Remove ads

Shepard Quest Mk IV, Under New Management (ME/MCU)

Esbilon said:
1) LASERs have their general level measured in watts (joules/second), so let's change the relevant names accordingly.

2) The basic size is like the ones the US Navy is currently building; that is suitable for ship or possibly semi truck mounting.

Since Revy is a genius, she could probably scale it down to fit on the back of a pick up truck without too much effort. Miniaturization is more for making guns and things that fit into the power armor. The version you can buy could be mounted on your fancy new IFV, but it'd be bigger than any of your other options.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Okay so if I understand correctly we get better returns on actually researching tech:

If we research Basic DEWs we can get Lasers small enough for a IFV sized GARDIAN net (Really only looking at 2-3 maybe four anti-missile/drone/infantry turrets)

If we buy it the tech is limited to back of pickup sizes and we need miniaturization?

Other then that the tech lets us make up to Megawatt lasers of the starship scale right?

And yeah laser=watts, when I'm doing actual math I know the difference but in colloquial use I get them scrambled, curse you uneducated people you're making me dumber!
 
I'd like to treat buying with money and research points as equivalent, even if it doesn't always make a lot of sense. So even if you buy them, you can stick them on IFVs or spaceships equally well, but they don't pack a bigger punch just because they're in space (well they do, but that's just because vacuum is nicer to shoot through than atmo).
 
Esbilon said:
I'd like to treat buying with money and research points as equivalent, even if it doesn't always make a lot of sense. So even if you buy them, you can stick them on IFVs or spaceships equally well, but they don't pack a bigger punch just because they're in space (well they do, but that's just because vacuum is nicer to shoot through than atmo).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh I was thinking that the ships were you know bigger than tanks and thus more power and more room. A fixed emplacement on the other hand should be just as good (if not better due to cooling) as a starship one.

Okay that helps a lot one last bit of clarification:
Basic DEWs-> Gives laser cannons up to Megawatts, starship GARDIAN array tech.
Miniaturized Lasers -> Let us put high powered lasers on suit/make laser rifles
??? -> Gives laser autocannon. Basically that size below cannon and above infantry weapon.

Sorry for the repeated questions, but it better to clarify then assume esp on the internet.
 
Yes. Though you don't need a special tech for the autocannon, for lasers, taht's a pretty trivial upgrade from the miniaturization.
 
Esbilon said:
Yes. Though you don't need a special tech for the autocannon, for lasers, taht's a pretty trivial upgrade from the miniaturization.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And that lets me know exactly what I need!

To other players:

Okay no GARDIAN array for the Tiger w/o Minaturization.

I like UberJJK's MM set then, but I think hes being a bit repulsor happy, and I like modular hardpoints, Omnitech FTW!

Time to play with the drawing board.
 
Hoyr said:
And that lets me know exactly what I need!

To other players:

Okay no GARDIAN array for the Tiger w/o Minaturization.

I like UberJJK's MM set then, but I think hes being a bit repulsor happy, and I like modular hardpoints, Omnitech FTW!

Time to play with the drawing board.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'd taken the GARDIAN off my listing a while ago.....

Can we get WoG on range of repulsor weapons? I've yet to find anything suggesting a decent enough range on them for a primary vehicular armament.
 
Madfish said:
Can we get WoG on range of repulsor weapons? I've yet to find anything suggesting a decent enough range on them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
A bit of googling indicates that at least Iron Man's Unibeam (big Repulsor) has a decent range. The hand-based repulsors are used at pistol range without noticable reduction in their effectiveness.

I dunno. I think I'd say they have a range of at least a few hundred meters, but it's not entirely clear to me how much you're looking for.
 
santtu1976 said:
I think my point was missed. If the repulsor cannon can't reach 4km ranges then it's useless because enemy can just do long range shots. If GM can't promise that range for it, then don't bother use it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Go back and re-read Esbilon's last post. He's talking about the ranges of the repulsor weapons mounted on the Iron Man Suit. A main tank cannon version would have much greater range.
 
UberJJK said:
1) -- 13)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sorry, I'm postponing these again :(
LockedKeye said:
Esbilon, would protocrafters be possible to research?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
1) That goes against all the conventions.
2) Your fellow players have already argued against it.
3) Sure, don't see why not. But as was said, very end game. And you'd need a special kind of research hero to access it.
UberJJK said:
@Esbilon - What is the range of the Micro Missiles? Would it be practical to load some on fighters? They do get pretty close in. Failing that how about a Micro Missile launcher?

A barrel with a repulsor that shoots the Micro Missile out at high speed, so it looks like a normal projectile, but when it's within range the Micro Missiles own engine system kicks in and delivers it to the target.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Micro-missiles are designed for use against soft targets in an atmosphere. If they're useful on a fighter, your enemy is doing something wrong.

That said, they could probably be adapted, but it doesn't seem like the optimal fighter weapon to me.
UberJJK said:
So I think it's safe to say that until the GM says otherwise the repulsor generates somewhere between none and very little thermal waste.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is correct.
UberJJK said:
That. That's very weird. Repulsors are, AFAIK, suppose to be reactionless engines* and particle beams are decidedly not reactionless. Even worse particle beams require fuel! Or at least some reaction mass that gets ionized into particles and shot out.

