Should we revise the ship building limitation?

As of yesterday, a new damage rating system was approved which effectively separated damage ratings of weapon systems based on size of the unit utilizing the weapon. With the new designations of personal, armor, and starship weapon damages.

Due to the new damage scale, smaller ships such as fighters and shuttles effectively deliver less firepower due to being counted as armor-grade. (If fighters and shuttles could be classified as common-shuttle size scale). Due to the damage output of these vessels being made less effective, would it still be a sensible choice to categorize them as warships if they fit the "Two or more" criteria listed. Or can armor-grade units carry ship-grade weapons?

References:
https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=fa ... n_warships
https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=damage_rating

As I designed it, it was reasonable for a unit of a certain size class to have weapons within a margin of 1 from their size class category.

For example, Heavy and Very Heavy mecha (size 4 and 5, in which shuttles do fit) would have much easier access to Very Heavy weaponry of their category, which would enable them to actually harm starships.

There's no shame in making 1 anti-starship damage. In fact, most of the very light ships should be equipped with Very Light and Light weaponry themselves - so, it's quite a lot for them. Involve more than one fighter or large mecha and there's a real chance of a well executed assault defeating one of the smaller vessels.

And yes, there should be weapons available to mechas which could make actual anti-starship damage. I could picture a group of Daisy power armor dragging a large mine and sticking it to a docked starship. Depending on the explosive's strength, it could bring up a lot of hurt for a ship.

Smaller things attacking a ship isn't meant to be easy - even fightercraft. Smaller units bringing harm to a ship really ought to go more for sabotage of individual systems instead of focusing on just destroying the target.

Since MDR 5 = SDR 1, mecha and fighters can still damage starships while staying in the proper scale.

And what of fighters using heavy torpedoes designed for starship killing? Such as the AS-7 or nearest equivalent? How does the new system account for the use of those grades of weapons on a smaller unit? Or can we go ahead and place starship grade numbers on mecha grade vessels if needed?

Those should still work as intended. They're very specific. I mean, aside from it, a bomber like the Uriko is actually underarmed compared to other fightercraft, but it does have a powerful one-shot anti-ship weapon.

Anti-starship weapons can show up on mecha, just like anti-mecha weapons can show up on infantry. Usually, though, this isn't the norm.

Right. This creates room for specialized units -- Bombers or Assault Fighters will have anti-starship weapons and exist only to terrorize starships but be woefully under-equipped to defend against armor.

Since if we think about this in modern ways, the armor is like a light-fighter/interceptor with VTOL and ground warfare capabilities.

I think it would be good if we introduce a ROLE field - for FOR WEAPONS AND SYSTEMS, not just UNITS. Here's a list to help out:

• Advanced - A fancy way of saying "not quite standard issue yet". Usually more expensive - Next-Generation equipment.
  
• Armor - Powered-Armor. Units one climbs into whereby one's limbs correspond to those of the unit. Performance differs wildly. Armors incapable of space-use or at least not recommended for it are Terrestrial Powered-Armor. Those capable of complex maneuvers and such are Fighter-Powered-Armor or Advanced Powered-Armor.
  
• Artillery - Chucks heavy weapons fire from afar. And I mean really heavy.
  
• Assault - Designed to get in, unload a lot of weapons and get out. Usually light armor but big weapons. Unlike interceptor, can be heavy and slow or un-maneuverable and fast.
  
• Bomber - Attacks less mobile targets, typically of larger classes. Usually expensive, large and heavy.
  
• Experimental - Second generation. More refined but not mass-produced. Often a little on the weak side but very good at what it's designed to do.
  
• Extension - A part which mounts onto a given unit of sufficient, equal or greater mass than that of the unit. A large booster assembly, Fighter-Extension (the armor becoming the cockpit of a larger disposable unit) or a Powered-Frame for example.
  
