Weaponry for Fighters

Kinetic powered weapons are the cheapest and some of the most effective weapons in space. There is no atmosphere, therefore no friction, meaning c, the speed of light, is the only limit.

ACH0225 wrote:

Kinetic powered weapons are the cheapest and some of the most effective weapons in space. There is no atmosphere, therefore no friction, meaning c, the speed of light, is the only limit.

Kinetic weapons are only effective if The Target can't Block them because it is completely senseless To Fire at an Bulletproof Fighter no matter if you Fire 1 or 1000 bullets.

If you are still Talking about The Nuke an Kinetic Nuke is senseless since it won't Pass Shields and The Ships can sustain much Heat and are too heavy To Be pushed Away by an shockwave.

Cheatmaster wrote:

ACH0225 wrote:

Kinetic powered weapons are the cheapest and some of the most effective weapons in space. There is no atmosphere, therefore no friction, meaning c, the speed of light, is the only limit.

Kinetic weapons are only effective if The Target can't Block them because it is completely senseless To Fire at an Bulletproof Fighter no matter if you Fire 1 or 1000 bullets.

If you are still Talking about The Nuke an Kinetic Nuke is senseless since it won't Pass Shields and The Ships can sustain much Heat and are too heavy To Be pushed Away by an shockwave.

hm why would fighters be invulnerable to what I would think would be the main weapons for fighters, cause it's cheaper, and more efficient then lasers.
And here's my take, nukes won't work in space, cause there would be no shock wave, that's why I think nukes are for the ground, and ANTI-matter is for space, why anti-matter, well
I'm pretty sure no one has seen what an anti-matter explosion look like or dose, so for the mod lets say its effective in space.

Burnttoaster wrote:

hm why would fighters be invulnerable to what I would think would be the main weapons for fighters, cause it's cheaper, and more efficient then lasers.
And here's my take, nukes won't work in space, cause there would be no shock wave, that's why I think nukes are for the ground, and ANTI-matter is for space, why anti-matter, well
I'm pretty sure no one has seen what an anti-matter explosion look like or dose, so for the mod lets say its effective in space.

1.NO Antimatter
2.We were talking about use of weapons in overall
3.No Nukes at Planets. (Honestly are you crazy do you have already cancer or a tumor in your brain???)
4.The plasma released by an Nuke would contain all the Power(in space) but it is inefficient anyway
so I want Dirty nukes for a dirty war and to kill of dirty Toasters

6.Antimatter Looks like this: Antimatter flys in the ship gets smaller and let some blocks disappear.
suddenly Huge flash you are blinded (atleast wear Sunglasses) and if you can see again you see the smoking corpse of the enemy ship.
BUT THIS WON´T BE ADDED

Cheatmaster wrote:

ACH0225 wrote:

Kinetic powered weapons are the cheapest and some of the most effective weapons in space. There is no atmosphere, therefore no friction, meaning c, the speed of light, is the only limit.

Kinetic weapons are only effective if The Target can't Block them because it is completely senseless To Fire at an Bulletproof Fighter no matter if you Fire 1 or 1000 bullets.

If you are still Talking about The Nuke an Kinetic Nuke is senseless since it won't Pass Shields and The Ships can sustain much Heat and are too heavy To Be pushed Away by an shockwave.

If kinetic weapons are useless, explain a MAC installations effectiveness.

A MAC is fired once, then stays at about the same velocity. A missile, however, can be constantly accelerating and can maneuver in flight. Also, a bullets speed is only limited by its gunpowder charge or other firing mechanism, and in this mod(Unless something has changed) most guns, including the ones mounted on fighters, are rail guns similar to MACs.

Also, IDC.

ACH0225 wrote:

A MAC is fired once, then stays at about the same velocity. A missile, however, can be constantly accelerating and can maneuver in flight. Also, a bullets speed is only limited by its gunpowder charge or other firing mechanism, and in this mod(Unless something has changed) most guns, including the ones mounted on fighters, are rail guns similar to MACs.

Also, IDC.

Wait I thought a MAC is an electromagnetic accelerator?

MAC- Magnetic Accelerator Cannon.

Sorta right, 5/10.

But I am assuming you have a point?

Cheatmaster wrote:

Burnttoaster wrote:

hm why would fighters be invulnerable to what I would think would be the main weapons for fighters, cause it's cheaper, and more efficient then lasers.
And here's my take, nukes won't work in space, cause there would be no shock wave, that's why I think nukes are for the ground, and ANTI-matter is for space, why anti-matter, well
I'm pretty sure no one has seen what an anti-matter explosion look like or dose, so for the mod lets say its effective in space.

