Forums » Suggestions
Now that there's talk about bringing the Trident into the game, I thought it might be a good time to start brainstorming different role loadouts for it. Post your suggestions in this thread, but please keep them brief and readable.
Here are some of mine:
Weapon: KEP (Kinetic Energy Penetration) Gun
Role: Ranged Anti-Gunboat, Anti-Trident and Anti-HAC/Anti-Queen Assault
Specifications: Propelled either by powerful Railgun/Coilgun, or high-yield chemical explosive/propellent (maybe a variety of Scram Cannon?) the KEP gun would fire large, dense slugs at extreme velocities to deal massive damage to large, heavily-armored targets. No Auto-aim would be available, and ammunition would be limited to approximately what it takes to kill a Queen. Forward-facing central weapon placement.
Weapon: Avalon Torpedo
Role: Ranged Anti-HAC/Anti-Queen Thermunuclear Assault Munition
Specifications: You know the one... A Trident could carry only one. Forward-facing central weapon placement.
Weapon: Heavy Plasma Turret
Role: Anti-Trident and Anti-Gunboat Energy Weapon
Specifications: Hyper-velocity, high-damage version of the AGT, with larger, more visible bolts, and a significantly slower refire rate (and some inaccuracy). Variable Placement at 3-4 different turret locations.
Weapon: Light Plasma Turret
Role: Anti-Fighter and Anti-Gunboat Energy Weapon
Specifications: Like the Heavy Plasma Turret, but fires smaller, less damaging bots with a higher degree of accuracy and a more rapid refire rate. Variable Placement at 3-4 different turret locations
Weapon: Heavy Missile Turret
Role: Ranged Anti-Trident and Anti-Queen Assault and Defense
Specifications: Think Swarmer Missiles, only think Slower and more damaging. Variable Placement at 3-4 different turret locations.
Weapon: Light Missile Turret
Role: medium-Ranged and Close-quarters Anti-Fighter and Anti-Gunboat Assault and Defense
Specifications: Think Geminis, only think faster, more accurate, and smaller payload, with a decreased lifespan. Variable Placement at 3-4 different turret locations.
Weapon: FLAK Cannon Turret
Role: Timed-Charge Anti-Fighter and Anti-Missile Defense Cannon
Specifications: Fires High Explosive rounds which detonate a set time t from firing, where t has sufficient eccentricity to yield a substantial covereage area and unpredictability, OR with a gunner-adjustable distance of 100 < x < 1000. Variable Placement at 3-4 different turret locations.
Weapon: Turreted Light Weapon Module
Role: Multirole Anti-Light through Anti-Trident Assault and Defense
Specifications: Allows the mounting of either two traditional small/light weapon components, or one large/heavy weapon component to a turreted platform. Turret tracking speed determined by mass and type of weapon mounted. Variable Placement at 3-4 different turret locations
For the Trident:
If the Trident was able to equip either one forward-facing central weapon and one turret system, OR two turret systems, you could have a lot of role-specific variation and give variable-role group-deployment a distinct advantage.
For the HAC:
HAC armaments could also consist of essentially the same systems, only would carry MORE ammunition, and at MORE weapon placements (allowing for perhaps three or four different turret systems* in addition to an Avalon or some slow-tracking KEP turrets)
*It could carry any combination, such as 2x Heavy Plasma Turret, 2x Light Plasma Turret and an Avalon, OR 3x Light Missile Turret, 1x Light Plasma Turret and a KEP Turret system, etc... The Stock HAC would come with no weapon systems, and each addition would cost a substantial sum, on the order of 1-2 million credits
Here are some of mine:
Weapon: KEP (Kinetic Energy Penetration) Gun
Role: Ranged Anti-Gunboat, Anti-Trident and Anti-HAC/Anti-Queen Assault
Specifications: Propelled either by powerful Railgun/Coilgun, or high-yield chemical explosive/propellent (maybe a variety of Scram Cannon?) the KEP gun would fire large, dense slugs at extreme velocities to deal massive damage to large, heavily-armored targets. No Auto-aim would be available, and ammunition would be limited to approximately what it takes to kill a Queen. Forward-facing central weapon placement.
