• 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 stararmy@gmail.com 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

[Origin] VM4 Garuda

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
Re: [Origin] Garuda

Firstly, I want to point out I am very opposed to any weapon that can be frequently useable by a mecha do more than 1 SDR of damage. Those 2 SDR cannons have to go, or be toned down.

I personally really dislike this submission, though it should be no grounds to not approve it. When anti-ship mecha start showing up and giving me bad Gundam Seed vibes, I get worried that the indulgences given to giant mecha fans in SARP have perhaps gone too far.

We finally sort of got most power armor to stop behaving like fightercraft so to have them operate more like ground infantry, even the Mindy power armor (i.e.: in the Sakura's first mission, a lone dying Mindy-suited Ketsurui Samurai was enough to destroy a SMX carrier (clearly a capital vessel). I am not, as a GM, wholly pleased to see the vacuum filled again - especially a transformable mecha considering we had also phased those out (back when KFY made and used some).
 
Re: [Origin] Garuda

The Anti-ship cannons can only be used once ever three turns, And a Frame is around 9 meters tall. I've talked with Kai, and we've talked about fitting starship grade cannons on frames before. It isn't that unreasonable, when we both compare the size of the weapons with the size of a frame. There isn't anything wrong with making a specialized vehicle for anti-ship strikes. Its like a modern Strike craft with Exocets or other Anti-Ship missiles. And for your fear of this being an overpowered weapon that is destroying capital ships left and right, the cannons do have a low rate of fire, according to Kai. Giving a fightercraft or something of similar size an Anti-Ship weapon is fine. Giving one to a PA isn't. A Frame is not a PA. A PA is not a Frame. Take a Frame, say an Asura. Compare its general handheld weapon to the normal handheld weapon of a PA, say a Mindy. The Asura's weapon not only outsizes the Mindy's gun, it's of comparable size to the Mindy itself.

Secondly, this is not the first transformable mecha recently submitted. Exhack submitted the Raevr VANDR, which is also transformable, and fulfills a similar role to the Garuda.
 
Re: [Origin] Garuda

Anti-Armor weapons are designed to go around and poke holes in airplanes, buses, walls and the armors of both tanks and emcha.

Anti-Ship weapons are designed at the very minimum to be able, at SDR 1, to blast through entire buildings, or fire at a modern sea-going oil tanker and expect - in one shot - that you can sink it.

The scope of an SDR 2 weapon is far greater. We're talking leveling city-blocks here. It's the stuff usually only ships pack and small ships also don't have a whole lot of those. Heck, the SDR 2 weapon can exceed their shield absorption capacity, which kinds of proves my point that it's over the top for a mecha - even a big one such as yours.

Having an SDR weapon rating in the first place means you can dent the ship's shields or hull, whereas other anti-armor weapons usually don't (heat absorbed, ping off hull harmlessly or leave's dents that aren't pivotal to winning a battle).

That's plenty enough to fulfill your ship killing role - especially considering this is a directed energy weapon that the machine can use again and again as long as its power plant lasts in opposition to what a missile-packing fightercraft usually boasts.

I'm thinking of the T5 Tora here, which has a single one-shot anti-ship weapon that does SDR 4. After that, it's done all it can and it needs to retreat to reload - the only highlight of the weapon's high SDR is the penetration value and I find it credible enough for a fighter to carry a single ship-killing torpedo.

Your Garuda, though? Twin self-powered cannons that can fire over and over when they cycle back. Start with a twin 2 SDR salvo! Ha! In your face, Tora. I just did as much damage as you and I'll have another shot in 30 seconds while you go cry to Mama for more ammo at your base! HELL YEAH!

...

No, my objection stands. Get those SDR 2 weapon down to ADR 5/SDR 1. You can even get rid of the weapon's downtime to a degree - but I've no intent to quietly have you potentially exceed the spike damage of Bombers and I really do think the shields of the smaller starships should be able to absorb the abuse with no risk of penetration until they are depleted.
 
Re: [Origin] Garuda

I can't come up with a long, multi-paragraph rebuttal to that.

