Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[syvarris]

Trust isn't expendable.

Sure it is!  If you decide that your teammates are jerks and then spend 20 airstrike tickets dropping a megaton nuke on them, Steve will trust you less.  Before you spent the tickets, you had a certain degree of trust.  Then, you received a service and lost a degree of trust.  A transaction has obviously taken place.

More seriously, if you have a lot of tokens this means you are A: less likely to kill yourself with dangerous items (because you aren't dead), and B: More likely to use the resources you have efficiently (because you have successfully completed missions with limited resources).

Hence, the richest people are the most skilled, and the least destructive.  It logically follows that the richest people are given the biggest guns.

[renegadelobster]

...so, with all of the amps and manips now less reliable/more dangerous are space based fighter craft now a viable option? Could probably use modified sod brains with mundane weapons and blueradite based reaction drives with shark plate/hex sand armor

[Radio Controlled]

Just a thought for more missile flavors: Grav-shot, kinamp, redshot, blackshot, and melter. Yup. Straight up copying gauss rifle rounds. Might as well give as many options as possible.

Dunno if all of these will work very well, but it's a nice suggestion regardless.

why would i want to pay 11 tokens for a nuke drop when i can just call the sword for a kinetic strike of far greater magnitude for free?

Remember that this thing isn't primarily meant for large scale destruction (though the nuke options do give it some of that capability) but precise fire support. The nukes are there more because they might be needed and it's good they're available more than anything. And it's still cheaper or about same price as the nukes one can buy in the armory. It also gives the option to do it when Steve doesn't want to or is unavailable.

"We have a gunship ready to provide air-support, but first we need to charge the soldiers on the ground out of their paycheck."

Very true, but that is true for a lot of things in the game. Little about the token system makes sense IC in ARM, but it's what we have to work with.

Would be much smarter to just have one for free on every mission where it's practical and give the one in charge of the mission authority to call airstrikes.

I toyed with that idea, but we probably wanna avoid the situation where everything can be struck down from the air for free, that might make pw veto the idea on account of making things too easy.

Maybe lower the cost of calling it in to 2-3 tokens? And if you call it in you can use up to a 2 voucher laser sweep without using any more vouchers?

Yeah, based on feedback here I'll see if the deployment cost can be lowered and/or a couple of vouchers can be gotten for free when deploying.

Really the whole token system doesn't make any sense. But this makes no sense in a way that will make no one use it.

Well, do note that in my mind, if a mission called for it and nobody wanted to spring for the shuttle (due to cost probably) then the team fund could pay for it, and maybe buy a couple vouchers for them to be used. It makes sense, after all this thing is very much a field support weapon while most armory things are for 'personal use'. And it's easier to justify tokens spent on the mission/the whole team than on any 1 person.

So, out of the following options, which would you people think might work best (no guarantee I'll go for that, just getting an idea). Note that some these aren't mutually exclusive:
-lowering deployment price
-getting an amount of vouchers for free when when you deploy it
-no cost for deployment, but might have to be paired to increased cost per strike, and opens up the question of what missions get one.

[Nikitian]

Wait, it costs for both deployment and strikes? Somehow, I always assumed that it was deployed on 'when mission allows that' basis, and then it was all haggled from there.

Doesn't really matter, though. Because now I think it's time to consider deploying it for free, everywhere, and calling in for its strikes as you call in for the Sword's assistance - when the situation is grave enough. Why? Because back when the Sword's bombardment cannons were completely functional, it was a luxury. Now, however... it becomes a necessity.

This could really be paired down with steep increase in power of weapons available per strike. You don't just call an airstrike for a 'short sweep of cutting-laser strength' (how does anyone even achieve that strength/precision in the atmosphere? I'd assume it was scattered a lot even if it really had the power to force through all this gaseous distance), you call it for a nuke or a tactical laser bombardment (think M17). And I am fairly sure that with such things you don't call them on a whim, you do so in time of dire need.

So - the way nukes come as mission equipment. The way Steve's cannons have had come as implied back-up measures. This same way, I think, it's time to start deploying these shuttles not for tokens, but as part of mission preparation. (IF you feel stingy, we could make it a mission commander's choice to cut down on the mission paycheck for a few tokens (3-6) and to requisition such deployment, or not, but I think this is reflected well enough by the non-standard mission pay after Sword armaments' deployment.) So... let's take this one on the house, shall we? And, of course, it goes without saying that any destroyed HAG is less opportunity for future fire support, so that people would keep this in mind as they request their presence.

