Page 98 of 105

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Thu May 18, 2017 5:37 pm
by Condottiere
Spaceships: Medium Endurance Missiles

The missile flight times table states that a thrust ten missile takes four turns to reach a target from very long range.

After five turns, half the missile salvo tends to wander off somewhere else.

Therefore, with the exception of long range and ortillery missiles, all other variants optimalrange to be launched is at very long range, with a four turn flight time.

That means, you can half the fuel tank and make missiles about fifteen percent smaller.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Thu May 18, 2017 11:48 pm
by Condottiere
Spaceships: High Speed Missiles

Ever notice that despite being technological level twenty, antimatter missiles don't do faster than fifteen gees; and torpedoes limit themselves to ten gees.

Could that mean there's an absolute limit on acceleration?

At technological level twenty, I certainly wouldn't want to give my opponent much chance to shoot down what by then must be a very slowpokey missile; or torpedo.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 12:55 pm
by Condottiere
Spaceships: Ortillery Missiles and Torpedoes

While it's mentioned that they're supposed to be launched from orbit, no real range is mentioned, which is why you have to assume that they have ten times six gee turns of fuel in their tanks.

They also have a dice modifier of minus six when used against moving targets, though if you increase their acceleration to ten, would this still apply?

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 8:17 pm
by Condottiere
Spaceships: Decoy missiles

What really intrigues me about decoy missiles are the decoy pods. Can they be reprogrammed to simulate spaceships? You could pack them into canisters.

Also, if they can simulate other missiles or torpedoes, because I'd gladly enlarge either one to stuff them in, which gets you a better chance to hit with a more effective missile.

Then how small a warhead volume does a potential two dice occupy; if they're small enough, you can turn a torpedo into a cluster munitions delivery system.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Sat May 20, 2017 7:56 am
by Condottiere
Spaceships: Standard and Multiwarhead Torpedoes

In theory, standard torpedoes are just four times larger versions of standard missiles, but more robust and not easily distractable.

Multiwarhead variants, though, only have three dee four warheads, whereas you'd think you could squeeze in four.

Or maybe just three multiwarhead missile warheads, which split once, then split again.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Sun May 21, 2017 11:58 am
by Condottiere
Spaceships: Missiles and Configuration

Our traditional missile configuration tends to be pencilesque, but that tends to be due to the necessities of aerodynamics.

In space, there is no air resistance, and more options are available.

The first ones would be long squarish, triangular or hexagonal profiles, which make storage more efficient and require minimal adaptation of the handling equipment and the launcher.

Then you have spherical and cubical.

That would probably require a major adaptations of the launchers, but actually may make handling easier.

Perhaps even adapt railgun bays and mass drivers to launch them as smart bullets.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Mon May 22, 2017 9:46 pm
by Condottiere
Spaceships: Primitive, Prototypical and/or Budgetted Missiles

If you take the above options, your missile and/or launch systems get penalized.

Let's be fair, taking a thirty percent energy increase isn't kosher for a weapon system that hardly uses any.

Never been too fond of inaccuracy, so that leaves increased size, which is what I'm after.

The primitive and advanced options isn't very clear on the limitations of the options, such as how many times we can take penalties, though three is probably the maximum number of bonuses.

I'll assume the maximum number of penalties is two, so that will give a size increase of forty percent in volume.

You might think that's silly, since it will decrease the number of missiles you can carry, and you have to increase the size of your launchers, to which I'll say great. Turrets should be bigger, and firmpoints are a free lunch anyway.

So you've established that you're missiles take up 0.1166666666666667 tonnes and you can only squeeze in eight and a half examples in per tonne.

With that forty percent extra volume, you can now increase the range, or increase the payload, or add in more stuff like decoys.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Wed May 24, 2017 11:05 am
by Condottiere
Spaceships: Missiles and Acceleration

There are two interesting features in missile motors: their fuel tanks don't have a minimum one tonne requirement, and their acceleration seems wonky, when compared to stated technological level availability.

