You're all playing nice. Thank you.
I was planning to address this in my next ship-to-ship fight and figure out what worked and what didn't. I haven't come to that point yet.
We could have all the missiles list their speed as 'fast' or 'med' or 'slow' and then link to a missile speed page.
We could then update the missile speed page to update all the new missiles at once.
Its more akin to where they're all in the VLS brick but the ship can only handle launching a certain ready use number before the system has to cycle.I think saying that you have X launchers with Y missiles and have cargo space onboard for Z missiles should be fine.
I think it is kinda silly to do so though, since you could just bolt the missiles to the hull... Physics wise it is no different than having them in the cargo bay.
I'm really fine with ships having missile spam, it's just the arieg level of missiles is too much for me since you end up having high armor, High number, and tiny missiles.
I feel like a missile ship should have some big ads missiles if it wants to hunt big ships.
Its more akin to where they're all in the VLS brick but the ship can only handle launching a certain ready use number before the system has to cycle.
We could have all the missiles list their speed as 'fast' or 'med' or 'slow' and then link to a missile speed page.
We could then update the missile speed page to update all the new missiles at once.
---
Scalability aside, .6 seems fine.
I'd say the reason I wanted to re-examine the whole thing while finalizing my own plotship statistically is because I'm not convinced that our narrative actually goes with our numbers. A lot of us GMs go for knifefights around planets and asteroid belts and just toss off numbers like "we're going at 0.3c" in places where that speed doesn't match the distance or the environment.Why don't we put these two things together? THe problem we have with missile speed is even though we've played with them a lot, no one has really given any thought to how fast they're going. Why not for now give them qualitative descriptors and then see what GMs do with 'Fast' missiles, or 'slow' ones, and see what kinds of tech are created, and then make a speed guide accordingly? I know it's not actually a solution but rather data gathering, but I think we just might not have the data we need for a solution that we're actually confident in as opposed to something we just hope will work.
Well this is why I say we need more data. From my experience as well the ships aren't remotely moving at fractions of c during combat, it's also partly why one of my divisions was combat and 'opportunity' missiles. Really it'd make no sense to actually fight with any real 'maneuvering' at large fractions of c, because with the delay of reaction time, you make a move and by time the opposing ship can react to that move, you're totally gone.I'd say the reason I wanted to re-examine the whole thing while finalizing my own plotship statistically is because I'm not convinced that our narrative actually goes with our numbers. A lot of us GMs go for knifefights around planets and asteroid belts and just toss off numbers like "we're going at 0.3c" in places where that speed doesn't match the distance or the environment.
How many of us think of our fights in term of visuals like Babylon 5, Star Trek, or Macross? I'm convinced that under these IPs, not a ship fights at that high a fraction of c, not one missile actually goes as fast as 0.4c. These metrics probably look more like Homeworld or Mass Effect instead.
There's the flipside that we should actually be trying to accurately portray these maneuverings at those speeds... but I keep reading our plots during most of the ship-to-ship fights, and that's not what I feel is the intended result. It's what I've grown to sincerely believe during my attempts to take a stab at this.
That's why, when I'm being asked numbers like that... I can throw out a value, but I'll admit I probably don't know what I'm talking about. Even though the planetary Hill Sphere FTL limitation is not the most consistent thing ever, it did do us the favor of moving engagement range to orbital distances, which are much more fathomable. I just haven't nailed my own sweetspot or even defined what my preferences were so I'd have something to disagree with other people with.
When I figured it out, I was likely going to houserule my own plot and test it out before making any bold claims of how right I was to undertake that course of action. But in the meantime, I don't know what I'm talking about.
So its more akin to having to maneuver through shallows? Or an archipelago in a deep draft ship? I take it thats why a lot of SAOY vessels mount the slower FTL options?About hill spheres:
Like I explained it, in the 101 thread... FTL drives are vulnerable to gravity shadows. At least, up to a certain point. Maneuvering in a star system is feasible, but once you hit a planet's hillsphere, you're essentially coming up to the shallower waters around an island and you need to slow down to watch out for shoals (and they are there, and if you don't slow down, there's a high likelyhood you might regret it).
Or, it's like, once you're in a star system, it's snowy, but the snow is not built up so high that you can't walk through it. But if you hit your driveway where there's a snowbank, you're unlikely to be able to run across it: you'll have to wade. If you keep running, you'll likely faceplant or something.
We need to make note of this lolThis is mostly in hindsight, and fold's nonlinear nature doesn't help the metaphor, but yeah. More or less.
So, if I have a heavy starship (that's tier 12), I can use an 1/8 of my allotment to get:
4 heavy anti-starship missiles.
8 medium anti-starship missiles.
16 light anti-starship missiles.
32 heavy anti-mecha missiles
64 medium anti-mecha missiles
128 light anti-mecha missiles
Would those be the 'ready' use ready to launch ones?Are you implying this is insufficient?
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?