These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Issues, Workarounds & Localization

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Issue: Naming conventions for weapons
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
TheMercenaryKing
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1 - 2011-10-31 16:25:45 UTC
This **** has been bothering me.

Rail-guns:
-Fundamentally different than Coil Guns. A COIL GUN IS NOT A RAIL GUN - it uses less power, shorter range, lower velocity, and less heat generated then rails. a compressed coilgun would not have damage and accuracy close enough to a railgun without enormous amounts of power

Artillery:
-- 1400mm caliber vs 1200mm. 1400 would have less muzzle velocity then the same projectile shot out of a 1200 because the chamber is larger, thus less damage.

-Howitzer, Ill let this slide but they are meant to fire in arcs, not a flat trajectory.

Auto-cannons:
-same thing with the single size vs weapon caliber (see 1400 vs 1200)
-Dual artillery's are still artillery, there is just two of them
-Dual would not use a larger caliber, they would use the same as the single, just fire 2 of them


Bombs:
Shrapnel would be kinetic - actual matter would hit you
concussion would be explosive- only the force of the explosion


I cant think of anything else right now, but i know there is more out there. If you know 'em, post 'em
Sniperdoc
Stargate Kommand
#2 - 2011-11-01 19:30:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Sniperdoc
TheMercenaryKing wrote:

Shrapnel would be kinetic - actual matter would hit you
concussion would be explosive- only the force of the explosion


While you're on the path of just nitpicking...

Kinetic just implies force. A shaped charge uses kinetic energy. A higher density round (such as depleted uranium) uses kinetic energy. Shrapnel would actually be from an explosive round... aside from the fact that a shaped charge or a armor piercing round uses the internal hull structure of the target as the shrapnel. Ever seen the inside of a tank hit by a sabot round? It ain't pretty.

HE (High Energy/High Explosive/Heavy Explosive), whatever version you prefer, uses concussive force INCLUDING shrapnel to cause damage. (from wiki: " shatters the case and scatters hot, sharp case pieces (fragments, splinters) at high velocity.") Which in reality wouldn't do too much damage vs the outside of an armored ship to begin with. The armor is there to prevent HE from doing any damage. Hence shaped charge rounds, higher density material rounds or sabot based rounds.

As an aside, just because a round is larger does NOT imply it does less damage. If you'd like to argue with the Yamato vs Bismarck or the USS Missouri, and which one did more damage.... I'd put my money on the round that was larger and filled with more explosive/shrapnel.

Oh, and as another fun fact... larger round doesn't mean lower muzzle velocity. Look it up... ah... why bother:

USS Missouri - 16" /50 caliber Mark 7 gun: 2,500 - 2,690 ft/s (depending on AP vs HE) Keep in mind this is with newer ammunition types, not WW2 ammo.
Bismarck - 38cm SK c/34 naval gun (15in): 2,700 - 3,400 ft/s (depending on AP vs HE) using stats from WW2 ammo
Yamato - 40cm/45 Type 94 naval gun (18.1in): 2,600 ft/s using stats from WW2 based ammunition types

If you didn't catch that... The Yamato's guns were 2.1 inches larger than the USS MIssouri's guns and shot on par in muzzle velocity with the USS Missouri using today's ammunition quality.

Sigh... you know... if you're going to nitpick at least nitpick with factual knowledge.

About the only thing I can agree on is your Howitzer comment. I think they just ran out of terminology.