Missiles and Large Ships vs. Small Ships

[dwwojcik]

Just from the title alone I suspect this is going to be a very controversial suggestion. I am a little worried that I’m stirring up something that’s mostly settled here. But I think my suggestion is pretty interesting, so… sorry in advance.

For a long time, it’s bothered me that certain weapons in Starmade are basically creating something from nothing. Missiles are supposed to be physical objects, and yet our weapon systems require nothing but pure energy to fire them. So I propose that weapons are split into two categories: One that requires energy as ammunition, and another that requires physical ammunition. (I'm not sure what else could go into the new second category... mines of some sort maybe?)

The current weapon system is rather nice imo. Mixing and matching different weapon systems and effect computers is an interesting mechanic, and I don’t propose that it’s removed or even changed substantially, save for the substitution of missile-themed weapons for something new. All I propose is that missiles are removed from the system and placed into the new ‘physical ammunition’ category.

This would accomplish a few things. The most important being that small ships would now be able to punch far above their weight. There’s some nuance to this so please bear with me.

Keep in mind that what I’ve written below deals mostly with concepts and vague balance and not so much with exact mechanics. If people like this idea we can develop it in more detail.

Spoiler

A key part of my proposal is that missiles do not merely require some ‘generic’ ammunition to fire, but that they require actual missiles, manufactured by the player to their specifications, to be launched. The alpha damage of a missile would no longer be tied to the number of missile launcher blocks installed on your ship, but rather to the potency of the warhead installed on the missile being launched. The missile would have to be stored on the ship before firing, either in regular generic storage or possibly in a new specialized ‘magazine’ or ‘ammo-rack’ storage. Either way, the missile ‘item’ would be pretty ‘bulky’, preventing a small fighter or corvette from being loaded with more than a few before their cargo capacity is reached. The 'missile tube' would now only need to be large enough to 'hold' the missile being fired.

This means that that a small ship would potentially be capable of dishing out immense alpha damage, on par with a capital ship if so equipped. Of course, once its missile complement is exhausted the capital ship would very quickly be dominant again, so mass still matters.

Now the role of the big ship would be changed from having a monopoly on alpha damage to having a monopoly on sustained damage. A battleship might be firing the same missiles as a corvette, but the battleship can carry a lot more missiles, so the corvette will run out long before the battleship and will be forced to retreat if it can, and will be destroyed if it can’t. Another advantage of the battleship is that it can carry not only copious amounts of anti-missile weapons, but energy weapons that can match the alpha damage of a missile, so it can continue to be a potent weapon even after its missile complement has been exhausted. The corvette can carry anti-ship and anti-missile energy weapons as well of course, but they will no doubt be piddling next to the battleships, as is fair.

There are a couple of analogues in real world combat that I like. The first is the ‘Missile Boat’, a comparatively tiny type of warship equipped with standard anti-ship missiles that have the potential to sink modern destroyers and cruisers in hit and run or swarming attacks. The second of course is the carrier-based aircraft with air to surface missiles. The fleet system in StarMade should definitely be improved in ease of use and flexibility to the point where these sorts of tactics are possible to execute, even if my suggestion isn’t implemented in any way shape or form.

TL;DR Missiles are about the same in alpha damage regardless of the size of the ship firing them, but big ships can carry way more of them, so small ships have to make up for that with tactics and numbers.

Requiring ammunition for missile launchers would also introduce a requirement for some logistics into StarMade. I understand if you’re not interested in having to bother with supplying your fleets with ammunition, and I like to think that if my suggestion were implemented, you could just carry on using only energy weapons as before and not be at too great a disadvantage.

But, if games like Factorio and Transport Tycoon have taught us anything, some gamers are very interested in logistics. I’m sure the manufacture and distribution of missiles would be no more difficult for players and AI factions to handle than mining and supplying shipyards with ship components would be with the fleet-faction-civilization sort of stuff the devs supposedly have planned.

I’m not going to dwell on the subject of ammunition logistics any longer though, I’m definitely not the first person to bring it up and I doubt at this point there’s any more I need to say, you get the idea.

In conclusion, I want to be very clear that I think the current system is fine. My suggestion isn’t a solution to a problem, because the problem doesn’t exist. I just want to see missiles go from fine to great, it could potentially make combat a lot more fun and immersive.

