Ammo Storage compartments
- Thread starter Gashrakk
- Start date
We need real ammo storage, something that does not require us to drive on a planet for an hour. If a fully loaded multicannon weighs only 4T, then an 8T cargo compartment should be able to hold alot of ammo and there is no reason why I can buy a fully loaded weapon but not extra ammo for it. That is ridiculous. Its like saying that I am only allowed to buy 30 rounds at a time for a rifle, because that is what the magazine will hold.
The reason is that even if it was in your cargo hold, how would you get it out?
And if you ship is hit, does it have a chance to explode and damage you? Seems it would.
The Magazine on a vehicle is generally designed to vent outward if it gets hit and sets off the munitions stored there. You would not have that if it was in the cargo hold.
We have the synth process, give us some ground side missions that pay out a few when we complete them in addition to other rewards.
And if you ship is hit, does it have a chance to explode and damage you? Seems it would.
The Magazine on a vehicle is generally designed to vent outward if it gets hit and sets off the munitions stored there. You would not have that if it was in the cargo hold.
We have the synth process, give us some ground side missions that pay out a few when we complete them in addition to other rewards.
1. Modern tanks have automatic loading systems to take the shells from the storage area and load them in the main cannon. Autoloading systems are also in use by the Navy today. I do not see a problem with this, especially a 1000 years in the future, if instead of a cargo bay we have an ammo bay.
2. How is your ammo loaded when you use the synth process, Magic elves?
3. If an ammo bay is reduced to 0%, of course there should be a chance for an explosion. Just like any other ship part that is reduced to 0% and you suffer the consequences for it. It would at least give people something else to target besides power plant.
1. Yes, that is how the 90 rounds in the MC gets replenished by the ship. But those are not in the cargo bay, they are in a storage magazine near the gun itself. An autoloader reloads it. You can really see them in the FDL gun bays.
2. Pretty much. Don't like the mechanic actually.
3. If the storage magazine blew, it would take out the gun, but not the ship. It is vented to space, so the damage would be expended that direction, both by a smart design that "shaped" the charge that way and probably beefed up bulkheads around that area to prevent it from breaching the hull.
But ammo stored in the CARGO HOLD like cargo would be different. It is not vented to space. When it exploded by say a rail gun round penetrating the cargo bay, it would explode with no where to go but out through the hull. Your ship would suffer the same fate as HMS Hood, which was split in half when her rear magazine exploded and had no where to go.
FDL ammo storage in vacuum of space:
2. Pretty much. Don't like the mechanic actually.
3. If the storage magazine blew, it would take out the gun, but not the ship. It is vented to space, so the damage would be expended that direction, both by a smart design that "shaped" the charge that way and probably beefed up bulkheads around that area to prevent it from breaching the hull.
But ammo stored in the CARGO HOLD like cargo would be different. It is not vented to space. When it exploded by say a rail gun round penetrating the cargo bay, it would explode with no where to go but out through the hull. Your ship would suffer the same fate as HMS Hood, which was split in half when her rear magazine exploded and had no where to go.
FDL ammo storage in vacuum of space:
Last edited:
+1 for specific extra ammo bays. It means the loss of slots for other things as a balancing factor and you can grade the size for the amount of ammo and potentially class for explosion protection and reload ammo speeds to the ships ammo compartments.
Chance of explosion on hit dependant on size and perhaps grade where more expensive options reduce ammo storage for improved casing armour and seperation compartments to help absorb any explosions.
---
Edit: Afterthought: With ammo bays you could consider re-arming limpets also whose purpose is to supply other ships in space with similar ammo bays.
Chance of explosion on hit dependant on size and perhaps grade where more expensive options reduce ammo storage for improved casing armour and seperation compartments to help absorb any explosions.
---
Edit: Afterthought: With ammo bays you could consider re-arming limpets also whose purpose is to supply other ships in space with similar ammo bays.
Last edited:
If we are comparing real world tech and assuming it can be used and improved in the future, then cargo and passanger planes carry fortified cargo containers to stop explosions damaing the hull of the plane. Same concempt can be used here, the racks the ammo comes in are reinforced to stop/localise explosions.. it is possible with that mechanic that any explosion has a chance to damage the hull and perhaps surrounding systems but not result in catastrophic damage to the ship itself.
Would add an interesting dynamic to combat, especially pirates (the classy ones) if they can target your ammo, the resulting explosion damages/cripples systems around it that impact the ship in such a way that would make you widthdraw from combat rather than have to go for the kill. The flip side is that if your ammo rack is empty, then the attacking vessel is essential wasting rounds
On a side note, why does a hull breach have to mean destruction of your vessel. Breach canopys dont result in the destruction of a ship
You need a mechaism to get the ammo from the ammo bay to the gun and you need it to be armored on the inside to help protect the pilot in case of a breach. This is why I am saying it should be an ammo storage bay, not a regular cargo bay.
