Its not a bonus its a balancing option in order to get some kind of baseline for how the weapon systems which can only be expended once can be integrated into the DR system in a fair and balanced way.@Syaoran If so, that'd not alleviate the issue. It'd give bonuses to using missiles which isn't needed.
High attrition of guided munitions has been a thing in a modern warfare period since the advent of point defense and surface to air missiles, if you want a good example I suggest reading the parts in Red Storm Rising about the battle of the Atlantic with NATO navies squaring off against Backfire bombers and Soviet submarines. As far as when to use them thats combat tactics not a general rule, for instance the Russians invested heavily in the shoot and scoot volleying off their missiles and running away before the counter move could be made (and or the fleet is dealing with a swarm of anti-ship missiles).Missiles should have high attrition if they're being used against foes that see them coming. It's why torpedo runs and the like in six-do occurs when an enemy ship is crippled in defensive power.
Statistics and numbers on performance are the basis to determine how they act and in what manner they'd best be expended. As far as identity missiles are a massive and varied family of systems, so theres no real one niche they fill. As far as the answer to everything well yea, if your in a combat situation they're another tool the box that can operate out beyond the 3 light second accuracy limit and allow you to force the enemy target to have to react to you rather then you having to react to them. As far as being used on defenseless targets...... yea not really sure what you mean't by that unless your talking about the final torpedo salvo into a crippled enemy which is one option but they're capable of so much more.Just flooding missiles just discourages using them intelligently and puts focus on them being statistical. It would remove some of their identity and make them like guns where they're used as the answer to everything, rather than focus on their sci-fi norm of being used against defenseless targets.
Or they can use it as an alpha strike and an opening move, its combat tactics not a fixed rule set. You seem to have a very specific frame of mind as to where and when a missile system can and should be used, which may be accurate to some degree in some situations but overall is far to narrow a scope for what they can do.Just my thoughts on where missiles should be. Power armors using them often do so because they can make use of the rapid, closer ranges or strike unprepared targets. They don't rely on sheer amounts or shielded stats. They simply wait for opportune moments and fire that "high attrition" volley when the enemy would be stretched to respond.
Brute forcing is a combat tactic quit trying to limit their capabilities based on what you think they should be.They don't fire them from light seconds away. They don't try to "brute force" through point defense nets.
What if we made a separate allotment for expendable munitions? Especially considering the attrition rate they'll suffer.
Then stop trying to force us to deal with you changing them. Why should we have to deal with a capability that no one used until you decided to try and push the subject?Brute forcing is a combat tactic quit trying to limit their capabilities based on what you think they should be.
No, @Arieg. Weapons are weapons, regardless of whether or not they're guns or missiles - and technically, any weapon that uses non-replenishable ammunition is an "expendable munition." As I've stated before, in my opinion having a separate counter for missiles completely nullifies the purpose of the Damage Rating's weapon limitations and therefore should not be implemented.
I think you need to change your tone. You are merely one person in this entire setting. No one has to do things your way. And as we're not staff, the fact that we have a say in how the system works is a privileged, not a right. Get off your high horse.Tbh the weapon limitation was built around gun systems with practically unlimited ammunition only really being moderated by the number on the ship and the rate of fire. Torpedoes where effectively just a bolt on without much thought simply because they where usually very high yield things, missiles on the other hand generally fall across the gun damage output but are only worth one shot and again are an intercept-able and single use munition. Now this wasn't an issue beforehand, the NTSE could be relayed upon to fairly determine the intent and capability of a missile equipped vessel. But now if you want hard numbers where going to do it a manner I find fitting and that wouldn't limit the system's capabilities in an unreasonable manner.
I'm the primary creator of missile systems above mini and micro type systems that aren't dedicated anti-ship torpedoes, anything on this line of discussion will effect me a whole lot more then it'll effect most of the site. Hence my concern of them remaining viable in a wider variety of applications.I think you need to change your tone. You are merely one person in this entire setting. No one has to do things your way. And as we're not staff, the fact that we have a say in how the system works is a privileged, not a right. Get off your high horse.
Then stop trying to force us to deal with you changing them. Why should we have to deal with a capability that no one used until you decided to try and push the subject?
But now if you want hard numbers where going to do it a manner I find fitting and that wouldn't limit the system's capabilities in an unreasonable manner.
I was hoping to be done with the toxicity that was rife in the 101 thread. Considering that I started to try to review a solution and that Syaoran kindly accommodated with this thread, I'd like this to remain as positive and constructive as possible. I'm not interested in who is right, and no, I created the micro-missile.
so you're all going to take a chill pill and remain constructive. I'm not interested in the e-peen stroking or you proving yourselves in the right. also, don't parakeet me with "yeah, I agree with Fred, let's make this constructive" while trying to passive-aggressively remain in the right. Just provide constructive dialogue.
None of that makes you more important that any one else. You could literally make all the missiles on the site, but you're incapable of keeping the narrative of the site alive on your own. You need to accept that and move on. If you want to be big man on campus, make your own site.I'm the primary creator of missile systems above mini and micro type systems that aren't dedicated anti-ship torpedoes, anything on this line of discussion will effect me a whole lot more then it'll effect most of the site. Hence my concern of them remaining viable in a wider variety of applications.
I'm thinking more like .60 as the top end for overtake speed less the enemy turn tail and your propellant runs out because you only have a small overtake speed.I would be happy if we could settle missile speed since that is the big question hanging over the NTSE that is preventing missiles from being approved / used.
.40-.50 c seems decent, as it gives ships the option to run away and get a few more shots at the missile (2-3 rounds extra) or they can just plow into the missiles and take one round of shooting.
Anything faster and it maneuvering doesn't really matter since you're only going to get one shot.
Constructively: missiles are fine. It's only because we're trying to make them into these impossible-to-point-defense spam weapons, rather than the tactical option and the opportune resolution, that we're having issues recently. Frost highlighted it earlier that the main concern is this "brute force" missile mentality that would devalue other weapon systems such as kinetic and rapid-fire ones. Or, potentially worse, make it further stated that "firing fast = the only viable option" in the setting's rules.I was hoping to be done with the toxicity that was rife in the 101 thread. Considering that I started to try to review a solution and that Syaoran kindly accommodated with this thread, I'd like this to remain as positive and constructive as possible. I'm not interested in who is right, and no, I created the micro-missile.
so you're all going to take a chill pill and remain constructive. I'm not interested in the e-peen stroking or you proving yourselves in the right. also, don't parakeet me with "yeah, I agree with Fred, let's make this constructive" while trying to passive-aggressively remain in the right. Just provide constructive dialogue.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?