 

[Lone_Puppy]

Holy cow! Just a couple days ago I started typing up notes for this same thing.
Was after I mentioned an ammunition mechanic that operated similar to storage and Cargo. When a new ammo block would be like a cargo block.
Then I realized, eh this is gonna be a lot to work through typing this lot and left it.

Glad you brought it up and have included some of my wish list. In particular the physical missile production instead of mystery magical made of energy missiles that even have AI intelligence to track and lock onto targets.

Good stuff man!

My apologies if this erks those of the community who love the current system.

 

[Non]

I have stated this many times, but once again, small ships are capable of doing considerable alpha damage if built correctly. In fact, I would say that building a missile boat is probably the best way to get the highest potential alpha damage at any given mass because of long reload times.

Now the role of the big ship would be changed from having a monopoly on alpha damage to having a monopoly on sustained damage.

I won't pretend to speak for all PvP people here, but building a weapons system around sustained missile damage is probably not the best idea. Most people use missile/beam with a reload of 45 seconds, so every volley but the first takes another 45 seconds to fire, if you are facing a well built ship, expecting to survive for more than a couple volleys is not the greatest planning. Fights go quick, maybe if you expect to be in a large fleet engagement it might matter more, but I still doubt it. Should be noted that I haven't mentioned missiles set up to activate with logic to distribute the number of missiles launched per 45 seconds over those 45 seconds, but it's still the same damage per every 45 seconds, so it doesn't change the conversation. I don't care either way as to the addition of ammunition for missiles, but it won't change balance to the degree you suggest.

 

[Zoolimar]

Isn't that more or less current torpedoes?

You absolutely can build a physical missile with warheads capable of hunting down enemy ships and trying to blow them up. It even ignores shields. Thing is there are some problems with detonations, especially in large fights where lag becomes a thing.

 

[Antikristianos]

think about "Star Trek" in the next generation, voyager and deep space nine the always have their small ammount of Torpedos on ship...
but they never run out. and thats because of tada "replicators" create things from Energy.

so may be think the cannons and missile launchers have their own Replicators which consumes the energy to supply the weapon with ammunition

Problem Solved

 

[jayman38]

I would recommend a new weapon tertiary effect that -massively- extends the reload time to simulate the weapon system laboriously building new ammunition over time, while giving the weapon a massive boost in "energy storage" and damage potential, so that it can fire multiple high-damage shots before it runs dry and has to reload. With such a system, pilots still don't have to worry about logistics, but lore-wise, it would still make sense as an ammunition-based weapon in a high-tech environment.

To clarify, imagine a modern-day fighter plane with an on-board 3d-printer that can build one missile every couple of hours. It will still run out of ammunition in an engagement, but more will be generated later.

Example effects: (could be set in a config file?)
cannon/cannon/ammunition 100%: 500 double-damage shots, 1 shot generated per 30 seconds; 50 seconds sustained fire between reloads.
missile/beam/ammunition 100%: 5 double-damage shots, 1 shot generated per hour; 4 seconds sustained fire between reloads
beam/beam/ammunition 100%: 3 double-damage shots, 1 shot generated per 30 seconds; 0.2 seconds sustained fire between reloads

This could give rise to various reload mechanics involving external entities, such as instant reloads at trade stations, paid with massive credits, or ammunition supply ships in fleets.

 

[Antikristianos]

siriously we have teleporters in game already...
and replicators work like "bzzzz" Ther is your "Photontorpedo" litterally in the blink of an eye.. as long as it has enough energy...
the replicator system can even Create the missiles or cannon ammo direct in the barrel ready to be fired...

so why bother with additional things wich are not needed in any way.
just assume the weapons work like that and leave this as it is ^^

 

[dwwojcik]

Isn't that more or less current torpedoes?

You absolutely can build a physical missile with warheads capable of hunting down enemy ships and trying to blow them up. It even ignores shields. Thing is there are some problems with detonations, especially in large fights where lag becomes a thing.

I suppose my idea is pretty similar to torpedoes, the main difference being that a torpedo is a small drone with a suicide mission and my version of the missile isn't necessarily dissimilar to the existing missiles in game code terms once it's actually launched.

