 |
| |
|
|
Straybow
|
 |
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:23
|
|
Somebody already made the first truly bulletproof ballistic material. Instead of weaving the Kevlar fibers into a cloth, the fibers are laid flat with layers going in different directions. The energy of the impact is conducted linearly as a shock wave by the fibers, away from the point of impact.
High velocity rifle bullets or massive shotgun slugs only penetrate a few layers, and the force of impact is spread out across a wide area. The only thing I've seen on it shows it as centimeter-thick inserts for ballistic vests, replacing the standard "flak jacket" inserts.
Spider silk and many other materials could be used the same way. I suppose energy shields would behave in some analogous sense, carrying energy away from the focus of the attack. The only obstacle in terms of physics is "coupling" the material projectile with the energy field in order to transfer energy.
"Neutronium" is not just a thousand times denser than normal matter, more like 10^15 times more dense. If it could be made into a layer a fraction of an angstrom thick it could be used as an armor component. It's strength would be derived from the Strong nuclear force instead of EM force that defines normal material strength.
It might not be orders of magnitude stronger than the same mass of normal matter, but it would have unusual properties when interacting with energy or normal matter. On the other hand, rupture might release titanic energies on the scale of fission/fusion. That could act like reactive armor, or it might be bad for the armor wearer, depending on proportions.
Nanotech is usually envisioned as the construction and repair process rather than the armor itself. Making a porous material or internal conduit doesn't matter. Nanites in mass might be able to reflect or diffract wave and beam weapons to some extent
When speaking of futuristic armor types it is probably best to have terms that describe what technology or material is used but not how it is used. Ceramics III might be thin sheets of material, while Ceramics IV is thick plates. Some parameter will simply guage the overall effectiveness in terms of game mechanics.
Another issue here (and raised in the other weapons/armor thread) is that effectiveness of armor against a specific attack mode isn't what defines defense for a soldier or vehicle, much less for a military unit of many soldiers or vehicles. No surface or space vehicle could be encased in massive armor and still be maneuverable.
Will space combat be resolved shot-by-shot, with generalized hit locations (turret vs hardened surface vs soft surface) and corresponding armor types, etc? If not, then actual parameters of the armor types matter less than creating a coherent model over all types of weapons and defenses.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jmaster
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
and weight isnt a factor in space....on the ground it is but not in space |
Of course weight isn't a factor, but mass is. Mass has intertia, so unless we invent a tech to reduce intetia any vehicle with many tons of armor will simply not be maneuverable.
This self-repairing nano armor seems theoretically possible, but very advanced. It would probably have to be in the later game, with some nanotech prerequisites.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Leland
|
|
To me, it'd seem that there are two major issues that shielding (and any other single aspect of technology) is revolving around:
1) Gameplay: it would seem natural that there is progress from crappy shields to better shields to ultimate kick-ass shields. The way how this progress happens, the variables associated within (HP, Rate of Fire, regeneration), and the formulae that various shield types follow (in the old forums it was suggested that there might be different kinds of damage systems, for example).
2) Technological backstory... this would have to tie in to the layout of the tech tree as a whole, and possibly to the alien/native life. Once you have tech that allows you to build nanomachines, flux capacitors or warp drives, you're going to have tech that has far reaching consequences in pretty much everything you do.
Seems like number 1 is the thing that should be the primary concern for you guys... number 2 can always be shoehorned and balanced once the tech tree starts to look like something intelligible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Leland
|
|
Allow me to rephrase myself...
It doesn't matter whether it's temporal shielding, nanotech or ubobtainium that's the "best" tech, all that matters is the gameplay value (formulas, values), and what technology it's based on (i.e. what other stuff are popping up when you get to that poing). That's it.
By the way, why is it called "temporal" anyway?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Straybow
|
|
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:23
|
|
DBTS, I hadn't been around to respond, but no modern tank (M1A2, Chieftain, Leopard, and whatever Russia is making) has "full armor" all around, only on the front and on the face and sides of the turret. Turret top/back has less, flanks of the body less still, with rear, engine compartment top, and floor least armored.
All faces may be equipped with reactive armor: explosive charges behind thin metal plates. When a projectile hits the explosive detonates, disrupting a shaped charge blast, robbing AP shot of momentum.
As a guess: rear armor might stop a 40mm shell. Flank armor might stop most artillery HE rounds (although the track will be destroyed). US, Brit, and German MBTs use Chobham armor, which (at full thickness) stops all AP rounds at any range and is very effective against shaped charge.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Michiel
|
|
Actually, a lot in Star Trek really makes sense. Take antimatter for instance. In Star Trek they use antimatter to power their warp-drive. Antimatter isn't fiction, it's real. In our 'realm' the core of an atom is positive and the shell negative (elektrons). With antimatter, it's just the opposite. Antimatter has a negative core with a positive shell (positive elektrons, or positrons). When matter and antimatter collide, they produce loads of energy. In reality. They're experimenting with that now. In star trek they have used this. Who knows, someday faster-then-light-propulsion might be a possibility. That's why I said Star Trek is as realistic as science fiction can get. It's not nonsense, there's some level of reality behind it all, in my opinion.
You're right, there are things in star trek that humanity won't learn for a long time, if ever. Like time travel. Temperal shielding, etc. I agree with you on that one.
But what I don't understand is how you imagine a science fiction game with only existing science in it... Wouldn't temperal shields be a good idea for the game?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Leland
|
|
I guess I am not making myself clear... the term "temporal" is not based on real science. At least, based on how the shield was explained above it doesn't. Antimatter is real science, but I'm guessing it's just a lucky shot. Besides, don't Trek ships use dilithium as a power source? That's another example of how they just make up technobabble when in need of a plot device. I honestly think that Stella Polaris can do a lot better.
So, the problem is not that "temporal shields" are non-existant science... the problem is that it's meaningless technobabble. Just like "scanning for life signs" (plot device that allows one to pinpoint living things in a ship/planet) or "photon torpedoes" (cool sounding name for weapon), or "dilithium" or "reversing polarity". In a game the gameplay aspects should of course be first and foremost, but that's no excuse for the background science fiction to be just a collection of shallow buzzwords.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-10-2002 10:59
Now its just not right for me to reply 3 times in a row so please contribute. 
The nanotech would be after all the other armors except for a few other ones that might be put in the end. The sheilds could be made after them all yet then still have good armor with shields if the shields are unstable and might be brought down. The armor would provide help if that would happen.
Scientists have studied and are most likley studing it now so I dont think we will get a working Idea that would well work. So most of this type of technology is nonfactual and quite impossible at the moment. 
Then I call for a Cease Fire!
Do you accept? 
|