The Kol gets a lot of flak but seriously, what does it need to reasonably keep up with the other capitals now that Rebellion is out?
More AM to keep it's abilities going? Higher scaling GRG? Fuzzy dice?
Bypassing armor is not the same as destroying armor...by your logic, phase missiles should not only bypass shields, but also reduce the target's shield mitigation, which is completely non-sensical...
You keep reiterating how kinetic weapons have more energy than missiles, which really has nothing to do with incendiary shells....I am not talking about warheads, explosives, HEIs, or a silly flamethrower...I'm talking about a shell filled with the right chemicals to burn/melt armor, not a missile or mere explosive...it is a completely different type of weapon than all the other things you have argued against...
Not only are they irrelevant (since again I'm not talking about a missile), your modern examples have little bearing on this...this is a futuristic setting with much stronger materials that clearly can resist kinetic weapons without being penetrated (otherwise every shot from the ragnarov or a gauss defence platform would debuff the target)...your armor piercing rounds and railguns and coilguns and kinetic weapons of all sorts do tremendous damage...and that's it...they don't affect the integrity of the target's armor, they just punch through it...if they completely annihilate their target (which in many modern examples they do), that would be comparable to "killing all the HP", not "debuffing the armor"....
Shoot an amored target with an armor-piercing round...lovely, it penetrated the target, did some internal damage...cool, yeah for you...now switch back to normal rounds...why should your normal rounds magically be able to do more damage when the only thing your target has is a bullet hole through it? They shouldn't....
Compare that to hitting your amored target with shells that chemically burn through and mess with the armor...it is only logical that your normal rounds will stand a better chance of doing more damage since the integrity of the armor has been affected...
I've made the same case multiple times for why incendiary shells can affect armor and do hull damage but GRG shouldn't...I've also noted that (per Volt's idea) debuffing the passive hull regen is a legit debuff for GRG (just not the one I prefer)...for some reason you've decided to continually argue why kinetic weapons are more powerful than missiles and why modern naval ships are adopting railguns...
That you know of that website scares me....TIER 1 FOR YOU....
Know that kinetic weapons do more damage than missiles? Sure...except that is completely off-topic and has nothing to do with incendiary shells (which by the way are projectiles)...you clearly aren't reading anything I've written, just continually going on about railguns and how much of a genius guru you are about space weaponry...again, most of what you say has nothing to do with incendiary shells in the far future...
Also, your knowledge about heat dissipation and relativity is a little wanting for a self-promoting "expert" on space weaponry....
I believe I already made that point but when someone responds without reading what you write...well...
I know you it was said incendiary includes a whole host of options. I am referring to what a lay-man would refer to as incendiary, not someone who knows what they're talking about.
What do you DO all day? You clearly need to be on the TS with us more...
I'm slowly writing a sci-fi novel.. I've done a lot of research...
Removing armor removes the mitigating effect armor has on hull. You seem to be stuck on "bypass." Perhaps a better word would be "reduce the effectiveness of armor" or "counter armor." Satisfied?
I said nothing about shot versus missiles. Missiles I guarantee you have their place in space combat. But their warheads, like a gun's, is going to be nuclear (or something more powerful then nuclear) or solid/shot. My modern example was the effectiveness of "explosive warhead versus solid" NOT "Gun versus Missile." I thought that was obvious.
There is much you don't understand. Say you make a stronger alloy/composite in the future. Great! Now your shots have increased in toughness as well....!!!! I don't care if you coat your warship in diamond armor, my slugs will boil plasma off that hull.
Did you even read my previous post?! I pointed out the flaw that debuffing the armor debuffs it for every ship firing at the target. To repeat myself, it's more like "now everyone is using armor piercing" instead of just that weapon. And yes Sins use of weapons is just a type, a name, and a number, nothing like a realistic weapon at all. Acid burning through armor is pretty crazy as a warhead. Not above the Sins universe though, so you could argue it for the game's sake, just don't argue about it for realism's sake.
Purpose of Incendiary:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/incendiary.htm
Whoa really? You know that's how I know all of this stuff...research for sci-fi novel. Freaky. How far have you got? I've written two novellas (~39k words) with another partial, plus another book with 62k words incomplete.
