# The PC Space Combat Sim is back! **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [November 5, 2012, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pc-space-combat-sim-is-back/639941 "2012-11-05T08:32:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Airk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de053/32.png) [@Airk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airk)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2012, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pc-space-combat-sim-is-back/639941/21 "2012-11-07T16:28:07Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Apart from his flub with the Wing Commander movie, he’s done decently in the film industry. This is…the opposite of comforting. ---
**Author:** ![Airk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de053/32.png) [@Airk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airk)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2012, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pc-space-combat-sim-is-back/639941/22 "2012-11-07T16:31:05Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Non-Newtonian flight model is what I meant. Never played I-War, so I don’t know, but I want a space fighter game that functions like the starfuries in babylon 5 more or less. Ah. I-War was a fully Newtonian model, which, frankly, was kindof awkward to actually play for many people, but it WAS fully Newtonian. It WASN’T really a “space fighter game” though, since the ship in question was more like some sort of gunboat or something - rather bigger and more lumbering than what one thinks of when one thinks “space fighter” but not really “capital ship” either. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2012, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pc-space-combat-sim-is-back/639941/23 "2012-11-07T18:19:45Z")
> [@Airk](#): > > Either you are being sarcastic and adding nothing to the discussion, or you have no idea what a Gundam looks like or you think all “humanoid mecha” look the same. > > None of these are good reasons to post this. I’m sort of being sarcastic. I checked out a “making of” video of Strike Suit Zero. They basically come out and say that they were heavily influenced by aesthetic of the Homeworld videogame series as well as 90s “humanoid mecha” anime like Gundam or Macross. > [@Airk](#): > > It WASN’T really a “space fighter game” though, since the ship in question was more like some sort of gunboat or something I’d say “gunboat” or “corvette” would be fairly accurate naval equivalent. I’m going to go ahead and say that there likely has never been a “realistic” space combat game because IRL, spaceships are bound by orbital physics. The naval ship hierarchy of small corvettes, frigates and destroyers protecting larger cruisers, carriers and battleships doesn’t make as much sense in space since all the ships are locked in the same orbital path, traveling the same speed. And the Battle of Midway Star Wars style fights between swarms of fighters zipping in and out of larger capital ships makes less sense. Surface naval carriers launch fighters because fighters travel much faster in a different medium (air) from the surface ships (water). In space, all the ships are traveling through the same airless, frictionless medium. Why would a large space ship need to launch a plane to fire a missle at another ship? It can just fire a bigger missle instead. A realistic space combat sim would likely be a lot of waiting for launch windows so ships can intersect each other’s orbit and briefly launch some missles, drones, railgun and energy weapon as they hurtle past each other at several miles per second. ---
**Author:** ![jayarrell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@jayarrell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayarrell)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2012, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pc-space-combat-sim-is-back/639941/24 "2012-11-07T18:49:42Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Non-Newtonian flight model is what I meant. Never played I-War, so I don’t know, but I want a space fighter game that functions like the starfuries in babylon 5 more or less. Another game I didn’t play; but did you ever try I’ve Found Her? It’s a bablyon 5 freeware space fighter game. ---
**Author:** ![Airk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de053/32.png) [@Airk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airk)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2012, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pc-space-combat-sim-is-back/639941/25 "2012-11-07T19:19:29Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > I’m sort of being sarcastic. I checked out a “making of” video of Strike Suit Zero. They basically come out and say that they were heavily influenced by aesthetic of the Homeworld videogame series as well as 90s “humanoid mecha” anime like Gundam or Macross. Yeah. They liked the aesthetic of Homeworld (Which, last I checked, was a pretty good one) and they wanted to make a space mecha game, which has pretty much not been done in spite of how cool it seems. Note that they don’t say they were influenced by the aesthetics of the latter stuff. (One look at their mecha designs will tell you that - they’re fairly unique and don’t have the hard lines/rigid angles style that you see in Macross/Gundam.) > [@](#): > > I’m going to go ahead and say that there likely has never been a “realistic” space combat game because IRL, spaceships are bound by orbital physics. The naval ship hierarchy of small corvettes, frigates and destroyers protecting larger cruisers, carriers and battleships doesn’t make as much sense in space since all the ships are locked in the same orbital path, traveling the same speed. And the Battle of Midway Star Wars style fights between swarms of fighters zipping in and out of larger capital ships makes less sense. Surface naval carriers launch fighters because fighters travel much faster in a different medium (air) from the surface ships (water). In space, all the ships are traveling through the same airless, frictionless medium. Why would a large space ship need to