Aurora 4x
VB6 Aurora => Aurora Suggestions => Topic started by: ExChairman on October 05, 2010, 12:22:57 PM
-
CAM (Close Assault Missile) for fighters... A small engine, little fuel and a big bomb at the top, can only bee used in point blank range... Aim at a ship to far and it will miss, no guidance needed, only fire control....
-
Uhm.... so just a normal missile? You can create whatever missile you like.
-
Hmm, yea but I was more after the rocket pod, were there is alot small missiles... Usually for air to ground, not much of a accuracy at longer ranges but a real killer close in... Of course the fighters have to survive the defensive fire first... :-X
-
Hmm, yea but I was more after the rocket pod, were there is alot small missiles... Usually for air to ground, not much of a accuracy at longer ranges but a real killer close in... Of course the fighters have to survive the defensive fire first... :-X
So, what, dumbfire missiles that act like beams with limited ammo? That could be nice; there is something of a lack of beam options for fighters.
-
I'm really not seeing the point of a dumbfire missile, fighter based or not.
-
I can absolutely see the point of a beam weapon with ammo.
Theres Missiles without as well by now, so why not, adds to the tactical potential.
And allows better fighter designs;
Well, guess we can't have everything, I'd also like battery Lasers that have to be charged on a Mothership.
-
Yeah, the point would be giving fighters a beam option that doesn't involve cutting your accuracy down to 16% base. Something like:
Dumbfire missiles use only warhead and engine space. They only carry enough fuel for one second of operation, assumed to be a negligible amount.
Dumbfire missile engines don't use any space for steering or such, so they produce 50-100% more power for their mass.
Dumbfire missiles have a maximum range equal to the distance they can travel in one second.
Dumbfire missiles can be (and almost always are) smaller than one missile space.
Dumbfire missiles are fired from specialized launchers which can only fire one type of missile. These launchers are .5 HS per missile space of the associated missile, and are researched along with the missiles themselves.
All dumbfire missile launchers have a 5 second reload time.
Makes for a great interceptor weapon, and okay for bombing ships with no fighter defense - better range and accuracy than gauss cannons, and maybe better firepower, but limited ammo, and you have to give them bigger beam fire controls to really take advantage of the range. On the flipside, it lets you carry way more ammo than size 1 box launchers. Not much good for anything else, though - range is even lower than other beam weapons, and aside from being extremely miniaturizable it doesn't really have any compensatory advantages.
-
Why would you need a bigger bfc for it, the range isn't that big, at the highest 300k, thats average by the techlevel you get there.
Also, the concept looks way complicated.
I'd say I'd be easier to just create some sort of accelerator tech for Missile Launchers that propels the missile, and have orbital bombs with 0.25 minimum size.
Or if someone has a better concept.
I don't think creating a whole new weapon type that is only useful for fighters is a good idea.
-
One thing to note is that Steve has supposedly limited missile sizes to a minimum of 1 msp. This was mostly to stop the exploit of using lots of .25 msp missiles as chaff. He would need to remove that limit for this to work.
There is already a way for fighters to carry one shot lasers fairly easily. Use the reduced size laser and you can get some fairly good lasers that have very long recharge times.
Brian
-
Why would you need a bigger bfc for it, the range isn't that big, at the highest 300k, thats average by the techlevel you get there.
Also, the concept looks way complicated.
By that time, you'd be cutting fire controls for your gauss cannon interceptors down as far as they go, though.
I don't think it's really that complicated. You could simplify it to just another beam weapon that happens to have the same background techs as missiles, really, if you don't mind fixing the warhead size:engine size ratio. You could do it right in the system design window. Pick engine tech, warhead tech, and desired warhead strength. Add another dropdown for warhead:engine ratio, maybe. The behind-the-scenes calculations might be a bit complex, but I don't really see a problem with that.
Brian, yeah, that's an option, but extremely long recharge times are kind of a problem. They make it practically impossible for your interceptors to contribute to point defense, for one thing. And there should really be options for people who don't use lasers, don't you think?
-
I'd say the easiest way in this case would be to rework laser miniaturization.
make it 4x and 16x reload instead of 5x and 20x, and add some new tech for 33% at 48x and 20% with hangar reload of X seconds, or maybe just make it a 150x or something.
