Why wouldn't cap ships just mount thousands of torpedoes?

[Strill]

I asked Lauri in discord what is there to stop a capital ship from mounting a thousand torpedoes, and firing them off the moment the fight begins to obliterate the enemy station. Lauri said that the capital ship would be out of range, but after thinking it through I don't understand why that would be. A capital ship is going to warp in facing its target, so all of its torpedoes will be aimed and ready. You just need to make sure they have enough fuel segments to reach their target, and then all they have to do is fly straight.

Is there something else I'm missing?

 

[XenoCow]

I think that the ship will be miles away from the target station so they would fly out of render range before hitting. You might be able to fly along side the torpedoes with small ships, but at that point it might just make more sense to take the torpedoes with you and launch once you can see where you're aiming.

To be more clear, I don't know that the warping mechanic will allow capital ships to warp within torpedo range.

 

[hawksfield]

remember capital ship are not "ships" you can drive. they are movable stations

 

[LauriFB]

Distance between military capital ship and station under siege is most likely over the torpedo distance. However, you can pack a lot of bombers inside the capital ship, which will result also to thousands of torpedoes sent towards the enemy. There's just greater risk and need for organizing, crew and whatnot, but it's possible.

 

[Strill]

Distance between military capital ship and station under siege is most likely over the torpedo distance. However, you can pack a lot of bombers inside the capital ship, which will result also to thousands of torpedoes sent towards the enemy. There's just greater risk and need for organizing, crew and whatnot, but it's possible.

I'm confused. Torpedoes can fit extra fuel segments to increase their range. You're saying that capital ships warp in so far away that even upgraded torpedoes can't reach?

 

[Strill]

remember capital ship are not "ships" you can drive. they are movable stations

Yes, and? Your capital ship is going to warp in facing the station, and the station can't move. Some of the biggest obstacles to hitting with a torpedo are solved for you automatically.

 

[five]

You see my friend there is something called balancing, to exactly prevent scenarios like your idea. Why? That strategy wouldnt be of skill required, going even further, since you need a lot of torpedos aka a lot of cash to buy said torpedos, only large and rich factions could afford these tactics. You cannot compare this tactic with something like blitzkrieg, because blitzkrieg was all about running enemies over by usage of tanks and planes, quickly advancing to force enemy forces to retreat or get circled and die. This also has no parallels to the harsh artillery fire during ww1, because that was continuos fire, not spontaneous. Last thing i wanna point out: This strategy would be USELESS if u didnt space the torpedos (have enough space inbetween them), because as you said, you could use long range torpedos. To (again) give u an real life example: 1. in our current world systems like the iron dome or MANTIS exist, those are stationary systems, which engage enemy missiles. 2. During ww2 fighter squadrons were assembled to stop the V1s, their job wasn't to shoot em down. They flew side-by-side and tipped the V1s wing over with their own wings. Skilled pilots could shoot torpedos, because they travel on a linear path.

Yes, and? Your capital ship is going to warp in facing the station, and the station can't move. Some of the biggest obstacles to hitting with a torpedo are solved for you automatically.

1. You are a stationary target yourself. A well weaponised station could also pulverise you.
2. Torpedos arent supposed to be bombs. In SB they are more similar to IR- or Radio-guided missiles.
3. Delivering payloads with bombers/attackcraft is going to be much more effective, than blind-firing a missile barage at something. There is a very high chance you dont even hit something important.
4. Capital ships are huge, yes, but they are also limited in what you can do with them. A better use for capital ships would be to act like carriers, not battle ships. The "classical" battleships died after ww2 for a reason, which also applies to SB
5. You are better off carrying torpedo corvettes like the Veles (https://wiki.starbasegame.com/index.php/Veles), which can bring the fire-power, where its needed

 

[Strill]

You see my friend there is something called balancing, to exactly prevent scenarios like your idea.

That's why I posted this thread. I want to know what that "balancing" is, because I don't see where it could be.

Why? That strategy wouldnt be of skill required, going even further, since you need a lot of torpedos aka a lot of cash to buy said torpedos, only large and rich factions could afford these tactics. You cannot compare this tactic with something like blitzkrieg, because blitzkrieg was all about running enemies over by usage of tanks and planes, quickly advancing to force enemy forces to retreat or get circled and die. This also has no parallels to the harsh artillery fire during ww1, because that was continuos fire, not spontaneous. Last thing i wanna point out: This strategy would be USELESS if u didnt space the torpedos (have enough space inbetween them), because as you said, you could use long range torpedos. To (again) give u an real life example: 1. in our current world systems like the iron dome or MANTIS exist, those are stationary systems, which engage enemy missiles. 2. During ww2 fighter squadrons were assembled to stop the V1s, their job wasn't to shoot em down. They flew side-by-side and tipped the V1s wing over with their own wings. Skilled pilots could shoot torpedos, because they travel on a linear path.

I'm sure that this tactic is quite unlike WWII tactics, I'm sure you would need to space out the torpedoes, and I'm sure you could shoot down the torpedoes. It sounds like shooting them down would become an immediate priority in this scenario.

