|
|
|
Orion
if we are talking about slow moving targets then no the fuel supply is not requierd as big
intercepting battle frigates would be a problem but for atacking carriers/destroyers/bb/shipyard there are only minor corrections to the attack vector needed so i guess your right
the most fuel would be used when the weapon is fired
Phoenix is huge and weights alot
the mass itself poses a great risk for an aircraft
another thing is the fuel is explosive?
The fuel is gonna be explosive on any standard propellant-based weapon. Thats kinda the point. While we're talking about size, has it occured to you that the 1200 mm SHARG is 1.2 meters in diameter? That a BIG DAMN SHELL! Now, if the HydraShark Frigate can carry 1200 mm SHARG shells, then I think that size isn't really an issue. HVTs are no-where near that size. However, they could be upsized to accomodate for this long-range attack role, with reduced manueverability due to the increase in size. Would this be a plausible solution?
OT: The Phoenix missile was retired due to its cost.
EDIT: I just remembered this as well. HVMs do considerable damage, and they're agile enough to hit frigates, where as a HVT one would think would be used on larger cap ships anyways. Thus the problem of agility disappears by the points that Corsair made, with little course correction needed to hit a barn with a pebble.
Maybe as an alternative to sacrificing manueverability and payload, perhaps a 2 stage torpedo? Not a cluster torpedo, but similar idea... have a 'Boost' stage that propels the torpedo with little manueverability to a certain target range, then it deploys the actual HVT, which could make room for a larger warhead, if desired.
SUPERB IDEAMaybe as an alternative to sacrificing manueverability and payload, perhaps a 2 stage torpedo? Not a cluster torpedo, but similar idea... have a 'Boost' stage that propels the torpedo with little manueverability to a certain target range, then it deploys the actual HVT, which could make room for a larger warhead, if desired.
----
Prototype Torpedo
Codename: Zenkai
Designation Advanced two stage torpedo
Description:
The torpedo consists of a shell and an actual warhead
the shell
A) carries the torpedo to close range of the target
B) has more armore so that it provides aditional protection from interception
when the final approach is made the shell would blast of releasing a fresh torpedo with the same fuel as a standard HVM have but the fuel burn rate would be higher, making higher speed and less chance to be intercepted
Its a great weapon more effective then a HVM and not so much more costly becouse existing HVM can be mounted in the shell
-----------------------------------------------------
i see this torp on the Hydra IV artillery frigate
-----------------------------------------------------
On the subject of shargs
a sharg hitting a not so armored part of a ship... devasting... catastrophic!@!!!
but hitting a VERY hard part of the ship would not penetrate it but the _stress_ involved in this collision (crew, bulkheads, decks rupturing) would be great
The "1200mm" refers to relative attack strength, so I'm not sure if it's actually a 1200mm shell...
That said, it is a nuclear warhead.
actually, no Glacialis. AFAIK, 1200 mm is the actual size. Everything else has been in reference to barrel diameter. We have no reason to assume this is a lone exception.
(however, it is a general rule of thumb that larger bore weapons do more damage. Note the exceptions though)
On the PDS site a while back there was discussion as to how to label weapons appropriate to their damage output. I believe mm bore was settled upon since it's pretty believable.
Good news: Tel has asked me to go ahead and design the 2 Stage Torpedo. From his requests, it seems it will be via a turreted launcher where the 'propellant' stage flies the torpedo to its target in a straight, constant velocity trajectory. Once there it will detonate, releasing the HVT.
goodGood news: Tel has asked me to go ahead and design the 2 Stage Torpedo. From his requests, it seems it will be via a turreted launcher where the 'propellant' stage flies the torpedo to its target in a straight, constant velocity trajectory. Once there it will detonate, releasing the HVT.if it was in larger numbers then it would be to powerfull
#159
PS2MAN: If you make another post in a PDS thread you will have to answer to an admin. Got it?
AN interesting anti-strike craft weapon might be this booster torpedo loaded with 6 MRAM2s. Stand-off anti-strike craft.
Or infact with people stressing at aforementioned people.
