What's new
  • If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
  • 📅 April 2024 is YE 46.3 in the RP.

Approved Submission C9 Warship

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wes

Wes

Founder & Admin
Staff Member
🌸 FM of Yamatai
🎖️ Game Master
🎨 Media Gallery
Submission URL
https://stararmy.com/wiki/doku.php?id=faction:uso:c9
Submission Faction(s)
Submission Terms
  1. I agree
Hello, I'm resubmitting this ship for Zack, based on the request by staffer Ame that someone besides Zack do the re-submission.

I request that only one setting submissions moderator review the submission, since the "dogpile" last time was unfortunate.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This suggestion has been implemented. Votes are no longer accepted.
I’m taking this review.

The C9 RUDaaS missiles are very much not simply “cargo,” they are active missiles and are ready to be launched at any time. They count towards TEW.

It’s also a little hard to classify it as Tier 15 when a large portion of the midsection is really just thin wagers of radiator.
 
I've corrected some spelling issues.

I request a checklist and that meta follow the Reviewing Submissions guidelines as written.
 
I don't see any mention of Rudaas in the C9 article.
 
My point exactly, Rudaas has no place in the C9's submission thread as reason to reject it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wes
Well, let’s just reword that in checklist format then.

Hello! Welcome to checklist!

[ YES ] 1. The destination URL should be a page in the appropriate namespace and titled lower_case_with_underscores
[ SÍ ] 2. The article is in the appropriate format and article template
[ OUI ] 3. The article follows our wiki style guidelines, including: No forced line breaks, text after each section header, etc.
[ JA ] 4. The article is easily read and free of errors in spelling and grammar
[ ] 5. Links to other wiki articles are present as appropriate
[ KEN ] 6. The article fits into the Star Army universe's space opera theme and technology levels
[ JES ] 7. Images in the article are hosted on Star Army's wiki and sourced responsibly (contact Wes privately if there's a concern)
[ HAI ] 8. The article is original and doesn't contain copy-pasted content from other articles.
[ ] 9. The article complies with Star Army's rules in terms of damage ratings, speed limits, etc.
[ ] 10. The Faction Manager(s), if applicable, have posted approval for this article in this thread.

Here's some fixes this article still needs:

FM Approval: @Zack get over here

The Vertical Launch Cells don’t have any missiles compatible. Please list so we can check them over. We’ll calculate those if they’re filled up.

The mid body is really thin...how’s it going to hold up as a Tier 15?

@Ametheliana Aha, yes! But the C9 is very badly wikified. If you read the RUDaaS container’s article, it states it can fit into a Huge size starship cargo container. The VLC is 4 Huge containers, for some odd reason pointing outwards like a missile tube. Hmm...weapon? I think so.

When these fixes are made, please post a reply here so I can re-check the article. Thank you!
 
The VLCs are simply for launching any type of cargo container. They are not weapons per se.

The thin midsection is something that a GM can account for. The ship's damage-absorbing capabilities are concentrated in the large hunk of metal at the front. The DR system doesn't account for such unbalanced-defense ships but it's not an issue I think.
 
I’ll give it that, the ship-splitting mechanic covers that part of inflating its toughness to be back on par.

But why would you need to launch cargo? Isn’t that a little odd and impractical?
 
It simply makes the ship more flexible. USO has a history of making container-sized tools from everything like laser mines it can leave in orbit to missiles or even homes. Since these things are basically self-propelled vehicles it is my opinion they should be treated as small craft (like starfighters) and not really counted in the ship's weapons since SARP has never counted fighter capacity as part of DR.

Plus they can now drop their shipments at the first sign of an Imperial cruiser.

Greedo-George-Lucas-1130151.jpg
 
Last edited:
FM Approval.

"Why would you need to launch cargo?" <--- Does that matter for approval?

It doesn't, but consider the following. The majority of starship parts that the USO would need to build a ship are already containerized. There is also an obvious need for being able to hold huge size cargo containers.... (Wes beat me to it as I'm typing this :_( ) ... Not only can these ships store cargo but they could also store additional replacement engines/shields/computers/weapons. They could store ships like the boxmine or the cargo crane. I could even put engines facing the right way into these launch cells and use them as thrusters or engines.

Of course, you need a way to get them out of the hole once you put them in too.
 
Aha, so precedent exists. Well, not my issue then...we’ll probably either never really deal with it for a long time or we’ll end up with a thread on it in Setting Discussion.

Nothing else seems borked. And off goes the C9, it is back to being approved.

(Well until a C10 happens but we’ll deal with that when it comes)
 
Wait did I miss the boxmines in the weapons calculation I did for Ame a while back? I probably should have included those since they're mines, and are deployable weapons systems.

I can add those in if the reviewer thinks they're needed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top