Armor and Shielding

[DeathByTheSword]

so know the values is to know the battlesystem and as far as i know there isnt a battlesystem layout....so....

[Jeremy Buloch]

So.... Therefore we can discuss the science and the contents of the game. Oh and thanks DeathByTheSword by clearing that little arguement for us.
-J.B.-

[Leland]

Originally posted by Jeremy Buloch
Temporal is another word for "Time". Its in the Dictionary...

Yes, but what the heck does "temporal" have to do with the shield? I mean, if it "phases out from space-time continuum", wouldn't it be a spatial shield instead? Where does time come in, can these units also move insantaneously from point A to point B (so it'd be like teleporting)?



So, if we agree that it's too soon to figure out the values and formulae for shielding, how about the technological aspects? What tech is this "temporal" shield based on, and what other stuff do they have on that tech level?

[Straybow]

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.

[Jeremy Buloch]

Yes, but what the heck does "temporal" have to do with the shield? I mean, if it "phases out from space-time continuum", wouldn't it be a spatial shield instead? Where does time come in, can these units also move insantaneously from point A to point B (so it'd be like teleporting)?

No the name "Temporal" means that it phases the ship out of the Space-"Time" Continuim meaning it would make the ship not in the time frame of the other ships and/or object(s) therefore making it imperveous to damage. For all you Star Trek Fans...
There was a show on this on one of the "Voyager" Episodes where the "Crenom" used Temporal Shielding to phase their vessel out of the "Space-Time Continuim". Making it almost if not imperveous to damage. If you watch "Star Trek" then you would know this little, but big piece of Info.
Any more questions?
-J.B.-

[Leland]

Okay, perhaps I'm alone with my opinion, but I think that Star Trek is the most abysmal science reference you can have. I would be seriously turned off if Stella incorporates trekkie technobabble instead of at least attempting to base the tech tree on real science.

[Michiel]

I agree. But if you're going to make a game about advanced space colonization (which kinda is fiction at the moment), it's not a bad idea to use science fiction as a source for ideas. In my opinion, Star Trek is the most 'realistic' future-science fiction series there is. Temperal Shielding is a good idea, but only after the currently existing shielding will be in the game also.

And now that we're talking about that particular episode, the Crenom don't use temperal shielding. They phase their entire vessel out of space-time. Voyager invented temperal shielding in the same episode, which is a kind of energy shielding around their ship, like allmost every star trek ship has, only the shield phases out of space-time, making it effective against the Crenom's temperal torpedoes (they went right through Voyager's regular shields).

Hehe, Star Trek rules.

[Leland]

My gripe with Star Trek is that it just uses buzzwords that have nothing to do with the gadgets or science at hand. Like in this case, "temporal" having nothing at all to do with phasing out, it's just something the writers of the episode thought sounded cool. I can understand that Star Trek fans probably like the references to Trek "science" (gasp, it's not even science... it's a wasteland of silly plot devices!), but I fear that for me having nonsensical science in a science fiction game is a major turnoff. That was one of the unique assets of SMAC, to have at least somewhat plausible science in the game... but like I said, I'm in the minority so just ignore me.

[DeathByTheSword]

I am a star trek fan but i have to agree with Leland as much realisme in the game is great!

[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.

[Jeremy Buloch]

Ok, I know that "Star Trek" uses odd words but they make them up because there is nothing like it that exists. So therefore they have to impervise. Making it sound realistic. We will have to do the same. We cant stick with everything that we know to be true. Its just not fiction like Michiel said. ALso people like the "user" would want more exciting things like Temporal Shielding or Dilithium. It just sounds like its a realistic thing. It doesnt have to be now does it?
Star Trek gets alot of popularity so why not learn from them?
If Temporal Shielding is not a good word for it then what really is? Its not even real yet. So there isn't a proper name for it. Such as a plane. There was no word for plane till they thought about it. Then named it. We have to do the same thing. Do you understand? I hope you do. If not just please say something.
Oh and Yes StP can do better but why not learn from their benefits and their mistakes?
-J.B.-

[Leland]

Star Trek way of doing things:

1. Figure out what the plot needs (e.g. new super shield)
2. Invent catchy name for it (e.g. Temporal Shield)
3. Explain the inner workings with technobabble (e.g. "temporal shields phase object outside space time continuum via reversing the sub-space polarity of th warp coils")

This is also knows as the "wrong way". Anyone who care even slightest bit about the science involved (as do I, and many other science fiction fans), cringes when hearing technobabble. Remember, SMAC had descriptions of all the technology involved, so you're bound to need *some* explanation beyond technobabble. It may sound sensible to you trekkies because you're familar with the background and such, but I don't have that luxury. I couldn't stand Voyager and it's silliness for more than a few episodes.

A better way of doing things:

1. Figure out what the game needs (e.g. a shield that can do X)
2. Do some research or use imagination to come up with plausible technological background to achieve what's needed.
3. Make up the name after you know what it is that you're naming.

Just my opinion.

[Jeremy Buloch]

Ok since this topic is not going anywhere IMO and all we are doing is having an Arguement. Then I call for a Cease Fire! Do you accept?
It is inapropriate for two members of the SPDT to Argue. Its just not proper.

Now I understand what you are trying to say Leland.
Oh and by the way I care about the science involved in the game. None of these techs have been said to be included in the game. They are only possibilities. We "Could" have them. Not we "Will" have them. So dont get all histerical if you are. I wanted to name the shield something. Instead of just saying " That Shield Thingy" or something similar. We have to name it so we can discuss it or it would be hard to discuss, would it not?

If my name of it doesn't satisfy you then what will??? Just about everything I've said so far is not good enough for you. For example: NanoMetal
You need to atleast give my ideas a chance. Please.
-J.B.-

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by Jeremy Buloch

It is inapropriate for two members of the SPDT to Argue. Its just not proper.

Errr... you're arguing with a frequent visitor and poster of the StP forum, not a member of SPDT. Anyway, it's still for no good.