As for those missiles, given the duration of 1 second, they'd be only interceptable by point blank defense fire.
Now those things could just be calculated after other missiles, so only left over Firepower shoots on them, and you could not swamp enemy Anti-Missile systems with it. Or just make them non-interceptable, Beam weapons aren't, either, and this is essentially asking for small beam weapons having a bigger punch/ time in exchange for costing ammo.
Quite the opposite of Plasma Torpedoes, which are having longer reload times in favor of not using ammo.
However it gets implemented, I think it's a logic step, and will allow for more weapon variety.
-
Oh, the way I see it, under the hood they would be beam weapons, with all that entails, just using missiles when they fire. Keep things simple.
I think for hangar reload versions of existing beams, railguns might be more appropriate than lasers.
-
True, but lasers already have the tech. Railguns just seem to be completely underused for a beam weapon, because for some reason you can't put them in a turret.
-
Railguns are underutilized by most players, but not being in turrets is not a real handicap normally. They are both better and worse than other beam weapons. They are in general cheaper to reasearch both in the focal size, and in the range multipliers. They have a lower max range multiplier and focal size than the other beam weapons do. The side effect of having a lower reasearch cost is the weapon itself costs less as well. While they can not be put in turrets, in general a turret ups the chance of hitting a high speed target by x4, with a weight penalty of in general about 33% of the weight of the weapon. Railguns get 4 shots per weapon per cycle time so the net effect is generally a wash. The biggest drawback is that the individual shots do relitivly low damage, and that damage is also the basis of the weapon range multiplier. A good example is the 10cm railgun vs laser. A railgun does 1 point of damage with 4 such shots, a laser gets 1 shot but does 3 points of damage. With the same range multiplier the laser has 3 times the max range, and beyond the 3 point damage range the railgun doesn't even reach. Within that range it potentially does 4 points of damage. The 12 cm weapon does 2 vs 4 for the laser, and the 15cm does 3 vs 6 for the laser. In general beyond the 12cm size the laser will have about double the range.
Overall I find them a great point blank weapon, and a good alternative for point defense early on.
Brian
-
Yes, but thats the point.
If you go for beams, you either go for deep armor penetration (Lasers, Mesons) or Long Range (Lasers, Beams), or you use them for point Defense (Lasers, Gauss).
The Railgun kinda doesn't excel at anything, it's mediocre at all possible tasks, and mediocre is not good enough for point defense.
Only once the enemy has thick enough armor that lasers don't cut it anymore (pun) they have a merit, or on FACs.
However, in light of those arguments I probably agree that a railgun is a good first step for trying a system of ammo weapons.
However, will it be more powerful, or work like laser miniaturization? I mean, what is better, "will be" implies that Steve would actually like it.^^
Someone Bribe him. :D
-
I suppose the obvious way to miniaturize railguns would be to reduce the number of shots per volley. Two shots at 75% size and one at 50% sounds about right, and then you could stick hangar reloads a level after that.
-
Well, if you have limited ammo, you could even make them smaller without drawbacks, and explain it with the lack of an integrated Ammo and energy management system.
Further, I think having the weapon at 50% size with only 25% of the punch is rather bad, I mean, I rarely see anyone use small lasers, in no AAR so far that I read, aside from on fighters once you have capacitor 15.
It's just too much of a nerf to be useful.
-
I rarely see anyone use small lasers, in no AAR so far that I read, aside from on fighters once you have capacitor 15.
It's just too much of a nerf to be useful.
You have that absolutely right as far as I am concerned, it really seems to me that the only viable weapon for a fighter is the missile, especially at low tech. Right now lasers lack the punch and range another missile armed ship fighter would have, this is why I would like to see some other choices for fighter weapons.
Right now I'm only in my first proper game and (only at capacitor 6), I've not even looked at the laser miniaturisation tech as it just seems the rps are better spent elsewhere, so I fully accept I could be completely wrong in their usefulness, but logistics seems to be the only plus I can see so far - at least until I'm at a way higher tech level.
I like the idea of reworking beam weapons as mentioned by UnLimiTeD, better damage at the expense of an ammo requirement. I would suggest number of missiles in the pod increases with tech, and options to single/ripple fire X/ripple fire all.
-
I think someone should split this discussion off.
