Rejected Submission RUDaaS Missile

Zack · Jun 25, 2018

FrostJaeger · Jun 26, 2018

There, to the best of my knowledge, isn't a site rule that says muzzle velocities (or, in this case, jet velocities) are optional, @Zack.

META_mahn · Jun 26, 2018

Rizzo said:
Also, it's not that it's attacking 3 times, it's just one big hit.

Aha, I understand what it means now. Very unique idea there, being more of a status effect weapon than a weapon made to do damage. I like it. SARP, make more. I demand like eight by next week.

Although it isn't exactly only disabling systems, it's also firing a big screwoff cone of Tier 14 death.

Ametheliana · Jun 26, 2018

So, "really fast" is not instantaneous, as people are assuming, then.

In FTL module:
General
TEXT/PROSE
Class: Wz-p4000

META_mahn · Jun 26, 2018

Ametheliana said:
So, "really fast" is not instantaneous, as people are assuming, then.

The question is, what is "really fast."

Is it light speed? 0.9c? 0.7c? 0.4c? 300km/hr?

For human standards, 300km/hr is stupendously fast. 0.4c for ship standards is fast. 0.6c is fast even for missiles. 0.9c is fast even for most projectile weapons. Light speed is the cosmic speed limit, the highest of "really fast" you can go.

Best to have a line saying "how fast," since ambiguity in this stuff isn't very good.

Ametheliana · Jun 26, 2018

I forget who made this rule, but:

Missile-based weapon systems such as missiles, rockets, and torpedoes are no longer required to have a listed STL velocity as of January 1st, 2018.

The FTL module has listed speeds.

Alex Hart · Jun 26, 2018

My question is what do we treat as a single weapon? The missile container which has two missile tubes in it, or do we treat the whole set of vertical launch cells that we've seen used to launch the missile container as a single weapon?

Either way, there's a concern about a weapon of which each cell or barrel or launch tube launches 4 weapons, each of which launches two missiles.

This is a problem because each listed weapon that uses this is going to really have a capacity to simultaneously launch 8 times more missiles than it appears it is able to at first glance.

Rizzo · Jun 26, 2018

I suppose the same argument could be made of cannons, @Alex Hart. They too have more than one munition. Really, if a player engages in PvP and fails to understand the capabilites of the enemy they are attacking that is their own fault. We all know the phrase, "know thy enemy." Our setting has far more powerful weapons that can fire repeatedly. The howitzer missile is a little overboard but I don't see any difference between this and an equivalent cannon.

FrostJaeger · Jun 26, 2018

I was the one who made that rule, @Ametheliana, and it applies to the speed of the missile when en route to a target. It does not apply to how fast a missile's "ranged weapon" - as that's what a 900,000-kilometer jet plume is: a ranged weapon - can travel.

META_mahn · Jun 26, 2018

@Rizzo The difference is you can throw the missile to somewhere else and fire those missiles, at which point it becomes sort of a single-use drone. Multiple attack angles without the big size of a ship.

Rizzo · Jun 26, 2018

@META_mahn oh right, I specifically was referring to the ammo capacity of the launcher. I personally prefer a missile to be a one-time use big shot.

Zack · Jun 27, 2018

@Ametheliana added the prose under the general header.

Alex Hart · Jun 27, 2018

So no one answered this. What do we treat as a single missile in terms of weapons? Is each missile container a single missile under the weapons limits?

Because that doesn’t make sense. Each missile container feels more like its own weapon.

So how do we handle these?

Rizzo · Jun 27, 2018

The second and fourth notes on the Weapon Limitations Guide state:

For weapon systems that use ammunition with different tiers: the ammunition with the highest tier determines the overall tier of the weapon system.
For missile launchers (like the Mini-Missile Launcher Pod): each “launcher” is counted as a single weapon system, regardless of how many missiles it can carry or launch simultaneously.

So in this case the launcher would be a single tier 13 weapon. While the tier 14 EMP would make it a T14 weapon that specific missile is a less-lethal ordinance and cannot kill a ship effectively like the Y-H warhead does, though the argument can be made.

Alex Hart · Jun 27, 2018

So each vertical launch cell, which is how the missile containers are deployed, is a single weapon.

I can understand that logic, but the cells don’t launch missiles, the containers do, so wouldn’t that make each container a weapon itself?