I kind of like the idea of missiles joining torpedoes in ignoring shields though... if only because one of my main inspirations for this suggestion is The Expanse, which has no shields. :p Point Defense turrets would become even more important than they already are, which I think would be cool. That's more to do with balance than game mechanics though, so idk.

I would recommend a new weapon tertiary effect that -massively- extends the reload time to simulate the weapon system laboriously building new ammunition over time, while giving the weapon a massive boost in "energy storage" and damage potential, so that it can fire multiple high-damage shots before it runs dry and has to reload. With such a system, pilots still don't have to worry about logistics, but lore-wise, it would still make sense as an ammunition-based weapon in a high-tech environment.

To clarify, imagine a modern-day fighter plane with an on-board 3d-printer that can build one missile every couple of hours. It will still run out of ammunition in an engagement, but more will be generated later.

Example effects: (could be set in a config file?)
cannon/cannon/ammunition 100%: 500 double-damage shots, 1 shot generated per 30 seconds; 50 seconds sustained fire between reloads.
missile/beam/ammunition 100%: 5 double-damage shots, 1 shot generated per hour; 4 seconds sustained fire between reloads
beam/beam/ammunition 100%: 3 double-damage shots, 1 shot generated per 30 seconds; 0.2 seconds sustained fire between reloads

This could give rise to various reload mechanics involving external entities, such as instant reloads at trade stations, paid with massive credits, or ammunition supply ships in fleets.

We're supposedly going to gain the ability to put factories on ships (capital ships at least) in the future, right? I envision players would manufacture their missiles using the existing factory system, so once we can have factories on ships, we can have missile manufacturing on ships. Self sufficient battlegroups would be possible, you'd just need the appropriate factory system on board and stores of materials and/or a miner.

Or if you don't want to do even that, I'm sure the Trading Guild would be happy to sell missiles... with a steep markup, of course.

I just don't think (in my personal opinion) that another type of computer effect is thematically as interesting as munitions manufacturing.

so why bother with additional things wich are not needed in any way

Because it's a game, which is supposed to be as fun and interesting as possible not as simple and easy as possible.

 

[Antikristianos]

Because it's a game, which is supposed to be as fun and interesting as possible not as simple and easy as possible.

Some things are better left simple to be more fun.
you may like the idea to handle such things and it would probably be managabe on a smaal scale but.
you would have to calculate these things for:
- every Turret on every Station you build
- every single drone you may have on your carryer
- every Turret on your Ship

the ammount of extra calculations for anything you want to build and the extra stuff you would need tu build will be exponentially high.

i think about my not even closely finished capital Ship or if you want to call it "Movabel Homebase"
2km long; 1,5km high; 1km width. 80 Fighters and 2 Corvett class ships atatched to undock when engaged by enemys..., and of course a mining ship with its own mining drones...
i dont count the main ship turrets and AMS systems that would be ridiculus...

oh how much fun this would be if your suggestion would come true... adding maybe 2-4 month of construction time tho the whole set...

this is a goddamn space game with TELEPORTERS!!! Energy to Matter conversion in NO TIME.
Build a Weapon, Plug in Power and Fire.

 

[dwwojcik]

Some things are better left simple to be more fun.
you may like the idea to handle such things and it would probably be managabe on a smaal scale but.
you would have to calculate these things for:
- every Turret on every Station you build
- every single drone you may have on your carryer
- every Turret on your Ship

the ammount of extra calculations for anything you want to build and the extra stuff you would need tu build will be exponentially high.

i think about my not even closely finished capital Ship or if you want to call it "Movabel Homebase"
2km long; 1,5km high; 1km width. 80 Fighters and 2 Corvett class ships atatched to undock when engaged by enemys..., and of course a mining ship with its own mining drones...
i dont count the main ship turrets and AMS systems that would be ridiculus...

oh how much fun this would be if your suggestion would come true... adding maybe 2-4 month of construction time tho the whole set...

this is a goddamn space game with TELEPORTERS!!! Energy to Matter conversion in NO TIME.
Build a Weapon, Plug in Power and Fire.

I feel like you're not really reading what I wrote... it sounds like you think I want ammunition for all weapons? Because I don't. Missiles only. I don't want the rest of the weapons to change.

