Planet Bound Missile Silo

I think on awesome thing to add to the game would be planet bound missile silos. The way these would work is that the game will detect a certain arrangement of blocks in a certain way, and from that it would turn it into a usable object. This means that the player must make the the silo physically with special blocks that he could create from a workbench.
The power of these should be debated but I think you should be able to shoot them at other planets to completely tear up their surface, killing any living thing and revealing any ore that was under it. This would add a completely new strategy in clan pvps.

All of the materials used to make this would be end game.

 

I would like to see large-scale projects such as this, for certain. There's nothing epic about running around with lots of sweet-ass gear in a futuristic setting when all your space station, space ships, and shit does jack but look pretty.

 

Logically it would make more sense to carry a missile on your ship/station, interplanetary travel takes months at ridiculous speeds, and years at what we can typically achieve without spending billions of dollars on the rocket.

 

IT'S NOT A ROCKET. IT'S A MISSILE.
Aslo fuck logic, this is a video game.

 

please explain to me the appreciable difference between the two.

And sorry, but I just get a little annoyed when people say "It's a video game, we can do whatever and it works" which is not true because of a principle called "suspension of disbelief"

 

1-Missiles are actually (in a sense) mini rockets, mistake on my part.
2-I don't know what suspension of disbelief is. Explain?

 

1. ok.

2. Suspension of disbelief is the principle of, to but it bluntly, believable bullshit.

It's present with laser weapons in sci-fi, teleportation, cloning that makes an exact replica, explosions that you can hear in space, fantasy creatures in games/movies, and everything else that just doesn't quite 'work' in the real world.
however it is NOT an excuse to throw out the vaguest principles of logic just because something sounds cool, then you get what is derogatorily referenced as "crap soup," where something becomes "fake" enough to no longer seem "real".

proper suspension of disbelief is why you can play games with mythical creatures and still become immersed in them, etc etc.

And to put it simply, a rocket that travels a distance such as that between planets in any reasonable amount of time to be an effective weapon breaks suspension of disbelief for anyone with the slightest understanding of physics and astronomy.

 

Legit.

 

i only think this would be a good idea if it was very expensive and cost massive sums of money!

 

"Missile" is literally just a word for a projectile - in the more technical fashion, it's a projectile that is propelled. Generally, missiles are also guided - which, in turn, differentiates them from rockets. Rockets refer exclusively to the propulsion mechanism - the method for acceleration and flight - and this definition usually conveniently excludes any sort of reference to a guidance system.

Put short, a missile is a projectile with a propulsion system and (usually) a guidance system; a rocket is a simpler term for a propulsion system, with or without warhead or guidance.

I agree that inter-planetary missiles (ballistic or otherwise) would be a far stretch. I was just advocating the idea of planet-class siege weaponry in general.

 

So exactly how many people who play this game will have a problem with this then? I'm guessing most of them aren't astro-physicists.
I'm also guessing with a little balancing it is viable for having a massive planet based missile launcher since it can be much larger
then a ship based launcher.

 

Yeah... don't exactly have to know astro-physics to understand it.

 

This thing sounds really OP, it would have to be VERY expensive to be logical...

 

The closest thing I've seen to a logical interplanetary siege weapon is the subspace railgun in Sins of a Solar Empire. it's the size of a capital ship and has to be calibrated and charged before it can fire a single nuclear warhead at FTL speeds (it's designed to obliterate the surface of a planet within a nearby solar system).

 

Alright, then. It rips open a wormhole which it uses to travel massive distances within a blink of an eye. That's believable, as we still don't fully understand how wormholes and black holes and that sort of thing work. You'd just need a ton of energy, hence the end game use. Massive reactors. Possibly even harnessing and containing a star.

 

I like the idea of orbital bombardment. Alternately, planets could have smaller moons that could offer an initial challenge and a great place to set up a support base (which could offer air support for excursions on the host planet). In this way, every planet has multiple phases and aspects - multiple tiny zones and a large zone, each with a different flavor and unique rewards.

 

But at what point is this more efficient then mounting a missile on a space station?

 

I like all the comments this Weiland guy has made so far. He obviously knows what he's talking about.

 

Because you want to have all of your weaponry on your mega-industrialized home planet.

 

This isn't really a validation though...

Option A: ridiculously expensive, dangerous, unreliable, and technically mindnumbing missile launching system that takes either several years or truckloads of ridiculous handwaving to explain.
Option B: missile system mounted on your station that can strike a planet in only a few seconds to a few minutes, and is cheaper to fire, build, and more reliable.