Every mission before the mission that unlocks ship design is pretty much just a tutorial. It really starts to get hard when module designing becomes available!
@@mattymerr701 Ceres isn’t hard. Counter the gun drones with laser all 10 drones. 3 will survive. Counter the first enemy missile fleet with those 3 drones. Get closer to the enemy fleet. It will launch another missile fleet. Find an orbit which brings you close to the enemy fleet but not its missile fleet. Hit the enemy fleet with 80 flak missiles. Then, hit it with 40 nukes. Finally, finish it off with 20 gun drones. Finish off the enemy missiles with 5 gun drones. Your own ships will never even be in danger. People watch too many WW2 movies and think the solution is to go broadside to broadside. It’s not. The best way to win a shooting war is to do the shooting and not get shot at.
Always go Full homing, Scott. The enemy's ability to dodge a missile with 10G of acceleration is minimal, and burning as hard as possible means you spend less time in range of point defences. This is far more valuable than any terminal manoeuvrer. If you get a good volley off, the enemy ship will go tumbling whilst glowing bright orange, it's really quite spectacular.
what happened (at 9:30) was, you accidently launched a bunch of nukes yourself, their proximity detonator went off because of the heatsignatures of your own decoys! that happened a lot to myself. lol
The missiles in this game are absolutely braindead. Missiles haven’t been this stupid since the 1960’s. The physics side of this game is fantastic, but the combat computers are just awful… Apparently, future humanity can traverse the Sol System, but not lead targets accelerating in a straight line or make a missile with working proportional navigation and the ability to ignore flares? I don’t even bother intercepting missiles with missiles (which is the way to do it in the real world today and will still be when we fight in space) because they can’t home correctly.
It really does feel like kind of a puzzling-game rather than real time strategy in these early stages. That said, in my opinion this changes in later missions when enemies go into attack mode and start being less passive!
A lot of people think nukes don't work in space and they are partially correct. They are definitely less devastating without air to carry the energy but a nuclear weapon detonating at that sort of distance from a space craft would tear it apart from the x-rays super-heating areas of the armor and hull.
Pro/con of thermonuclear weapons in space: Cons: -No air to carry a compression shock wave or superheat to conduct thermal energy -No air to ionize and produce wide-band EMP -Targets in space cannot be 'over-targeted' to increase destructive power (detonation a few km above surface level, concentrating blast energy against ground zero -No long-term aftereffects of deliberately creating fallout ('dirty bomb' effect) -Large distances and relative velocities make precision in targeting and timing essential Pros: -EM and particle energy of blast travels unimpeded by intervening fluids, increasing target exposure to ionizing radiation -EM blast energy would be concentrated at predetermined wavelengths, making shielding more difficult from an engineering standpoint -Particle flux could affect fission/fusion reactor operation, in some cases catastrophically -Thermal flux could drastically affect heat dissipation and potentially raise crew cabin temperature
talking about concentrating blast energy, could it be possible to use the same shaped charge concept and create a giant shaped charge device using nuclear blast that can penetrate the earth/planet/armor kilometers depth? you know, by directing all the nuclear blast energy into one small point.
Nukes rarely score complete kills by themselves, but are quite effective at destroying engines and radiators, leaving your enemies sitting ducks for your other weapons. Toggling the delay detonator on makes them less 'accurate', but potentially more powerful. Devastator missiles are extremely high-yield, but slow and vulnerable to guns as well as lasers. Best used to finish off targets or with something else to take the enemy's attention. They have a high detonation range, so turn on the delay for maximum effect (unless you're using them against a large group... they might be effective against drones?). Closing speed is a tradeoff, the slower you're going, the more likely it is you'll hit, since for some reason you can't be sure of an on-target strike from the strategic view... but the more time the enemy has to evade or destroy the missiles. Of course, all this advice applies solely to nuclear missiles, nuclear cannons are a completely different and amazing (if seizure-inducing) story. Just... don't use the vanilla nuke cannon. It is bad and will explode your ship. The AI doesn't really know how to handle missiles. It doesn't know how to handle lots of things, but missiles more than most. You can trivialize enemy missiles simply by firing one of your own missiles at them. They'll all attempt to home in on it and go hopelessly off-course or even detonate uselessly. This used to work against drones as well, but that seems to have been fixed. Conversely, using numerous small groups of missiles against high-acceleration enemy ships can deplete their delta-V... but then enemy ships rarely move, so it doesn't make much of a difference - but there are a few cases where it can be vital. Switching frames of reference (especially to the vessel you want to intercept/rendevous) is your friend. Use it. The automated intercept/rendevous function is... based on a series of instantaneous impulses, I think. In any event it's terrible, and should be used as little as possible. The game doesn't show you internal modules on enemy ships unless the ship is already disabled or actually exposed (because the ship doesn't have armor there). You also can't target such modules unless they're exposed. They will show up on the target screen once they're destroyed, but still no mouseover view. Lasers are very good for disabling individual modules, but generally not an effective weapon against guns. Speaking of guns (and lasers), there's basically never a good reason not to have 'ignore range' toggled on. Your weapons won't hit a magic wall at 20-30 kilometers, and sure, you won't be very accurate, but it'll still inflict some hits, and most guns/ships have so much ammo it's never really a problem. Lasers don't need to worry about ammo and some more fragile modules still get fried. You'll shred their whipple shields if nothing else. Of course, needing to disable specific modules is probably one of the scenarios you should be worried about range, but...