It's a page long by now, without much input from anyone with a lot of experience or influence, and we're clogging up the thread.
And keep in mind we shouldn't tough standard beam weapons, the main use for them IS that they do not cost ammo, and on a 50k battlecruiser you would not want to manage ammo for rapid firing short range weapons.
-
I think someone should split this discussion off.
It's a page long by now, without much input from anyone with a lot of experience or influence, and we're clogging up the thread.
And keep in mind we shouldn't tough standard beam weapons, the main use for them IS that they do not cost ammo, and on a 50k battlecruiser you would not want to manage ammo for rapid firing short range weapons.
Done.
John
-
You have that absolutely right as far as I am concerned, it really seems to me that the only viable weapon for a fighter is the missile, especially at low tech. Right now lasers lack the punch and range another missile armed ship fighter would have, this is why I would like to see some other choices for fighter weapons.
Depends on their role. Mesons and microwaves are great for the antiship role, though I suggest making engine and thermal dampening your highest priority tech if pursuing those. Railguns handle anti-fighter duties just fine, and either they or gauss work well for anti-missile.
200 meson equipped fighters make short work even of invaders (as long as you're faster than they are, at least.)
I still haven't seen a convincing argument for rockets. Missiles have had a lot of love already, and strategically they're a poor choice (even if tactically superior); I'd like to not make victory solely about how much Gallicite and Neutronium I have available.
-
Victory is always about resources.
Missiles are a good fighter weapon because you can get a superior first strike onto the enemy outside of his interception range.
What people are asking for is essentially that punch combined with a little staying power, at the cost of range.
-
What people are asking for is essentially that punch combined with a little staying power, at the cost of range.
Granted, these would only have first-strike capacity versus gauss cannons, but unless you're building an extremely heavy interceptor, half-size lasers are the only other option, and they have very little punch. I have no idea how you're making meson-armed fighters that are not only faster than invaders, but fast enough to close to firing range before getting blown apart by plasma torpedoes.
-
They are not.
You just build enough of them.
A meson armed fighter can be around 400-450 tons, which is reasonable, but not faster than a gunboat with one meson.
It is, however, cheaper.
-
Granted, these would only have first-strike capacity versus gauss cannons, but unless you're building an extremely heavy interceptor, half-size lasers are the only other option, and they have very little punch. I have no idea how you're making meson-armed fighters that are not only faster than invaders, but fast enough to close to firing range before getting blown apart by plasma torpedoes.
My last batch of meson fighters were down to 300 tons even, and that was with me being generous with the fire control's range, making sure they had 3 days worth of fuel (even with a stealthy carrier, having the range to keep the main fleet from detection is crucial), and giving them all a 0.1 size active radar for backup targeting (based on combat experience, this is unnecessary, and all targeting will be done by the pair of scout fighters attached to each squadron of 22). A size 450 meson fighter has too much wasted space, and needs to be pared down.
As for closing to firing range, I've researched on the technologies I mentioned being crucial previously: engine speed and thermal signature. 12% signature and (magneto-plasma I believe? Will check later) engines are sufficient. If meson fighters are the backbone of your fleet, you can focus solely on meson focusing, and leave the size of the beam as 10cm (same damage as a 25cm beam, after all). Your fire control similarly will need range as its highest priority (given the free 4x speed fighters get).
It's not a lossless strategy, but fighters aren't expected to all survive. That said, it's cheaper to build a few replacement fighters after a battle than to completely replenish a fleet's stocks of missiles.
They are not.
You just build enough of them.
A meson armed fighter can be around 400-450 tons, which is reasonable, but not faster than a gunboat with one meson.
It is, however, cheaper.
Fighters are also smaller, which helps with not being detected until almost in firing range, and with being a hard target for enemy fire. Nor do they require a shipyard to be built, unlike a gunboat/FAC, which is the benefit I find most valuable. The speed a "FAC-engine fighter" brings to the table is helpful, for sure, but comes with very real tradeoffs.
-
Well, you could just build shipyards instead of fighter factories.
And prebuild the engines in construction factories.
Also, doesn't a 12% thermal dampening drastically increase the cost?
I mean, a Missile fighter, on high tech, can be ~150 BP, I think this one would be at least 250.
