Multi-Warhead Missiles/Torps - January Update

[Nerhesi]

Overall - great work folks on the contributions thus far on missiles. Matt - I think you handled it pretty well with the massive amount of varied opinions on this stuff. Now that we're almost there, time to move on to remaining items needing attention:

Multi-warhead Missiles/Torps.

They're a little on the nuts side at the moment. They do as much damage per missile and the same speed as the standard missile. However the benefits clear make them the best, most ridiculouso (I just made that up) missile of choice. -2 to all PD fire AND 1D times damage!

I think to simulate multi-warhead we have two choices, either:

a) Keep it as 1D times damage but drop damage to 2D..
Or
b) I think this is preferred - Just keep the -2 DM but get rid of 1D times damage. This simulates the "mini missiles splitting up" without reducing the effect.

Thoughts?

 

[Chas]

Is there any reason why the multi-headed standard torp is 8D, the same as the multi nuclear 8D, when the standard torp actually only does 6D? I'm guessing this is a typo.

I see the costs have attempted to balance the multi-headed missile/torp, but I'd suggest
a) in the bigger picture that price isn't so critical and
b) they're still under valued. I think the cost should be a notch higher than the base multiplier, you're getting more bang for a single hit.

P.S. any bets on how many players are going to try to insist their fighter can use the Ortillery Torpedo against a dreadnought?

 

[Nerhesi]

Hah, not sure about the ortillery missil theory but...

Why? A multi-warhead is even better still! Even against 15-armour it has the potential to be absolutely ridiculous. Those 6 missiles that got through pd/ew? Sorry - meant 36!

Not to mention they have an easier time getting through pd! This is one of those things that I don't think we can balance with just cost.

 

[phavoc]

Multi-warheads should not do additional damage. You are taking the explosive effect and splitting it up into smaller weapons. Instead a multi-warhead missile/torpedo should give you a higher chance of hitting with something. A single warhead should always be far more powerful than say six individual ones. That's just simply physics.

So if you are targetting a heavily armored target, you are probably just wasting ammo. But against a lighter target with heavy anti-missile defenses (say an escort or screening vessel), you are increasing your chances of wearing it down. So this allows some tactical strategy to be involved when deciding on what kind of weapons you want to carry and when/how to use them.

 

[Chas]

We already have the fragmentation missile to fill the role of the multiple smaller bangs so while not disagreeing phavoc I don't think we want to go down that route.

I'm quite in favour of the multi warhead missile/torp only being more PD reducing effective. My comment above was to say, as current I don't think even the price increase is necessarily balanced and if this multihead missile does want to be kept as the top end destructive weapon then the price should go up further.

 

[phavoc]

We already have the fragmentation missile to fill the role of the multiple smaller bangs so while not disagreeing phavoc I don't think we want to go down that route.

I'm quite in favour of the multi warhead missile/torp only being more PD reducing effective. My comment above was to say, as current I don't think even the price increase is necessarily balanced and if this multihead missile does want to be kept as the top end destructive weapon then the price should go up further.

If the torp is the same size as a standard torp, how would one get MORE destructive power by adding more infrastructure (additional warheads) in the same amount of space? I could see if it was larger than normal, but not if it's the same size.

 

[Chas]

We already have the fragmentation missile to fill the role of the multiple smaller bangs so while not disagreeing phavoc I don't think we want to go down that route.

I'm quite in favour of the multi warhead missile/torp only being more PD reducing effective. My comment above was to say, as current I don't think even the price increase is necessarily balanced and if this multihead missile does want to be kept as the top end destructive weapon then the price should go up further.

If the torp is the same size as a standard torp, how would one get MORE destructive power by adding more infrastructure (additional warheads) in the same amount of space? I could see if it was larger than normal, but not if it's the same size.

If I recall correctly what had happened in the previous releases was the multi war head version was a lower thrust than the standard, i.e. an assumption that there was less fuel and more bang. I suspect what may have happened here was when the powers that be decided they would boost the thrust up for all missiles, this got caught up in the move.

As I said I don't disagree with your point, I actually prefer this weapon to be only PD defeating and priced to reflect that.

 

[Nerhesi]

Yeah - the previous MGT1 version was the same as it is now, the problem is that the previous MGT1 version didn't matter because it couldn't penetrate armour 12!

Now, with missiles being viable at the high end, the capability of multi-warhead missiles is ridonculous (real word). Consider a 75k cruiser with something like 300 medium missile bays. 7200 missiles a turn... and if 1000 just happen to survive PD, they have the ability to blossom into 6000 missiles!

Nerf s'il vous plaît

 

[arcador]

Or perhaps some other variant can be added. For example let's say that due the high fragmentation, multi-warhead missiles have a maximum salvo size, beyond of which their effect does not grow.

Of course, this won't fix the problem but limit it's scope, and in smaller scales the multi-warhead missile will still be preferred. Need better one.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Hi guys,

Think I have this.

Going to reduce damage to 3D.

However, just before you make an attack roll (not before!), you multiply the number of surviving missiles in the salvo by 1D.

 

[Nerhesi]

Hi guys,

Think I have this.

Going to reduce damage to 3D.

However, just before you make an attack roll (not before!), you multiply the number of surviving missiles in the salvo by 1D.

Cool - so you basically your PD is versus the original number of missiles, not suddenly 1Dx that number. Much more manageable and much more affected by armour. Sounds good.