EVE Search - How powerful are the weapons in EVE?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

How powerful are the weapons in EVE?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings D-L	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:06:00 - [1] Edited by: DubanFP on 22/08/2007 18:07:55 I would imagine some of the weapons in eve must have some seriously immense firepower. I mean even the explosive version of the weakest missile in the game "Phalanx Rocket" is described as wielding a small nuclear warhead. Even the cruiser sized heavy missiles have to be multi-megaton warheads easily capable of leveling cities. Even the torpedo arsenal of 1 Raven would be capable of leveling an entire planet with warheads ranging in the hundreds of megatons. And never mind sieged citadels. They would probably be multi-gigaton warheads. The soot from 1 salvo alone would probably be enough to render an entire planet uninhabitable. The other "non-missile" weapons would be harder to measure though. I would imagine they'd be much weaker in actual yield but much more focused "rather then having most of the blast get directed into space" ___________ Xanstin> Your sig is full of really, really crap self quotes. DubanFP> Happy now that i have your quote included?
Ather Ialeas Amarr Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United Cult of War	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:09:00 - [2] Considering lasers have enough power to form only a few meter long and few cm thick beams, stargates have mass which is more than a dozen singularities in one, nothing ever orbits anything and flying physics are basically zero-G submarines submerged in water...yep, fits perfectly to the picture [ insert fancy sig here ]
Arknox Minmatar Darkadians	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:16:00 - [3] imagine getting with by a 1400mm bullet ... or better, a 3500mm ---------- Originally by: JeanPierre You need to examine Minmatar ships bro. No kidding, I tried to Salvage one last night. Took me 20 cycles before the pilot convoed me and told me to stop it.
Illyria Ambri RennTech	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:16:00 - [4] Originally by: DubanFP Edited by: DubanFP on 22/08/2007 18:07:55 I would imagine some of the weapons in eve must have some seriously immense firepower. I mean even the explosive version of the weakest missile in the game "Phalanx Rocket" is described as wielding a small nuclear warhead. Even the cruiser sized heavy missiles have to be multi-megaton warheads easily capable of leveling cities. Even the torpedo arsenal of 1 Raven would be capable of leveling an entire planet with warheads ranging in the hundreds of megatons. And never mind sieged citadels. They would probably be multi-gigaton warheads. The soot from 1 salvo alone would probably be enough to render an entire planet uninhabitable. The other "non-missile" weapons would be harder to measure though. I would imagine they'd be much weaker in actual yield but much more focused "rather then having most of the blast get directed into space" Ok.. your point? ------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek Here come the Drums!! - The Master
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:18:00 - [5] Originally by: DubanFP I would imagine some of the weapons in eve must have some seriously immense firepower. I mean even the explosive version of the weakest missile in the game "Phalanx Rocket" is described as wielding a small nuclear warhead. Well, that depends. Given the miniaturization that 40,000 years of technological development could bring, it's conceivable that very small nuclear warheads could be more effective than their equivalent weight in chemical-based explosive, and only nuclear warheads are capable of producing a significant EM shockwave. I imagine frigate-sized rockets have firepower of ten to twenty kilotons. So going by this scale, we get this: Standard Missile: 30-60 Kilotons (75 damage) Heavy Missile: 60-120 Kilotons (150 damage) Torpedo: 180-360 Kilotons (450 damage) Citadel Torpedo: 640 Kilotons - 1.28 Megatons (1800 damage) Nothing too extreme, but the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was about 400 Kilotons if that gives you any idea. So a Torpedo-slinging Raven could certainly level an unshielded city. Yikes. ------------ Whiners - Unite! \| Posting and You Tarminic - Forum Warfare Specialist.
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:18:00 - [6] Edited by: Tarminic on 22/08/2007 18:28:42 Originally by: DubanFP I would imagine some of the weapons in eve must have some seriously immense firepower. I mean even the explosive version of the weakest missile in the game "Phalanx Rocket" is described as wielding a small nuclear warhead. Well, that depends. Given the miniaturization that 40,000 years of technological development could bring, it's conceivable that very small nuclear warheads could be more effective than their equivalent weight in chemical-based explosive, and only nuclear warheads are capable of producing a significant EM shockwave. I imagine frigate-sized rockets have firepower of ten to twenty kilotons. So going by this scale, we get this: Standard Missile: 30-60 Kilotons (75 damage) Heavy Missile: 60-120 Kilotons (150 damage) Torpedo: 180-360 Kilotons (450 damage) Citadel Torpedo: 640 Kilotons - 1.28 Megatons (1800 damage) Nothing too extreme, but the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was about ~~400~~ 20 Kilotons if that gives you any idea. So a Torpedo-slinging Raven could certainly level an unshielded city. Yikes. EDIT: Manage to confuse 400 kilotons with 20 kilotons. Whoops! ------------ Whiners - Unite! \| Posting and You Tarminic - Forum Warfare Specialist.
