Close Assault Missile discussion (split from official 5.20 suggestions)

[Charlie Beeler]

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.

[UnLimiTeD]

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.

[Charlie Beeler]

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.

Code: [Select]

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.

Code: [Select]

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


Code: [Select]

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


[Charlie Beeler]

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. 

[UnLimiTeD]

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 or Advanced Tactical Command Academy instead.

[Vanigo]

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?

[UnLimiTeD]

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.

[Vanigo]

...who said anything about ammo-based beam weapons for non-fighters? Well, besides you, but one person does not a discussion make.

[backstab]

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.

[UnLimiTeD]

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.

[Beersatron]

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?

[backstab]

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.

[UnLimiTeD]

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.

[Vanigo]

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.

[UnLimiTeD]

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.