launch a plane to fire a missle at another ship? It can just fire a bigger missle instead. > > A realistic space combat sim would likely be a lot of waiting for launch windows so ships can intersect each other’s orbit and briefly launch some missles, drones, railgun and energy weapon as they hurtle past each other at several miles per second. I’m a physics amateur here, so I’m going to ask - how much of this still applies when you’re not really fighting in the vicinity of a planetary scale object? Of course, this raises the question of why, space being the size it is, you would want to fight anywhere else, but I guess the concept of ‘interception’ might still apply. One could still probably make a case for different sizes of combat vessels based simply on thrust to mass ratios, but that sortof seems like it would converge on whatever size vessel proved optimal based on thrust technology. Anyway, if I’m reading you right, I agree with your assertion that the game you describe hasn’t been made because it probably wouldn’t be any fun. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2012, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pc-space-combat-sim-is-back/639941/26 "2012-11-07T20:13:58Z")
> [@Airk](#): > > I’m a physics amateur here, so I’m going to ask - how much of this still applies when you’re not really fighting in the vicinity of a planetary scale object? Of course, this raises the question of why, space being the size it is, you would want to fight anywhere else, but I guess the concept of ‘interception’ might still apply. A lot actually. A ship in a circular orbit in low Earth orbit travels around 15,000 mph or about 4 miles per second. Lets say you have a ship chasing it in the same orbit roughly at the same speed and altitude. If the chase ship increases speed to catch up, it will actually move into a higher orbit and end up further away from the lead ship. > [@Airk](#): > > One could still probably make a case for different sizes of combat vessels based simply on thrust to mass ratios, but that sortof seems like it would converge on whatever size vessel proved optimal based on thrust technology. Certainly. It would also depend on the role of the ship. A ship designed to deploy and support a regiment of space marines on a planets surface would be a lot larger than a ship designed to intercept other ships and destroy them. > [@Airk](#): > > Anyway, if I’m reading you right, I agree with your assertion that the game you describe hasn’t been made because it probably wouldn’t be any fun. It could be fun. But probably not in an X-Wing v Tie Fighter space dogfight sort of way. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2012, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pc-space-combat-sim-is-back/639941/27 "2012-11-07T20:36:57Z")
> [@Airk](#): > > Yeah. They liked the aesthetic of Homeworld (Which, last I checked, was a pretty good one) and they wanted to make a space mecha game, which has pretty much not been done in spite of how cool it seems. Note that they don’t say they were influenced by the aesthetics of the latter stuff. (One look at their mecha designs will tell you that - they’re fairly unique and don’t have the hard lines/rigid angles style that you see in Macross/Gundam.) True, the space mecha don’t look like Gundams or Macross mecha. I think they were more inspired by the style of combat. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Videogames don’t have to be a realistic thought experiment on interstellar combat. Sometimes people just want to see giant space leviatans blast each other with rail guns, missles and plasma cannons while swarms of space fighters engage each other like WWII dogfighters. Presumably to gain space superiority so that battalions of power-armored space marines and giant robot mecha can be deployed via dropships and re-entry pods. Although I will challenge anyone who says that space fighters with “fans” and capital spaceships that look like modified surface warships with “runways” and submarine like conning towers don’t like dated in a sort of 80s/90s sci fi way in the same way shiny, finned rockets look dated in a 50s way. ---
**Author:** ![Airk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de053/32.png) [@Airk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airk)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2012, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pc-space-combat-sim-is-back/639941/28 "2012-11-07T21:19:02Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > True, the space mecha don’t look like Gundams or Macross mecha. I think they were more inspired by the style of combat. Definitely. Particularly Macross for the whole fighter/mecha transformation thing. Which I think is a cool concept that should’ve been done ages ago. 😉 > [@](#): > > Although I will challenge anyone who says that space fighters with “fans” and capital spaceships that look like modified surface warships with “runways” and submarine like conning towers don’t like dated in a sort of 80s/90s sci fi way in the same way shiny, finned rockets look dated in a 50s way. Yeah; This actually kinda hearkens back to some of the really terrible designs used in the Wing Commander movie. The fighters looked absurdly WW2ish. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2012, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pc-space-combat-sim-is-back/639941/29 "2012-11-07T21:43:23Z")
> [@Airk](#): > > One could still probably make a case for different sizes of combat vessels based simply on thrust to mass ratios, but that sortof seems like it would converge on whatever size vessel proved optimal based on thrust technology. There’s also the question of military budget versus volume of space the military is expected to control. If you’ve got 10 billion earmarked for building spaceships, what sort of ships you build will depend on whether they’re needed to protect one planet (arguing in favor of a few, large, and expensive ships) or ten planets (suggesting a larger fleet of smaller, cheaper ships so your navy can be in more than one place at a time.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pc-space-combat-sim-is-back/639941.md?page=1)