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:22:00 - [7] Originally by: DubanFP The other "non-missile" weapons would be harder to measure though. I would imagine they'd be much weaker in actual yield but much more focused "rather then having most of the blast get directed into space" Not true actually! In space there's no real concussion from a missile explosion, so the primary damage is a factor of the surface of the ship exposed to the blast (think sig radius). So missile weapons are actually fairly well-focused in space. Blasters might not work well in atmosphere, unfortunately. And given their limited range they may have a hard time reaching all the way through the atmosphere from upper orbit. If they could, however, they would have a devastating effect on a civilian populace. It would basically blanket a couple square acres with plasma. Railguns and Artillery would function much like standard weapons do now, and as for lasers...they could be terrible weapons of mass destruction. Battleship-sized lasers piercing an atmosphere would burn off oxygen and other atmospheric components in huge volumes. It's not completely unrealistic to think that a sustained bombardment of many laser-wielding battleships could render a planet's atmosphere significantly less habitable. ------------ Whiners - Unite! \| Posting and You Tarminic - Forum Warfare Specialist.
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:22:00 - [8] Originally by: DubanFP The other "non-missile" weapons would be harder to measure though. I would imagine they'd be much weaker in actual yield but much more focused "rather then having most of the blast get directed into space" Not true actually! In space there's no real concussion from a missile explosion, so the primary damage is a factor of the surface of the ship exposed to the blast (think sig radius). So missile weapons are actually fairly well-focused in space. Blasters might not work well in atmosphere, unfortunately. And given their limited range they may have a hard time reaching all the way through the atmosphere from upper orbit. If they could, however, they would have a devastating effect on a civilian populace. It would basically blanket a couple square acres with plasma. Railguns and Artillery would function much like standard weapons do now, and as for lasers...they could be terrible weapons of mass destruction. Battleship-sized lasers piercing an atmosphere would burn off oxygen and other atmospheric components in huge volumes. It's not completely unrealistic to think that a sustained bombardment of many laser-wielding battleships could render a planet's atmosphere significantly less habitable. ------------ Whiners - Unite! \| Posting and You Tarminic - Forum Warfare Specialist.
Nachshon Caldari Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:24:00 - [9] Edited by: Nachshon on 22/08/2007 18:25:53 I imagine that the phalanx rocket is even smaller than the smallest modern tac-nukes. Nuclear weapons have a far greater yield:size ratio than conventional explosives, so it makes sense to develop smaller nukes. Light missiles are probably on par with the smallest tac-nukes - the kind you use to level tank columns. Heavy missiles are around Hiroshima scale. Cruise missiles and torpedoes would be in the multi-megaton range - a single stealth bomber could easily level a city in one salvo. Citadel torpedoes - well, they use noxcium warheads, not nuclear. That is on the level of a volcanic eruption. And several salvoes could probably cripple a planet's agriculture with all that ash. This is probably the same as the yield for projectiles. Railguns are more precise, but damage a smaller area. Bombarding a city with capital railguns would not necessarily turn it to parking lot, but it would make it very unpleasant. ____________________________________ Caldari by birth, Minmatar by citizenship. The True Meaning of Freedom
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings D-L	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:24:00 - [10] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: DubanFP I would imagine some of the weapons in eve must have some seriously immense firepower. I mean even the explosive version of the weakest missile in the game "Phalanx Rocket" is described as wielding a small nuclear warhead. Well, that depends. Given the miniaturization that 40,000 years of technological development could bring, it's conceivable that very small nuclear warheads could be more effective than their equivalent weight in chemical-based explosive, and only nuclear warheads are capable of producing a significant EM shockwave. I imagine frigate-sized rockets have firepower of ten to twenty kilotons. So going by this scale, we get this: Standard Missile: 30-60 Kilotons (75 damage) Heavy Missile: 60-120 Kilotons (150 damage) Torpedo: 180-360 Kilotons (450 damage) Citadel Torpedo: 640 Kilotons - 1.28 Megatons (1800 damage) Nothing too extreme, but the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was about 400 Kilotons if that gives you any idea. So a Torpedo-slinging Raven could certainly level an unshielded city. Yikes. Dude i don't know where you got your numbers from. But the bomb that was dropped on hiroshoma was only about 20 Kt. ___________ Xanstin> Your sig is full of really, really crap self quotes. DubanFP> Happy now that i have your quote included?
