Should certain weapons be more dangerous?

[ROSS-128]

Nuclear missiles would not deal thermal damage so much as "radiation damage"; i.e. the radiation emitted would mess with many sensors and equipment. The reaction itself may cause more damage than a bog standard explodey missile we're used to now, but ultimately I suspect missiles would all face the same issue: they have to be launched across relatively massive distances against ships that probably have every form of point defense under the sun (if you'll excuse that legendary pun). Should missile-based weaponry appear to become prominent I suspect kinetic/flak screen defenses and scramblers in various forums would become staple, and definitely not restricted to four on a massive ship. Actually, point defense is probably the earliest practical application of lasers in space combat.

With the technology we understand at the moment, the concept behind flak weaponry would probably be prominent. You're probably correct in that it would be launched from projectiles - perhaps similar to what was tried with real life rail guns, whereby the projectile effectively launches shot over a large area. It's easy to shoot a few missiles down; it's not so easy when those projectiles instead launch a wall of metal pieces.

Nuclear reactions do generate a massive amount of thermal energy and light in addition to other forms of radiation. Plus the light and radiation tend to heat up whatever they hit, just like a laser. Just substitute brute force for focus. In fact, once you're done applying your inverse square law you pretty much calculate nuke damage the same way you calculate laser damage, using W/m^2 (though it's likely to end up in MW/cm^2 to produce easier to read numbers).

Remember, the sun is a giant fusion bomb in space and it provides literally all of our heat from 1AU away. Our fusion bombs are smaller, but significantly closer. It's thermal damage.

It's pretty obvious that you're starting with your hatred of missiles and trying to rationalize backwards into a future where they don't exist. Could we theoretically have a future of super amazing point defenses that can cost effectively nullify any incoming missiles? Maybe, we could also have a future of perfect shielding that never breaks and can only be bypassed by melee weapons. But that doesn't prove ranged weapons are impractical in general, it only sets up a contrived future specifically designed to exclude them.

Then there's the fact that any KKV that releases its payload on an intercept course before it reaches the edge of your PD range is now functionally equivalent to an incoming railgun round. Though some might argue that such an early-release warhead might be considered a single-shot drone rather than a missile, definitions get fuzzy when you start piling on tricks.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

A good 'nerf' for missiles would be their insane agility.

Make them similar to missiles we have today. Very longer range, very fast, but not particularly agile. But very dangerous.

Firing would then require timing, making sure your missiles can track their target.
No more firing off at stuff that's behind you.

Instead you'd use them to either soften shields on incoming targets(mod dependant), or pick of targets trying to run away.
Then switch to guns for close range.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

 

[ROSS-128]

One way I think would be a good way to handle seekers would be to kind of set them off to the side on their own.

Ships would have VLS cells that can only hold seekers (and maaaybe torpedoes/mines since those can also be "dispensed" rather than "fired"), so seekers don't compete with other weapons for slots. Additionally ships would have a set of dedicated PD and/or ECM hardpoints, so anti-missile defenses would not compete with utilities. Having a strong missile complement or good anti-missile hardpoints would just be part of each ship's flavor, something to consider when deciding what ships you like.

It also means you wouldn't be surprised by missiles or missile defenses, you'd be able to take one look at the ship and know what they can bring.

This way they can actually be treated as secondary weapons, because they're not occupying slots that could be holding primary weapons instead.

 

[StiTch]

It's pretty obvious that you're starting with your hatred of missiles and trying to rationalize backwards into a future where they don't exist.

Er...if you paid attention to anything I had said previously, you'd have noticed I dissociate realism from gaming wherever looking at balance etc. In a few hundred years missiles could be the only space weapon, and I still wouldn't change my opinion on them in Elite.

To justify a buff for them in Elite, I'd instead need to hear substantiation for why a high-output weapon with both damaging and crippling effects, fired with all the skill of looking in the rough direction of an opponent, deserves to be even more effective.

The RL thing was completely separate. It's all massively theoretical, but I simply don't believe spacecraft will be launching missiles - nuclear or otherwise - at each other from several hundred to several thousand to several ten thousand km away from each other out in the great void. Aside from the collateral damage possible from nukes fired near any body we're fighting over, that are strong enough to provide crippling thermal damage to a ship traveling at potentially immense speeds, I just don't see missiles as a practical method of applying a payload in a futuristic environment.

Additionally ships would have a set of dedicated PD and/or ECM hardpoints, so anti-missile defenses would not compete with utilities.

Probably the most worthwhile discussion point on this thread, but really it's just indicative of utility inflation. Any reasonable coverage against missiles will consume half your utility slots, but strong defenses against missile payloads should still be an optional/drawback based affair.

As for separate missile hardpoints, please no. Hull/hybrid tanks have a hard time as it is without ALL ships having missiles without sacrifice.

If nothing else I'd appreciate seeing a buff for the ECM in some form.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Actually thinking about it, there is one "weapon" that is nowhere near what it should be - the Mining Laser.

These things are designed to cut apart rocks and chunks of ice in space. It seems reasonable to think these should play hell on a ship's hull. Even if they did next to nothing to a ship's shields, I'd think something so specifically designed as a cutting tool should cut up hulls just like they do chunks of mineral-rich rock.

Which leaves the mining lance - a more specialized form of mining laser, with an increased range and output, which should be able to damage shields in addition to carving up hulls like a tough pot roast.

Now I don't see either as ever being an actual weapon-replacement. Given the short range of mining lasers and small size of mining lances, but these things should, I'd reason, be as inviting to be hit with as a wood chipper is to stick your hand inside of.

I'll take my logic hat off now.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

They suck hard against shields, so I never use them. Except on my Rock It Viper. That was fun vs players. Before engineers.

 

[ROSS-128]

To be honest a lot of the ships kind of need some hardpoint inflation, especially the big ones. Part of being big is you carry a lot of stuff, you know?

But part of it is also I want to see more dedicated slots for stuff along the lines of how military slots work. Because I think ships having a mix of universal and dedicated slots allows each ship to kind of have its own personality and cater to a certain style without necessarily being locked in to it. Part of that comes from having played a lot of Mechwarrior games.

It's also kind of common sense though that you can't have secondary weapons without a secondary weapon slot. If all weapon slots are universal, then every weapon is a primary weapon. Because people don't take a secondary when they could have two primaries instead.