I was talking about the fact that the heat from the incendiary would dissipate on impact instead of igniting anything (read: igniting very much). And an fire ignited on a warship's hull would need an oxidizer. A warhead hitting itself on a ship would spread the "fire" none too effectively....
It is very difficult for a ship to dissipate it's own heat, but the missile with your "incendiary" warhead must also overcome a lot to actually transfer all of it's heat to that of the target ship. Further, when it comes down to it, heat is essentially kinetic energy on a micro scale. A solid shot will deliver more heat because it will fry itself into the target hull by E=MC^2 (mass being however much mass is converted to energy, the faster the shot the higher the %). Although at the high speeds I'm talking about your incendiary warhead would melt itself like a solid shot, thus making "incendiary" pointless [edit: roughly at 3km/s, see below]. When I said "dissipate" please read "incendiary warhead dissipate." Obviously there are three methods of dissipating heat, one of which is no good in space.
For example, a nuclear blast is of little good (unless it is a shaped charged or a neutron bomb) outside of 1km from the target (roughly of course). Too much of the blast is "dissipated" beyond this range and this is essentially what I was referring to about your warhead. Sorry for any confusion.
Oops double (cough-triple) post. How do I delete.....? Noob moment.
P.S. I never claimed to be an expert. Just knowledgeable.
P.S.S. 3km/s is the number I was looking for. Any chemical warhead is superfluous above this speed (Rick Robinson). Current Railgun technology is about 3.5km/s.
If you say that is all fine and good, but what if you penetrate at 3.5km/s or whatever and then have the incendiary go off... I would counter that there is nothing left to ignite that hasn't already from the plasma of the shot's entry.
No matter how you style it, armor piercing doesn't remove armor, it just goes through it...an armor piercing projectile like GRG should be able to penetrate the ships armor and directly damage the internal systems...this is why GRG affecting engine speed is logical, because the armor is penetrated and the engines are directly hit...the issue I have with this debuff is that it just isn't as useful as other debuffs...changing it to something else, such as a penalty to shield mitigation or passive regeneration is a decision motivated by game play....however, those debuffs also make sense, because both represent GRG penetrating the armor and damaging internal systems...
A blanket armor debuff suggests that this one shot by GRG somehow has crippled the armor all over the ship...that is just completely nonsensical...nanites? Sure, blanket armor debuff...telekinetics? Sure, blanket armor debuff...but a fast moving projectile? NO...
What you are arguing is obvious, but you aren't arguing against my proposition...my entire proposition for incendiary shells has nothing to do with warheads or missiles or explosive shot...I am not advocating explosive shells or explosive warheads, I'm advocating incendiary shells...bullets can be incendiary (I assume you know that) and are still bullets...just because you have a nifty combination of metals that make up your bullet doesn't magically make it a warhead, it is still a bullet...
My conception for incendiary shells sticks to it being "bullets"....as I stated before, incendiary shells is tied to the autocannon weapon on the marza, so it clearly does not need any "payload" or "warhead" in order to be incendiary....technically incendiary shells also is tied to missiles, but my conception of the idea still works...just like a bullet, the missile can be made of a nifty combination of metals to also act as an incendiary upon impact in addition to the "normal explosion"...
I don't understand? I think I understand physics quite well...the strength of the armor is determined by the material being used and the process to make it...the energy released by a kinetic weapon is based solely on the speed and mass of the projectile and is independent of the material...as a silly example, if I upgrade my armor from triple hardened titanium to quadruple hardened titanium, my armor gets stronger...if you upgrade your projectile from triple to quadruple, the mass and achievable velocity are still the same, so your projectile still carries the same energy...
Now, the material is still relevant...it has to be able to withstand rapid acceleration without falling apart, and its shape/composition can help it penetrate as oppossed to breaking apart on impact (at least, at "slow" speeds)...still though, the amount of energy released on impact is only dependent on the mass and speed of the projectile...the material/hardness only helps you penetrate the armor and "do the damage in the right place"....so again, it makes perfect sense that GRG would somehow affect the ships internal systems...
Never said acid burning (not all chemical reactions that "eat" or "burn" require an acid)...and again, you are fixated on "warhead", which I am in no way advocating...another problem:
Incendiary shells carry the chemicals they need to "explode" or "burn" or do whatever it is they need to do...while it is true that most shells need enough friction between them and what they are penetrating to start the necessary reactions, there is no need for more oxidizer or an atmosphere in order for these things to at least work...sure, explosions may work better in an atmosphere, but I'm not interested in an explosion, I'm interested in a chemical reaction between the shell and the armor...