Meanwhile after Trump, Kim Kardashian will be president. Sometimes it feels that this planet has more than one sentient race, and one of them is retarded. [/random off topic rant]
In space, nukes are only really effective at a distance of only a few miles, and only if the enemy doesn’t have good radiation shielding, since that’s the main damaging factor without direct impact. A better choice would be a bomb-pumped laser warhead. It’s a nuke that detonates at a distance, and the explosion powers one or more lasers. It’s the primary weapon in the Honor Harrington books and it was seriously considered during the Cold War as an anti-ICBM weapon.
Do you think this game could still be playable if you couldn't pause it? (AKA if you had to play it in real time?) If you had to plan orbits and fight the enemy at the same time, would it make the game feel more like a combat simulator or would it make the game too complex to be playable?
I think it would work if you could give orders ahead of time for the battle plan. So that the crew would have contingencies planned out. i.e. pick the targets 5 minutes long before we get in range.
What about multiple human crew working together in multiplayer a bit like how dangerous waters worked? Someone can be plotting orbits while someone else wargames enemy maneuvering options. Once the engagement starts someone can work on manually flying/dodging while everyone else focuses on assigning target priorities for the different weapon systems.
You can (sort of) do this already. When you are in the inspection view, the time starts to run at real time again. You can give move orders to tell the ships to thrust in a direction and it does actually work. The obvious problem is that it runs in real time so it can take an age to do anything. Some sort of time control would be great (pause, speed up etc.)!
This Scott makes orbital mechanics so Manley. Could I suggest a topic for a future video, this being the guidance and navigation of orbital launch vehicles?
I honestly feel like I am a child of a dead earth. and one day I will become a part of the earth from which I came. love your videos Scott. it's literally one of the only things I enjoy out of life right now.
BippityboppityBOO Whatever your personal circumstances, that you can write and have access to the internet means you are better off that 80% of the worlds population. Whinge less.
So what if they are literate or have access to internet? That's like saying that white men who get prostate cancer should stop whinging because they (probably) have access to "good" medical facilities and services. Just because I have internet doesn't mean my problems are any less real or legitimate, saying otherwise is just inconsiderate and ignorant. There are plenty of people living in my city who are either dole-bludgers and just don't want to work, or who actually have a legitimate reason for being poor and having to live off of centrelink payouts. Are you suggesting that the people who are legitimately poor are just whiners because they live in a developed country and their poverty is nothing like poverty in a third world country? Sure they get money, but it doesn't mean that living here is just a breeze! Learn to have some compassion!
Near 5:00 you said nukes can not make each other go super-critical. I'd expect the radiation from nuke one to be able to start a chain reaction in just sub-critical nukes.
Would you consider doing a video about what solar system navigation would be like if we had propulsion w effectively infinite delta-v? Like what kinds of paths would ships take if they could say, accelerate at a constant 1g, torch-ship style? Because it would be very different to the kinds of manoeuvres we use, or you see in KSP
Scott, you say that nuclear weapon chain reactions aren't a thing. But the idea of nuclear weapon chain reactions isn't predicated off the idea that exploding nuclear weapons will blow up other nukes too. It's more of based on the idea that most nuclear masses in nuclear weapons are subcritical, but can still detonate if you just pump enough neutrons into them. And exploding nukes tend to have lots of neutrons.
Take a methane or hydrogen tanker as your ship. A Hohmann transfer is too slow, so you'll have to burn extra delta-V to intercept mars early (this also in my case meant a burn that was not totally retrograde). Once you get a mars intercept it's just a case of fine tuning your braking burn so that you get close to the station.
Nice! Im really looking forward for that. I have been playing around with armor for quite a while and creating my own armor structures resistant for certain weapon types is really fun for me. However your knowledge of phisics is much greater than mine and i wanna see what you will came up with. :D Also - missions are super fast - i think i saw developers saying that they wanted to make combat very fast and its one of reasons why in combat there is no pause (only on the beginning)
Thanks Scott for this video ! However, it left me wondering: how do nuclear explosions (or any explosion for that matter) work in space (as in, how do they inflict damage) ? My understanding is that, on earth, they generate heat and pressure. The shockwave it generates will mechanically damage or destroy nearby structures, and heat... Well, heat will burn things down eventually... Since there is no (or very scarce) medium to propagate a shockwave in space, what type of damage can we expect from a nuclear explosion in space ? Heat only, or does it generate a shockwave as well ? If so, how does it propagate ? Does it turn its energy and initial matter into gas somehow ? I'm pretty confused, what am I missing ? Thanks to anyone who could answer this question, it will most likely keep me up tonight :p
The energy released will be in the form of x-rays, gamma rays, and neutrons. The detonation will function as a true point source, so you can expect the intensity to rapidly fall off over distance due to the inverse square law. If the weapon detonates very close it will vaporize/slag things. There is still a blinding flash, but no fireball, as the radiation does not have an atmosphere to interact with. As always, I would suggest avoid ionizing radiation doses exceeding recommended limits determined by the NRC or ICRP unless you are part Tardigrade. Great information can be found on the Atomic Rockets website, along with a fantastic explanation by a Dr John Schilling of what the effects of a nuke on a spacecraft would be.