It is weird that spaceship acceleration stops on a dime at technological level twelve with sixteen; it's like a highway that stops in the middle of an uncompleted bridge, you know there should be more, but it's just leaves you hanging there,

Missiles are listed with maximum acceleration of fifteen; that works for me, since I usually don't bother improving anything beyond technological level fourteen, which that would be three short of.

The nuclear missile is available at technological level six, and has an acceleration of ten, and reaction rockets aren't available until technological level seven.

Then you have the ortillery missile with acceleration six, with a dice modifier penalty of minus six to hit anything that moves; what if the target is chugging along at acceleration one?

Technological level seven gives access to acceleration three, yet a technological seven standard missile has acceleration ten.

Acceleration ten isn't available until technological level ten.

Long range missiles are listed as having acceleration fifteen, but are available at technological level eight; acceleration fifteen is only available at technological level eleven.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Wed May 24, 2017 1:28 pm
by bluekieran
Condottiere wrote:
Wed May 24, 2017 11:05 am
Long range missiles are listed as having acceleration fifteen, but are available at technological level eight; acceleration fifteen is only available at technological level eleven.
I would suggest that "can go really fast" and "can go really fast while not experiencing enough Gs to squash meatbags into jam" are separate technological achievements.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Wed May 24, 2017 2:40 pm
by h1ro
I'd suggest the rules are arbitrary - mass of a ship plays no part in it's acceleration, the drives no longer have a performance limit based on hull size - by making the drive size a percentage of the ship you want more G, you get a bigger drive.

Any hint that mass affected the performance (which with hull size you can kinda say it does) has gone in 2e.

Taking that over to missiles, I would guess that the different size missiles having different performances reflects a different drive design - standard M drives can't be made small enough.

Either that or if you're using the same drive technology, remove the variations in G on missiles.

With regard to drive progression stopping at TL16, Traveller has rarely handled anything over 15 or 16. 2e has brought options but it hasn't been woven into the whole game. I prefer to limit Traveller to 14 with the occasional 15 and rarer 16 cos of the old idiom about magic and sufficiently high tech.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Thu May 25, 2017 7:20 am
by Condottiere
Manoeuvre drive size minimum hasn't been established.

With two and a half tonne torpedoes you'd be tempted to.

Image

Particle accelerator.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Thu May 25, 2017 3:44 pm
by h1ro
Without establishing the standards from which you work designs, it's all up in the air and you can have whatever you like...

(Don't understand the PA reference either!)

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Thu May 25, 2017 6:30 pm
by Condottiere
Special effects.

I assumed that manoeuvre drives require a tonne, but it was pointed out that's never mentioned in Mongoose Second.

On the other hand, pound for pound, reaction rockets are five times cheaper, and missiles are disposable, and you lose half every five turns in flight.

This isn't a problem for torpedoes, and giving them a manoeuvre drive pretty much turns them into cruise missiles, who aren't going to be led astray every five turns.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Thu May 25, 2017 6:55 pm
by h1ro
Reaction drives take a metric **** ton of fuel.

Hand waves are your friend...

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Thu May 25, 2017 7:09 pm
by Condottiere
Spaceships require setting aside fourteen cubic metres for a fuel tank.

Missiles and torpedoes haven't unionized.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Thu May 25, 2017 7:11 pm
by h1ro
Not yet, comrade...

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Thu May 25, 2017 7:13 pm
by Condottiere
Manoeuvre drives can substitute batteries, which I assume are required to power the electronics.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Thu May 25, 2017 7:22 pm
by h1ro
Hmm, maybe but 2e lists the M drive as requiring power so you'd need a power source of some kind to run it. Batteries in the rules are good for one turn at the listed output (which makes them kinda useless) tho I am sure the numbers could be worked to allow a lower output over greater time.

I don't think 2e lists a minimum size for a fusion power plant. NASA has made this which is pretty dinky and while current fusion designs are huge, we can hand wave and make them smaller.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Fri May 26, 2017 1:48 am
by Condottiere
Image

There a mini fusion reactor attached to those guns.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Fri May 26, 2017 2:32 am
by h1ro
Yeah but in an age of ultra violent weapons and an uber fast battle zone, those flying suits look like slow easy targets.

Bring the machines...