But why not just blast 6 MRAM2's at people, save the money of fancy booster systems and implementing new systems and keep flexibility with targetting and speed of launch.
Although yes it'd be interesting. For long range strikes.
I guess you could 'roleplay' that MMRAM2's have a much more limited fuel requirement than do their carrier vessels (aka the first stage of the munition).
What about fuel in space? The way I see it, once the munition has accelerated to attack speed, it can not use any more fuel. However, if the munition is forced to maneuver, then it will use more fuel. So, we can just pretend that the munitions only have a minimal ammount of fuel (to make more space for explosives and such), hence they need a little boost to give them longer range.
The idea of cluster missiles for anti-fighter strikes isnt new, just look at freespace 2.
There was one particular missile that you could launch and when it detonated it would scatter several missiles that would target nearby vessels (typically strike craft).
Another idea would be a long range torpedo that would fire off 2 sets of submunitions. One would be a scatter of small missiles for taking out strike craft/overwhelming pds, and the other would pretty much be just the carrier for those missiles, with some high explosives strapped to it so it could continue on course and slam into a capital ship. (They had something like it in Space: Above and Beyond. Nathan West used one to take out orbital defense satellites, IIRC.)
#164
In the present rendition of things, most of the time the added complexity of a submunition carrier would be unwelcome.
However for a disposable missile carrier used for strategic bombardments such devices would easily come into play, where you can multiply the number of warheads deployed in a standoff attack - a surge in missiles in the air from what you could normally deploy with shipboard launchers.
These missile carriers would logically, be used outside the scope of present tactical engagements - and will likely remain in scenarios.
Orion and G have, to varying degrees, discussed the deployment of both these and standoff carrier based attacks with me thus I have a good picture of how to implement them into the combined arms environment. But they will never be (1) "buildable" or (2) employed like HW:C cruise missiles.
I shudder to imagine what 2 opposing fleets consisting entirely of stand-off cluster missile cruisers would do to my poor, poor framerate. (I dont exactly have a beast of a pc... the parts were all budget components anywhere from 1 to 4 years ago.)
#166
Bentus: Consider youself banned from this thread.
Let's put it this way: Instead of 60 missiles streaming from ship to ship, you've only got ten for the majority of the journey. It's only when they burst asunder do you get the high volume of fire. And, if they split on the horizon of the AMS, you have a fair chance of confusing the automated AMS.
What if they get shot down during their journey? One of those missiles contains 6 missiles and that means 1/6th of your firepower was reduced.
Might have their use at long ranges but not in general use methinks. IMO of course.
@Inert:
While yes, your math and logic are correct, you have to remember that by using Cluster Missiles, you're multiplying your firepower anyways. Lets take for example my Howitzer FFG: She fires 2 HVTs x 2 bursts, every 20 seconds, so 4 HVTs every 20 seconds. Now, if one of those gets shot down, I only have 3 left, reducing my firepower by 1/4. But, if I launched 4 CLUSTER HVTs, each one carrying 4 HVMs, then I'm firing 16 total missiles, for 4x the original firepower. If one of the cluster HVTs gets blown up, once again my firepower is reduced by 1/4, but thats still 12 missiles versus the original 3. Make sense?
You must keep in mind cluster missiles are far bigger then normal HVT, so you can not fire the same amount of HVT as you once could. Either that or the HVT are far smaller in each cluster missile, and being less effective then one normal one.
it a HVT would be smaller
in example if a cluster missle would have 6 MHVT (mikro hvt) then if 3 missles would be intercepted by LDS and PDS
i think its better if 50% of the damage is inflicted rather then 0 if 1 big torpedo would be destroyed
i think then when LDS and PDS destroying torpedoes where introduced
big uber fat torps got useles (not if you have mass numbers but thats a big blow in economics)
yea that is the idea behind an MTVA warhead. Some will get through. With one big weapon, it's a hit or miss while MTVA is a sure thing to do some damage.
...
Or we could just build a 2 stage missile where the second stage relies on inertia. Less obvious to sensors, cheaper to build than a full cluster bomb.