Nuclear weapons release a lot of high energy photons after they detonate, and these photons collide with air molecules and create the shockwave and heat up the air, creating the famous fireball. In space, there is no medium to stop the photons, so they scatter in all directions, but those that do hit can cause heat damage (through heat transfer) on the target. Radiation is also more intense in space (since there's no air stopping it), but I think the bulk of the damage would come from the photons vaporizing the hull. Additionaly, the reason multiple nuclear weapons would detonate each other under these circumstances is that the radiation left over after the explosion can cause the other missiles to go supercritical and should be enough to cause a chain reaction. That is my understanding on the phenomena, at least.
Don't forget the fast neutrons doing unspeakable things to enemy hull plating. "Congratulations on defeating $enemyFleet, captain, but I'm afraid we can't let you dock -- your hull's lit up on our scanners like a Christmas tree, and we can't let that kind of radiation source on board."
do the enemies in this game ever react to you and try to get away or bring reinforcements or set up a trap for you? I love the concept of this game but it seems fighting the enemies is just static puzzle more about setting up orbits with little to no simulation.
Can we get a series out of this game? This is pretty sweet to watch, and I don't really have time to get into this right now due to college sucking up every iota of free time I have.
I continued to be baffled by the _"Small Diversion"_ mission and how the mission's record uses only 7.45 m/s of delta-v. I tried and tried to get even close to that record, but couldn't find any way. What orbital sorcery is needed to use so little?
Bad Beard Bill you mean burning veeery little, just enough so the orbits touch, and then waiting for as many revolutions as it needs to for the spacecrafts to synchronize orbits? Or you mean me keep trying and trying until I figure it out? XD Because I've been there, done that.
Arturo Gutierrez In orbital mechanics, you usually have to expend deltaV for time, and vice versa. If you want to expend the least deltaV, you will have to wait a very long time. It's just a trend though, not a guarantee.
So this is basically a spaceship version of Silent Hunter? I played the shit out of that game as a kid and it was sort of similar in how you had to figure out how to intercept enemy ships and then program how your torpedoes would attack the target all while trying to avoid retaliation and not running out of fuel.
hey scott! new sub! would you say the space combat in battlestar galactica was realistic (besides the artificial gravity sound and ftl)? the ships definitely maneuver pretty freely and the widespread use of nukes being used seems according to the scale of space combat
Fighter crafts are ... quite probably ... not realistic. Put in a remote control unit, and remove all that fancy life support and space for a person stuff, remove the remass you need to come back to the ship, remove the remass you formerly needed to push all of the removed weight --- you can even make a smaller engine and be just as fast --- or you can use the freed space and mass for more weapons and stuff. Now it can pull much more than 9g, and if it's lost to enemy fire, it's not a life lost. Also, there is very little "short range" in space, there's only dV, life support and energy ... and unmanned vessels don't need life support.
The music is actually pretty good by itself (a few tracks from "Solar Echoes" album by Nigel Stanford), it just seems to be quite out of place in this game. What puzzles me is why the developers chose this specific album. Maybe because of its "space-y" name?
Why not launch a fleet of missiles onto the same intercept trajectory, then have them all change their inclinations at the opposite point in their orbit from the intercept so that they arrive at the same time, but from different directions?
They’re points formed by two celestial bodies where your position relative to the smaller body is static or close to it. In a system with two celestial bodies (ie, Earth and Moon), there are 5 such points. For example, L1 would be between the Earth and Moon, but closer to the Moon. At L1, the gravity from Earth and gravity from the moon balance out in such a way that an object at L1 would stay at L1 until it applies force to itself (ie, via rocket) to change trajectory.
Hi Scott. I think that you should definetly take a look on game called "Battleship Commander" It is somewhat similar to the Children of a dead Earth,but unfortunately don't have any storyline
I feel like they could improve Dead Earth by making the ships have more visual distinction to them. I'm sure that the shape is mainly intended to be as realistic and practical as possible, but it would be nice to see some detail to give a sense of scale (as it is, they all look the same size without any background objects to compare them to, 'cause, y'know, space), and maybe have the ships either painted different colors or given emblems or something. Also, I'm curious as to whether or not a ship could be made in it that has armor on one side but not the other (to save mass). That could allow designs to be more visually interesting without having to sacrifice realism.
There are ships in game that don't have full armor. At least one has armor only on one side and all weapons located on that side with radiators on other. And few ships with armor only in front. As for sense of scale, I'm not sure what details could help with that... Windows would be out of place, maybe some docking ports, but that would be lost on ships bigger than small ones. More emblems would be nice... Kind of like flags in KSP, maybe...
I haven't played it yet, so I dunno about that sort of thing, I'm just going off of what I've seen :) Perhaps the engines or some other feature on the ships would appear distinctly different depending on size? Sort of like how people can tell how big a ship is in KSP by looking for parts they already know the size of. Maybe there would only be, for instance, only a few sizes of engine, so bigger ships would have big engine clusters. Or maybe instead of a uniform texture for the armor, have each ship's armor be composed of a "mosaic" of smaller armor panels of a roughly uniform size. You could look at the spacing of the lines where the panels meet to get an idea of scale. Maybe they'd have markings on their edges, which would be explained in-universe as being there so that you can find them easier when performing maintenance? It would actually make a lot of sense for either of these to be there in real life. There'd likely be some reliable engine models that would see widespread use, and having armor in segments would allow you to replace damaged sections quickly.
