Author Topic: NATO vs Soviets: Part 6  (Read 4998 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline UnLimiTeD

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 1108
Re: NATO vs Soviets: Part 6
« Reply #15 on: August 13, 2010, 04:50:35 AM »
Anti-Missiles only work if the enemy missiles are in flight for one tick, if they hit the instant they are fired, they can't be countered with missiles.
However, Point Blank Fire works with beam weapons as far as I know.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • S
  • Posts: 6898
  • Thanked: 1659 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: NATO vs Soviets: Part 6
« Reply #16 on: August 16, 2010, 08:39:05 AM »
Quote from: "MWadwell"
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
27th June 2031
(SNIP)
The only NATO forces in Earth orbit are the two Hercules class tugs. Both ships are ordered to tractor one of the remaining shipyards and leave orbit immediately. On Earth's surface is the unarmed Cheyenne class planetary defence centre which detected the Soviet bombers. Although it does have a hangar bay that can hold a dozen F-24A Cobras, none have been assigned.
(End SNIP)

G'Day Steve,

A couple of ideas:
1) Move a couple of missile defense cruisers into Earth orbit (in case either the Chinese/Russian's decides to take NATO down a peg or two to their level);
2) Build some missile defense PDC's (same reason as 1);
3) Move some Cobra's into the hangar of the Cheyenne PDC (so NATO has at least a little power projection capability.
4) Build some more ground troops - just in case the winner of the Chinese/Russian war decides to keep the steamroller going (or to take NATO down a peg or two to their level).

What do you think?
The Independence group is temporarily in Earth orbit at the moment. 3) and 4) are already underway. 2) is harder because missiles launched from Earth orbit or elsewhere on Earth are going to hit their targets before they can be intercepted by AMMs. Point blank defence beam weapons will work OK though.

Steve
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • S
  • Posts: 6898
  • Thanked: 1659 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: NATO vs Soviets: Part 6
« Reply #17 on: August 16, 2010, 08:39:54 AM »
Quote from: "Yonder"
Hmm, the active missile radar being detected was an interesting development, and one that I can see coming up in the future.

Maybe missiles shouldn't turn on their active radar until they are on close approach to their target, or they lose contact with their fire control?
Yes, I have been thinking the latter should be the case as well

Steve
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • S
  • Posts: 6898
  • Thanked: 1659 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: NATO vs Soviets: Part 6
« Reply #18 on: August 16, 2010, 08:41:10 AM »
Quote from: "Vanigo"
Oh, and did you change the resolution on people's sensors when you changed the range formula? Doesn't seem like NATO's sensors should have picked up the fighters that far out.
Although I didn't change the resolution of the sensors, lower resolution sensors now have greater range.

Steve
 

Offline Vanigo

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • V
  • Posts: 295
Re: NATO vs Soviets: Part 6
« Reply #19 on: August 16, 2010, 09:35:14 AM »
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "Vanigo"
Oh, and did you change the resolution on people's sensors when you changed the range formula? Doesn't seem like NATO's sensors should have picked up the fighters that far out.
Although I didn't change the resolution of the sensors, lower resolution sensors now have greater range.

Steve
Thought I accounted for that. Must have screwed up the numbers somewhere.
 

Offline Brian

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1213
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: NATO vs Soviets: Part 6
« Reply #20 on: August 17, 2010, 06:08:48 AM »
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "Yonder"
Hmm, the active missile radar being detected was an interesting development, and one that I can see coming up in the future.

Maybe missiles shouldn't turn on their active radar until they are on close approach to their target, or they lose contact with their fire control?
Yes, I have been thinking the latter should be the case as well

Steve
How about a box on the missile design screen where you set the time remaining to target to turn on the active sensors.  Combine this with if they lose the target then they automatically turn their sensors on should cover most instances.

Brian
 

Offline UnLimiTeD

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 1108
Re: NATO vs Soviets: Part 6
« Reply #21 on: August 19, 2010, 04:56:17 PM »
I wonder why no side has ICBMs?
I think that would have been a nice option for both factions.
Especially for the chinese.
 

Offline Shinanygnz

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • S
  • Posts: 175
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: NATO vs Soviets: Part 6
« Reply #22 on: August 20, 2010, 02:06:03 AM »
Quote from: "UnLimiTeD"
I wonder why no side has ICBMs?
I think that would have been a nice option for both factions.
Especially for the chinese.

Conventional ICBM warheads hang around in orbit for some time (30 mins IIRC), which means any beam armed escort can shoot down hordes of them, making them essentially useless.  You'd have to upgrade to TN tech.  There's a post about it somewhere (have a search) and I think it came up in the fiction of one of Steve's earlier campaigns too.
The only useful thing I've found for ICBM bases so far is that the population loves them for planetary protection value.

Stephen
 

Offline Chairman

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • C
  • Posts: 60
Re: NATO vs Soviets: Part 6
« Reply #23 on: August 29, 2010, 01:53:40 PM »
Steve, will we see a part 7?
 

Offline martinuzz

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 199
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • High Dwarf
Re: NATO vs Soviets: Part 6
« Reply #24 on: September 02, 2010, 05:33:22 AM »
Having read the TN campaign, and this campaign up to part 6, I have really enjoyed the stories, and also learned a lot about the game mechanics / tactics.
I hope to see more of it!
Steve, you're still alive, right? I'm a bit worried, cause I hear playing poker can get you killed in nasty ways, depending on your opponents.
 

Offline Caplin

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • C
  • Posts: 118
Re: NATO vs Soviets: Part 6
« Reply #25 on: September 02, 2010, 12:41:54 PM »
Hi,
Let me just add my desire for a Part 7 to that of others here and my hopes that things are treating you well.
All the best,
Zack.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • S
  • Posts: 6898
  • Thanked: 1659 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: NATO vs Soviets: Part 6
« Reply #26 on: September 02, 2010, 06:24:12 PM »
Quote from: "martinuzz"
Having read the TN campaign, and this campaign up to part 6, I have really enjoyed the stories, and also learned a lot about the game mechanics / tactics.
I hope to see more of it!
Steve, you're still alive, right? I'm a bit worried, cause I hear playing poker can get you killed in nasty ways, depending on your opponents.
Yes, I am alive :)

Although some of the people I play with might be described as colourful, the worst that usually happens is a heated argument.

Steve
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • S
  • Posts: 6898
  • Thanked: 1659 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: NATO vs Soviets: Part 6
« Reply #27 on: September 02, 2010, 06:24:41 PM »
Quote from: "Chairman"
Steve, will we see a part 7?
Yes, there is a part 7. I just haven't had time to upload it yet.

Steve
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52