Nachshon Caldari Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:24:00 - [11] Edited by: Nachshon on 22/08/2007 18:25:53 I imagine that the phalanx rocket is even smaller than the smallest modern tac-nukes. Nuclear weapons have a far greater yield:size ratio than conventional explosives, so it makes sense to develop smaller nukes. Light missiles are probably on par with the smallest tac-nukes - the kind you use to level tank columns. Heavy missiles are around Hiroshima scale. Cruise missiles and torpedoes would be in the multi-megaton range - a single stealth bomber could easily level a city in one salvo. Citadel torpedoes - well, they use noxcium warheads, not nuclear. That is on the level of a volcanic eruption. And several salvoes could probably cripple a planet's agriculture with all that ash. This is probably the same as the yield for projectiles. Railguns are more precise, but damage a smaller area. Bombarding a city with capital railguns would not necessarily turn it to parking lot, but it would make it very unpleasant. ____________________________________ Caldari by birth, Minmatar by citizenship. The True Meaning of Freedom
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings D-L	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:24:00 - [12] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: DubanFP I would imagine some of the weapons in eve must have some seriously immense firepower. I mean even the explosive version of the weakest missile in the game "Phalanx Rocket" is described as wielding a small nuclear warhead. Well, that depends. Given the miniaturization that 40,000 years of technological development could bring, it's conceivable that very small nuclear warheads could be more effective than their equivalent weight in chemical-based explosive, and only nuclear warheads are capable of producing a significant EM shockwave. I imagine frigate-sized rockets have firepower of ten to twenty kilotons. So going by this scale, we get this: Standard Missile: 30-60 Kilotons (75 damage) Heavy Missile: 60-120 Kilotons (150 damage) Torpedo: 180-360 Kilotons (450 damage) Citadel Torpedo: 640 Kilotons - 1.28 Megatons (1800 damage) Nothing too extreme, but the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was about 400 Kilotons if that gives you any idea. So a Torpedo-slinging Raven could certainly level an unshielded city. Yikes. Dude i don't know where you got your numbers from. But the bomb that was dropped on hiroshoma was only about 20 Kt. ___________ Xanstin> Your sig is full of really, really crap self quotes. DubanFP> Happy now that i have your quote included?
Snake Jankins Minmatar German Cyberdome Corp Cult of War	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:26:00 - [13] But a citadel torpedo does only minor damage to something build out of paper and tape like a Stiletto, even if the Stiletto is standing still close to the center of the explosion ? No, I didn't want to open that can of worms. ___________ I've never been so serious as I am now. No, really.
Snake Jankins Minmatar German Cyberdome Corp Cult of War	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:26:00 - [14] But a citadel torpedo does only minor damage to something build out of paper and tape like a Stiletto, even if the Stiletto is standing still close to the center of the explosion ? No, I didn't want to open that can of worms. ___________ I've never been so serious as I am now. No, really.
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:28:00 - [15] Edited by: Tarminic on 22/08/2007 18:28:00 Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: DubanFP Nothing too extreme, but the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was about 400 Kilotons if that gives you any idea. So a Torpedo-slinging Raven could certainly level an unshielded city. Yikes. Dude i don't know where you got your numbers from. But the bomb that was dropped on hiroshoma was only about 20 Kt. Wikipedia confirms my error. Whoops. I'll correct my post accordingly. ------------ Whiners - Unite! \| Posting and You Tarminic - Forum Warfare Specialist.
