quote:
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.
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
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 >100 miles
Seems to contradict your idea..
Phoenix-D
Re: What\'s up with missles and torpedoes?
Threaded Mode