-
On_Target has the right idea. At least for a functional beam fighter. I've used the approach against the Invaders on several occations. It actually works better that than the gunboat or light warship armed with longer ranged meson cannons. Economicly as well as tactically and strategicly it's the best approach I've found to counter the Invaders. It also functions very well against the Swarm and Precursor fleets you encounter, not to mention NPR races.
As mentioned, the primary key is 2 part: 1) advanced engine tech, minimum of Magneto-Plasma 2) Thermal reduction, minimum of 25% which is not much of a cost increase.
Keep in mind that I prefer this to dealing with Invaders and Swarms over GC armed fighters. And I play with a modified database that has 100% GC's at 1hs not 6hs. The ablity to bypass shields and armor far out performs high rates of fire for 1 point hits. And the increased ablity to stay on station with consecutive firing passes far out weighs the punch of missiles with heavy warheads and short range.
This has been my experience...your mileage may vary. :D
-
Yep, I did. Due, super gauss cannons would be grossly OP, don't even want to imagine that.
Well, back to topic.
The idea of a weapon miniaturization that has ammunition as a drawback instead of something else.
Like Gauss Rifles with higher accuracy, or lasers with bearable reload, at the cost of using ammo.
-
And the increased ablity to stay on station with consecutive firing passes far out weighs the punch of missiles with heavy warheads and short range.
Hmm. You're probably right. Maybe with higher range, so they can outperform mesons in that regard? Or, 10cm mesons, anyway. Make for a sort of a super-particle beam
-
As mentioned, the primary key is 2 part: 1) advanced engine tech, minimum of Magneto-Plasma 2) Thermal reduction, minimum of 25% which is not much of a cost increase.
On another note, how the hell do you do this? A magneto-plasma fighter with a command module, enough fuel for about 24 hours of operation, a size 3 meson cannon, and a size 0.5 fire control only has a speed of around 9,250 km/s (depending on armor and engine power boost), which is too slow to deal with Invaders. For the 300 ton fighters you mention, even internal confinement fusion drives only hit 10,000 without a power boost. Even with a low thermal signature, is an overhaul speed of ~1000 km/s really enough?
-
Hmm. You're probably right. Maybe with higher range, so they can outperform mesons in that regard? Or, 10cm mesons, anyway. Make for a sort of a super-particle beam
Sorry I wasn't clear there. The Mesons outperform the GC's due to the ability to bypass shields/Armor. My normal preference is the GC fighter from my modified database.
-
Well, yeah, a fullpowered 1HS gauss cannon is probably the most powerful Beam weapon in the game. Luckily not in my game.
But how about you keep the discussion about Meson fighters and the like in the tactics or ship design board.
I mean, this is a suggestion about ammo based short range weapons.
It is rather commonly known that a swarm of fighters can be quite dangerous.
-
On another note, how the hell do you do this? A magneto-plasma fighter with a command module, enough fuel for about 24 hours of operation, a size 3 meson cannon, and a size 0.5 fire control only has a speed of around 9,250 km/s (depending on armor and engine power boost), which is too slow to deal with Invaders. For the 300 ton fighters you mention, even internal confinement fusion drives only hit 10,000 without a power boost. Even with a low thermal signature, is an overhaul speed of ~1000 km/s really enough?
That's only an issue if your in pursuit. Consider intercept closing speeds instead.
test fighter 1 class Fighter 305 tons 11 Crew 105.5 BP TCS 6.1 TH 14.4 EM 0
9836 km/s Armour 1-4 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 3
Annual Failure Rate: 61% IFR: 0.8% Maint Capacity 0 MSP Max Repair 63 MSP Est Time: 0 Years
FTR Magneto-plasma Drive E750 (1) Power 60 Fuel Use 7500% Signature 14.4 Armour 0 Exp 100%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres Range 0.4 billion km (11 hours at full power)
R4.5/C3 Meson Cannon (1) Range 45,000km TS: 12000 km/s Power 3-3 RM 4.5 ROF 5 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S01 35-12000 (FTR) (1) Max Range: 70,000 km TS: 48000 km/s 86 71 57 43 29 14 0 0 0 0
Stellarator Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1 AR-0 (1) Total Power Output 3 Armour 0 Exp 5%
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as a Fighter for production and combat purposes
Granted my database has a segnificantly modified set of beam ranges and tracking speeds.
