11-19-2018, 09:54 PM | #71 | ||
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What does the TL10 battlefield look like
Quote:
The final resolution for smart submunitions as homing weapons would be easy enough. The gap is deciding what if anything they spot to lock onto during their target acquisition phase. Quote:
Not GURPS rules, yes, you can most certainly do that, and can do it at TL8. Lots of missiles can acquire targets after launching. Nothing all that brilliant about it, but target acquisition does take time and usually require line of sight. And even if you could do that very fast with TL10 sensors and processors you need to be able to course-correct onto your target after locking it, which is a problem for a super high speed short engagement window attack.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
||
11-19-2018, 09:54 PM | #72 | |
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The plutonium rich regions of Washington State
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What does the TL10 battlefield look like
Quote:
On the other hand, tanks move, and if you can't see the tank, being able to attack a precise coordinate will not do you much good if its not there when you arrive. I can see hypervelocity impactors being a good way to take out stationary targets - buildings and the like - but not anything that don't stay put. An alternative is an orbital munition that does a hard aerobrake maneuver and then deploys a swarm of long rod kinetic penetrators moving at 2-3 km/s. This speed maximizes penetration and doesn't blind your sensors with a plasma sheath. Once loosed, the penetrators can autonomously lock on to targets and guide themselves to anything tank-shaped (or airplane shaped or whatever), then punch through the top. Another drawback of using orbital kinetics is that they will take time to get to their target. A minimum delta-V trajectory from LEO will take about 40 minutes or so. If you have delta-V to spare you can cut down on this time, but your kinetic ends up hitting the air faster and suffering more from ablation. Luke |
|
11-19-2018, 10:06 PM | #73 |
Join Date: May 2010
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What does the TL10 battlefield look like
Another point about using submunitions to punch through armor: currently, we do this for tank top armor. But the same approach isn't going to make sense for killing/disabling a human in a nanoweave tacsuit (30 DR vs. cutting all over the body). What does make sense against that kind of target?
|
11-19-2018, 10:46 PM | #74 |
Join Date: Feb 2016
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What does the TL10 battlefield look like
Orbital lasers. A 100 MJ laser does 50d(2) burn damage from 10,000 miles away, which is going to fry most TL10 armored troops, and you can use it to take out support systems. A TL10 soldier does not do well without ammunition, fuel, power cells, or satellite communications.
|
11-19-2018, 11:59 PM | #75 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What does the TL10 battlefield look like
Quote:
Or you could go smart submunitions of course, though UT infantry probably are relatively hard targets for those to lock onto. Other options are swarmbots and 'biochemical liquid' rounds, which can deliver metal embrittlement agent which can be ruinous to most equipment. (Or of course poisons or nanoburn but considerations around those have been previously discussed.) Or if you're feeling funny, shower the enemy in tangler warheads. Though this won't be that useful if you allow the targets to have effective anti-tangler aerosol.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
11-20-2018, 08:24 AM | #76 | |||
Join Date: May 2010
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What does the TL10 battlefield look like
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Swarms, on the other hand... the devourer swarm and gremlin swarm look like quite effective weapons. Techniques for combating that are going to be important, and I'm not sure which will be most effective. |
|||
11-20-2018, 10:18 AM | #77 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What does the TL10 battlefield look like
Quote:
The 40mm railgun would work for the 30T tanks if they weren't hover or grav. Hover vehicles res[pond directly (i.e like air hockey pucks) to Newton's Thrid Law. TL6-8 style indirect field artillery died with the MBTs and their targets went into stealth mode anyway. You're searching for a way to do indirect fire before you've got a real use for it. I assume it's non-existent at TL10.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
11-20-2018, 11:38 AM | #78 |
Join Date: May 2010
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What does the TL10 battlefield look like
Ultra-Tech's obsession with hovercraft is really weird. If I wanted light tanks to be part of my combat paradigm at TL10, I'd probably blend stats from the TL9 and TL10 tank examples. The hover tank is notable for being able to withstand 25mm HEMP (maybe used as submunitions for 100mm cluster warheads?), but otherwise seem kind of pointless.
|
11-20-2018, 12:28 PM | #79 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What does the TL10 battlefield look like
Quote:
The TL10 25mm HEAT does slightly more damage that the HEMP. You use the HEMP got calibers under 25mm. For 25mm HEAY you can use guided grenade launcher rounds at 2200 yards or the Payload Rifle or 25mm Autocannon with ETC at 12,875 yards. You could also use $500 64mm Striker or $3400 100mm Hunter missiles at 16 and 32 miles. I really don't see why people keep trying to invent "heavy" weapons and vehicles for the UT TLs. What do you think they're needed for.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
11-20-2018, 02:29 PM | #80 | |||
Join Date: May 2010
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What does the TL10 battlefield look like
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
|