Computationally, missile ammunition would not be any more difficult than the current energy-only weapon systems.
Right now, the game says: "The trigger has been pulled, is there enough power? If so fire, if not don't.
If missiles needed ammunition, the game would say: "The trigger has been pulled, is there a missile in the inventory? If so launch, if not don't.

As for the construction time... well let me just remind you, this is what other games call 'content'. I know it's been a long time since we've actually seen any in StarMade while the developers work on mechanics, but I assure you it does exist. Content means you have to do things, things that take time, and sometimes jump through hoops to accomplish your objective. If you just want to build stuff stick to creative mode, last I checked the developers did still have an actual game in mind, not just a cube ship building sandbox.

Maybe your ships is just too big if it would be such a chore to update it along with game updates.

 

[Antikristianos]

and thats clearly the problem... you can't make "missiles only" need ammunition. because that would be not "realistic" because cannons need ammo too. they are no simple energy weapons.

so you would need to change them too.

and then build or buy ammo the whole time.... if you want to be able to fight....
you need a space station or at least a "Capital Ship" (which are not yet included) to use factories.
it will be just too much and over the edge.

this game has the mechanics in it, that justify, that any weapon can be fired with energy only. every weapon can create it's ammunition from pure Enery (like teleporters and replicators do in "Star Trek" and lucky we have Teleporters in "Star Made" as well so its absolut Valid as it is)

you just want to change a easy to use and logical system into something heavyly complicated wich makes no sens in the face of technology present in the game.

 

[dwwojcik]

they are no simple energy weapons.

Yes there are. Ever heard of lasers? They can be used as weapons and all you have to do is plug them in. In fact, that's how I assume the beam weapons already in StarMade work.

Key word being assume. You're jumping to conclusions about the lore and technology of Starmade. As far as I know, the in-universe functionality has never been explained by the developers, so how do we know StarMade transporters work exactly the same way as Star Trek transporters? We certainly don't know for sure, because we don't have replicators in StarMade. Considering the fact that factories in StarMade require raw minerals as well as energy, isn't it possible that the technology doesn't exist in this universe, and transporters work completely differently? Maybe they use some sort of miniature worm hole, or maybe they just kill you and generate a clone at your destination. The Transporter visual effect in StarMade does look pretty Star Trek-esque, but that's not enough evidence to prove they're the same technology. Only Schine has the authority to say for certain exactly how they work, and whether or not my suggestion fits the lore.

So if my original assumption about beams being some sort of laser turns out to be correct, then there's no reason beams, and by extension cannons and any other energy weapon, couldn't require only energy to fire, while missiles would have to be manufactured from physical components.

And I agree, requiring ammunition to fire any type of weapon would be too much, over the edge, and heavily complicated. I definitely don't want that. If Schine comes along and says "No, Transporters do actually work the same way as in Star Trek, missile launchers are just big replicators"... so be it. I think that would be less interesting and fun, but I'm just suggesting, not developing.

 

[Antikristianos]

Factories may as well be "Industrial Replicators" wich even in "Star Trek" use raw materials and change them into the desired. because it needs way less energy to change whats already there than to create it from nothing.

and i can asume whatever i like of the StarMade lore as long as it is not already explained by the developers.
you do the same by asuming that it is not like i wrote. and in asuming that the missiles have to work your way instead of the way they already do.

the whole point of Suggestions and discussions about them is about assuming something that is not already explained or finished by the devs.

you made your arguments on why you think its good. all valid.
I only state from my P.O.V. why i think its not a good idea. also valid.

so please stop complaining that i simply do not agree. and think that your suggestion is something the game can and probably will live without.

 

[dwwojcik]

I wasn't complaining that you didn't like my suggestion, I was complaining that you were telling me my suggestion is wrong. You never actually said it was only your opinion until just now, so I was writing under the impression that you believed you were factually correct and not just voicing your opinion.

But, now that we've got that sorted out I guess we can agree to disagree.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Missiles? Ammunition? Rebalancing between sizes?


I've flipped back and forth on the ammo idea over the past 4 years. Over all, I'd say it depends on what time period StarMade takes place in.

I like the realism of logistics and the possibility of giving a buff to fighters/drones and potentially curbing missile and AMS spam.

