MR32 Up-scaled Deck Canon

[Krayzen Dratos]

Image Source: N/A
Intent: To impove on a previous version of my Deck Canon sub.
Development Thread: N/A
Manufacturer: One Sith
Model: MR32 Upscaled Deck Canon
Affiliation: One Sith
Modularity: Can be modelled into Heavy, Long Range, and Heavy Long Range Variants.
Production: Mass Production
Material: Deck Canon Components, Durasteel, Duraplast, Alusteel.
Classification: Deck Canon
Size: Ship Mounted
Length: Dependent on Variants
Weight: Dependent on Variants
Ammunition Type: Gas Canister; Turbine Generator
Ammunition Capacity: Hundreds of Thousands of Ammo; Turbine Generator makes more infinite ammo
Effective Range: Dependent on Variant.
Rate of Fire: Fully Automatic
Special Features:
-Good against a variety of shielding.
Description: Best understood as an upscaled version of the Deck Canon, the design follows the same mechanics as the other Deck Canon, however, it has variants that can be used, making it a highly useful weapon.

The weapon also uses the same mechanics as the third variant of General Dratos' Deck Canon. Per the design, a large caliber projectile is launched via electromagnetic force at 6km/s. Furthermore, the projectile is clouded with a slug. When it hits the ship, the projectile will affect the particle shield. The ion cloud will also significantly affect the shielding system. In terms of it fighting a ray shield, where it is used to protect against energy based attacks(for instance from turbolasers, and laser canons), then the large projectile will bypass the ray shield. The ion cloud will also affect the shielding systems.

Despite it's damage output, the variants feature the common weaknesses that are standard for weapon's their respective sizes, including a large power requirement, and a large size that takes up space. Nevertheless, it is quickly becoming a mainstay among One Sith ships.

Primary Source:

Star Wars Chaos:
http://starwarsrp.net/topic/83400-acs-804-binary-fusion-ion-cannon/
http://starwarsrp.net/topic/83130-mr32-deck-canon/

Star Wars EU Canon:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Separatist_flagship_deck_cannon

 

[Gir Quee]

RESEARCH REVIEW
-----
Star Wars Canon:
Pending initial review
------
Starwars Chaos:
Pending initial review
------
WITHOUT DEV THREADS
Pending initial review
------
WITH DEV THREADS
Pending Initial review
------
SUGGESTIONS
Pending Inital review

 

[Gir Quee]

[member="Malos Kas"], can you expand the description of this weapon based on the other one? Ideally, we'd like to see someone only having to look at one submission to get a full understanding of this weapon.

Length: Length of turbolaser; length of heavy turbolaser; length of long range turbolaser; length of heavy long range turbolaser. Weight: Weight of turbolaser; weight of heavy turbolaser; weight of long range turbolaser; weight of heavy long range turbolaser

Effective Range: Range the same for all variants

If the range is the same for all variants, why do some of them cost the same as long-range weapons?

Also, for the range, can you give me a comparative or numerical range for these? (just so people know when they're in range, out of range, etc).

 

[Krayzen Dratos]

[member="Gir Quee"]

Edited the sub to be able to describe the mechanics better.

In terms of the range:

Effective Range: same as long-range turbolaser
http://starwarsrp.net/topic/58432-llt-13-arbalest-class-mass-driver/?hl=turbolaser

Capital ship, as far as a turbolaser—beyond that accuracy is void. The weapon is worth 3 turbolasers (energy wise and all) with the punching power of 5.
http://starwarsrp.net/topic/84349-mauler-mass-driver-cannon-mmdc/?hl=turbolaser#entry1240096

Effective Range: Equivalent to 'Heavy, Long Range' Turbolasers.
http://starwarsrp.net/topic/79648-240mm83-mark-74-hypervelocity-cannon/

Effective Range: Stardard Turbolaser Range
http://starwarsrp.net/topic/81880-mc1009-afane-class-rapid-fire-turbolaser-cannon/?hl=turbolaser

Effective Range: Range of Heavy Long Range Turbolaser
http://starwarsrp.net/topic/82879-mgw-ship-mounted-turbolaser/?hl=turbolaser