*Something by-the-by Mass Effect already has with the Normandy's Tantalus drive allowing it to create gravity wells that it can fall into instead of relying on it's (very obvious) thrusters to move.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The most extensive description I could find said that Repulsors were particle beams.
Hoyr said:
Damn it I need to dig up my endgame ME files so I can look at them. May take a few weeks for me to find them even if I remember. Anyone else got end game stats for HP/Shields?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I've been reacquanting myself with the lore by playing ME1 with a red head Paragon Engineer (though with a spacer background to get Mother in the game), so I can answer that for a levle 51 character.
Damage: 336 (HMWSR X) +5% (Frictionless Materials VIII) +5% (Kinetic Coil VIII) + 40% (Shredder/Tungsten rounds VII) +20% (Sniper Rifles 11) [+225% Master Assassination] = 571.2 [1327.2]
Shield: 252 (Light Ursa VIII) + 40 (Kinetic Exoskeleton VIII + 270 (Electronics 12) = 562
Health: 522
 
Am I the only one with the headcanon that Uber's IFV design has hover wheels ala Back to the Future? Though I think a Coax Hasta loaded with MM for a suppression weapon then different flavors of Hose of Death should be a preference, but that's me.
 
Tabron89 said:
There is also 'Diode Lasers', apparently they have effiency of 65%.

The device that DARPA built using said systems can easily effect a target over 3 KM away, but it's a mounted turret.

Don't forget that said 'authors' nerfed the effective ranges of lasers. A 1 KM Free Electron Laser can boil Graphite in less than a second at 1 Light Minute ranges with todays technology, you just need the power supply.

They also remove said 'Phasic rounds' in ME2 and back peddled, claiming that the Citadel races had no idea on how to make hand held particle beam weapons.

...This is now firmly turning into a 'Space Opera Physics' lesson, which some people on this thread would rather avoid, so I'm not going to any further detail on this matter.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Really, BW just wanted kinetic weapons instead of laser rifles.
 
Why not try to research the higher-powered lasers in the laser tree? I'd have to take a peek at the R&D costs and our R&D output, but we have this turn and the next turn to do R&D before we submit our prototype vehicle. A vehicle with a laser main weapon that was actually capable of posing a serious threat to enemy armored vehicles would garner a LOT of attention (especially from the Navy!)
 
Okay, seriously. An IFV does not need anti-spacecraft point defenses. It's a major added expense without any real gain.
 
Stroth said:
Okay, seriously. An IFV does not need anti-spacecraft point defenses. It's a major added expense without any real gain.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not against spacecraft but against everything that wants it dead. For example, a knock off of our pilum. Maybe the knock-off only works 10%, or only drops teh shields. With point defense, we just no-sell it, and continue on our merry way.
 
Alanek2002 said:
Not against spacecraft but against everything that wants it dead. For example, a knock off of our pilum. Maybe the knock-off only works 10%, or only drops teh shields. With point defense, we just no-sell it, and continue on our merry way.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We also add a huge increase to the price and a major drain on the reactor that could instead go to, just as an example, boosting the shields so a missile wouldn't work anyway.
 
Van Ropen said:
As for the price tag - it's already more expensive than our competitors. I am sure of that. Is it more expensive than half a dozen of them? Because it is that effective.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Can it carry six times as many passengers as our competitors? Because that's the most important part of an IFV. Moving soldiers around. They're going to be buying about the same number no matter who wins, so price is a major factor. If it costs six times as much because we decided to slap a completely pointless GUARDIAN system on it then they're going to buy from someone else, no matter how awesome ours is.
 
Forgothrax said:
Why not try to research the higher-powered lasers in the laser tree? I'd have to take a peek at the R&D costs and our R&D output, but we have this turn and the next turn to do R&D before we submit our prototype vehicle. A vehicle with a laser main weapon that was actually capable of posing a serious threat to enemy armored vehicles would garner a LOT of attention (especially from the Navy!)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Its 400 points (we make ~930 points a turn) for gigawatt range lasers AKA one shot melts a tank in to slag lasers. It takes about a gigajoule of energy to melt 1000kg of steel for comparison, note that that's the energy that actually gets into the steel not the amount fired at it. The range would be heavily dependent on the wavelength used, and that's about the point were my know ledge of physics ends, but I imagine that it'd be a horizon weapon all things told. In addition it be a target-it hit-it level weapon as it'd be firing a light speed shot.
Tetsurou said:
Could we use Repulsors in place of lasers in a GARDIAN system?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The repulsors system observed in the Iron Man movie has a power up lag time for weapon use and thus makes a bad snapfire weapon, which is what I'd prefer for my anti-missile system.
Stroth said:
We also add a huge increase to the price and a major drain on the reactor that could instead go to, just as an example, boosting the shields so a missile wouldn't work anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Uh, one standard Iron Man AR produces 5 gigajoules of power per second (see product listing) the gigawatt laser could literately be powered by just one dinky AR about the size of a fist, the weapon would be large then its power plant.

The set of megawatt (or less) lasers need for a tank scale GARDIAN system? One AR tops, if that.
 
Van Ropen said:
I'm not saying it will cost six times as much due to a GARDIAN system. Why would it cost that much anyways? GARDIAN's aren't complicated or unheard of tech, the most important/expensive parts are the VI and the power supply, both of which we have covered.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Look, I'm just saying that we need to take a step back and try to tone down the SB'er feature creep. Could we cram enough stuff into this thing that it could take on an entire Eclipse raiding force single-handedly? Yeah probably. Is that a good idea for an IFV? No. build them a proper tank if you want that. We're losing sight of what this thing is supposed to be.
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top