Can you show us examples of this? Because we've left behind this kind of crazy Macross-style attack, as far as I know.The reason not to treat them as a weapon with ammo is simple: If you have 20 missiles and one launcher then you can roll 20 attacks all at once against an enemy ship It is also implied that ship will get some point defense fire in against the missiles. The massed-missile-attack is certainly a thing that works differently than a machine gun with 20 bullets (or a squadron of flying machine-guns).
Syaoran has the right of it, though Fred makes a point about how v3 is handling the Yamataian missiles. We can correct that without adding this new rule.Then there is the question of missile size. How big a missile do I need to destroy a ship? There are dozens of micro-missile launchers on the site and it seems silly to be able to launch hundreds of SDR level missiles the size of a soda-can.
That could be fixed by finding the missiles that have no listed speeds. It also could become irrelevant if we figure out which missiles are doing too much damage.Then there is the question of how fast missiles go.
I struggled to make sense of this paragraph. Then I frowned at it.There is also the question of why Missiles should count against a ship's overall DR allowed but not things like shuttles, fighters, mecha ect? As it is you're penalized for making a ship that doesn't carry other ships because other small ships are not only 'free' they are 'double free' as they don't count against the buildup limitations if they are assigned to a ship.
This is a concept that generally makes sense for massive missiles like real life ICBMs or things as big as 40k-style torpedoes. It'd also be nice to have a limit on the ammunition missile/torpedo systems can have, since unless your ship makes them out of aether it's a big old gray area.Treat missiles as if they were vehicles that can be carried by a ship, rather than a weapon system that counts against the craft's DR.
Considering most weapons that fire missiles and are still used have a salvo max fire yeah macross attacks have mostly been left behind. Yeah some people still do it but if I remember right there is a limit to how much damage can be directed towards a single target by ships per turn anyway.Doshii, currently there are no rules for missiles. As such including missiles means the NTSE staff have to entirely wing-it with no guidelines to follow as to what is and isn't acceptable.
No we have not left macross style attacks behind.
No one said that I said that there were rules in place for missile limit. Unless you only read 1 of my post and then Doshii's. In which case you simply shouldn't have started this topic if you're not actually going to read what's posted in it.No Syaoran is not correct as there are no limits in place regarding the amount of missiles you can take.
When Doshii says it can be fixed by finding the msisiles without a listed speed they mean putting a speed on them, and there you go, now you know how fast it goes. If you're talking about what the max speed of missiles is, honestly it doesn't -really- matter. Missiles can go fast enough to hit a target in their class. That's all that -really- matters the rest is just fluff for being awesome.No this could not be fixed by finding missiles that have no listed speeds as we still have no way of saying what is an acceptable speed. We have established than .9c is too much but nothing more than that.
Then you make rules concerning balancing carriers to weapons. (if that's even needed, most people don't try to push everything to the very limit) Cause you know Carriers can still carry missiles just like battle ships, so nerfing missiles wouldn't make them even. Especially since like I said, this nerf would just make it more practical to rely on lasers and rail guns, and just fill extra space with cool tech and redundant systems.Nor does it make sense that a battleship is just as expensive as a carrier, but the carrier can have all the same amount of weapons and protection which makes a straight-combat ship a negative when for the same cost you could have that + fighters. Not that we're dealing with this now of course, but in the future it would be nice to have some rules to help make the distinction between battleship type ships and carriers.
That yes adding rules fixes the lack of rules, but that doesn't make them good rules.This is a fix for the lack of rules for missiles. Period.
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?