Forums » Suggestions
Frank Talk About Weapons
Okay, after spotting threads relating to the introduction of heavy weapons platforms (HWP) (Capital-class Armed Space Ships) I have decided to open a thread concerning only Weapons Systems on these craft. I intend to open another about Hulls and another about Powerplant:
Okay, I want to introduce ideas for weapons that HWPs could use and weapons that could be used against HWPs:
Already proposed are Avalon Racks and small others:
Artillery Cannon:
Range: 2000m
Damage: 500 per shell
Salvo Weapon: Yes, 8 shells per salvo
Power Drain: 100 per salvo
Time Delay: 90 seconds per salvo
The Artillery Cannon (AC) is the space equivalent of an Artillery Battery. The main goal is to fire a stream of shells at the opposing force with intent to do the most damage. Multiple shells are fired to insure at least some hits per group. The weapon would be dependant upon ammunition stores inside the hull.
Ion Cannon:
Range: 1500 meters
Damage: 0
Power Drain: 200 per shot/ 500 per impact
Time Delay: 150 seconds
The Ion Cannon is not the conventional weapons system. Instead of inflicting physical damage upon the hull of the target vessel it instead releases ionized particles that disrupt power flow on the target. This would cut the power to the opposing vessel for at least 30 seconds, however, Impulse speed and turning would not be effected.
Lance:
Range: 1000m
Damage: 100per second
Power Drain: 75 per second
Time Delay: 0, unless overheat (30 seconds)
The lance is an old idea. What I propose is a lance similar to "Colony Wars: Vengence" lance. A focusing system on the cruiser focuses a powerful beam at the hull of an opposing vessel. The lance would melt through the armored hull.
Unlike the conventional burst weapon, the lance would be a steady stream of power until the battery drained or the lance assembly overheated (resulting in automatic shutdown).
Mercury Missile Rack
Range: N/A
Lifespan: 60 seconds per missile
Damage: 1500 per missile
Salvo: 6 Missiles
The Mercury Missile Rack (MMR) is the newest anti-fighter and anti-cruiser weapons system. Capable of firing 6 Mercury Missiles at once the system can track and eliminate 6 hostiles or with lockon attack 1 hostile. When fired without a lock, the missiles drop 1 every second for 6 seconds, the missiles acquire the 6 closest hostile targets (Group Members are safe as is team) and pursues them. If locked onto a single target, all 6 missiles will drop in a cluster formation and pursue the single lockon target.
The MMR is the ideal weapons system for a slower cruiser HWP that cant engage fighters effectively because of it's poor agility.
Okay, I want to introduce ideas for weapons that HWPs could use and weapons that could be used against HWPs:
Already proposed are Avalon Racks and small others:
Artillery Cannon:
Range: 2000m
Damage: 500 per shell
Salvo Weapon: Yes, 8 shells per salvo
Power Drain: 100 per salvo
Time Delay: 90 seconds per salvo
The Artillery Cannon (AC) is the space equivalent of an Artillery Battery. The main goal is to fire a stream of shells at the opposing force with intent to do the most damage. Multiple shells are fired to insure at least some hits per group. The weapon would be dependant upon ammunition stores inside the hull.
Ion Cannon:
Range: 1500 meters
Damage: 0
Power Drain: 200 per shot/ 500 per impact
Time Delay: 150 seconds
The Ion Cannon is not the conventional weapons system. Instead of inflicting physical damage upon the hull of the target vessel it instead releases ionized particles that disrupt power flow on the target. This would cut the power to the opposing vessel for at least 30 seconds, however, Impulse speed and turning would not be effected.
Lance:
Range: 1000m
Damage: 100per second
Power Drain: 75 per second
Time Delay: 0, unless overheat (30 seconds)
The lance is an old idea. What I propose is a lance similar to "Colony Wars: Vengence" lance. A focusing system on the cruiser focuses a powerful beam at the hull of an opposing vessel. The lance would melt through the armored hull.
Unlike the conventional burst weapon, the lance would be a steady stream of power until the battery drained or the lance assembly overheated (resulting in automatic shutdown).
