Different torpedo types. Can someone explain???

any torpedoes is good if you have enough tech levels in it and use it properly, in a properly positioned fleet, with good support behind it.

I'm not really sure off the bat.
I always use gammas, because evan though they weigh more, they look like an actually torpedo, instead of some weird glowing thing....

"stock sucks" - prety much covers it.

-----
an se5a is a ww1 fighter, it is also a car.

It's a problem with technology requirements that were not added (or removed?) in stock.

I've never used a torpedo... How do they compare to missiles? What is their main use/benefit/whatever?

Thanks,

Javaslinger

OK, well, then how about in the MODs? What torpedo is best for which circumstances?

(Sythara should have a reply-point taken away for his/her un-informational reply)

The different Torpedo types are detailed in the PDF Manual (Appendix-Components). It appears that some are supposed to bypass Armor, some Sheilds. There is also a range/damage/accuracy tradeoff.

Try to keep your research focused on just one type, raise to very high levels. This seems to hold true for the other catagories of weapons as well.

I checked the manual, and I can't tell the difference between the torps. Seems the only one that does special damage is the Crystalline Torp which skips armor.

Read on about the organic torps.....they have some i think its called "parasite" that eats all the enemy supplies on a ship =P

The basic torpedoes have different damage per second, size, and cost. The Quantum torpedoes are always more damaging than antimatter torpedoes, but they also cost a lot more. Gamma has slightly longer range, but fires slower.

Basically, it's just preference and how much you're willing to spend on the more powerful torpedoes.

-----
Space for rent - please contact owner

why don't you read the original question really carefully before occusing me of un-informational rhetoric.

But as far as torpedoes go, I prefer to use them on defense satellites. Pretty much the faster the ship the shorter range of a torp you need. The slower (or stationary) the ship is, max range would be more benefitial.

Wz up Bro's

I have wondered the same thing too. Did they think about the different types of weapons and how they work? How Missiles are different from Torpedoes? Are they the same in the game? Are Torps better then Missiles? Are Missiles better than Torps?

I'm Sorry I do not have the answer for you but I was in the US NAVY for 6yrs and as a Naval Aircraft Weapons/Ordnance Tech these weapons operate like this.

Naval Torpedoes:Ops environment = Water:
Torpedoes Generaly have a more powerfull warhead than a anti-ship missile.
Torp's detonate upon impact with the side of the vessel or slide under the bottom of the vessel and then detonate.
When detonation accrues the water actually helps focus the blast/shock wave into the hull which then caves in under the pressure creating a hole in the side of the vessel.
Torp's guidances are = wire-guided ,acustic homing , plot tracked(Free running).

Naval Anti-Ship Misslies: Ops environment = Air:
Anti-Ship Missiles have a small to medium size warhead.
Naval Missiles impact the vessel then penatrate inside the vessel to detonate seconds or even min's later.
Missiles can impact from the side or the top/deck but it dependes on the weapons programing.

I do think there should be clear and defined differences between Missiles and Torpedos in this game maybe some MODDER will tackle this in the near future.
I know this did not help you but maybe it will help a MODDER later on.
B/R
The Dog Star

In lots of space science fiction it usually ends up like this:

Torps usually move slower, but have more power, and are more expencive and larger.

Missiles are usually more common: Faster, smaller and more agile than the slower torps, but doing less damage. I'm not sure if thats how it is in SEV..

Heres one of the biggest differances:
Torps can NOT be shot down.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY SHOULD I FEAR WHAT WRONG I HAD NOT DONE?

~Ardius (me)

Generally, torpedoes seem to have a little less range than missiles and less powerful warheads, but are faster and cannot be shot down.

are you sure they can't be shot down? IIRC they are still "seekers" but have more hitpoints than missiles...

-----
an se5a is a ww1 fighter, it is also a car.

Pretty sure my PD's shot one down tonight. Lv 2, it took 3 PD's to do it. Sorry - don't know what lv enemy torp was.

I saw 2 PD's fail to get the job done. They're tough.

This is stock 1.35. Only mod at all is my alternative to the "Default AI Strategies".

I was wondering about that, because that would really make torps much different from missiles.

Another thing that would be cool would be to make torps much slower, impossible to shoot down (or extrodinarily difficult at least), VLong range, but slow to the point that faster ships might be able to turn and outrun them--much like modern day torpedos are. Missiles would have the major speed advantage, but also have a good chance of being shot down by PD.

I've used the gamma torp before for it's long range, but it seems a bit of a waste when quantum torps have a lighter weight AND a faster ROF. I don't think the range/ROF trade-off really tips things into favor for the Gamma Torps.

If you think about it having torpedos in space is pretty silly. Has anyone ever heard of air-to-air torpedos?

I like the quantum torpedos. Comparing level-to-level they are not as powerful as capital ship missles, but they take up less space so it is often possible to squeeze in an extra weapon. They also reload more quickly so that you actually inflict more damage to the enemy ship over a period of time. Furthermore IIRC research to reach a particular level of quantum torpedos costs lees than to reach a comparable level of capital ship missles.

Technically they wouldn't be "air-to-air" as their isn't really that much air in space. I agree with you on quantum torpedoes.

