View Thread
 V7 - community-developed ship loadouts
|
|
| mrWHO |
Posted on 24-09-2005 09:04
|
 Posts: 485 Joined: September 02 2005 |
I wasn't mean EMP shockwave (I noticed long ago that Tel doesn't like it  ). I mean a weapon that do large dammage to this blue bar but small to hull.All ships are already shielded to EMP because when blue bar come to zero they disabled but after some time they back online while they electronic should be fried. I mean a EMP missile not EMP shockwave. Anyone here watched "Fast and furious II". Cops had an EMP weapon that was launched at car, sticked to it and then shut down the electronic. I proposed something like that. This missile would stick near vital equipment (comm towers, engines, bridges) and would deliver contant EMP dammage until it run out of power, after that enemy wuold have to power up again, it would take few seconds but sometimes few seconds means everything. If you still dont like the Idea then say "no more EMP stuff' and I'll shut up. |
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 25-09-2005 05:13
|
 Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
Do you know why there are no EMP weapons around? Because people like you think that EMP is some magical device that is the next big thing in weapons systems development - i.e. shutting up is a much more worthwhile prospect than telling you to justify the development of said weapon system. Quote All ships are already shielded to EMP because when blue bar come to zero they disabled but after some time they back online while they electronic should be fried. On the old PDS website and also in old discussions of PDS, it was common knowledge that the "EMP" health in the HW2 engine simulates systems resilience of a warship. Thus, as it takes progressive damage its systems may be disabled - not simply "electronics fried". |
|
|
|
| MarieHawke |
Posted on 25-09-2005 05:33
|
 Posts: 501 Joined: September 02 2005 |
There also also several counts against EMP weaponry as well. 1.) It would be pretty hard to use it undetected - it gives off a lot of radiation during charge, and would be easily detected. 2.) Such a device would be bloody fragile, otherwise it wouldn't work probably and you'd have cooked Vaygr/Hiigarans on your own ship. Not pretty. 3.) Even IF you had a working device for use without it breaking down in the middle of combat, ships already have to have anti-radiation fields - do you know how contaminated space is? 4.) Gameplay would be too stupid for use if we had EMP uber-weaponry everywhere. BOOM, EMP. Oh, look, everything's just sitting there. Dead. Everything wakes up again! BOOM, EMP. Oops, dead again. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. A starlight sharpshot magical girl!
|
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 25-09-2005 05:45
|
|
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
On points 1 and 2 - it doesn't necessarily have to be a shipboard weapon system. Things like E-bombs or EMP generating warheads do exist in concept today. However from the realism standpoint it won't be very effective, except against primitive planetary civilisations like cities today. The Homeworld universe is not exactly a good, safe place to live in so you can expect some default requirement for protection against such events! Even for a civilian freighter or space station, having it vulnerable to EMP effects is something you don't want. (edited as I missed out some words) Edited by TelQuessir on 26-09-2005 00:24 |
|
|
|
| mrWHO |
Posted on 25-09-2005 09:25
|
|
Posts: 485 Joined: September 02 2005 |
heh, Tel you should be a politican. You can defend against multiple arguments at multiple discussions. I'll better shut up, but I have to ask one more question. I'm not EMP expert, my idea was based on seeking analogy. Does EMP warfare as all warfare evolve in "sword,shield way" ? I mean when someone invented explosive amuniton(analogy to EMP shockwave) someone invented an armor(EMP shields), then someone invented an AP munition (my EMP missile). Yeah, you can say that then someone invented better armour, but as far as I know there is no armor(mobile) againts USA uranium tank shell. Anyway I shut up now  . |
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 26-09-2005 00:26
|
|
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
Western main battle tanks with the same tech level as the Abrams upgraded to post-M1A1(HA) standard can defend against their own ammunition rather well, to the front quarter of course. Also, the Russians have second generation explosive-reactive armour capable of countering both shaped charge warheads and kinetic penetrators. As again it's human nature to evolve. |
|
|
|
| Aser |
Posted on 27-09-2005 10:46
|
 Posts: 5 Joined: September 27 2005 |
Doesn't explosive-reactive armor not tend to be the safest thing to be around if you're the less armored part of the combined arms team...?  I have questions about the marine frigate and possible suggestions. I?ll leave it in list form so you can easily shoot them down; as I?m not even sure what I?m talking about? Questions 1. Why is it a frigate? 2. Why does it look Hiigaran? Not neutral or captured hull/design? 3. Why is it so thoroughly armed? Why no cloak (maybe a false transponder gimmick)? Why no upgraded defense field? Why no sensor jamming? Is it possible to deceive targeting systems in HW2? 4. Why can?t it do what the support frigate does? (It seems its personnel would be equally capable of getting friendly ships back into service under fire as any technician?) Suggestions 1. A corvette with capture capability 2. Remove railguns and add an amped up defense field 3. Remove railguns and add a cloak or something more devious; like the old MCV from HW:C. (I expect that suggestion?ll draw gunfire?) 4. Drop the current (utility?) frigate hull and use something from another fleet. 5. When a ship is captured and rejected for unticap reasons, does it ever actually ?belong? to the player who captured it? If so, why not, in that time when the command is given to disable it instead, scuttle all its subsystems? After the response those other folks got, I don?t reckon I?ll fare well? ?but those are my stupid ideas for this morning. Thanks |