Rizzo · Jun 27, 2018

Well, let's look at it a little bit differently. This one container is specifically designed to carry the missile and eventually deploy it. So yes, the container is a weapon, but only when it is carrying a missile, which is also a weapon. Now the missile, which perfectly fits the description of a weapon, requires something to carry it, a launch platform of some type which the container provides. So yes, the container is a weapon because it is carrying and delivering a payload.
This is seen in the mini missile launcher pod. The difference here is scale. Truly, the idea of missiles being treated differently is kind of made unnecessary by the new standards. It is better to Simply think of this submission as a tier 13 weapon that can be fired twice.

Alex Hart · Jun 27, 2018

I don’t think the missiles need to be treated differently, I think that each RudASS container needs to be counted as a weapon because each container launches multiple RudASS missiles.

My problem is that when the C9 has been examined up to this point each vertical launch cell has been counted as say, 1 RudASS missile launching weapon.

When in reality each cell holds 4 RudASS missile launching weapons, costing 4 times as much in terms of weapon limitations.

Rizzo · Jun 27, 2018

Well that is a little bit more confusing. But I suppose it really comes down to the launcher itself. According to the current rules if 1 missile launcher can hold hundreds of missiles it still only counts as one weapon. In saying that it's not that much different from the way of Machine Gun Works as it just sprays ordinance as quickly as possible, in this specific case we only need to worry about 2 missiles per pod. If an entirely new launching platform is built that carries 100 of these missiles and can fire them all at once our current ruleset would count that as only a single t13 weapon system. I'm not saying whether that is right or wrong, that's just our current rules. I suppose that is where good judgment of a moderator comes into play to ensure that technology does not get too out of control

Alex Hart · Jun 27, 2018

This is why I’m conflicted. Each missile container should count as a weapon just based on the weapon limitations.

So I feel like that part is clear cut, insofar as the fact that each missile container has to be counted as a tier 13 weapon.

My next concern is that each of the Howitzer warhead missiles essentially becomes a missile tipped with a single shot plumeria main weapon array, and that shot has a range of not one, not two, but 3 light seconds.

That’s a pretty friggin huge area of effect for a missile.

FrostJaeger · Jun 27, 2018

The more I think about it, the more this is honestly starting to look like an attempt at circumventing the Weapon Limitations via vertical launch systems, similar to what Arieg originally attempted to do with the Indigo. With that in mind, I agree with the logic @Alex Hart is employing, thus I'm going to propose this in order to avoid any further arguments on the matter and set a precedent for future submissions:

The final "launcher" of a missile - in this case, the RUDaaS container - is what is counted as a missile launcher for the purposes of the Weapon Limitations.

Using that, the armament of the C9 is as follows...

...and obviously needs to be reduced, as it vastly exceeds the maximum limit of 8 on-tier weapons and two tier-equivalent weapon groups. There are two ways of approaching this:

The first approach is to reduce the number of RUDaaS containers the C9 is capable of launching from ninety-six to twelve.

The second approach is to reduce the tier of the Yuuko-Howitzer Warhead from 13 (Light Anti-Capital Ship) to 10 (Light Anti-Starship).

I also strongly recommend making the following changes to the Yuuko-Howitzer Warhead itself:

Decrease the range of the Single Target Mode from 900,000 kilometers to 5 kilometers - as doing so would eliminate any room for complaint regarding the mode's area of effect.
Establish the Blast Mode's area of effect to be 3 kilometers - as this removes any uncertainty regarding the size of the mode's blast, which was originally supposed to be (and can still be argued as being) 900,000 kilometers.

Alex Hart · Jun 27, 2018

The issue with this as-is is that that it’s horribly unbalanced. There’s simply no way to defend against it. Point defense is useless at that range, and it can be fired from just about however far away you want since there’s no maximum range listed.

This creates a situation in which whoever submits this sort of weapon and gets it approved immediately controls all space combat with impunity, with no way to counter the weapons except for other people to make a similar long-range missile which then has a long range weapon on the tip.

Also Frost, why is the more dispersed area of effect longer range than the focused one?

Search

Rejected Submission RUDaaS Missile

Zack

FrostJaeger

META_mahn

Well-Known Member

Ametheliana

Head in the Stars

META_mahn

Well-Known Member

Ametheliana

Head in the Stars

Alex Hart

Well-Known Member

Rizzo

Well-Known Member

FrostJaeger

META_mahn

Well-Known Member

Rizzo

Well-Known Member

Zack

Alex Hart

Well-Known Member

Rizzo

Well-Known Member

Alex Hart

Well-Known Member

Rizzo

Well-Known Member

Alex Hart

Well-Known Member

Rizzo

Well-Known Member

Alex Hart

Well-Known Member

FrostJaeger

Alex Hart

Well-Known Member