Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: December 14, 2020, 12:46:05 PM »The only problem is that if any of the launchers malfunction when firing, there is no MSP to fix them. But that's a small price to pay for something so cheap, small and convenient.
Posted by: Droll
« on: December 13, 2020, 06:45:37 PM »Are fighters still subject to maint failures? Just wondering how this with an AFR of 24% would fare being sat deployed for it's intended purpose?
They are, however thanks to the new way planet-based maintenance works, as long as there are enough maintenance facilities to support the total tonnage in orbit the satellites will not roll for maintenance failure and instead consume the planets maintenance supply stockpile at 1/4th the normal rate.
They won't even run down their maintenance clock while in orbit.
If they were carrier fighters that expect to spend more than 5 days away from a military hangar then you have to worry about the fighter having the means to maintain itself for a while.
Posted by: Rich.h
« on: December 13, 2020, 06:28:50 PM »Are fighters still subject to maint failures? Just wondering how this with an AFR of 24% would fare being sat deployed for it's intended purpose?
Posted by: xenoscepter
« on: November 30, 2020, 04:37:12 PM »Hi
I'm just wondering, how effective are these AMM?
6000km/s seems slow.
And only 6% chance to hit for targets moving 10000km/s.
Wouldn't this AMM struggle to hit most NPR's missiles? In my games most missiles are at 15000km/s and above
The design seems cool but those missiles will pretty much never hit enemy missiles if that's their goal.
- Read the OP again if you haven't already. These are Pre-TN missiles, 6,000 km/s is quite fast for that era, and even into Nuclear Pulse... depending on the engine boost. They're far from useless, as many missiles at or around that tech will be lucky to hit 10,000 km/s... and those that do will be so expensive that multiple Pepperbox-Class Defense Drones will still likely expend less BP in AMMs to shoot 'em down than they take to build.
Posted by: Lord Solar
« on: November 30, 2020, 12:36:50 PM »The design seems cool but those missiles will pretty much never hit enemy missiles if that's their goal.
Posted by: Droll
« on: November 30, 2020, 03:07:52 AM »Hi
Im just wondering, how effective are these AMM?
6000km/s seems slow.
And only 6% chance to hit for targets moving 10000km/s.
Wouldnt this AMM struggle to hit most Npr's missiles? In my games most missiles are at 15000km/s and above
Well it could be a conventional engine missile which would make sense given the edit on the OP.
Posted by: cool_hc
« on: November 30, 2020, 01:38:10 AM »Hi
Im just wondering, how effective are these AMM?
6000km/s seems slow.
And only 6% chance to hit for targets moving 10000km/s.
Wouldnt this AMM struggle to hit most Npr's missiles? In my games most missiles are at 15000km/s and above
Im just wondering, how effective are these AMM?
6000km/s seems slow.
And only 6% chance to hit for targets moving 10000km/s.
Wouldnt this AMM struggle to hit most Npr's missiles? In my games most missiles are at 15000km/s and above
Posted by: Zap0
« on: November 29, 2020, 01:19:02 PM »1 Trit per 4 points of warhead strength, it looks like.
So 0.25 Trit and say 0.2 Gallicite per missile, maybe something like 5.4 BP?
So 0.25 Trit and say 0.2 Gallicite per missile, maybe something like 5.4 BP?
Posted by: TheTalkingMeowth
« on: November 29, 2020, 12:59:03 PM »Bet the missiles cost more than the drone. Warheads cost 1 tritanium per strength, right?
Posted by: Zap0
« on: November 29, 2020, 12:15:49 PM »At not even 11 BP, that sure is dirt cheap. Simple spammability is going to be a major advantage of this. Hangars should also be able to move this pretty easy.
Posted by: vorpal+5
« on: November 29, 2020, 10:21:17 AM »That's primarily an anti-AMM system, so the more missiles the better.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: November 29, 2020, 08:46:51 AM »Why 12x Size-1 missile instead of 6x Size-2 as that would allow for a bigger warhead? Or even a 4x Size-3 or 3x Size-4 or 2x Size-6? That shouldn't affect the crew requirements since they are box launchers. If you haven't already experimented with different sizes, it could be fruitful.
Posted by: vorpal+5
« on: November 29, 2020, 08:31:39 AM »What do you make of this orbital tiny satellite. No man to crew it, so you can roleplay it is entirely automated. Also the size makes it compatible with hangars. It is a bit like a mine in fact.
Pepperbox class Defense Drone 125 tons 0 Crew 10.8 BP TCS 2 TH 0 EM 0
1 km/s Armour 1-2 Shields 0-0 HTK 0 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 1.8
Maint Life 0 Years MSP 0 AFR 24% IFR 0.3% 1YR 0 5YR 2 Max Repair 4 MSP
Magazine 12
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 8 months Morale Check Required
Raptor Micro-Rack Box-1 (12) Missile Size: 1 Hangar Reload 50 minutes MF Reload 8 hours
Tepellamann Industries Pointblank Control FC2-R1 (1) Range 2.5m km Resolution 1
Dart Mk. I (12) Speed: 6 000 km/s End: 9.9m Range: 3.6m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 20/12/6
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
PS: I'm obvious very early tech, just past chemical engines!
Pepperbox class Defense Drone 125 tons 0 Crew 10.8 BP TCS 2 TH 0 EM 0
1 km/s Armour 1-2 Shields 0-0 HTK 0 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 1.8
Maint Life 0 Years MSP 0 AFR 24% IFR 0.3% 1YR 0 5YR 2 Max Repair 4 MSP
Magazine 12
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 8 months Morale Check Required
Raptor Micro-Rack Box-1 (12) Missile Size: 1 Hangar Reload 50 minutes MF Reload 8 hours
Tepellamann Industries Pointblank Control FC2-R1 (1) Range 2.5m km Resolution 1
Dart Mk. I (12) Speed: 6 000 km/s End: 9.9m Range: 3.6m km WH: 1 Size: 1 TH: 20/12/6
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
PS: I'm obvious very early tech, just past chemical engines!
