Re: What\'s up with missles and torpedoes?
 

The speed-firepower trade off is consistent as in RL.
The further a missile/torp flies, the weaker the firepower.
The icbm is a missle that carries very little firepower, except the Nuke type.
Thus the torp having a better reload rate and a faster speed needs to be weaker in term of firepower.
The decision is for the user/player to choose between getting too close or fire from a distance.
Granted that the US is going into long/extreme-long range weapons, I say the long distance-weak firepower weapons is popular in RL.

Re: What\'s up with missles and torpedoes?
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Thus the torp having a better reload rate and a faster speed needs to be weaker in term of firepower.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not really,
The torps have better damage if you include reload considerations.
The torps have infinite speed and cannot be shot down.

BUT,
The Torps can miss,
The torps have very short range (compared to missiles)

The reload rate is already factored in to the damage rating I gave, so you can't count it as another advantage.

Re: What\'s up with missles and torpedoes?
 

General Suicide_Junkie Sir, I thought you were US time - you're not normally on the forums at this time of day. Don't you sleep?

------------------
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Uh, I think so, Brain, but balancing a family and a career ... oooh, it's all too much for me. "

Re: What\'s up with missles and torpedoes?
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by suicide_junkie:

Quote:

Thus the torp having a better reload rate and a faster speed needs to be weaker in term of firepower.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not really, The torps have better damage if you include reload considerations. The torps have infinite speed and cannot be shot down. BUT, The Torps can miss, The torps have very short range (compared to missiles) The reload rate is already factored in to the damage rating I gave, so you can't count it as another advantage.

I believe that Torpedoes can be put in a larger mount as well, whereas missles cannot. That is also an advantage over missles. However, it would appear the other non seeking weapons would be more cost effective than Torpedoes. I would use Phased Polarans which fire every turn over Torpedoes.

Re: What\'s up with missles and torpedoes?
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I believe that Torpedoes can be put in a larger mount as well, whereas missles cannot. That is also an advantage over missles. However, it would appear the other non seeking weapons would be more cost effective than Torpedoes. I would use Phased Polarans which fire every turn over Torpedoes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which is why the torpedoes should probably be modded to have about a 30% bonus ToHit chance.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>General Suicide Junkie Sir, I thought you were US time - you're not normally on the forums at this time of day. Don't you sleep?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Can't let a little thing like sleep keep me away from the forums http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
It is now 12:47, so... I'm at -5 hours relative to the Boards.
13:40 becomes 9:00, when I get to work http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
(University of Waterloo, ON, CA)

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 11 June 2001).]

Re: What\'s up with missles and torpedoes?
 

AFAIK the class 5 missle has the highest damage rating of all the missles and torpedoes.

Why should the damage done by a missle or torpedo decrease with distance? The warhead should not change with distance.

Re: What\'s up with missles and torpedoes?
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Why should the damage done by a missle or torpedo decrease with distance? The warhead should not change with distance<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The only missile that loses power over distance is the plasma missile.
That's because its warhead decays, or is used to help propel the torpedo to the extra-high speeds.

Re: What\'s up with missles and torpedoes?
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sunzoner:
The speed-firepower trade off is consistent as in RL.
The further a missile/torp flies, the weaker the firepower.
The icbm is a missle that carries very little firepower, except the Nuke type.
Thus the torp having a better reload rate and a faster speed needs to be weaker in term of firepower.
The decision is for the user/player to choose between getting too close or fire from a distance.
Granted that the US is going into long/extreme-long range weapons, I say the long distance-weak firepower weapons is popular in RL.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1st: I have NEVER heard of a non-nuclear ICBM. They're simply too inaccurate for anything else.
2nd: many weapons actually gain power as they gain effective range- cannons for example.
3rd: give examples, right now I'm seeing so many holes in your idea it's not even funny http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Tommahawk cruise missile:
1,000lb warhead, range 600 miles
AGM-84 Harpooon/SLAM:
488 pound warhead, range 60 miles

AIM-7:
90 pound warhead, range 30 miles
AIM-54 Phoenix:
135 pound warhead, range &gt;100 miles

Seems to contradict your idea..

Phoenix-D