You do know that a Jeep can carry like 4 people in power armor. And you're not saying anything about how a jeep or APC or Tank or any land vehicle needs to have some kind of balance done for it.A good rules set is a slim rules set.
There are certainly a lot of situations that we'd want to cover. Things like a torpedo-bomber that would carry one giant missile externally or a person walking around with an anti-power armor missile launcher like the SLAM.
There is also the issue of fighter craft, shuttles, and power armors being carried by a larger ship. If we are saying how many missiles you can carry then it makes sense that we should make a comprehensive rule governing how much extra 'stuff' a ship can carry.
---
This makes trying to fix the 'How much X can fit on Y' problem a much bigger issue. Until we have a really solid set of rules for that, I would rather limit the missile fix down to just this. It would mean that the only rules added are basically ones that we already have. No extra stuff for anyone to memorize.
I'm well aware of that. I winged it more than once, remember? That doesn't make your idea good.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.
Prove it. Show us the posts.No we have not left macross style attacks behind.
V3 does not talk about missile speed, but I don't think it really has to. Consider the spirit of V3; it focuses on the narrative, not the mathematical. You don't need a maximum speed at the ranges of combat under which people frequently are in. The GM is going to figure it out, and they darn well ought to have an idea.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.
If you want to talk about that, talk about that. You opened that door in your earlier post, so I walked through it. You don't want to talk about it? Then don't. Keep it focused on missiles.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.
Raz nails it in one. If we're so determined to make the limit, let's just set the limit and move on. We need not even talk about changing projectile size; let's talk about a projectile's power and tie it to that.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.
For simplicity's sake, why not a table that says how many of which tier missile (up to massive tier 15s) a craft of each tier size can fit inside and/or accommodate on outer racks?
The idea is to have as narrow ruling as possible, so that a more comprehensive ruling can be made later regarding other parts of the setting. We're not trying to fix everything at once, we're trying to fix one thing at a time and do it as good as possible.
You also wandered off into talking about ship construction and counting weapons, as well as projectile speeds and capacity limits.
You've pulled that on me before. Not this time.I don't think you read my suggestion, or if you did I don't think you understood it.
1. His idea invalidates the need for missile size. You could just peg missile capacity to craft size and power of weapon, then move on with your day. Badda bing. You're right that it doesn't talk about speed, but I didn't say that it did.Why would we not use Raz's suggestion? two fold: his suggestion doesn't resolve the issue of missile size / HP / Speed. His suggestion covers how much stuff something can hold which is intentionally out of scope of this suggestion.
Assuming they can shoot the projectile down at all, OK. But we've talked before about setting a limit, and it's usually resulted in getting nowhere. We've had trouble just getting ship speeds down to regular. In the past, that's required Fred to help too. He puts in the work.In most situations .45c is already fast enough as ships will still only get 'one turn' of shooting at them unless they are moving directly away from the missiles.
1. We left HP behind. We don't have that anymore. So your desire for a missile HP is invalid. It's defense should be matched between what the designer puts down and what the GM needs. That's reasonable and follows letter AND spirit of v3. Consider as well one of Fred's more definitive posts on the matter.Why add sizes to missiles? I think we've touched on that a few times: because we could use some standardization, because no one really knows what size a missile should be that does X damage, because it makes for a very streamlined and easy to use ruling. Because it also answers the question of how much HP a missile should have.
Whatever size the designer wants to get the job done and the NTSE thinks is acceptable. If the NTSE needs help, they can, should and do ask.What size should missiles/torpedoes be?
Not really necessary to know, but if we're going to do it, let's focus on that. I'm game to help; we have enough projectile types to spread the wealth around.What speeds are acceptable for missiles/Torpedoes?
GM fiat. That is the point of v3.What is an acceptable amount of defense for Torpedoes/missiles to have?
Exactly how v3 suggests we do when weapons fall in the same tier — one can be more deadly than the other.How do we deal with sub-munitions?
If we tied this to power, it'd be an easier answer. We have DR on everything; we don't have sizes on everything, even if we should. Not to mention that it won't solve your issue when we have weapons in the under-10-feet range that can wreck a capship's day. That's why rating things by DR is far more useful.How many missiles/torpedoes can something carry? (Not ACTUALLY answered here, but the size limitations will make it a bit easier on NTSE staff for obvious reasons.)
Not really. From the first post and throughout the thread you're talking about defining the size of missiles, which inherently becomes an issue of how many can fit on any given piece of tech.And while we could certainly go with Raz's idea for how much 'stuff' something can carry. That's out of scope of what I'm suggesting here.
Nearly all of what you said is just plain inaccurate or misleading. Firstly DRv3 Already has rules for how strong the weapons a ship can carry can be.https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=wip:indigo_class_escort
Another user is going to run the gauntlet of trying to get missiles approved on a ship!
The proposed missile fix would give pretty straight forward guidelines as to how strong the missiles this ship carries would be under DrV3. You'd see a fairly heavy reduction in the damage output of the missiles, and the end result is that this missile spam would still be very dangerous for mecha-scale and really small ships, but less so for larger starships.
Considering that all of these missiles range between ~2-4 meters I would think that makes sense. After all missiles around that size are largely used for anti-tank and anti-plane duty already. Some of the small anti-ship missiles also are just a bit bigger than 4 meters.
Compare this to the heavyweight IRL anti-ship missiles that clock in around 10 meters.
The missile fix would also allow Arieg to put as many missiles as he wants on the craft, but ultimately leave that up to the NTSE to decide what is and isn't acceptable. This is mitigated somewhat by getting rid of tiny-anti-ship missiles and I think is ultimately a better solution than mandating how many missiles you can have on a ship at this time.
DRv3 spent a lot more time in the making, and when it was being made the general thought was that DRv2 needed to be replaced. And most of all it wasn't one person deciding that their way was best and then making the whole site work with that. A foundation was made and then it was adjusted to what everyone participating on it came to a compromise as. Yeah some people didn't get a say, but that was because they ignored it while it was in development or weren't here when it was, not because they were ignored.Since Wes posted he liked Zack's general idea for the fix, I'd like to hear how he'd implement it. Better yet, since Wes is a busy guy, let's see how Zack would implement it himself beyond being an ideas man. Make a wiki article or something, dude!
No reason not to give something new a try—that's how we ended up with DRv3 and such reasoning was used to justify its implementation. Zack's at least as capable as the team behind that project.
Give Zack the same opportunity to present something, then. Y'all are just trying to shut him down outright.DRv3 spent a lot more time in the making
Sure inaccurate, you can literally go through the forum for it and see that it is accurate. And Zack is getting the same chance DRv3 had. DRv3 was shot down once before because the general opinion was that it wasn't needed. General opinion is for this that what Zack is proposing isn't needed, so people are trying to stop it from going through, just like DRv3 was treated.Give Zack the same opportunity to present something, then. Y'all are just trying to shut him down outright.
Much like DRv3, Wes has expressed his opinion that Zack's idea is something he wants.
Be helpful instead of obstructive.
The rest of your inaccurate retelling of history doesn't need to be addressed.
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?