[spaceships] Proximity Warhead damage

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Well, it would relies heavily on small computers being either unavailable (dumb missiles) or extremely expensive (rare missiles). It actually has little to do with aerial vs. space manoeuvring, as long as the thrust and endurance values of both ships and missiles are such that sudden turns matter.

Everyone always says that retro computer technology would eliminate missiles, but when the AIM-9 Sidewinder went into service, computers had advanced to the "size of a smallish room" stage. And the rocket flights for a few years after that carried radio beepers, monkeys, and occasionally a carbon-based backup guidance system (i.e. a "pilot").

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Burn-and-drift is useless if the target performs meaningful amounts of manoeuvring. Sure, there is no drag, but if distances are even somewhat bigger than in atmo (and remember, full 3D due to no ground), hoping that the opponent is still there is less realistic.

Only if the target is burning during your drift. The drift time gives a ship with more endurance than the missile more time in which it can force the missile to match it's moves, but that's not the same thing as the range directly sapping the missile's resources.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

The worst thing is that G:SS ships turn really fast. If ships have high accelerations, but still take a long while to turn, like in Star Control, course changes still look 'furious'. Elite doesn't rely on this one, though.

If the interceptor doesn't have the ability to perceive what direction your ship is pointing in, maybe, but that's usually not easy to hide.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Yes, a turn is 20+ seconds, but a missile locks on at those huge space ranges in the same 1 second as it does in human-scale combat. Compare to locking on target in the Trench Run at the end of A New Hope (cinematic, of course).
A variation with some level of verisimilitude (though still probably too cinematic) would be to say that locking on at greater distances takes extra time.

Yeah, that doesn't strike me as at all persuasive.

I have no idea what the X-wing's targeting computer purported to be doing during the trench run. Whatever it is I doubt it made any sense.

Longer range taking more time to lock only makes sense if the targeting sensor can't easily distinguish the target but can compensate for that with time-averaging of signal. And even then only if the weapon is actually fire-and-forget homing.