Missiles
Moderator: Staff
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Missiles
Since I'm meant to bring stuff to the board to vote on ...
Is this a suitable rewriting of the missile section?
Current Reading wrote:Submarine capable of ICBMS = 1,500 - (British Vanguard Class)
...
Cruise missile: 10 (BGM-109 Tomahawk, anything supersonic or over 1000km range)
Short-range cruise missile: 6 (AGM-84 Harpoon, anything subsonic and below 1000km range)
...
G. Missiles represent considerable military cost and strength and so are required to be costed separately. Units that carry missiles as a standard can be considered to start with the number of missiles purchasable with 5% of their points (eg a Battleship (5000) can have 250 worth of missiles, so 25 cruise missiles. A submarine (1000) could have 50 worth of missiles so 10 cruise missiles), except where this amount is greater than their normal complement of missiles, in which case they take the lower of the two. Any further missiles they require must be costed separately.
There was discussion of making missiles under 400 km free. Wikipedia suggests that short range cruise missiles are up to 300 km, so I've suggested 350 km, which should cover all short range comfortably but not lead to awkward questions about shorter medium range ones. Since this should allow navy ships to use their normal missiles like Harpoons (or at least that's how I read the discussion), the rather bizzarre section G can be stricken and we just make everyone cost cruise missiles with a range > 350 km separately from their missile launching platforms. In accordance with that, I've suggested lowering the cost of ICBM capable subs because the original cost took into account the missiles they could launch. At the original cost of 1500, an ICBM capable sub would now carry 40 long range cruise missiles/ICBMs.Proposed Reading wrote:Submarine capable of ICBMS = 1,100 - (British Vanguard Class - note this comes with no ICBMs)
...
Long Range Cruise missile: 10 (BGM-109 Tomahawk, anything supersonic or over 1000km range)
Medium-range cruise missile: 6 (Storm Shadow, anything subsonic with a range between 350-1000km)
Is this a suitable rewriting of the missile section?
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
Re: Missiles
I think it sounds fair enoughsky.
- Lord_Montague
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:39 pm
Re: Missiles
Don't have an awful lot of time to respond to this in detail but I can already see some problems.
Are we allowing ICBMs or not? If so and a SSBN doesn't come with them automatically, they need to be costed too.
Also, any ship and any submarine (even conventionally powered diesel subs) can fire cruise missiles so why are we downgrading the 1500 of an SSBN which are considerably larger and quieter than an SSN?
Are we allowing ICBMs or not? If so and a SSBN doesn't come with them automatically, they need to be costed too.
Also, any ship and any submarine (even conventionally powered diesel subs) can fire cruise missiles so why are we downgrading the 1500 of an SSBN which are considerably larger and quieter than an SSN?
In Battle; Unbeatable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
Re: Missiles
But they are also less maneuverable than attack submarines since they're bulkier. And the SSBN stripped of its ICBMs is still 100 points greater than an SSN.
Just as a thing, perhaps a better clarification would be:
Nuclear Ballistic Submarine (SSBN) = 1,100 - (British Vanguard Class). ICBMs counted separately.
Nuclear Cruise Missile Submarine (SSGN) = XXXX (____). Cruise missiles counted separately.
There should probably be a distinction between ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. Cruise missiles can go a long distance but do so relatively close to the ground, while ballistic missiles go straight up into the outer atmosphere and then come crashing down. Cruise missiles aren't hard to shoot down if you can spot them, but ballistic missiles are much harder to shoot down.
Just as a thing, perhaps a better clarification would be:
Nuclear Ballistic Submarine (SSBN) = 1,100 - (British Vanguard Class). ICBMs counted separately.
Nuclear Cruise Missile Submarine (SSGN) = XXXX (____). Cruise missiles counted separately.
There should probably be a distinction between ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. Cruise missiles can go a long distance but do so relatively close to the ground, while ballistic missiles go straight up into the outer atmosphere and then come crashing down. Cruise missiles aren't hard to shoot down if you can spot them, but ballistic missiles are much harder to shoot down.
