Intercept asteroids with other asteroids?

Take the poll above.

I really have no idea what you're saying. Do you mean make an asteroid the target of an asteroid impact? Interplanetary gun emplacements on asteroids duking it out?

Easier way:

Nuke the hell out of it :lol:

Use asteroid to smash the asteroid that is going to evaporate your base.

I thought about it. Put as many asteroids on orbit of your planet as you can. And when you see enemy asteroid approaching, hit it with some of yours. And even if you didn't ordered to counterattack, there is still chance of orbital impact instead of surface hit.

I think it's valid defensive strategy. Should be possible.

When you mean destroying approaching asteroids with an asteroid of your own. It is pretty much impossible to pull that off, with the timing and everything. Unless it is really easy for the devs to implement, I think they don't have to include it. Firing nukes would probably be more cost efficient anyways. And what would happen if it misses?

If you on the other hand mean 2 asteroids in the same orbit, exchanging fire, is something I would like. This would be pretty close to space battles, especially if smaller craft can fly between them. The latter however will require some extra work on how these craft would move. I do not know how often this will happen, but in asteroid rings this could create a new level of warfare.

It is possible, but you have to be really luck to do so.
Or the asteroid is already near the path so you just build engines just to 'adjust' their orbit.

It is doable, but something a fraction the size at high speed would be much better, because you could rapid respond, fracture their asteroid and be done, the bits drift apart and miss you. You just don't launch it at the last second, at the last second you get outta dodge.

While technically possible, it would be an incredibly stupid way to intercept an asteroid. Grab a friend, find a pool table. Have him place a ball in the middle of the table and try to hit it by rebounding his ball twice. This is like trying to hit a planet with an asteroid. Now try to rebound your ball twice, to hit his ball, to change its course. This is like what you are suggesting, except much easier. Not only does this occur in a 2D plane, but you are also working with a nice scale. In space, you would be working in a 3D plane, with two relatively mind bogglingly tiny objects. It would also be much harder in space because of a lack of friction. As per Newtons second law "An object once in motion will remain in motion until enacted upon by an outside force", getting an object to decelerate, and therefore correctly turn with it, requires thrust against it - this is why a gravitational slingshot was used in the concept video. A slingshot allows you to simply accelerate in a straight line and have gravity turn that straight line into a curved on for you. To hit another object, you would have to set off at the right time, along the right line in an unimaginably large 3D area, at the right speed to hit the other asteroid. Far more simple to destroy the asteroid itself, or simply one of the engines, causing the asteroid to spin out of control in an increasingly wide spiral pattern, making it miss your planet.

I think it would prove to be interesting, and probably be quite spectacular explosion wise, but it would probably have to be automated by the game, as opposed to just flinging around asteroids. Otherwise I doubt it would work at all. I do like the idea though.

I supposed this idea as both Awesome and Plausible.

If you have a asteroid ready with rockets on it, and you can see an offensive asteroid coming, you should just be able to click on to initiate an intercept course in the same fashion you use it target a planet for an attack.

Doing so you are destroying a serious strategic weapon for defence, so I think it's a valid strategy.

i think it should be technical possible, but well i dont know how it will be made.

It sounds plausible for gameplay reasons as intercepting asteroids sounds awesome and would require the sacrifice of their own asteroid which would continue balance and strategy. And while it may not be 'realistic' we already know the position of realism in this game. They did say they would try to stay realistic as long as it is fun and awesome so like was said they would probably have a way to intercept it as long as the intercepting asteroid could be moved to do so.

if you gave it a nudge at the right moment you could divert it, no need to destroy it entirely

so the nudger could be smaller than the attacker asteroid, and quicker to build so if you see the enemy asteroid being built you can dash to build a smaller nudger. then when the enemy launches you predict the target from the entire orbital path which presumably has to stay steady and then plot an intercept point to knock it off course and set the nudger off

but if you build a nudger I dont see why the enemy should not build a nudger too, and when you set your nudger off, why shouldnt they plot a course to nudge your nudger so it is diverted from intercept and the original asteroid hits the target

we cannot allow a nudger gap... :shock:

I don't see why not, we can intercept there asteroid moveing program with planets, it would be just a little more difficult to do it with another asteroid.

It seems like a no-brainer to me. Of course you would want to use asteroids to intercept other asteroids.

What do you use to intercept nukes? Another missile. Though I realise in sup com that tac missiles are often intercepted with lasers and miniguns. I think there are several reasons for and against the idea. At this moment in time the general opinion of the vote is yes. I have some good arguments for why you should be voting no. In my opinion I think it should be an option but by no means the only way to defend against an asteroid. In practice I wonder how well that would actually work. Especially from a game mechanics point of view.

AGAINST
1. Creating an asteroid for the purpose of planetary destruction, or should I say annihilation, should be a costly exercise. Much like creating a nuke or any other weapon of mass destruction. But creating an asteroid defence system or "anti asteroid" should be cheaper than producing the actual asteroid itself. The reason for this is that creating an anti nuke for example is usually reactive. By which I mean intel shows your enemy us building a nuke so you begin building anti nuke. Anti nukes are quicker and cheaper to build than nukes and that is the reason why: So that you can create defences quickly in reaction to the threat. Therefore creating an asteroid for use as an anti asteroid is not desirable as it would take the same time and resources as the WMD it is defending against.

