More questions about ship weapon tech

[Prospective]

More questions about shipboard weapon systems and defensive systems designed to counter them (rock paper, scissors as expressed in an earlier post).

 

I've seen descriptions for weapons systems that I think are the same and it has confused me. Maybe someone can help clarify.

 

Items like projectile weapons, coherent beam weapons, energy discharge, frost bolt, sonic and fighter/drones are pretty straightforward. However, what is the difference between a missile and a torpedo? When you have a description of a CIDS, it says it's effective against missile/fighter/drone. Does it also affect Torpedo's? What counters torpedo's?

 

What is the difference between a "plasma splash" weapon system and a "fusion blast"? EDAC can defend against "fusion blast" and flux capacitors protect against "plasma splash", which implies they are different heat based systems altogether. Is that true, are they 2 separate "heat tech" systems? Is there more than one cold system (frost bolt and ....?).

 

What is an example of a "particle beam" weapon system? EDAC can defend against them, but what weapon system is it defending against?

 

What's the difference between a magnetic grapple and a tractor beam?

 

Thanks.

[crossroads]

More questions about shipboard weapon systems and defensive systems designed to counter them (rock paper, scissors as expressed in an earlier post).

 

I've seen descriptions for weapons systems that I think are the same and it has confused me.  Maybe someone can help clarify.

 

Items like projectile weapons, coherent beam weapons, energy discharge, frost bolt, sonic and fighter/drones are pretty straightforward.  However, what is the difference between a missile and a torpedo?  When you have a description of a CIDS, it says it's effective against missile/fighter/drone.  Does it also affect Torpedo's?  What counters torpedo's?

 

What is the difference between a "plasma splash" weapon system and a "fusion blast"?  EDAC can defend against "fusion blast" and flux capacitors protect against "plasma splash", which implies they are different heat based systems altogether.  Is that true, are they 2 separate "heat tech" systems?  Is there more than one cold system (frost bolt and ....?). 

 

What is an example of a "particle beam" weapon system?  EDAC can defend against them, but what weapon system is it defending against?

 

What's the difference between a magnetic grapple and a tractor beam?

 

Thanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Examples of Particle Beam weapons:

Antimatter Blaster

Blast Cannon

Fusion Blaster

 

The Magnetic Grapple branch ends sooner than the Tractor Beam branch. Go for the Tractor Beam.

[ali-t-akua]

However, what is the difference between a missile and a torpedo? When you have a description of a CIDS, it says it's effective against missile/fighter/drone. Does it also affect Torpedo's? What counters torpedo's?

 

Torpedoes and Missles trade off destructive power for evasiveness.

 

CIDS also deal with torpedoes.

 

What is the difference between a "plasma splash" weapon system and a "fusion blast"? EDAC can defend against "fusion blast" and flux capacitors protect against "plasma splash", which implies they are different heat based systems altogether. Is that true, are they 2 separate "heat tech" systems? Is there more than one cold system (frost bolt and ....?).

 

Every weapon is unique and has a defense that counters it. fusion and plasma are separate techs. EDAC is unusual in that it explicitly defends against multiple types of weapons. I am only aware of armor and CIDS being in the same category of defending against multiple techs.

 

Crosroads answered the rest of your questions.

[Ur Lord Tedric]

I am only aware of armor and CIDS being in the same category of defending against multiple techs.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Dont forget shields!!!

 

In summary: you have pure defensive systems which will degrade specific offensive weapons; then shields will absorb remaining firepower until they are used up; then it's up to your ship to slowly (?) survive damage up to the limit of it's integrity, of which any Armor provides the most significant part. Once the integrity starts being damaged, however, the ship will get steadily weaker.

 

Torpedoes are, to all intents and purposes, missiles and they all have a Missile strength in their ANZ description - as do Fighters and Drones, but the current Battle Report doesn't show those figures yet.

 

The one (so far) exception appears to be the Plasma Torpedo, which is a weapon type all of it's own and otherwise seems to be a Point Blank 'normal' weapon, with it's own particular defense technology - Black Sphere Generators.

 

Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric

[President Guztov]

And to add more fuel to the fire.... Space mines or burst mines also act like missles but the defense against them seems to be sensors. Ooooo I I love this game!

[President Guztov]

Ali-t-akua is partly right. Torpdeos seem to be more stleathy and therefore harder to track then

Missiles. Also from the various descriptions I have recieved is may be possible to 'evade' torpedos. Missiles seem to keep hounding the target until they hit or are destroyed by CIDS.

 

Now all this may be just fluff for the various weapon descriptions since all we really care about

in the end is the actual firepower brought to bear in an engagement. A Superior missile rating

on a weapon system that is easily shot down by CIDS doesnt mean a whole lot so long as

I get my firepower up past 1 billion or so.