Effective Range: Standard naval engagement ranges
http://starwarsrp.net/topic/78014-retaliator-class-turbolaser/?hl=turbolaser

Effective Range: ‘Long-Range’ in a fleeting sense. Although it has essentially unlimited range it is impossible to aim at anything above ‘Long-Range’
http://starwarsrp.net/topic/67361-nova-cannon/?hl=turbolaser

Effective Range: Slightly longer than a standard laser cannon
http://starwarsrp.net/topic/63803-llt-15-sentinel-class-point-defense-emplacement/?hl=turbolaser

Effective Range: Heavy Turbolaser equivalent

Using something like "heavy turbolaser" or something along those lines is the general precedent when adding in a statement in the "effective range" part of the tempalate. This follows many other tech profiles, as mentioned above, so I'm not really sure what the problem is here.

I would also like to mention some of the designs, such as the hypervelocity canon and the nova canon are way more powerful than this current weapon, and do much more damage.

Effective Range: Half of a standard turbolaser's range
http://starwarsrp.net/topic/81253-av-x03-nova-scatter-turbolaser/?hl=turbolaser

Effective Range: Less than a Standard Turbolaser
http://starwarsrp.net/topic/74404-acs-803-energy-siphon-cannon/?hl=turbolaser

Effective Range: Medium Range (~2/3rds Standard Turbolaser Canon Ranges)
http://starwarsrp.net/topic/80393-ish-golgatha-class-megamaser/?hl=turbolaser

 

[Gir Quee]

Using something like "heavy turbolaser" or something along those lines is the general precedent when adding in a statement in the "effective range" part of the tempalate. This follows many other tech profiles, as mentioned above, so I'm not really sure what the problem is here.

It wasn't an issue about the weapon's capable range, but one of OOC clarity.

Effective Range: Range the same for all variants

This makes it sound like all of the variants of this weapon have the exact same range. This doesn't seem to be the case. Please edit the "Effective Range" section to include the ranges you've listed in the above post.

 

[Krayzen Dratos]

[member="Gir Quee"]

Added in range, and added in some stuff in the description.

 

[Gir Quee]

First Variant(worth 2 turbolasers): Turbolaser Range 2nd Variant(worth 6 turbolasers): Turbolaser Range 3rd Variant(worth 10 turbolasers): Long Range Turbolaser Range 4th Variant(worth 15/20 turbolasers): Heavy Long Range Turbolaser Range

This look like they're based on the old gun reference chart. I might suggest looking at the new one (which you can find here:


Weapon

Examples

Value

Defensive Emplacement

Quad Laser Cannons, Antimissile Octet, Antimissile Octet, Point defense cannon

1

Capital Emplacement

Turbolasers, Capital grade ion cannon

2

Large Emplacement

Proton Torpedo, Concussion Missile, Intruder Missile, Heavy Turbolaser

4

Very Large Emplacement

Turbolaser Battery, Quad Turbolaser, Long Range Turbolaser

8

Extreme Emplacement

Hyper Velocity Gun, Heavy Tractor Beam, Assault Concussion Missile

20

Furthermore, the projectile is clouded with a slug.

Should this maybe be the other way around?

In terms of it fighting a ray shield, where it is used to protect against energy based attacks(for instance from turbolasers, and laser canons), then the large projectile will affect the ray shield.

Projectiles do not affect ray shields.

The ion cloud will also affect the shielding systems.

Ion cannons do work well against ray shielding (and other shielding that protects against energy weapons). Ion cannons would not likely affect particle shields. There does seem to be an ion cannon variant that does seem to do kinetic damage (which could work against particle shielding), but it's also less effective against ray shields. (so it's tradeoff).

 

[Krayzen Dratos]

[member="Gir Quee"]

I'm not sure what your trying to tell me with that? Also, from my understanding the starship thread is used to help with the armament rating as well as how to calculate the armaments(if you were to use one of the example ships, or something similar in basic design to one of the example ships that are used). It also goes on to state that they are examples.

Sorry, I meant to state that they bypass ray shields. Added that in. In terms of the ion shields, I based it off my other design, and it stated that it would affect the ion shields. I would think it would affect it, since ion bolts are designed to affect shielding/electrical systems(iirc).

