successor for Bunker Buster

[Aftermath]

Hi all, i'm relatively new here and haven't played a multiplayer game yet so forgive me if i sound naive with my ideas.

My perspective on this idea is that every weapon/defence etc in WZ2100 and any game for that matter is a mere representation of numbers, statistics and formulas working against each other. Giving these calculations names like Bunker Buster and Hardpoint is obviously what makes them exciting, but really they are just names.

My point is, you shouldn't just create a weapon for the sake of it. If the BB is obseleted by the likes of Scourge etc in T3, then there is no need for a T3 version. If you imagine an attempted T3 BB and scourge as their statistical equivalents, they would probably be so similar it wouldn't be worth the effort.

Further to this, if there IS an imbalance in t3 because of the fortresses and the illogical tactics needed to take them out then the problem is probably the fortress. Every time a new structure/weapon or whatever is added to the game, it needs to be balanced against everything else thats already there. From my extensive experience playing all kinds of multiplayer vs games, balancing is probably the biggest issue faced by a development team. You really shouldn't add a new weapon or defence or whatever unless it's absolutely necessary. I haven't been around long enough to know why fortressess and ECM missiles and whatever else has been added to the game but imo we would be better served with improved pathfinding/textures/AI etc.

[JDW]

My perspective on this idea is that every weapon/defence etc in WZ2100 and any game for that matter is a mere representation of numbers, statistics and formulas working against each other.

I'm not going to be on-topic here. Just figured that maybe you would be interested in this (if you haven't seen it yet),

http://guide.wz2100.net/formulas

[Aftermath]

Thank you i will take a look.

[3drts]

OK, to Verin:
Gauss artillery would be easy to make, IRL the navy is considering it for use on ships.
Options #1 high velocity kinetic kill:
Most gauss gun proposals fall well short of orbital velocity, this doesn't preclude a range like an ICBM.
Already modern large caliber artillery shells have "guidance packages", the artillery rounds from a guass cannon should be able to hit what they are aiming at.
Projectile design could be a variety of things: a shell of ferromagnetic material that the current passes through from one rail to the other, perhaps the inside is lined with an electrical insulator if there are premature detonation problems.
Or a ferromagnetic slug, with an explosive charge and/or guidance package attached fore/aft of the slug (where the current passes through and where the force is exerted between the projectile and the gun.
Advantages of gauss artillery would be either long range, or short flight times (if fired at closer range, at a shallower angle) - giving enemy artillery less time to pack up and move (even mobile, robotic/mechanized artillery guns take significant time to deploy fire, retract the stabilizers, and get on the move again).
In wz I'd say its advantage would probably just be range, at least compared to the howitzers, it could be a low splash direct hit weapon, it could be like a longer range ground shaker, it could be like an archangel that fires at regular intervals and not in salvo.
I favor the high ROF concept, as guns can carry more ammo than rockets, are much cheaper to sustain fire than rockets, and easier to reload than rockets. I'd envision it as something like a long range hellstorm, eclipsed in range by the Archangel, but not by that much, with a range superior to ripples and GS.


To Zarel:
I think Missile forts range is somewhat excessive, its almost as long range as a WSS sensor when fully upgraded.
Basically any small group of units that gets within sight, will die without firing a shot.
If their range is this high for some sort of direct fire artillery/long range SAM purpose, I suggest increasing Mass driver range - except at chokepoints like on squared, mass drivers are crap compared to missile forts.
Now note I did not forget about range, thats why I previously specified *when in range* to the BB vs T3 missile DPS comparison
If your units only get off one shot before dieing, then you aren't going to do very well at penetrating the enemy defenses, especially if each structure takes more than one shot to kill, note even a harcrete wall takes multiple shots to kill, and they are often 3 think in front of enemy defenses and on high oil, by T3, enemy hard-point defenses are often 4 or 5 thick, 8 tiles wide, with forts in front or behind them. Now combined the effects of artillery, cannon/gauss splash, and how many times the hardpoints at the back will be able to fire, units that just fire 1 shot before death, will not have any chance at penetrating the defenses if each shot doesn't wipe out a hardpoint/wall section, 150 units will just be slaughtered.
- and this assumes you have no VTOLs, which I think are a must to stop the enemy from setting up forward howitzer bases

