Jump to content

Secondary Explosions


Context

Recommended Posts

This is a suggestion which doesn't need to be implemented soon. It's probably more of a late beta addition, probably best when the rest of combat is looked at for revision.

 

Concept is simple. When high energy things are destroyed while actively being used they cause secondary explosions. This will require people to seriously think about where they place things and how they might need to add further protections. Now I say in use. For example, and XL engine on full burn is fully active would sensibly cause a lot more damage than an inactive one, which might not even cause a secondary explosion. An AGG on the other hand, even when not in use would likely cause a small explosion when inactive due to it's nature. 

 

I believe this would result in a more tactical level of combat for smaller ships. NQ noted at some point they were thinking of allowing a mode of line of sight aiming or something. This would allow a skilled "fighter pilot" to target critical soft points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Context said:

An AGG on the other hand, even when not in use would likely cause a small explosion when inactive due to it's nature.

 

nah, an AGG would implode on itself and form a black hole XD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps not a guaranteed explosion?  Some items would obviously be more sensitive than others, but people tend to put a lot of work in to making sure things are a lot less explody than they seem to be in movies and the like. Ammo magazines get designed to blow out a venting-hatch rather than obliterating the crew or engine compartments, electrical systems tend to blow a fuse or trip a breaker, and several types of fuel will extinguish fires rather than ignite except under specific circumstances. Explosive failure isn't impossible, but often is statistically unlikely... probably because engineers tend to watch the people in Starfleet get blown across the bridge by exploding consoles and wonder why people that have mastered FTL seem to have never heard of fuses/circuit-breakers, and then make extra sure to install them in their own designs.

 

-The weapon dealing the damage could potentially alter the chance of explosions, incendiaries tend to be better at lighting flammable things than simple kinetic penetrators.

 

-I can see this being a higher chance for both fuel-tanks and ammo containers provided they aren't empty.


-Engines and weapons that still have rounds loaded should probably have only a small chance of exploding under the stated conditions, as in real life many such items that suffer a disabling amount of damage from something tend to cause little or no damage to the surrounding components even when disabled under full operating load (again significant secondary damage isn't impossible, just statistically uncommon). 

 

-Jump-drives and anti-gravs are a bit harder to figure, as we have nothing in real life to compare them to, so it will be up to NQ to say how easily these items do unhappy things in response to bullets. 

 

     Theoretically, if you can get physics to divide by zero, you end up with a black-hole... Practically if you try something somewhere prevents it... and then that something tends to explosively sublimate/evaporate/vaporize and takes the rest of the near-by components with it. Roughly a penny's worth of copper will attempt to take up the same space as a refrigerator and only puts a hole as small as a grapefruit in the nearest surface of its steel enclosure if the blast has somewhere to go, so if these can go, they could be potentially quite reactive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Taelessael I like your additions, if not simply because they make sense, but also makes it harder for people to reverse engineer and take advantage of a less random event in a meta way.

 

I should note, I'm not advocating for say if a single XL Space Engine drops to 0 and it explodes it causes a massive chain reaction and the 19 other XL engines also explode, but rather they will damage nearby components thus meaning 3-4 less hits will also take out those parts. So now, instead of placing all the Engines in single spot, sides touching, ship engineers might but small barriers, or maybe nacelles, or many variations I'm sure people have seen on scifi ships. Or....just accept the risk because you want every square millimeter of the back side plastered with engines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No mistake, in games where that is a thing (if rare) chain-reactions are the best. Tis like getting a rare item in a game that randomly determines your loot on things, but I do agree that such scenarios would not be the intent of the system. If something goes up and does damage near-by systems it should only risk such a chain-reaction if those systems are already damaged enough to be destroyed by the explosion, and even then they should still only have a limited chance of going up as was described above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...