Alternate Launch Tube rules

[phavoc]

Yeah, that was the proposal. Though since it's an accelerator, the initial launch velocity should be considered the small craft's velocity for the round, unless it stops to engage something, and then all ships revert to zero to start the round.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Normal acceleration can come into play once you've cleared the tube, in what, two seconds?

Logically yes, but:

That sounds like fun, but I fear that it might be little much.

A good fighter can accelerate at 9G +16G = 25G. If we add the acceleration from the launch tube, 24 G, we get an available 49 G in one turn.
In the same round as the carrier manoeuvre into Very Long range we launch the fighters at 49 G and we are immediately at Adjacent range and in Close Combat. So in one single Manoeuvre Phase the fighters go from Distant Range (carried) to Adjacent (in close combat). That is too good...

 

[Reynard]

Newton's First Law of Motion, when viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force. When the launch tube accelerator ceases to exert a force on a craft, the craft now moves at the velocity imparted at the moment the tube no longer affects it until it hits an asteroid or ship in front of it or applies its own force effect. One thing people forget is the length of the tube and the acceleration can be of any variable yet balanced properly can yield the very same velocity at the mouth of the barrel from a long tube and low acceleration to snub launcher and a very high acceleration with consideration for the mass of the launched object. The biggest concern is obviously the ability of the craft's Inertial Compensator.

 

[Reynard]

Problem with launching at 49gs and reaching your target a phase later means you have not attempted any deceleration. You craft is now in the center of combat. All you have to do is apply close to 49gs deceleration... except your fighter has a mere, at best mentioned earlier, 25gs. Sum the vectors and how far you are travelling away from the fight?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Yes, people sometimes sloppily says things like "a velocity of 6G" or "a Thrust of 6G" since the simple Core book system works that way. It bothers me too, but mostly people know what they really mean...

One thing people forget is the length of the tube and the acceleration can be of any variable yet balanced properly can yield the very same velocity at the mouth of the barrel from a long tube and low acceleration to snub launcher and a very high acceleration with consideration for the mass of the launched object.

Agree. I think Phavoc explicitly suggested a constant acceleration:

Launch tubes may come in any size. For every 10m of launch tube installed, a small craft may launch at 2G. The maximum length of a launch tube is 120m, setting the maximum launch velocity at 24G.

In this case it obviously means "launched with an equivalent of 2G available for manoeuvring in this 6 min round, for each 10 m".

The biggest concern is obviously the ability of the craft's Inertial Compensator.

Completely agree, but we have kind of assumed it is "good enough" since it is completely glossed over by the system.

 

[phavoc]

Yeah, to what AnotherDilbert said. Velocity upon launch is the equivalent of having that velocity for a single turn. After that you would drop back to whatever thruster rating you had. I don't wanna do all the math to figure out at what point would your initial thrusters be able to overcome your initial velocity, because, math! It's an attempt to provide some usefulness to a launch tube beyond simply being a launching method. And, since the core rules cheat all over the place with gravity, mass, intertial compensators, etc, why the hell shouldn't I?

As far as the length / launch velocity goes, AnotherDilbert got that right too. It's really silly to say you MUST have it THIS LONG (to ride this ride??) to make a launch tube. Length needs to be relative to the amount of velocity imparted. Which means you'll have some ships happy to use shorter launch tubes because they don't need such speed. Assault carriers would, scout carriers, not so much.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Problem with launching at 49gs and reaching your target a phase later means you have not attempted any deceleration. You craft is now in the center of combat. All you have to do is apply close to 49gs deceleration... except your fighter has a mere, at best mentioned earlier, 25gs. Sum the vectors and how far you are travelling away from the fight?

Yes, in the real world. But the simple Core book system completely ignores velocity.

On the other hand the Core book system is rather cunning. The acceleration required to change range bands is greater than a minimum time max accel approach would suggest, the assumption probably being that you decelerate to match the enemy position... Or something.

 

[Chas]

The rules aren't going to be scientifically accurate, but those are valid points to give a launch tube and necessary to keep them in balance with clamps

- Thrust for 1 round is valuable, most fighters are thrust starved and even one round of extra boost can make a difference with closing with the enemy. And quite workable in the rules as presented.
- Being able to do multiple launches in a turn = no brainer.

Also I'd add:

Being able to fight in the same round as launching.

The launch tube should be your scramble mechanism.

 

[phavoc]

The rules aren't going to be scientifically accurate, but those are valid points to give a launch tube and necessary to keep them in balance with clamps

- Thrust for 1 round is valuable, most fighters are thrust starved and even one round of extra boost can make a difference with closing with the enemy. And quite workable in the rules as presented.
- Being able to do multiple launches in a turn = no brainer.

