01-22-2019, 10:49 AM | #1 |
Join Date: Feb 2016
|
Countermissiles [Spaceships]
I was wondering if there were any rules for countermissiles (smaller and cheaper missiles used to intercept large and more expensive missiles)? I was thinking that they should effectively be VRF missile batteries, similar to VRF gun batteries (1/4 to caliber, 20x the shots, and 100x the RoF). The advantage of countermissiles compared to point defense guns is that they would have much greater accuracy (equivalent to missiles of the same TL) at a much greater cost (they could also be used as a broadside). The missiles would weight twice as much as gun rounds of the same caliber and be 10x as expensive as gun rounds of the same mass.
For example, a SM+4 countermissile battery would use 4cm missiles, have 100 shots, and use 100 rounds per turn. With an accuracy of +0, they are as accurate as lasers, but they would cause a lot more damage if used in normal combat and would not require any high energy systems. While expensive, they would probably be less expensive than the spacecraft that they are protecting. |
01-22-2019, 02:00 PM | #2 |
Join Date: Jul 2013
|
Re: Countermissiles [Spaceships]
If you are using tactical space combat from SS3 and are in the 10 hex scale, there's a better solution:
According to SS3:32, "A 10-mile hex scale is small enough that every other vessel or object in the same hex may also be affected [by a nuclear detonation]! Roll proximity damage, and then divide the rolled damage by another factor of 100." Since missiles are killed from any damage at all, this effectively makes 25 kiloton nuclear warheads (at $50k per; plus whatever the missile costs) a very effective defence against massed missiles. |
01-22-2019, 02:05 PM | #3 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: Countermissiles [Spaceships]
Why would they mass twice as much? Normally missile have the same mass as conventional gun shells (and twice that of electromagnetic shells).
The problem I have with such an idea is that point-defence is at such short ranges that missiles would have similar (or possibly longer, depending on acceleration) velocities to guns, and the limited terminal guidance of a gun shell shouldn't be an issue (incoming missiles are held to not dodge). Thus getting a massive accuracy bonus from a seems unreasonable to me. Besides, allowing only guns and not missiles to be RF and VRF gives guns a teeny tiny niche when otherwise they are really completely useless. Why take it away? Quote:
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." Last edited by Rupert; 01-22-2019 at 02:08 PM. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|