The only way to get around this, is to attack en masse, so that the units not quite at the front, get multiple shots.
If massed BBs cant get within range at all, that means that any other unit would at best have the situation of 1 shot, and then dead.
So in the massed attack scenario, range isn't as important (though still a significant factor), and the BB's equal or better DPS vs defenses, is desirable given its much cheaper cost, and lower production time.
If you want to repeatedly throw units at enemy defenses to wear them down, the cheap BB comes out ahead of any T3 weapn.

Also in the 1 shot then dead scenario, lets consider individual salvo damage, lets only consider "hard structures", as that is what T3 frontline defenses are, so lets just look at seraph vs BB.
Lets take the max hardcrete armor upgrades as well.

Seraph:
Cost= 400
Hard structure modifier= 1.0
Salvo size: 6? (this should be listed in the guide)
6 * (1*210-76) = 804 damage per salvo

Bunker Buster
Cost=150
Hard structure modifier= 3.0
Salvo size: 1
1* (3*568-76) = 1476 damage per salvo

DPS adjusted for armor 76, max upgrades for all
Seraph:
(210-76)/210 * 150.3 = 95.91 DPS
BB:
(568*3-76)/(568*3) * 49.7 * 3 = 142.45

DPS of BB vs Seraph, at full upgrades, vs Hard structures 142.45/95.91= 1.485
The Bunker buster does 48.5% more damage than Seraph over time to hard structures with full upgrades, nearly twice as much damage per salvo, at a fraction of the cost (150/400 = 0.375)
If the bunker busters can get within range to fire, they are a better choice than Seraph for taking out direct fire defenses.
If they can't even get within range, the attack is doomed to fail miserably and Seraphs wouldn't be effective either.

Even in T3, I consider the Bunker Buster to be the premier anti defense weapon.

if you can get your units in range to have most of them firing, you're good to go.

Seraphs will only be better if 48% or more of your attacking tanks are within firing range as compared to Bunker busters (at which point you have net DPS parity with BB)
This is the case in the initial few seconds of advance when scourge are in range, and bbs are still advancing, but once units are butting up against the hardcrete and walls, its not the case.
If you were to lead with gauss/seraph, followed by BB (gauss in particular for its higher HP, so it takes the damage that the weaker BB cant take), I think you'd get the best results
It largely depends on the layout, a narrow chokepoint with your army backing up outside of weapons range means that a weapon with 2x the range results in 2x as many weapons firing at the defenses, and results in 2x as much damage.
Once you make headway into the defenses that are surely a few tiles deep, this relationship no longer holds.
It would also make sense to have the higher damage but lower range weapons near the front, but not quite at the front, as the units at the front will surely die, and the units at the very front should have long range weapons so they at least get in some damage before destruction.

Right now, I think an optimal T3 attack force would have 1) Gauss at the front for their HP to shield the (2) BB in the middle to do the maximum amount of damage, and 3) seraphs at the back to support the units closer to the front.
However, the turnover rate for units is quite high, and units firing from the back, quickly find themselves at the front as the units in front die.
In a full frontal charge, I think salvo damage is the most important thing, and the BB excels at that even in T3.
No T3 weapon comes close in terms of DPs to enemy defenses.

Additionally, seraphs will attrack enemy CB fire, which is something to consider- it could help you get the upper hand in an arty war by just taking attention off your other batteries, but in that case, you might as well use cheaper mortars.

It does mean that if you had trucks setting up artillery batteries within howtizer range to draw cb fire away from your attacking units, it will no longer work, as the seraphs will draw the CB fire back to the attacking units - if you had artillery dominance, you wouldn't need to be doing the frontal assault in the first place.
Of course, if you don't distract the enemy artillery (mainly the GS and hellstorm are what matter here) with your own artillery, then the cb effect of seraph is irrelevant.

