Space 1889 - Part V

[Bremen]

Wow - comparing the Jianghu-B to the Dreadnought (granting that there is 5 years difference between the designs), shows that the Jianghu-B is outclassed in almost every area.

Of course, it would be interesting to see what the latest version of the Jianghu (with current Martian technology) would look like..... (Hint hint  )

I'd actually put my money on a Jianghu in a straight up fight, I think. It gets 24 PD shots against the Dreadnought's 20 torpedoes, and would likely shoot nearly all of them down (even with no crew bonus, it would average 15 hits). Then it has regenerating shields to handle the leakers. On the other hand, even with no enemy PD the Jianghu might run out of missiles before penetrating the Dreadnought's armor. Then it would come down to a beam engagement, but with a mostly intact Jianghu against a tattered dreadnought.

Of course, it's unlikely that it would come down to a straight up fight between them, and any kind of PD escort for the Dreadnought would do a lot to tip the fight in the human's favor.

[Tanj]

Same here actually, for a one-on-one engagement the Dreadnought might have the edge in offensive firepower but the Jianghu-B has much better passive and active defenses. What seals it for me is the hit rate of the Mk VII Torpedo, which has a 1 in 3 chance of missing the Jianghu-B entirely. Together with the PD I think Dreadnought would shoot itself dry before it can get the kill.

Of course this isn't to say that the Jianghu-B would get the kill either. Dreadnought has the speed advantage and would never need to come within weapons range unless it chose to 

[MagusXIX]

Really makes me wish that there were more options for electronic warfare and disabling hostiles.  Ways to shut various systems down remotely (engines, weapons, shields, sensors, etc) would be really cool if done well.  In theory, if there's data being sent wirelessly it could be intercepted and tampered with.

[Charlie Beeler]

Really makes me wish that there were more options for electronic warfare and disabling hostiles.  Ways to shut various systems down remotely (engines, weapons, shields, sensors, etc) would be really cool if done well.  In theory, if there's data being sent wirelessly it could be intercepted and tampered with.

Not really.  Frequency hopping technology makes this functionally impossible without the code controlling the frequency change.  And that's just current radio.  

The hand-wave in fiction has been tightbeam transmission (whatever form) is noted for defeating comm's intercept.  As I recall that is the approach that Steve has taken for the Aurora background tech.  He can always change this.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Really makes me wish that there were more options for electronic warfare and disabling hostiles.  Ways to shut various systems down remotely (engines, weapons, shields, sensors, etc) would be really cool if done well. 

I have quite a few EW changes in mind including jamming specific sensors/fire controls, area jamming, decoys, etc.. I just haven't got around to them yet. I probably wouldn't go for the Wrath of Khan style lowering of shields though.

Regards,
Steve

[Erik L]

I have quite a few EW changes in mind including jamming specific sensors/fire controls, area jamming, decoys, etc.. I just haven't got around to them yet. I probably wouldn't go for the Wrath of Khan style lowering of shields though.

Regards,
Steve

Possibly as an adjunct to this, a weapon that does more damage to shields with minimal damage to armor/systems.

[xeryon]

A modulated laser perhaps. Something akin to the laser head missile in being an alternate design option when you design the laser. It would need to be permanent though. It would be far too easy to use if it could be selectively used.

[Erik L]

A modulated laser perhaps. Something akin to the laser head missile in being an alternate design option when you design the laser. It would need to be permanent though. It would be far too easy to use if it could be selectively used.

I agree. Laser-warheads, shield disruptor beams, tribble cannons. Whatever they end up being called, they should be always awesome vs shields, and always craptacular against armor.

I'd actually prefer to see this as a beam range weapon rather than a missile warhead type.

[Bremen]

As long as we get a weapon that's great vs armor and bad vs shields, I'd be okay with that. I think having a reason to use both would be great, but currently I think armor tends to be better than shields in almost all cases.

[Mel Vixen]

Possibly as an adjunct to this, a weapon that does more damage to shields with minimal damage to armor/systems.

Like microwaves? Thought that would be a nice effect on radioactivity enhanced Missiles. I would suggest that the Higher echelons of Microwaves (/masers) get a higher shield and electronics damage.

[Icecoon]

I agree. Laser-warheads, shield disruptor beams, tribble cannons. Whatever they end up being called, they should be always awesome vs shields, and always craptacular against armor.

I'd actually prefer to see this as a beam range weapon rather than a missile warhead type.

That would be perfect. And maybe there should be a feat added to normal weapons, that will allow them to target specific subsystems, i.e. engines, reactors, etc. These subsystems would be revealed to the player when the enemy ship is in sensors range. But if the enemy has active shields, these shields would prevent the sensors to penetrate and scan the ships subsystems behind them. That would make shields more useful.

[xeryon]

We already have a weapon that is good vs armor: mesons

I would think it wouldn't adversely affect gameplay to have a laser option be calibrated for shield frequencies at the design stage. It would add a unique dynamic if missiles could house internal shield generators to defend against AMM. That would really complicate the defense against them and bring a shield laser into common use, unlike the high radiation missiles which are not used

[MagusXIX]

I have quite a few EW changes in mind including jamming specific sensors/fire controls, area jamming, decoys, etc.. I just haven't got around to them yet. I probably wouldn't go for the Wrath of Khan style lowering of shields though.

Regards,
Steve

What about a speed-reduction effect?  A combat capable tractor beam, perhaps?

[Charlie Beeler]

I have quite a few EW changes in mind including jamming specific sensors/fire controls, area jamming, decoys, etc.. I just haven't got around to them yet. I probably wouldn't go for the Wrath of Khan style lowering of shields though.

Regards,
Steve

Would you be willing to open a discussion in Suggestions on the topic?  Personally, I'd consider an overhaul of tactical intelligence to hand-in-hand with an EW overhaul. 

[Bremen]

We already have a weapon that is good vs armor: mesons

I would think it wouldn't adversely affect gameplay to have a laser option be calibrated for shield frequencies at the design stage. It would add a unique dynamic if missiles could house internal shield generators to defend against AMM. That would really complicate the defense against them and bring a shield laser into common use, unlike the high radiation missiles which are not used

Mesons penetrate shields too, though. If they count as the anti-armor weapon, they also count as the anti-shield weapon