Mr. Pete we already "designed" this missle, look on my and orions previous posts
For those who have an interest in learning how to hardpoint (using HardEd, of course), don't hesitate to download the .pdf file below. Thanks to Tel'Quessir for his efforts. Now, make good use of this resource or do you need proper motivation?
http://penguinmayhe.temp.powweb.com/...ntTutorial.pdf
Ah. Thought yours had a powered second stage. My bad.
maybe i didnt undestand you well, sorry if i`m mistaken
mine had slower armored first stage witch travels 70-90% of the way and the second is fast/accurate/agile
First stage - Fast, fairly agile.
Second stage - Poweful, unguided munition, akin to a low velocity warhead, designed to get past LDS undetected. dunno if that works.
Theres always a kamikazie missile. Fill a fighter sized chassis with explosives. Why? Lds won't touch it.
Mr. Pete I think your understanding of LDS is a bit skewed. Detection is not simulated in game. LDS is just a defense field with a fancy name (game play wise). Sure it won't affect a fighter, but we are unlikely to get one in game.
Nevertheless, LDS will stop roughly 40% of the projectiles. That means 4 out of every 10 large torpedoes you launch will be intercepted roughly. If you launch cluster munitions, they all get through!! So if you had cluster MTVA style hypervelocity torpedoes which I developed, you will have 30 HVM get through per 10 torpedo salvo. Last I checked, 30 HVM does alot more damage than 4 HVT.
#181
As there is no discussion on the technical aspects of a multi-warhead munition, I don't see the point of going on. That said, "cluster torpedoes" won't ever be implemented unless there is grounds to accomodate these devices. Most shipboard missile armaments we have as tactical attack missiles are expected to perform interceptions at virtually all flight and fire solution conditions, so rules out the deployment of multi-warhead munitions with exception for existing directed-fragmentation torpedoes, of which effectiveness is unreliable especially against post-Invasion advanced defenses.
You've stated how HVMs can be carried to their target by a HVT... now think about the resulting mass and cost of the system, and how an existing 10-round pod can deploy said HVMs faster and more cost-effectively. Missile range is not a problem as coasting/ballistic flight is not a problem for them. Effect not visible in-game, but still factored into missile endurance settings.
This in effect brings the discussion back to square one - strategic bombardment platforms may or may not make their appearance in scenarios allowing the player management of disposable missile carriers as either preparatory bombardment or reserve assets.
Now, outside of the in-game perspective:
If you want to carry HVMs into orbit for planetary defense situations, you will definately want to use a carrier to loft the warheads into orbit if you want them as guided weapons and not ballistic projectiles.
You can imagine the same principle for ship to ship ranged combat (enhanced terminal attack capability, precludes need for attack missiles to conduct orbital burns with onboard fuel), and also planetary bombardments (far superior coverage than unitary warhead, harder to intercept) - but these advantages disappear in a spaceborne knife fight where being able to rapid-launch missiles for maximum firepower is critical.
Tel, look at it this way... a multi stage cluster warhead is effective against all kinds of ships, correct?
Given the choice between shoehorning a few extra of these warhead launchers in, and adding some CIWS, I would choose the launchers.
Their effectiveness is about the same at any range, the only difference is how far they travel. For this reason they are less efficient at closer ranges because a portion of the fuel in the booster goes to waste. But, at a longer range, you must admit that this would be the most effective weapons available.
They have a range greater than any other weapon, are more capable of penetrating defense systems than most other weapons, and can deal effectively with a wider range of targets. It can overwhelm defense systems on the biggest ships, and still track smaller/faster ships.
In my opinion at least, it's worthwhile to have these weapons, and a ship dedicated to them. The overall effectiveness and versatility is worth a little POTENTIAL inefficiency. I stress the word potential, because only when things get ugly and turn into one giant hairy furball would a dedicated long range strike vessel be caught in close quarters without sufficient support to fend off their attackers. Besides which, as I said, the weapon would still be equally effective at close range. One of the advantages of guided weapons systems.
#183
At the end of the day I will not have my warships lug around multi-warhead weapons that need to be a few times bulkier than any conventional tactical weapon that can ensure the same kill probability by salvo firing. Note the bold word.
