• 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

Range Guidelines

What about limiting power armor FTL to power armors that have some sort of large bulky FTL drive strapped to their back?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
What about the Sylph configuration? Not only is having four aether gatlings pretty powerful, but it also really enhances the Mindy II's speed.

Any adjustments you want there?

Also, have you considered the case of shuttles and how most of them go at 5000c?
 
I was thinking the Sylph would be 10c with the wing pack and no FTL without it.

I think the current shuttle speeds are okay.
 
Wes said:
Torpedoes are bigger than the armors with more room for systems. Why would armors go faster? I'm just looking for a good explanation.
Click to expand...
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.
 

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.
 
Bah. You're getting your realistic physics into my SARP.


Lets just say that Torpedoes and missiles go faster than things like armors and fighters because since they're unmanned, they don't have to worry about accidently crushing a pilot.
 
Logically, that would be the reason anyhow, but that's assuming the fighters and PAs don't have inertial dampers of some kind.
 
MissingNo said:
Logically, that would be the reason anyhow, but that's assuming the fighters and PAs don't have inertial dampers of some kind.
Click to expand...
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.

And you said physics has no place in the SARP.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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…