Not a member yet? Why not Sign up today
Create an account  

  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The relative power level of From the Depths.

Well, I suppose I can't resist asking this question. What is the relative power level of From the Depths on the multiverse scale? There's so little in game indication , so it's hard to properly place it, but I think it's quite high.

I mean, even for a noob like me, it's not a big deal to push a 150 multi-barreled APS into the 500-1000 RPM range, and since my fortress pack 8 of them, this mean a single, mid range fortress of FtD can pack enough boom per second to take on entire small nation.

The durability of FtD material seem quite excessive. 1 meter of wood can act as adequate protection against breach-loaded, 1 meter long cannon (simple cannon). We usually measure thickness of armor in the 2-3 meter range, which I believe is beyond anything achieve by modern navy. Fairly sure a FtD craft is rather impervious to modern arms.

Our firepower is through the roof. I don't need to go into detail on this. I mean, I'm pretty sure just the constant pressure wave from all the high caliber, high fire rate APS on this site is enough to classify as WMDs

Another possible point to determine our power level is the laser system and the frequency doubler. Assumin it does what the game said it does, and knowing that a late game laser system usually packs at least 20-40 of them, we are firing gamma laser at people. (Can someone actually math this?)

Some more shaky point to look at is the tactical nuke, a specifically stated thermonuclear device, is barely a mosquito bite to a proper vessel.

Furthermore, there is the graviton ram. Sure, it is entirely​ harmless within the game's limited physics simulation, but imagine a weapon like that in a world where structural stress and inertial are real. These thing can Find Ro Dah a battleship into the next timezones. The sheer force behind them is immense. Ok, sure, so maybe a force is so spread out that it's actually not good at breaking through armor, but that's like saying a speeding train can't kill you because it would spread the force all over your body. Sure, a graviton ram may not penetrate armor, it would just literally flatten the entire vessel.

What do you guys think?

1 meter of wood could definitely stop an age of sail sort of cannon like what the simple cannons seem to be. Old sailing warships would quite commonly bounce cannonballs. So the strength of wood in FTD isn't really anything to brag about. Some high-quality hardwood IRL would be just as strong.

Metal isn't much better, which ties into the power of APS. Yes, we can make very high RPM cannons, but their velocity is incredibly low. In fact, I suspect that modern armed forces could make weapons similar in performance to FTD cannons, but they would be useless because of their immense size and cost coupled with extremely short range. The short range isn't an issue in FTD, because everything has that short a range. But in any other scenario, it would make these weapons very much inferior to conventional big guns. Since even these incredibly low velocity cannons are still fully capable of going through metal armor in FTD with kinetic rounds, we can conclude that armor in FTD is nothing to brag about.

It is possible that we are in fact shooting gamma lasers in FTD, but given the power sources we are using, these are not exactly deathstars. They could be dangerous, but not truly game-changing.

No comment on the nuke.

With your mention of inertial forces and structural integrity with regards to the graviton ram, you bring about the final nail in FTD's coffin: Physics. If you applied any sort of physics to FTD, flyers would plummet out of the sky, most ships would sink, CRAM cannons would have a range of about ten feet, and many, many creations would simply fall apart.

Its hard to relate things really between FTD and reality. Especially with gravrams since I made something that has an impact of a type 1a supernova. The projectile already breaks laws of physics by going way past the speed of light.
But putting all that aside, FTD has scary power if you consider shooting off 36+ Supernovas every 5 seconds.

Also, the force of a torque grav ram would probably shear ships in half at the rate they rotate the ships on impact.
Reviewed FtD on steam yet? It's the #1 thing you can do to help FtD, please take the time!
Bug tracker - view, "upvote", comment on and add all bugs here.
Request tracker - Request new features here.
Support - Private portal to service desk.


Also, what matters for lasers is mostly intensity, not frequency. High-frequency lasers do suffer less diffraction, but since FTD lasers cannot be aimed worth anything that matters much less than for RL lasers.
Allr andask.