Also I'd add:

Being able to fight in the same round as launching.

The launch tube should be your scramble mechanism.

The rules really don't address acceleration curves. Basically if you are thrust 25, you are capable of thrust 25 as soon as you undock.

I didn't think of the other part, e.g. being able to use that thrust in the same turn as launch. That actually is a good idea. It allows you to carry forward with your launch tube bonus and use that 'extra' thrust in the first turn. Assuming you wanted to wade your carrier into battle, that would allow a launched 12G fighter to have double it's normal movement speed for the turn it launches at 25G - double speed, double actions.

I think the whole dogfighting rules need a lot of work, still, but I kind of like that idea. It fits within the existing model, and gives a bonus, but not an overpowering one... plus if you are bringing your ship into a knife fight with fighters onboard... I hope you are flying a Tigress.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I didn't think of the other part, e.g. being able to use that thrust in the same turn as launch. That actually is a good idea. It allows you to carry forward with your launch tube bonus and use that 'extra' thrust in the first turn. Assuming you wanted to wade your carrier into battle, that would allow a launched 12G fighter to have double it's normal movement speed for the turn it launches at 25G - double speed, double actions.

Again, I would like to stress;

That sounds like fun, but I fear that it might be little much.

A good fighter can accelerate at 9G +16G = 25G. If we add the acceleration from the launch tube, 24 G, we get an available 49 G in one turn.
In the same round as the carrier manoeuvre into Very Long range we launch the fighters at 49 G and we are immediately at Adjacent range and in Close Combat. So in one single Manoeuvre Phase the fighters go from Distant Range (carried) to Adjacent (in close combat). That is too good...

This would likely not leave anyone alive to shoot back at my fragile carriers, later that round...

 

[phavoc]

A good fighter can accelerate at 9G +16G = 25G. If we add the acceleration from the launch tube, 24 G, we get an available 49 G in one turn. In the same round as the carrier manoeuvre into Very Long range we launch the fighters at 49 G and we are immediately at Adjacent range and in Close Combat. So in one single Manoeuvre Phase the fighters go from Distant Range (carried) to Adjacent (in close combat). That is too good...

This would likely not leave anyone alive to shoot back at my fragile carriers, later that round...[/quote]

Until we know how the rules are going to be to handle flights of fighters, we don't quite know what's going to be the threat. One question... should fighters be able to launch from their carrier AND engage starship targets in the same round? One reason perhaps they cannot is that they have to form up as a flight as all the craft are launched, and then they get to act as a squadron. If you put a limit on them like that, then sure, they may have used 50G worth of thrust in one round, but they can't actually SHOOT at their starship targets... so that means the defenders get an entire round to whittle them down.

I'd say in any case, a small craft launched can engage, and be engaged by another small craft in the same turn they launch.

This gets me thinking... we are going to need to design squadron flight sheets to track att/def values. Say you have a flight of 24 torpedo bombers. And each carries two torps. You'd need a tick mark for each torp, and for each fighter. Each fighter might represent say 10pts worth of damage. A ships attack against the squardron does 25 pts damage, so 2 ships are gone (and 4 torps if they haven't launched). The 5 pts is just damage and doesn't affect the squadron (but still have to be repaired to get that back).

I'm all for making fighter squadrons more about total off/def values. Fleets should probably fight along the same lines. Only when you have a handful of ships would you want to start tracking individaul damage, or at least the ships are less than 2k, so at least they have a chance to be piloted/manned by adventurers.

 

[PsiTraveller]

My issue with the launch tubes is if they can throw a fighter out at high speeds to get the fighters close to an enemy (24 g in the example at TL 15). They not build a missile launcher with the same technology and launch a 10 ton pod of missiles at 24 g, get the pod through a few range bands and then turn on the missile thrust? 24 g is a lot better than 15 for an advanced missile.

velocity and the second per second is ignored. I just posted my take on this in the boarding thread. I hand wave it all away with gravitic control. M-Drives do not accelerate a ship. They move it at a constant speed. They use no fuel to do so, they just move the ship along by "clutching at the fabric of space time" ( Robert Heinlein used the line first. The Horst-Conrad impellers that "clutched at the fabric of space itself" (Starman Jones) ) So I will happily steal his ideas and ignore all the math and impossibilities.

So IMTU I ignore acceleration, and Reaction Drives speed the ship up to the limit of their push, but the acceleration does not build up, it just slides the ship along the rails a little faster until the Reaction drive turns off and the M-Drive continues to move the ship along at its steady pace.

I would allow a Launch tube to have a 9 g thrust for a gravitic launch tube. A reaction thruster launch might be doable if you had a rocket sled attached per ship and basically turned the fighter into a Discarding Sabot round. I have no idea how many tons that would take up. Smarter folks than I can do the math on that one. But then apply the same math for missile salvos, torpedoes and Ortillery.

 

[Nerhesi]

I think we need to focus on making Launch Tubes the preferred method of launching fighters due to their d(Craft)/dT efficiency... as in, Craft launched per turn.

Lets let any further cuteness around added functionality of G/speed boost and so on fade please. They dont need any further help getting there.

 

[phavoc]

My issue with the launch tubes is if they can throw a fighter out at high speeds to get the fighters close to an enemy (24 g in the example at TL 15). They not build a missile launcher with the same technology and launch a 10 ton pod of missiles at 24 g, get the pod through a few range bands and then turn on the missile thrust? 24 g is a lot better than 15 for an advanced missile.

Yeah, that's why I specifically mentioned bays. But you still have to get your launching craft close enough and survive fire to launch. The other guy could launch their fighters first and close with your carriers and try to destroy yours while they are onboard. Tactically it's a great attack option... strategically you'd be kind of stupid to risk having your fighters destroyed, or the launch tubes damaged and your small craft trapped inside. From a battle perspective you should have your carriers one range band behind your line, launching from relative safety, and then recovering the fighters for rearming and getting them back out in the fight. Check out the Starfire series of novels, or the game, to get a good view of this idea.

I think we need to focus on making Launch Tubes the preferred method of launching fighters due to their d(Craft)/dT efficiency... as in, Craft launched per turn.

Lets let any further cuteness around added functionality of G/speed boost and so on fade please. They dont need any further help getting there.

Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with you here Nerhesi. Having the launch tubes take up the mass they do for no positive effect makes no sense. Because we have no acceleration, those launch 'tubes' could be 10m long and take up FAR less tonnage because they are just launch points. So their mass/effectiveness ratio really sucks - and always has for no logical reason.

I feel it's better to push to make them more relevant so they at least get used. Otherwise we should just go back to the idea of having multiple hangars, or external docking of small craft to get around the horrible minimal launch rates that exist today.

 

[Nerhesi]

Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with you here Nerhesi. Having the launch tubes take up the mass they do for no positive effect makes no sense.

Whoah what? Why would I ever want them to have no positive effect? I want them to have a MASSIVE positive effect. That being:

200 fighters no tubes? Takes longer and more space as each hangar has to have the points of entry/exit. Also can't launch if doing any evasion or evasion software.
200 fighters with tubes? Smaller hangar area and potentially instantly launch all fighters with large enough tubes.

Really simple, massive and crucial benefit.

Very simple to create the mechanic for too:

Regular Hanar-No Tubes: Requires full hangar. We know this is 200%. Launch/Loading takes 3 space combat turns. Cannot launch if any evasion (software or pilot) is being attempted. Craft can only expend 2G Thrust (basically clearing) on the first turn after launch. A craft's full hangars cannot account for more than 25% of it's space (there just isn't enough real-estate to have that many blisters)

Tubes: Does not require full hangar, just requires "docking space" - so just 110% of craft size. Launching takes 1 space combat turn. Can be launched under any circumstances. Craft can expend any amount of thrust on their first turn after launch. Tubes themselves are ten times the size of a SINGLE craft they are launching and can launch 10 craft a turn each.

I dont know.. but just seems really simple way to stick to the most obvious benefit of throwing craft out of a tub rather than having to launch them delicately. (You can even picture the tubes as perpendicular to the storage space of the craft, each craft is literally just out after a tiny "tube").

Examples:

50x50ton fighters in full hangars: 5000 tons. They can all launch in 3 space combat turns. On the 4th turn they spend no thrust.
50x50ton fighters in docking-spaces, with enough tubes to launch them all immediately (5 tubes): 5250 tons. They all launch in 1 space combat turn, and by turn 2, they're accelerating at ridiculous-G towards the enemy.

Excuse my need for simplicity.

EDITED: With actual values for docking space and full hangar

 

[AnotherDilbert]

50x50ton fighters in full hangars: 3125 tons. They can all launch in 3 space combat turns. On the 4th turn they spend no thrust.
50x50ton fighters in docking-spaces, with enough tubes to launch them all immediately (5 tubes): 5000 tons. They all launch in 1 space combat turn, and by turn 2, they're accelerating at ridiculous-G towards the enemy.

Excuse my need for simplicity.

Agree with simplicity.

But in this case you have made the Carrier 50% larger, hence 50% more expensive. That is a problem.
As long as we can launch outside Distant range, we are not in any particular hurry...

 

[Nerhesi]

50x50ton fighters in full hangars: 3125 tons. They can all launch in 3 space combat turns. On the 4th turn they spend no thrust.
50x50ton fighters in docking-spaces, with enough tubes to launch them all immediately (5 tubes): 5000 tons. They all launch in 1 space combat turn, and by turn 2, they're accelerating at ridiculous-G towards the enemy.