Weapon: Avalon Torpedo
Role: Ranged Anti-HAC/Anti-Queen Thermunuclear Assault Munition
Specifications: You know the one... A Trident could carry only one. Forward-facing central weapon placement.
Weapon: Heavy Plasma Turret
Role: Anti-Trident and Anti-Gunboat Energy Weapon
Specifications: Hyper-velocity, high-damage version of the AGT, with larger, more visible bolts, and a significantly slower refire rate (and some inaccuracy). Variable Placement at 3-4 different turret locations.
Weapon: Light Plasma Turret
Role: Anti-Fighter and Anti-Gunboat Energy Weapon
Specifications: Like the Heavy Plasma Turret, but fires smaller, less damaging bots with a higher degree of accuracy and a more rapid refire rate. Variable Placement at 3-4 different turret locations
Weapon: Heavy Missile Turret
Role: Ranged Anti-Trident and Anti-Queen Assault and Defense
Specifications: Think Swarmer Missiles, only think Slower and more damaging. Variable Placement at 3-4 different turret locations.
Weapon: Light Missile Turret
Role: medium-Ranged and Close-quarters Anti-Fighter and Anti-Gunboat Assault and Defense
Specifications: Think Geminis, only think faster, more accurate, and smaller payload, with a decreased lifespan. Variable Placement at 3-4 different turret locations.
Weapon: FLAK Cannon Turret
Role: Timed-Charge Anti-Fighter and Anti-Missile Defense Cannon
Specifications: Fires High Explosive rounds which detonate a set time t from firing, where t has sufficient eccentricity to yield a substantial covereage area and unpredictability, OR with a gunner-adjustable distance of 100 < x < 1000. Variable Placement at 3-4 different turret locations.
Weapon: Turreted Light Weapon Module
Role: Multirole Anti-Light through Anti-Trident Assault and Defense
Specifications: Allows the mounting of either two traditional small/light weapon components, or one large/heavy weapon component to a turreted platform. Turret tracking speed determined by mass and type of weapon mounted. Variable Placement at 3-4 different turret locations
For the Trident:
If the Trident was able to equip either one forward-facing central weapon and one turret system, OR two turret systems, you could have a lot of role-specific variation and give variable-role group-deployment a distinct advantage.
For the HAC:
HAC armaments could also consist of essentially the same systems, only would carry MORE ammunition, and at MORE weapon placements (allowing for perhaps three or four different turret systems* in addition to an Avalon or some slow-tracking KEP turrets)
*It could carry any combination, such as 2x Heavy Plasma Turret, 2x Light Plasma Turret and an Avalon, OR 3x Light Missile Turret, 1x Light Plasma Turret and a KEP Turret system, etc... The Stock HAC would come with no weapon systems, and each addition would cost a substantial sum, on the order of 1-2 million credits
I think it would be interesting if each weapon's ammo load was not carried with the weapon (as they are on fighter weapons), but rather all large ships have a certain amount of magazine space required for all the weapons that use ammunition.
So for instance, say that the Trident has 6 hardpoints for weapons, and 300cu of ammo space. Now, say that an Avalon Torpedo takes up 2 cu of ammo space per missile. You could load 150 torpedoes and nothing else, feeding a single launcher, or 150 torpedoes feeding 6 launchers. You don't gain anything other than more flexibility (in terms of firing arcs) and a much higher rate of fire with the additional launchers, and at the same time, you're drawing from the communal magazine, so you'd run through ammunition faster.
So if one uses a very balanced loadout of light and heavy missiles, then they have to decide how much magazine space they want to devote to each missile type, and how many of each launcher they want.
