Forums » Suggestions
ECM Decoys (Take II)
This has been suggested before, a long time ago, but I figured that it was worthy of bringing up again.
The basic premise of the idea is that a craft equipped with the appropriate launcher could deploy anti-missile countermeasures. These countermeasures would possess a bounded field around them, and, when a missile comes within the appropriate range, would be diverted--destroying the device, but sparing the missile's intended target.
Should a more than one missile be decoyed, the missile(s) that survive after the first seeker detonates on the decoy return to seeking their intended target. (This could, conceivably, allow Swarms to be nerfed a bit without sacrificing their utility).
Furthermore, different types of seekers could have different levels of resistance to such countermeasures. Seekers with "hardened" guidance systems could might require a closer proximity to the decoy to be hoodwinked, or even immunized entirely against weaker ECM decoys. More advanced decoys could have a larger range (and distract hardened seekers at greater distances), but have the drawbacks of being heavier and having a smaller magazine in the launcher.
In theory, at least, such chaff-like devices would work like mines, and probably would be restricted to the L-Port. However, S-Port and forward-firing versions are not necessarily impossible.
Comments? Criticisms?
The basic premise of the idea is that a craft equipped with the appropriate launcher could deploy anti-missile countermeasures. These countermeasures would possess a bounded field around them, and, when a missile comes within the appropriate range, would be diverted--destroying the device, but sparing the missile's intended target.
Should a more than one missile be decoyed, the missile(s) that survive after the first seeker detonates on the decoy return to seeking their intended target. (This could, conceivably, allow Swarms to be nerfed a bit without sacrificing their utility).
Furthermore, different types of seekers could have different levels of resistance to such countermeasures. Seekers with "hardened" guidance systems could might require a closer proximity to the decoy to be hoodwinked, or even immunized entirely against weaker ECM decoys. More advanced decoys could have a larger range (and distract hardened seekers at greater distances), but have the drawbacks of being heavier and having a smaller magazine in the launcher.
In theory, at least, such chaff-like devices would work like mines, and probably would be restricted to the L-Port. However, S-Port and forward-firing versions are not necessarily impossible.
Comments? Criticisms?
I would prefer that the existing prox mines be modified to detect appropriate proximity of swarms and that their detonation would destroy the swarms inside it's blast radius.
roda makes a good point, this could really increase the utility of prox mines, which seem to me arent really filling the niche they were intended to fill. this could give prox mines some actual use on both traders who want to avoid a missle barrage, or allow a group to move closer to a capital ship. forward firing mines might also be interesting
I like the idea of countermeasures, I do. But Roda has a fine point, the prox mine could regain usage and effectiveness by taking on this ability. If counter measures were introduced, they would need to only be effective on seeking missiles. Flares would be immune to countermeasures, but not upgraded prox mines.