Sure, adding more "fuel" to your chemical reaction will help it expand, but it's not like you have only one round hitting the ship...you have dozens if not hundreds of rounds hitting the target in different places, damagin pockets of armor all over the ship....this is demonstrated by the marza shooting more than once in a battle, and by the fact that the ability "stacks" to indicate the debuff gets worse the longer you are shooting at the target...
And why are you fixated on "fires" and "flamethrowers"? The point here isn't to start a fire, the point is to chemically react with the armor...maybe this is a simple "release of energy" due to an extremely exothermic reaction, or maybe it is something more complicated like a chain of chemical reactions that break down the armor...point is, I'm not talking about "fires"...
I'll try to ignore the missile/warhead fixation...first, heat is not "essentially kinetic energy on a micro scale"...as an example, much of the heat released by a reaction could be in the form of EM radiation...when you see a fire or a "bright" chemical reaction, most of the heat coming off of it has absolutely nothing to do with kinetic energy, it is all radiation....as I stated previously, these shells are lodging themselves in the armor, so anything they radiate or conduct is all going into the ships armor...another problem:
Key word here is "your"....I never gave a speed for these shells, only indicated that they most certainly are not relativistic...why do incendiary shells have to be moving at this magical speed of 3.5 km/s...why can't they go slower so that they actually function? And again, the weapons are "autocannons"...not sure what that is, but it isn't coilguns or railguns so I don't think those shells are travelling at 3.5 km/s...
I see no obvious reason why a bright engineer in the far off future couldn't make a shell that travels slower than 3 km/s, is able to partially penetrate the typical starship grade armor, and uses the friction from penetration (or a niftier method) to start a chemical reaction that severely damages the armor beyond "making a hole in it"....
Are high energy kinetic weapons better on a per shot basis? Obviously...compare the damage done by GRG or snipe to the meager damage done by incendiary shells or the typical missile...seems though that, for whatever reason, the TEC have a bit of trouble putting giant railguns on everything...maybe its because railguns take up lots of space, or are too expensive, or etc etc etc....there could be a million reasons why puny ships like gardas and fighters use "autocannons" and only the Kol, Ragnarov, and stationary defense platforms are able to have railguns or Gauss guns....
Gameplay first, rationalizations later. This is a thread about bringing the Kol on-par with the other battleships, not on the scientific rigor of the lore.
No kidding. Sins is Fantasy and Soft Science Fiction...
This thread has derailed as usual.
Quoting CoronalFire, reply 84Although at the high speeds I'm talking about your incendiary warhead would melt itself like a solid shot, thus making "incendiary" pointlessKey word here is "your"....I never gave a speed for these shells, only indicated that they most certainly are not relativistic...why do incendiary shells have to be moving at this magical speed of 3.5 km/s...why can't they go slower so that they actually function? And again, the weapons are "autocannons"...not sure what that is, but it isn't coilguns or railguns so I don't think those shells are travelling at 3.5 km/s...I see no obvious reason why a bright engineer in the far off future couldn't make a shell that travels slower than 3 km/s, is able to partially penetrate the typical starship grade armor, and uses the friction from penetration (or a niftier method) to start a chemical reaction that severely damages the armor beyond "making a hole in it"....Are high energy kinetic weapons better on a per shot basis? Obviously...compare the damage done by GRG or snipe to the meager damage done by incendiary shells or the typical missile...seems though that, for whatever reason, the TEC have a bit of trouble putting giant railguns on everything...maybe its because railguns take up lots of space, or are too expensive, or etc etc etc....there could be a million reasons why puny ships like gardas and fighters use "autocannons" and only the Kol, Ragnarov, and stationary defense platforms are able to have railguns or Gauss guns....[/quote]
I get what your saying about incendiary. I'm pointing out that if you can't ignite anything with it then it is pointless (you might as well use a different warhead-one of tungsten or such)!
Alright here's my Ace of Spades. Lets say you use autocannons, and give it any positive value you want. Now for a warship to crash and burn into a planet, it needs to be capable of orbit.