I wouldn't use the nuke to draw conclusions because it is severely limited by the way the game calculates explosive damage

as for the laser question:
according to Wikipedia a low frequency CO2 laser has a wavelength of 10e-6 meters and frequency doublers would halve wavelength.
If my exam rattled brain has this right that means we can calculate the wavelength of the laser with the equation:
10e-6 / 2^n, where n is the number of doublers.
Gamma ray territory starts at about 10e-9 meters which means that you need roughly 15 doublers to create a gamma laser. At 40 doublers your laser has a wavelength of 9e-18 meters which is more energetic than cosmic rays and is probably capable of causing atoms it hits to undergo fission literally ripping armour apart from the inside out (good luck making lenses for such a thing)
Gehm's corollary: Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced

Interesting, I didn't know that wood could reflect cannonballs. However, wood should not be able to stand up to 1900 upward heavy artillery, which seem to be what CRAM are based off of. Even then, DWG ships can survive weak CRAMs.

Distance in the gam is odd, and if I was can chalk nukes to engine, I think the same argument can be made for velocity and range. I mean, the maximum engagement range seem to be in the 10km, but I also frequently shoot down satellites using surface cannons. Simulating a true naval engagement would probably be hell on the overworked engine.

Some vessels in the game would tear itself in real life. However, some are actually quite realistic and viable. I believe Steel Strider, for one, are designed with realism in mind.

As for laser, I once built something with 400 doublers as an experiment (I dunno, in case I need to shoot through 10 layers of heavy armor, I guess). I think the wavelength would be less than a Planck length at that point. It also says a lot that one meter of metal can survive being constantly bombarded by cosmic ray with little ill effect (15 doubler lasers are like insect bites to anything not DWG). What the hell are those lenses anyway?

As for intensity, it's at least capable of punching through a 1 cubic meter of "metal". So.... Steel, I guess?

As for power sources, we are using steam and diesel, yes. However, we are still somehow power energy shields, lasers, PACs, and railguns with those engines. Theoretically, if we really goes ham on the over engineering, one capital ship can probably power a third world nation for years.

Actually, we do have lead in the game. Can anyone use that as a reference to bring the rest of the game to light?

Its over 9000

(2017-04-21, 10:00 AM)khaz Wrote: Its over 9000

There's no way that can be right, can it?

From the depths is not as Op as you made it sound like. You are looking at it the wrong way.
Average APS have abysmal velocity. Even railguns have really low velocity which barely approaches modern artillery systems.
Wood taking on CRAM because CRAM have a velocity of a baseball being thrown by a baseball player.

1m of wood is enough to stop traditional muzzle loaded cannons from the age of sail. During the American Revolution, a meters worth of ,sand, dirt and/or planks of wood was enough to stop gunfire and cannon fire. In fact iirc couple meters of hay was enough to stop bullets from muskets

FtD range rarely if ever shoots beyond 5km. Even if they do, they miss by a mile. They do have fast RoF, but that is pointless because you get sniped by a supersonic anti-ship missile 20x the range FtD can ever imagine.
5km range is what gun-based CIWS is for in modern naval combat. Our CIWS is like 200m. Our missiles are slower than baseball-velocity CRAM. We are not going to intercept anything a modern navy can throw at us.
Our lasers are also similarly short ranged and already fizzles out before it go beyond 3km in a clear day.
Our armor takes like 3 layers of metal to stop a subsonic sabot round. Modern APFSDS can go at high supersonic to low hypersonic speeds. If FtD need that thick of a armor to stop some subsonic projectile, it will be paper to anything a modern weapon system can do.
Our propellers are extremely slow. Heliblades is what we need to rely on which does give us godly speed... for a ship that is.