[Zarel]

Salvo size: 6? (this should be listed in the guide)

Mouse over ROF.

[TVR]

... Options #1 high velocity kinetic kill ...

This is entering the domain of direct-fire, where adding an HE payload and impact fuze greatly weakens the structural integrity of a KE slug, while adding very little in terms of potential armour-piercing ability or concussive force.

... Already modern large caliber artillery shells have "guidance packages", the artillery rounds from a guass cannon should be able to hit what they are aiming at ...

Remember when you mentioned the acceleration disparity between a low-velocity artillery round, and a hyper-velocity railgun slug?

Launching a projectile in high velocity kinetic kill mode from a cannon barrel 5 to 8 meters in length, results in an acceleration of over 50 G's - this is well outside the maximum operating parameters for guided projectile components.

... Projectile design could be a variety of things: a shell of ferromagnetic material ... I favor the high ROF concept, as guns can carry more ammo than rockets, are much cheaper to sustain fire than rockets, and easier to reload than rockets ...

The requirement for a ferromagnetic casing is really wasteful in comparison to current caseless artillery munitions.

It doesn't fair much better against a ballistic missile launcher, as at least those missiles can use lighter-weight composite materials.

[3drts]

... Options #1 high velocity kinetic kill ...

This is entering the domain of direct-fire, where adding an HE payload and impact fuze greatly weakens the structural integrity of a KE slug, while adding very little in terms of potential armour-piercing ability or concussive force.

I fail to see what this has to do with direct vs indirect fire.
Those describe the trajectories to reach the target.
This describes the kill method once the projectile reaches the target

... Already modern large caliber artillery shells have "guidance packages", the artillery rounds from a guass cannon should be able to hit what they are aiming at ...

Remember when you mentioned the acceleration disparity between a low-velocity artillery round, and a hyper-velocity railgun slug?

Launching a projectile in high velocity kinetic kill mode from a cannon barrel 5 to 8 meters in length, results in an acceleration of over 50 G's - this is well outside the maximum operating parameters for guided projectile components.

You'd be surprised what guidance packages can deal with, furthermore, you are missing a fundamental difference between explosive-pneumatic guns an EM guns.
An explosive-pneumatic gun's acceleration is not constant- the initial acceleration will usually be over 2 orders of magnitude higher than the acceleration as the projectile leaves the barrel.
In fact, with .22 lr caliber rifles, any barrel over about 22 inches, will actually result in decreased projectile velocity, as by that point the gas has expanded and cooled (do to rapid adiabatic expansion) to such a point that its pressure is inadequate to overcome barrel friction.
There is a proportion of initial explosive volume to barrel volume, that if one goes lower than this, velocity decreases. Want a longer barrel of the same caliber? You need more initial explosives to make it useful. This leads to structural limits in the breech of the gun.
With a rail gun, the force of the propellant (em forces) is constant, not exponentially decreasing as in a pneumatic gun.
Thus for the highest tolerable acceleration, you can get much higher velocities with a rail gun.

... Projectile design could be a variety of things: a shell of ferromagnetic material ... I favor the high ROF concept, as guns can carry more ammo than rockets, are much cheaper to sustain fire than rockets, and easier to reload than rockets ...

The requirement for a ferromagnetic casing is really wasteful in comparison to current caseless artillery munitions.

It doesn't fair much better against a ballistic missile launcher, as at least those missiles can use lighter-weight composite materials.

[/quote]
Ummmm..... I'm not sure I get what you are trying to say.
The casing is part of the projectile, going around the guidance package, containing the guidance package.
In a kinetic kill projectile, you want something dense, not light weight, your kill is accomplished by mass and velocity, and you want that mass as dense as possible to improve penetration, and decrease air resistance, which increases range.