Thanks Jewegee it was a bit skewed :\
I did think about it tel, earlier in the discussion of the MRAM2 carrier torpedo.
But I think the feel of these multi-warhead weapons is more strategic. Strikes against enemy fighters before they get into range, due to the extended range given by the carrier torpedo. Anything that hits before enemies gets into range is a good thing in my book, and not only this you say that in 6.2 fighters will be focusing on first pass kills. This will surely mean more hardship for capital vessels, and i can see a first strike anti-fighter weapon coming in handy, even in such proliferations as 1 or two of such torpedos per capital (larger than frigate. I'm not sure if you count frigates as capital vessels) ship.
However as you say: Salvoes of smaller missiles tend to be more effective.
Battle tech has multile missile based weapon systems. Two examples are the CLRM20 and the Thunderbolt missile.
The thunderbolt is basically a HVR by pds standards. Damage to a single point on the enemy, very fast.
CLRM20 is the clan rack of 20 LRM's. It's generally LRM 18 or 17 by the time AMS or LAMS has done its work but its still on the whole more effective than the Thunderbolt.
(AMS = Anti missile system used by inner sphere mechs - radar guided chaingun, LAMS = Laser anti missile system, used by Clan mechs.)
And also spamming your enemy with 20 long range missiles at close range is quite a damage doer.
#185
Well I would say that an ability to engage the enemy before he can effectively engage me has, and will remain a good thing.
My prefered method of engagement (back in the day) was DPICM, TOW, DPICM, TOW, rockets, guns. Hoped the enemy would get discouraged about the second TOW. Thank God I never had to find out.
Yasotay
Ancient Clan of Hex&Square
You old wardog, you.
Missiles are generally a good thing. Over-complicated missiles (guided 4G missiles already cost a bunch of taxpayer shekels) aren't a good thing. 10-round HVM pods in numbers hurt. Simplicity and efficiency.
Ah mr pete...
Youu battletech anology is a good one but the system works slightly diffrently, the AMS shoot down missiles AFTER the lock has been achived (ie, LRM 20 fires, 14 missiles will hit, then say 6 shot down, total hits is 8 missiles) but thats neither here nor there in this argument.
the tactical reasons for using a MVA are
saturates the defences of larger targets
this means better payload penitration, expecialy with the newer munitions
More of a multi role weapon ( 6 missiles fired into a firghter squadron will be more effective then one big missile) also allows for retargeting of extra munition if primary target is destroyed
Longer range - The munitions need only use there drives for final attack = greater payload vs smaller engine PER missile
Downsides are
Increased complexity = but this is alway a proble with new weapon systems, though once adopted the 'complexity' levels off as people get used to the requirements...
if you gave a person from 20 years ago a computer....
Early inerception loses (This one is debatable, after all if you have a AM screen out with current missiles the same effect happens... with same percentages of losses)
Smaller payload, overall payload is decreased as space must be made for secondary stage (Again this is debatable, no reason why you cant have the missiles as the outer skin really)
This is my sig!
#188
On that battletech analogy... (I know both the comp games and boardgames...)
SRMs: Heavy missiles, short range
LRMs: Smaller missile, longer range
MRM: Dumbfire rocket.
SRMs have an analogy in MRAM missiles used in PDS, and LRMs are something like HVRs. MRMs of Battletech come in amazing sizes (MRM40!) but they seem to be the unguided weapons that have been phased out of PDS by this time.
Thunderbolts are ungodly single-missile weapons that do approximately the same amount of damage as a full LRM salvo. Problem is, they are easy bait for AMS systems. There is no analogy for these in PDS outside of torpedoes or cruise missiles.
PDS by nature incorporates sophisticated AMS systems... otherwise it wouldn't be the Point-Defense system mod.
On massing missile flights: I think 'swarmer' versions of missiles would be an appropreate translation for this. Basicly it's what's already said- the more missiles, the more a targer ship's defense grid is tied up. Very nice if you're shooting hordes of inexpensive munitions at your target and have no ammunition limit (Which just about every capital ship has).