I'm not sure how textures of armor work in game, so can't say anything about that. Engines can be custom made and have variety of sizes, like every component in game. So it is hard to judge size of the ship looking at its parts. Additionally combat range is generally vast enough that you need additional HUD markings to see were enemy is (enemy ships, drones and missiles are marked with red shapes), so tools to judge size of the ship by looking at it are not viable. On the other hand in "reality" you would now size of the ship by observing its heat characteristics and engine exhaust spectrum. And looking at history of warfare, everybody want to conceal their true capabilities from enemy. That's why ships had painted fake bow waves to make enemy misjudge its speed for example.
Neutrons might cause a pre-detonation and fizzle when a weapon was activated within a millisecond of another one, but you need to make a critical mass to make a nuclear explosion.
The nuclear EMP results from electrons sprayed out by the bomb interacting with a planet's magnetic field and atmosphere, so it can only happen in low orbit around a planet with the right characteristics.
But if these nukes explode like a few hundred metres away from his ship, wouldn't it get hit by a lot of electrons and neutrons? Maybe his ship wouldn't get destroyed, but his crew would receive an incredible doses of radiation.
Space is full of radiation by default so any long range ships would have to be shielded against it. Solar flares are way more powerful than any nukes we have.
You are right this kind of music is really Stellar. But what's about "space rock and roll". Lot's of rock and roll sound around the beat of a low RPM V8 engine. Space music will alos be music inspired by the soung of the life support system, the sound of the nuclear reactor, or the engine. And lot's of theses sound will come to the crew via the structure of the ship. It will sound special.
0:08 - If I recall correctly, there was no shooting in the Falkands conflict, just as there was no actual discharge of arms during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Propaganda at its finest. 15:08 - "We assure you it's an isolated incident, not endemic to our entire military or anything like that." I hear the creaks and groans of a government struggling to NOT fly apart.
The later missions involving fleets get a lot, lot harder - the first half are basically a tutorial.
Every mission before the mission that unlocks ship design is pretty much just a tutorial. It really starts to get hard when module designing becomes available!
All levels of every game(excluding sandbox games obviously) is a tutorial for the "boss stage"
~Indie game dev ;)
@@mattymerr701 Ceres isn’t hard.
Counter the gun drones with laser all 10 drones. 3 will survive. Counter the first enemy missile fleet with those 3 drones.
Get closer to the enemy fleet. It will launch another missile fleet. Find an orbit which brings you close to the enemy fleet but not its missile fleet.
Hit the enemy fleet with 80 flak missiles. Then, hit it with 40 nukes. Finally, finish it off with 20 gun drones.
Finish off the enemy missiles with 5 gun drones.
Your own ships will never even be in danger.
People watch too many WW2 movies and think the solution is to go broadside to broadside. It’s not. The best way to win a shooting war is to do the shooting and not get shot at.
Always go Full homing, Scott. The enemy's ability to dodge a missile with 10G of acceleration is minimal, and burning as hard as possible means you spend less time in range of point defences. This is far more valuable than any terminal manoeuvrer.
If you get a good volley off, the enemy ship will go tumbling whilst glowing bright orange, it's really quite spectacular.
what happened (at 9:30) was, you accidently launched a bunch of nukes yourself, their proximity detonator went off because of the heatsignatures of your own decoys! that happened a lot to myself. lol
I second this
The missiles in this game are absolutely braindead. Missiles haven’t been this stupid since the 1960’s.
The physics side of this game is fantastic, but the combat computers are just awful… Apparently, future humanity can traverse the Sol System, but not lead targets accelerating in a straight line or make a missile with working proportional navigation and the ability to ignore flares?
I don’t even bother intercepting missiles with missiles (which is the way to do it in the real world today and will still be when we fight in space) because they can’t home correctly.
It really does feel like kind of a puzzling-game rather than real time strategy in these early stages. That said, in my opinion this changes in later missions when enemies go into attack mode and start being less passive!
A lot of people think nukes don't work in space and they are partially correct. They are definitely less devastating without air to carry the energy but a nuclear weapon detonating at that sort of distance from a space craft would tear it apart from the x-rays super-heating areas of the armor and hull.
not to mention the radiation poisoning the crew inside
Space is full of radiation anyway, ships have to be shielded against it.
Pro/con of thermonuclear weapons in space:
Cons: -No air to carry a compression shock wave or superheat to conduct thermal energy
-No air to ionize and produce wide-band EMP
-Targets in space cannot be 'over-targeted' to increase destructive power (detonation a few km above surface level, concentrating blast energy against ground zero
-No long-term aftereffects of deliberately creating fallout ('dirty bomb' effect)
-Large distances and relative velocities make precision in targeting and timing essential
Pros: -EM and particle energy of blast travels unimpeded by intervening fluids, increasing target exposure to ionizing radiation
-EM blast energy would be concentrated at predetermined wavelengths, making shielding more difficult from an engineering standpoint
-Particle flux could affect fission/fusion reactor operation, in some cases catastrophically
-Thermal flux could drastically affect heat dissipation and potentially raise crew cabin temperature
talking about concentrating blast energy, could it be possible to use the same shaped charge concept and create a giant shaped charge device using nuclear blast that can penetrate the earth/planet/armor kilometers depth? you know, by directing all the nuclear blast energy into one small point.