• Fighter - Fights other units of its own class. Example: Armor Fighter - Fights other armors. Name infers it's quite agile, borrowing characteristics of star-fighters. Also refers to an agile non-armor unit.
  
• Frame - Refers to a unit similar to a powered-armor but a cockpit may be enclosed separately or the pilot's limbs may not fill those of the machine. "You don't wear it, you climb into it". Carries larger heavier equipment than Armor and may be directly compatible with armor as an Extension.
  
• X Attack - Optimized for a given environment. Example: Ground attack would be apt at moving through an atmosphere and over the ground in a way which is strategically smart (typically, heavy, slow and quiet). In terms of weapons, this will mean a weapon is especially designed to detonate or penetrate a particular kind of target. Often, much cheaper, lighter and more effective than general-purpose weapons -- far more precise.
  
• X Defense - Optimized for defensive roles. Example: A Defense Interceptor would have smart sensors, great engines and great communications and be used as early warning and to make life hell for bombers and heavy armor wings.
  
• General Purpose - "I can do anything! (but I can't do any of them especially well). Specialization breeds strength and multi-purpose units are often humdrum jack of all-trades with lower specs. Can be customized to specialize in a given area. Often standard issue, cheap to produce. Some might say elaborate coffins for NPCs, given the highly strategic nature of "contemporary" warfare.
  
• Imposition - Stops certain classes from functioning effectively, or even at all. ECM/ECCM, mines, communications jamming, etc. Often expensive or complex. Risks disabling your own units. Creates fog of war.
  
• Interceptor - Designed to move across the battle-field quickly. Very quick. Very light armor. Often very cheap to mass-produce.
  
• Naval - Arcane term but it suffices: Basically, means it's dependent on a carrier for fuel and supplies. This usually means it goes back and forth hauling big disposable weapons and fuel like antimatter based kit and runs out quite quickly. Because it's not designed to last as long in the wild, it performs better because it can afford for it's parts to be pushed beyond their normal limits so they need replacing on a regular basis because of usage, not damage. This is often necessary because naval units are often front-line units and the extra performance is well worth the maintenance.
  
• Prototype - Built to prove a theory. Often unsafe and unrefined.
  
• Reconnaissance - Surveillance, mapping, monitoring, pattern finding. Two types: (Strategic Reconnaissance - Find out about enemy, don't get seen. Essentially big espionage. Combat Reconnaissance - Monitor the battle, inform friendlies of what's happening. Clear the fog of war.)
  
• Special Issue - Expensive kit given only for specific missions or to pilots/soldiers who earn the use of the equipment by demonstrating their skills. Like navel kit, it's typically high-performance and needs regular maintenance and is more complex. Pilots are expected to work with engineers to maintain their unit and calibrate it. A wild-card, the enemy can be easily confused and become uncoordinated or target-fixated. Ideal decoys - can turn the tide of battle.
  
• Special Operations - Especially modified or suited to a very very specific mission type or environment. For example, unconventional warfare.
  
• Standard Issue - Everyone has one or has access to one. Bog standard kit. Cheap, disposable, reliable. Good for grunts and often available outside the military market (Think AK47).
  
• Stealth - Optimized for sneaking but not attacking directly. Does exactly what it says on the tin.
  
• Strategic - Very very high-precision attacks, like a surgical knife. Block routes, kill key personnel, disable specific systems, etc, avoiding collateral damage at all costs.
  
• Strike - Carries an unusually high-powered payload. Often slow - depend a lot on stealth. Prefix to fighter or bomber.
  
• Support - To be used effectively, this unit must work with others like it in a group or with another class in a synergy. For example: General-Purpose Armor geared for Special Support will guard or augment the capabilities of say, a bomber wing. Together, they are a lot more likely to work effectively.
  
• Test-Bed - Specially built frame to test experimental or prototype parts, hardware or systems. The unit itself aside is technically sound. Test-Beds are often 'watered down' before mass-production and are the final testing stage. Test-beds often see combat, which decide whether they are effective or not.

