The Icarus Cannon

[Spud Nick]

I think this gun would have similar gun arcs to the Lumberjack. Poor horizontal arcs but good vertical arcs. It would have a large ammo count like the flamethrower and would operate in the same fashion but as a beam instead of a spray.

[redria]

Heavy clip would probably create a much larger "effective range" going with the idea of having it be only effective for a certain focused distance.

[Spud Nick]

Like heavy clip and lesmok in the carronades right? I could see that working out very well.

[Rainer Zu Fall]

I dont think heavy clip would do anything to the range, considering it'd be a ray gun. It would only concentrate the ray more to where you want it to hit at.
Making it hard to turn like old merc would be quite nice too, Thomas. Although I'm not in favour of fire, much more of a hull strip and gun shattering kinda weapon.

[Coldcurse]

Heavy clip would probably create a much larger "effective range" going with the idea of having it be only effective for a certain focused distance.

as i said already heavy clip would only make the beam smaller and more pinpointing.

[Dolphirus]

I believe Mythbusters did a bit on the "Archimedes Death Ray" which is essentially what we're discussing here. While I don't believe that weapon functioned I do think it makes the basis of good naval combat lore. I stand by my initial thoughts on the weapon. It's a medium/heavy loadout, so it'll only fit on the Spire Galleon or Goldfish. It would be a medium to long range weapon that had a large ammo capacity.  The mechanic that would balance the damage of this weapon is it's obviously slow turning rate and long build up time to do effective damage. The numbers are irrelevant, but imagine the weapon started by doing .1 damage. Then .2, .4. .8 1.6 etc etc. That .2 damage counts for very little. The half minute it would take to reach full potential would count for a lot more. Fire damage is implied but I could imagine the weapon working without it.


-Heavy weapon.
-Medium/Long Range
-Large ammo cap.
-Long build up time to reach full damage potential.
-Slow moving turret.

[Spud Nick]

I would rather it shoot in quick bursts rather than a constant beam. Perhaps it could be a one shot weapon the burns out the lens after each shot.

[Thomas]

Fire just makes the most sense, since it's a light based weapon.

Personally I don't see it needing a 'buildup' time, since it's just reflecting and focusing light. If it was fire damage, the stacks would naturally build up and deal more damage over time, just like the flamethrower. Essentially it's heating with focused light instead of combustion.


That's not to say it couldn't have a buildup, but I don't think we have a mechanic for that in the game currently. Right now we could easily use the arming time and shell life to limit it's effective range from being too far or too close.


Of course the damage types, the effective range, the arcs, and the size of the gun (although I think we're more or less in agreement that heavy would be best?), clip size, fire rate, reload, and projectile speed are all easily debatable.

I think we all have a vision of what kind of gun we'd like to see, but we also have to consider where it would fit in the array of weapons. Would it be redundant? Too difficult to use? Would it be overpowered when combined with another weapon? (ie: if it's piercing, what about combining it with a flak or hwacha?) Would it replace other weapons that area already in the game?

[redria]

I'm not sure how well it would balance but...

We know that at the exact right point a focused beam of light will ignite/heat up something absurdly fast. We also know that prior to that point it will heat, but not destroy. Beyond that point, we could say it has traveled too far and decayed to normal light density.

There are no heavy weapons for setting fires or taking out armor.

It could be a multi-effect weapon, where inside of the arming time (close range) it would act as a low power flame thrower, heating up your target and setting mild fires. Outside of the arming time there is a very small effective window before decay sets in, like 10-20 meters small, making this effective range very difficult to use. But it would be heavy armor piercing + component damage for components hit directly, in effect just a lance of light that drags through where it hits and shreds.

Close range you get fire. Longer very precise range gives armor piercing. You now absolutely need a gunner and probably a range finder. The gunner to have ammo for multiple distances, and a range finder to know when you are in that sweet spot where you deal the real damage.

[Dolphirus]

It could be like a magnifying glass. Maybe stack a large number of fire charges AFTER a set period of time on target. I'm kinda stuck on the beam idea though.

[Riggatto]

If you had a magnifying glass/mirror, would the weapon not simply be active at all times projecting a beam of light away from the ship at all times? Or it could be covered while not in use.

[Milevan Faent]

Fire just makes the most sense, since it's a light based weapon.

Personally I don't see it needing a 'buildup' time, since it's just reflecting and focusing light. If it was fire damage, the stacks would naturally build up and deal more damage over time, just like the flamethrower. Essentially it's heating with focused light instead of combustion.


That's not to say it couldn't have a buildup, but I don't think we have a mechanic for that in the game currently. Right now we could easily use the arming time and shell life to limit it's effective range from being too far or too close.