1. You are a stationary target yourself. A well weaponised station could also pulverise you.

Better shoot first then.

2. Torpedos arent supposed to be bombs. In SB they are more similar to IR- or Radio-guided missiles.

Ok. That doesn't change my conclusions at all.

3. Delivering payloads with bombers/attackcraft is going to be much more effective, than blind-firing a missile barage at something. There is a very high chance you dont even hit something important.

You can't manufacture extra players out of thin air. You can manufacture extra torpedo launchers.

4. Capital ships are huge, yes, but they are also limited in what you can do with them. A better use for capital ships would be to act like carriers, not battle ships. The "classical" battleships died after ww2 for a reason, which also applies to SB

What's stopping you from doing both of those?

5. You are better off carrying torpedo corvettes like the Veles (https://wiki.starbasegame.com/index.php/Veles), which can bring the fire-power, where its needed

What does "better off" mean? You're saying that rather than carrying unmanned torpedoes, I should carry manned ships? If you happen to have unlimited manpower and limited materials, then that sounds like a good strategy, but for those of us who have a finite amount of players, carrying extra torpedoes would seem to be a much more practical strategy, from the information I can see.

 

[XenoCow]

You see my friend there is something called balancing, to exactly prevent scenarios like your idea. Why?[...]

You have some good criticism within your message, but please try to start it in a less condescending tone.

 

[kiiyo]

yall ever heard of render range lmao

 

[Strill]

yall ever heard of render range lmao

Still not seeing any problems. That just means you need a player to escort the torpedoes on the way to the station, which was already a good idea anyway.

 

[kiiyo]

Still not seeing any problems. That just means you need a player to escort the torpedoes on the way to the station, which was already a good idea anyway.

... and at that point why wouldn't you just plop out a bunch of fighter-bombers for assault?

 

[shado20]

stations should have lots of power , so if a capital can jump in and torpedo spam the station, the station should have laser defense to shoot down long range torpedoes rendering that attack useless. in any siege, the defenders should have the upper hand.

the capital station jumping in will not always have the correct orientation to the station.

anyhow they said that it will take too many torps to kill a station making the attack more of a ground game in attacking and taking the station.

 

[Strill]

... and at that point why wouldn't you just plop out a bunch of fighter-bombers for assault?

Because each fighter bomber needs a pilot, but any number of torpedoes can be escorted by a single player. Normally your team's combat strength would be limited by the number of players you can get online at the same time. Capital-mounted torpedoes bypass this restriction, and allow you to scale your side's combat strength proportional to the resources your side can field.

Capital mounted torpedoes also give your side the advantage of "inevitability" - i.e. by default, your torpedoes will eventually destroy or disable the enemy base, if left alone. That means that instead of your side's fighters needing to beat the enemy's fighters, and then destroy the base, they can instead fight to distract the enemy's fighters from the incoming torpedoes.

 

[Strill]

stations should have lots of power , so if a capital can jump in and torpedo spam the station, the station should have laser defense to shoot down long range torpedoes rendering that attack useless. in any siege, the defenders should have the upper hand.

What laser defense? You're talking about players on the station firing station-mounted mining lasers? Because if you are, then that's a win for the attackers, because each of those players could be piloting ships. Since the defenders have split their forces, that makes it much easier for the attackers to achieve space superiority, and bombard the enemy station.

the capital station jumping in will not always have the correct orientation to the station.

Really? Because I asked Lauri if you could control the orientation your capital ship has when it warps in, and Lauri said that capital ships always warp in facing forward.

anyhow they said that it will take too many torps to kill a station making the attack more of a ground game in attacking and taking the station.

If you can afford a military capital ship, and also afford to risk it in battle, I don't see why you can't also afford to equip it with "too many" torpedoes.

 

[cranky corvid]

Capital mounted torpedoes also give your side the advantage of "inevitability" - i.e. by default, your torpedoes will eventually destroy or disable the enemy base, if left alone. That means that instead of your side's fighters needing to beat the enemy's fighters, and then destroy the base, they can instead fight to distract the enemy's fighters from the incoming torpedoes.

What laser defense? You're talking about players on the station firing station-mounted mining lasers? Because if you are, then that's a win for the attackers, because each of those players could be piloting ships. Since the defenders have split their forces, that makes it much easier for the attackers to achieve space superiority, and bombard the enemy station.

The attackers have to deal with the exact same issues if the station fires torpedoes back. There is advance warning, everyone will know a fight is going to happen, so each side will get the opportunity to open fire at the same time. Although if there are no sufficiently effective anti-torpedo defenses, the result may just be mutually assured destruction. In theory, you could guide many defense turrets using central fire direction and perhaps compensate for lack of individual gunners with volume of fire, except that with the current weapon tech, somebody still has to go around swapping in new magazines once they run out of ammo...

I wouldn't focus too much on the orientation of the capital ship - hitting a target that isn't straight in front of the torpedo tube requires some basic guidance, but it shouldn't be terribly difficult to accomplish against a stationary target.

EDIT: I want to point out that if there was to be some sort of torpedo limit on milcaps/stations, it's possible to accomplish essentially the same thing by launching small unmanned ships that autopilot towards the target and are equipped with torpedoes that they can shoot at the target once they get close.