However, since Star Trek and replicators were mentioned, I'll settle that debate with some canon DS9 goodness... In the year 2373, the Federation made use of self-replicating mines to prevent the Dominion from entering the Alpha Quadrant through the Bajoran wormhole. If these weapons can replicate themselves, then it stands to reason that, as of the time of the Dominion War, a starship may be able to replicate or otherwise, synthesize the components needed to resupply photon torpedoes in the field.


Regardless of what side of the idea you're on, I think we need to fix missiles before getting into their logistics.

Non has touched on a massive issue with the way missiles currently work; burst damage vs DPS of cannons and beams. It should also be noted that they are absolutely horrible (in practice) against heavy shielding; something with which DPS can be critically important.

Another thing to consider; Missiles deliver a large "down payment" of damage. However, your "check" can easily get "lost in the mail" by way of AMS spam, missing, and that annoying bug where as many as half of your guided missiles ignore your target and go vaulting off into edge of the known universe.

We need to address these things first or any ammo mechanic introduced for missiles will seem more like a nerf than an improvement.

For limited-use weapons; Warheads are always an option. However you'll be hard pressed to get people to agree on exactly how they should be rebalanced.

 

[jayman38]

Schine is generally going to avoid going into specific detail with the lore of Starmade, preferring that players make up their own lore with generic tools.

This is proven by observing that minerals and materials in the game have fictional names. So I would advise anybody not to wait for Schine to explain the lore behind any particular technology in the game. Teleporters work however you want them to work. Thrusters work however you want them to work. You could even have different explanations for the systems of two different ships in the same fleet. Expect the same lore-fluidity with weapons.

A cannon shot might be an antimatter bullet, a White Phosphorus tracer, or a pure-energy plasma burst. A beam might be a focused photon wave (laser), plasma (4th state of matter) stream, or a focused particle projector. A missile might be a guided metal rocket, a photon torpedo, a proton torpedo, or some sort of pure-energy plasma ball. For this game, right now, the builder defines the name and lore of the weapon system, not Schine. The name of the weapon in build mode is mostly for describing its in-flight behavior and appearance, not for defining the lore of the weapon.

If you look on Community Content, you'll see a lot of builders have a lot of fun with their own lore.

 

[Dire Venom]

It's a good idea (in theory)>
Ironing out the suggestion and balancing it is now what needs to be done before it can be a viable implimentation. (There are some players great at pointing out holes in things).

Links to other threads for ideas:
Read by Schine - Ammunition as an Alternative
Shots as Ammunition, and as Energy - it can be additional, effective and work


Making Alpha damage... more alpha is always a bit of a hard thing to deal with. The new recharge mechanic feels a bit like a weird mix and match up that was implimented accidently:

If small ships can be

J
capable of dishing out immense alpha damage, on par with a capital ship if so equipped.

Then capital ships will have

J
capable of dishing out immense alpha damage, on par with 20 capital ships if so equipped.

Not meaning to nitpick, I just feel these are some importent hurdels to overcome to prgress with this suggestion. A captial ship could therfore equip 100 Large ammunition fed missiles, where as a small ship would only beable to fit 1 or two. The capital ship ahnihilates any and everything. Ammunition missiles can also be mounted in space out from the ship.
We need to come up with some balancing points for this, e.g high mass of stored ammunition, ammunition blocks are voiltle. Theres also the ever present threat of being able to build parts of your ship in a dispersed manner.

I did some thinking about ammunition about a year ago as well, thread:

So for a while Ive thought about ammunition and read a ton of threads about it on the forums.
Heres my takes on it:

Conditions:
=> Ammunition should not be required for all ships, nor should it be plainly better than energy fired shots.
=> Manufacturing should be intuitive.
=> It should be an additional weapon option that could be added to energy based ship but have its own downsides.

So:

=>2 types of shots, Energy and Ammunition.

=> Energy is what we have now, where large weapon systems convert energy into a weaponized form them immediately expel it from the ship.
=>Ammunition would be where the same weapon systems would produce the shot using energy (but with a penalty:?) and then essentially "bottle" it, with the number of required ammunition cases required being dependent on the damage of the projectile.

