While starbases with active planetary shields will never be able to launch ground fighters/bombers (if you want to, put them in a GP and undock it), it does raise the question of artillery. Should they be able to fire at targets beyond the sector?
For – sure, give them at least something they can chuck at the enemy.
Against – then it is just a case of building enough artillery to ensure that the enemy cannot have a chance of building up on the planet in order to do a ground assault.
Charging
Currently starbase shields start charging at 1x for the first week. Should this be increased to say 1.5x for the first week?
| QUOTE (Mica Goldstone @ Oct 5 2005, 01:53 PM) |
| Planetary range weapons While starbases with active planetary shields will never be able to launch ground fighters/bombers (if you want to, put them in a GP and undock it), it does raise the question of artillery. Should they be able to fire at targets beyond the sector? For – sure, give them at least something they can chuck at the enemy. Against – then it is just a case of building enough artillery to ensure that the enemy cannot have a chance of building up on the planet in order to do a ground assault. Charging Currently starbase shields start charging at 1x for the first week. Should this be increased to say 1.5x for the first week? |
I wasn't even aware that GROUND weapons shouldn't work with an activated shield..
Is an starbase shield not made to prevent people using NAVAL WEAPONS against an enemy in space???
I am getting more and more negative about those shields.... Anyway the current batch of destroyed/captured starbases has shown that taking over an starbase is already easy enough.. And you need to be able to see the landed GP with an platform anyway... so why make it even more harder to use any weapons is beyond me...
Any starbase should at least be able to defend themself against ground based enemies with all his ground based weapons he got.
There always the option of having a sperate GP or Outpost with Artillery to suprise potentially dangerous GPs, so there's reasonable work-around.
This is probably best answered by the players who have had ground combat experience, but I'd go with the NO planet range weapons option (Artillery, Ground Fighters/Bombers etc).
As for Starbase shields... Not enough experience to comment really.
Geoff
At least with GF/GB, you can have point defence to take them out. You cannot say the same for artillery. Mica, what is the reason for not allowing GF/GB to be launched.
Nik
Presumably the term 'sector' means the planetary grid reference and not the orbital sector.
The definition 'Planetary range weapons' clearly implies anywhere on the planet.
Given this latter definition it suggests that artillery batteries are an awesome weapon when there are large numbers of guns, as this provides the owner the ability to clobber outposts and star bases from a distance almost with impunity, especially if they are under shields and the target is not.
I guess that this thought or something similar is the underlying motivation for this question.
One of the first questions that comes to mind is the area defined by each planetary sector. This obviously has some bearing. Are all sectors the same physical size regardless of which planet/moon/asteroid location that they encompass?
If they are then it will be easy to define a mechanism that is easily understood that depicts the ranges of weapons of this class. If not, then such a mechanism will need to include localised planetary parameters.
One could also ask should the accuracy of artillery (et al) be attenuated by the drag coefficient of the local atmosphere? Should it not also be attenuated by the range to target as well?
Notwithstanding the good graces of the 'True One', I think it nonsensical to assume that artillery in particular should be able to hit a target anywhere on the planet, especially if its a giant planet.
I think it makes more sense if more stringent range limitations existed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull
...if you can put a 2000kg, fin stabilized, 2 stage rocket projectile into space with a velocity of over 3600m/s (and he was enroute to do so) - with the right supercomputers you can drop that projectile anywhere on the planet.
(ignore the part about Bull being assassinated because he was abrasive and extorting the CIA - the CIA doesn't do those sorts of things...)
Here's a thought - Starbase shields on attacking Starbase A reduce the damage of Artillery by half (and that damage is applied against Starbase A's shields only), the remainder hits target GP/Starbase B (and said damage is applied against their SB Shields/Normal Shields). Basically, the Artillery has to punch it's way through the attacking starbase shields and causes instability and degeneration to the field and lessens the damage potential of the round as a result. Ground Fighters/Bombers, which are ostensibly crewed, would not be able to withstand the stresses of 'punching through' the SB Shields. Rail Guns, which can be used in an indirect fire role as needed, are still primarily a direct-fire Space Combat weapon and as such do not have the sophisticated indirect fire control/targetting mechanism in place to accurately and effectively target positions on the other side of the planet like crew served Artillery does. Just some thoughts.
Cheers,
Rich Fanning
aka
Lord Lawrence Scrimm
CIA Intelligence Director
| QUOTE (Clay @ Oct 5 2005, 09:59 AM) |
| There always the option of having a sperate GP or Outpost with Artillery to suprise potentially dangerous GPs, so there's reasonable work-around. |
...So something which could wait until after infrastructure perhaps?
I'm not an experienced combat player, but am currently contemplating the effects of starbase shields, and they do seem to charge quite slowly. If you could have them ramping up in a nice curve which levels out as maximum was approached, that would be ideal, I'd say. More 'realistic' and technichal players couldn't easily calculate the exact strength of starbase shields day-on-day... which is how it should be to retain the mystery of the game.
I agree with Archangel - artillery shouln't be planetary range. Off the cuff; How about: Mk I artillery is adjacent sector, MkII is additional sector range, etc... Again; after infrastructure, please.
TonyH
| QUOTE (Lord Scrimm @ Oct 6 2005, 09:53 PM) |
| ...if you can put a 2000kg, fin stabilized, 2 stage rocket projectile into space with a velocity of over 3600m/s (and he was enroute to do so) - with the right supercomputers you can drop that projectile anywhere on the planet. |
I think you will find on closer inspection this is a description of a ballistic missile, not a piece of artillery firing a much tinier ballistic round.