What would you use to concentrate a nuclear blast energy? Nuclear explosion is multitude more powerful than just high explosives.
Nukes rarely score complete kills by themselves, but are quite effective at destroying engines and radiators, leaving your enemies sitting ducks for your other weapons. Toggling the delay detonator on makes them less 'accurate', but potentially more powerful.
Devastator missiles are extremely high-yield, but slow and vulnerable to guns as well as lasers. Best used to finish off targets or with something else to take the enemy's attention. They have a high detonation range, so turn on the delay for maximum effect (unless you're using them against a large group... they might be effective against drones?).
Closing speed is a tradeoff, the slower you're going, the more likely it is you'll hit, since for some reason you can't be sure of an on-target strike from the strategic view... but the more time the enemy has to evade or destroy the missiles.
Of course, all this advice applies solely to nuclear missiles, nuclear cannons are a completely different and amazing (if seizure-inducing) story. Just... don't use the vanilla nuke cannon. It is bad and will explode your ship.
The AI doesn't really know how to handle missiles. It doesn't know how to handle lots of things, but missiles more than most.
You can trivialize enemy missiles simply by firing one of your own missiles at them. They'll all attempt to home in on it and go hopelessly off-course or even detonate uselessly. This used to work against drones as well, but that seems to have been fixed.
Conversely, using numerous small groups of missiles against high-acceleration enemy ships can deplete their delta-V... but then enemy ships rarely move, so it doesn't make much of a difference - but there are a few cases where it can be vital.
Switching frames of reference (especially to the vessel you want to intercept/rendevous) is your friend. Use it.
The automated intercept/rendevous function is... based on a series of instantaneous impulses, I think. In any event it's terrible, and should be used as little as possible.
The game doesn't show you internal modules on enemy ships unless the ship is already disabled or actually exposed (because the ship doesn't have armor there). You also can't target such modules unless they're exposed. They will show up on the target screen once they're destroyed, but still no mouseover view.
Lasers are very good for disabling individual modules, but generally not an effective weapon against guns.
Speaking of guns (and lasers), there's basically never a good reason not to have 'ignore range' toggled on. Your weapons won't hit a magic wall at 20-30 kilometers, and sure, you won't be very accurate, but it'll still inflict some hits, and most guns/ships have so much ammo it's never really a problem. Lasers don't need to worry about ammo and some more fragile modules still get fried. You'll shred their whipple shields if nothing else. Of course, needing to disable specific modules is probably one of the scenarios you should be worried about range, but...
And today I'm breathing helium.
Glad people still watch that video, wouldn't want people to think I'm too manley.
someone enlighten me?
Scott Manley XD
9:40 I could be wrong... But I think your nukes were distracted by your flares.
They landed an unmanned satellite on a foreign body and took off again... that sounds like a pretty historic achievement
Meanwhile after Trump, Kim Kardashian will be president.
Sometimes it feels that this planet has more than one sentient race, and one of them is retarded.
[/random off topic rant]
so true
Also on eros is where the protomolecule was
Remember the Cant
In space, nukes are only really effective at a distance of only a few miles, and only if the enemy doesn’t have good radiation shielding, since that’s the main damaging factor without direct impact. A better choice would be a bomb-pumped laser warhead. It’s a nuke that detonates at a distance, and the explosion powers one or more lasers. It’s the primary weapon in the Honor Harrington books and it was seriously considered during the Cold War as an anti-ICBM weapon.
Do you think this game could still be playable if you couldn't pause it? (AKA if you had to play it in real time?) If you had to plan orbits and fight the enemy at the same time, would it make the game feel more like a combat simulator or would it make the game too complex to be playable?
I think it would work if you could give orders ahead of time for the battle plan. So that the crew would have contingencies planned out.
i.e. pick the targets 5 minutes long before we get in range.
view the enemy fleet and select what you want to hit
What about multiple human crew working together in multiplayer a bit like how dangerous waters worked? Someone can be plotting orbits while someone else wargames enemy maneuvering options. Once the engagement starts someone can work on manually flying/dodging while everyone else focuses on assigning target priorities for the different weapon systems.
You can (sort of) do this already.
When you are in the inspection view, the time starts to run at real time again.
You can give move orders to tell the ships to thrust in a direction and it does actually work. The obvious problem is that it runs in real time so it can take an age to do anything.
Some sort of time control would be great (pause, speed up etc.)!
no. I don't think that anyone would have the patience to wait days for an encounter.
scott, thanks for posting videos about this game, found it because of your other video and already finished the campaign, totally loved it
This Scott makes orbital mechanics so Manley.
Could I suggest a topic for a future video, this being the guidance and navigation of orbital launch vehicles?
I honestly feel like I am a child of a dead earth. and one day I will become a part of the earth from which I came. love your videos Scott. it's literally one of the only things I enjoy out of life right now.
plz no Fedora Daddy
BippityboppityBOO Whatever your personal circumstances, that you can write and have access to the internet means you are better off that 80% of the worlds population. Whinge less.
So what if they are literate or have access to internet?
That's like saying that white men who get prostate cancer should stop whinging because they (probably) have access to "good" medical facilities and services.
Just because I have internet doesn't mean my problems are any less real or legitimate, saying otherwise is just inconsiderate and ignorant.