Mercury Missile Rack
Range: N/A
Lifespan: 60 seconds per missile
Damage: 1500 per missile
Salvo: 6 Missiles
The Mercury Missile Rack (MMR) is the newest anti-fighter and anti-cruiser weapons system. Capable of firing 6 Mercury Missiles at once the system can track and eliminate 6 hostiles or with lockon attack 1 hostile. When fired without a lock, the missiles drop 1 every second for 6 seconds, the missiles acquire the 6 closest hostile targets (Group Members are safe as is team) and pursues them. If locked onto a single target, all 6 missiles will drop in a cluster formation and pursue the single lockon target.
The MMR is the ideal weapons system for a slower cruiser HWP that cant engage fighters effectively because of it's poor agility.
Artillery Cannon: If the flechette cannon is indication, the devs don't like generating objects 'simultaneously'.
Ion Cannon: We've discussed ion cannons before, but not at the level of a capital ship main weapon. My general feeling is that all ion weapons should cause damage inversely to the hull points (or mass or some other factor related to scale) of the target. So instead of draining a flat 500 energy, an ion cannon should drain something like 60,000,000/<max hull points of target>. So, for example a poor 'bus' getting hit by a capital ship ion cannon would take ~10000 power drain, where as a big capital ship with 600,000 hull would only lose ~100 power. My reasoning on this is that ion damage bypasses armor, hull points, and other normal protective factors. It's thus potentially a way to defeat bigger ships more easily than intended, and unbalancing if not controlled. Also, since power drain makes you more vunerable to further attack (you can't fight back or flee) it should be carefully controlled.
Excess drain could be transfered to hull damage at some ratio (say 2:1), and could/should cause 'critical hits' (if those are ever implemented).
Lastly, 'crippling' and 'stealing' ships is not something which I think works well in a multiplayer environment because its more annoying even than being killed (not to mention potentially disruptive of balance).
Lance: The problem here is that due to the lagginess of networks, steady beam weapons just don't work all that well. It's equivalent to a weapon which fires continiously in terms of its actual effect on lag.
Mercury Missile Rack: Your design is almost identical (including the number of missiles) to my 'Appolyon Swarm Launcher'.
Ion Cannon: We've discussed ion cannons before, but not at the level of a capital ship main weapon. My general feeling is that all ion weapons should cause damage inversely to the hull points (or mass or some other factor related to scale) of the target. So instead of draining a flat 500 energy, an ion cannon should drain something like 60,000,000/<max hull points of target>. So, for example a poor 'bus' getting hit by a capital ship ion cannon would take ~10000 power drain, where as a big capital ship with 600,000 hull would only lose ~100 power. My reasoning on this is that ion damage bypasses armor, hull points, and other normal protective factors. It's thus potentially a way to defeat bigger ships more easily than intended, and unbalancing if not controlled. Also, since power drain makes you more vunerable to further attack (you can't fight back or flee) it should be carefully controlled.
Excess drain could be transfered to hull damage at some ratio (say 2:1), and could/should cause 'critical hits' (if those are ever implemented).
Lastly, 'crippling' and 'stealing' ships is not something which I think works well in a multiplayer environment because its more annoying even than being killed (not to mention potentially disruptive of balance).
Lance: The problem here is that due to the lagginess of networks, steady beam weapons just don't work all that well. It's equivalent to a weapon which fires continiously in terms of its actual effect on lag.
Mercury Missile Rack: Your design is almost identical (including the number of missiles) to my 'Appolyon Swarm Launcher'.
The Ion Cannon I placed here was not designed to be used to board and seize enemy craft but simply to cause it to be stuck inside your cruisers range and unable to escape while you hammered it with heavy fire.
Artillery Cannon wouldn't create a simultaneous grouping, but instead would rapid-fire the shells.
As for my MMR and your ASL, sorry if I copied the idea at all, but I like the idea personally, and if the ASL is like this, it'd be cool to have mounted.
Artillery Cannon wouldn't create a simultaneous grouping, but instead would rapid-fire the shells.
As for my MMR and your ASL, sorry if I copied the idea at all, but I like the idea personally, and if the ASL is like this, it'd be cool to have mounted.
