KEM is a new weapon system I developed for my Dirtside:2300 variant (more
details at http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/1966/). Here's the
preliminary write-up of its capabilities, input is welcome.
"KEM attacks are resolved as if they were direct-fire guns, not as
missiles (i.e., treat KEM Guidance value as Fire Control value and roll
appropriate attacker die vs. target signature die). However, its accuracy and
damage do not degrade with range, and all targets out to max range are engaged
as if in the Close Range band. KEM is not affected by Basic or Enhanced PDS.
Superior PDS and can be effective against a KEM, but their effectiveness is
degraded. Treat as Basic. ECM is totally ineffective against a KEM due to its
guidance mode.
All of those capabilities come for a price, however. Due to KEMs' larger size
than GMSs, this system has a Mass of 6. Basic Guidance KEM costs 40 pts,
Enhanced Guidance costs 60 pts, and Superior 80 pts.
KEM has a Close Range of 6", Medium Range of 48" and Long Range of 60". It
draws 5 damage chits. Valid chits are Yellow only at Close Range (KEMs need
some time to accelerate to top speed, making them less effective against
really close targets), Red and Yellow at Medium range, and Red at Long range
(missile is still coasting after motor burnout)."
Sometimes making a living designing anti-tank weapons has certain
drawbacks...
I don't know anything about the 2300 universe, but comparing this KEM with
today's weapons and today's weapons with the vanilla DSII, some details stand
out:
> "KEM attacks are resolved as if they were direct-fire guns, not as
> appropriate attacker die vs. target signature die). However, its
If the damage doesn't degrade with range, why is the damage at range 60 less
than the damage at range 48?
> and all targets out to max range are engaged as if in
Superior PDS and can be effective against a KEM, but their > effectiveness is
degraded.
Reactive armour should be effective, though. I know DSII doesn't give
reactive armour any bonus against HKPs etc, but it should :-/
> ECM is totally ineffective against a KEM due to its
If the guidance mode is "no guidance", this is probably true <g> A
missile travelling fast enough to kill a tank by pure KE - we're talking
2-3000 m/s or so - would be... difficult to steer to say the least, so
"no guidance" (making the KEM a rocket-powered KE round rather than a
missile) sounds fairly likely. If it is fire-and-forget, it will be
vulnerable to ECM.
> All of those capabilities come for a price, however. Due to KEMs'
larger
> size than GMSs, this system has a Mass of 6.
Well... Put it like this: One of the reasons the GSMs use shaped warheads is
that they are too slow to kill by KE, and they are slow because a light
missile launcher isn't able to give it a high initial velocity and a small
missile can't carry very much fuel to accelerate with.
Unless you assume that the KEM has an engine some orders of magnitude more
efficient than the GSMs (in which case it'd be a *lot* more
expensive rather than 10-20 pts, or else the GSMs would use it too),
you'd pretty much have to launch it from a cannon. Using today's
technology as a guideline, a HVC/4 derivative or so might be large
enough.
Later,
These sound like the kinetic-kill grav missiles from the Honor
Harrington books.
> "KEM attacks are resolved as if they were direct-fire guns, not as
> appropriate attacker die vs. target signature die). However, its
If the damage doesn't degrade with range, why is the damage at range 60 less
than the damage at range 48?<<
Sloppy editing on my part (it is a draft, after all...). Strike the part about
damage not varying with range, since it is obvious from the description that
penetration is low at short range and tapers off after booster burnout.
> and all targets out to max range are engaged as if in
Superior PDS and can be effective against a KEM, but their > effectiveness is
degraded.
Reactive armour should be effective, though. I know DSII doesn't give
reactive armour any bonus against HKPs etc, but it should :-/<<
It should, but since it does not affect other KE projectiles, it should not
affect KEMs.
> ECM is totally ineffective against a KEM due to its
If the guidance mode is "no guidance", this is probably true <g> A
missile travelling fast enough to kill a tank by pure KE - we're talking
2-3000 m/s or so - would be... difficult to steer to say the least, so
"no guidance" (making the KEM a rocket-powered KE round rather than a
missile) sounds fairly likely. If it is fire-and-forget, it will be
vulnerable to ECM.<<
By guided I don't mean radical course changes, only minute corrections to keep
up with target's movements, which would not be all that great. I envision the
KEM as a laser beam-rider, which means that unless you can somehow
interrupt the laser beam between launcher and missile, ECM cannot help. ECM
resistance is a big selling point for laser beamriders today. Bottom line is,
if secure
comms are feasible in your universe, so is an ECM-proof command-guided
missile.
> All of those capabilities come for a price, however. Due to KEMs'
larger
> size than GMSs, this system has a Mass of 6.
Well... Put it like this: One of the reasons the GSMs use shaped warheads is
that they are too slow to kill by KE, and they are slow because a light
missile launcher isn't able to give it a high initial velocity and a small
missile can't carry very much fuel to accelerate with.
Unless you assume that the KEM has an engine some orders of magnitude more
efficient than the GSMs (in which case it'd be a *lot* more
expensive rather than 10-20 pts, or else the GSMs would use it too),
you'd pretty much have to launch it from a cannon. Using today's
technology as a guideline, a HVC/4 derivative or so might be large
enough.<<
That is my assumption indeed. KEMs would use the same tech as SMLs. As far as
the cost is concerned, what is your suggestion?
> Later,
> Mike Jasinski wrote:
> > ECM is totally ineffective against a KEM due to its
a
missile) sounds fairly likely. If it is fire-and-forget, it will be
> vulnerable to ECM.<<
I > envision the KEM as a laser beam-rider, which means that unless you
> can somehow interrupt the laser beam between launcher and missile, >
ECM cannot help.
The laser beam-riders I'm used to (BILL et al) point the laser beam at
the *target*, not at the *missile*. If the target can somehow shake off the
guidance system's target lock (which is AFAIK next to impossible with
today's tech, but might be possible in the future - god knows there's a
lot of research on this going on right now, but unfortunately he's also
probably the only one who knows just how far they've come so far :-/)
the missile will most likely miss. This shaking off guidance lock could be
represented by the ECM game mechanic, even if it isn't electromagnetics that
do the shaking.
However, given the high speed the missile would need for a KE kill
there's not much need for guidance - except at very long ranges, of
course, but then there's all too often a small problem with intervening
terrain (unless the missile is fired from aircraft, in which case you
have to hope that your enemy forgot his AA somewhere :-/ ), and also
excepting very fast targets (Renegade Legion-style grav tanks moving at
200+ mph, aircraft etc).
> Unless you assume that the KEM has an engine some orders of
Not sure if SML means something else than Salvo Missile Launcher in the 2300
universe, but there's no propulsion tech specified for the
(starship-mounted) Salvo Missiles in the FB which makes it kind of
difficult to say that the GMSs aren't using that tech as well :-/ Salvo
missiles aren't KE weapons, though.
> As far as the cost is concerned, what is your suggestion?
I haven't played DSII enough lately to say anything for sure, but 100 pts or
so for the basic guidance doesn't look out of place compared to its
capabilities (same range as and better damage than HEL/5, and *much*
smaller). Scale the better-guided versions to fit.
Regards,