I think this is actually best done separately. The reason for it is that, as we've pointed out, the system seems solid... but it's not tested. Seeing if we'd need said boost is vital first. Personally, I don't think it matters much... but it is science. It's sorta the same on if this completely devalues mecha, fighters, bombers, so on and so forth. It's a pretty large consensus that this makes mecha more viable in terms of their damage and compared to PA (which they are now ACTUALLY stronger than in clear definition of the system, rather than just logic), but as we pointed out this opens up the ideas of "dedicated" roles.Actually, it would only be thicker if it has a monocoque chassis. The modern method of building things tends to entail more heavy support frames, but with lighter panels in between. Mostly because the former is extremely hard to repair efficiently.
On the other hand, you could also argue using an armor penetration weapon against a civilian ship could just pass right through without doing any damage, due to the comparatively large amount of empty space inside.
Unless somebody is willing to put in some kind of bonus for explosive weapons against large but poorly armored targets, I'm not sure how to deal with that one.
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?
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 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.
My only thing is that if we aren't careful, we could do some bad things. Like turn a ground artillery tank into something akin to a planetary defense gun. AKA, fixing it with a Tier 12 weapon, you fire with special atmospheric-to-vacuum ammunition... and you effectively turn that siege gun into an anti-corvette and destroyer tank.
Agreed, but I think the opposite problem of passenger ships being basically undergunned battleships is what we are left with considering how things are left at the minute. Surely there must be some sort of middle ground.
Also, for the record, tanks being weaker defensively but stronger offensively is fine by me. I mean, my entire argument is based on the fact that the gun is bigger and more of the hull is physically taken up by it, in comparison to a fighter. The disparity of high-power weapons vs the decreasing usefulness of heavy armor is basically what is making them go out of fashion now.
Both of these things could be solved with a discrepancy between penetrating and explosive weapons, but that's a whole different can of worms.
I'm afraid I don't get what you mean. I thought that was already in. Can you elaborate?I still think general examples of what each damage category means would be helpful, adding an extra column to the table doesn't clutter the page, and in most cases referencing the specific target type shouldn't be necessary. 'Superficial damage, localized armour buckling, trivial injury' might be something I'd put to describe the first category, up to 'extreme dismemberment/partial vaporization' for the last category.
Mind you, this doesn't quite match the descriptions at the end of the article, where the first three categories of starship damage are all described as cosmetic harm. I don't think we need entries for cosmetic damage on the table, the examples should describe more meaningful examples of potential damage, so that it doesn't seem that underpowered weapons 'can't do anything' to ships.
I think Moderate Damage, actually could be better represented. A pockmark or gouge can be of differing severity, so it's not terribly helpful beyond realizing you might put big dents or small dents in something.I'm afraid I don't get what you mean. I thought that was already in. Can you elaborate?
You mean this, right?
Negligible: scratches, ruined paintjob
Light Damage: Nicks and scrapes over the hull's surface
Moderate Damage: Pockmarks and gouges over the hull's surface
I believe moderate damage is accurate. It looks like a decent step down from what heavy damage represents.
The rest I relied heavily on synonyms and previous suggestions to carry it through. As it suited other people that wanted that kind of detail, but doesn't meet your approval, I'm not sure how to improve that.
Do you have better vocabulary in mind to express lighter forms of damage?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?