One nifty idea might be using TAG (Target aquisition gear) gear or a Narc (homing beacon) pod. I can't see how it would be implimented in PDS... unless you made a 'spotter' probe or converted a Vaygr boarding pod into a large high-power homing becon to attract every target-less missile in the area.
If we're talking about cluster missiles, what about fragmentary warheads? An anti-fighter missile that detonates a shrapnel/flichette charge? or would that take the fun out of fighter combat?
Native Taiidani
Author: Children of Kadesh, Children of Kadesh (book 2), The Taiidan Civil War, The Fire ,Tradition, Outcry (oneshot), Chronicles of the Nadiim-Basad,
and maker of the Map of the Homeworld universe, and the Homeworld 2 Grand Strategy Game. Responsible for Cataclysm 2nd. Also has a running short story collection.
Okay, so HW2 is now being compared to BattleTech series. Completely and no way related, but still fun. Hmm. What can I add...
While the points you are all making are clear, and make sense, you're not taking into account the size problem. You see, a launcher system for a 2 Stage Missile or Cluster missile will require a dedicated, larger launch tube, like the VLS system on a Trident submarine. While this may not be a problem to implement on a massive BCH or the ilk, its not cost effective. To do something like that would require serious chassis and hull modifications, just to accommodate the VLS system. Maybe as a dedicated VLS cruiser, a new ship could be designed, but for the most part, it is impractical as a time-of-war refit. It would take too long, and it would be costly and inefficient. A HVM pod, on the other hand, requires very little to attach. You super-glue the pod on, and connect it to the ships fire control computer, and poof, you have a LRM package. This is alot more cost effective because you get the same bang for alot less buck. The HVMs in that pod can fly just as far due to the lack of forces stopping/slowing the missile... it can 'glide' or 'drift' to its target, at which point it reengages its engine to correct its course. This 2 stage or cluster missile, on the other hand, is essentially wasting its burn-stage, as its going to be constantly burning for no reason. The laws of physics negate the need for a consistent-burn motor in the vaccuum of space. In all practicality it would be less expensive to use a sort of a hyperspace gate to jump the missiles close to the target before they engaged their engines. AMS would pick them off of course, but still that point remains.
OT:As for the BattleTech analogy... MadCat/Timberwolf pwnz j00 all!!!11
*cough* Sorry.
Might be the same deal with the flak: it was phased out because of the lack of armour penetration capabilities, but i like the idea a lot more.
What's the progress on 6.2 patch? Can the community expect a release soon?
"When the stars become choked by the dust of war..."
#191
I was in no way supporting the 'cluster missile' idea- I was mining battletech concepts for ideas.
Cluster detonation weapons wouldn't be used against capitals, but would be fitted to specialized anti-fighter racks (say a one-tube rapid reloading launcher housing). It's like a missile-launching version of the AMS. It could also work well against incoming clouds of HVRs- detonating the warheads before they reached the ship. And against fighters flying in close formation for boming runs it's lethal.
It might sound similar to the notorious 'flak' from HW2, so Tel would need to input on it. I liked the fragmentary warhead idea though.
And no, it is not a Madcat. It is a Timberwolf, and always will be a timberwolf. Much like how the ENTIRE HW COMMUNITY assumes the Taiidan CA is a 'Qwaar-Jet' when, in reality, this is the Kushan petname. :P Besides, my Hellbringer with an ultra AC/20 in an arm can take down anything...but this is outside PDS and must not continue.
My reply was not aimed directly at you, Ceade. I apologize if I seemed to be directing my comments at you. Since you're talking about "fragmentary warhead" and its use against HVRs, maybe you're onto something. Most present day AIMs work on that principle, by detonating near the aircraft targetted and showering it with sharp, hot debris. Anyone who has seen Behind Enemy Lines should remember the SAM hitting the fighter; you specifically see it "Shotgun" the aircraft prior to hitting it. Maybe an AMS system using small missiles loaded with a small explosive and lots of flak would be effective against incoming missiles?
no.. the missiles dont have time to get into an intercept vector before the HVMs strike... I tried it once and spend a day reworking it but couldent come up with a viable missile... the ranges are to short really.
