Author Topic: Plasma FAC?  (Read 3764 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Girlinhat (OP)

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • G
  • Posts: 199
Plasma FAC?
« on: October 23, 2011, 05:24:46 PM »
So I had the idea to mount a plasma carronade to a FAC or fighter design, which is ridiculous given the carronade's size and energy consumption.  Has anyone attempted to make a plasma bomber like this before, and if so how well did it work?  The theory is to be able to very quickly rush in, strike with plasma, and rush out, and be able to make several passes without the worry of reloading a box launcher.  Because of the carronade's range, fire control won't be a huge issue, and being made as a bomber it wouldn't need a very fast or utterly accurate fire control, so that part would be comparatively smaller than other fighters.  But it would need a powerplant of some kind, and if it were kept small then the ship would probably have to run away to allow recharge time before coming in for another pass.

Thoughts?
 

Offline Andrew

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 694
  • Thanked: 123 times
Re: Plasma FAC?
« Reply #1 on: October 23, 2011, 06:01:49 PM »
It should be as workable as any other beam armed fighter/FAC.    ???
Your problem will be surviving the enemy ships missile fire and then any large calibre energy weapons before you get your shot and then surviving his close range energy fire so you can get another shot. The Box launchers are probably more effective and likely to cost less as you won't be actually losing ships to enemy fire
 

Offline Thiosk

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 784
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Plasma FAC?
« Reply #2 on: October 23, 2011, 06:41:23 PM »
There were some threads on this subject some time ago.  If you can get in range, its shred city. 

HOWEVER

if you know an alien fleet is coming via listening posts, and the fighters are suitably fast, you could park a squadron for gate defense;

imagine the carnage coming under fire of 20 or so carronade fighters.  That first 30 seconds would be brutal.
 

Offline Girlinhat (OP)

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • G
  • Posts: 199
Re: Plasma FAC?
« Reply #3 on: October 23, 2011, 06:54:08 PM »
In the case of jump defense, the fighters might even manage to fire and flee before the enemy shakes off the sensor downtime.
 

Offline HaliRyan

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • H
  • Posts: 232
Re: Plasma FAC?
« Reply #4 on: October 23, 2011, 08:23:09 PM »
Carronade fighters would be kind of funny, but since you can't use any miniaturization tech on the carronades they'd be slower than a FAC even with the smallest version.  :(
 

Offline Girlinhat (OP)

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • G
  • Posts: 199
Re: Plasma FAC?
« Reply #5 on: October 23, 2011, 10:08:25 PM »
"Bomber" would be more apt, I think.  I wonder if it wouldn't pay just to add more armor and a CIW system and call them a squadron bomber.  The sort of "delivering heavy payload" type of ship.  The Y-Wing from Star Wars, if you will.
 

Offline UnLimiTeD

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 1108
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Plasma FAC?
« Reply #6 on: October 27, 2011, 03:54:11 AM »
Use an FAC.
You can mount a single carronade in them, and the weapon is reasonably cheap.
For AM, use different FACs with Gauss or Rail.
Though the question is, why not use Mesons? :P
 

Offline Thiosk

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 784
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Plasma FAC?
« Reply #7 on: October 27, 2011, 04:06:05 AM »
Use an FAC.
You can mount a single carronade in them, and the weapon is reasonably cheap.
For AM, use different FACs with Gauss or Rail.
Though the question is, why not use Mesons? :P

There is something gratifying about blasting the armor off of ships.  I have not employed mesons yet.
 

Offline scoopdjm

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • s
  • Posts: 69
Re: Plasma FAC?
« Reply #8 on: October 27, 2011, 01:27:30 PM »
Theory formulation time go!!! Ok well uh a big carronade could take a ship out of the fac zone so wouldn't it be easier to make a reeeaaaaaallllllllllllyyy short range but highly deadly missile with according box launcher? Or why even bOther with Facs? I mean who needs speed anyways (all my ships go at like 3000km per hour)? recreate the armada and give the varying monsters the ol broadside
 

Offline Girlinhat (OP)

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • G
  • Posts: 199
Re: Plasma FAC?
« Reply #9 on: October 27, 2011, 06:02:15 PM »
I like the idea, personally.  It has its own RP value, which is important overall, and a certain appeal.  After all, having no magazines on your carrier allows for more tonnage for other things, more fighters or better sensors or higher speed or whatever you want!  Box launchers are fun, but everyone's done them, so I want to strap capital ship guns onto a fighter and watch the enemy squirm!
 

Offline UnLimiTeD

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 1108
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Plasma FAC?
« Reply #10 on: October 27, 2011, 06:10:38 PM »
Always depends on what you do with them.
I rarely see it that someone builds Anti-Missile Ships based on box, for example.
As for the plasmas, a 15cm is really, really cheap, so you'd be able to build replacements for them en masse.
 

Offline Girlinhat (OP)

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • G
  • Posts: 199
Re: Plasma FAC?
« Reply #11 on: October 27, 2011, 06:14:01 PM »
If you make the components via industry, and produce the fighters via fighter production (not shipyard) do the components still get used?  If so, you could spam out a couple dozen fighters in extremely short order.
 

Offline Din182

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • D
  • Posts: 145
Re: Plasma FAC?
« Reply #12 on: October 27, 2011, 06:55:46 PM »
I'm totally trying this out next game.
Invader Fleet #13090 has notified Fleet Command that it intendeds to Unload Trade Goods at Earth!
 

Offline UnLimiTeD

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 1108
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Plasma FAC?
« Reply #13 on: October 28, 2011, 06:39:12 AM »
Well, problem is that fighters will be rather slow and heavy with a carronade.
 

Offline Girlinhat (OP)

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • G
  • Posts: 199
Re: Plasma FAC?
« Reply #14 on: October 28, 2011, 02:07:59 PM »
That's why "bomber" or "FAC" seemed a more appropriate title instead.