Engine design does use 25% boost and thermal reduction.
For an intercept fighter I don't use 24 hours of fuel, the minimum will do the job. Increased range is needed to keep the carrier outside detection range for fighters that need to cycle for reloads. I also use designs like this for planetary defense a large force (100 plus) available for Invader repelling.
Same fighter design with the next 2 generations of engine tech for comparison.
test fighter 2 class Fighter 305 tons 11 Crew 110.5 BP TCS 6.1 TH 18 EM 0
12295 km/s Armour 1-4 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 3
Annual Failure Rate: 61% IFR: 0.8% Maint Capacity 0 MSP Max Repair 63 MSP Est Time: 0 Years
FTR Internal Confinement Fusion Drive E750 (1) Power 75 Fuel Use 7500% Signature 18 Armour 0 Exp 100%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres Range 0.4 billion km (8 hours at full power)
R4.5/C3 Meson Cannon (1) Range 45,000km TS: 12295 km/s Power 3-3 RM 4.5 ROF 5 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S01 35-12000 (FTR) (1) Max Range: 70,000 km TS: 48000 km/s 86 71 57 43 29 14 0 0 0 0
Stellarator Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1 AR-0 (1) Total Power Output 3 Armour 0 Exp 5%
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as a Fighter for production and combat purposes
test fighter 3 class Fighter 305 tons 11 Crew 116.5 BP TCS 6.1 TH 22.56 EM 0
15409 km/s Armour 1-4 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 3
Annual Failure Rate: 61% IFR: 0.8% Maint Capacity 0 MSP Max Repair 63 MSP Est Time: 0 Years
FTR Magnetic Confinement Fusion Drive E750 (1) Power 93.75 Fuel Use 7500% Signature 22.5 Armour 0 Exp 100%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres Range 0.4 billion km (7 hours at full power)
R4.5/C3 Meson Cannon (1) Range 45,000km TS: 15409 km/s Power 3-3 RM 4.5 ROF 5 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S01 35-12000 (FTR) (1) Max Range: 70,000 km TS: 48000 km/s 86 71 57 43 29 14 0 0 0 0
Stellarator Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1 AR-0 (1) Total Power Output 3 Armour 0 Exp 5%
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as a Fighter for production and combat purposes
-
Well, yeah, a fullpowered 1HS gauss cannon is probably the most powerful Beam weapon in the game. Luckily not in my game.
But how about you keep the discussion about Meson fighters and the like in the tactics or ship design board.
I mean, this is a suggestion about ammo based short range weapons.
It is rather commonly known that a swarm of fighters can be quite dangerous.
If you'd paid attention I am talking about meson armed fighters with baseline meson tech and baseline engine techs. I was correcting you inferance that I was discussing GC armed fighters.
-
And I'm telling you that this is a thread in the suggestions board, that is about a suggestion to implement ammunition based beam weapons.
What you two are doing here is have a discussion about the current efficiency of fighters, armed with currently available beam weapons,
that does not contribute in any way to support or repulse the original suggestion, and I thus suggested to you to continue this discussion in the Bureau of Ship Design (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/board,14.0.html) or Advanced Tactical Command Academy (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/board,15.0.html) instead.
-
And you don't think discussing the existing beam options is relevant to balancing new beams? If the primary reason ammo-based beam weapons are a good idea is the dearth of existing fighter beam options, then discussing existing fighter beam options is highly relevant.
I guess the idea with those fighters is to put them between the invaders and whatever they're trying to kill, let them slowly overhaul, and shoot at them as they go by? I'd have thought they'd turn to evade a threat like this until their plasma torps took them all out, but I guess the combat AI isn't that smart. They really just ignore them other than to shoot back?
-
fighter beam options
I totally see a use in Ammo based weapons to be used on heavy battleships, adding additional punch in exchange for being more logistically demanding.
This is a concept valid for any ship size, and knowing that current beam weapons are viable on fighters is not an argument for or against the implementation of such weapon systems by itself.
Missiles are fine on any kind of ship, still Steve added Plasma Torpedoes as a new weapon system.
So the only way your discussion is actually helpful to the suggestion is if you apply your findings to the original suggestion, which did indeed come from the standpoint of allowing fighters a better short range punch.
