Remove ads

Blood, Sweat, and Tears (WH40k Design Bureau)

Reader mode
Sir_Travelsalot said:
Yes, but they're different. They're physical shells that have a glob of plasma at the front so they can punch further into armor. Plasma macrobatteries just fire plasma, which does a lot more damage than any Macrocannon.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ok, wait. I designed my Prow Macrocannon to shoot the physical shells that have a glob of plasma at the front. That is what I designed them for, to make the most of regular macrocannons by giving it the space to make it longer and thus increase the projectile's speed by building a better gun for it. I don't remember ever mentioning plasma macrobatteries that fire naked plasma in any of my posts. This gives as a longer ranged weapon, "compareable" to the Lance. Once we got Actual Lances worked out, the Prow Macrocannon will be replaced by something better. This is meant to be a transitional design, our M3Lee, something we can make right now and get it out of the door and get results now. This is meant to be replaced several turns later once we get our M4 Shermans ready, Actual Lances. The advantages are that we know this tech works and can make it now and get results while we spent research making actual Lances. By the time we met something this gun can't handle, we replace it with something that can, its how the Sherman with its 75mm and 76mm did it and it worked fine for them.
 
Last edited:
Warmach1ne32 said:
Ok, wait. I designed my Prow Macrocannon to shoot the physical shells that have a glob of plasma at the front. That is what I designed them for, to make the most of it by building a better gun for it. I don't remember ever mentioning plasma macrobatteries that fire naked plasma in any of my posts. This gives as a longer ranged weapon, "compareable" to the Lance. Once we got Actual Lances worked out, the Prow Macrocannon will be replaced by something better. This is meant to be a transitional design, our M3Lee, something we can make right now and get it out of the door and get results now. This is meant to be replaced several turns later once we get our M4 Shermans ready, Actual Lances. The advantages are that we know this tech works and can make it now and get results while we spent research making actual Lances. By the time we met something this gun can't handle, we replace it with something that can, its how the Sherman with its 75mm and 76mm did it and it worked fine for them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, I get that. The thing is, if the current leading plan wins, barring another terrible dice roll, we will have a working Lance that we can mount on a ship.

And your response to being told that Plasma macrobatteries aren't the same thing as Macrocannon batteries firing rounds with Plasma warheads was to cite the leading plan's Plasma Bore Shell design, which is what my response was about.
 
Warmach1ne32 said:
Weren't we researching Macro rounds with a plasma generator inside it?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Technically yes but those aren't the same as plasma macro-batteries.
Sir_Travelsalot said:
Yes, but they're different. They're physical shells that have a glob of plasma at the front so they can punch further into armor. Plasma macrobatteries just fire plasma, which does a lot more damage than any Macrocannon.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, not necessarily more damage. In the case of the Tyrant-class, the plasma macros actually do less damage, but their advantage is a significantly longer range.
 
Sir_Travelsalot said:
Yeah, I get that. The thing is, if the current leading plan wins, barring another terrible dice roll, we will have a working Lance that we can mount on a ship.

And your response to being told that Plasma macrobatteries aren't the same thing as Macrocannon batteries firing rounds with Plasma warheads was to cite the leading plan's Plasma Bore Shell design, which is what my response was about.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'll wait until we know the stats of the plasma warhead and the Lance. I don't know enough to continue this arguement.

EternalStruggle said:
Technically yes but those aren't the same as plasma macro-batteries.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I never mentioned plasma macrobatteries in any of my previous posts why do you guys keep mentioning it?
 
Warmach1ne32 said:
I never mentioned plasma macrobatteries in any of my previous posts why do you guys keep mentioning it?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ah, I'm starting to think there's been confusion because you were abbreviating it to plasma macros earlier, while referring to Macrocannons that shoot the plasma bore shells, instead of the plasma macrobatteries that it actually is supposed to be an abbreviation of. If you're referring to plasma warhead shells fired by regular macrocanons, just call them plasma shells, 's not like the gun is restricted to only using them.
 
Warmach1ne32 said:
I never mentioned plasma macrobatteries in any of my previous posts why do you guys keep mentioning it?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Right here:
Warmach1ne32 said:
whose job is to shoot the plasma macros
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes, it turns out you meant the plasma shells rather than the actual plasma macros, but that was not 100% obvious at the time.

The problem is that things get confusing because we do currently have plasma macros in storage right now, which muddles the issue. Since we could feasibly try and use them to reverse engineer plasma batteries for our own ships.
 
Sir_Travelsalot said:
-[X] War Hawk-class Hull Mk.2: While the Indomitable-class is a serviceable warship, it is neither up to the standards nor the tactical role set for the largest warships built at Calavar to date. Revise the internal layout to mend the current design's inefficiencies and attempt to address the electrical and engine power shortages, adding onto the superstructure if necessary.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
To confirm, you are only wanting to remove the engine penalty and the minor issues with having a large number of modules, correct?
 