Comparing this to the HMS Hood makes for a poor analogy. It is a 95 year old design. You should try comparing this to modern naval designs and technology.
Finally, why so worried about the consequences of an ammo bay breach? It cant be worse than that of a powerplant breach. Let those of us who wish to fly with one deal with the consequences of the enemy potentially destroying it.
The canopy is not a structural part of the integrity of the ship any more than it is on a typical car. Losing it is dangerous to the pilot, but not the ship.
Car interiors are not pressurized to have a separate breathable atmosphere from the outside. The difference in pressure caused by a canopy breach creates a whole host of problems that space ship engineers in the elite universe have to deal with. I am really not in the mood to work out the equations today so just google "spacecraft explosive decompression" or similar if you are curious. Even today here on earth there are issues that are caused by excessive low or high pressure in buildings.
Oh good, you do understand then why having a explosion, which adds a sudden increase in internal pressures in an enclosed space , would be bad for a space ship.
Also, we do have a similar design problem in modern aircraft. Getting a hole in the cockpit, or losing the cockpit windscreen does not damage the aircraft from a structural viewpoint, but it is bad for the pilot.
But in space? Air rushing past might be a problem, but I doubt air rushing out a ship designed to handle the stresses of high G turns would much care. Suddenly going from 1 ATM internal pressure or 14.5 PSI to 30000 PSI (typical increase when smokeless powder is burnt) in a split second might cause some problems.
Railgun ammo would not care, and I am not sure what they use in Plasma Rounds, but it probably is an issue if it is suddenly released.
Last edited:
I understand the problems so please stop trying to pretend you are the safety police. I am pretty sure that I already said it should be up to the CMDRs who choose to use ammo bays to deal with the problems of having a breached ammo bay. Just like CMDRs who choose to make extreme hull tanking builds and must deal with the consequences of getting their power planet reduced to 0% (limping home and potentially losing their ship long before their hull gets destroyed). If the consequences of having an ammo bay reduced to 0% is a chance that the next shot may cause a huge explosion that destroys something else (like thrusters) or even the entire ship, then that is acceptable.
Then we are not talking about the same thing. Stor
ring ammo in a designated place is what we have, the OP is not suggesting that, he is suggesting storing it in general cargo. That has to carry risk.
You are suggesting a different mechanic where the magazine goes up taking the weapon out, but that is off topic.
As for the "safety police" crack, it is clear that the Devs put a lot of thought into the design and if it made sense. Therefore, anyone making suggestions to change it has to take the same design considerations into account or it is an idea that clashes with the the design philosophy and therefore not a good suggestion.
Read the OP post again please. He suggested storing it in general cargo, but also in "Ammo storage compartments". Perhaps the title of this thread should have been a hint?
I used the term "ammo bay" instead of "ammo storage compartment". They both describe the same thing, a place on the ship specifically for ammo storage.
I also never suggested you losing the weapon if the ammo bay is taken out. I suggested losing a module or the entire ship. It would make sense that if the resulting explosion doesnt destroy your ship, then it should at least destroy or damage the nearest module.
The safety police remark is not to insult you, but because you keep pointing out the dangers of a breach of the ammo bay. I have repeatedly agreed with you that an ammo bay would/should carry the risk of exploding if it is breached. So what is the purpose in you repeatedly pointing it out? Are you suggesting that it is unacceptable to allow a CMDR to take this risk? If you are then please state so clearly.
Finally, Ideas and suggestions are about making improvements to the game that will be balanced, fun, and practical to implement. Just because something is not mentioned in the first post doesnt make that idea any less valid. Thats why it is an idea and suggestion thread on a message board. So everyone can have their say and maybe with a little throught and luck, collectively we can come up with a good workable idea. If you think an ammo bay would make the game unbalanced for whatever reason then say so and give that reason. If you think it wont be fun then say so. If you think you have an idea for implementing ammo bays in a fun and balanced way then just present your version.
FWIW, I like the idea of exploding ammo bays or even cargo bays. It means there are worthwhile subsystem targets besides the powerplant and fsd. I also think you like arguing just for the sake of arguing.
Makes sense. We can already carry extra shields and hull in our internal compartments. Why not ammo?
I wonder when we have walking around ships what a compartment full of hull reinforcements will look like anyway?
CMDR CTCParadox
I wonder when we have walking around ships what a compartment full of hull reinforcements will look like anyway?
CMDR CTCParadox