Constant burn in space is a very good thing for missiles, the faster they are the harder they hit and the harder they are to intercept, hence how the HVM turned out.The only real problem it countering said missile an te engine limitations.
As for 'flak' missiles... Well I'd think more of 'self forging penitrator' would work better, Gives you maybe 3-6 submunitions per cargo hull, but thats really just a bunch of small HVM with the way the damage is currently modeled anyway.
Is thre any way to force submunitions onto an 'F4' style status that forces each to target independently?
Another thing that a MVA has going for it against capitals is that there is more chance in damaging subsystems, With all the additional systems plastered all over the hulls of ships the additional coverage would be most welcome.
Finaly with the Old higgy bomber, it must be the the most disused unit in the game...
It has less HVM's then the Blade, and with the new generation of Fighter weaponary its going to become even more redundent.
How bout refiting it as a Wild Wesel? stripping out the PC's to make room for the C&C gear as well as sensors jammers etc would give it pwer to spair, expecialy if you up rate the reactor to G5 standards. throw in a popgun to make it fly around rather then sit still and it sould become a viable adition to the combat line once again...
#194
'weasels will be the Avenger IVs in v6.2, which are vastly improved from existing Mark IIIs. Gravitic influence propulsion, assault lances, ECM, advanced datalink and extended sensors, etc. True strikefighter insanity
As to present discussion - go on, it's going well - I like the reference to EFP (explosively forged projectile) technology, which is the basis for our "directed fragmentation" warheads.
If each cluster missile fires say 4 submunitions, it wouldnt be all that different to install over a HVM launcher.
Naturally your rate of fire will be less, as you have fewer tubes, and each tube would take up more space, but it makes a perfect weapon for destroying strike craft at extreme range, and as we've all said many times it is great for overwhelming defense systems.
And it's not like the booster stage needs that much fuel anyways. You point the launcher at the enemy, fire off a salvo, the booster gets up to speed (at which point it has no need for more fuel) and when it gets near a valid target, it breaks apart to release the missiles it is carrying. At most there might be minor course corrections along the way if the target is moving fast, but even that wouldnt be much.
And given that with a weapon like this you can thin out the enemy ranks and wear down the armor on the survivors before they come into range, thus saving your ships a bit more in repair costs, I think it's a more than worthwhile weapon.
Arguing that the refit for it would be too expensive is somewhat illogical. It's not as if any of the refits already in the game have been particularly cheap. Completely replacing turrets with weapon systems of an entirely different class. Defense field systems on every ship. (There had to be a reason they were only on specialized frigates in the beginning.) The plethora of armaments added to ships in every class. (More than double the number of weapons and/or turrets on most ships in the game.)
Bottom line is: It's an excellent tactical weapon useful at any range. It gives the first strike advantage to whoever uses it, and if you can stay out of enemy attack range, it allows you to strike with complete impunity. It's only true obstacle is diehard fans of more conventional knife fight tactics and weapons.
What you need, Neko, is my Imperator IV special operations carrier. Tailored for forward reconaissance and fire support. Eight HVM pods (80 missiles a salvo) for long-range work, short-range 90mm AC's compounded by the standard 45mm's and an underslung 100mm PIC and ICA.
Ahem, to make my flagship (HGNS Victorious) more specialised as a long-range standoff platform, she has a quicker reload sequence thanks to the prodigious efforts of her Sobani crew (read: -15 secs to reload time). I think it's fair considering she can't make frigates or corvettes ... And -15 seconds won't save her from Vaygr direct attack.
Last edited by [G]; 25th Aug 05 at 4:19 AM.
i have watched an anime once i think it was called Seknai no Senki or Banner of the stars
there was a war in space
before most battles both sides used long range missles to cripple the enemy fleets
one of the sides introduced cluster missles
they would "fragment" when the range was achived OR when someone started shooting at the missle
dunno if "fragment on beeing fired upon" can be implemented
This is the way I see it:
Cluster missiles are the ultimate weapon.
Why? They tie up LDS, and are capable of targetting fighters as well. They penetrate LDS much more reliably than do any other guided muition. However, in head on attacks, they can pillage fighter squadrons. They are very versatile.
The first 'stage' is a carrier stage.