Sir_Travelsalot said:
Macrocannons are coilguns by default, I will point out.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Where the heck was this ever mentioned? Becuase I have never seen any indication that macrocannons are anything but 'traditional' chemical-based weapons.
Warmach1ne32 said:
I just want a Macro Cannon mounted on the prow that acts like the sniper rifle of our fleet because its shots are much faster than standard Macrocannons, it would synergize really well with the plasma macrorounds we are researching and in the future, this longer Macrocannon can be used on Battlecruisers as broadsides cause there will be space for a longer Macrocannon.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Actually lances are still superior for this for a simple reason: they are light-speed (or close to it) weapons. Meaning that if your sensors say the enemy is at X position and the lance fires at X; it will hit the enemy. In comparison macrocannons (whose shells move a lot slower) would have to try and lead the target and hope they don't change direction/speed. That why Imperial ships use macro cannons as relatively close-range weapons; at the distance they are fighting at, only minimal lead is required and it's a lot harder for the enemy ship to dodge.

Though when it comes to macrocannon shell improvements I'm surprised nobody has taken the obvious/low-hanging fruit option. Becuase a macro-cannon is at it's core a much bigger autocannon right? Well there is a better infantry scale weapon that works on the same principles as an autocannon; the bolter. Seriously if you make them the same calibur, the only difference between an autocannon and a bolter is that the later uses rocket-propelled high-explosive armor-piercing projectiles. Scale that up to naval levels and you could have the cannons firing small (in comparison) torpedoes.
 
jwolfe_beta said:
Though when it comes to macrocannon shell improvements I'm surprised nobody has taken the obvious/low-hanging fruit option. Becuase a macro-cannon is at it's core a much bigger autocannon right? Well there is a better infantry scale weapon that works on the same principles as an autocannon; the bolter. Seriously if you make them the same calibur, the only difference between an autocannon and a bolter is that the later uses rocket-propelled high-explosive armor-piercing projectiles. Scale that up to naval levels and you could have the cannons firing small (in comparison) torpedoes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I considered it, but by that point the Plasma Shell ammo design had already been suggested and i didn't feel like putting out a competing ammo design at that point.
 
Happerry said:
I considered it, but by that point the Plasma Shell ammo design had already been suggested and i didn't feel like putting out a competing ammo design at that point.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Though considering the plasma and everything else, we'll probably want to restrain our natural SV instincts and not charge after the biggest and shiniest Wunderwaffe (in design or construction). Because I imagine thought things would cost a lot while not being as effective as slowly but constantly developing our 'mundane' fleet.
 
Last edited:
jwolfe_beta said:
Though when it comes to macrocannon shell improvements I'm surprised nobody has taken the obvious/low-hanging fruit option. Becuase a macro-cannon is at it's core a much bigger autocannon right? Well there is a better infantry scale weapon that works on the same principles as an autocannon; the bolter. Seriously if you make them the same calibur, the only difference between an autocannon and a bolter is that the later uses rocket-propelled high-explosive armor-piercing projectiles. Scale that up to naval levels and you could have the cannons firing small (in comparison) torpedoes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Would probably have been down the line of developing the atomic rocket broadsides we started out with.
 
jwolfe_beta said:
Though considering the plasma and everything else, we'll probably want to restrain our natural SV instincts and not charge after the biggest and shiniest Wunderwaffe (in design or construction). Because I imagine thought things would cost a lot while not being as effective as slowly but constantly developing our 'mundane' fleet.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So far I've think we've done a generally good job of doing incremental development more then magic Wunderwaffe, honestly.
 
Happerry said:
So far I've think we've done a generally good job of doing incremental development more then magic Wunderwaffe, honestly.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The plasma macroshell might be headed in that direction; it'll depend on how much they cost. But I was looking more at the time when cruisers start being possible. In that we shouldn't try and grab cruisers and similar capitals ASAP when the option becomes available to the detriment of continuing to reinforce our escort fleets.
 
Honestly? That's one of the big reasons I've never put up a 'hey why not design a cruiser' action so far.

Because it's easier to talk people out of breaking the budget on them when it's not an option in the first place.
 
Not to mention that before this point, we would've been suffering from penalties to the design action to make a light cruiser for skipping over frigates.
 
I Agree we should complete the drydock upgrade before we start on a cruiser. This turn work on improving the frigate will teach us more about building hulls, and a high roll might give it a bonus like the Spatha has or bonuses for our next hull project.
 
I also hope that the inefficency is the reason for the high cost of the hull:
Spatha-class Hull: (2W,2D,1E(+.5A),1U)(5M)]
War Hawk-class Heavy Frigate: (3W,2D,1E(-.5A,M),1U. 9M)]
The difference between the two is 1W slot but the war hawk cost almost twice as much.
 
Sir_Travelsalot said:
That too. I had in mind the Abhorrence-class, which has torpedoes and a lance + 1 backup macrocannon battery.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Where the heck can you fit the torpedoes and lance in an escort? In torpedo frigates the front prow is taken up by the lauchers and torpedo storage. Meanwhile in the lance boat you'd have that space taken up by the capacitors and so on.

Also torpedoes tend to be relatively close range weapons due to the possibility of them getting shot down etc. Lances in comparison work best when hitting the enemy from far away.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top