There are plenty of people living in my city who are either dole-bludgers and just don't want to work, or who actually have a legitimate reason for being poor and having to live off of centrelink payouts. Are you suggesting that the people who are legitimately poor are just whiners because they live in a developed country and their poverty is nothing like poverty in a third world country?
Sure they get money, but it doesn't mean that living here is just a breeze!
Learn to have some compassion!
Ditch the trilby and life will improve.
Lazaglider you are an utter moron.
I can't wait for you to fool around with the ship editor. There is some awesome science you can do with it.
YES!, thanks Scott for making another video of this game!
They all sacrificed themselves for you captain! ....Noted.
The last time I was this early I hadn't accidentally clicked time acceleration on max.
A nuke going off should tell the other missiles to blow up
Nigel Stanford's Solar Echoes playing in the background. Great music choice.
My video started buffering just as the flash of the nuke hit.. talk about climatic haha.
Happy to see you pick up this game as a series. It's amazing!
Near 5:00 you said nukes can not make each other go super-critical. I'd expect the radiation from nuke one to be able to start a chain reaction in just sub-critical nukes.
Bigus Dickus Sub critical nukes aren't really nukes. They're more like dirty bombs.
Admiral Obvious What I wanted to say is that they are really close to going critical even when not imploded.
real space music is the homeworld sound track
or the Mass Effect soundtrack :D
I prefer the Strike Suit Zero soundtrack myself, but that might just be me.
Nah, it's definitely the Wing Commander soundtrack.
All suggestions are gold so far
or the ambient/post-rock genre
I'm sorry but Mario do like mushrooms :)
Would you consider doing a video about what solar system navigation would be like if we had propulsion w effectively infinite delta-v? Like what kinds of paths would ships take if they could say, accelerate at a constant 1g, torch-ship style? Because it would be very different to the kinds of manoeuvres we use, or you see in KSP
Scott, you say that nuclear weapon chain reactions aren't a thing. But the idea of nuclear weapon chain reactions isn't predicated off the idea that exploding nuclear weapons will blow up other nukes too. It's more of based on the idea that most nuclear masses in nuclear weapons are subcritical, but can still detonate if you just pump enough neutrons into them. And exploding nukes tend to have lots of neutrons.
im most interested in seeing him play the mission "homecoming". i CANNOT get passed that mission, and im sure he can with ease!
Yeah, i'm just at that mission myself and damn is it a pain in the rear :D
Take a methane or hydrogen tanker as your ship. A Hohmann transfer is too slow, so you'll have to burn extra delta-V to intercept mars early (this also in my case meant a burn that was not totally retrograde). Once you get a mars intercept it's just a case of fine tuning your braking burn so that you get close to the station.
real space music is cats on mars
Watching this again feels very different after one has watched the Expanse... especially the mission around Eros...
The music is awesome.
Dear Scott could you please record a look at ship creation in this game? Especially armor mechanics are really interesting.
Sure, the missions seem to be super fast.
Nice! Im really looking forward for that. I have been playing around with armor for quite a while and creating my own armor structures resistant for certain weapon types is really fun for me. However your knowledge of phisics is much greater than mine and i wanna see what you will came up with. :D
Also - missions are super fast - i think i saw developers saying that they wanted to make combat very fast and its one of reasons why in combat there is no pause (only on the beginning)
4 Devastator 20 Striker... 420, was that intentional?
Pott Manley is back!
ECKS DEE 420 LMAYO. Lame.
Said it on the first video too. The music is from NigelStanford's album "Solar Echoes"
Thank you Scott for the video!
@ 09:17 you are nuking yourself! You are launching nukes and decoys and your nukes are targeting your own decoys.
Thanks Scott for this video ! However, it left me wondering: how do nuclear explosions (or any explosion for that matter) work in space (as in, how do they inflict damage) ? My understanding is that, on earth, they generate heat and pressure. The shockwave it generates will mechanically damage or destroy nearby structures, and heat... Well, heat will burn things down eventually...
Since there is no (or very scarce) medium to propagate a shockwave in space, what type of damage can we expect from a nuclear explosion in space ? Heat only, or does it generate a shockwave as well ? If so, how does it propagate ? Does it turn its energy and initial matter into gas somehow ? I'm pretty confused, what am I missing ?
Thanks to anyone who could answer this question, it will most likely keep me up tonight :p
The energy released will be in the form of x-rays, gamma rays, and neutrons. The detonation will function as a true point source, so you can expect the intensity to rapidly fall off over distance due to the inverse square law.
If the weapon detonates very close it will vaporize/slag things. There is still a blinding flash, but no fireball, as the radiation does not have an atmosphere to interact with. As always, I would suggest avoid ionizing radiation doses exceeding recommended limits determined by the NRC or ICRP unless you are part Tardigrade.
Great information can be found on the Atomic Rockets website, along with a fantastic explanation by a Dr John Schilling of what the effects of a nuke on a spacecraft would be.
Nuclear weapons release a lot of high energy photons after they detonate, and these photons collide with air molecules and create the shockwave and heat up the air, creating the famous fireball.
In space, there is no medium to stop the photons, so they scatter in all directions, but those that do hit can cause heat damage (through heat transfer) on the target. Radiation is also more intense in space (since there's no air stopping it), but I think the bulk of the damage would come from the photons vaporizing the hull.
Additionaly, the reason multiple nuclear weapons would detonate each other under these circumstances is that the radiation left over after the explosion can cause the other missiles to go supercritical and should be enough to cause a chain reaction.
