Sci-fi Military Tactics and Strategy

I'd imagine they were augmented in someway too, probably their cardiovascular system being upgraded easily.

No real need for that if you’ve got practical powered exoskeletons.

Even then, why wouldn’t you? An upgraded cardio means longer stamina, more efficient blood pumping, oxygen regulation, etc.

Its flat out stated that pilots at least are HEAVILY modified, like with the kind of invasive surgery that causes about 60% of them to not survive.... There is dialog about it and every thing, with it being decided they must be insane to volunteer for that.

Edited by Imca on Aug 17th 2018 at 5:07:00 AM

That is a pretty nasty attrition rate.

Indeed, it also makes me think they must be doing some kind of major reconstruction internally to bleed recruits like that.

I dont even think normal "Invasive" begins to describe that.

Edited by Imca on Aug 17th 2018 at 7:36:06 AM

That is frankly unacceptable loss rates. There is no way someone would eat that kind of loss.

It gets worse by the end of the whole process of becoming a pilot.

The end rate for surviving qualification is about 2%, that's a fucking 98% fatality rate.

Which is just bloody ridiculous even if you do have a whole space empire to draw recruits from.

I cant say its not cost effective though given how quickly pilots mop up any thing that isn't a pilot, but I do wonder "how the fuck do you get recruits for it"

Edited by Imca on Aug 17th 2018 at 8:37:34 AM

lol, I can't decide if the attrition rate or the fact that the the in-universe explanation for some pilots having cloaking tech, is that the tech embedded into their ACTUAL skin, rather than using a device is dumber.

Personaly I see no reason not to use augmentations, its much easier to loose a device.

So I am going to go with the atrition rate.

Considering the cloaking process is likely replacing the pilot's entire integumentary system...

Well...

That probably contributed to the high attrition rate.

Depends on the call of duty setting you go with. In Advanced Warfare, it's Exoskeletons equipped with booster packs.

In Black Ops 3, it's cybernetics.

In Infinite Warfare, there is no fancy reconstruction of the human body, this is a world that have grenades that negate gravity for 20 seconds, FTL spaceships, and tech that allows ships that can enter atmosphere despite the square cube law demanding they fall as soon as they enter, building a efficient jetpack that can let people wallrun should be the least of their troubles.

Nothing about the ships in IW violate the square cube law. Like at all.

They would require a shit ton of energy to fly down into the atmosphere, hover and float around, and then make a vertical climb for orbit. They are positively huge vessels.

I mean, yes, but it’s not like they’re Halo sized (quite the opposite).

If you can make an FTL drive, along with artificial gravity, atmosphere capable ships should be child’s play.

I’m not sure square cube law is the right term in this instance, anyhow. More so the power source. Same reason we can’t build a SHIELD Helicarier, right now.

Edited by Jasaiga on Aug 18th 2018 at 8:30:51 AM

Tactical: True they aren't that large but still that is quite a feat.

Jas: Still quite a very notable thing to achieve.

Not saying they would break the square-cube law just the amount of effort it takes to that alone is rather very impressive.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Aug 18th 2018 at 7:34:05 AM

Not even the Olympus Mons?

This behemoth that easily dwarfs The Retribution?◊

Also keep in mind none of the ships have energy shields, meaning all their durability is armor.

I'm fairly certain this thing would probably crumple in half if not for it's tech letting it float in atmo.

Ask a cat. They do wall running and wall jumping all the bloody time as if they feel the law of gravity doesn't apply to them.

Problem is, even if you scale up a cat with the same equivalent jumping, it's not that hard to kill them with a bullet.

Which is the problem I see with applying wall running in real life. Any expert marksman is gonna murk you before you do anything of worth.

Yes and no. Surprisingly, marksmanship is hard. Most bullets fired by most soldiers never hit anything. When it comes to moving targets that’s doubly true. There’s a reason everyone is trained to shoot center mass.

On the other hand, infantry carry automatic weapons and you’d be all the way out of cover while wallrunning.

Never played the game, but I'm challenged to think of anything you could do, or anywhere you could get, while wall running that you couldnt do better by just running on the ground.

Unless they are climbing up walls like Spiderman.

Echo: Basically what the square-cube law dictates is the amount of mass an object has based on surface area and the relation to the sharp increase in volume. However, you have to have considered the difference between a solid and an object with cavities in terms of overall mass. Regardless when you start hefting craft with the mass of a Ford class Super Carrier, 100,000 tons, it takes a lot of energy. That is the other part of the square-cube law. That a large object takes a lot of energy to move.

Those really big ships like I noted earlier would be really impressive technology because they can not only make a descent into the atmosphere but maintain a consistent altitude at hover and even boost back into orbit. That would be really impressive technology to have. They should have absolutely horrifying missile technology though.

To give a little perspective. The US Space shuttle weighed about 74.84 Metric Tons empty. It took approximately 2,000 metric tons of fuel to get the shuttle into orbit. So for every metric ton of shuttle you needed roughly 27 metric tons of fuel. To launch something like the USS Ford which is roughly 90,718.474 metric tons you would need 2,449,386 metric tons of fuel. Those ships from the game obviously are not hauling around amazingly massive fuel stores to make their climb to orbit. Their technology and that general capability are pretty amazing, to say the least.

I think what Echo is referring to is that as the mass increases you need a more robust support structure, particularly in atmosphere where gravity and air resistance are acting on the ship. With the way mass increases, the ship could quickly get too large to support itself.

Yes thank you Archon, I knew I was wording it wrong.

My concern with the Olympus Mons is that it can float in atmosphere with maybe about 12 to 24 thrusters on it's belly, and somehow not started to break off at the heavier parts or where mass was distributed unevenly.

They got the technology to make that thing a possibility, what crazy anti-gravity tech are they using? And if so, wall running should be easy.