Manufacturing:

=>To manufacture, select the cargo container you wish the ammunition to go into with C, then press V on weapon system.
=>Whenever the Master computer recives a logic input, it will attempt to create projectiles at all out puts (if they have reloaded and there is enough energy) and then deposit them into the cargo container with each output creating a seperate "bottled" shot.
=>Each ammunition with different stats gets put into a separate slot.
=>Each "ammunition" is assigned certian stats:

--->>Damage {Taken from original output}
--->>Firing cost {Firing cost in energy, say 10% of original cost to produce}
--->>Reload {Taken from original output}
--->>Range {Taken from original output}
--->>Mass {Related to damage, lower damage projectiles have better mass efficiency}
--->>Launcher {E.g Missile, Beam ,Ion}

You can see these stats by mousing over the ammunition.
There could also be a total storage efficiency which is based off the total number of ammunition "groups" in the storage block, which multiplies the mass by (x%) if the number of different types of ammunition piles gets too high (so players dont have 500 slightly different types of ammunition in storage).


=>The major balancing factor of ammunition is its MASS

->To store ammunition, you need storage space. Ammunition will tend to require large amounts of storage, thus:

-->>The more ammunition, the heavier your ship becomes, and thus the slower it accelerates.
-->>High damage ammunition requires significantly more storage than low damage ammunition.
-->>Ammunition will only cost a fraction of the energy it cost to fire, however instead of requiring large power banks it will require large storage banks.
-->>Ammunition requires consumable "ammunition cases" to be built, more damage = more cases required to 'bottle' the shot.
-->>Ammunition is limited and does not replenish, energy does.
-->>If the storage is damaged, any excess mass will be ejected from the ship and ammunition lost.

Think of like instead of having a power bank that stores energy, you have a storage bank which stores ammunition.

Thus carrier based bombers could become viable!
They might only have enough storage for a few shots, but would give them a greater initial damage potential compared to energy based bombers. After fring off their shots, they would need to return to re-arm. Ammunition stored would be limited by storage provided, and when loaded would dramatically slow the ship.
Ammunition would also have a base energy cost (say 10% of original) to required a decent launching platform.

Firing:

To fire, create a regular weapon system, number of blocks in each part does not matter.
Select the Weapon system with C, then press V on the cargo container you want it to draw from.
When fired, the system will use compatible ammunition in whatever order they are arranged in the storage block, with the Weapon system having the reload time of the selected ammunition applied before it can be fired.

______________________________________________________________________________

So thats my take on ammunition ^_^
Quick summary,

-2 types, Energy weapons (current), Ammunition (new).
Energy requires stored power, Ammunition requires storage + small energy cost.
-Stored ammunition contributes towards a ships total mass.
-Simple way to manufacture
-Simple way to fire
-Ammunition will weigh down a ship, if storage space gets destroyed and doesnt have enough, ammuntion will be lost.


What do you guys think:?

In regards to balancing for ammunition:
-Mass
-Explosions
-Penalty imposed for having multiple ammunition launchers on a ship? (e.g energy recharge reduction, extra mass, etc)

Alpha is very strong atm, with the above restrictions the higher the ammos damage, the higher it's mass (exponential or rapidly increasing) thus if you really do want high alpha for little energy cost, you have to do so at singificant mass penalties/space requirements with little storage for other ammo.

Just some ideas ^_^

 

[Dr. Whammy]

It's a good idea (in theory)>
Ironing out the suggestion and balancing it is now what needs to be done before it can be a viable implimentation. (There are some players great at pointing out holes in things).

Making Alpha damage... more alpha is always a bit of a hard thing to deal with. The new recharge mechanic feels a bit like a weird mix and match up that was implimented accidently:

If small ships can be


Then capital ships will have


Not meaning to nitpick, I just feel these are some importent hurdels to overcome to prgress with this suggestion. A captial ship could therfore equip 100 Large ammunition fed missiles, where as a small ship would only beable to fit 1 or two. The capital ship ahnihilates any and everything. Ammunition missiles can also be mounted in space out from the ship.
We need to come up with some balancing points for this, e.g high mass of stored ammunition, ammunition blocks are voiltle. Theres also the ever present threat of being able to build parts of your ship in a dispersed manner.