(Yes, I know that perhaps we still can occasionally use the Sword's cannons. I just believe that we need an 'official' alternative to that desperate measure, since the push has come to shove, and your high-altitude gunships fit the idea just perfectly. All in all... you are the General of ARM here, and it's up to you whether we go on missions without the usual orbital fire support, or not.
So - sorry for hi-jacking your idea. But please consider the matter IC and see if we can really justify not using HAGs as Sword cannons' stand-ins for the time being (perhaps until those are refitted, or situation changes, or whatnot). If you do so, I will humbly accept your rational decision on this matter, whatever the outcome; and I wish to think others will do as well.
It's not a matter of "nature of tokens" eternal discussion, or "power to everyone for free!" or anything like that. It's the matter of restoring proper mission security and reinstating the fall-back measures.)Electronade is approved for Armory inclusion.

Trap kit is approved for Armory inclusion.

Blaster pistol upgrade is approved for Armory inclusion as option of the blaster pistol.

And the rest, I believe, are not up for 'armory' purchase? Well, vouchers are, but those are still not finished, and the whole matter is being discussed.

Just a thought for more missile flavors: Grav-shot, kinamp, redshot, blackshot, and melter. Yup. Straight up copying gauss rifle rounds. Might as well give as many options as possible.

That is reasonable. I suggest either Tinkering it yourself, asking Tryrar to do it (as author of Kugelblitz), or ... waiting for Hephaestus to become operational once again, I guess.
(Though it bears mention that Anton/Sean already had developed kinetic missiles once upon a time. They were called... Hammer-something or other, I believe. But obviously, they are incompatible with Kugelblitz, and we're all about compatibility and stuff right now.)

...so, with all of the amps and manips now less reliable/more dangerous are space based fighter craft now a viable option? Could probably use modified sod brains with mundane weapons and blueradite based reaction drives with shark plate/hex sand armor

The big problem with 'fighters' is that they a)cannot deliver proper kinetic-damage with their weapons (because of extremely low mass); b)cannot deliver proper energy-damage with their weapons (because of extremely low-power energy sources).
Theoretically, they could be used with something that requires neither large energy input nor large mass to work. That leaves us with: Nukes (which are kind of expensive to be mass-deployed like that, but maybe not so much) and artifact/anomaly-based weapons. Of the latter, if glow-worm guns could be fitted for space combat, I think they would be the best since even a single hit can theoretically kill a warship in time; and then there also are HEP/PEW weapons, which provide enormously greater power output for meager power input.

There is, of course, the whole other discussion about fighters, but this part is the one that can potentially be solved soon, and that's why I'm looking forward to us revisiting this question.

[Lenglon]

The difference between a short, hard hitting airstrike and calling in close air support to cover you and stay on station for a half hour or so probably matters here.
which role are you trying to fill?

[Corsair]

...so, with all of the amps and manips now less reliable/more dangerous are space based fighter craft now a viable option? Could probably use modified sod brains with mundane weapons and blueradite based reaction drives with shark plate/hex sand armor

The big problem with 'fighters' is that they a)cannot deliver proper kinetic-damage with their weapons (because of extremely low mass); b)cannot deliver proper energy-damage with their weapons (because of extremely low-power energy sources).
Theoretically, they could be used with something that requires neither large energy input nor large mass to work. That leaves us with: Nukes (which are kind of expensive to be mass-deployed like that, but maybe not so much) and artifact/anomaly-based weapons. Of the latter, if glow-worm guns could be fitted for space combat, I think they would be the best since even a single hit can theoretically kill a warship in time; and then there also are HEP/PEW weapons, which provide enormously greater power output for meager power input.

There is, of course, the whole other discussion about fighters, but this part is the one that can potentially be solved soon, and that's why I'm looking forward to us revisiting this question.

I look forward to it also as there have been enough changes in ER tech that fighters might be actually useful. Being AUX the possibility of investing in a vehicle that is good on the cost/power ratio would be great.

For the gunship I would assume it is present all mission when deployed and calls down airstrikes a set number of times?

[Radio Controlled]

@nik: again, the gunship was meant for precision artillery support first, not indiscriminate bombing. It just so happens it can do that well thanks to nukes. Also, are we sure the Sword's cannons are not decently usable anymore? I recall the devastation from just dropping one of the big rounds on the arctic mission was pretty decent, and gauss tech isn't compromised either. So, if need be it can sure take over the Sword's function of heavy bombardment, but I'm not sure if that's really needed.