I didn't suggest that you copied the idea. I was only suggesting that great minds think alike. ;)
Ahh, well we are truely great minds! :D~
/me has a goatee
/me has a goatee
Hmm... i can't resist feeling that most of HWP here are weaker than most LWP. IF the idaea of neagating first 1200 points of damange would be implementet then only MMR would be able to do ANY damange to enemy (1500dmg - 1200 which is negated gives us 300dmg per missle * 6 missles = 1800pts of dmg.. it's not much for 600.000 hull craft ..)
AC: well current artilerry compared to other types of conventional weapons, are one of most destructive weapons (and are very accurate ATM), but they are slow firerate...
IC: I agree with celebrim that it would do less to bigger ships than to small one. But since capital class ships would have about 2000 - 10.000 pts of energy, than IC should take at leas 20% of that amount. And meybe call it EMP cannon, and allow it to lauch very big charget particle, whoich upon impact cause a great electrical storm, emptying battery, amd shuting downa all computers (it should acctualy burn them to ashes, but let's say that there are some emergency power-off systems or sth), giving you from 10 (small ships) to about 25s when ship can't do nothing...
MMR: sounds nice but even 6 missles do little damange. 6x1500=9000 which even don't destroy a slingle valk (even IF it hit's, what is doubtful)
Well maybe you all think that I'm fretful, but i'm affraid that fight of capital ships would be neverending :)
AC: well current artilerry compared to other types of conventional weapons, are one of most destructive weapons (and are very accurate ATM), but they are slow firerate...
IC: I agree with celebrim that it would do less to bigger ships than to small one. But since capital class ships would have about 2000 - 10.000 pts of energy, than IC should take at leas 20% of that amount. And meybe call it EMP cannon, and allow it to lauch very big charget particle, whoich upon impact cause a great electrical storm, emptying battery, amd shuting downa all computers (it should acctualy burn them to ashes, but let's say that there are some emergency power-off systems or sth), giving you from 10 (small ships) to about 25s when ship can't do nothing...
MMR: sounds nice but even 6 missles do little damange. 6x1500=9000 which even don't destroy a slingle valk (even IF it hit's, what is doubtful)
Well maybe you all think that I'm fretful, but i'm affraid that fight of capital ships would be neverending :)
Ciuciu: Well, these aren't my 'very large' weapons, so you can't expect them to be balanced against my numbers. You are correct in that the 'heavy swarm' launcher wouldn't be of much use against other capital ships (at least against armored ones), but (at least in my implementation in which they are speed 120 homing missiles) they are devestating against small craft.
CiuCiu: these are independant ideas of Celebrim's hull specs, we've just been doing a lot of comparing using them since those hull specs are the most recent, upto date, and best thought out specs we have.
And the numbers I plugged into my weapons designs are simply pulled off the top of my head.
IC: good points made, good explantations on the way:
The IC could be set to drain a certain amount of power. Say you set it to drain X power (X= A number 100 more than the largest batteries hold) from all enemies it hits. Well, because there is no battery with more power than the drain, and because you can't take what doesn't exist, the battery would be depleted totally but the fact that it took say +130 more than the battery had doesn't matter, the battery starts recharging as if at 0 instead of -130
And the numbers I plugged into my weapons designs are simply pulled off the top of my head.
IC: good points made, good explantations on the way:
The IC could be set to drain a certain amount of power. Say you set it to drain X power (X= A number 100 more than the largest batteries hold) from all enemies it hits. Well, because there is no battery with more power than the drain, and because you can't take what doesn't exist, the battery would be depleted totally but the fact that it took say +130 more than the battery had doesn't matter, the battery starts recharging as if at 0 instead of -130
1. I don't know why some peple here write Ciuciu as CiuCiu (it's easier?)
2. If electromagnetic impulse exceedes enormusly the hull "shake" capacity it should cause some more permanent damange (try to put 10.000V trhu your graphic card - it's tosted) but some larger objects could resist such shock (or had some doubled systems .. just in case)
2. If electromagnetic impulse exceedes enormusly the hull "shake" capacity it should cause some more permanent damange (try to put 10.000V trhu your graphic card - it's tosted) but some larger objects could resist such shock (or had some doubled systems .. just in case)
Or at least be electronically shielded. I always thought that if we had an Ion Cannon, it would work by draining the battery of a ship and keeping it drained. That way, weapons other than ammo-based ones and turbo would both be shut down, but the target ship doesn't become completely powerless. It can still move and dodge.
