[Apollo]

A Cyclops torpedo actually isn't affected in nearly the same way as most of the armor classes don't reduce shockwave damage (which actually composes a significant fraction, maybe better than half, of a Cyclop's damage).

All you need is for the gun's ammunition to make a big enough explosion to produce a small shockwave. That wouldn't be terribly difficult to accomplish, and has the added benefit of increasing burst damage (since the ammo would have to be larger and more powerful).

[Aesaar]

All you need is for the gun's ammunition to make a big enough explosion to produce a small shockwave. That wouldn't be terribly difficult to accomplish, and has the added benefit of increasing burst damage (since the ammo would have to larger and more powerful).

That's like saying all you need to do is just go into the tables and increase the damage on weapons.

[General Battuta]

A Cyclops torpedo actually isn't affected in nearly the same way as most of the armor classes don't reduce shockwave damage (which actually composes a significant fraction, maybe better than half, of a Cyclop's damage).

All you need is for the gun's ammunition to make a big enough explosion to produce a small shockwave. That wouldn't be terribly difficult to accomplish, and has the added benefit of increasing burst damage (since the ammo would have to larger and more powerful).

Like the Redeemer or Vajra?

(mass Maxim will never be a viable anti-warship strategy)

[Phantom Hoover]

Ooh, why?

[Apollo]

All you need is for the gun's ammunition to make a big enough explosion to produce a small shockwave. That wouldn't be terribly difficult to accomplish, and has the added benefit of increasing burst damage (since the ammo would have to larger and more powerful).

That's like saying all you need to do is just go into the tables and increase the damage on weapons.

No, that's like saying all you need to do is modify your ammunition.

A Cyclops torpedo actually isn't affected in nearly the same way as most of the armor classes don't reduce shockwave damage (which actually composes a significant fraction, maybe better than half, of a Cyclop's damage).

All you need is for the gun's ammunition to make a big enough explosion to produce a small shockwave. That wouldn't be terribly difficult to accomplish, and has the added benefit of increasing burst damage (since the ammo would have to larger and more powerful).

Like the Redeemer or Vajra?

(mass Maxim will never be a viable anti-warship strategy)

Of course it won't. The Maxim can't destroy capital ships.

I'm still talking about my hypothetical weapon with equivalent DPS (although the shockwave would double it).

[Aesaar]

No, that's like saying all you need to do is modify your ammunition.

Assuming it can be modified.  The Redeemer and Vajra already have blasts, but for something else, like an Archer, who's to say what adding a warhead would do the the round's armor piercing capabilities (for example)?  It's not as simple as "add a shockwave and the gun will be more powerful". 

[Apollo]

No, that's like saying all you need to do is modify your ammunition.

Assuming it can be modified.  The Redeemer and Vajra already have blasts, but for something else, like an Archer, who's to say what adding a warhead would do the the round's armor piercing capabilities (for example)?  It's not as simple as "add a shockwave and the gun will be more powerful". 

Adding a small warhead would increase hull damage, and not just because of the shockwave. Lessened subsystem damage would be an acceptable loss.

[Aesaar]

Sure, adding a shockwave will increase hull damage, but maybe adding a warhead will mean the round can't penetrate armor as well, so instead of a shot doing 100 damage, it'll do 50.

[Apollo]

Sure, adding a shockwave will increase hull damage, but maybe adding a warhead will mean the round can't penetrate armor as well, so instead of a shot doing 100 damage, it'll do 50.

Yes, but as Batutta said shockwaves penetrate armor better than the main shot (god knows how, but they do). In the scenario you describe, the round would end up doing 150 because of the added shockwave damage, while without one it would only do 100.

EDIT: Oh and in some cases the shockwave would strike another warship and deal minor damage to it.

[Aesaar]

You're not getting the point. 

In-universe weapons design isn't like tabling.  The Archer's designers can't just open up its tables and add a shockwave.  It doesn't work that way.  There are tradeoffs.  Maybe the round is too small to carry a warhead that could actually do damage.  Maybe there'd be too much of a risk of catastrophic detonation because the Uriel's ammo hold wasn't designed for explosive rounds. 

Stop assuming weapons are as easily modified as the tables are.

[General Battuta]

I - what? No, that's not how it works; reducing the direct impact damage also reduces the shockwave damage. The shockwave damage just isn't reduced by most armor types. And why are you envisioning a shockwave big enough to reach other warships?

Look, this discussion is totally absurd. The gameplay that happens in Blue Planet missions is as close as feasibly possible to the reality of combat in Blue Planet. The tactical realities of that gameplay are the tactical realities of Blue Planet. Mathing everything out with table values is pointless because it only gets at a fraction of the variables that really drive that combat.

Min-maxed 'solutions' to FreeSpace warfare that reduce complex tactical environments to a single mode of engagement are never going to be viable in Blue Planet. There is a reason that warship turrets don't all mount Morningstars.

Your notional Maxim with a shockwave will never be an effective weapon. The entire mode of thought that produced it is anathema to the design space here. Yet you only have to look to the Redeemer or Vajra to see examples of very effective anti-warship primaries.

also this

You're not getting the point. 