1.NO Antimatter
2.We were talking about use of weapons in overall
3.No Nukes at Planets. (Honestly are you crazy do you have already cancer or a tumor in your brain???)
4.The plasma released by an Nuke would contain all the Power(in space) but it is inefficient anyway
so I want Dirty nukes for a dirty war and to kill of dirty Toasters

6.Antimatter Looks like this: Antimatter flys in the ship gets smaller and let some blocks disappear.
suddenly Huge flash you are blinded (atleast wear Sunglasses) and if you can see again you see the smoking corpse of the enemy ship.
BUT THIS WON´T BE ADDED

1. There's anti-matter engines, so I don't see why it's not turned into a weapon, and there's nukes, so dose it really matter.
3. um why.. there sure not going to be effective in space, and that leads me to
4. no atmosphere means no shock wave, the majority of the damage comes from the shock wave, and all that's left is the heat and the radiation, the radiation wouldn't do anything cause there's tons of radiation in space, and most ships would be protected against radiation, or else their crew would die, and the heat, the heat might do some damage, if the shields were down, if not, it wouldn't do anything, and for dirty bombs (or dirty....nukes?) are just bombs with radioactive material in them, so when it explodes it just make the area radioactive which would kind of be effective on land , but like I said before, in space it wouldn't do anything , well maybe the bombs explosion would do damage, but the radiation, nope. Oh ya and a toaster wouldn't be effected by the radiation, maybe the explosion, but not the radiation.

In space, nukes make a giant EMP.

ACH0225 wrote:

In space, nukes make a giant EMP.

oh ya forgot about that, anyway the heat still wouldn't do that much extreme damage you would think a nuke would do

Yea, it might mess with your electronics a bit though.

That's a nuke in space for you.



That's an image showing how large nuke ranges are in space.



That's not a sunset. It's a nuke over Hawaii in space.

Who says that wouldn't hurt a ship?

well considering emps can't blast through layers of dense metal, and can't tear apart a ship, I would have to say no, they cant damage a ship, BUT it can cripple a ships ( or fleet if it's large enough) electronic making it vulnerable to enemy attacks which can damage the ship, and this can also go for a planet, a emp could cripple all the electronics and defence on a whole planet side. Which brings up the fact that emp would be really overpowered, and there should be some kind of emp defence system, what that would be, I don't know, but it's FUTUREcraft, just make something up.

I am against Nuke at Planets because you can´t use an radiated wasteland.

The Idea of Nukes in space is that they will release many Electromagnetic waves and also some heat waves.
Shields have to absorb this because it is an part of weapons that they are using EM waves (lasers) and Heat waves (plasma)

Cheatmaster wrote:

I am against Nuke at Planets because you can´t use an radiated wasteland.

The Idea of Nukes in space is that they will release many Electromagnetic waves and also some heat waves.
Shields have to absorb this because it is an part of weapons that they are using EM waves (lasers) and Heat waves (plasma)

You can use an irradiated wasteland, you just need radiation suits when traveling in the affected area. But a nuke wouldn't affect the whole planet.... Much. Also, lasers are not EM waves, and plasma isn't in waves at all.

ACH0225 wrote:

Cheatmaster wrote:

I am against Nuke at Planets because you can´t use an radiated wasteland.

The Idea of Nukes in space is that they will release many Electromagnetic waves and also some heat waves.
Shields have to absorb this because it is an part of weapons that they are using EM waves (lasers) and Heat waves (plasma)

You can use an irradiated wasteland, you just need radiation suits when traveling in the affected area. But a nuke wouldn't affect the whole planet.... Much. Also, lasers are not EM waves, and plasma isn't in waves at all.

Have to correct you, the laser is a wave.

Cheatmaster wrote:

I am against Nuke at Planets because you can´t use an radiated wasteland.

The Idea of Nukes in space is that they will release many Electromagnetic waves and also some heat waves.
Shields have to absorb this because it is an part of weapons that they are using EM waves (lasers) and Heat waves (plasma)

like acho said you can just wear radiation suits, which I think the combat suits would also have that ability, but there should be a way to de-radiate the planet, cause it is the future.

That's a pretty expensive way to drain someone's shields, I would just use emp weapons, that only send out emps, like emp missiles, and save the nukes for ground support

Burnttoaster wrote:

Cheatmaster wrote:

I am against Nuke at Planets because you can´t use an radiated wasteland.

The Idea of Nukes in space is that they will release many Electromagnetic waves and also some heat waves.
Shields have to absorb this because it is an part of weapons that they are using EM waves (lasers) and Heat waves (plasma)

like acho said you can just wear radiation suits, which I think the combat suits would also have that ability, but there should be a way to de-radiate the planet, cause it is the future.

That's a pretty expensive way to drain someone's shields, I would just use emp weapons, that only send out emps, like emp missiles, and save the nukes for ground support

There are ways to remove radiation. Blast with insane amounts of water at a high PSI and wash it away.

