I do have one question considering the system. How do we work modular weapon craft? Like fighter jets that can swap out their missiles. Do we as the people making a submission make it impossible for the craft to have a load out above the limit, or do we leave it to the GM to limit which modular weapons the craft can equip?
Understand that Cadetnewb wanted some indication or ballpark to head towards in this regard. I myself kind of think just stuff that makes sense or figure out in visual/cinematic design how it would function. So, I looked at what the Plumeria had and found in it the basis that seemed to apply okay to many other KFY ships... so, I gave that as indication - throwing out numbers because numbers were asked and this seemed like a decent start. I don't swear by it, though. I think it needs to go in use and that we need to see how well it'll work out before making further adjustments. I'm counting on exceptions to kick that in the teeth and further adjustment/considerations will likely home in on something more accurate.
Limited ammo is an headscratcher for me too, especially in light of one-shot weapons like the Plumeria's two one-shot torpedoes. And again I'd point to Cadetnewb with a "work it out with this guy and his NTSE friends".
I'm still worried about mini-missiles though; even with ADR 2, I've used them to limit enemy maneuvering options so that guns could more easily track them. They'd either dodge the guns, or get hit by missiles if they couldn't shoot them down fast enough. Changing it to be much more damaging is quite a retcon, and I'm pretty wary about that.
I think it's just a poor transition issue, and my making mini-missiles the way they are is a compromise between the armors that use it in combat and the fighters that use them in combat expecting somekind of anti-aircraft/mecha performance out of them. If this flies, I'd expect the addition of
micro-missiles to fulfill the ADR2 weapon needs (probably light anti-armor?) and actual
missiles so fighters have a good anti-fighter weapon without it being an actual torpedo (heavy anti-mecha?).
Stretching armor and mecha separately is bound to require some birthing pains, but I think that was an unavoidable outgrowth of that.
The fighters/bombers versus starships/battleships debate
People have been pointing to a Nodachi's cannons for example, while shooting at a Plumeria - a target it does light damage to. It has four of those. Each fire 2 times per seconds.
So, in one fly-by giving me a 4 seconds window opportunity to fire those guns, I'd fire eight shots per gun, for a total of thirty-two. 7%ish damage per shot to the Plumeria's barrier. So, with just these guns, I've a potential to cause around 225% of barrier damage assuming all hit. I guess those turbo-aether guns are so laughing matter, because the Nodachi can then loose its Z-1 torpedoes on the Plumeria to score compartment-wide damage -
if the Plumeria survives that hit at all.
So, it looks to me like the Nodachi is still fairly dangerous to a destroyer-sized starship.
So, what about the bigger ones?
Well, we know the Z-1 torpedoes it packs are heavy anti-starship, so, they should be of some good against the shielding of any of those battleships. But the reason they do less is mostly on account of scale. Those things are huge! The turbo-aether guns hit the shields and it might not even do enough damage to overtake the upkeep of those things. Even if the turbo aether cannons did hit the ship, sure they'd burn the paint, leave holes and such... but the damage would be so small in comparison to the gargantuan sizes of the crafts involved that it would ne
negligible to sinking it.
I mean, have any of you played X-Wing/Tie fighter or Descent Freespace? How long have you pummeled on big ships with your small normal guns just to see a 1% difference happen? In real life, do you expect an F-22 machinegun to down an aircraft carrier within a few strafing passes? Your guns are rightly insignificant to downing the protection of such vessels in order to
threaten sink them - they're not lethal, but it does mean the GM will consider them insignificant. It's why bombers tend to shine. It's why subsystem targeting also bears some merits: sure your weapons won't breach the hull, but you might be able to cripple thruster assemblies, sensor palettes, and weapon emplacements.
I don't find this to be at all outlandish. It just depends on the GM's scenario and how you plan to deal with your limitations.
About Tanks
I personally see 'perceiving tanks as tougher' to be something that's more in relation to how tech mods judge a submission, and how a GM will interpret the ruggedness and sturdiness of said vehicles.
Right now, they're considered to be a vehicle made to be armored sitting in the mecha scale. It doesn't have as many moveable parts as a mecha or the intentionally lighterframe of fightercraft (since aerodyne works better with being light if you want to be airborne over a planet, if not in space), so I myself would likely think of tank as "more crunchable" as a GM (I think they're vulnerable to track hits, but hey, so are mecha legs or fighter wings *shrug* ). Does that require special dispensation?
I don't know. Seeing this tries to set down 'setting default' stuff, I'd leave that ultimately up to Wes/or prolongued observation of tendencies. I think Legix is right when he's saying this, though:
I think adding bonuses for specific craft needs its own look... but as of right now, I don't think the lack of said bonuses tilts the benefits of the new system overall into being a let down. If we find that the whole trading of weaponry isn't enough to make X good, then we can definitely add changes.
