Torpedos - Armoured - January Update

[Nerhesi]

Good job on the new Torpedo interaction with PD update. Some specific feedback on items:

I dont think we really need further armouring for torpedoes as an option. Technically, torpedoes are armoured anyways as indicated, they take double the effort to shoot down with PD. Think of the mechanics we've introduced with this new "further armouring", at +20% cost. You are reducing the effect of PD by 1D.

So 5 Torpedoes, armoured, reduce PD by 1D.
5000 Torpedoes, armoured, reduce PD by 1D... ????!??!?!??

That doesn't really make sense You'd think reduce PD by percentage, not by a flat value! Regardless, thats why I dont think it is necessary really. Torps are armoured - they soak up 2 effect per torp to bring down. Good job!

Thoughts?

 

[phavoc]

Good job on the new Torpedo interaction with PD update. Some specific feedback on items:

I dont think we really need further armouring for torpedoes as an option. Technically, torpedoes are armoured anyways as indicated, they take double the effort to shoot down with PD. Think of the mechanics we've introduced with this new "further armouring", at +20% cost. You are reducing the effect of PD by 1D.

So 5 Torpedoes, armoured, reduce PD by 1D.
5000 Torpedoes, armoured, reduce PD by 1D... ????!??!?!??

That doesn't really make sense You'd think reduce PD by percentage, not by a flat value! Regardless, thats why I dont think it is necessary really. Torps are armoured - they soak up 2 effect per torp to bring down. Good job!

Thoughts?

If you recall, there was an old Missiles supplement that basically allowed you to build your own missiles. Like ships you had X amount of space, and each TL increase gave you the same effect for less space (but more cost). So you could build your bigger warheads if you sacrificed elsewhere (like endurance). Just do the same here. You want more "armored" - ugh... it's really just ablative material, NOT armor - you pay for it by reducing fuel/warhead, or increasing TL/costs. Everything balances out.

 

[Nerhesi]

I agree Phavoc - but if we do decide to go that route, having more "ablative torpedoes" means their protection needs to scale with number of torps.

Example, if my torps are 20% more ablative/rugged, then I'll take 20% less torp losses from PD. It doesn't mean Im just keeping an extra 1-6 (1d) whether I'm launching 10 or 10,000

 

[phavoc]

I agree Phavoc - but if we do decide to go that route, having more "ablative torpedoes" means their protection needs to scale with number of torps.

Example, if my torps are 20% more ablative/rugged, then I'll take 20% less torp losses from PD. It doesn't mean Im just keeping an extra 1-6 (1d) whether I'm launching 10 or 10,000

True, but it should also mean your torps are 20% less effective.

 

[Nerhesi]

I agree Phavoc - but if we do decide to go that route, having more "ablative torpedoes" means their protection needs to scale with number of torps.

Example, if my torps are 20% more ablative/rugged, then I'll take 20% less torp losses from PD. It doesn't mean Im just keeping an extra 1-6 (1d) whether I'm launching 10 or 10,000

True, but it should also mean your torps are 20% less effective.

True! Hence - lets toss the "more ablative" torps, they're ablativey enough without need to complicate

 

[Chas]

Definitely like the -2 on hitting smaller ships, there wanted to be a differential between missiles and torps.

Going to have another look at the 10K or 5K torpedo frigate Might have a bay or two of missiles thrown in though...

 

[phavoc]

True! Hence - lets toss the "more ablative" torps, they're ablativey enough without need to complicate

Fair enough. If we go down the path of modifying stock missiles, then a new missile supplement would be best, that defines how you 'build' a torpedo and if you want to give it more damage resistance to soak up PD fire, but losing warhead strength, so be it. But not down to the Striker level... that's too much effort I think for the reward. It would be better to define, for example, a torpedo having 10 slots, one is required for the seeker, 1 is required for basic fuel, one is required for the thruster. You can then customize your missile how you want to give it more 'blammo!' power, longer range, etc.

I think it would be easier to start at TL15 and work your way down as to how you built the specs. So the example above would be TL15 to start. At TL10 you might need 2 spaces, for the seeker, 3 for the thruster, and 2 for the fuel. However you would do it, it should make logical sense to scale properly up/down. But without the normal TL advantage stuff that gives you additional cost/displacement changes. Higher TL is more costly, but smaller. Lower TL is cheaper, but bulkier. And no early TL advantages either. Nobody would be going to war with persnickety torps unless you had no other choice. No need for additional complications!

 

[MongooseMatt]

Going to remove armoured torps for now. Not sure they are adding anything worthwhile.