Then i could become a collectable form that can be reused in some ways, such as dirty bombs for desperate saboteurs and terrorists. Or stored in 50 gallon drums.

BACK ON TOPIC:

1. You can swap out a fighter's weapons UNLESS THEY ARE BUILT IN. (i.e. change what's on your hardpoints).

2. Quit discussing nukes in space.

Burnttoaster wrote:

Cheatmaster wrote:

Burnttoaster wrote:

hm why would fighters be invulnerable to what I would think would be the main weapons for fighters, cause it's cheaper, and more efficient then lasers.
And here's my take, nukes won't work in space, cause there would be no shock wave, that's why I think nukes are for the ground, and ANTI-matter is for space, why anti-matter, well
I'm pretty sure no one has seen what an anti-matter explosion look like or dose, so for the mod lets say its effective in space.

1.NO Antimatter
2.We were talking about use of weapons in overall
3.No Nukes at Planets. (Honestly are you crazy do you have already cancer or a tumor in your brain???)
4.The plasma released by an Nuke would contain all the Power(in space) but it is inefficient anyway
so I want Dirty nukes for a dirty war and to kill of dirty Toasters

6.Antimatter Looks like this: Antimatter flys in the ship gets smaller and let some blocks disappear.
suddenly Huge flash you are blinded (atleast wear Sunglasses) and if you can see again you see the smoking corpse of the enemy ship.
BUT THIS WON´T BE ADDED

1. There's anti-matter engines, so I don't see why it's not turned into a weapon, and there's nukes, so dose it really matter.
3. um why.. there sure not going to be effective in space, and that leads me to
4. no atmosphere means no shock wave, the majority of the damage comes from the shock wave, and all that's left is the heat and the radiation, the radiation wouldn't do anything cause there's tons of radiation in space, and most ships would be protected against radiation, or else their crew would die, and the heat, the heat might do some damage, if the shields were down, if not, it wouldn't do anything, and for dirty bombs (or dirty....nukes?) are just bombs with radioactive material in them, so when it explodes it just make the area radioactive which would kind of be effective on land , but like I said before, in space it wouldn't do anything , well maybe the bombs explosion would do damage, but the radiation, nope. Oh ya and a toaster wouldn't be effected by the radiation, maybe the explosion, but not the radiation.

If you detonate a 10 megaton hydrogen bomb in space the fireball would still reach a few kilometers, and that is what would cause the majority of the damage to spacecraft. Radiation in the form of heat would excite atoms in the metal causing instant ionization. when a substance expands so quickly it tends to explode rather violently. The initial shockwave and overpressure wave would not exist in the vacuum of space, but they wouldn't cause much damage to a craft made to withstand a huge amount of kinetic energy anyway.

perhaps make it so that nukes do a large amount of damage to a ship when it's close in space, but the amount of damage drops quickly when it is a certain distance away. When it's detonated in atmosphere, it should gradually drop with distance and cover a much larger area.

An antimatter based explosive device, as well as an antimatter generator, would be feasible, as antimatter and matter release a large amount of energy when they come into contact with each other. a negative energy or reverse graviton beam (repulsor) could be used as a weapon or as engines and, when paired with a darkmatter or directional graviton beam (tractor beam) could be ued to manipulate large masses in space. so a repulsor could be put into the mod with the tractor beam to be used on salvage craft.

Commander Error wrote:

BACK ON TOPIC:

1. You can swap out a fighter's weapons UNLESS THEY ARE BUILT IN. (i.e. change what's on your hardpoints).

2. Quit discussing nukes in space.

I think it could be quite possible to form an advantage to soldering weapons onto fighters (be it increased weapon health or reduced spread). I feel it is a compromise to the lack of choice that building in a weapon would result in.

In addition, I wonder what the forum would think of plasma blasters. Similar to railguns, but dealing more thermal damage than kinetic (More effectiveness vs shields?).

Postronicman wrote:

I think it could be quite possible to form an advantage to soldering weapons onto fighters (be it increased weapon health or reduced spread). I feel it is a compromise to the lack of choice that building in a weapon would result in.

In addition, I wonder what the forum would think of plasma blasters. Similar to railguns, but dealing more thermal damage than kinetic (More effectiveness vs shields?).

I agree that having all weapons and possibly shields and engines on fighters interchangeable is important, so that you can add to the hp, speed, or damage to specialize the craft. About "plasma blasters" i think i saw somewhere in the forums that there will be some kind of plasma cannon or another kind of particle weapon for fighters, but i think that a kilogram projectile moving at a fraction of the speed of light or a powerful explosion would have more of an effect on a shield. A plasma weapon would have an effect on a lager area, but have less penetration than any projectile weapon. maybe plasma could move slowly enough to pass through the shields like an entity.