For energy weapons, all turrets have their own batteries (so firing one won't hurt all others), but they're all charged from a single generator, which the captain can control. For instance, if all power is devoted to the engines, then the batteries have 0/s recharge. If all power is devoted to weapons, then the total recharge for all batteries would be in the 300/s range (50/s for 6 batteries). Consequently, having less turrets means that less power has to be devoted to them to keep them operational, or recharge per turret could be higher than 50/s. So theoretically, the captain could devote 300/s recharge to a single energy turret so that it would never have to stop firing, but it would be a waste because he could probably get the same effect with less recharge.
So if he wants to run like hell, then he can stop charging the battery, and all shots would simply drain the battery until it's drained, or if he goes into battle, he can devote as much power as possible to recharge and away from the engines.
So again, while he could have an all-energy loadout, he'd have to divert more energy away from the engines to power them all.
So for instance, say that the Trident has 6 hardpoints for weapons, and 300cu of ammo space. Now, say that an Avalon Torpedo takes up 2 cu of ammo space per missile. You could load 150 torpedoes and nothing else, feeding a single launcher, or 150 torpedoes feeding 6 launchers. You don't gain anything other than more flexibility (in terms of firing arcs) and a much higher rate of fire with the additional launchers, and at the same time, you're drawing from the communal magazine, so you'd run through ammunition faster.
So if one uses a very balanced loadout of light and heavy missiles, then they have to decide how much magazine space they want to devote to each missile type, and how many of each launcher they want.
For energy weapons, all turrets have their own batteries (so firing one won't hurt all others), but they're all charged from a single generator, which the captain can control. For instance, if all power is devoted to the engines, then the batteries have 0/s recharge. If all power is devoted to weapons, then the total recharge for all batteries would be in the 300/s range (50/s for 6 batteries). Consequently, having less turrets means that less power has to be devoted to them to keep them operational, or recharge per turret could be higher than 50/s. So theoretically, the captain could devote 300/s recharge to a single energy turret so that it would never have to stop firing, but it would be a waste because he could probably get the same effect with less recharge.
So if he wants to run like hell, then he can stop charging the battery, and all shots would simply drain the battery until it's drained, or if he goes into battle, he can devote as much power as possible to recharge and away from the engines.
So again, while he could have an all-energy loadout, he'd have to divert more energy away from the engines to power them all.
Good call CP, although I would think that energy-turrets would posess their own emergency battery so that they can minimaly operate whilst the engines are in operation (nothing fantastic, a free battery meybe). Besides, despite the gargantuan quantities of power that would be needed to run a HAC engines, the thing is rather large and likely has a battery array numbering upwards of a dozen individual power cells.
Excellent CP, yes, I had thought of that - it would solve the issue of having more ammo for the HAC than the Trident for the same weapons, and makes perfect sense.
I would however suggest that the avalon itself should be a special case where the launcher has its own dedicated magazine of 1 or 2 shots, mainly for balance reasons, but also in that it would be hazardous to store the ammunition too far from the launcher.
When the turbo engines are engaged, the turrets power supply is cut as the generators divert power to the engines (though they retain their individual charge, which could be expended in emergencies)
Also, it would be neat if a commander of a HAC could divert more power to specific weapon turrets, giving them an extra boost, or if Shields are given to capships, pump energy from the Shield generators into the weapons, or vice-versa.
I would however suggest that the avalon itself should be a special case where the launcher has its own dedicated magazine of 1 or 2 shots, mainly for balance reasons, but also in that it would be hazardous to store the ammunition too far from the launcher.
When the turbo engines are engaged, the turrets power supply is cut as the generators divert power to the engines (though they retain their individual charge, which could be expended in emergencies)
Also, it would be neat if a commander of a HAC could divert more power to specific weapon turrets, giving them an extra boost, or if Shields are given to capships, pump energy from the Shield generators into the weapons, or vice-versa.
This sounds very nice. Although, I am wondering what you do once you have used up all your ammunition. Will there be resupply vessels that dock with the ships?
This crosses over to other threads, but I think it still belongs to the same topic.