While a Laser that can reload in a hangar Bay is surely meant for fighters, a Gauss Cannon with more punch or less size with no drawbacks but ammo, is applyable to bigger ships as well.
-
...who said anything about ammo-based beam weapons for non-fighters? Well, besides you, but one person does not a discussion make.
-
Going back to the original question, what sort of range do you want for an unguided rocket.
Anything over 2-3km would be useless and aproching to within that didtance of a ship would make the fighter nothing more than a sitting duck for point defence weapons.
-
Simple:
There are no weapons only for fighters, as the only thing that a fighter is defined by is it's engine and size. Adding weapons that are only allowed for a specific weight class would contradict the current design of the game and require extra dependencies.
It would also be completely illogical.
Aside, this thread is by far not the only suggestion for ammo based Weaponry.
Furthermore:
So the only way your discussion is actually helpful to the suggestion is if you apply your findings to the original suggestion, which did indeed come from the standpoint of allowing fighters a better short range punch.
This, so far, has not happened.
It is known that Fighters armed with Mesons, if used in sufficient numbers, can rip up even big fleets.
Further good weapons for fighters seem to be small Railguns and reduced sized Lasers, and obviously Missiles which are best if your numbers are limited or the enemy has good close range weaponry, or if RP dictates that sacrifice even of smaller ships is unacceptable.
There has never been a lack of beam weapons for fighters. Even a Particle Beam, to stay outside enemy beam range, or with good enough engine theoretically a carronade, for a huge punch on point black range, would work.
But how does this actually tough the topic?
If a beam weapon on a fighter is good, why not allow for a better one that requires additional logistics?
As I stated before, Plasma Torpedoes weren't needed, but Steve used them to add flavor to the game.
So, does your recent discussion say something for or against Ammo-based beam weapons?
Because, currently, it is a tactical discussion; Sorry if I just don't see the point, but I just don't see the point.
Edit: looks like Backstab already got it back on topic.
PS: I'll appologize for any harsh language I might have used.
-
I am fairly certain that Steve has specifically tried to stay away from making Fighters anything else other than 'smaller' spaceships, that it should just be a matter of scale.
I'm not going to speak for him, since that would just be stupid and untrue, but I do remember seeing posts from him before where he mentions that he specifically made 'Fighters' in such a way that they would not end up like Starfire fighters - i.e. unrealistic when compared to the same tonnage of a destroyer or some such.
Of course, that doesn't account for the fact that there are fighter designated engine types and fire controls and that anything under a certain tonnage is buildable in a fighter factory. But fighter based techs do come with a suitable penalty.
The reason I am posting this is that I am getting the impression that you would like CAMs to be fighter only? Or am I reading it wrong?
My personal opinion is that the less Fighter specific techs the better. However, like some techs can do now, you should be able to reduce the size of an item to fit it on a Fighter as long as there is a suitable penalty.
Am I making sense?
-
Naval Aircraft today rely on Missiles and not close range weapons to destroy ships. Even though I don't see Fighter sized craft in space as a viable weapons platform like you see in most Sci Fi stories, I do not think that you will see fighters getting up close to duke it out with full sized ships. The closer you get to a ship, the better chance they will have to hit you.
-
Current planes can still theoretically drop Bombs, which is eventually the equivalent of that close range armament.
Also, in the same way that Missiles are a step up from early 20th Century Machine Guns, Advanced Beam weapons will probably be another step up, we don't really know what is "likely" in that way.
I mean, it is viable in the game to fight without missiles.
But the irony is that what keeps fighters in the fight at that short range is the lack of an ammo requirement.
Unlike now, there is a real incentive to go close and stay there, you can do much more damage if you manage to somehow survive.
Like beating something with a rock as opposed to shooting it, given enough time, you will eventually deal more damage, and depending on the environment it might be the better choice.
But a Chainsaw might still be an option, despite running out of Fuel.
-
Simple:
There are no weapons only for fighters, as the only thing that a fighter is defined by is it's engine and size. Adding weapons that are only allowed for a specific weight class would contradict the current design of the game and require extra dependencies.
It would also be completely illogical.
What? No, it's not that you couldn't put dumbfire missiles on a full-sized ship. It's just that there probably isn't much reason to, since larger ships don't need to keep their size down as badly.
