Serco Helical Railgun:

Range - 5000m
Velocity - 2000mps
Damage - (ideally, dependent on ammo type but...as that'll never happen) 70000
Reload Rate - One Second
Mass - 5000
Port - turret

UIT Mass Driver:

Range - 2000m
Velocity - 3500mps
Damage - (ideally, dependent on ammo type but...as that'll never happen) 60000
Reload Rate - Two Seconds
Mass - 7000
Port - turret

Itani Coil Gun:

Range - 6000m
Velocity - 1500mps
Damage - (ideally, dependent on ammo type but...as that'll never happen) 40000
Reload Rate - One Second
Mass - 3000
Port - turret

Corvus Brachyrhynchos Babylon Cannon:

Range - 1000
Velocity - 2500mps
Damage - (ideally, dependent on ammo type but...as that'll never happen) 30000
Ammo - 50
Mass - 3000
Port - turret

[EDIT - Damage tweaked and ammo/RoF tweaked)

None of these would be really useful against capital ships. Ever tried killing one? Sure these weapon suggestions have high per-shot damage and long effective ranges, but that makes them more suitable for cheap shot kills on fighters. You need constant sustained high DPS to kill a capital ship.

Take the "Serco Helical Railgun" suggestion here for example: Doing 7000 damage a minute, you'll kill a shieldless Trident after an action packed exciting 2.38 hours of blasting.

IMO, Cap2Cap should be pilot's gun, while turrets are aimed at smaller ships.

Things like smaller versions of BGTWKOA, the only dedicated anti-capital weapon in game now. Or larger/faster capship-grade Avalons.

Even better if also some anti-shield type weapon, as an EMP or Circe-like gun, most efficient against shields, useless against hulls.

I suppose the damage could be raised, what in your opinion... would be reasonable?

/me throws his 2c in the hat.

Multiply all damage by 10. Most of these weapon's damage numbers seem like they're trying to be balanced around hitting fighters as opposed to capships. Then you'd need to move them off the turret port so they aren't used at all for anti-fighter purposes.

Besides that, I'm fairly sure the Corvus one is incredibly underpowered, even with buffs. 300k damage to the hull is around a third of what a present day player Trident has, but after you've used up all the ammo the gun becomes completely useless.

With the Corvus Brachyrhynchos Babylon Cannon, I was thinking more of an anti cappie weapon for use against fleeing cappies.

Also, the UIT ideally would use ore as ammo... hence the damage based on ammo type... but that'll likely never happen.

Multiplying the damage on these things would, again, only make them better for cheap-shot kills on fighters. They're limited by the re-fire rate. You need sustained damage output to kill capital ships.

Something like the Capital Cannon Hi-Power (Some guy called it BGTWKOA on the wiki a long time ago and now that's what people like Alloh think it's called?) would work better, but even it has a very long re-fire rate. A shielded Trident can stand up to all 4 of them on a Teradon if it stays out of range of the Teradon's gatling turrets.

The only real bad things about Avalons anymore is their complete lack of any homing capability, slow speed, and collateral damage. The only one I wouldn't change about them is the collateral damage. Big kabooms = awesome.

Multiplying the damage on these things would, again, only make them better for cheap-shot kills on fighters. They're limited by the re-fire rate. You need sustained damage output to kill capital ships.

I get that. That's why these theoretical weapons shouldn't be on turrets, as I said. They need to be on separate, untargetable weapon slots like the Teradon weapon.

Besides, trying to aim a railgun at a small target, with you in a trident, is going to be hard. Especially if the other ship isn't moving in a predictable fashion.

Chaosis, I respectfully disagree with nearly all of what you said.

One of the best things about cappies is we can do things that we cannot otherwise do, like target weapon systems, leaving them at the mercy of their attackers and reliant on help from allies.

Rather than untargetable weapons hard points, put these a different type of turret. The "Capitol Turret" Has a significantly higher armor rating than a standard turret. Due to the mass of the weapons, they move slower as well. As a bonus, this should put to bed any worries about them being used as anti fighter weapons.

As an aside, it would be really phenomenal if Inc were able to realize his dream of visual representations of weapons on ships with these. Tridents don't look very intimidating... imagine a Tridents jumping in and seeing a couple batteries of Serco Helical Railguns turning to face you!

Slow turrets and crap still doesn't resolve the problem that the damage rate of these is LOWER than a MegaPosi on a Warthog, thereby making them less effective against capital ships.

Well, I am open to suggestions if you feel something still needs to be tweaked further. What would you say is a better RoF/damage?

Well, IMO before playing with the numbers, we should pin down how long it should take for one of these to kill a Trident (1M armor). With the stats as posted while I type this, the Serco one would do 70k/s, so it would take just over 14 seconds to kill an unshielded trident - 7 if you went broadside. That's definitely too fast.

So for example, I think it should take at least a minute to kill a Trident with a Trident, and that the firing delay should be around six seconds or so to achieve the proper feel. So for a turret weapon, that would give me a max damage of 50k per shot, with a six second reload. Each turret would be capable of doing 500K damage per minute.

