WP Stagnation

[Crucis]

Specific system, no. Type of system (i.e. engine, weapon etc), maybe.

Still seems more than a little questionable to me. Heck, maybe even moreso. If you're not targeting a specific system, then it seems to me that you're basically targeting the ship and hoping for the best, which doesn't seem any different than normal.

[tmul4050]

Maybe it would be simpler to just say needlers and primaries are the same, and let the precise aiming depend on sensor tech.
Or just get rid of the needlers altogether. I don't see them being a big loss. They don't even turn up in the fiction much and seem like to much of a good thing to kill missle ships (target the magazines. No ammo means no missles and maybe a antimater explosion).

[Dawn Falcon]

Well, there's reason to have a precision weapon in each tree, but they might not differ.

I'm dubious about primary pods, any weapon which can only fire every other turn will need a lot of energy storage (at least equal to the weapon size extra, I'd say) to be pod-mounted.


tmul4050 - No, that's hand-waved away. Precision damage doesn't detonate antimatter. It ruins the magazine and all you can then do is dump the contents, but...

[Crucis]

Maybe it would be simpler to just say needlers and primaries are the same, and let the precise aiming depend on sensor tech.
Or just get rid of the needlers altogether. I don't see them being a big loss. They don't even turn up in the fiction much and seem like to much of a good thing to kill missle ships (target the magazines. No ammo means no missles and maybe a antimater explosion).

it sort of depends on how I end up handling any possible tech trees, trunks, whatever. Needle beams are the particle beam equivalent of primary beams.

[Crucis]

Well, there's reason to have a precision weapon in each tree, but they might not differ.

I'm dubious about primary pods, any weapon which can only fire every other turn will need a lot of energy storage (at least equal to the weapon size extra, I'd say) to be pod-mounted.

Actually, D.F., if ... IF ... there are beam pods/drones, they'd probably be based on IDEW technology and only be able to fire once per interception turn... which would mean once per battle. I'm frankly not that keen on the general idea. It's an Ultra tech idea that doesn't exactly excite me, but I am open to changing my mind on it...

Also, I might prefer that beam drones were all one shot weapons, though I don't know if the physics would legitimately allow for an explosion pumped non-laser beam weapon.

[AlexeiTimoshenko]

Also, I might prefer that beam drones were all one shot weapons, though I don't know if the physics would legitimately allow for an explosion pumped non-laser beam weapon.

That's the easy part. The capacitor on the drone has enough power for a single shot.

As far as needle beams go, perhaps a larger list of systems that they skip would solve the problem. My basic thought is that with Xr they can be refined to target energy intensive systems (engines, weapons, electronics etc.) They would skip things like A,H,V,(Bb),Mg or systems like T/Ti/Pb that were not active. This would explain why they hit shields, unlike primary beams, as shields are an energy intensive system. Without Xr, needle beams would default to 1 point energy beams.

[Dawn Falcon]

Also, I might prefer that beam drones were all one shot weapons, though I don't know if the physics would legitimately allow for an explosion pumped non-laser beam weapon.

I can certainly see bomb-pumped particle beams, so E's in there. F is more problematical.

[Crucis]

Also, I might prefer that beam drones were all one shot weapons, though I don't know if the physics would legitimately allow for an explosion pumped non-laser beam weapon.

I can certainly see bomb-pumped particle beams, so E's in there. F is more problematical.

Ok, that's good to know, just in case.

[Cralis]

Also, I might prefer that beam drones were all one shot weapons, though I don't know if the physics would legitimately allow for an explosion pumped non-laser beam weapon.

I can certainly see bomb-pumped particle beams, so E's in there. F is more problematical.

I'm not so sure about that. Lasers work because once you focus the beam, you're done. It's on the way. Particle beams require an accelerator that would be destroyed by the initial EMP, long before the particles could be accelerated in the right direction. Even if you were to contain the detonation (aka DEC), the EMP would still play havoc with the accelerator, if not disable or destroy it outright.

[procyon]

Also, I might prefer that beam drones were all one shot weapons, though I don't know if the physics would legitimately allow for an explosion pumped non-laser beam weapon.

I can certainly see bomb-pumped particle beams, so E's in there. F is more problematical.

I'm not so sure about that. Lasers work because once you focus the beam, you're done. It's on the way. Particle beams require an accelerator that would be destroyed by the initial EMP, long before the particles could be accelerated in the right direction. Even if you were to contain the detonation (aka DEC), the EMP would still play havoc with the accelerator, if not disable or destroy it outright.

I guess that depends on the type of particle.
Normal particles would be in trouble. But they shouldn't be able to cross a DF anyway.
If the particles were 'force carriers' (gluons, etc) - of zero rest mass, velocity of c, and transparent to EM - this might not be anymore of a limitation than it is with bomb pumped lasers.
Depends mostly on how you generate them.