[Ur Lord Tedric]

And to add more fuel to the fire.... Space mines or burst mines also act like missles but the defense against them seems to be sensors. Ooooo I I love this game!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Now that's just plain misleading for all these lovely newbies!

 

The Mines are just another weapon type - they are specifcally not missiles.

 

That's why there's a specific defense, which in this case is sensors...

 

Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric

[ali-t-akua]

Ali-t-akua is partly right. Torpdeos seem to be more stleathy and therefore harder to track then

Missiles. Also from the various descriptions I have recieved is may be possible to 'evade' torpedos. Missiles seem to keep hounding the target until they hit or are destroyed by CIDS.

 

Now all this may be just fluff for the various weapon descriptions since all we really care about

in the end is the actual firepower brought to bear in an engagement. A Superior missile rating

on a weapon system that is easily shot down by CIDS doesnt mean a whole lot so long as

I get my firepower up past 1 billion or so. 

 

I have not had to fight torpedoes so thanks for the correction.

 

I suspect the speed of the ship will have an impact in evading torpedoes. (and missles, fighters drones, etc. too I'm sure)

[hobknob]

For all practical purposes a torpedo is the same as a missile with the exception that it goes a bit slower and packs a bigger punch. Going slower may make them easier for the specific defenses to counter them but in all other aspects they are supposed to work the same as a missile.

 

For the rest or the weapons, there are 14 specific weapon damage types and defenses for each type. No matter what a weapon name is, you are more concerned about the weapon damage to see if they are similar.

 

For defenses each system will defend against each a specific class of damage regardless of what the weapon is called.

 

Generally speaking all weapons are the same and relatively equal in capability so just pick one and go with it. Some weapons do have range limitations or are slower firing, but none of that stuff shows up in combat that you will be able to see so it is really just total damage that you can be concerned about.

 

Weapons also come in different sizes, but they should all do similar damage on a ton per ton basis. The exception to all of this is for Drones and Fighters. THey have been hashed over and beated to death in other threads so I won't go there again here.

 

[ali-t-akua]

Weapons also come in different sizes, but they should all do similar damage on a ton per ton basis. The exception to all of this is for Drones and Fighters. THey have been hashed over and beated to death in other threads so I won't go there again here.

 

I think it is more complex than that. I assume that a Superior weapon will do more damage on a ton for ton basis than a Good Weapon.

[hobknob]

That of course is a given. You can only compare weapons of the same tech level when looking at comparable damage.

 

[President Guztov]

Then there are weapons that have the same rating lets say.. superior and have much different tonnages. A good example would be the really big monster missile systems and the tiny but very effective gravitonic weapons systems.

[WKE235]

Then there are weapons that have the same rating lets say.. superior and have much different tonnages.  A good example would be the really big monster missile systems and the tiny but very effective gravitonic weapons systems.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've heard that five 1000 ton Superior weapons should equal the damage of one 5000 ton Superior weapon. Your tiny but effective gravitonic weapon would only equal the punch of one massive Colussus Drone if you had enough of the tiny weapon to equal the tonnage of the drone. This would make sense from a game balancing perspective. Otherwise, someone eventually would do the calc, and determine the most effective weapon of grade "X" on a tonnage basis is weapon "Y", and everyone would research towards that branch (making the game and any role playing boring).

 

But, another factor to remember is weapons ranging. That Siege P-Cannon gets a 20% bonus when firing from Deploy location 1, but loses 20% for each position (to a minimum of 5%) for each spot past 1. On the other hand, weapons like Fighters and Drones always fight as if at deploy location 1. And long range weapons (like Long Lance Torpedos) can be used from high deploy locations with no loss of firepower. Which makes me wonder .. might the damage a weapon inflict be based on tonnage, class (Fair, Good, Superior, ...), and then range class (some type of multiplier for short range versus long range versus medium versus fighter/drone/etc...). Again, if this is the case, I would guess it would be for game balancing. If a Superior Long Lance Torpedo had the same ton per ton damage rating as a Superior Plasma Hellbore, then the Long Lance would allow you to do the same damage while firing from high deploy locations (getting a defensive bonus), making it the "better" weapon.

[President Guztov]

and hence theres where we get the combined arms aspect of space warfare as well. pepper em from long range with missiles and carriers and maul em up close with plasma weapons and then mix it up a bit in the center with particle beams and lasers. Sure will get intresting when spinal mount weapons come on the scene.

[ali-t-akua]

If a Superior Long Lance Torpedo had the same ton per ton damage rating as a Superior Plasma Hellbore, then the Long Lance would allow you to do the same damage while firing from high deploy locations (getting a defensive bonus), making it the "better" weapon.

 

But if the Superior Plasma Hellbore is much larger than the Superior Long Lance, should we not assume that there is some compensation for the fact that there are the differing range factors. (I am assuming that there is no detriment to using a Long Lance weapon at a closer range.)