[HotSnoJ]

Instead of just the ship explosion hurting things around it the bombs it currently has are added to the explosion.

[Unknown Target]

would be neat.

[silverwolf]

it would be neat and also emphisies don't be to close to a bomer and or support when it blows

[IceFire]

Like in StarLancer when you smoke a Coalition bomber and its torpedos detonate along with the ship.  Cool.

[Fetty]

wouldnt that look strange/get lost  if you have say 100 explosion in a main one or do you mean just the damage it does ?

note : i wannt geomode ships

[Galemp]

There we go! If a bomber or support ship has a rack of Helioses on board then the explosion should be at least as large as that of a Helios.

Originally posted by Fetty
note : i wannt geomode ships

Shaddup.

[phreak]

i could look into this.

[Star Dragon]

For two reasons...

    (1) fighters/bombers - would only be affected if they still have that ordinance abord... Comp would have to calculate current damage potentional at moment of death..

    (2) Capships - Far as I know they have an INFINITE amount of secondaries... so what would be the limit? Say one explosion for every missile port it has at moment of death?

  I'm NOT saying don't or that it can't be done. But basicly these are the 2 big issues I can think of if you do this...

[Goober5000]

Additionally, the bombs don't actually have to explode if the ship carrying them explodes.  Take atomic bombs, for example.  They need a nuclear chain reaction started, and a chemical explosion isn't enough to trigger one.  The bomb casing would melt, and break, and probably spew radiation all over the place, but it wouldn't cause a nuclear explosion.

[phreak]

antimatter helioses would be another story

[mikhael]

Originally posted by PhReAk
antimatter helioses would be another story

Antimatter Remotes--for those times when you absolutely, positively have to disintegrate every bastard in the AO.

Goober5000 is right about some warheads not blowing up (like nuclear bombs), but that isn't true of all ordinance, especially not of solid-fueled rockets/missiles. Witness the dangers of magazine fires and ammo dump disasters in the history of the US Navy. In the future your bombs/rockets/missiles might use different propellants, but they'll all have one thing in common with modern propellants: they'll be very explosive and very flammable.

Of course, that's unimportant. What's really important is that big explosions with lots of secondary explosions look damned cool.

[IceFire]

Originally posted by mikhael
In the future your bombs/rockets/missiles might use different propellants, but they'll all have one thing in common with modern propellants: they'll be very explosive and very flammable.

What if they are using gravitic propulsion.

[demon442]

Originally posted by IceFire
What if they are using gravitic propulsion.

I'm not sure, but I don't think I remember Helios' orbiting it's target...  

[mikhael]

Originally posted by IceFire

What if they are using gravitic propulsion.

I know. I'll take this device designed to BLOW THE HELL UP. Then I'll take a complex, delicate and very costly propulsion system and USE IT TO DELIVER THE ORDINANCE THAT'S GOING TO BLOW UP.

Um. Dude, that's just dumb.

Besides, gravitic propulsion would be like invisible and INVISIBLE DOES NOT LOOK COOL.

I really need to lay off the caffeine.

[Fetty]

what if its magnetic and uses other magnets to bounce of other ships ?

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Fetty
what if its magnetic and uses other magnets to bounce of other ships ?

You mean other than the whole short range, omnidirectional nature of magnetism making it a pretty dumb idea as a propulsion system?

Chemical propulsion provides for a nice high specific impulse AND gives a reason for missile trails AND gives an excuse for big explosions.

What with the opposition to big explosions?

[vyper]

Ask a Vasudan they're good at propulsion.

That leads me to a serious point - aren't most propulsion systems in the GTVA Vasudan designed? (Like the Interceptor missile) Could help to find canon on what type of propulsion is used..

[Fetty]

Originally posted by mikhael


nature of magnetism making it a pretty dumb idea as a propulsion system?

it was a joke :wink:

if you look over to ion propulsion
uses xenon gas and inonises that wich results in very high velocity of the molecule or whatever and object is moved, on earth that drive couldnt move a couple sheets of paper but in space it serves its purpose
givin the fuel efficiency and the nature of the "fuel" it isnt as explosive as "conventional" rockets

[IceFire]

Originally posted by mikhael


I know. I'll take this device designed to BLOW THE HELL UP. Then I'll take a complex, delicate and very costly propulsion system and USE IT TO DELIVER THE ORDINANCE THAT'S GOING TO BLOW UP.

Um. Dude, that's just dumb.

Besides, gravitic propulsion would be like invisible and INVISIBLE DOES NOT LOOK COOL.

I really need to lay off the caffeine.

Yes too much caffeine.

Delicate and very costly propoulsion system...well yes and perhaps someone thought that way when they started strapping rocket motors onto warheads during WWII.  Or when they started putting electronic guidance systems into those rockets turning them into missiles.

If gravitic propulsion works as well as people theorize it to work...then having the manuvering capability on a warhead is crucial when your trying to hit a moving target.  So, not its not dumb...and nothing is ever out of the runnings when it comes to technology.

Onto magnetism.  A company in Japan experimented to some success using magnetic propulsion in boats.  Some may be familar with the technology in its fictional name "caterpillar drive" (Hunt for the Red October).  Apparently it works...but I forget how well.  Well enough to make some news headlines some time back...I never really followed up on it.  SO magnetism isn't such a "stupid" idea in its entirety either.

My mantra with technology is that given the right amount of time, experience, and expertise...just about anything is possible. And if you look at all the imposibilities of this century (you can't clone animals, you can't break the sound barrier, going to the moon is impossible, flying through the air in a heavier than air craft is impossible, wireless communication is impossible, sending someones voice through electronic wires is impossible, etc.) I'm fairly confident with that mantra.

Oh and I have no opposition to something blowing the hell up in a video game.  I'm very much appreciative of as many explosions as possible (OTT's Doomhammer missile anyone?).  I'm just playing devils advocate and trying to expand a few minds.

[Nico]

well, I'd just say that one explosion per missile onboard would look damn cool ( and damn "game over" if it's a jotun or an uriel with its full loadout that explodes next or not that next to you )
would drain the resources badly tho.