That is my understanding on the phenomena, at least.
Don't forget the fast neutrons doing unspeakable things to enemy hull plating.
"Congratulations on defeating $enemyFleet, captain, but I'm afraid we can't let you dock -- your hull's lit up on our scanners like a Christmas tree, and we can't let that kind of radiation source on board."
certified hood classic
do the enemies in this game ever react to you and try to get away or bring reinforcements or set up a trap for you?
I love the concept of this game but it seems fighting the enemies is just static puzzle more about setting up orbits with little to no simulation.
The 1st enemy launched waves of nukes at me. The last was firing back.
Yes, they shoot at you and adjust course.
ares106 in later missions the AI with throw it self at you like a maniac. Enormous difficulty spikes
These first missions are like tutorials.
Can we get a series out of this game? This is pretty sweet to watch, and I don't really have time to get into this right now due to college sucking up every iota of free time I have.
I continued to be baffled by the _"Small Diversion"_ mission and how the mission's record uses only 7.45 m/s of delta-v. I tried and tried to get even close to that record, but couldn't find any way. What orbital sorcery is needed to use so little?
Patience?
Bad Beard Bill you mean burning veeery little, just enough so the orbits touch, and then waiting for as many revolutions as it needs to for the spacecrafts to synchronize orbits?
Or you mean me keep trying and trying until I figure it out? XD Because I've been there, done that.
Arturo Gutierrez In orbital mechanics, you usually have to expend deltaV for time, and vice versa. If you want to expend the least deltaV, you will have to wait a very long time. It's just a trend though, not a guarantee.
I would love to see Scott try to optimize Lagrange Point Graveyard as best he can.
I want to see an episode of you running through Vesta Overkill and using the ship designer to do it.
Hi! Will you post more videos of playing CODE? Would be nice if you do :)
who doesn't want nuclear weapons in their games? well maybe Mario.... I DIED XD
Nigel stanford - Entropy is the song name.
My favourite of his
Will you be continuing this series into the ship design missions? Please? :)
So this is basically a spaceship version of Silent Hunter?
I played the shit out of that game as a kid and it was sort of similar in how you had to figure out how to intercept enemy ships and then program how your torpedoes would attack the target all while trying to avoid retaliation and not running out of fuel.
Last time I was this early harambe was still alive
Stop it, get some help.
RIP Steve jobs, on of the most important men in the last 50 years
_____ _____
| \ ~ | |
|____/ | | ____/
| \ | |
| \ | |
hey scott! new sub! would you say the space combat in battlestar galactica was realistic (besides the artificial gravity sound and ftl)? the ships definitely maneuver pretty freely and the widespread use of nukes being used seems according to the scale of space combat
Damnit. Now I have to rewatch that whole series again.
Glenn de Moor eh, you can skip season 4
If you mean, that projektile and missile weaponry might be effective in space? Yes! The way it was shown in BSG... No, just No!
Tolbert2000 i actually meant the fighter craft, and the missiles were relatively short range
Fighter crafts are ... quite probably ... not realistic. Put in a remote control unit, and remove all that fancy life support and space for a person stuff, remove the remass you need to come back to the ship, remove the remass you formerly needed to push all of the removed weight --- you can even make a smaller engine and be just as fast --- or you can use the freed space and mass for more weapons and stuff. Now it can pull much more than 9g, and if it's lost to enemy fire, it's not a life lost.
Also, there is very little "short range" in space, there's only dV, life support and energy ... and unmanned vessels don't need life support.
Love this game. Do anybody knows if there will be more patchs to add new features or is it only bugfix now on?
I love the game to death, but it took me more than a day to pass the Lagrange point mission.
Oprean Trifan Mircea same for me... Just trial and error.
If you slow down you will catch up to things in front of you unless you hit the atmosphere-er... lithosphere.
Good guy Microsoft. Thanks!
The music is actually pretty good by itself (a few tracks from "Solar Echoes" album by Nigel Stanford), it just seems to be quite out of place in this game. What puzzles me is why the developers chose this specific album. Maybe because of its "space-y" name?
Why not launch a fleet of missiles onto the same intercept trajectory, then have them all change their inclinations at the opposite point in their orbit from the intercept so that they arrive at the same time, but from different directions?
mmmm nukes in space...
what is a tadpole orbit, and how is it possible to achieve?
Scott can you make a video on lagrange points, I dont quite get it
They’re points formed by two celestial bodies where your position relative to the smaller body is static or close to it. In a system with two celestial bodies (ie, Earth and Moon), there are 5 such points.
For example, L1 would be between the Earth and Moon, but closer to the Moon. At L1, the gravity from Earth and gravity from the moon balance out in such a way that an object at L1 would stay at L1 until it applies force to itself (ie, via rocket) to change trajectory.
Is Eros the asteroid from the Enders game series?
Yes, it's the location of Command School.
Hi Scott.
I think that you should definetly take a look on game called "Battleship Commander"
It is somewhat similar to the Children of a dead Earth,but unfortunately don't have any storyline
I feel like they could improve Dead Earth by making the ships have more visual distinction to them. I'm sure that the shape is mainly intended to be as realistic and practical as possible, but it would be nice to see some detail to give a sense of scale (as it is, they all look the same size without any background objects to compare them to, 'cause, y'know, space), and maybe have the ships either painted different colors or given emblems or something.