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings D-L	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:29:00 - [16] Originally by: Snake Jankins But a citadel torpedo does only minor damage to something build out of paper and tape like a Stiletto, even if the Stiletto is standing still close to the center of the explosion ? No, I didn't want to open that can of worms. Explosion radius seems more to me how far away from the target the missile explodes, or it's accuracy. At 400M a target "with shields/armor" I would think would stand a good chance of surviving considered these things ARE armored. That and i always figured armor has to have some sort of energy field running through to to keep it's integrity. There's no way a standard chemical bond could hold together under a frickin nuke. No matter how small. ___________ Xanstin> Your sig is full of really, really crap self quotes. DubanFP> Happy now that i have your quote included?
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:31:00 - [17] Originally by: DubanFP Originally by: Snake Jankins But a citadel torpedo does only minor damage to something build out of paper and tape like a Stiletto, even if the Stiletto is standing still close to the center of the explosion ? No, I didn't want to open that can of worms. Explosion radius seems more to me how far away from the target the missile explodes, or it's accuracy. At 400M a target "with shields/armor" I would think would stand a good chance of surviving considered these things ARE armored. Also, in space there's no concussion so the damage dealt is completely a factor of the amount of the ship exposed to the blast. A small ship would indeed take more damage simply because they would be exposed to a very small subset of the blast's actual damage. ------------ Whiners - Unite! \| Posting and You Tarminic - Forum Warfare Specialist.
Soratah Amarr The Aegis Militia Aegis Militia	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:35:00 - [18] Originally by: DubanFP Originally by: Snake Jankins But a citadel torpedo does only minor damage to something build out of paper and tape like a Stiletto, even if the Stiletto is standing still close to the center of the explosion ? No, I didn't want to open that can of worms. Explosion radius seems more to me how far away from the target the missile explodes, or it's accuracy. At 400M a target "with shields/armor" I would think would stand a good chance of surviving considered these things ARE armored. That and i always figured armor has to have some sort of energy field running through to to keep it's integrity. There's no way a standard chemical bond could hold together under a frickin nuke. No matter how small. Of course they can we're dealing with a blanket effect from a nuclear detonation that loses all of it's energy in the first few meters of the explosion. The damage is coming from heat (In a realistic nuclear effect) Also becase it's large volumes of energy released we're dealing with energy in wave form with those properties. To break the bonding at the atomic level the atom itself needs to be hit with another atom carrying an energy level of the detonation. On the whole, not much would survive damage from the ship's weapons IF in the atmosphere because force can be transposed through atmosphere. In space, none so weaponry is significantly reduced in scope (for this time period) In regards to scale. One of the Titan's weapons would be like a meteor hitting the planet (if projectile) If laser or Blaster then it would literally burn away huge holes in the atmosphere as well as pretty much glass the ground. A single shot from one of those would be BAD news for people living there. So I would guess there must be something to protect against that kind of bombardment.
Nocturnal Avenger The Ankou The Reckoning.	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:36:00 - [19] RL calcs used in a fictive world are bound to fail. - Carebear Pirate -
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:39:00 - [20] Originally by: Nocturnal Avenger RL calcs used in a fictive world are bound to fail. If the world itself is fictional, how can they fail? You can't dispute their accuracy. ------------ Whiners - Unite! \| Posting and You Tarminic - Forum Warfare Specialist.
Tortun Nahme Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:46:00 - [21] think of getting hit by a minicooper packed full of nuclear weapons thats 1400 mm arty Why there should be a breathalyzer to login to Eve-Forums: Quote: Smacking my own alt in a nerf-thread while drunk, he was irritating a Hauler full of tech II n00bs, Oops.
Surfin's PlunderBunny Minmatar Sicarri Covenant	Posted - 2007.08.22 18:56:00 - [22] Edited by: Surfin''s PlunderBunny on 22/08/2007 18:57:02 Originally by: Arknox Edited by: Arknox on 22/08/2007 18:16:50 imagine getting hit by a 1400mm bullet ... or better, a 3500mm Well, depending on which source you're using... an M1A2 main battle tank's main gun is between 110mm and 120mm... I think I read up to 155mm somewhere too *Pictures a bus sized 3500MM projecile Tic Toc Tic Toc , time is ticking ~Liz Kali
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings D-L	Posted - 2007.08.22 19:00:00 - [23] Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny Edited by: Surfin''s PlunderBunny on 22/08/2007 18:57:02 Originally by: Arknox Edited by: Arknox on 22/08/2007 18:16:50 imagine getting hit by a 1400mm bullet ... or better, a 3500mm Well, depending on which source you're using... an M1A2 main battle tank's main gun is between 110mm and 120mm... I think I read up to 155mm somewhere too *Pictures a bus sized 3500MM projecile You gotta realize the size of the projectile increases by a poewr of 3. Twice the the caliber, 8x the physical volume. ___________ Xanstin> Your sig is full of really, really crap self quotes. DubanFP> Happy now that i have your quote included?