As an aside, how fast do you think the computers work in vendetta? By this time they should be using optical computer systems or something. They would be blazingly fast.
mmmm, optical processors with DNA Hard Drives.
As an aside, how fast do you think the computers work in vendetta? By this time they should be using optical computer systems or something. They would be blazingly fast.
mmmm, optical processors with DNA Hard Drives.
Optical or electronical it's still need power.. With battery tosted it won't calculate 2+2 :P
[psudoscientific explanation here]
*bump*bump*bump* (althought it's more about capital class ship armament)
Yes, yes, but we still haven't heard from Frank yet!
http://www.certify.com/wav_sounds/cartoon/bonewah.wav
Sorry FM, Frank's on an extended vacation...I dunno when he's comming back, I'll tell him you are wondering though :P
Im gonna say the computers are Quantum Computers, thats why the craft can have their active systems changed, and can shunt power around back and forth...:P
I'm with Magus over the Ion Cannon effect, although perhaps some form of hull damage could result, justified by the fact some much power is being dragged through a smaller part of the hull plate...or something.
The idea of leaving the projectile based weapons and engine impulse power online should be left because right now, the engines dont defaultly draw power the battery nor does the projectiles. The projectiles can be justified by the fact their Chemical Propellant (chemical reactions in the rocket fuel...)
Im gonna say the computers are Quantum Computers, thats why the craft can have their active systems changed, and can shunt power around back and forth...:P
I'm with Magus over the Ion Cannon effect, although perhaps some form of hull damage could result, justified by the fact some much power is being dragged through a smaller part of the hull plate...or something.
The idea of leaving the projectile based weapons and engine impulse power online should be left because right now, the engines dont defaultly draw power the battery nor does the projectiles. The projectiles can be justified by the fact their Chemical Propellant (chemical reactions in the rocket fuel...)
Why should a stream of ions empty a battery? Because that's the way it was in T-Fighter? Ok, good argument!
How can ions ions go through solid steel?
I can think of two possibilities:
1. They are extremely fast. (With extremely, I mean extremely^extremely) But some would hit something and probably instandly vapourise the complete ship. (Or you shoot just a couple of ions. Maybe those only cause cancer for the pilot)
2. The steel is extremely thin. You know those japanese houses built of paper?
Please don't get me wrong. I like the idea of a power-draining weapon. :)
And to say something constructiv:
Comment on your heavy weapon specs:
1. Damage per shot:
This Artillery mounted on a capital ship delivers only slightly more damage than my gauss mounted on my small weapons slot _IF_ all projectiles hit. I want to see how you would try to kill a bus with this thing.
2. Reload (Damage per time):
Back to the artillery/gaus comparison:
You would probably need around 80 of those artilleries (with every projectile hitting) to deliver the same damage per time as my gauss mounted on my bus.
Hehe, having looked at your powerplant stuff ...
You can't sustain 80 artilleries with those. If I tie a roid to my bus I have a better capital ship than yours.
How can ions ions go through solid steel?
I can think of two possibilities:
1. They are extremely fast. (With extremely, I mean extremely^extremely) But some would hit something and probably instandly vapourise the complete ship. (Or you shoot just a couple of ions. Maybe those only cause cancer for the pilot)
2. The steel is extremely thin. You know those japanese houses built of paper?
Please don't get me wrong. I like the idea of a power-draining weapon. :)
And to say something constructiv:
Comment on your heavy weapon specs:
1. Damage per shot:
This Artillery mounted on a capital ship delivers only slightly more damage than my gauss mounted on my small weapons slot _IF_ all projectiles hit. I want to see how you would try to kill a bus with this thing.
2. Reload (Damage per time):
Back to the artillery/gaus comparison:
You would probably need around 80 of those artilleries (with every projectile hitting) to deliver the same damage per time as my gauss mounted on my bus.
Hehe, having looked at your powerplant stuff ...
You can't sustain 80 artilleries with those. If I tie a roid to my bus I have a better capital ship than yours.