Also, I'm curious as to whether or not a ship could be made in it that has armor on one side but not the other (to save mass). That could allow designs to be more visually interesting without having to sacrifice realism.
maybe just moar emblems
There are ships in game that don't have full armor. At least one has armor only on one side and all weapons located on that side with radiators on other. And few ships with armor only in front.
As for sense of scale, I'm not sure what details could help with that... Windows would be out of place, maybe some docking ports, but that would be lost on ships bigger than small ones.
More emblems would be nice... Kind of like flags in KSP, maybe...
Chaotic Khajiit You have almost total control of where armor goes.
I haven't played it yet, so I dunno about that sort of thing, I'm just going off of what I've seen :)
Perhaps the engines or some other feature on the ships would appear distinctly different depending on size? Sort of like how people can tell how big a ship is in KSP by looking for parts they already know the size of.
Maybe there would only be, for instance, only a few sizes of engine, so bigger ships would have big engine clusters.
Or maybe instead of a uniform texture for the armor, have each ship's armor be composed of a "mosaic" of smaller armor panels of a roughly uniform size. You could look at the spacing of the lines where the panels meet to get an idea of scale. Maybe they'd have markings on their edges, which would be explained in-universe as being there so that you can find them easier when performing maintenance?
It would actually make a lot of sense for either of these to be there in real life. There'd likely be some reliable engine models that would see widespread use, and having armor in segments would allow you to replace damaged sections quickly.
I'm not sure how textures of armor work in game, so can't say anything about that.
Engines can be custom made and have variety of sizes, like every component in game. So it is hard to judge size of the ship looking at its parts.
Additionally combat range is generally vast enough that you need additional HUD markings to see were enemy is (enemy ships, drones and missiles are marked with red shapes), so tools to judge size of the ship by looking at it are not viable. On the other hand in "reality" you would now size of the ship by observing its heat characteristics and engine exhaust spectrum.
And looking at history of warfare, everybody want to conceal their true capabilities from enemy. That's why ships had painted fake bow waves to make enemy misjudge its speed for example.
But the neutrons released by a nuclear explosion could set off other nuclear warheads. This can all however be solved by some radiation shielding.
Neutrons might cause a pre-detonation and fizzle when a weapon was activated within a millisecond of another one, but you need to make a critical mass to make a nuclear explosion.
nuclear wessels.
I see I'm not alone wrestling with Windows 10.
Windows 10 is abysmal. If more games would provide reliable Linux support I'd switch in a heartbeat.
Why not just switch to Windows 7?
Destroyer Dan I would if I could.
if you went from windows to win 10 I hated it so I reversed. search on internet how to reverse and it removes the feature a month after win 10 install
Just recently switched. About 3/4 of my steam library support Linux, and for the rest I use a virtual machine.
Isn't exploding nukes in space not really dangerous for everything really close? Because of EMP effects and what not?
The nuclear EMP results from electrons sprayed out by the bomb interacting with a planet's magnetic field and atmosphere, so it can only happen in low orbit around a planet with the right characteristics.
But if these nukes explode like a few hundred metres away from his ship, wouldn't it get hit by a lot of electrons and neutrons? Maybe his ship wouldn't get destroyed, but his crew would receive an incredible doses of radiation.
Space is full of radiation by default so any long range ships would have to be shielded against it. Solar flares are way more powerful than any nukes we have.
5:08 call Fraticide
Please do more.
i always forget basic orbital mechanics even though its super obvious xD
You don't get into proper combat till Vesta Overkill, The mission after you unlock ship design. :)
'Real' space music? Have you ever tried to watch "Space: 1999" ?
I like nuclear weapons.
Do they ever address the issue of reactionary force from the Gun Firing? Just curious.
Is this game has other laguages ? French ?
Scott, real space music is the Interstellar theme.
You are right this kind of music is really Stellar.
But what's about "space rock and roll".
Lot's of rock and roll sound around the beat of a low RPM V8 engine.
Space music will alos be music inspired by the soung of the life support system, the sound of the nuclear reactor, or the engine.
And lot's of theses sound will come to the crew via the structure of the ship.
It will sound special.
That and TRUE space music is the Ambient genre. Check it out
I believe you can do it.
Marc-Andre Otis Dont be lazy
I am not a musician, it's clearly not the same thing.
Is this turn-based or real-time flight?
Judging by the timescales, I'd say the answer is "yes".
Susan Montgomery Both. In the orbital view time is frozen unless you end your "turn" . You can chose how much time passes when you end turns.
Ah, thanks! Kinda hard to tell from the vid and the Steam page was vague at best.
More Please
0:08 - If I recall correctly, there was no shooting in the Falkands conflict, just as there was no actual discharge of arms during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Propaganda at its finest.
15:08 - "We assure you it's an isolated incident, not endemic to our entire military or anything like that." I hear the creaks and groans of a government struggling to NOT fly apart.
SCOTT YOU MISSED THE INTERCEPT NODE AT 2:43
that game is strange :D
It's realistic. So... yeah, reality is strange compared to how hollywood has taught us space battles are XD
Arturo Gutierrez
ye strange is that positive way :)
is it free?
Ali_Army107 no:(
Considering the amount of work THAT GUY is putting on it, I doshed out monies without regret for this.
*static noises*
ok
Yeet
IMO
4th!
Will Scott Manley Reply to this comment?