People say: "Fuel is not a limitation in space". These people need to think outside the box. Think about it.
For example: If you're following a highly maneuverable craft piloted by a being who knows about the missile and doesn't want to die in the near future, said pilot will maneuver as much as possible to avoid the missile. If the missiles are only armed with enough fuel for one burn (aka to get to the target), then they will not be able to keep up, and the pilot will escape. However, if you use a carrier munition to get the missiles there, the missiles use ALL of their fuel for maneuvering, and waste none on getting there. This greatly increases the chance of a kill. This also expands the practical range tremendously.
They can fit in conventional Hydra 700mm tubes.
Why? Look at the game!! MTVA torpedoes are NOT a PDS invention (gameplay wise). They were there in the stock, so it is obviously possible (re. higgy torpedo frigate and destroyer).
They are extremely versatile.
Why? theoretically, any ship capable of mounting hydras should be able to mount cluster munitions. They would have a 'fire and forget' feature as do most other weapons in this game (or so it would appear), negating the need for complicated targetting systems. Just fire the missile and it does the rest. This nullifies the argument about complicated technology being implemented. In the modern higgy fleet, there are quite a few ships capable of firing MTVA munitions. What is to stop them from firing hypervelocity MTVA munitions?
They are more complicated than an equivalent number of HVM.
Possibly true. It depends on range. At short range, yes they are. That is precisely why these are not short range weapons. HVM would not have nearly as much fuel as would be necesary for truely long ranged combat against maneuvering vessels (long range= excess of 10km). If the missiles are carried in a HVT shell however, they are escorted to the target area, then deployed to make a mess.
The use of a carrier munition extends the practical range ( the range at which a guided projectile can engange, track, and manuever with a target vessel until it is destroyed), which is modeled in game with its display time. One could even roleplay that the lifetime of the missile is its fuel supply. Once the fuel is out, the missile can no longer track moving targets, so is just stuck on its course. Unless it is right in the middle of a swarm of ships, it is basically useless at this point.
Fluff reasons.
One could always speculate that, like modern Aegis systems, HW ships are only capable of tracking a set number of targets. Cluster munitions could help to throw off the targetting computers temporarily, making them lose important contacts such as capital vessels.
G, what kind of range are we talking on those 80 missile salvos?
And corsair, SnS was the best series I've seen as far as space combat goes. They didnt just sit back and throw projectiles at each other, nor did they simply move in and have a slugfest. They darted in, did some damage, went out the other side and then came back for another pass. It was only in the REALLY big battles that you would see something different, and that was a number of very heavy missile cruisers hanging back and supporting the main fighting force.
Oh, and the missiles you are talking about were used by the humans against the abh, and served more of a dual role in that big battle, lying dormant in debris fields until an abh ship came close enough for it to activate.
SRM = MRAM2... Only Streak SRMs. :P And yes the NARC beacon would be a handy thing to have. Especially if the enemy warship mounts hundreds of fire and forget missiles...
If you're looking for ideas to steal from Battletech, take the C/LBX-20AC, that'd snarl up some fighers, or ruin launch systems. (For those uninitiated think a shotgun made for a barrel the width of a tank barrel, possibly wider. And thats the ground version, not the naval [spacefaring] version.)
The problem with cluster munitions is of course that it Lags the game up like nothing else. But on the good side yes, it snarls up anti-missile defences.
I could see it but only with say 2 - 3 munitoins a pod?
However I still would prefer tactically deployable munitions. e.g. Straight MRAMS, for use on capships or fighters. Mind you, one or two HV/MTVA launchers might help. Like the old starscatter systems but locking in at ranges much further. Ala 2-3km.
_________________________________________
Off topic:
Eat 4 x RAC 10 on my Daishi :P
Or if we're going classic I'd have to my Cougar. 2 CERLLAS, 135kph topspeed, max (about 10 tons) armour. + Jumpjets. Sure it doesn't hurt much but going toe to toe with anything in similar tonnage it'll kick ass. Good for annoying Bigger mechs too, i took a alpha strike from a daishi on my shoulder and managed to carry on with only a red right hand side.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