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2007.08.22 19:04:00 - [24] Well a weapon discharge from an Avatar royally screwed over a planet (storyline from some months ago), kind of on the 'mass extinction event' which implies at least hundreds of thousands of MT range, if not Millions of MT range. Other than that you don't really know, there are references to large artifical canyons being gouged by tachyon siege lasers, and some rather nice fan art (Iron Tide) depicting large detonations on the surface of a planet. ---------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Kharadran Sullath Caldari IntoXication Inc	Posted - 2007.08.22 19:07:00 - [25] Edited by: Kharadran Sullath on 22/08/2007 19:07:35 3500mm dpu round. I can imagine a good few people would become quite discontent if that landed anywhere on the same continent ------ --Don't get saucy with me Bernaise!--
Illyria Ambri RennTech	Posted - 2007.08.22 19:13:00 - [26] Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny Edited by: Surfin''s PlunderBunny on 22/08/2007 18:57:02 Originally by: Arknox Edited by: Arknox on 22/08/2007 18:16:50 imagine getting hit by a 1400mm bullet ... or better, a 3500mm Well, depending on which source you're using... an M1A2 main battle tank's main gun is between 110mm and 120mm... I think I read up to 155mm somewhere too *Pictures a bus sized 3500MM projecile 155mm howitzer shell can be picked up by 1 strong person. Though 2 ppl to move them is the norm. 109mm howitzer shell has a diameter smaller then a basketball.. actually its about the diameter of a football (and I'm talkin American football.. not soccer :P ) and is about 1.5 - 2 feet long. This is laymans experience.. though I haven't had to load a 109mm howitzer in a few years.. those are basic size comparisons. ------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek Here come the Drums!! - The Master
Matalino Gallente Ki Tech Industries	Posted - 2007.08.22 19:15:00 - [27] Edited by: Matalino on 22/08/2007 19:20:08 Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny Pictures a bus sized 3500MM projecile Yet a single round will take less cargo space than a 40 US-gallon (151.4 litres) barrel. Not only that, but it only weighs 1 kg. Originally by:* CCP Prism X P.S. If you think you're reading some information through the lines here, you're wrong. I'm actually just bored.
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.22 19:17:00 - [28] Originally by: Gabriel Karade Well a weapon discharge from an Avatar royally screwed over a planet (storyline from some months ago), kind of on the 'mass extinction event' which implies at least hundreds of thousands of MT range, if not Millions of MT range. Based on my previous calculations a Doomsday Device would a yield somewhere between 20 and 40 megatons, so certainly enough to have some climate-altering properties. ------------ Whiners - Unite! \| Posting and You Tarminic - Forum Warfare Specialist.
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings D-L	Posted - 2007.08.22 19:21:00 - [29] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: Gabriel Karade Well a weapon discharge from an Avatar royally screwed over a planet (storyline from some months ago), kind of on the 'mass extinction event' which implies at least hundreds of thousands of MT range, if not Millions of MT range. Based on my previous calculations a Doomsday Device would a yield somewhere between 20 and 40 megatons, so certainly enough to have some climate-altering properties. The largest ever nuclear bomb detonated was along the lines of 50 Megatons the Tsar Bomba. There's no way in hell the titan's Blast was only 20 to 40 Megatons. You can see the think from several AU away. ___________ Xanstin> Your sig is full of really, really crap self quotes. DubanFP> Happy now that i have your quote included?
Surfin's PlunderBunny Minmatar Sicarri Covenant	Posted - 2007.08.22 19:26:00 - [30] Originally by: Matalino Edited by: Matalino on 22/08/2007 19:20:08 Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny *Pictures a bus sized 3500MM projecile Yet a single round will take less cargo space than a 40 US-gallon (151.4 litres) barrel. Not only that, but it only weighs 1 kg. that's cause it's THE FUTURE!!!! Tic Toc Tic Toc , time is ticking ~Liz Kali

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.