Excuse my need for simplicity.

Agree with simplicity.

But in this case you have made the Carrier 50% larger, hence 50% more expensive. That is a problem.
As long as we can launch outside Distant range, we are not in any particular hurry...

Sorry - I was using incorrect numbers. The full hangars are 200% of the craft size. The docking spaces are 110%.

I think the problem is with stating that full-hangar are required for tubes, while we really should be looking at tubes as a simple delivery mechanism for tightly packed fighters. The revised numbers show us negligible weight difference for a night and day comparison. Or infact, weight savings, if you want to launch all your fighters over 2 turns rather than 1.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Great!

But we still need to be able to do maintenance, so we cannot have all fighters in Docking Spaces?

 

[Nerhesi]

Great!

But we still need to be able to do maintenance, so we cannot have all fighters in Docking Spaces?

You're absolutely right - you'd also need to worry about at least some sort of single recovery platform.

Tubes though have always introduced the benefit of fast-reaction to a situation. While you may have some leisure time (some not always) to launch craft if you're coming in at Very Distant or Far or something like that. You may not as part of the planetary defense force - you may also not if your intent is to jump in at Distant or Very Long Range so you can capitalise on surprise. Multiple space combat tubes shouldn't be "space savers" all on their own. They provide value, in my opinion, due to the benefits of fast deployment (offensively or defensively).

 

[phavoc]

Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with you here Nerhesi. Having the launch tubes take up the mass they do for no positive effect makes no sense.

Whoah what? Why would I ever want them to have no positive effect? I want them to have a MASSIVE positive effect. That being:

200 fighters no tubes? Takes longer and more space as each hangar has to have the points of entry/exit. Also can't launch if doing any evasion or evasion software.
200 fighters with tubes? Smaller hangar area and potentially instantly launch all fighters with large enough tubes.

Really simple, massive and crucial benefit.

Very simple to create the mechanic for too:

Regular Hanar-No Tubes: Requires full hangar. We know this is 200%. Launch/Loading takes 3 space combat turns. Cannot launch if any evasion (software or pilot) is being attempted. Craft can only expend 2G Thrust (basically clearing) on the first turn after launch. A craft's full hangars cannot account for more than 25% of it's space (there just isn't enough real-estate to have that many blisters)

Tubes: Does not require full hangar, just requires "docking space" - so just 110% of craft size. Launching takes 1 space combat turn. Can be launched under any circumstances. Craft can expend any amount of thrust on their first turn after launch. Tubes themselves are ten times the size of a SINGLE craft they are launching and can launch 10 craft a turn each.

I dont know.. but just seems really simple way to stick to the most obvious benefit of throwing craft out of a tub rather than having to launch them delicately. (You can even picture the tubes as perpendicular to the storage space of the craft, each craft is literally just out after a tiny "tube").

Examples:

50x50ton fighters in full hangars: 5000 tons. They can all launch in 3 space combat turns. On the 4th turn they spend no thrust.
50x50ton fighters in docking-spaces, with enough tubes to launch them all immediately (5 tubes): 5250 tons. They all launch in 1 space combat turn, and by turn 2, they're accelerating at ridiculous-G towards the enemy.

Excuse my need for simplicity.

EDITED: With actual values for docking space and full hangar

IF the current rules had hangars having a better launching rate than 1 craft every six minutes... That's absurdly slow, and not at all realistic. So if you have a tube, why the heck is it so massive and big? It does NOTHING for launching bonus (Aside from 10 fighters/turn). Crap, flaptops in the pacific managed faster launching rates than that.

Let's be realistic here. IF you know you are going to be doing a combat launch, it's easy enough to simply point all your fighters towards the exit. And they can accelerate out as soon as the one in front of them has cleared the hangar bay doors. Plus you'd think designers would put in multiple hangars to accommodate faster launching rates without wasting tonnage on tubes that essentially do nothing. Not to mention, lose your tube to damage, and your've lost the ability to launch (or recover in the bad old days of launch tubes).

The thing here is that I AM trying to break the launch tube mentality because it makes no practical sense, nor does it make strategic sense, or tactical sense. You would be better off having a series of hangars along the port and starboard sides, splitting up your flights to launch faster without sacrificing the tonnage of a flight tube. You could also recover faster with multiple recovery points. And you could service it with centralized magazines and fuel stores easily enough to make it logically possible. The only argument I've seen thus far is that of the unrealistic rule to limit launches to keep the broken rules of the existing launch tubes in place.

I'm a big fan of simplicity, too. But I'm a BIGGER fan of good game designs that meet basic sniff tests of logic and common sense.