WP Stagnation

Discussions about Cosmic Starfire.

Moderators: SDS Owner, SDS Members

Forum rules
Cosmic Starfire is being designed by Fred Burton (aka 'Crucis'). Please direct all inquiries to him.

1. Nothing obscene.
2. No advertising or spamming.
3. No personal information. Mostly aimed at the posting of OTHER people's information.
4. No flame wars. We encourage debate, but it becomes a flame when insults fly and tempers flare.

Try to stick with the forum's topic. Threads that belong to another forum will be moved to that forum.

Re: WP Stagnation

Postby AlexeiTimoshenko on Sun 30 Dec 2012 19:45

As far a ripple fire goes, I might have it at a higher TL as it's how GB operate. I'm not sure whether I would develop ripple fire Wb's then gunboats, or apply the gunboat tech to the Wb's.
Charles Rosenberg.

Alexei Timoshenko is the name of my protagonist in the fanfics, although I wish it could have been me.
AlexeiTimoshenko
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010 21:16
Location: Baltimore MD

Re: WP Stagnation

Postby Crucis on Sun 30 Dec 2012 21:07

AlexeiTimoshenko wrote:
Crucis wrote:I tend to think that were box launchers to be pushed down to low TL's they'd have to be significantly modified to not be unbalancing. Perhaps no ripple launching. Very slow, external reloading. Maybe something like a 2 HS launcher system with around 5 csp of on-mount missile storage, but could only launch a single SM-sized missile per turn, but with similar penalties to XO racks (negative modifiers to range and to-hit rolls). Something that could make the launcher attractive to small ships at very low TL's, but not very attractive to larger ships that need staying power and much more significant magazine capacities.


I agree with the (XO) rack type penalties and not ripple firing them (at least in a low TL version) My preference though would be to stay with a 1 HS 3 csp version though. Think of it this way. Standard W's are 3 HS. A CT can mount 2 with a Mg and fire 2 shots per turn for an extended amount of time. The same CT with 3 2 HS Wb's will get off 3 shots for 5 turns and be out of the battle. Even with datalink (expensive for such units) that's 9 shots per turn. With a 1 HS version each ship could launch 6 SM per turn which would lessen the need for datalink on such specialized attrition units.


I guess that to me the point is that I wouldn't want such a system to be too good, especially at such a low TL. Also, I wouldn't be particularly interested in "lessening the need" for datalink, because if you do decide to use datalink, you're going to have a datagroup that can pump out volleys large enough to swamp the PD of any ship at TL's 2-3.

Also, I'm not exactly thinking this launcher as a "box launcher" in the same sense as the Wb. I'm thinking of it more as a light "missile launcher" designed for small ships (smaller than DD), carrying a limited on-mount magazine. (Perhaps 5 csp is a little low.) Besides, I'm not really sure what to do with it quite yet.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: WP Stagnation

Postby tmul4050 on Mon 31 Dec 2012 01:28

A long time ago, on a different forum, I put foreward an idea about an energy weapon version of the sbmhawk. It cost the same and mounted one weapon (two and three at higher tech levels) which could fire on one target. Once it fired it shutdown (the power was used up). Initially it turns up at TL9, with the improved models at TL11 and 13. The TL 9 version mounted lasers, TL11 had force and energy beams and the TL 13 had primaries. plasma guns were also availiable. The unit had a max range of 8 hexes. Targeting was the same as usual.

Just thinking on the plasma guns I suppose you could double the weapons but reduce the range( :?: ). That might be over powered though. :?

I can't think of any reason this could not have been done. It seems obvious in canon that miniturisation of power supply research is ongoing.

My group at the time play tested it and found it could be very dangerous if unexpected. The way to pull their teeth was to not do a point blank WP defense and swamp them with fighters.
tmul4050
Commander
Commander
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun 27 Dec 2009 20:28

Re: WP Stagnation

Postby tmul4050 on Mon 31 Dec 2012 01:31

BTW happy new year :)
tmul4050
Commander
Commander
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun 27 Dec 2009 20:28

Re: WP Stagnation

Postby Dawn Falcon on Mon 31 Dec 2012 03:21

tmul4050 wrote:I can't think of any reason this could not have been done. It seems obvious in canon that miniturisation of power supply research is ongoing.