And yes, why wouldn't you call fire support that's not big devastation? If you have squads of enemy infantry incoming, you can have the gunship cut down whole swaths of them while you focus on something else. For 3 vouchers/1 token you can have 3 independent 5sec sweeps at the same time, which should cause some good damage. Dunno why the cutting laser strength beams are a problem with ER tech, since if a warship in orbit can target 1 single building, why couldn't a gunship flying at, say, 10km or so get decent accuracy?

But yes, making deployment outright free is an option, but I'm not sure if pw/council will let that fly. If we only use it for tactical bombardment, and not fire support, it might be easier to sell... but then it's not really filling the hole in our arsenal I thought we have, and just become a full stand-in for the Sword's bombardments.

The difference between a short, hard hitting airstrike and calling in close air support to cover you and stay on station for a half hour or so probably matters here.
which role are you trying to fill?

I kinda think of it like a Lockheed AC-130 but operating at higher altitudes standard. So, more close air support to stay for a while than fighter making a bombing run pass before returning to base.

For the gunship I would assume it is present all mission when deployed and calls down airstrikes a set number of times?

That's what we're trying to figure out, the best way to go about this that'll let it be useful without being overpowered or PW/council having to veto it.

[Nikitian]

@RC
Because Paracelsus's Sword bombardment gauss cannons have heavily utilised automanips. It set them apart from 'bigger' but weaker 'mundane' bombardment gauss cannons used by UWM ships, and was more of an advantage... right until now.

To be honest, I can see the idea of fire support, and it has its merits. But we have this glaring problem to deal with, and then again there is the problem of "what person makes their own footsoldiers pay for close air support?" (which should be easier to tell apart from friendly fire, as the saying goes ).
As for that, I already have given a 'logical' solution I can see - have the mission commander/whoever is in charge of the mission right now decide on the presence/fire support of the HAG, and thus deduct X tokens from total mission pay. Simple, easy, fair.

I could see them being deployed on a 'personal order' basis, where a character pays out of his own pocket for it the way you suggested, but... To be honest, I think it's a little unprofessional of us as a para-military organisation. Such important things as fire support should be deployed on tactical/strategic basis, I believe, especially since we are so much more strapped for 'cash' (resources, manpower, spacemagic, etc.) after the recent change. That is my purely subjective view on the matter, of course.

[Radio Controlled]

That is why, as mentioned, I thought it'd primarily be the team fund fronting deployment costs and giving some vouchers for people to use, meaning there'd still be a cost involved without gouging people for support, or deducting from mission pay. And really, what person/organisation makes his footsoldiers pay for their own weapons and ammo and everything? It's a bit of a crapshoot when we start like that.

And lets say we do it like that, aka no cost per shot, deployed as needed. What's to prevent then from almost everything that's above ground and not in melee being shot by the gunship? And would pw even allow that?


Man, that white mask should make it easy for exo users to pilot just about any robobody/exoskeleton without needing aux. And should allow to create even more compact robobodies (since it presumably is much smaller than a braincase+supporting hardware).

[tryrar]

Actually, I don't think there's anything the gunship can do that a Valkryie can't with a close support strafing run. It is heavily armed after all, and those grenade launcher bays and heavy weapons turret provides some nice punch.

[Radio Controlled]

There's quite a difference between a dedicated gunship and an armed transport. for starters, The gunship has more firepower, can fire over a much larger area (higher off the ground after all), is camouflaged and better armored. And if it goes down, you didn't also lose your ticket out of the danger area.

[Comrade P.]

Not to push the Council, but what about Multi-Role Weapon Mk.III? PW said he'd put it up for discussion. Just curious.

[Radio Controlled]

Council has gone over some of the tagged items and gave pw our opinion. He never really told us if we were to just tell him what we thought, or present it publicly, or what though, especially since he now started making things himself (some of which resemble one or more of the things presented).

The multi role weapon seemed like a good and simple idea, but we're not sure if it should be an separate armory entry, seeing as how it's basically item A taped to item B.

[Comrade P.]

The multi role weapon seemed like a good and simple idea, but we're not sure if it should be an separate armory entry, seeing as how it's basically item A taped to item B.

"Gungnir" Electrolaser is a thing. Which is a thing strapped to another thing. This is pretty much the same thing practically, you can charge people less if they bring their own components, then it takes some toil to rework the frame, and BAM! Multi-Role weapon.

[Radio Controlled]

The idea there is that those weapons, when combined, gave an extra unique effect (shooting lightning) not present when either are separate, or when you replace a part (eg use gauss rifle instead of laser rifle). So there is a qualitative difference. Mind, pw might still think it's worth its own entry, this was just the council's quick opinion on the topic.