Коля лает «гав-гав».
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: Missiles
I assumed you'd cost ICBMs the same as cruise missiles, but if you'd like to add a separate costing, you're welcome to.
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: Missiles
Or ICBMs could just be banned under the ban on nuclear weapons, since that's all they're really used for...
Коля лает «гав-гав».
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: Missiles
As I recall, I first encountered ICBMs internationally when Monty used some in WW2 that he specified were 'non-nuclear warheads', so they were used then without being covered under the 'nuclear' ban. However, you could change 'nuclear' to 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'.
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
- Lord_Montague
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:39 pm
Re: Missiles
ICBMs are only used in modern warfare for delivering nuclear warheads but they're still a devastating force. To be honest, you could fire one without any warhead in them and the MIRVs would still cause a hell of a lot of damage. If they're going to be costed I don't think anybody would mind a costing of around 500-1000 per ICBM?
As for the SSGN, sounds like an idea as the Yanks are converting a few old Ohios into SSGNs aren't they? Will draw up a few proposals for costing and the reasoning.
As for the SSGN, sounds like an idea as the Yanks are converting a few old Ohios into SSGNs aren't they? Will draw up a few proposals for costing and the reasoning.
In Battle; Unbeatable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
Re: Missiles
According to Wikipedia, the Ohio SSGNs store 154 tomahawks. That'd mean, with the current proposed missile system, an SSGN would be:
1100 + 154*10 = 2640 points
That's... probably about right.
1100 + 154*10 = 2640 points
That's... probably about right.
Коля лает «гав-гав».
- Lord_Montague
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:39 pm
Re: Missiles
Right, well Chrim has given us that figure but does anybody mind if I round it off to 2,500 just to fit in with the way the standardised system works (along a general principle of multiples of 5)?
Furthermore, ICBMs I think should be costed at 5,000 per ICBM due to their incredibly destructive and almost unstoppable nature. The ability to hit anywhere in the world and the secretive nature of their launch platforms has also factored into the equation making me believe that 5,000 is a reasonable amount to pay for the ability to use an ICBM.
Would anyone mind on a sort of separate issue if I change the comparitive to RL standard for an SSN. Nowadays, an Astute or Virginia class SSN is more likely to be the standard while a Trafalgar or Los Angeles would be around 850.
Furthermore, ICBMs I think should be costed at 5,000 per ICBM due to their incredibly destructive and almost unstoppable nature. The ability to hit anywhere in the world and the secretive nature of their launch platforms has also factored into the equation making me believe that 5,000 is a reasonable amount to pay for the ability to use an ICBM.
Would anyone mind on a sort of separate issue if I change the comparitive to RL standard for an SSN. Nowadays, an Astute or Virginia class SSN is more likely to be the standard while a Trafalgar or Los Angeles would be around 850.
In Battle; Unbeatable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
In Victory; Unbearable.
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: Missiles
Chrim's figure isn't a unit per se, remember. It's a unit (SSGN sub) + 154 missiles. If the person creating it wanted it 2500 points, they could just take 140 missiles. Because its a combination of units it shouldn't be put in the charter as a combination (just like we don't put an aircraft carrier with max deployment of aircraft in as a unit).
As for the other things - those values seem good.
Can you do a final writeup of what all the changes are?
As for the other things - those values seem good.
Can you do a final writeup of what all the changes are?
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
- Lord_Montague
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:39 pm
-
- Posts: 5024
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:34 pm
- Location: Novatainia
- Contact:
Re: Missiles
Do we want to push this modification through before Ashkenatza and Ocia face off? I'm assuming we'd like them to fight under the new-look Anunia Convention, and keep our title as 'the only viable choice for an international recwar' .
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
- pawelabrams
- Posts: 3207
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:14 pm
- Location: Novograd, Interland
- Contact:
Re: Missiles
That mod has to be voted before The Nonsense Bloody Quasi-Fascist Argument really starts...
Pavel' Abramovic:, the President of Interland
IRL just a random guy from Poland. Still learning English.
IRL just a random guy from Poland. Still learning English.
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am