Alright, I'm back now and will try to answer the questions more fully. BEWARE: Theory-heavy walloftext post incoming!
Before I'd begin, I'd like to also say that I will be assuming that projectiles do not neccesarily resemble the little images we're given ingame. The reason is twofold: 1, technically, there is no reason why multiple projectiles from different empires designed to do different things should resemble each other perfectly for variously-colored bands, and 2, the blurbs given on some ammo descriptions suggest they shouldn't resemble each other at all. Mind you, I'm not saying that all ammo looks different from any other type, but that it doesn't have to look the same.
I'll make a longer post on this tomorrow, when I have more time, Katrina - but in short, that question depends on 3 major factors:
1, do you wish for it to be fired out of your warships' primary weapon systems or deployed in some other manner?
Fired out of the warship's primary weapon systems, using the eight basic classes of weapons. Railgun/Blaster, Beam/Pulse, Arty/Auto, Cruise/Torp.
The reason I ask is that, frankly, it makes little sense to tie up vital warships from actual fighting duties when you could drop a line of satellites bearing a single weapons system into low orbit, possibly similar to the sentry guns we often see. These would be picked up after the campaign or perhaps serviced from week to week if the campaign went on.
2, does collateral damage matter?
In certain weapon systems, I would expect it, like torpedoes. In others, I would more surgical strikes. In any case, the sheer size and power of the guns is going to make a very very big boom. I sorta expect collateral damage.
Actually, I was thinking more tactically than this - for instance, a Titanium Sabot shell, being a post-penatration detonating system, would be a very good low-collateral "bunker buster". A fusion round, on the other hand... well, even assuming it's a very-low-yield device, it's still a fusion warhead. Similarly, Antimatter L Charge could quite possibly be a city-clearer, while Tungsten L Charge would be a much "cleaner" round.
3, what kinds of defensive measures are in place to resist a possible bombardment?
I would expect some planets to have shield generators over domed cities or important buildings. Others would have reinforced underground bunkers. Most would at least have simple ground to air turret/missile emplacements to shoot down slower bombardment ordinance like missiles.
[/quote]
Alright, sidenote here - I consider the viability of point-defense and interception systems in the EVE-verse to be quite low, due to a number of factors including the utter failure of existing systems to shoot down even the biggest, slowest ordinance in EVE and my knowledge of some of the defense-suppression systems used in ICBM re-entry systems in real life.
That said, the other option (shields of any sort) is a double-edged sword. The Gallente recognized that simply burying their command center in solid diamond would only push the Caldari to either beat on it until it broke or build a weapon that could level it - so they built a city on top of it as well. In the absence of having a human shield that large over you, throwing up an armor or force field offers you direct physical protection but also encourages the enemy to go to town with the biggest, nastiest, most powerful guns they can drag over - at least until the shield is on the verge of collapse, if they even care about the human cost.
Also, assume this is taking place on a temperate world very much like Earth, or at the most exotic, a barren planet like Mars or Tatooine (Star Wars).
Fair enough.
Alright then, here are my thoughts...
Energy weapons are both blessed and cursed in terms of accuracy - on the one hand, you weapon travels at the speed of light, reducing targeting to something akin to point-and-click after atmospheric refraction is considered. On the down side, the atmosphere also means that your beam is going to spread out ("Bloom"), reducing its energy delivered to a single point. How much it does this would vary by planet - storm and plasma planets would practically come with free planetary shielding, while barren and to a lesser degree ice planets would be highly vulnerable. How much this would effect Battleship- or Dreadnought-class lasers is debatable; they certainly did a number on Starkman Prime and other worlds that bombardment was used on, but there is also much evidence that heavy collateral damage is an expected effect to even targeted bombardment, let alone a razing like Starkman Prime (not that the Amarr give a damn). Nonethless, Beam lasers would likely retain their role as high-accuracy, but limited-damage weapons.
I will also note that Lasers present an excellent first-strike weapon, as the ability to deploy into orbit and nearly instantly hit a target with a focused EMP - this being a secondary effect of laser-atmospheric interaction, especially if a Gamma crystal was used - would allow an attacking fleet to cripple defensive systems before a chance to respond could be had.
Hybrids are also struck with an interesting duality, but it's a bit different this time: Blasters would be utterly useless for actually projecting damage onto the surface, but they would make good defense-suppression weapons due to the EMP effect generated by shooting a ball of plasma into an atmosphere. Railguns, on the other hand, are iffier - they only fire at "hypersonic velocity", without guidance (note here that RL railguns are already firing guided projectiles at near-hypersonic velocities). As such, factors such as angle fired into the atmosphere at, atmospheric density and composition, and even wind would heavily effect accuracy. If the railgun round did hit, it would easily become a devastating projectile within a short distance (or longer, if it's fired with its Uranium/Plutonium/Antimatter payload...); furthermore, the inherent speed they are fired at could bypass point defenses by merit of simply being to fast to lock, engage, and destroy before it impacts. In short: Guidance needed, plx.
What they lack in muzzle velocity compared to hybrids,
Projectiles more than make up for in sheer caliber. Unlike Hybrids, they don't have the sheer speed to dash in past point defenses, but there's plenty of room in the shell to carry decoys, ECM systems, or enough submunitions to make it impossible to off every warhead. Similarly, they don't have the sheer velocity to assist with staying on target, but unlike rails I can't find any indication that a Projectile round wouldn't carry some form of guidance. The difference between Autocannon and Artillery is fairly obvious here - ACs would fire a smaller caliber shell, with less room for stuff onboard, but they'd throw down more of them in a shorter time. Arties, bigger shells but not as often.
Finishing up with
Torpedoes and Cruises, I'd simply treat them as an exaggerated version of Projectiles - bigger, slower, and a slower rate of fire - but man, plenty of room for submunitions, penatration aids, or even just a bigger bomb.
Author
Topic: Orbital Bombardment (Read 5032 times)