2. Numbers of asteroids. I respect that in game this might not necessarily be true and that this is all complete speculation, however; in space the number of asteroids is never going to be the same from planet to planet, system to system, galaxy to galaxy etc. For the purpose of this argument I am going to assume that the number of asteroids is finite and that an asteroid cannot simply be "created" out of thin air - space? Therefore it is possible to effectively run out of asteroids at your disposal to defend against an incoming asteroid attack. This is bad from a balancing point of view because if there are not exactly the same number of asteroids in each system and each galaxy then it is possible that you will run out of asteroids before your enemy through no fault of your own, simply because he has more at his disposal than you. There are ways you could get around this problem, but things in the galaxy are not uniform by nature and this is a major issue with game design. Ultimately, you should not be able to run out of anti asteroids before your enemy runs out of asteroids just because of bad luck. We all know that in the end these games sometimes boil down to who can build the most WMDs or experimentals the fastest if they go on long enough.

3. Hitting an asteroid with another asteroid will cause 2x the amount of debris. Supposing this happens over your planet - 2x the asteroid debris will fall into the gravitational pull of your planet, eventually impacting and causing twice as much damage. This is probably not a desirable outcome. Something with more destructive force to vaporise the asteroid is IMO a better tactic. But let's face it - I don't think a single nuke is going to cut it.

4. Defence systems are automated. Once you have told an anti nuke to build it's missiles it detects, tracks, launches and intercepts incoming nukes automatically. If you have the option to choose if your asteroid will intercept an incoming asteroid threat this would require a decision to be made and an input of some kind will be required from the player. This may not be desirable for several reasons, mainly to do with response and timing.

5. Asteroids are not all the same size. I am going to assume that this needs no explanation. But since I am already explaining it... though while I think about it there are pros and cons to this point. In the against section I am going to say that a smaller asteroid might not destroy a larger one.

FOR
1. Asteroids are not all the same size. Sound familiar? Well perhaps we don't need to destroy this asteroid? Baring in mind that a smaller asteroid impact could in theory throw it off course, shooting it off into oblivion. If this was not the case, simply pushing it off course might not necessarily neutralise the threat. It will still remain under enemy control unless it becomes too damaged by the impact or it's massive engines run out of fuel.

2. Judging by the video, the asteroids will be launched using a gravity sling shot trajectory. That is, using a calculation to launch the asteroid away from the target around the back of a large gravity source and use the gravitational pull of the planet to accelerate the asteroid to impact velocity. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable that sensors could detect the movement of such a large body and predict it's trajectory accurately enough to allow for advanced warning sufficient for a countermeasure to be employed. On the subject of fuel, this method of launching an asteroid would use a relatively small amount of fuel. The argument could be made that only enough fuel would be used to perform this function and therefore once launched, the asteroid is then out of control of the user.

3. There are very few things with the destructive power of an asteroid. What could we possibly use to annihilate this asteroid before it annihilates our planet? Another asteroid of course! The loss of which means that for the time being the enemy is also safe from the threat of the asteroid I was about to use to annihilate his planet. Fair? Maybe not. I'm not sure if this is really a positive argument. If I want to defend against a nuke I don't have to lose my nuke missile in the process. That's what anti nukes are for.

4. I think nukes are better off being kept separate from destroying asteroids and their original purpose. A nuke that I build for surface to surface use is not going to be capable of breaking a planet's gravity and going off into space. It just isn't possible and therefore we're talking now about a dedicated asteroid defence system. Not necessarily another asteroid but I am just ruling out surface to surface nukes. Besides that, a single nuke just isn't going to cut it against an asteroid large enough to annihilate your planet. You'd need some kind of "super nuke" or a hell of a lot of missiles. And then what? You have so many nukes at your disposal that anyone who lands on your planet can be nuked into oblivion? Undesirable outcome.

5. It would be helluva cool to smash asteroids into each other. Almost as cool as smashing them into your enemies planet!

Signed for asteroid-to-asteroid kinetic bombardment. Also, it would be awesome to have asteroid-to-asteroid, asteroid-to-planet and planet-to-planet artillery/missile warfare. It won't cost much: only feature required is an option to initiate fly-by strike as an alternative to kinetic bombardment for asteroids.

If you could rearange many asteroids then it would be probably better to send them (or at least some of them) on enemy's planet (if they have no defenses).

I think another cool idea would be just possobility of catching more asteroids on asteroid. They have some gravity, right? According to the game mechanicsm, this should mean that if you throw asteroid through the asteroid belt towards the planet it should push and drag (due to its gravity) few smaller asteroids with it so it could make greater destruction.

I particularly this expansion on the idea of asteroid warfare

I dont think that asteroids would have a gravity well capable of doing something like this.

(Edited post for clarity)