Artemis Rocket Launcher

[Pickle]

Never knew about the Le Prieur Rocket. Salute! Hubert PIckle for teaching me something new.

Something new for me too.. I knew there were rockets used before WW1 (Napoleonic) and after WW1, so I was sure that someone must have had the idea to try them during WW1.

[JaegerDelta]

Yeah, WWI is more of a general "idea" of what's going on, pretty sure WWI-era clothing didn't include all that many rotating gears either.  That and all the countries are fictional.  I could suspend disbelief over a homing rocket if that made it a more interesting weapon than it is now.

Dont get hung up on history,  the cultures in this game developed these weapons from the ground up, this isnt a modified future, it is a self-contained universe.  if these cultures had the tech for a homing missiles they would have to have computers (very small computers at that) because that is what a homing missile is, a self propelled explosive with a computer regulating where it goes inflight based on received data.  the minute that exists in this universe the whole steam/diesel punk style of the universe now makes no sense. 

you have to think of what these cultures would do with the tools and tech available to them. The only way i can see guidance working in this universe is cable guided rockets.  you would first have to fire a small harpoon/dart over to the enemy ship that is trailing some kind of cable. rockets can then be clipped on to the cable and follow it to the target ship.  However, this would not actually help the artemis be more effective in the role it seems to be meant for, component destruction, because you cannot change where you are aiming.  Its just an example of the kind of systems we are dealing with here. they can be reasonably advanced, but they are constrained by the clunky tech of the universe.

[Helmic]

As the game is steampunk, a lot of shit work that shouldn't work like airships with balloons that for some reason are sturdy as fuck and actually swat down biplanes like flies.  There's no need for a heatseeking missile to need a computer so long it's got exposed gears on it somewhere.  Spinning gears make it work.  It doesn't even have to be attached to anything, if it's spinning something somewhere is working because of it.  In Dwarf Fortress, the most realistic videogame portrayal of anything ever, gears power each other without even touching each other.  They are remote-signalling gears made of nothing but rock and drunken dorf craftsmanship because dorfs.  They found something or another that makes the missile go after ships, maybe it's got a magnet on it or some shit.

[Pickle]

As the game is steampunk

Minor detail, but the game is firmly dieselpunk and not steampunk.  As soon as you have airships/zeppelins it's heading to dieselpunk, as soon as you have heavier-than-air flight it's definitely dieselpunk.


As for unleashing the full narrative imperative of unspecified technologies, you can always have the handwavium in the guidance system attracted to the unobtanium on the target ship.

[HamsterIV]

How about little hamsters inside each rocket, trained to guide the rocket towards the first airship it sees. The high pitch squeal the rockets make is not the hot gas escaping from the rocket engine, but the battle cry of your tiny rodent guidance system as he rides his missile to glory.

[Helmic]

Minor detail, but the game is firmly dieselpunk and not steampunk.  As soon as you have airships/zeppelins it's heading to dieselpunk, as soon as you have heavier-than-air flight it's definitely dieselpunk.

A quick google tells me Muse is right to use both steampunk and dieselpunk to describe GoI, as the world is in transition from steam to diesel since the shared war between the two genres, a WWI-like conflict, is indefinite.  The open cockpit air plane designs are definitely reminiscent of Galileo's flying machines and while technically heavier than air they put a great focus on Victorian design rather than anything we associate heavily with the 20's.  The world seems to be angsting over that transition as well given what I saw in the original GoI demo.  Themes of both are abound, but that "transition" never really finishes and while there's all sorts of "new" stuff being made all the time it never really propels itself into our modern world no matter how much time passes.

Can certainly agree that homing missiles don't detract enough from the setting to warrant passing up a good mechanic.  It's not like there's gilded robots walking the decks.

[Lochiel]

So what makes the Artemis unique? Low damage, large AOE range? If you can hit, you damage most/all the components on a ship a little bit? Makes it so that, at range, the Artemis is decent at disabiling, but close up the Flak's higher DPS is straight up better?

[Sammy B. T.]

A word of support of the artemis. I find it very useful as the front gun of my Junker. It has fantastic turn arc and so as I fly in, a few accurate shots can disable enemy guns and as the gat flaks open up, the artemis can continue to compliment. As others have said, it also helps for pursuits.

[Linen]

Once upon a time, pigeon-guided bombs were considered and tested.

Sadly, they were ineffective.

If the next update doesn't strap pigeons to artemis rockets I'm ragequitting. And you all should too.

[N-Sunderland]

Once upon a time, pigeon-guided bombs were considered and tested.

Sadly, they were ineffective.

If the next update doesn't strap pigeons to artemis rockets I'm ragequitting. And you all should too.

The next update is going to bring a plethora of incredibly exciting things, but unfortunately that's not one of them

[Machiavelliest]

How many Artemis rockets does it take to destroy a component?  Haven't been able to find a component HP chart yet.
Since it has AoE shatter, some explosive, and a pretty fantastic range, it could be paired with a merc for Jill damage outside of flak range.

[Captain Smollett]

After some thought on this matter, I believe that there are two things, that if both done, would change the Artemis from a support gun, to a main weapon.

Higher velocity rockets and larger area of effect for the shatter damage.

This would make it easier to destroy components, creating a weaker but more precise hwacha. A well gunned Artemis could then keep an enemy disabled and slowly achieve a kill allowing a less risky but slower kill than a flak and giving an alternate to the current meta.

At present this strategy is possible, but due to the level of difficulty and unreliability (due to jitter and ship momentum) not as viable as other strategies. The proposed changes would fix this.

[Machiavelliest]

Confirmed this morning that one or two shots, even not direct to the component, will knock a gun out.  It's just a little hard to aim the thing from 1.5 km out without a sighting scope on it.  Jitter on the Artemis is negligible even at that range. 

[Captain Smollett]

You're right, in addition to my previous statements, I think the Artemis would benefit from a scope.

[Ofiach]

I personally love the Artemis on my Sui-Squid. With a half way competent gunner I can suppress Galleon and Junker broadsides almost indefinitely and then just sit on them and tear them apart. Also it's great for saving friendlies who are in a bad position, I can suppress Carronades that are forcing them down or Hwachas that are right on their butts crippling them.

It seems to be a tough weapon for alot of people to get used to firing, but once they get the hang of it the crippling potential is amazing.