I always liked the idea of starbases being able to extend their control. These are only general ideas and i have yet to be convinced by any of them. They pass the 'ooooh' test but i'm not sure how it would effect the game.
Inter Planetary Balistic Missiles
100mu missiles that pop off to any starbase in the system and drops multiple war heads on the target. The missile is assume to have its own silo/ lauch system and you can launch as many as you want.
It would be done outside normal combat account for the fact that you see them coming a long way off etc....
Long Range Space Bombers
Manned long range bombers that popoff and bomb the targt of your choice. Similar to above but reusable.
But the "100MU" missile is a considerable investment to have it destroyed very easilly. On the other hand a inter planetary missile can be spotted from affar and shouldn't be that difficult to destroy. If a balance can't be found I'd rather see this put off for a while
The long range bomber...hum I've liked the idea of seeing fighters (fighters, bombers and interceptors) as more versatile as they are right now.
I don't see why a new class of long range fighters shouldn't be added. they would fight as any other, but not requiring the presence of carriers in the actual battleground.
Since that gives a tactical advantage on the attacker, how about making them more fragile. in a range / armour trade off?
And BTW why do fighters still require 1 round to launch and return? Wouldn't people rather have less damaging fighters, but that would fight all 4 rounds? At least the interceptors, which main objective is to be a fast deployment defender
| QUOTE (Avatar @ Jun 23 2003, 11:52 AM) |
| And BTW why do fighters still require 1 round to launch and return? Wouldn't people rather have less damaging fighters, but that would fight all 4 rounds? At least the interceptors, which main objective is to be a fast deployment defender |
Not exactly the topic at hand but fighters/bombers do only fight in rounds 2 & 3 as before but interceptors do work during all 4 rounds.
Assuming you had enough IPBMs you could get systems with mutually assured destruction is cropping up, so its likely that you would have options to automatically retaliate [with appropriate force] against a launch. Also it would most likely be a political issue to allow a starbase governor to have launch codes for an aff starbase (so you don't get accidents and clear auth if you change players).
Basically the mind boggles with this, which is why its prob. not a good idea.
Make it so on crew (Pilot) is required for each bomber (maybe two). This would mean you would be paying wages for the bombers as well.
This way you could have good quality bombers/fighters that can be used to defend outposts and small starbases in systems but with a limit due to expense. These could also be used as a police force for a system.
SO the Big ruling starbase in a system has an enemy list of pirates, etc. and a host of interplanetary fighters/bombers which can react to sensors detecting known enemies. Or these ships could react to an ally being attacked.
I Like the idea, look at the real world we have both ICBM and Bombers.
All we have to do is get the ballance right, I would think a very high price
and running cost. What about Stelth Bombers!!
Just my two peneth worth
Titus Grip
)The MAD situation mentioned above could make for some v. interesting politics
I really don't think that allowing MAD situations would add anything to the game. Interesting politics? Stagnation, more like. How many science fiction settings have any weapon that would allow MAD?
The whole IPBM/bomber idea may sound very good in theory, but I don't see where it would fit into the gameplay, or what it would add.
rob
I still think we should have it but at a very high price, I do realise that this would benifit the larger Affs but while we have weapons of all sorts I dont think its fair to limit the size, It is progress!
Titus Grip
| QUOTE |
| I do realise that this would benifit the larger Affs but while we have weapons of all sorts I dont think its fair to limit the size, It is progress! |
Could you explain that again? I don't follow your argument.
rob
| QUOTE (Rob Alexander @ Jul 3 2003, 08:03 AM) | ||
Could you explain that again? I don't follow your argument. |
Larger Affs will always have the production capacity to go OTT with weapons - either in size or sheer quantity - it's a perk of longevity
Rich Fanning
aka
Lord Lawrence Scrimm
CIA Director of Regional Operations
| QUOTE (finalstryke @ Jul 2 2003, 09:36 PM) |
| as well as some sort of 'patriot missile' thingy |
Doh!
Spot the newbie...
the above quote should read:
"some sort of long range Phalanx"
:-)
| QUOTE (David Bethel @ Jun 23 2003, 10:58 AM) |
| Inter Planetary Balistic Missiles It would be done outside normal combat account for the fact that you see them coming a long way off etc.... |
Have to say I like the idea of the IPBM's, if only because it's another toy to have. But who says they'll see them coming? YOu think I won't be korondite plating mine and stenciling DNA on the side of them?
Doc
| QUOTE (Doc_mark @ Jul 16 2003, 07:27 PM) | ||
Have to say I like the idea of the IPBM's, if only because it's another toy to have. But who says they'll see them coming? YOu think I won't be korondite plating mine and stenciling DNA on the side of them? Doc |
Not sure why you need to stencil DNA on your missiles its nice advertising though, unless it is to try to get us into more trouble then you already have.
From what I have read everybody seems pretty much in favour of interplanetary missiles and bombers/fighters so are they going to be included at a future date? If so, I assume they will be available to all rather than a new tech that has to be researched?
Cheers
Jons - SMS
rob