Sel, can you do some math for me? Find the escape speed of earth (actual figures vary slightly due to a number of variables, just pick anyone you want), double it (since the hostile ship is probably flying the opposite direction) and add the value you gave the autocannons.
Tell me what you get.
Again, why are you fixated on "igniting" and "fires"???? Incendiary shells do not inevitably lead to fires, they are merely chemical reactions that release lots of energy...
Lol...why does a ship need to be able to crash into a planet? Some things in space are meant to stay in space...odds are, most sins ships probably don't have much need for reentry capabilities...there might be a reason why you build them in space with space structures and bomb planets from space...you might, if you were really keen, come back and say "well the colony ship in the intro movie was on the surface loading up stuff"...well, that's one ship...furthermore, you have no idea what type of propulsion these ships have...it's the far off future, not Apollo 13, smaller vessels like that colony ship (which actually didn't seem quite that big in the intro movie) could easily have the propulsion to do a controlled re-entry...
And then we have this mess:
I don't know what you are getting at here...really, I have no idea, but I'll play your game anyway and try and figure out maybe what you are getting at...
Issue #1: escape speed is irrelevant...you aren't shooting a cannonball up into space that has no additional acceleration, you are flying a spaceship that has propulsion and can continually accelerate...as such, there is absolutely no need to ever reach escape velocity (or at least the escape velocity as it would be on the surface)...
Issue #2: perhaps you are assuming space combat can only occur close to the planet, and as such ships need to be moving around the planet in a circle (or ellipse, but let's just keep it simple) in order to maintain their orbit...well, while this is more relevant, calculating these values has nothing to do with escape speed so I have no idea why you asked me to do that...additionally, this is the faroff future...ships don't have the fuel or propulsion limitations that we have, so there is no reason why they need to be restricted to only moving in nice, cute orbits around the planet...and with Sins ships, they obviously don't need to seriously consider the nearby planet's gravity for anything other than phase jumping, as exhibited by watching 2 minutes of any space battle in Sins...
Issue #3:
WHY? Now I'm no expert, but I do believe the objective of the game is to shoot the other ship, no? If you are always flying in the opposite direction, you aren't exactly playing the game very well...even in this psuedo-scientific field of "near-future space combat" you seem to relish in, opposing ships would likely need similar orbits, otherwise they wouldn't stand a chance of hitting each other...and if they have similar orbits, the relative speed difference between them is going to be rather small compared to projectile speeds...
At this point, I'm 95% certain you are a ....the other 5% is that you seriously believe a civilization with FTL travel, planet shields, antimatter production on every ship, and a railgun the size of the moon can't find one person who knows how to make an incendiary shell work in space....
Some of us dream of being on the Official Troll List...don't hurt my dream....
Dammit people, I need to see more posts about the Kol getting Nyan engines and a red button that kills everything within two phase jumps.
I thought it was more lazers and autospawning of 16 of them????
I also heard talk that you should be able to spawn twenty of them for free, taking up no fleet supply, and they would all be level ten with twenty strike-craft each, and they all have the invincibility ability of the flagship.
Yes, it's a troll, but at least it's a troll on the RIGHT SUBJECT.
Forum n00b...I hear you aren't even on the Official Troll List....
Nope. But that doesn't stop me from having aspirations just because I'm a member of the forum peasantry.
Holy what-the-f*ckery batman...
Ontopic: I wish it was possible for the GRG to have a random chance to damage a random system( as opposed to always one particular system). If engines = speed debuff, shield generators = shield regen rate debuff (or shields colapse completely?), Fire control systems = Weapon cooldown debuff, Generators = AM regen debuff, Cafeteria = ship explodes......I am assuming that this is not currently possible though...
There is an OnChance condition...however, to make things "exclusive" (ie you couldn't have both engines and hull repair disabled) would require a buff chain (if it's even possible)....
So yes, I do believe you can do that...however, I don't like that method for gameplay reseaons...for better or worse, predictability is essential to active abilities...disabling engines is normally useless, so if you got that debuff a lot that would be more bad luck than bad choice or bad skill...yes there is luck in the game but there are some areas that shouldn't be left up to luck...that's my feeling, anyway...