 

[Gir Quee]

I'm not sure what your trying to tell me with that? Also, from my understanding the starship thread is used to help with the armament rating as well as how to calculate the armaments(if you were to use one of the example ships, or something similar in basic design to one of the example ships that are used). It also goes on to state that they are examples.

I was trying to reference the new armament chart (which uses defensive guns as the base value), but it doesn't seemed to have transferred over too well. Basically, I think that several of them cost too much.

First Variant(worth 2 turbolasers): Turbolaser Range 2nd Variant(worth 6 turbolasers): Turbolaser Range 3rd Variant(worth 10 turbolasers): Long Range Turbolaser Range 4th Variant(worth 15/20 turbolasers): Heavy Long Range Turbolaser Range

Your first variant is worth 2 turbolasers....or "4" points on the new system. But I think people will understand 2 turbolasers.

The heavy modifier is still worth double, so if the 2nd variant is equivalent in power to a pair of heavy turbolasers, it woul be worth "8" (or 4 turbolasers).

Long range changed from the last one so that it's now worth "8" (or 4 turbolasers). So a pair of long-range guns that make up the third unit would actually be worth 8 turbolasers (or "16" on the new scale).

The 4th variation I'm not sure about...is that supposed to be worth 15 turbolasers or 20 turbolasers? In any case, if it's heavy and long-range (like a hypervelocity cannon), each gun in it probably falls under the extreme emplacement. So it would be worth 20 turbolasers (or 40 points).

Sorry, I meant to state that they bypass ray shields. Added that in. In terms of the ion shields, I based it off my other design, and it stated that it would affect the ion shields. I would think it would affect it, since ion bolts are designed to affect shielding/electrical systems(iirc).

It doesn't look edited to me right now.

 

[Krayzen Dratos]

It should state the large projectile will bypass the ray shield then mang. As stated before, those things are examples that one can use. A person can make a long range turbolaser, and classify it as having be worth worth more than 8 turbolasers since he increased the damage output of the turbolaser, using justifications as it having a larger size, more power requirement, large energization crystals, and so on. This weapon has the former two as justifications for that.

I thought that I only gave the value for 5 of them mate. Not sure where you got 7 of them.


I would also like to quote something from this post: "Note: These are here for guidance purposes. Hard limits and development guidance is provided in the template itself. The exchange tables are provided to guide you in customising a ship from one of the basic examples to add unique weapon load-outs."

That follows what I stated about it being for guidance purposes. You don't have to follow through with them. Even then, none of the examples really speak about the deck canon, no provide examples on the value of any variant(such as long range, heavy long range, and so on) of a deck canon.


I forgot to add that it is modular, so added that it's modular via the variants used.

[member="Gir Quee"]

 

[Hailyn]

[member="Malos Kas"]
After some review, this submission will need to be broken up into separate submissions per weapon included in the current state of the submission. Once the submission is broken up into individual weapons judgement will continue on each one. A suggestion for the future is to read through your submissions, when they deal with modularity, and check to see if there is too much going on, as there is here. If it becomes confusing while re-reading, or at all causes parts of the submission to appear misleading, the go-to decision is to create more than one submission.

Tag myself and [member="Gir Quee"] when you have split up the submission and edited the current one.

Please keep in mind the 3 submissions per section of the factory rule while doing this, I can temporarily archive any submissions beyond the three submissions you are permitted to make at a time for you if you exceed that limit.

 

[Krayzen Dratos]

[member="Braith Achlys"] / [member="Gir Quee"]

Yes, Ik I didn't break up into different subs, but I used an approved submission as a basis to make it more simpler.

Is this good enough?

 

[Hailyn]

[member="Malos Kas"]
No. Please break up the submission.

 

[Krayzen Dratos]

Then I'm sorry, but I'm second chancing this.

[member="Braith Achlys"]

 

[Hailyn]

[member="Malos Kas"]
Alrighty, please post a request in the Second Chance thread, located in the Factory Information subforum of the Factory Discussion forum, and [member="Spencer Varanin"] will get back to you as soon as she is able.

In the meantime I'll be archiving this, it will be removed from the archives when the second chance request is reviewed.