In-universe weapons design isn't like tabling.  The Archer's designers can't just open up its tables and add a shockwave.  It doesn't work that way.  There are tradeoffs.  Maybe the round is too small to carry a warhead that could actually do damage.  Maybe there'd be too much of a risk of catastrophic detonation because the Uriel's ammo hold wasn't designed for explosive rounds. 

Stop assuming weapons are as easily modified as the tables are.

The tables do not drive changes in the universe. The universe drives changes in the tables.

[Apollo]

I - what? No, that's not how it works; reducing the direct impact damage also reduces the shockwave damage. The shockwave damage just isn't reduced by most armor types. And why are you envisioning a shockwave big enough to reach other warships?

I thought he was referring to a weapon's ability to punch through all of that adaptive armor stuff; clearly I misunderstood him. In any case, the shockwave adds enough power that the weapon would need a 51% or greater reduction in damage for there to be any net loss.

Look, this discussion is totally absurd. The gameplay that happens in Blue Planet missions is as close as feasibly possible to the reality of combat in Blue Planet. The tactical realities of that gameplay are the tactical realities of Blue Planet. Mathing everything out with table values is pointless because it only gets at a fraction of the variables that really drive that combat.

Ship, weapon, and armor tables enable the gameplay and changing them can have significant effects. I'd hardly call them pointless.

Min-maxed 'solutions' to FreeSpace warfare that reduce complex tactical environments to a single mode of engagement are never going to be viable in Blue Planet. There is a reason that warship turrets don't all mount Morningstars.

Of course there is, although Morningstars could perhaps be useful as secondary point-defenses.

Your notional Maxim with a shockwave will never be an effective weapon. The entire mode of thought that produced it is anathema to the design space here. Yet you only have to look to the Redeemer or Vajra to see examples of very effective anti-warship primaries.

"Maxim with a shockwave" only means an anti-warship primary with roughly equal sustained damage (counting or not counting the shockwave, your choice) that can destroy capships. This could be anything from a Maxim with added shockwave to a weapon in the style of the UEF's Redeemer and Vajira (and if the former isn't feasible for some engineering reason the latter still is).

also this

You're not getting the point. 

In-universe weapons design isn't like tabling.  The Archer's designers can't just open up its tables and add a shockwave.  It doesn't work that way.  There are tradeoffs.  Maybe the round is too small to carry a warhead that could actually do damage.  Maybe there'd be too much of a risk of catastrophic detonation because the Uriel's ammo hold wasn't designed for explosive rounds. 

Stop assuming weapons are as easily modified as the tables are.

The tables do not drive changes in the universe. The universe drives changes in the tables.

If the UEF can do it I'm pretty sure the GTVA could learn to.

Aesaar: Also, who said anything about the Archer or Uriel?

[General Battuta]

What point are you trying to make? That if we designed a weapon exactly like the Redeemer or Vajra it would be useful at killing capital ships?

[Phantom Hoover]

Aesaar: Also, who said anything about the Archer or Uriel?

it's what we know in the trade as 'an example'

[Apollo]

What point are you trying to make? That if we designed a weapon exactly like the Redeemer or Vajra it would be useful at killing capital ships?

Close, but not exactly. My point is that the GTVA would do well to adopt a weapon similar to the Redeemer (it would presumably be more efficient and somewhat weaker, though the latter is not a guarantee). As I pointed out, even an anti-warship weapon with Maxim-level sustained damage could be devastating given enough gunbanks, and it couldn't be shot down like bombs can.

Aesaar: Also, who said anything about the Archer or Uriel?

it's what we know in the trade as 'an example'

Well, that example applies to a modified Maxim, but not to an entirely new weapon with similar sustained damage.

[General Battuta]

I'm not sure they would do well. It doesn't fit their doctrine, they don't have spaceframes or logistical tails built for it, and I'm not sure it adds capabilities they need.

[Apollo]

I'm not sure they would do well. It doesn't fit their doctrine, they don't have spaceframes or logistical tails built for it, and I'm not sure it adds capabilities they need.

At the moment it might not be a great idea for them to replace their Cyclops and Helios with such a radically different weapon, but they could implement it on a smaller scale. After their war with the UEF ends (assuming they haven't collapsed), the GTVA could began incorporating it into their larger doctrine.

[Qent]

* Qent enters GTVA workshop, designs long-range energy weapon (compatible with GTVA's lack of ballistic primaries) with good burst damage. Power requirements become too high to match sustained damage output of Maxim,  and it still can't finish off capital ships, besides being completely unoptimized against shields.

I'm sorry; I tried. It just won't work.

[General Battuta]

I'm not sure they would do well. It doesn't fit their doctrine, they don't have spaceframes or logistical tails built for it, and I'm not sure it adds capabilities they need.

At the moment it might not be a great idea for them to replace their Cyclops and Helios with such a radically different weapon, but they could implement it on a smaller scale. After their war with the UEF ends (assuming they haven't collapsed), the GTVA could began incorporating it into their larger doctrine.

Inasmuch as the drone bomber corps and the Eos Interim Strike Munition are (as the name suggests) interim solutions, the direction the GTVA bomber corps seems to be headed is less 'I kill stuff' and more of a tactical support role for both warships and fighters. Strategic bombers are headed out, SSMs are headed in.

[Mars]

And Tev warships are designed for that - they're absurdly good at taking out capital ships in a hurry, as opposed to more generalized buntu designs.