I did some thinking about ammunition about a year ago as well, thread:



In regards to balancing for ammunition:
-Mass
-Explosions
-Penalty imposed for having multiple ammunition launchers on a ship? (e.g energy recharge reduction, extra mass, etc)

Alpha is very strong atm, with the above restrictions the higher the ammos damage, the higher it's mass (exponential or rapidly increasing) thus if you really do want high alpha for little energy cost, you have to do so at singificant mass penalties/space requirements with little storage for other ammo.

Just some ideas ^_^

I don't think he meant that a small ship should have the same maximum damage potential as a capital. It sounds more like "don't underestimate the little guys".

Say you're commanding a modern day Naval frigate; would you rather get attacked by an Arleigh Burke destroyer or an F-18 loaded with Harpoon anti-ship missiles?

The Destroyer has more overall firepower but you might be able to keep out of its weapons range if things go south. On the other hand, you can't afford to lose track of that little F-18 since you can't outrun it and it will seriously mess you up with those harpoons if you're not careful.

That's the point of all these missile threads that keep appearing; to create a more realistic missile mechanic where you launch one or more pieces of (limited quantity) high risk/high reward ordnance at your opponent via strategic/tactical launch or by airstrike. ...rather than just filling the sky with as many swarmers as the server can render and seeing what sticks.

 

[dwwojcik]

You guys both bring up some really good points.

Not meaning to nitpick, I just feel these are some importent hurdels to overcome to prgress with this suggestion. A captial ship could therfore equip 100 Large ammunition fed missiles, where as a small ship would only beable to fit 1 or two. The capital ship ahnihilates any and everything. Ammunition missiles can also be mounted in space out from the ship.
We need to come up with some balancing points for this, e.g high mass of stored ammunition, ammunition blocks are voiltle. Theres also the ever present threat of being able to build parts of your ship in a dispersed manner.

In keeping with the physical aspect of the ammo, I think it would be fair to require a physical connection, perhaps similar to the conduits that connect chambers to reactors, between the missile tube(s) and the magazine. That should do a decent job of cutting down on floaters.

I might go so far as to suggest that missiles take up multiple full blocks worth of storage space. If you want to blot out the sun with your missiles you can, but you won't be good for many more volleys if each missile takes up at least 10 cubic meters of storage unless your ship is basically a freighter, in which case I imagine it would suffer in a lot of other aspects. Maybe the storage blocks required could be special ones specifically for handling missiles, and could be filled with very heavy machinery to help discourage having multiple magazines.

I also like the idea that if a missile is loaded in a tube, it's very prone to exploding, since as you might expect it would be filled with explosives and fuel tanks primed to be launched. This would discourage having too many missile tubes, since each one would be a pretty major weak spot, (presumably each individual tube would be required to be open to space) even just a glancing blow might set it off.

Although in fairness if this mechanic is added there should be an option to de-prime your missiles so they're inert for when you're not in a battle.

That's the point of all these missile threads that keep appearing; to create a more realistic missile mechanic where you launch one or more pieces of (limited quantity) high risk/high reward ordnance at your opponent via strategic/tactical launch or by airstrike. ...rather than just filling the sky with as many swarmers as the server can render and seeing what sticks.

You got me. One of my favorite scenes in Sci Fi ever is the beginning of the Donnager battle in The Expanse, when the Donnager and the stealth ships enter each others torpedo range and launch a salvo. The suspense when watching the enemy missiles track towards the Donnager on the map was really good, I think something like that would be a lot of fun in Starmade.

 

[Dire Venom]

You got me. One of my favorite scenes in Sci Fi ever is the beginning of the Donnager battle in The Expanse, when the Donnager and the stealth ships enter each others torpedo range and launch a salvo. The suspense when watching the enemy missiles track towards the Donnager on the map was really good, I think something like that would be a lot of fun in Starmade.

You are a man of culture I see : )
(Obligitory gif spam and bromance begins....)

I think, suffice to say that cannon/cannon/punch is the weapon of choice ^_^
The other issue would be with smaller ship engagements. E.g two similar class vessels. One has a ammo missile nuke, and as soon as it's opponents shields go down it fires 1/1 swarms and then it's nuke obliterating the ship. That being said, if the second ship can dodge or shoot down the nuke it's got a gurenteed victors if the other ship had to devote 30% of it's mass/block count to holding that missile.
Like the (unfortunate) recharge mechanic, I feel that ammo bays/weapon should require a small energy maintance cost to remain active.