Dec Update - Spinal mount weapon damage
- Thread starter Chas
- Start date
PsiTraveller
Cosmic Mongoose
A percentage reduction could work quite well, even an opposed check of tech level of armour, tech level of installation or construction vs tech level of weapon. Higher tech weapons may have a beter chance of getting through armour. intense focus, high yield or other new advantages may be possible for higher tech upgrades to weapons.
New Hull options in addition to reflec or radiation shielding could be created. Ablative, particle resistant, meson resistant, superior radiation resistant, ion resistant, crystal infused, Jump focused etc etc. Some may stack, others may not (like reflec and stealth for example).
2% per point would max out at 30% damage reduction. Is that enough? Could it be pushed higher? I am thinking of slabs of superdense plating, or the batestar galactica scenes of nukes going off and the ships just continuing to fight.
Spinal weapons of massive power needs and armageddon level damage were developed to crack the armour of ships that shrugged off everything else shot at them. These weapons stood a chance of hurting the massive ships.
On a different note the negative DM's of the spinal weapons. For the cost of the targeting computer and software it would be worth buying a sensor array and targeting computer running fire control 5 just for the spinal weapon to give a good chance to hitting a smaller ship if the 5k spinal ships became an issue. A dedicated computer system would be worth the extra expense if it allowed for one shot kills on those pesky smaller ships. This would open up an entirely new area of ship design, cost and e-warfare avenues. Just a thought.
New Hull options in addition to reflec or radiation shielding could be created. Ablative, particle resistant, meson resistant, superior radiation resistant, ion resistant, crystal infused, Jump focused etc etc. Some may stack, others may not (like reflec and stealth for example).
2% per point would max out at 30% damage reduction. Is that enough? Could it be pushed higher? I am thinking of slabs of superdense plating, or the batestar galactica scenes of nukes going off and the ships just continuing to fight.
Spinal weapons of massive power needs and armageddon level damage were developed to crack the armour of ships that shrugged off everything else shot at them. These weapons stood a chance of hurting the massive ships.
On a different note the negative DM's of the spinal weapons. For the cost of the targeting computer and software it would be worth buying a sensor array and targeting computer running fire control 5 just for the spinal weapon to give a good chance to hitting a smaller ship if the 5k spinal ships became an issue. A dedicated computer system would be worth the extra expense if it allowed for one shot kills on those pesky smaller ships. This would open up an entirely new area of ship design, cost and e-warfare avenues. Just a thought.
If you're going to start whacking up the armor you'll have to be very careful of the weight vs performance.
But there'll be another side to it as well.
Armor affects particles.
Screens affect meson's who otherwise ignore armor. Which is actually a good reason to have more armor options and better affect on particle spinals as right now the meson's need a boost.
But as people have noted I'd rather get Matt's input/the next update before doing too much more. It'll be a lot easier to consider options once a clear direction is laid out.
But there'll be another side to it as well.
Armor affects particles.
Screens affect meson's who otherwise ignore armor. Which is actually a good reason to have more armor options and better affect on particle spinals as right now the meson's need a boost.
But as people have noted I'd rather get Matt's input/the next update before doing too much more. It'll be a lot easier to consider options once a clear direction is laid out.
Okay chaps, I am hip deep in spinal weapons at the moment! You will see the results later this week in the update (all your comments here have been very useful) but, as a quickie (more comments welcomed!):
1. Armour percentages are in for particle and railguns (2% and 1% per point respectively).
2. Tonnage across the board has been increased by 50% as a first stab. We want to limit things on the low end without too much of a shift - basically, make things difficult/force hard choices rather than make things impossible.
3. However, the big change is in Power requirements. As a first stab, I have multiplied them all by 5 - however, be aware that high efficiency batteries are now in, leading to the possibility of 'charging' a spinal.
4. At the moment, the Radiation trait is still in. I think it works without too much hassle.
5. Damage against atmospheric targets is halved for meson and particle weapons (they lose their Radiation trait too!).
Oh, and someone asked about the point of lesser spinals - check out the TL. Some fleets won't have any other option but yes, they quickly get outmoded.
1. Armour percentages are in for particle and railguns (2% and 1% per point respectively).
2. Tonnage across the board has been increased by 50% as a first stab. We want to limit things on the low end without too much of a shift - basically, make things difficult/force hard choices rather than make things impossible.
3. However, the big change is in Power requirements. As a first stab, I have multiplied them all by 5 - however, be aware that high efficiency batteries are now in, leading to the possibility of 'charging' a spinal.
4. At the moment, the Radiation trait is still in. I think it works without too much hassle.
5. Damage against atmospheric targets is halved for meson and particle weapons (they lose their Radiation trait too!).
Oh, and someone asked about the point of lesser spinals - check out the TL. Some fleets won't have any other option but yes, they quickly get outmoded.