This crosses over to other threads, but I think it still belongs to the same topic.
trident is little, dont over crowd it like waylon did which is very noticeable in my original trident screeshots. Using Cunjo's good weapon concepts however a main front gun and a small amount of top and bottom side turrets is a good idea. 1 heavy and 2 light turrets on top and same on bottom side
i don't know, i like a lot of the ideas in this thread, but somehow the compilation of them all doesn't sit right.
it may be the idea that certain weapons can only be placed in forward facing fixed mounts while others can only be placed in turrets (if i understand the sugestion corectly). personaly i'd rather they be interchangable. or perhaps have the wepon itself determing whether the mounting point is a rurret or a fixed position.
that way you could have a broadside of several avalons or KEP guns.
[edit] also i kinda' liked seeing the trident bristeling with weapons. i always thought the HAC seemed under armed. either way the "over armed" trident should be the upper end for a ship that size.
it may be the idea that certain weapons can only be placed in forward facing fixed mounts while others can only be placed in turrets (if i understand the sugestion corectly). personaly i'd rather they be interchangable. or perhaps have the wepon itself determing whether the mounting point is a rurret or a fixed position.
that way you could have a broadside of several avalons or KEP guns.
[edit] also i kinda' liked seeing the trident bristeling with weapons. i always thought the HAC seemed under armed. either way the "over armed" trident should be the upper end for a ship that size.
SCRAM cannon? So I wasn't the only one who played Oni!
/join me or die like all the others
//choking on dead air aind foul water
/join me or die like all the others
//choking on dead air aind foul water
/me reiterates the "actual flak cannon" suggestion
/me likes flak!
"it may be the idea that certain weapons can only be placed in forward facing fixed mounts while others can only be placed in turrets (if i understand the sugestion corectly). personaly i'd rather they be interchangable. or perhaps have the wepon itself determing whether the mounting point is a rurret or a fixed position.
that way you could have a broadside of several avalons or KEP guns."
The reason they're not interchangable is that the KEP guns and Avalon torpedo launchers are too BIG and complex to fit in a turreted variety on such a small ship!
As I had already mentioned, the HAC would be able to carry turreted varieties of at least the KEP gun, though avalon torpedo placements should be fixed-orientation (you just don't turret torpedo tubes... they're not worth the engineering nightmare)
Of course, if you WANTED to put a heavy or light plasma cannon in the frontal port of a Trident, there's really no reason you shouldn't be able to... however, it would be so grossly inefficient there, that it's not even worth the consideration.
ctishman:
wtf is Oni?
Never heard of it, much less played it...
Rogue, I'll add your marvelous FLAK idea to my list, thanks.
PS. whoever it is that asked, yes, we're assuming for now that the ammunition will be replenishable via either docking or mobile rearming shuttle.
that way you could have a broadside of several avalons or KEP guns."
The reason they're not interchangable is that the KEP guns and Avalon torpedo launchers are too BIG and complex to fit in a turreted variety on such a small ship!
As I had already mentioned, the HAC would be able to carry turreted varieties of at least the KEP gun, though avalon torpedo placements should be fixed-orientation (you just don't turret torpedo tubes... they're not worth the engineering nightmare)
Of course, if you WANTED to put a heavy or light plasma cannon in the frontal port of a Trident, there's really no reason you shouldn't be able to... however, it would be so grossly inefficient there, that it's not even worth the consideration.
ctishman:
wtf is Oni?
Never heard of it, much less played it...
Rogue, I'll add your marvelous FLAK idea to my list, thanks.
PS. whoever it is that asked, yes, we're assuming for now that the ammunition will be replenishable via either docking or mobile rearming shuttle.
Here's a thought: Let us put any current small-slot weapon in a turret. Maybe 2 of them per turret, since they're rather weaker than our current turreted weapons. So if you want, you can have a N3 turret. It behaves just like a normal turret, but it's got N3's in it. Obviously it'd be cool to also have special turret weapons, but I'm sure there are people who would love to have their normal weapons in their turrets.