Of course the damage types, the effective range, the arcs, and the size of the gun (although I think we're more or less in agreement that heavy would be best?), clip size, fire rate, reload, and projectile speed are all easily debatable.

I think we all have a vision of what kind of gun we'd like to see, but we also have to consider where it would fit in the array of weapons. Would it be redundant? Too difficult to use? Would it be overpowered when combined with another weapon? (ie: if it's piercing, what about combining it with a flak or hwacha?) Would it replace other weapons that area already in the game?

According to the Archemedes Death Ray episode of Mythbusters, it took a while for a similar device to this concept to actually generate the heat to create fire. That said, it's probably the sort of weapon where rather than scaling the base damage, the damage from the WEAPON is low, but the chance of Fire Stacks starts low and scales over time of being focused on the same target. Say 5% per second or something. So at 20 seconds on the same target, it's generating fire stacks every second at 100%, though it's generating them effectively by 5-10 seconds, if not as easily. This, combined with an arming time and relatively short range (compared with the end of the arming time that is) makes this a high skill weapon that would devastate weapons, balloons, and hulls at mid range, but have very little effect at close range (it shouldn't generate stacks at that range of course), with no effect at the longer ranges where the other long-range anti-hull medium weapons are generally used. Currently, Medium weapons have long range and short range covered, this would fall right in between the ranges, probably beyond the effective range of Manticore and Carronade, but maybe only 50-100 beyond the minimum arming time of weapons like the Lumberjack and Heavy Flak Cannon.

In short, I want this now.

[Thomas]

Well the one issue we would run into is turning this into a feature request. Those are fine and dandy, but require a lot more work and time; so it would need a lot of support. (This is for the mechanic to scale damage/fire chance up over time)


As for the weapon taking a while to reach full damage potential, that's the same for any heat based weapon. The flamethrower for instance doesn't instantly incinerate anything it touches. Overtime the object reaches higher and higher temperatures before it finally combusts. Kind of like baking a cake or making toast. The device usually is at maximum output right at the start, and the object takes time to heat/cook.


If the rate of fire stacks increases over time, that's similar to saying that the weapon is outputting more heat as time goes on, which isn't really true (of course being a game, we do have to walk a not-so-fine line between reality and awesome). Having it produce a constant chance of fire and damage makes it match up with all the other weapons, and is a bit more realistic. As the fire stacks increase (at a constant rate) the object is being heated and damaged by the weapon.




----

All that being said, the main reason I bring it up is what I mentioned in the first place. Having a new game mechanic, however simple or awesome, takes a lot more time to be implemented, and of course they have to weigh the pro's and cons of doing so. Is it really worth the effort for a single weapon? Which is why I'm pushing to have the function of the weapon line up with mechanics we already have in the game.

[Milevan Faent]

Well the one issue we would run into is turning this into a feature request. Those are fine and dandy, but require a lot more work and time; so it would need a lot of support. (This is for the mechanic to scale damage/fire chance up over time)


As for the weapon taking a while to reach full damage potential, that's the same for any heat based weapon. The flamethrower for instance doesn't instantly incinerate anything it touches. Overtime the object reaches higher and higher temperatures before it finally combusts. Kind of like baking a cake or making toast. The device usually is at maximum output right at the start, and the object takes time to heat/cook.


If the rate of fire stacks increases over time, that's similar to saying that the weapon is outputting more heat as time goes on, which isn't really true (of course being a game, we do have to walk a not-so-fine line between reality and awesome). Having it produce a constant chance of fire and damage makes it match up with all the other weapons, and is a bit more realistic. As the fire stacks increase (at a constant rate) the object is being heated and damaged by the weapon.




----

All that being said, the main reason I bring it up is what I mentioned in the first place. Having a new game mechanic, however simple or awesome, takes a lot more time to be implemented, and of course they have to weigh the pro's and cons of doing so. Is it really worth the effort for a single weapon? Which is why I'm pushing to have the function of the weapon line up with mechanics we already have in the game.

I hadn't considered the time it might take to do what I was thinking of. I would think a progressive chance to add fire stacks would be fairly simple, but you do make a good point. I suppose keeping it simple is better in the long run.

[Sammy B. T.]

Ammo and reload explanation idea with some "realism" explanation.

Harnessing and then magnifying the sun's energy into a weapon has been a frustrating design process. Whenever the energy reaches the point of weaponization, the build up heat makes it nearly impossible for the final glass lens to stay in its frame for a prolonged period of time. While many attempts were made to more firmly attach the lens, the heat build up was simply too much. The solution, a changeable wheel with many lens attached that is then cranked when the weapon is turned on. This flicker allow the gun to move through each lens before it breaks down. There is still a heat build up problem on the entire wheel. After the "clip" is fired, the wheel is taken out to vent or a replacement can be put into place.


Upside to this, strobe lights could now accompany the flares.