The type of power levels are going to be way beyond capacitor storage. There's already a way to get "energy" out of a pod though, it's called laser warheads! Bomb-pumped lasers like that are the best way...
User avatar
Dawn Falcon
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Thu 02 Jul 2009 17:26

Re: WP Stagnation

Postby Crucis on Mon 31 Dec 2012 04:26

tmul4050 wrote:A long time ago, on a different forum, I put foreward an idea about an energy weapon version of the sbmhawk. It cost the same and mounted one weapon (two and three at higher tech levels) which could fire on one target. Once it fired it shutdown (the power was used up). Initially it turns up at TL9, with the improved models at TL11 and 13. The TL 9 version mounted lasers, TL11 had force and energy beams and the TL 13 had primaries. plasma guns were also available. The unit had a max range of 8 hexes. Targeting was the same as usual.

Just thinking on the plasma guns I suppose you could double the weapons but reduce the range( :?: ). That might be over powered though. :?

I can't think of any reason this could not have been done. It seems obvious in canon that miniturisation of power supply research is ongoing.

My group at the time play tested it and found it could be very dangerous if unexpected. The way to pull their teeth was to not do a point blank WP defense and swamp them with fighters.


What you're describing here is roughly similar to Ultra's beam armed drones. I'm not all that sure that beam drones are all that necessary with the existence of the array of missiles that missile pods already use. In particular, when missile pods armed with CAM2's with antimatter or laser warheads exist, I'm not sure that beam armed drones/pods are all that necessary.

Are they do-able? Aside from a laser torpedo-like drone, like Dawn Falcon says, I'm not sure that they would really have sufficient power to fire. OTOH, IDEW's and 2nd Gen IDEW's certainly allow for beam buoys, so suppose that it's logically arguable that doing the same thing with a pod/drone isn't out of the question, though they'd probably be limited to a single shot in a short time frame. But aside from the possible exception of primary-armed beam drones, I'm not sure that they'd be as effective as CAM2 missile pods.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: WP Stagnation

Postby AlexeiTimoshenko on Mon 31 Dec 2012 04:47

Crucis wrote:Are they do-able? Aside from a laser torpedo-like drone, like Dawn Falcon says, I'm not sure that they would really have sufficient power to fire. OTOH, IDEW's and 2nd Gen IDEW's certainly allow for beam buoys, so suppose that it's logically arguable that doing the same thing with a pod/drone isn't out of the question, though they'd probably be limited to a single shot in a short time frame. But aside from the possible exception of primary-armed beam drones, I'm not sure that they'd be as effective as CAM2 missile pods.


CAM2 pods are better. The only time a F armed pod would even be close is at point blank range.
Charles Rosenberg.

Alexei Timoshenko is the name of my protagonist in the fanfics, although I wish it could have been me.
AlexeiTimoshenko
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010 21:16
Location: Baltimore MD

Re: WP Stagnation

Postby Crucis on Mon 31 Dec 2012 07:49

AlexeiTimoshenko wrote:
Crucis wrote:Are they do-able? Aside from a laser torpedo-like drone, like Dawn Falcon says, I'm not sure that they would really have sufficient power to fire. OTOH, IDEW's and 2nd Gen IDEW's certainly allow for beam buoys, so suppose that it's logically arguable that doing the same thing with a pod/drone isn't out of the question, though they'd probably be limited to a single shot in a short time frame. But aside from the possible exception of primary-armed beam drones, I'm not sure that they'd be as effective as CAM2 missile pods.


CAM2 pods are better. The only time a F armed pod would even be close is at point blank range.


Actually, I'd think that the only time a F-armed "pod" could be better is outside of the max range of CAM2's. But then, that's what the regular LRW-armed missile pods are for.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: WP Stagnation

Postby AlexeiTimoshenko on Mon 31 Dec 2012 17:15

Depending upon the number of F vs the number of CAM2 F pods may be better at 0-3 hex range. The key is wether the pod mounted beams are hitting as IDEW's.
Charles Rosenberg.

Alexei Timoshenko is the name of my protagonist in the fanfics, although I wish it could have been me.
AlexeiTimoshenko
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010 21:16
Location: Baltimore MD

Re: WP Stagnation

Postby Crucis on Tue 01 Jan 2013 00:20

AlexeiTimoshenko wrote:Depending upon the number of F vs the number of CAM2 F pods may be better at 0-3 hex range. The key is whether the pod mounted beams are hitting as IDEW's.


Well, a number of factors could come into play.

1) are the F beam drone/pods firing as IDEW1 or IDEW2?

2) the relative cost of the pods (and ammo).

3) the number of beams and CAMs mounted in each pod.

4) relative to-hit numbers.

And so on...
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

PreviousNext

Return to Cosmic Starfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests