Would you prefer more missiles or shoulder-mounted cannons?

The future is now. This is the place for mecha and science.
Post Reply
False Prophet
Posts: 784
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2015 7:40 am

Would you prefer more missiles or shoulder-mounted cannons?

Post by False Prophet » Sun Jan 19, 2020 11:13 am

Just thinking about the large period during which the Federation did not have a frontline MS with shoulder mounted cannons (after the Nemo 3 to the development of the F-71 G-Cannon), save for the limited-production Loto. And at the same time, we see how many missiles could be strapped onto the GM II and the Jegan. So I wish to ask if you think your average pilot would appreciate more missiles or should cannons? I suppose that is the former, since you probably would need additional training to make the best use of the cannon. Beside, the Mega Beam Launcher seems to have the same level of power and also more familiar to use.

Massignifico
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 2:51 pm

Re: Would you prefer more missiles or shoulder-mounted cannons?

Post by Massignifico » Sun Jan 19, 2020 11:52 am

Well but the RGC-90 does have them as does the Jesta Cannon so there isn't really much gap between CCA and F91 (pretty sure we will see some Gustav Karl variations in the new movie and I bet one will have a shoulder cannon).

If we delve deeper in side stories there is the RGD-X2 GD Cannon from Double Fake (part of a trio of Jegan competitors) and also the RIX-003_Cannongan from Last Sun.

User avatar
Seto Kaiba
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Would you prefer more missiles or shoulder-mounted cannons?

Post by Seto Kaiba » Sun Jan 19, 2020 4:53 pm

The common sense answer is that the average pilot is screwed either way... but given the general lack of success that missiles achieve in the UC, I'd vote for cannons.
The Macross Mecha Manual
Yes, we're working on updates...

User avatar
Arsarcana
Posts: 1424
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 5:26 am

Re: Would you prefer more missiles or shoulder-mounted cannons?

Post by Arsarcana » Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:25 pm

Really depends on what the average pilot is going to be doing. Generally it seems that machines with over-the-shoulder cannons are intended to provide fire support while backed up by other suits that aren't burdened with additional heavy weapons. Operating solo, I wouldn't want those cannons if there was any chance of getting swarmed by sufficiently numerous or agile enemies who could avoid them. On the other hand, if I was in a combined-arms situation I'd probably go with the cannons and trust teammates to keep the enemies away while I took advantage of the extra firepower to make my shots count.

Missiles on the other hand are more general-purpose and have the benefit of being 'fire and forget' weapons, plus the launchers can generally be jettisoned after use to improve agility and stability. I imagine if I were an average pilot that would be more attractive than the generally fixed shoulder cannons, offering extra firepower over a 'vanilla' MS without having to lug around deadweight if I got into a situation where the extra weaponry stopped being useful.

User avatar
MythSearcher
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:36 pm

Re: Would you prefer more missiles or shoulder-mounted cannons?

Post by MythSearcher » Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:38 pm

Depends on the density of Minovsky particles.
The GM III long range missiles(at least the leg mounted ones) are supposed to be VERY accurate.
In a period where Minovsky particles aren't scattered like crazy, I guess missiles should be better than the skill based cannon. If the unfortunate target's superiors are cheap enough to not use Minovsky particles AND didn't invest in an advance warning system.
However, depending on the range of the cannon, I'd say it can be of better use if they can have at least something like 1/10 of the range of the Xeku Eins Type II beam smartgun/FAZZ HMC.(which can shoot to kill at a few tens thousand km) Wasting your enemies reaction mass is important.

False Prophet
Posts: 784
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Would you prefer more missiles or shoulder-mounted cannons?

Post by False Prophet » Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:05 am

MythSearcher wrote:
Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:38 pm
Depends on the density of Minovsky particles.
The GM III long range missiles(at least the leg mounted ones) are supposed to be VERY accurate.
In a period where Minovsky particles aren't scattered like crazy, I guess missiles should be better than the skill based cannon. If the unfortunate target's superiors are cheap enough to not use Minovsky particles AND didn't invest in an advance warning system.
However, depending on the range of the cannon, I'd say it can be of better use if they can have at least something like 1/10 of the range of the Xeku Eins Type II beam smartgun/FAZZ HMC.(which can shoot to kill at a few tens thousand km) Wasting your enemies reaction mass is important.
Is there any example of the GM III's missile working well in space?

Also, they did invent Funnel Missiles with the Penepelope. I wonder if Newtypes had not faded into legend by the time of Victory, would we see long-range ship-to-ship combat became a thing again, with each ship had its own team of Newtypes guiding the missiles.

User avatar
MythSearcher
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:36 pm

Re: Would you prefer more missiles or shoulder-mounted cannons?

Post by MythSearcher » Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:22 am

False Prophet wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:05 am
Is there any example of the GM III's missile working well in space?

Also, they did invent Funnel Missiles with the Penepelope. I wonder if Newtypes had not faded into legend by the time of Victory, would we see long-range ship-to-ship combat became a thing again, with each ship had its own team of Newtypes guiding the missiles.
No, the only mention about them being very accurate is in the settings part of Sentinel on Katoki's notes next to Nouvel GM III. Since GM III is originally designed by Katoki and only refined to have a rounder head in ZZ, and all the missile related add-ons are basically designed by Katoki, and we never see any other mention rejecting those words, you really can't argue against it. Some like to claim that he is only talking about an environment without Minovsky particles scattered, which actually makes little sense if you look at the whole UC history, since pre-OYW their missile technology is already at a point where the EFF fought beyond visual range with highly accurate missiles, it wouldn't make sense to specifically point out the GM III missiles are accurate in those conditions.
I'd accept the case where they are accurate when Minovsky particles aren't at battle density(but is still scattered), since that makes a lot of difference. You will need a lot of protection against the M particles ability to damage electronics and scattering M particles at a lower density suddenly becomes that much more dangerous to yourself.(the enemy still holds a weapon effective)

By UC0153 NT isn't the best combat weapon, Psychikers are. That is why they have 20,000 Psychikers on the Angel Halo. You can also see the Psychiker special force in Crossbone.
Their combat abilities are basically upgraded NTs, with higher reflexes, better predictions of the future, etc. The only difference seems to be the lack of telepathy powers NTs have, which made NTs that much more unsuitable and unstable as weapons.

Post Reply