Just remember: As cool as your unit is, it needs it's place on the battle-field.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bomber_aircraft



Example:

• 
  Name: C0K "Mongler"
  Type: Phased Pulse Energy Cannon
  Class: Special Issue Strategic Strike Weapon
  Mount: Primary weapon, Armor mount
  Designer: Richard C. Mongler
  Sub-models: Cockmongler, ChanMongler, GrinMan, HappyDude, DinosaurMan, TITS OR GTFO
  Dimensions: 709 x 202 x 33 mm
  Weight: 3307 KG
  Rate of fire: 2.5s-1 (once every)
  Velocity: >9000 meters/second
  Range: 10,000 miles and 10,000 more (na-na-na-naaa)
  Energy rating: Vtech just kicked in, yo!
  Description:
  An electromagnetic weapon - sends rapid pulses of exceptionally strong electromagnetic energy resulting in a 1.63 x 105 J blast that forces its way through any known shield technology, destabilizing complex electromagnetic and subspace behavior, including distortion based systems. It is named for the fact that in an atmosphere, the pulse creates an audio disturbance similar to a quasi-human voice screaming "PENIS!" repeatedly at 500 dB - uses up a tremendous amount of available ship energy.
  
  
  

Just a thought, anyway.
Thanks for your time.

I think that maybe you should make a "Roles" page on the wiki.

However, the stats template already has a "Mission Specialization" section and a "Type" bullet that make adding "Role" unnecessary.

Besides, there's no need for a strict classification system unless we were going to do something based on those limits (ie restrictions).

Finally, I would like to point out your "strategic" definition isn't accurate.

Here's one from dictionary.com:

4. Military.
a. intended to render the enemy incapable of making war, as by the destruction of materials, factories, etc.: a strategic bombing mission.
b. essential to the conduct of a war: Copper is a strategic material.

Click to expand...

Works Cited
strategic. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/strategic (accessed: October 05, 2008).

4. Military.
a. intended to render the enemy incapable of making war, as by the destruction of materials, factories, etc.: a strategic bombing mission.
b. essential to the conduct of a war: Copper is a strategic material.

Click to expand...

Did you even read that definition? It means exactly what I outlined it as.
A strike designed to benefit you strategically by striking an enemy in a specific way.

On a practical basis, in terms of equipment, this means stuff that allows you to do to the following;

• Distraction - Controlling enemy attention to make them respond in an approximate calculated manner which benefits your operation. This can be anything from fucking with local terrain to attacking a particular part of a given base. How it benefits your op could be making the enemy look the other way or putting all their eggs in one basket.
  
• Disorder - Messing with the ladder of command by striking the commander first or by attacking an enemy in a way in which they are not apt to respond, making them confused, unfocused and perhaps even making them panic, reducing their combat effectiveness and leaving them unable to coordinate and function as an effective cohesive unit.
  
• Blindness - If the enemy does not see you approach, you can ambush or sneak-attack them. Surprise is one hell of an advantage in asymmetrical warfare, if you're in an assault mission: Get in, destroy goal, get out. Repeat.
  
• Surgical Strike - Take out something very specific: Why wipe out the base when you're only there to wipe out the factory? If you wipe this factory out, the enemy can't produce armored kit and then you only have a limited number of enemy tanks to deal with, therefor life for your armored divisions gets a lot easier. That's just one practical example.

So, if you're in agreement that means it's just an attempt to make a system that is already detailed summarily more convoluted? The needless complication and pigeon-holing doesn't really justify the benefits to me, honestly.

Tech designers don't need one more hole to jump through, and if a system like that were in place it creates more open areas for trouble than even before.

Lilly, don't be annoying.

What I'm saying is that when I read just about everything I read with a type/class field has them used inappropriately.

This isn't forced on people: It's just a guide so people know what this stuff means if they want to use it.

Stick it here, OsakanOne:
https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=gu ... icle_roles