|
|
|
| Aser |
Posted on 28-09-2005 16:02
|
|
Posts: 5 Joined: September 27 2005 |
A few more oddball ideas from me: Hyperspace Missile The decreased effectiveness of strikecraft assault on capital ship formations, whether at anchor or in transit, has prompted an interesting ad hoc solution. The hyperspace missile is the brainstorm of a small, unofficial group of fleet engineers. The corvette-sized missile consists of an effectively, single-use hyperdrive coupled to a primitive navigational computer and the largest, most powerful warhead available. Once deployed, the missile receives target coordinates and makes a jump. Lacking a conventional drive, this weapon requires immediate launch and is incapable of post-jump maneuvering. Once it exits hyperspace, the missile ejects its warhead which detonates shortly thereafter. The missile itself its usually destroyed in the subsequent blast. Though it is truly effective at softening hard targets and destroying soft targets, the missile?s purpose is fairly specific. The weapon is generally employed as a preliminary flak suppressor, eliminating defensive assets deployed around a vital target and damaging that target in preparation for conventional, follow-on attacks. This weapon has several inherent shortcomings. Despite its simplicity, the cost of its components makes it a relatively expensive option, made only practical by the potential lives and costlier hardware saved by its employment. The natural defense is obvious, the cycling of several massed hyperspace inhibiters. Of course, this is not a sustainable defense, and cannot be rendered for all vulnerable areas. Therefore, where task forces gather and insufficient inhibiter capability is found, enemy tactical officers should remain vigilant. Execution: Attach a large ?launcher? to the front of a hypercapable cylinder. The ?launcher? has one round which is ?fired? at the enemy and explodes after traveling a few meters. Hyperspace Inhibiter Pod The purpose of this platform is easy enough to understand. A power generator, and a gravity well. It is as expensive as some warships and will eventually short out. Additionally, the navigational chaos caused by activating such a defense is so difficult to manage that most commands are under official directives, authorized to deploy only one such navigational hazard. Execution: Pretty simple? Maybe when it runs out of power it blows up. Decoy A drone with a power signature and exterior shell that resembles a ship visually and on sensors. Possessing similar behavior it would appear true to life until easily engaged and destroyed. Execution: Use a model, except, it?s not the real thing? |
|
|
|
| Phoenix |
Posted on 30-09-2005 04:01
|
|
Posts: 27 Joined: September 09 2005 |
On the hyperspace missile, I dont like, hyperdrives are WAY to spendy, thats why only carriers, shipyards, and BIG ships have them, and there's no indury for small ones. 2ndly, they would just turn the game into a game of long range missile warefare, which would KILL the PDS feel, so I'll say that its a bad idea. There are already hyperspace inhibitors on many cap ships as it is, and they do damage to ships trying to hyper into thier fields, just have a carrier as part of your task force when you attack, but then agian the inhibitor is more likely to help when YOU are the target of THIER attack, thus why this is already in place on carriers and shipyards and a fiew other big ships so as to prevent unnessesairy surprises from happening at your production facilities or resourcing operations. As for decoys, I like this idea, but it has been discussed before and I think it was decided that it wasnt a good idea, though I can see putting a hull and an engine together with some nasty surprises for a very specific instance, it wouldnt work for long, the enemy would quickly ceatch on, by tracking the mass, gravitationsl field, electromagnetic field, etc, of your ships and be able to quicky tell what is real and whas is not. a hologram is also a bad idea, since most often, in space, you dont "see" ships, you pick them up on radar/sonar/sensors first, hell, i bet a good part of the time the enemy ship isnt seen, since its just not fesible to be having telescopes pointing in all directions, and because some ships can simply cloak. it would make more sense to blow up captured ships after deboarding when your unitcap is maxed out, i mean with a bomb near the reactor it wouldnt be so hard, i mean most of the armor protecting the reactor is on the hull, not inside, and those mariens can cut thru anything it seems. tho it could be that the HW2 code/scripts dont allow for that... |
|
|
|
| Aser |
Posted on 30-09-2005 07:13
|
|
Posts: 5 Joined: September 27 2005 |
The idea of a "bomb ship" decoy would be very inviting wouldn't it...? I suppose hyperspace weapons would be a strategic option and thus beyond the scope of the battlespace. I just wish there was some more representation of over-the-horizon warfare, hence the missile suggestion, as it seems odd for missile units to close in as they seem apt to do... What are the ranges of the current guided weapons? |
|
|
|
| Phoenix |
Posted on 30-09-2005 08:07
|
|
Posts: 27 Joined: September 09 2005 |
Well, I would like to know why my longer range missile units have to close in to flak range of enemy ships, instead of supporting from more of a stand off distance where they are still efective and safe. I can, however, see where moving in close to avoid the enemy using PDS to eliminate long range missiles, thus making moving in close a nessesity at times. for ion frigates, i would like to see standoff tactics, or for ships with high power long range kinetic guns, like monitors. |
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 01-10-2005 12:11
|
|
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
As this discussion is of no value to me - and as the standard of proposal highlighted in the first post, no additional contributions are welcome unless otherwise stated. |
|
|
|
| Jump to Forum |