Missile Costing - An ammendment needed?
-
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:26 pm
Re: Missile Costing - An ammendment needed?
Yes I know it is not a hypothetical situation. The submarine I used was capable of firing those many missiles (see wikipedia). I never ended up using that submarine. It was present near Toketi, but never actually fired any of its missiles. The missiles that were fired by submarines were from other four of my submarines, whose number of weapons I kept track off. Those had a maximum load of 50. I think I used 40 as missiles and 10 as torpedoes/mines etc... or some combination of that. I did however, after firing the 40 or so missiles leave the area immediately to get rearmed. I spent about two days 'rearming' them, and then getting back to business of firing the newly acquired missiles.Extreme - that first submarine wasn't a hypothetical, that was on you used .... and you said it also had a few torpedoes ...
Agreed. If there were anti-aircraft/anti-missile capabilities present, then those numbers of hits would have been much less. If there is no such capability, a hit percent of 100 should have been expected. Giving anything less than 75% in such cases is a great gift really.Did Prodigy's unit have any anti-aircraft capabilities?
In the Jasonian War, Montague fired multiple missiles at the Anticans on Airosamente. The ships off the coast were able to shoot some down, but most of the rest were shot down because the Antican land unit bothered to include some Self Propelled Anti-aircraft Guns. Only a few actually did any damage.
I'd like to say that a nuke is usually an ICBM. Thus, you can fire it from one end of the world to the opposite. However, cruise missiles are comparatively extremely limited in range. Some cruise missiles, depending upon its weapon payload, does have some capabilities on them such as area-denial and weakening units in immediate vicinity of the missile explosion. The nuke, on the other hand, has a much larger 'vicinity' in which to perform these capabilities. So, putting a figure to help explain, a nuke might affect an area of say 10 to 100 kms radius from point of explosion, while the cruise missile would offer a similar capability to a distance of 100 to 500 meters.Well, first off, that shouldn't have been allowed. Secondly, a 25,000pt value was obviously to severely dissuade its use. Thirdly, a nuke does a lot more than go boom. It has area denial capabilities, and would progressively weaken units not directly damaged but exposed to the radiation. A cruise missile doesn't do any of that.
True. However, since was in reference to a ship that andreas mention I used, I'll simply state that the wikipedia clearly identified it as so. If such is a case, then it should be allowed.Hence my complaint about people firing more missiles than the design of the ship can carry without a stated reloading mechanism.
So, basically, you are not arguing about the use of missiles. You are arguing about the manner in which people are using missiles. When I fire missiles, I like to think that I am within the range of enemy's combat capability as well. Thus, if my aircrafts or ships are launching a missile, then these aircrafts/ships can be attacked by the enemy in some form. This provides the enemy the chance to fire back at my launch platforms. Now, I am assuming here that the enemy unit's capabilities is not known. If it is known, and I see that the enemy doesn't have the range or capability to retaliate against my launch platforms, then I am going to take full advantage of it. In such a case, I would fire from outside their ranges and leave.It's not even remotely like a paper-rock-scissors type of event. Missiles fired do damage with absolutely no risk to the unit firing the missiles. Land units need to attack head on and aircraft need to risk anti-air fire or enemy jets, but missiles, none of that. You can fire a 1000 missiles, and if the enemy shoots down 990 of them, who cares? You didn't risk your unit at all in firing that barrage and all your misses were entirely free and being restocked by invisible undetectable unsinkable implied supply ships. Just wait five minutes and fire again. Oh, did I mention I'm firing from an undisclosed location that it's completely unpinpointable? So don't bother trying to retaliate. Pew pew more missiles!
So, say I am sending aircrafts against a ground unit comprising of only soldiers, with limited AA-capability (within 1 to 5 km ranges). If I know this capability, then I shall simply say that I am firing a missile from outside the range (say 10 to 15) and leave before my aircrafts come within 7 to 8 kms of the enemy. Now, for this to happen, I'd need to know/provide the type of AA-unit the enemy has, the type of missile I am firing etc... Names for these (if using real world weapons) or stats (if using custom made weapons, provided they get approved by judges) would help a lot in such situation to identify whether it is possible or not. Thus, its highly recommended to use such figures to better improve the chances of the judges going in your favor.
Obviously, you are totally out of touch with reality and where modern warfare is going. Since you obviously wont see it the same way, I guess I shall just stop here. If anyone wants me to explain this point, I shall try.Yeah, that's some high-quality recwaring right there. Can't you people that get your jollies from that sort of thing go play a naval sim or something?
If it were up to me, I'd say banning all types of missiles entirely, and force ships to engage with only their main cannons or onboard aircraft. Then they might have to actually *gasp* weigh the costs and benefits of an attack rather than just shooting wildly at their enemies indefinitely. I'm sure the missile spammers are probably glad it's not up to me, thus the compromise of costing them. But it seems even that isn't good enough.
Tomahawks are now more or less the standard in the naval missiles. So, say someone wants a missile that is capable of reaching destinations farther than a tomahawk, then they should be costed. Otherwise, its part and parcel of the launch platform. So, if a tomahawk has a range of say 400 kms, then any missile that a participant wants to use that has a range higher than 400 kms, should be costed. If its not bigger than the range of a tomahawk, then it shouldn't be costed.I do like Montague's idea of classifying a cruise missile as any missile with a range over 400 kilometers. That way, it would cost plenty more if a naval unit wants to have a reach outside of that area without fighters, but it wouldn't penalize a naval unit that is operating relatively close to another one.
Thus, if unitA with tomahawks goes up against a unitB with harpoons, then I would assume unitA would be able to easily destroy unitB because harpoons are very limited in range compared to tomahawks. however, if unitA goes up against say a unitC with ICBMs, then obviously unitA would lose out. (However, note, I support the notion that ICBMs should be banned).