Even when carrying an explosive warhead, most artillery shells are explosives encased in iron/steel (some even with steel balls surrounding the explosive), the pressure wave of the explosive would be rather ineffective, unless you can get a direct hit with a shaped charge warhead with something like a copper explosively formed penetrator, otherwise you need shrapnel, and for that to be effective, you need something dense.
You want your projectile to be dense, FWIW, Steel acts as a neutron reflector, and can form the casing of a nuclear warhead, and in this role, highest density correlates with higher explosive yields.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the guidance package being encased by the projectile, such that the current of the firing railgun flows around it rather than through it (as in a faraday cage), and the current doesn't destroy the guidance package during firing.

Ballistic missiles would never be cost effective compared to a rail gun on a per shot basis, that is patently absurd.

[Verin]

JUST GIVE IT MORE RANGE

[CinC]

JUST GIVE IT MORE RANGE

...and a little more basic damage...

[Verin]

I would be happy to be able to fire it without getting a super fortress round up my ***.

[TVR]

... This describes the kill method once the projectile reaches the target ...

This one was to refute High Velocity Kinetic Kill at indirect trajectory.

A parabolic trajectory dictates an un-powered projectile will not impact at any greater velocity than it's terminal velocity, which really does limit damage through impact.

... An explosive-pneumatic gun's acceleration is not constant In fact, with .22 lr caliber rifles, any barrel over about 22 inches, will actually result in decreased projectile velocity, as by that point the gas has expanded and cooled ...

Are you stating that the propellant used by rifled small-arms is identical to that of a hyper-velocity smooth-bore cannon?

The propellant burn rate is not constant between these two classes of pressure-based launcher, whereas small-arms use propellant that have a constant or decreasing burn rate, these smooth-bore cannons use a propellant which increases it's burn rate as function of time, to counteract the increasing volume of space.

Otherwise the barrel length of a smooth-bore cannon could feasibly be reduced by over 2 orders of magnitude, right?

... you want that mass as dense as possible to improve penetration, and decrease air resistance, which increases range ...

The guidance package in an artillery shell guides the projectile by creating air resistance.

But the artillery shells are made for indirect delivery of high-explosive, not kinetic kill.

Guided, but un-powered direct-fire rounds do not exist for these reasons.

[3drts]

... This describes the kill method once the projectile reaches the target ...

This one was to refute High Velocity Kinetic Kill at indirect trajectory.

A parabolic trajectory dictates an un-powered projectile will not impact at any greater velocity than it's terminal velocity, which really does limit damage through impact.

This is only true if the round is fired directly up.
A round fired with an inclination of 20 degrees, will still be suitable for long range indirect fire, and will hit with much more than terminal velocity.
Furthermore, terminal velocity alone can be sufficient for a kinetic kill, if your projectile is dense and streamlined.
Taken to an extreme, this concept results in "rods from god"
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-06/rods-god

... An explosive-pneumatic gun's acceleration is not constant In fact, with .22 lr caliber rifles, any barrel over about 22 inches, will actually result in decreased projectile velocity, as by that point the gas has expanded and cooled ...

Are you stating that the propellant used by rifled small-arms is identical to that of a hyper-velocity smooth-bore cannon?

The propellant burn rate is not constant between these two classes of pressure-based launcher, whereas small-arms use propellant that have a constant or decreasing burn rate, these smooth-bore cannons use a propellant which increases it's burn rate as function of time, to counteract the increasing volume of space.

Otherwise the barrel length of a smooth-bore cannon could feasibly be reduced by over 2 orders of magnitude, right

#1) the burn rate is pretty much constant, what can be done, is having a slower burning powder, so the powder has not all burned before the projectile has moved an inch down the barrel, this allows for a higher average propulsive force, without a higher peak propulsive force.
Many "small arms" do make use of variations on powder burn time, particularly target shooters who will optimize powder burn rate to their bullet weight.

Also because the terminal force is orders of magnitude less, does not mean the average force is orders of magnitude less, so the barrel cannot be shortened by orders of magnitude.

