Page 107 of 137

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:15 pm
by Sigtrygg
Considering they are included in a standard ship class and have many canonical points of reference then yes they are canonical for the setting.

Mongoose did a very poor job in explaining which bits of HG2e are part of the third Imperium setting and which bits are not.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:45 am
by Condottiere
Usually you can infer such things from printed examples.

If they weren't contradictory.

With wargaming, you want explicit rules and concrete examples how things work, while with roleplaying fuzzy logic can apply.

I'm trying to figure out how to push that camel through the eye of the needle.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:36 pm
by Condottiere
Inspiration: DIY

You, too, can build a smallcraft in your garage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTvY9Llqtms
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkq3lAW875o

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 9:53 am
by Condottiere
Spaceships: Armaments, Stand Off Bomb Pumped Torpedoes and Point Defence Batteries

A point defence battery automatically intercepts missile and torpedo salvoes just before they make their own attack rolls.

That means, Point Defence Batteries must have an effective range that exceeds the stand off range range of Bomb Pumped Torpedoes.

So the question is, what is the stand off range of Bomb Pumped Torpedoes?

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:58 pm
by baithammer
Already handled by the -2 dm for the bomb pumped torpedoes. ( With sand casters being effective against it.)

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 9:57 pm
by Condottiere
Suffers being the operative word, not incapable of.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 10:04 am
by baithammer
If you want to get technical the maximum range for point defense is short range if another ship has point defense system and the Point Defense /2 software, for an individual ship it would be adjacent at under 1km range.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 1:34 pm
by Condottiere
We know how real life close in weapons systems work, very foggy how the High Guard variant is supposed to, since I would have assumed a gatling type pulse laser; twenty tonnes is either a series of linked turrets or barbettes, or a mini bay.

In either case, range tells me how far away I can play patty cake with Space Marines, probably grav tanks.

And if a fighter was unlucky enough to pass within range, if I could shoot it down.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 5:34 pm
by baithammer
Point Defense systems are dedicated to handling missile / torpedo salvoes and would include dedicated sensors to optimize response. Laser turrets are dual mode weapons and can be used to augment point defense while lowering offensive actions.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:21 pm
by Sigtrygg
I would have made point defence an add on to turret lasers.

As it is the actual generation of the laser does not have to be in the turret - it is just an emitter

Adding the point defence subsystem to laser turrets allows them to shoot lots of times at close range or concentrate their energy for normal range fire.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:59 pm
by Condottiere
Going by the computer programme that extends the point defence protection to other ships, it would seem the range is short.

They might actually be slightly larger than smallcraft sized variants.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:07 pm
by Condottiere
Starships: Hulls, Non Gravitated, and Constant Acceleration in Jumpspace

So being stuck in freefall for a week can be annoying.

Since energy is relatively free and abundant, in a starship without artificial gravity plating, you could recreate that with constant acceleration while hypering through the rabbit hole.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:10 pm
by Sigtrygg
Only with reaction drives, gravitic drives do not work in jumpspace - see T5.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:59 am
by SSWarlock
Condottiere wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:59 pm
Going by the computer programme that extends the point defence protection to other ships, it would seem the range is short.

They might actually be slightly larger than smallcraft sized variants.
This begs the question of can point defence batteries take advantage of the "Primitive and Advanced Spacecraft" rules to reduce their size and/or power usage? It seems to me that they're included in the Weapons section. Or am I reading too much into it?

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:13 am
by baithammer
I'd say most of the displacement is sensors not the weapon itself so wouldn't take advantage of the options under Primitive and Advanced section.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:15 am
by AnotherDilbert
SSWarlock wrote: This begs the question of can point defence batteries take advantage of the "Primitive and Advanced Spacecraft" rules to reduce their size and/or power usage? It seems to me that they're included in the Weapons section. Or am I reading too much into it?
I certainly allow it.

I don't allow zero-cost disadvantages, such as Inaccurate (PD is technically not an Attack roll).

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:47 am
by Condottiere
I want to use them as light, short range anti ship weapons.

I'd estimate power usage at around three and a half points per gun.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:30 am
by baithammer
What your describing is the standard pulse / beam laser turret.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:57 pm
by Condottiere
That's a turret based weapon system with a secondary role as point defence.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:28 pm
by Condottiere
Sigtrygg wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:10 pm
Only with reaction drives, gravitic drives do not work in jumpspace - see T5.
You're going to have to specify the page.