EDIT 2: Spelling.

 

[five]

Better shoot first then.

Shooting first only helps, when you kill/destroy what you are shooting at with ur first shot. With ur strategy the problem is simple: You dont kill it in one hit --> you are out of ammunition, cant move and everybody on the stations knows ur location aka ur practically dead.

You can't manufacture extra players out of thin air. You can manufacture extra torpedo launchers.
What's stopping you from doing both of those?

When you are low on personell, you shouldn't start a war. Because those who win the war are those who have more people, if you want me to go in detail then quote this. Also as I said your strategy is Hit-or-Miss with a very high probability for miss. If you dont have enough people to man a squadron, u dont have enough personell for sufficient defences like AA.

What does "better off" mean? You're saying that rather than carrying unmanned torpedoes, I should carry manned ships? If you happen to have unlimited manpower and limited materials, then that sounds like a good strategy, but for those of us who have a finite amount of players, carrying extra torpedoes would seem to be a much more practical strategy, from the information I can see.

Better off means it is in all cases I can think off or make up the best possible option. If I am allowed to explain myself: Maybe u know about the Malevolence from StarWars. Big Ass Capital Ship with a giant crew and a giant gun. It only killed what it hit. What made it easier was that its weapon was so big it could hit a cruiser whole. What took down the Malevolence? A bunch of Y-Wings (bombers/attack-craft) who could dodge this charge weapon. Carrying extra torpedos would be good, as a counter measure, having turrets to mark enemies with laser designators. My faction also isn't that big as of yet. And I don't think I will be become a big faction, like the Collective for example. But, if you are a smaller faction you should specialise in combat that suits your amount of resources and personell. Think more like guerilla-warfare. Hit and Run on smaller targets

 

[XenoCow]

You dont kill it in one hit --> you are out of ammunition

Could it not be possible to have enough ammo for more than one shot?

When you are low on personell, you shouldn't start a war.

Maybe Strill is thinking of very small scale battles, on the order of 5-10 players against a similarly sized group. I could see that kind of battle happening often as most player groups are pretty small even now. It may be silly to expend so much resources to wage a little war at company scales that small, but maybe that's what's fun for some people.

 

[cranky corvid]

Bringing strikecraft or masses of torpedoes are not mutually exclusive options. If spamming out a massive salvo of centrally directed torpedoes from a milcap or station is a viable tactic, you bring enough strikecraft or point defenses to adequately equip however many personnel you actually have and spend any budget left over on the torpedo salvo that requires only one person to fire. Organizations capable of fielding lots of pilots shouldn't usually have trouble obtaining lots of resources too.

Could it not be possible to have enough ammo for more than one shot?

Spare torpedoes have to be manually snapped into launchers in order for the launcher to be reused - or at least I haven't seen a working torpedo autoloader yet. So there is no special advantage in manpower-efficiency after the initial salvo (which can be loaded well in advance of the battle).

 

[Strill]

Shooting first only helps, when you kill/destroy what you are shooting at with ur first shot. With ur strategy the problem is simple: You dont kill it in one hit --> you are out of ammunition, cant move and everybody on the stations knows ur location aka ur practically dead.

I don't understand where you're getting the idea that torpedoes and ships are mutually exclusive. Why would one preclude the other?

When you are low on personell, you shouldn't start a war. Because those who win the war are those who have more people, if you want me to go in detail then quote this. Also as I said your strategy is Hit-or-Miss with a very high probability for miss. If you dont have enough people to man a squadron, u dont have enough personell for sufficient defences like AA.

I never said anyone was undermanned. There's no reason why a torpedo bombardment can't be used by a faction who outnumbers their opponent, in order to exacerbate their advantage.

Better off means it is in all cases I can think off or make up the best possible option. If I am allowed to explain myself: Maybe u know about the Malevolence from StarWars. Big Ass Capital Ship with a giant crew and a giant gun. It only killed what it hit. What made it easier was that its weapon was so big it could hit a cruiser whole. What took down the Malevolence? A bunch of Y-Wings (bombers/attack-craft) who could dodge this charge weapon. Carrying extra torpedos would be good, as a counter measure, having turrets to mark enemies with laser designators. My faction also isn't that big as of yet. And I don't think I will be become a big faction, like the Collective for example. But, if you are a smaller faction you should specialise in combat that suits your amount of resources and personell. Think more like guerilla-warfare. Hit and Run on smaller targets

I don't understand your example. Using torpedoes doesn't preclude any other kind of armament, nor does it introduce any particular weakness into your capital ship.

Could it not be possible to have enough ammo for more than one shot?


Maybe Strill is thinking of very small scale battles, on the order of 5-10 players against a similarly sized group. I could see that kind of battle happening often as most player groups are pretty small even now. It may be silly to expend so much resources to wage a little war at company scales that small, but maybe that's what's fun for some people.

The scale of the fight wouldn't matter. Unless some new, as-yet unspecified restriction is introduced, it's a potential advantage to be exploited, whether you have 5 players, or 500.