Furthermore, there are basic limits, such as the speed at which the individual gas atoms move, how fast a pressure wave moves- basically the speed of sound within the barrel gasses granted high tempt and pressure does raise the speed of sound.
If we want to talk *really* high velocity, your gas would become a plasma, which presents a whole 'nother issue.
Granted there are issues in current railgun technology, and other magneticly propelled projectile tech (not the least of which is the arcing problem between the rails and the projectile if the power is turned up too high, and if you keep it low to avoid arcing, you need a really really really long barrel)

... you want that mass as dense as possible to improve penetration, and decrease air resistance, which increases range ...

The guidance package in an artillery shell guides the projectile by creating air resistance.

But the artillery shells are made for indirect delivery of high-explosive, not kinetic kill.

Guided, but un-powered direct-fire rounds do not exist for these reasons.

[/quote]
I was refering to the computation, and instruments (gyroscopic stabilizers, inertial guidance, etc).
It would be easy to extend folding fins after firing, and before the terminal phase of the flight.

Given the velocity a railgun could acheive, it may not need a guidance package, just good aiming, even at BVR targets, depending on the target.

If your target is a Carrier? you probably don't need a guidance package.
If your target is a tank, you probably need one.

Nothing precludes putting a shaped charge warhead on it anyway.
Lets not get stuck on the kill method, railguns are perfectly suitable as indirect fire artillery.

[TVR]

... A round fired with an inclination of 20 degrees, will still be suitable for long range indirect fire ...

The muzzle velocity for 20 degrees for distances 10 km to 25 km is already well within the boundaries of pressure-based cannons.

Trying to fire a un-powered projectile exceeding those ranges, pneumatically or magnetically accelerated, would require an unfeasible amount of energy, as the muzzle velocity would have to be exponentially greater than the impact velocity.

(As we know drag is proportional to v^2 at these velocities)

... the burn rate is pretty much constant ...

Have you ever heard of 'progressive burn propellant'?

Do you understand the effect that increasing rate of increasing surface area has to do with reaction rate, and how that would relate with 'progressive burn propellant'?

... I was refering to the computation, and instruments (gyroscopic stabilizers, inertial guidance, etc) ...

Do you believe a gyroscopic stabilizer can function after perforation by heavy machine gun bullets (600 m/s)?

Which is approximately equal to 50 g's in delta-v and over.

[3drts]

would require an unfeasible amount of energy, as the muzzle velocity would have to be exponentially greater than the impact velocity.

This is simply not true.
While air resistance does increase as the square of the speed, that doesn't mean the needed energy increases with the square of the speed.
If projectile A hits with 99% of its muzzle energy, and projectile B travels twice as fast to the target, rather than losing 1%, it looses 4%, it still strikes with 96% of its KE (thus an even greater percent of its muzzle velocity).
It simply requires a better ballistic coefficient.
As you don't need to worry about the chamber of the gun blowing up, you can have the projectile arbitrarily long and thin - in an explosive-pneumatic gun, that would result in chamber pressures being too high, and the gun would explode when you attempt to fire it.

You do understand that modern propellants don't actually burn, except in rocket fuels.
The compounds in guns undergo explosive decomposition, not reaction with oxygen.
The surface area exposed to air really has nothing to do with modern gunpowder burn rates, its just a matter of the granule size and heating wave that determines when all the propellant has decomposed into hot gasses.

Acceleration is not the same thing as perforation.
I don't know what guidance systems are used in modern artillery shells, I just know they have them, and that railguns can fire with a constant acceleration, and explosive pneumatic guns have peak accelerations, thus if we have guided artillery shells now, we can have railguns firing even faster guided artillery shells.

Look, real railgun artillery under development:
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=34718

At full capability, the rail gun will be able to fire a projectile more than 200 nautical miles at a muzzle velocity of mach seven and impacting its target at mach five.

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2007 ... 007/251373

http://gizmodo.com/351467/navy-rail-gun ... t-5640-mph

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun#Tests

Can we please stop arguing about the feasibility of rail guns as long range indirect fire weapons?
There is no other way to put it except you are wrong, and reality proves you are wrong.

[Verin]

W T F keep on topic no one gives a **** about logic, this is a video game

increase range and or damage nothing else needs to be said.