Aye. The number of missiles that can be fired at any single instant isn't equal to the number of missiles that a launch platform is capable of firing. So, using the previous example of a submarine with 160 missiles, at best two or four can be fired every ten to twenty seconds say, which gives the entire time required to launch all the missiles at 400 seconds to 1600 seconds (that is roughly 7 minutes to 30 minutes).Now, a unit should not be able to fire a thousand missiles in one go, solely from the fact that that's a lot of missiles. Most warships with VLS missile tubes only have about 80 of them, and some of them house defensive as well as offensive missiles. If somebody actually has room for a thousand VLS tubes, then that means once they fire all of them, they're relatively defenseless. In general, though, people need to stop going nuts with their Missile Massacres.
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
Re: Missile Costing - An ammendment needed?
Wikipedia lists the Tomahawk's range as 2,500 km.
Some of the other missiles used by ships are the Harpoon (range: 93km to 315km depending on type), the Exocet (range: 70 km to 180km), and the Chinese have Yingji (180km to 350+km [that one is a special longer range land attack version]).
It would seem, then, that the Tomahawk would be classified under Montague's recommended scheme as a long range cruise missile which should cost extra, while the Harpoon at al. are shorter range missiles which should not cost extra.
Some of the other missiles used by ships are the Harpoon (range: 93km to 315km depending on type), the Exocet (range: 70 km to 180km), and the Chinese have Yingji (180km to 350+km [that one is a special longer range land attack version]).
It would seem, then, that the Tomahawk would be classified under Montague's recommended scheme as a long range cruise missile which should cost extra, while the Harpoon at al. are shorter range missiles which should not cost extra.
Коля лает «гав-гав».
-
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:26 pm
Re: Missile Costing - An ammendment needed?
2500? Well, in that case let's cost the tomahawks. anything higher than 400 sounds good.
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: Missile Costing - An ammendment needed?
400 seems a little long, but its up to you.
I can see Harvey's point and had come to the same conclusion myself. It doesn't matter what rules are there, you can't tell people how to play the game. And it's precisely because there are quite different approaches to playing the game that international recwars don't work. So I'll stick to internal recwars, which work at least, and leave this to you guys, because my approach seems so different. I'll restrict my Anunia opinions to just voting FOR or AGAINST on proposals (because I've also realised the constituency I think I'm representing are happier in internal wars and don't care about Anunia anyway ...) myself.
I've put in Montague's Amendment Amendment, so my power to edit Anunia is officially gone. The board can sort out an amendment for missiles when they're elected. They can also change my addition to Montague's amendment of a way to remove board members, if they prefer a different way. I just thought something should be put in, because 12 months is a long time. (the ambiguity of how the board makes decisions I left in, so they can determine their own rules. Where as the ambiguity of what vote is needed for something to 'pass' with the general community I made 50% + 1). I'll oversee elections and then step out. I hope you guys have fun making recwar like you want it to be.
I can see Harvey's point and had come to the same conclusion myself. It doesn't matter what rules are there, you can't tell people how to play the game. And it's precisely because there are quite different approaches to playing the game that international recwars don't work. So I'll stick to internal recwars, which work at least, and leave this to you guys, because my approach seems so different. I'll restrict my Anunia opinions to just voting FOR or AGAINST on proposals (because I've also realised the constituency I think I'm representing are happier in internal wars and don't care about Anunia anyway ...) myself.
I've put in Montague's Amendment Amendment, so my power to edit Anunia is officially gone. The board can sort out an amendment for missiles when they're elected. They can also change my addition to Montague's amendment of a way to remove board members, if they prefer a different way. I just thought something should be put in, because 12 months is a long time. (the ambiguity of how the board makes decisions I left in, so they can determine their own rules. Where as the ambiguity of what vote is needed for something to 'pass' with the general community I made 50% + 1). I'll oversee elections and then step out. I hope you guys have fun making recwar like you want it to be.
Andreas
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
"He showed up three or four years ago and accidentally took over the micronational world by being way more competent and enthusiastic than everyone else. Now he sort of rules us all, but it's a benevolent sort of thing, as far as we know."
~Scott Alexander
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
Re: Missile Costing - An ammendment needed?
Well, 400km I think is good because it's between the Tomahawk and most naval missiles, so there won't be any sort of "well, it's only a couple km over, so it isn't so bad." There's a pretty good space and 400km fits well on the conservative side of that space.
Коля лает «гав-гав».
Re: Missile Costing - An ammendment needed?
I fully grant you that this is the sort of direction that modern warfare is going. My position isn't that missiles aren't a good way to damage your enemy. My position is that it makes for really crappy recwaring because there's everything to gain from it and very little to lose. It's sort of like how in RPGs when there's a character that can use a sword and a character that can use a gun, but the they do roughly comparable damage. In reality, swords vs. guns is no contest. No one would dispute that. But, for balance issues, things are done to make it so that one strategy doesn't totally run away from all others. I mean, if a barrage of 1000 missiles is a-okay, why not just allow tactical nukes and be done with it? That probably would reflect reality too.extreme007 wrote: Obviously, you are totally out of touch with reality and where modern warfare is going. Since you obviously wont see it the same way, I guess I shall just stop here. If anyone wants me to explain this point, I shall try.
That distinction right there is what I base my two camps on. One side says, okay, let's try to make things fair for all sides for a more entertaining fight, even if we have to fudge technology a bit. The other side says no, reality is unbreakable and everyone has to deal with that. It's the lack of the meeting of the minds between those two camps that causes pretty much all our problems.
(this is without even getting into the "there is no reality cuz this is Micras and not Earth and technology isn't progressing along the same path" argument, but if the first one is lost on you, Lord knows the second one won't go anywhere.)