[orbital bombardment]

On 18-4-2018 at 1:34 AM, CoreVamore said:

I would accept this proposal but only if space born weapons have their damage reduced to around 20% of their normal space damage due to the atmospheric interference.

 

ie: (Proposed science/lore)

 

Atmosphere spreading laser beam weapon focus and hence intensity

Projectile weapons 'bullets' burning up as they travel through the air

missiles having to deal with weather (wind) conditions putting them off course - something they are not designed to handle (they are a space based weapon after all )

etc.

 

Naturally I would also assume that ground based weapons would also include anti-orbital options to shoot back at orbital attackers, though with greater damage potential as their weapons will be designed to handle atmospheric issues - to some degree. So lets say 35% of their close quarters (non orbital) damage potential.

I doubt that's the way to go. If a game mechanism were to require arbitrary limitations no amount of lore can realistically cover it plus you create an opening towards pitfalls of iterative development. 

 

At this point it's a dev decision of "no" by default versus "conditional yes". But the conditions are a case of which technologies are available. Weapons are technology paths, a kinetic strike package isn't going to have arbitrary atmospheric interference. A rock however will. 

 

To be perfectly honest I'd favour stepping up core development and in a future consider things like these. 

[Sociological survey: what's your main focus of fun in DU?]

Driving conflict - regardless of form or application. 

 

Oh, and using the universe as a petri dish for behavioural analytics and memetic engineering studies.