-
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
Range Guidelines
- Thread starter Wes
- Start date
Kai
Retired Staff
I like the 'Large backpack' Idea; like the Fold modules the Valkyries in Macross Frontier could have attached. Also, this plays well with Origin's current power armor design, which is very modular, and most of the modules are large backpacks that contain different power sources, engines, and capabilities.
Fred
Retired Staff
Minimal-strength fold boosters are already around, right?
If these are considered, then I'd ask: what do we want them to be viable for? Intraplanetary travel, or interstellar travel?
In some cases, that could almost be like a power armor riding a very large fold booster rather than a backpack attachment. Shuttle do, after all, have their own fold boosters - making a power armor-size fold booster that would be everybit as good as a shuttle's without it being of a proper size needs to be taken into account.
If these are considered, then I'd ask: what do we want them to be viable for? Intraplanetary travel, or interstellar travel?
In some cases, that could almost be like a power armor riding a very large fold booster rather than a backpack attachment. Shuttle do, after all, have their own fold boosters - making a power armor-size fold booster that would be everybit as good as a shuttle's without it being of a proper size needs to be taken into account.
I think I'm going to reduce all the Mindy series to 10c max FTL (without fold boosters, which will not be affected). This is useful for getting around in a solar system but not really for system-to-system travel (that's what ships are for!).
The original 2500c speed was made at a time where things were overpowered.
The original 2500c speed was made at a time where things were overpowered.
MissingNo
Inactive Member
Are faster propulsion systems more expensive to make? If so, then an armor that can do damage without necessarily requiring it to end its operational life is a better candidate for such a drive system than a torpedo whose active life can probably be counted in seconds, if not moments.Wes said:
Cy83r K0rp53
Inactive Member
MissingNo said:
Actually, since in space you just have to worry about mass, anything that goes faster has proportionally larger engines. If anything, a torpedo that is bigger than a PA would have an optimal speed lower than a PA's optimal speed. And then there's accounting for the weight of fuel, which is defunct for aether tap generators and engines or other forms of infinite energy/propulsion.
Cy83r K0rp53
Inactive Member
Yes, gravity manipulation kind of obviates reducing maneuverability to protect your pilot. But then gravimetric flight assist does take power and space away from the warhead and primary booster. And then you have to consider how much mass those warheads really take up, ideally anything not designed to wreck fleets would be kinetic, that way the booster is the warhead; you'd get 100-percent of mass devoted to drive systems. And for area-effect you can use something like aether taps or any other plant-to-drive powersource that can be brought to critical mass; again with virtually 100% of mass devoted to drives.MissingNo said:
And you said physics has no place in the SARP.
CadetNewb
Well-Known Member
I've been working on weapons as of late, and even when planning my own plot, I'm starting to wonder, just what are the engagement ranges here in SARP? I remember we had an issue brought up by a PvP with Five vs. Uso a bit back that ended with us cementing maximum engagement ranges. But really, we could really use a hard article in the wiki saying just exactly what our range is on different weapon types like we do with.
Hell, I was thinking that SDR 5 weapons would/could have the longest range, as they're usually spine mounted guns on our medium-small ships, and massive turrets on our massive ships. Range would decrease with the weapon's DR as well, with SDR 1 being the shortest ranged weapons. I'm not talking about how far the solid round or laser would travel either, this is just weapon accuracy, but we could go that route too.
It would definitely justify moving in to short combat ranges, as ships would need to do so in order to bring all their weapons to bear. And it'd be nice to have more clearly defined weapons ranges on what Power Armors use too. Just saying.
I just wrote up this post while having a sudden epiphany when working on some new articles. I hope it helps.
Hell, I was thinking that SDR 5 weapons would/could have the longest range, as they're usually spine mounted guns on our medium-small ships, and massive turrets on our massive ships. Range would decrease with the weapon's DR as well, with SDR 1 being the shortest ranged weapons. I'm not talking about how far the solid round or laser would travel either, this is just weapon accuracy, but we could go that route too.
It would definitely justify moving in to short combat ranges, as ships would need to do so in order to bring all their weapons to bear. And it'd be nice to have more clearly defined weapons ranges on what Power Armors use too. Just saying.
I just wrote up this post while having a sudden epiphany when working on some new articles. I hope it helps.
Fred
Retired Staff
I doesn't quite work that way, Cadetnewb.
A weapon's effective range is more a product of the weapon type itself than any measure of destructive power on part of the weapon.
Beam weapons, for example, usually travel at the speed of light. They're amongst the most accurate weapon systems around because their time-to-delay to their target will be shorter than most other weapons.
Typically, you want to close range to get your weapons (especially subluminal ones) a better chance of striking the target. The slower the weapon, the more chances the defender has of moving out of the way before the weapon can reach it.
A weapon's effective range is more a product of the weapon type itself than any measure of destructive power on part of the weapon.
Beam weapons, for example, usually travel at the speed of light. They're amongst the most accurate weapon systems around because their time-to-delay to their target will be shorter than most other weapons.
Typically, you want to close range to get your weapons (especially subluminal ones) a better chance of striking the target. The slower the weapon, the more chances the defender has of moving out of the way before the weapon can reach it.
CadetNewb
Well-Known Member
I'm well aware of the actuality of the weapons and their physics to a degree Fred, and yes, I agree with you that the idea doesn't hold up to anyone who knows something of the matter. I did think though, that it would possibly make a good and enjoyable game mechanic, and was worth mentioning.
Who knows? With the idea, we could cite a weaker energy weapon having more beam bloom (which still happens in space from what I understand), or say a kinetic weapon of same damage class would take too long to reach the target and be dodged.
And thanks for showing me the link Wes, it'll help me a lot. It's like I'm blind or something.
Who knows? With the idea, we could cite a weaker energy weapon having more beam bloom (which still happens in space from what I understand), or say a kinetic weapon of same damage class would take too long to reach the target and be dodged.
And thanks for showing me the link Wes, it'll help me a lot. It's like I'm blind or something.
