends on what you call 'conventional nuclear fuel.' I tend to compare it to modern nuke analogues (yield to weight ratios mainly, although you could still argue it as a potential energy created by a single kg of 'plasma' fuel although those definitions have been historically contested as not factoring in efficiencies or other factors.)


Quote:
I can explain that by the fact, that GW and co are lazy about such stuff


Again thats one explanation, but an out of universe thing. It tends to pay to keep the 'in universe/out universe' explanations segregated. You dont' have to 'ignore' the out of universe reasons completely, but if you're trying to explain in universe stuff in some way that doesn't involve 'because magic pixies' or 'because writers' then you can't really use it as an excuse.

Quote:
Hmmm, there are even various kinds of kinetic wepons- i thought, that macro cannons and mass drivers vere the same(arent macro railguns too? cause i dont think that they are dumb enough to use powder-based wepon in space)


Depends on source. I know the rogue Trader RPG stuff treats 'macro cannons' as a general category that can incorporate beam weapons and projectiel firing weapons (or even missiles) which means it's basically the FFG definition for what BFG calls 'weapons batteries'/direct fire weapons.

And 'powder' may not be what it is. It could be pure electrothermal or electrothermal chemical weapons (which can in some ways LOOK like solid propellant weapons) or perhaps some sort of rocket (which probably makes it some sort of guided weapon.) Again it varies, but the 'propellant' implication still exists.

Quote:
maybe, i encountered opinion at dakk-dakka, that there cant be any consistency in wh40k at all due to the very nature of that universe. And i personally hope too that GW will never use SW canon methodology- maybe its a silly fanboysm, but i dont want wh40k to be turned into the worsest incarnation of grimdark- the silly one, where that grim makes to laught- and all that could be quite possible


I've been around there too and generally I find some reactions to certain things odd. Most people owuldn't care about how things work/are in certain ways (EG 'its sci fi so it doesn't have to make sense') and yet they'll get pedantic about other things NOT making sense. The uproar over the 5th edition necrons codex (or Mat Ward in general) is a good example of this. Hell each edition seems to generate its own sort of conservative fanbase who will look at anything later as being 'horrible' - Oldcron fans, 1st edition diehards, the pro-Squat faction, those who still believe the Tau are some great, noble, and optimistic/dynamic force in 40K (they still are, sort of. just not all shiny bright as they were.) and so on.

Guess 40K fans can be like any fandom, big shock I know :D

Quote:
About IA- i read some parts of volumne 11 and i actually liked it(still need to read it entirely)- except for shitty speed of eldar aircraft- i dont think that eldar propulsion is inferior to modern


Well we know Thunderhawks can go near/at hypersonic speeds, and the fact they can reach orbital velocities points to the potential for greater velocities, but we dont really know the reasons/parameters why such speeds might be used - there could be some other limitation that dictates such slowdowns. that's at least how I look at it. I mean it's not like 40K aerial combat has much in common with modern aerial combat (even though space combat seems to....)



Image

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 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
You cannot post attachments in this forum

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