04-18-2018, 10:27 AM | #71 |
Join Date: May 2010
|
Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions
Is 11-15mm then SM+1? And <does some extrapolating> the 16cm missiles from Spaceships are SM+7? Does that mean the wounding multiplier is x1/3?
|
04-18-2018, 10:44 AM | #72 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions
Well, that's for piercing damage. I don't recall what damage type missiles in Spaceships are.
|
04-18-2018, 11:58 AM | #73 | |
Join Date: May 2010
|
Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions
Quote:
ETA: In this thread it was previously noted that this is unclear, but also that pi++ and cr both have a x1 wounding multiplier vs. unliving. |
|
04-18-2018, 03:17 PM | #75 |
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
|
Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions
It's probably worth looking into the physics of damage, because at collison speeds above a mile per second most warheads are going to act like explosives or shaped charges, not like penetrators. They'll punch a small, slightly over-calibre hole in the face of the armour (or in the first layer of standoff armour (Whipple plating) and then spread out as they go in.
As for beams, producing widers spots for more damage is not a strategy that I've heard discussed. Rather, talk always seems to be of producing the minimum possible spot size to get the highest beam intensity and most violent interactions possible (drilling, explsive spalling) withou having beam intensities on the objective mirror that cause damamge there. I guess that once you reach a spot intensity high enough to achieve the most desireable effects you could increase spot size in line with objective size. I'm just not sure that that's fruitful if the mechanism of damage is to induce explosive evaporation of the target.
__________________
Decay is inherent in all composite things. Nod head. Get treat. |
04-18-2018, 03:26 PM | #76 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions
It's not really a strategy, it's a somewhat unwanted side effect (there tends to be a limit on practical aspect ratio for drilled holes). Also, the way Spaceships scales beam damage (cube root of beam energy) means it must be generating wider holes at higher beam energies.
|
04-18-2018, 04:17 PM | #77 | |
Join Date: May 2010
|
Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions
Quote:
Would an SM+4 ramming ship–if you treated it as a piercing attack–have a relative size of pi+6 vs. an SM+10 ship? Reasoning: size of a projectile is WM-12, so reversing that, WM is SM plus 12. So the absolute WM of an SM+4 drone is pi+16, and the relative size is pi+6? EDIT: For the ramming drone, I guess that would be pi+4 once you factored in Unliving. |
|
04-18-2018, 04:22 PM | #78 | ||
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
|
Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Decay is inherent in all composite things. Nod head. Get treat. |
||
04-18-2018, 04:30 PM | #79 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions
Damage types other than piercing do not have hole width modifiers, and should. At the same penetration, a wider hole is certainly more destructive.
|
04-18-2018, 04:30 PM | #80 |
Join Date: May 2010
|
Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions
Testing my understanding of this system by applying it to the ASATs vs. Gibraltar scenario:
At a relative velocity of 80 mps, the 16cm missiles inflict 6dx320 damage, largely trivializing the Gibraltar's 45 dDR. But, the Gibraltar gets a x1/30 wounding multiplier, so the missiles only inflict an average of 224 points of damage. That's enough to disable a system, but not destroy the Gibraltar in one hit. Rolling damage for each hit individually, you'd need 12-13 hits on average. And with the "Multiple Hits" rule from Anthony's article, you'd need 30+ hits from one salvo. Did I do that right? |
Tags |
combat, spaceships |
|
|