Our planes move as fast as a normal warship. Any WW2 fighter can completely outperform us. We are as agile as some WW1 aircraft, but turn fighters tend to lose to energy fighters.
And modern aircrafts are all better than FtD in terms of energy fighting. Also do note that newer generation fighters with super-maneuverability can be almost as agile as FtD planes.
We can't even break the speed of sound.
Our tanks are fast, but they are paper thin in armor and have guns that can't do anything with our AP munitions due to the low velocity. Most of FtD tanks are huge. Easy target. FtD tanks aren't that accurate so we will get sniped 4-5km away. Our engines... hmmm considering they can power lasers that goes through material... they are fairly powerful I guess. But thats about it

Nukes? We have 12m radius nuke. That is laughable to even conventional munitions.

In a real scenario, FtD ships and planes will get destroyed by supersonic missiles instantly from 100km away with no means of active defense and armor being too soft of a material. Submarines will be safer because they are reasonably fast and can try to avoid ASROC and torpedoes. FtD submarines will attempt to close in, which should be successful due to higher speed than real life vessels. FtD submarine will launch torpedoes and will probably get decoyed away since FtD torpedoes have no counter to that. Laser and infrared don't work IRL, but lets say they do for FtD submairnes. Torpedo attack will be successful in that case.
Missile attack will not be. The low speed they go at will all get intercepted by CIWS. FtD submarines won't hold out for long, a well coordinated torpedo attack(if we exclude Russia's supercavitating torp which is too fast to avoid) will destroy the submarine fleet, normally away from the fleet due to use of aircrafts and hence will be unlikely modern ships will even be in danger of the FtD submarines.

In land, FtD aircrafts dropping like flies due to various missiles or SPAAG. FtD tanks will engage modern tanks. Modern tanks is immune to most attacks except for explosive weapons. So any kinetic weapon FtD has to offer is useless and dies. A few modern tanks may be damaged and towed for repairs due to HE destroying tracks or exposed electronics.
But otherwise, FtD tanks will be at a massive disadvantage due to larger size, lack of quality armor and inaccuracy of HE based weapons that is apparent in FtD. They are also largely unsuitable for urban or forested areas because of the long barrels required for remotely decent accuracy. Short barrels will make them miss targets 50m away from them.
And due to lack of air superiority, FtD tanks can only operate in severe weather conditions where even all-weather aircrafts cannot provide air support, limiting their freedom of operations.
FtD also lack sufficient infantry weapons. Short ranged infantry weapon makes them unable to provide support for their armor against opposing infantry ATGM attacks.

Rambots and scuttlebots are faster and have better jump, so in infantry-infantry, FtD will definitely win. But because FtD is lacking in everywhere else. Combined arms tactics of a modern army will off-set this. Modern day infantry will always have air and armored support while the rambots won't since their armor and planes is a flaming wreck.
Space weapons will favor FtD. Taking out satellites eliminating long distance communications and GPS for many missiles and planes.
But modern day missiles can still be guided by spotters. A helicopter can spot well beyond 50km by simply flying higher to expand the visual horizon and guide in the missiles fired by the ships.
Aircrafts still have dead-reckoning, compasses, maps, navigational radars and on board communications that can continue to allow them to operate effectively. Meanwhile anti-sat missiles can't be stopped by most FtD space weapons.

FtD probably can't even beat WW2 era. FtD can probably give WW1 a run for their money, FtD might atcually can win. Though WW1 isn't going to be easy, will have to think more on that before able to determine a victor.
[Image: fvn8BOX.gif] [Image: RFSgkaw.gif]

(2017-04-22, 06:29 PM)afjklol Wrote: FtD probably can't even beat WW2 era. FtD can probably give WW1 a run for their money, FtD might atcually can win. Though WW1 isn't going to be easy, will have to think more on that before able to determine a victor.

While I agree broadly with you're assessment I think you're overestimating the effectiveness of WW1 era ships. While they do outrange FtD ships, they have a low rate of fire and poor enough accuracy that the faster FtD ships could close to their own effective range before taking critical damage. On land WW1 era armies didn't have much that could hurt a massive airship like the Thunderclap.
I can sail my airplane in space.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)