If you think about it, comparing modern day planet-based weapon systems to futuristic space age weapon systems is pretty silly.

SpaceEmpires.net | Space Empires Wiki

I agree. So we need to come up with new names for missiles, torpedos and ships. Absolutely!

The reason there is a compairson between modern day weapons and future or yester-year weapons is because makes sense to find analogs of the current day from predecessor technology and this will continue to future technology.

In the 1800s, 'torpedos' were what we refer to today as 'mines'--you may have heard Captain Arleigh Burke's famous quote: "Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead!", he certainly wasn't referring to a self-propelled subsurface weapon with an explosive warhead as we term 'torpedos' today. It would make sense that in some future we will still have 'torpedos' although we (current modern man) would not recognize these as torpedos. Same with missiles and ships.

The term 'ship' has been used for a very long time (I'm not even going to guess how long) as a term to describe a waterborne vessel with some sort of propulsion. With large bodies of water being an analog of space (water has different gravity, as does space; humans cannot survive under water or on water without some form of 'life support', the same is true of space, etc;) we call large star-faring vessels ships as well. In the age of sail, ships would 'set sail', in the age of steam ships would 'steam', and in the age of nuclear powered ships, ships still 'steam'. Should they...nuclear? Well, steam sounds more classy to me anyway.

These terms (missile, torpedo, ship, and anything else) allow us to conceptualize weapons and technologies that do not yet (and may never) exist. It allows our mind to link a fantastic weapon or technology to something that is more easily and readily understood, and it would follow that the terms used for these weapons would share an amount of characteristics with the current day weapons they are named after.

Unless you've got a better idea, of course.

Actually I can explain one part of this, I used to work in a nuclear power plant on a naval ship.... it is still accurate to say the ship is "steaming" becuase the nuclear plant basically just provides heat to create steam, which runs the turbines/engines etc....

The only difference is the plant uses plutonium instead of fuel oil.

--------------------------------------
It's not what you know...
It's not who you know...
It's what you know about who you know.

One interesting take on things is to consider from the standpoint of a generally modern ship the difference between a torpedo and a missile.

The torpedo operates in the same medium (water) that the ship does, has a speed probably greater than that of the ship but not unreasonably so, and with luck and skill can sometimes be outmaneuvered.

The missile operates in a different medium (air) than the ship does, has a speed many times what is possible in the ship's medium, and in general can't be outmaneuvered.

In many SF settings, the logical extrapolation is water:space::air::hyperspace. Most of the seekers in SEV would be torpedoes by that take, with hypermissiles probably being handled more like a giant gun. You could even handwave a reasoning that hyperspace can't be survived except by specially hardened electronics and the power required goes up as the cube of the volume transited or something, to explain why ships don't use it.

I always assumed the sci-fi distinction was between a fixed payload delivery thing, and a vehicle capable of delivering a number of different things. The former being a missile and the latter a torp.

Whether speed has anything to do with it, other than the intuitive feel that a general-purpose delivery system should be slower than a specialized weapon, isn't something I care to speculate about.

On a dissimilar note, I'm quite certain there's just two ways to go about hyperspace tech. Either you use it as you please, skipping any sort of logic or explanation, or you don't use it. It's sort of like superstitions. The more you try to justify them, the deeper the hole you end up in, hehe.

Lector Rae: That wasn't Burke's quote. That's Farragut, at the battle of Mobile.

Oops...LOL, history never was my strong suit. I could have sworn it was Burke tho.

I'm a big fan of the Sunburn myself. Can't remember the NATO SSN-number. Shorter range, super high speed and sea-skimming. The Shipwreck is a good missile but operates at a VHigh altitude if memory serves (and it didn't in the case of the Burke quote) which makes it easier to shoot down.

It is a cool name however

Wz up 4x Bro's

Antarian

Sorry my bad man, I was not attempting to educate anyone just tring to relate to your post with examples of how&why Missiles and/or Torps should function,operate differently no matter were or what environment they are in.

Antarian, ColonialAdmiral, Ardius, Lector Rae, jdunson

All you guys above have really great ideas on this subject now weather it gets applied to the game or not I couldn't say but discussion's like this are great for this game. I still belive that there should be.

Clear and defined differences between Missiles and Torpedos in this game as in Weapons Range, Speed, Type of Damage, Tracking/Targeting, Defensive Capability + or - . One day maybe some MODDER/MM will tackle this in the near future.

P.S.
Your knowledge on Naval Surface/Air Lanuched Weapons Mark's and Mod's is pretty cool. How about this one guys anybody have any idea on this.

Do you know of the AIM-54N Air to Air Missile?.....
I'll give you a hint it's not in the History books nor is it in any civilian archives or manuals of any kind and The US NAVY refuses to acknowledge its existence. 1 more hint when it goes BOOM the sky GLOWS!
To bad for US ALL the US NAVY retired the F-14 it was one AWESOME AIRCRAFT!!!!

Stay cool Bro's.
The Dog Star.........

AIM-54A/B/C (and /D too?) I believe was the Phoenix missile, 110nm range IIRC. I'd imagine the -N version was a nuke, which would follow other (US) naval designations for nuclear stuff (CVN = Nuke carrier; SSBN = nuke sub; SSN = nuke attack sub, etc).