PS: I had a good idea for controlling flak cannons. Just have the w and s keys set the distance it explodes at. So you might get in your turret if you're a gunner and see a little bar on the side of your screen that says "1000m", and that's how far away the flak rounds would explode. Press w and the number goes up. Press s and it goes down.
PS: I had a good idea for controlling flak cannons. Just have the w and s keys set the distance it explodes at. So you might get in your turret if you're a gunner and see a little bar on the side of your screen that says "1000m", and that's how far away the flak rounds would explode. Press w and the number goes up. Press s and it goes down.
Cunjo,
i understand the reasoning, i'm just saying as it is we have virtualy unlimited flexability with custamising ships, and it doesn't make sence to have less custamisation on larger ships.
i think the best of my sugestion was the idea that hard points on a cap. ship not be inately turreted or fixed, but rather the weapons were tureted or fixed, (like the GT vs the GC but manualy aimed rather than soly autoaim). so avalon torpedos will veber be tureted, but they could be mounted in a side facing weapon port.
roguelazer,
i think we'll need much longer ranges and damages for cap ships. otherwise we'll keep having the insanely short range battles like we have now (only cooler to watch due to the different grafics)
i understand the reasoning, i'm just saying as it is we have virtualy unlimited flexability with custamising ships, and it doesn't make sence to have less custamisation on larger ships.
i think the best of my sugestion was the idea that hard points on a cap. ship not be inately turreted or fixed, but rather the weapons were tureted or fixed, (like the GT vs the GC but manualy aimed rather than soly autoaim). so avalon torpedos will veber be tureted, but they could be mounted in a side facing weapon port.
roguelazer,
i think we'll need much longer ranges and damages for cap ships. otherwise we'll keep having the insanely short range battles like we have now (only cooler to watch due to the different grafics)
excellent idea rogue! controlling your flak would be awesome!
Rogue:
The turreting of current weapons sounds like a good idea, though I think there would need to be some different balances made to the turrets in order to keep them practical (like rate of tracking & auto-aim limitations)
The FLAK ranging idea is just plain awesome - nice!
LQ:
The problem with adding as you described it 'infinate customizability' is a programming issue - it's simply too much work for the devs to try and implement a full design and balance system for arming capships. In order to keep it practical (from a coding and balance perspective) there need to be specific port configurations and types, and the weapons must have their own properties.
I have nothing against allowing for side or rear-facing torpedo tubes, KEPs, etc... on a HAC, but the question is how much of that can the devs do?
The other issue, is that on a Trident, you simply don't have the structure required to afford that kind of variation - Avalons and KEPs need ot be limited to forward-firing positions, and run the length of the ship's core to be effective.
EDIT:
Almost missed this...
"i think we'll need much longer ranges and damages for cap ships. otherwise we'll keep having the insanely short range battles like we have now (only cooler to watch due to the different grafics)"
Short-range battles are a GOOD thing. unlike long-range missile slugfests, they're both exciting and fun, and incorporate more than just overall firepower and armor of a ship in combat.
Yes, we do need longer-range weapons, but not MUCH longer. I think that heavy energy weapons fire from a HAC should be able to reach a maximum of 2000m or so, but should be almost uselessly inaccurate beyond that anyway (one of the safeguards against using heavy plasma turrets to simply vaporize smaller ships).
Close-quarters combvat should be tactically encouraged rather than discouraged. You can't have a decent hullside furball if the ships are miles apart.
The turreting of current weapons sounds like a good idea, though I think there would need to be some different balances made to the turrets in order to keep them practical (like rate of tracking & auto-aim limitations)
The FLAK ranging idea is just plain awesome - nice!
LQ:
The problem with adding as you described it 'infinate customizability' is a programming issue - it's simply too much work for the devs to try and implement a full design and balance system for arming capships. In order to keep it practical (from a coding and balance perspective) there need to be specific port configurations and types, and the weapons must have their own properties.
I have nothing against allowing for side or rear-facing torpedo tubes, KEPs, etc... on a HAC, but the question is how much of that can the devs do?