All I can say is that when I came up with the Garuda, It had a nice purpose: Support. Being able to move fast, transform, and harass small escorts. I don't want to move it down to SDR 2, because it doesnt make sense. If something is big enough to mount a ship grade weapon, it shouldn't take its design fighting and clawing his way through detractors to get it approved.
 
Re: [Origin] Garuda

And so, your creation which is specialized at it, must do it better than the other things the setting has that are specialized at anti-ship roles... because it is your creation.

You're right. This isn't a very good argument.
 
Re: [Origin] Garuda

Fred said:
And so, your creation which is specialized at it, must do it better than the other things the setting has that are specialized at anti-ship roles... because it is your creation.

You're right. This isn't a very good argument.
Click to expand...


Don't put words in my mouth, please. I never said that just because it was specialized at something, it was better than something else at it.
 
Re: [Origin] Garuda

That is the statement you make with SDR 2.

Many small ships have something like 6 SP of durandium armor, with a shield that will mitigate 1 SDR off every shot (for a total of 10 SDR, before the shields are depleted).

Catch such a ship alone at rest, and a single Garuda can practically toast it. That ring alarm bells in my head.

Catch it with shields on, and it'll still sustain a whole lot of damage even so. If your first firing, even with its shields on, it'll lose a whole third of its effective hull life? It's ridiculous to think your Garuda can load on equipment that can realistically overpower the assets of a ship significantly bigger than it.

*eyeroll* Anti-ship roles aren't those are not supposed to assuredly ass-rape the opposition when it comes from a lesser category (in this case, mecha). In the instance of a mecha made to threaten a ship, it's exceptional in itself to have weapons that can threaten a ship.

With SDR 1, you can damage said ship's shields. You have two of those. Bring four friends along with you and then you can start fulfilling the ship-killing idea behind the mecha. All five will fire, deplete the shields and then keep firing and hopefully destroy the ship before it destroys them.

That's plenty enough, for a unit of that size and strength.
 
Re: [Origin] Garuda

Though I don't think it should hold it up, the name Garuda also happens to be the callsign for the main character in the Ace Combat games, and the armor and that pilot would be performing similar roles, which brings up hesitation to me. It's seems a bit too close to copyright infringement to me.
 
Re: [Origin] Garuda

The Weapons in question are Ionic weapons, they produce an electromagnetic pulse which can damage shields and electronics rather well, but is next to useless against actual armor.

However, I do agree that they need to be toned down and have told Five in the past that he cannot put two SDR2 weapons on his frame. Obviously, I hadn't noticed he left them on.

So yes, Five. Bring them down to SDR1, they don't NEED to be more powerful than that, especially if you have two.

On top of this, I would like approval on this to wait for until Five has at least shown me satisfactory work (as in near completion) of a purely civilian frame, and that any new models he makes must also have a civilian model to accompany their submissions.
 
Re: [Origin] Garuda

Ionic Pulse Cannons reduced to SDR 1, Civillian Frame finished.
 
Re: [Origin] Garuda

This review is for: Garuda

The submitted article is/has…
[x] A general topic sentence under the title header
[x] Artwork (illustrations are strongly encouraged for all spacecraft and handheld items)
[x] Needed and/or useful to the setting
[x] In the proper format/template
[x] Proofread for spelling and grammar
[x] Easy to read and understand (not a lengthy mass of technobabble)
[ ] Wikified (terms that could be a link should be a link)
[x] No red and/or broken links
[ ] Reasonably scientifically plausible
[x] Reasonably neutral point of view

The submitted article is/does not…
[x] Overpowered (or cutting tech for a faction with little or no roleplay)
[ ] Obtusely redundant
[x] Contain copy pasta descriptions of systems or interior compartments
[ ] Unauthorized by faction managers or player-controlled corporation
[ ] Contain references to IC events that have not occurred (SM must authorize retcons)
[ ] Use second-person language (“you” or “your”) unless it is an instructional guide aimed at players.
[ ] Use bombastic language (“virtually immune,” “nearly indestructible,” “insanely powerful,” “horrible effects”)
[ ] Use an unbalanced header/text ratio (many headers but sections are one-liners)
[ ] Use major unapproved sub-articles that should be submitted separately
[x] Lacking Detail
[ ] Images hosted on sites other than stararmy.com (Photobucket, Imageshack, etc are not allowed)

The article has…
[ ] Speeds in compliance with the Starship Speed Standard, if applicable
[ ] Damage Capacity and Damage Ratings in compliance with the DR Guidelines
[x] The in-character year of creation/manufacture. (Should be current year. Future years not allowed).
[x] The Standard Product Nomenclature System, if applicable.