I don't know what the shield stats on NPC tridents are, so I didn't take shields into account. I guess they must be around 100k, because a stack of swarms and gems does 119.3k points of damage. So if you could get both turrets syncronized perfectly, you might be able to drop a shield in "one" hit. Otherwise it becomes a question of whether the shield fully recharges within six seconds.

My preferred anti-capship weapon would be a powerful contact-detonated missile; preferably one with little-to-no blast radius.

Pizzasgood, he originally had them suggested with a reload rate of one minute and two minutes, it's since been edited.

NPC Tridents have 80000 shield strength.

You've got them backwards. Physics would suggest that higher velocity guns have more range and less damage. They should break down into 2 types: shorter ranged, slightly slower, but brutal damage, and longer ranged, faster, sniping type weapons.

Any anti-cap missile should be pretty long ranged too. The current swarms are okay for short ranged slugging matches, but we should have fairly long ranged capship missiles for those long ranged duels also. Missiles should out range beam weapons or rail guns. Of course like single player ship missiles, they should be easier to evade than beam or rail weapons, but these overall classifications will give players real choices in how they want to fight their ships.

I'm a little uncertain why you think a high velocity weapon would have less damage. Using Newtonian Physics as VO does...

F=m.a=m.(delta v/delta t)
m=mass (kg)
a=acceleration (m/s^2)
F= force (N)
t = time (s)
v=velocity (m/s)

... would suggest (read as prove) that a higher velocity projectile will inflict more damage than a slower identical projectile. By way of simplistic example, my .22 rifle fires with a velocity of 330 mps where as my .22 air rifle fires the same projectile at 182.88 mps... which do you suppose does more damage?

Unless you're talking about a high velocity projectile impacting a target at the absolute end of it's travel, in which case it will have slowed extremely. Actually, I suspect you have a few things backwards...

As far as range goes, it should be...

Beam weapons, (assuming lasers) are restricted by the speed of light... roughly 146,304 mps.

Rail/Coil guns, in the 1980's the The Yugoslavian MTI created a rail gun that fired at 4,500 mps. In 2008 the US navy fired a rail gun with a velocity of over 5,800 mps, and hit a 5 meter target roughly 370 km from the point of firing (approximately Mach 10).

Missiles, the BrahMos, (Russian/Indian stealth supersonic cruise missile) travels at speeds of Mach 2.8 to 3.0 roughly 1,020.87 mps and is the fastest missile currently in production.

I completely agree that there should be a variety of options for ant cappie weapons though.Missiles, rockets, beam weapons and rail gun as well as others.

Since we haven't defined that the different weapons take different amounts of energy to fire, I would have to assume that we're using the same amount of energy to fire each weapon. Given that, in order to accelerate a given projectile to a higher velocity, it would have to be lighter itself, leading to a lower damage curve (or at the very least, identical to the slower heavier projectile).

However, it's also arguable that since VO DOESN'T use a Newtonian physics model (not in space at least; it's closer to an atmospheric model than a space based model. Perfect evidence, what happens when a 6000kg fighter rams a 150,000kg freight hauler? The hauler is sent wildly spinning. In a true model, the momentum exchange alone should barely affect the hauler, and the fighter should be mauled like a crushed aluminum can), we should factor in "atmospheric" effects, meaning our now lighter projectile must score less damage as it bleeds energy at the HIGHEST ranges it can achieve. At lower ranges, it should score similar damage to the heavier weapons.

And Speed of Light is 3x10^8 m/s.

The problem with many discussions in here is that we make arguments based on Newtonian physics. The difficulty with that argument is that VO (as evidenced above) doesn't use a Newtonian model. The best we can argue is that we use a quasi-Newtonian model, and additions should be based play balance with a (wink wink nudge nudge) eye to the actual physics involved.

Energy weapons dont have mass ....

Rail guns do and thier damage should be proportional to the velocity...

In any case I tend to disagree that tridents should be solo-able. A group effort is required and keeping one in a sector is actually not that hard :}

Quit whining and figure it out.

"In any case I tend to disagree that tridents should be solo-able. A group effort is required..."

Perhaps you could enlighten us PaK, why a Trident should not be soloable by another Trident? After all,this entire thread is about capitol class ship to ship combat. So you clearly feel that there are valid reasons that one destroying Trident should require multiple Tridents. As the only other options for you're statement are...

1. You cannot read.

2. You can read but, some how interpreted the incredibly misleading and ambiguous title of this thread... "Ideas for cappie v cappie weapons"... as having to do with weapon systems for single pilot fighters. I do apologize my brother works with the mentally retarded, so I can understand how a certain type of person might have made that mistake and had their mistake strengthened by stats clearly aimed at fighters... "Port - turret, Velocity - 1500mps to 3500mps, Range 1000 meters to 5000 meters, Damage 30,000 to 70,000"... all being fairly common stats for weapons one might find on a Vulture or Ragnarok. I'll try to dumb it down a bit in the future if this is the case.

or...

3. You're a damned care bear and you don't want anyone to be able to destroy your precious Trident.

Either way... learn to read, learn to comprehend or learn make a post that is relevant to the subject at hand.