[Spaceships] Ammo storage vs Weapon size

Langy · 10-26-2009, 02:43 PM

I agree, but that's fine, because, as I said, there's very little to no reason to use the normal system.

You can still use it if you want a ridiculous number of reloads, of course - with that same SM+7 major battery, you could have a 30 shot VLS in two major batteries or you could have a single launch tube and 45 reloads in one major battery and one cargo hold. It's not particularly useful, but you can still do it. It's also easier to reload than a VLS.

Why would you want to balance it in regards to the normal, non-VLS method, anyways? Non-VLS missiles suck in comparison to VLS missiles in real life, which is why the US Navy stopped using. The only thing better than a VLS system is a hardpoint, where the missile is on the outside of the ship and doesn't even need a seperate launching mechanism. It'll be an exposed system, but it'll also be able to carry twice as many missiles as a VLS system.

10-26-2009, 02:43 PM	#8
Langy Join Date: May 2008 Location: CA	Re: [Spaceships] Ammo storage vs Weapon size I agree, but that's fine, because, as I said, there's very little to no reason to use the normal system. You can still use it if you want a ridiculous number of reloads, of course - with that same SM+7 major battery, you could have a 30 shot VLS in two major batteries or you could have a single launch tube and 45 reloads in one major battery and one cargo hold. It's not particularly useful, but you can still do it. It's also easier to reload than a VLS. Why would you want to balance it in regards to the normal, non-VLS method, anyways? Non-VLS missiles suck in comparison to VLS missiles in real life, which is why the US Navy stopped using. The only thing better than a VLS system is a hardpoint, where the missile is on the outside of the ship and doesn't even need a seperate launching mechanism. It'll be an exposed system, but it'll also be able to carry twice as many missiles as a VLS system.