Summary
Issue1: Weapon articles need to be wikified, weapon articles that have wiki pages but have stats that don’t match those pages will require either resubmission as a new stub article or reapproval of the previous article.

Issue2: Afterburners on this are unacceptable. Being able to move at .99c continuously and being able to maneuver around is absurd, being able to move at 1.05c is impossible, having a speed difference between the two forms while in space makes no sense (same engines, same mass, no reason for speed/acceleration to be different) and finally a x3 speed boost for 10 minutes doesn’t really fit with how engines would work. Why is there a 10 minute limit? How would afterburners even work on an IAPD?

Issue3: The article does not state if the submission uses the starship or the armor damage scale on the Damage Capacity section of the template (though it does say it later in the submission).

Issue4: No accompanying civilian starship submission.

Issue5: Links to previous mecha submissions for parts should instead be to separate wiki articles about the component.

Issue6: speeds in excess of mach 6 with this vehicle would almost certainly result in its destruction due atmospheric friction.

Issue7: This has the same amount of SP as a scout starship, yet is vastly smaller and has considerably less armor than starships of similar SP. Being in the starship size bracket at all seems a bit much.

Status: , Pending



(If a military starship) URL of accompanying civilian ship is: Needs a civilian starship submission

I intend to finish this review by: Friday(WRITE IN DATE)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: [Origin] Garuda

Summary
Issue1: Weapon articles need to be wikified, weapon articles that have wiki pages but have stats that don’t match those pages will require either resubmission as a new stub article or reapproval of the previous article.

All weapons used on this are in the wiki.


Issue2: Afterburners on this are unacceptable. Being able to move at .99c continuously and being able to maneuver around is absurd, being able to move at 1.05c is impossible, having a speed difference between the two forms while in space makes no sense (same engines, same mass, no reason for speed/acceleration to be different) and finally a x3 speed boost for 10 minutes doesn’t really fit with how engines would work. Why is there a 10 minute limit? How would afterburners even work on an IAPD?

Removed.

Issue3: The article does not state if the submission uses the starship or the armor damage scale on the Damage Capacity section of the template (though it does say it later in the submission).

Fixed


Issue4: No accompanying civilian starship submission.

https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=origin:m1_civilian

Issue5: Links to previous mecha submissions for parts should instead be to separate wiki articles about the component.

Fixed
Issue6: speeds in excess of mach 6 with this vehicle would almost certainly result in its destruction due atmospheric friction.

Fixed.

Issue7: This has the same amount of SP as a scout starship, yet is vastly smaller and has considerably less armor than starships of similar SP. Being in the starship size bracket at all seems a bit much.

This issue is based purely on you misreading the information. Disregarding it.



https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=origin:m1_civilian
 
Re: [Origin] Garuda


Rejected on grounds of faction manager's limitations. Submission can be opened for review later once 4 more civilian submissions have been made or Kai changes his mind.
 
Re: [Origin] Garuda




This is totally not what Kai said.


He said that this was to come into effect after the Garuda and Oban where approved.
 
Re: [Origin] Garuda

I did indeed say that it applied to future submissions. As the Garuda was already an active submission, my ruling does not apply to it.
 
Re: [Origin] Garuda

Alright then, still waiting on the civilian submission and the required updates.
 
Re: [Origin] Garuda

Uso said:
Alright then, still waiting on the civilian submission and the required updates.
Click to expand...

Oh, for the love of god, I already made the changes you requested


'And don't play dumb here. I just linked to the damn Oban. Don't act like you can't see it, or that it doesn't count as civillian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…