Further good weapons for fighters seem to be small Railguns and reduced sized Lasers, and obviously Missiles which are best if your numbers are limited or the enemy has good close range weaponry, or if RP dictates that sacrifice even of smaller ships is unacceptable.
There has never been a lack of beam weapons for fighters. Even a Particle Beam, to stay outside enemy beam range, or with good enough engine theoretically a carronade, for a huge punch on point black range, would work.
But... even the smallest particle beam takes 5 HS, and if you want to actually take advantage of its constant damage, you'll need a decently sized fire control. I guess you could squeeze it into a 500 ton fighter, but how's a 500 ton fighter supposed to stay outside enemy beam range?
As for plasma carronades, the only advantage they have is that they're easier to research; they're otherwise strictly inferior to even a visible light laser of the same caliber - they've got the same range as infrared lasers, but they actually cost more! And a fighter isn't going to be mounting anything bigger than 15cm, anyway, so the research isn't much of a problem. (And, while they do more damage per shot than other beam weapons at the same tech level, they fire commensurately slower. I'm really not sure why anyone would use them for anything.)
But how does this actually tough the topic?
If a beam weapon on a fighter is good, why not allow for a better one that requires additional logistics?
As I stated before, Plasma Torpedoes weren't needed, but Steve used them to add flavor to the game.
So, does your recent discussion say something for or against Ammo-based beam weapons?
Because, currently, it is a tactical discussion; Sorry if I just don't see the point, but I just don't see the point.
The point is, if the existing options for beam weapons on fighters are all lousy, adding new ones is more important. If the existing options are perfectly workable, it would still be nice, but much lower priority.
-
Thank you for that evaluation.
In that sense, new Ammo weapons are probably not needed for fighters.
They would still be nice, in the general sense.
As for why full sized ships would want to have smaller weapons?
Because then you can put in MOAR of them.
Ammobased Beamweapons would essentially be somewhat of a Box Launcher equivalent of Missiles, despite not actually being one shot.
Like a Fighter that fires a triple Microwave and then buggers off.
If your low on force, you can hope for a devastating strike to win the battle, if you have superior numbers, you can the job done quicker, in between, it's worse, but thats the trade off.
I agree Particle Beams are more for FACs.
-
Interesting, even those that have harped about getting back on topic haven’t. The original poster made an oblique request for ballistic rockets with strong warheads. Rockets being unguided and missiles being guided, yes this is correct military terminology. This quickly devolved into at least 2 separate, but related, discussions viable fighter beam weapons and beam weapons that require ammunition.
I think that it’s been adequately demonstrated that the current game does have viable beam weapons for fighters. As long as so care is taken when designing the beam and the supporting power plant. There is room here for expanding some hanger bay functionality to allow for the recharge of beam capacitors thus allowing the removal of power plants from fighters at the player’s discretion. Something along the lines used in SFB for recharge of fighters armed with heavy weapons (fusion beams, photon torpedoes, disrupters, etc)
On the other hand, it does not look like a game benefit has been found, outside of role-playing, for ammunition being required for any beam weapon. At least not in light of the existing beam capabilities. (ie ballistic rockets add very little to the game for the effort to implement)
On the gripping hand, no one described how the close assault missile can be designed an implemented within the current game structure, it’s actually quite easy. Use the same principals that have been described in the past for point defense counter missiles, missile size points (MSP) can be used to 3 decimal places. The player does need to research higher levels of missile warhead strength as well as better engine technology. Select .001 for fuel capacity, this is the absolute minimum I’ve been able to make function. Adjust warhead strength to desired yield and then adjust engine power to missile size class desired. Remember that the game will not allow a sub-size 1 missile. The resulting missile with only effectively have a 5 second fight time. This also means that counter missiles or point defense because of the sequence of play cannot intercept it. While this is not exactly what the original poster asked for, it is in my opinion close the the spirit of the request.
-
While this is not exactly what the original poster asked for, it is in my opinion close the the spirit of the request.
Well, sort of. Granted, it is a short-ranged missile weapon, but it's an unsatisfying solution, because it makes for an extremely bad weapon.
-
Well, sort of. Granted, it is a short-ranged missile weapon, but it's an unsatisfying solution, because it makes for an extremely bad weapon.