I differ in that I would like more "randomness" in the game. The battlefield is not quite so predictable. It would be nice for some abilities, which you are just gonna leave on autocast anyways, to do some random mayhem. Considering that GRG is pretty "boring" right now, if it were feasible I would like it to do just that. Understand your point tho...
Wow really? You're hopeless. Would it be okay if I put some of it up as a blond joke (without any reference to you or where it goes from)? P.S. I'm not joking. This is good laugh.
My point is that Sins is of course totally unrealistic. Nevertheless it does have a sort of psuedo-realism, to add to the pleasure-ability and ease of gameplay (99% of sci-fi movies are like this as well). Some ancient sci-fi (like early 20s) had spaceship "battleships" preform "crossing the T" maneuvers and the like. This is pure fantasy, as obviously such a maneuver means nothing in 3-dimisional space. Nothing is wrong with this, so long as you don't confuse it with real science. There is not one thing beyond the vaguest (like missiles being used in space, or other generalities) in sins that is "realistic."
Back to sins. Since it uses a primitive (not because of ignorance, but done on purpose for gameplay and for something to relate to [again nothing wrong with this at all, as nothing was wrong with writing sci-fi with battleships crossing the T]) understanding of stellar combat, they relate certain things and apply them to the game. "Incendiary" as you pointed out, can burn through things. So it makes since for it to be flat damage like the Marza has. Thicker armor (or heavier type yada yada...) would make it burn through slower, thus it has no penalty effect on armor. You could invent say, a hotter incendiary round, but this would just increase the flat rate.
On another note, Sins doesn't really have to follow any pseudo-realism at all, if customers would still buy the product. "Incendiary" could replicate friendly ships. "Absurd! Unrealistic!" everyone would say. "Everyone knows Incendiary burns through metal!" This is true, and this is what is applied to the game, because everyone knows it. What everyone doesn't know is that stellar combat is so different from our current planetary combat, Incendiary is as absurd as replicating friendly ships. Yet I can easily still accept it because I understand our (the mainstream) current thought on it.
In the future are descendants would look at it and laugh, call us idiots, just as we might to those sci-fi books with battleships that look like 20th century battleships and fire broadside at each other.
You want an effect for the Kol that makes it useful. First let's try to find the effect we want for balance, then come up with some dreamy science so everyone can relate to it. You want an effect that takes -3 off armor (I know you didn't agree with this, but bear with me) let's call it "meson bolt" because everyone knows Mesons are cool and go through armor and stuff. Never mind the exact realism of such a thing (such as now every ship firing at the target takes advantage of the debuff).
I'm not arguing that you could call your -3 armor "incendiary," I just believe that most people would understand it better as the devs did it. It makes the most sense to the majority of people, even though it's totally unrealistic (how many dreams have you had that feel like this). I was suggesting you call your effect "armor piercing" since everyone "knows" armor piercing goes through armor (you saw the flaw with this, but it should still remain, because the name is for the effect, not the effect for the name). Another option could be some sort of "acid matrix" that "degrades the armor" amounts.
Now to further your education:
I had a typo above. I meant that if you do not want your ship to crash into a planet, it needs to exceed the escape speed. Any ship AT THE MINIMUM needs to be ABLE to obtain this speed. For Earth it is ~11.2km/s. Jupiter's is near 60km/s. The ISS orbits at 7.71km/s (because of the distance from the surface of the Earth, nevertheless if it was slower it would crash into earth). Obviously in the future ships will have more power. Controlled entry would be possible. However as this takes more power then we currently have, such ships capable of controlled entry would also be capable of speeds so freaking far beyond 7.71km/s. I can't believe I have to even have to spell this out to you.
No matter how you try to conjure it up, stellar combat is going to take place at relational speeds orders of magnitude far beyond 3km/s for where you might have a case to use incendiary.
lol stand a chance of hitting each other? This is comedy. If you want to continue, let's do this in another medium. I for one am going to chalk this up to another case of:
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance-- it is the illusion of knowledge." (David Boorstin)
OMG YARLEN PLEASE PLEASE lock this thread. I will not troll for a week, just lock it.\
I swear this is dumbest thread ever.
Corona and Sel, you guys really need to get back on topic. You have completely derailed the thread with discussions which are about Incendiary Shells, an ability which isn't even on the Kol.
Amen.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
