Forums » Suggestions

Missile ammo

May 30, 2003 CrippledPidgeon link
While I don't want to see bunches of missile "superweapons," I would like to be able to carry more than the default number of missiles. I'm currently driving a Centaur and energy weapons are difficult to use due to the low maneuverability, so I've resorted to carrying a missile/rocket loadout. Unfortunately, in the heat of battle, these weapons run out far too quickly. I think it'd be pretty neat to be able to sacrifice cargo space for a larger ammo load. Either that, or have mobile "missile colliers" that can reload you on command (sorta like in TIE Fighter) for a higher price than normal (because the missiles have to be shipped to you, etc).
May 30, 2003 Arolte link
We're talking missiles and NOT rockets, right? I hope. I agree that Gemini homers run out too quickly otherwise.
May 30, 2003 ctishman link
Geminis hold enough for 9 launches! That is more than enough, IMO.
May 30, 2003 CrippledPidgeon link
yea, but in a prolonged battle (say during a flag cap), missiles can go rather quickly, especially if you prefer a missile heavy loadout (ie. more missiles and rockets than energy weaps). Missiles go even faster if you're a bad shot (like me).
May 30, 2003 ctishman link
Like aim, ammo conservation is a skill. Of course they're gonna run out sometime, but I think that's a factor that must be taken into account when weighing's one's armament options. Personally, I never carry an ammo-weapon without a basic energy option unless I have no alternative.
May 31, 2003 The Kid link
yellow jacket only holds 8, why not 12?
May 31, 2003 ctishman link
Hell, that thing's so inaccurate, it should hold 20.
May 31, 2003 Rabid Panda link
Speaking of weight, how do you plan to go anywhere with all that mass? I think you would have to have another engine, oh yah, I forgot, convenitenly, engines are infinitely powerful. Able to go just as fast if you were carring nothing compared to a full loadout. How convenient. Whenever ammo does get around to weighing something, I think it would be better to just get better at aiming.
Jun 02, 2003 Celebrim link
Panda: You are making the assumption that a ship's cargo load represents a significant portion of its ship's weight. You don't know what the design will be. It could be only 5% or 10% or 20% of the total ship mass, so not carrying cargo or carrying cargo might only be the difference in accelleration between a medium and heavy engine.

Engines are not infinately powerful. If they were, heavy ships like the Ragnarok would accelerate just as fast as light ships like Centurians. For that matter, you would accelerate instantly to your maximum speed no matter what ship you used. If you want to see an engine that really has a whole lot of thrust (not infinite but alot) you need to see a1k0n's uber-engine.

A sample weight system might look something like this:

'Light Fighter Hull' = 14 'mass units'
Medium Battery = 30
Medium Engine = 30
2 Small Weapons = 2 x 8 = 16
2 Cargo = 2 x 5 = 10

Total 'mass units' = 100

Carrying no cargo drops mass to 90.

'Heavy Bomber Hull' = 52 'mass units'
Heavy Battery = 35
Heavy Engine = 35
3 Small Weapons = 3 x 8 = 24
2 Large Weapons = 2 x 12 = 24
8 Cargo = 8 x 5 = 40

Total 'mass units' = 210

Carrying no cargo drops mass to 170.

Assuming an 'ammo rack' replaced a cargo slot and weighed roughly the same, alot of warships would probably replace at least some of thier cargo slots with 'ammo rack' gizmo's especially ships like the Hornet whose cargo represents such a tiny portion of thier total weight. I've got no problem with that.
Jun 02, 2003 SirCamps link
Just curiously, how can a dry hull have only "14" mass units yet a battery have "30?" I know I'm splitting hairs, but that just jumped out at me. :-D
Jun 02, 2003 Celebrim link
Why not? For one thing, it makes balancing the system alot easier.

But, if you must have a 'logical' explanation, the ship's 'batteries' are something along the lines fusion nuclear powered generators with arrays of superconducting coils for storing power, banks of radiating devices for emmiting masers when the power isn't being used (to keep the ship from melting), and radiation shielding to prevent the crew from glowing like christmas tree. They aren't 9V's.

Jun 02, 2003 roguelazer link
Actually, it'd be cooler if they WERE just giant banks of rechargable 9V's.
Jun 02, 2003 Celebrim link
"Actually, it'd be cooler if they WERE just giant banks of rechargable 9V's."

So what would be recharging them? Even I don't want to keep track of fuel in that level of detail.
Jun 02, 2003 ctishman link
Lots of little 9-volt rechargers, of course. :rolleyes:

;)
Jun 02, 2003 Suicidal Lemming link
Celebrim, it is very logical, energy is rechargeing them.
The real question is were is the energy comming from? My guess is 9 volt batterys
Jun 03, 2003 UncleDave link
Maybe we could have car-style batteries and have them randomly run out when you need to go somewhere urgently.
Jun 03, 2003 Renegade ++RIP++ link
or solar panels :D

ow ow ow or heattransforming shield, or spacedebrisrecyclingreactors :D

cheers
Jun 03, 2003 Celkan link
/me imagines dogfighting when all of a sudden...

<Icarus> Hey hold up a sec, my 9v's just died...
<Arolte> ...mwuahahaha
Arolte destroyed Icarus.
Jun 03, 2003 Nytemayre link
well just use 9v rayovak rechargers!
Jun 03, 2003 roguelazer link
Must...get...back...on...topic...