resource attacking

[long hawk]

We have weapons that attack ships by HP, But what if we had a new weapon that would " disappear" the enemy resources, like ammo or if it is a trade ship, the stuff in it,
Could be big or small, but definitely not cheap, probably a very small range because it is hitting resources, like 60 meters, or 50 meters range, a significant cooldown too,

And to reduce the spam-ability, it should have a mechanic similar to deck guns that they cannot be placed close to eachother, with a 5-6, or 9-10 meter radius where you cannot place them next to eachother depending on the community's wanted size of the module,
The actual weapon itself will have a penetration similar to that of the railgun, where it can reach deep into an unarmoured ship, but is completely blocked by shields, and more than 1 or 2 armour layers stops it aswell, The weapon in question does No actual damage and should probably fire once every 10+ seconds, the amount of resources it removes can be determined by the Hp of the storage, the distance from the surface of the ship where it was hit, meaning the closer to the edge the more is removed and deeper in, the less is removed, it could be something like,
Directly at the surface of the ship a full stack of ammo is removed, and 8 meters deep into the ship 5 resources of the stack of ammo is removed,
If removing resources from existence isn't wanted, maybe it could just send them forcefully ejected into space, if it hits an energy storage it can just remove the energy like regular resources, since in the resource logistics menu energy is a resource in there, although it wouldn't eject energy into space.

Something like this would function similar to a railgun, where the module does not aim itself with no fire arch, but also is not a modular weapon unlike the railgun, and also the resource destroying projectiles can be fast like the railgun projectiles, just with terrible range,
Attacking a neutral in career with this will cause a warning just like attacking the neutral regularly,
This weapon could be useful against ships that are run by 1 energy storage and have just 6 large cannons and no reactor or storages, as this weapon may also extract the ammo from the cannons, deck ones like Tractor beams and mining lasers included, this may also be useful for disarming smaller ships without shields or cause a large disruption to shield-less ships that would have to then reload,
I see this as useful against ships

[distant bramble]

This is way to polarizing to be included in the game. People just dont like it when you interfere with their stuff on that level (as can be seen by the people downvoting this post without giving any reason lol)
I personally cautiously like the idea. It would allow for an interesting short range stalling strategy. The problem is that its hard to balance.

Also why are you always downvoting your own post?

[long hawk]

I kind of think of it like an Emp, but for resources, mostly against the cheap stuff like ammo, but because it is against ammo and not infinitely regenerative energy from a reactor, it will have many drawbacks, perhaps it could cost expensive resources itself to use, and are completely wasted when they hit a shield or armour

[distant bramble]

What I meant is that it might be to effective against some ships and not effective against most.
But actually on second though its a easier to balance because low impact weapons like cannons are naturally located in the front where more ammo will be lost
Deck cannons are high impact but also have larger ammo storages and are behind armor
And rails are also costly and have small ammo storages but are even further in the back

I quite like your implementation weather intentional or not I think this weapon would partly automatically be balanced by the meta

[misty meteor]

If the idea is just to punish ammo-based designs, to a lesser degree I'd say that's kinda what fire already does. Both ammo and sulfur cause a small explosion and cause a lot of fires once destroyed; it can very easily spread out of control if not planned for, whereas energy-based stuff (minus reactors themselves) don't really have that problem.

[distant bramble]

But thats just something different. Resource attacking would need a very different play style than the weakness you are describing and needs to be actively used by your opponent.

[long hawk]

I'd say the difference is that fire kills resources by killing the storages itself, while this just removes the resources themselves in a more direct approach,