Your opinion that this makes a bad weapon differs from mine. Using this type of design protocol creates a missile that can't be intercepted. It does require that you get close, usually a little outside beam range close. It has been an effective means of dealing with races that extremely heavy anti-missile defenses for games were I haven't developed beams outside of point defense.
Your mileage may very.
-
Normally, CiWS should still be able to intercept those. They should fire in the missile movement phase.
-
Normally, CiWS should still be able to intercept those. They should fire in the missile movement phase.
The problem comes up because of the standard order in which activities are performed in. The sensor check to see the missiles comes after the missiles has already hit it's target. Therefore the ciws system never has a chance to see the incomming missile, and can not fire on it. Steve was talking about adding another detection cycle in to prevent this but I don't know if he has actually done it. In one respect I would rather not have the extra detection cycle as it will tend to slow things down a little bit, and it gives missiles a close range where they are more potent than normal. It might be a nice idea however for ciws systems to get that second check as it would give another different reason to mount them on more ships than currently have them.
Brian
-
Brian is correct. That is exactly the sequence of play exploit I'm talking about. It was driving me to distraction in one game when I was having it happen to me. Dug out the detailed sequence of play to see what was actually happening. Point defense final fire, this includes CIWS fire, does occur during movement. The exploit is that detection occurs after movement and before missile launch. This allows a 1 turn window (5 seconds) where missiles move after launch, and potentially hit thier target, without ever being detected.
-
Well I tested a "rocketpod" yeasterday, 60 fighters with 20 size 1 pods... Lost 2 fighters getting close... Fired away everything, 14 missiles hit :o out of1160, for a total of 70 points of damage to a enemy destroyer.... :(
Hmm, I dont think my fighterpilots could hit the barn from the inside... ;D
Well, back to the drawing board, the next missile will have some agility... ;)
-
Well I tested a "rocketpod" yeasterday, 60 fighters with 20 size 1 pods... Lost 2 fighters getting close... Fired away everything, 14 missiles hit :o out of1160, for a total of 70 points of damage to a enemy destroyer.... :(
Hmm, I dont think my fighterpilots could hit the barn from the inside... ;D
Well, back to the drawing board, the next missile will have some agility... ;)
A little more detail and we can probably give you some advice to improve your hit ratio's. Speed of target, targets ecm rating, missile construction breakdown, etc.
-
If you have Excel, this will probably help:
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,2972.msg29099.html#msg29099 (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,2972.msg29099.html#msg29099)
If not, someone really needs to find the original post somewhere deep in this forum, or locate the original creator. There should be an open office version.
-
Well here is my old missile
Missile Size: 1 MSP (0.05 HS) Warhead: 5 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 9900 km/s Endurance: 0 minutes Range: 0.4m km
Cost Per Missile: 1.665
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 159% 3k km/s 50% 5k km/s 31.8% 10k km/s 15.9% This should bee alot lower, updated to current tech...
Materials Required: 2x Tritanium 0.015x Gallicite Fuel x2.5
And my New one, better tech. helps... :)
Missile Size: 1 MSP (0.05 HS) Warhead: 6 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 36
Speed: 19900 km/s Endurance: 0 minutes Range: 0.4m km
Cost Per Missile: 2.4817
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 716.4% 3k km/s 216% 5k km/s 143.3% 10k km/s 71.6%
Materials Required: 1.5x Tritanium 0.7217x Gallicite Fuel x2.5
-
You should have at least 1 or 2 minutes of endurance. This gives you a little bit of time to target, launch, and hit the target.
-
@James Normally I'd agree. But with ExChairman's desire for something that is a close approximation of the Starfire CAM(very short range, heavy hitter for mass, very low chance of intercept) his second design is a step in the right direction.
@ExChairman Take a look at your events log. What are the target speed and ECM modifiers? Factor that into your new design and see how your tohit numbers change.
-
A little more detail and we can probably give you some advice to improve your hit ratio's. Speed of target, targets ecm rating, missile construction breakdown, etc.
Well the speed of the enemy ships was 5654 km/s, seems to have had ECM (3), but that didn't show up on event list.... My missiles had 9500 in speed, and very low hit probability... but the new ones are soon being tested at the invaders :P :-X