The other issue, is that on a Trident, you simply don't have the structure required to afford that kind of variation - Avalons and KEPs need ot be limited to forward-firing positions, and run the length of the ship's core to be effective.
EDIT:
Almost missed this...
"i think we'll need much longer ranges and damages for cap ships. otherwise we'll keep having the insanely short range battles like we have now (only cooler to watch due to the different grafics)"
Short-range battles are a GOOD thing. unlike long-range missile slugfests, they're both exciting and fun, and incorporate more than just overall firepower and armor of a ship in combat.
Yes, we do need longer-range weapons, but not MUCH longer. I think that heavy energy weapons fire from a HAC should be able to reach a maximum of 2000m or so, but should be almost uselessly inaccurate beyond that anyway (one of the safeguards against using heavy plasma turrets to simply vaporize smaller ships).
Close-quarters combvat should be tactically encouraged rather than discouraged. You can't have a decent hullside furball if the ships are miles apart.
Mmm. Broadsides.
Rogue: added your idea to original post; how's this?
Weapon: Turreted Light Weapon Module
Role: Multirole Anti-Light through Anti-Trident Assault and Defense
Specifications: Allows the mounting of either two traditional small/light weapon components, or one large/heavy weapon component to a turreted platform. Turret tracking speed determined by mass and type of weapon mounted. Variable Placement at 3-4 different turret locations
Weapon: Turreted Light Weapon Module
Role: Multirole Anti-Light through Anti-Trident Assault and Defense
Specifications: Allows the mounting of either two traditional small/light weapon components, or one large/heavy weapon component to a turreted platform. Turret tracking speed determined by mass and type of weapon mounted. Variable Placement at 3-4 different turret locations
well if there realy is a coding reason why the weapon can't handle the turreted/not turreeted feature i'll drop it. but as a computer science major, i have to say it should be as easy as setting the tracking speed and angle to 0 on the turrets you wanted to be fixed guns. (then the only difference would be that the fixed gun points would be destroyable whereas curently they are not, but that's probably a good thing any way)
as for the KEP gun and avalon torpedos needing to be in a spinal mount, i'll give you that with regards to tyhe KEP gun (i envisioned something smaller i guess) but there is no way a torpedo needs the length of a ship to launch. all they should need is a tube large enough to hold the darn torpedo (unless the extera space is for the magazien and reloading equipment, but that ain't so on a 1 or 2 shot weapon.
as far as engagment ranges, we'll probably never reach a consensus on that one: i think the optimum engagment range for cap ships against other cap ships should be 2km with maximum ranges of some weapons being up to 10km, and anti fighter weapons being effective out to around 1km. this will be essential if the devs ever add the 1-2km long ships people have asked for in other threads.
as for the KEP gun and avalon torpedos needing to be in a spinal mount, i'll give you that with regards to tyhe KEP gun (i envisioned something smaller i guess) but there is no way a torpedo needs the length of a ship to launch. all they should need is a tube large enough to hold the darn torpedo (unless the extera space is for the magazien and reloading equipment, but that ain't so on a 1 or 2 shot weapon.
as far as engagment ranges, we'll probably never reach a consensus on that one: i think the optimum engagment range for cap ships against other cap ships should be 2km with maximum ranges of some weapons being up to 10km, and anti fighter weapons being effective out to around 1km. this will be essential if the devs ever add the 1-2km long ships people have asked for in other threads.
well if there realy is a coding reason why the weapon can't handle the turreted/not turreeted feature i'll drop it. but as a computer science major, i have to say it should be as easy as setting the tracking speed and angle to 0 on the turrets you wanted to be fixed guns. (then the only difference would be that the fixed gun points would be destroyable whereas curently they are not, but that's probably a good thing any way)
READ MY POST. I was addressing your suggestion of infinate customizability, NOT fixed directional weapons ports.
as for the KEP gun and avalon torpedos needing to be in a spinal mount, i'll give you that with regards to tyhe KEP gun (i envisioned something smaller i guess) but there is no way a torpedo needs the length of a ship to launch. all they should need is a tube large enough to hold the darn torpedo (unless the extera space is for the magazien and reloading equipment, but that ain't so on a 1 or 2 shot weapon.
The avalon torpedo is a very BIG weapon, and requires a really BIG, fixed-potition launching tube. Sure, you could put one rear-facing, or even side-facing if you wanted to, but it would require drastic alterations to the ship itself, which really aren't worth the trouble when you can just aim and shoot. On a trident, it would be most useful as a central, forward-facing mount, so therefore, why bother going through the trouble of giving it alternate positions?
Have you even seen a Trident? they're not that big...
"as far as engagment ranges, we'll probably never reach a consensus on that one: i think the optimum engagment range for cap ships against other cap ships should be 2km with maximum ranges of some weapons being up to 10km, and anti fighter weapons being effective out to around 1km. this will be essential if the devs ever add the 1-2km long ships people have asked for in other threads."
This is an MMORPG, slash combat game. Extended engagement ranges for capitol ships really doesn't do much, if anything for the gameplay value. It's better to have them take place at close range, where it's exiting, and you have room for more player interaction between the two ships.
Also, I don't know if you've noticed, but in almost every movie, game, show, ANYTHING so far, featuring large capitol ships, they do not fire on eachother from long range. Why? the logical reason: It's not effective, and the real reason: It's not fun.
Capitol ships should feature PRIMARILY short-range firepower, that requires close-up, broadside passes to bring to bear. Why? because it makes sense (energy weapons especially, will degenerate in power the longer they travel), and more importantly, it's more fun.
PS. KEP guns are NEVER small... ESPECIALLY if they utilize extreme-velocity railguns, coilguns (you remember the MAC gun from Halo?) or Ram/SCRam cannons.
READ MY POST. I was addressing your suggestion of infinate customizability, NOT fixed directional weapons ports.
as for the KEP gun and avalon torpedos needing to be in a spinal mount, i'll give you that with regards to tyhe KEP gun (i envisioned something smaller i guess) but there is no way a torpedo needs the length of a ship to launch. all they should need is a tube large enough to hold the darn torpedo (unless the extera space is for the magazien and reloading equipment, but that ain't so on a 1 or 2 shot weapon.
The avalon torpedo is a very BIG weapon, and requires a really BIG, fixed-potition launching tube. Sure, you could put one rear-facing, or even side-facing if you wanted to, but it would require drastic alterations to the ship itself, which really aren't worth the trouble when you can just aim and shoot. On a trident, it would be most useful as a central, forward-facing mount, so therefore, why bother going through the trouble of giving it alternate positions?
Have you even seen a Trident? they're not that big...
"as far as engagment ranges, we'll probably never reach a consensus on that one: i think the optimum engagment range for cap ships against other cap ships should be 2km with maximum ranges of some weapons being up to 10km, and anti fighter weapons being effective out to around 1km. this will be essential if the devs ever add the 1-2km long ships people have asked for in other threads."
This is an MMORPG, slash combat game. Extended engagement ranges for capitol ships really doesn't do much, if anything for the gameplay value. It's better to have them take place at close range, where it's exiting, and you have room for more player interaction between the two ships.
Also, I don't know if you've noticed, but in almost every movie, game, show, ANYTHING so far, featuring large capitol ships, they do not fire on eachother from long range. Why? the logical reason: It's not effective, and the real reason: It's not fun.
Capitol ships should feature PRIMARILY short-range firepower, that requires close-up, broadside passes to bring to bear. Why? because it makes sense (energy weapons especially, will degenerate in power the longer they travel), and more importantly, it's more fun.
PS. KEP guns are NEVER small... ESPECIALLY if they utilize extreme-velocity railguns, coilguns (you remember the MAC gun from Halo?) or Ram/SCRam cannons.
the avalon torpedo isn't big, I used to carry them on my hog!