Capital Ship 500 and 1000 Ton Bay Weapons

[Solomani666]

When designing a capital ship, there seems to be a large gap between the relatively puny 100 ton bay weapons and spinal mount weapons.

For some time I have been considering 500 ton and 1000 ton bay weapons to fill this gap.

Is anyone interested in hashing out the details with me for a possible S&P article?


.

 

[RichardP]

T4 and TNE's approach seemed to be small spinal mounts (using higher than basic tech e.g. TL12+) to give a Factor A to C weapon. The classic RCES clippers are a prime example.

These are find for giving a smaller ship a bigger ship killing punch, but don't address your idea of 500tn or 1000tn bays (the smallest meson spinals are 1000tns so you could modify them)

Cheers
Richard

 

[BP]

There is a thread here where someone dealt specifically with that.

Its a natural extrapolation to expect this. However, IIRC, factoring in hardpoints and the existing damage system, this disjoint is harder to reasonably rectify with the existing rules than it appears at first glance. In a way, it reflects the jump from say a 16" gun to a cruise missile...

 

[phavoc]

I would agree with smaller spinal-mount class weapons.

Though I'm not sure I would jump up to 500 and 1000 ton weaponry. I would see more of a curve-approach, where you had smaller turrets, say at 15, 25, 50, 75 and 100, maybe up to 150. And then you simply scale up the weapons that fit inside of them.

A 150 displacement ton turret is getting to be the size of a Free Trader! I think capital ship weapons would top out at a "reasonable" size, and instead of getting bigger, would simply get more powerful as the TL increases.

I've got some stuff written down on this somewhere that I should post.

 

[Captain Jonah]

THats freaky. I am looking at 500 and 1000dton capital bays for something else.

My though was that With the larger Bays they did somewhat more damage but rather than significantly increasing power throughput they used much larger focal chabers and increased range well above turrets, I am also looking at standard bays having a longer range than turrets which are the smallest weapons with the smallest focus and the shortest range.

500Dton bay is either a pair of 50Dton turrets or a single 100Dton turret mounting the weapons, in effect it is a single weapon but it fits better with the image of vast ship turrets and weapon mounts on the hulls. 1000Dton bay is twice the size and twice the turrets. Laser/plasma/fusion and P-Beams are turrets, Heavy missiles and Torpedoes are launch tubes.

In terms of interim sizes, my thought is that you have primary, secondary and defence weapons. Defence is turrets, primary and secondaries go by sizes so a DN will have 1000Dton primaries and perhaps 100Dton secondaries for deiling with pests, a Battleship may have a few 1000Dton bays but would mostly have 500Dton bays for use against cruisers and below plus some 50/100Dton bays for the pests.

Staying with fixed sizes allows for standard weapon mounts for fleet designs. Odd sizes can be used for older ships or other nations.

 

[PFVA63]

I guess for capital ships I can understand the desire for something bigger than 100 dtons, but wouldn't a 500 dton bay be about 7000 cubic meters in size and a 1000 dton be 14000 cubic meters.

To put this in perspective, the total enclosed volume of a ship like the DE 1033 has an enclosed volume of about 6800 cubic meters and the FFG7 has a volume of about 14625 cubic meters.

Regards

Pat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Claud_Jones_(DE-1033)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Oliver_Hazard_Perry_(FFG-7)

 

[Captain Jonah]

Ture enough but it depends on what you are doing. A 5000Dton SDB with a 1000Dton bay shrunk down by tech to fir it in with the powerplant, 6G drive and armour (oh and a few staterooms :lol: ).

With the firepower to kick in a section on something the size of a light cruiser or take out anything even close to its size in a single ambush attack you change the defence/Attack dynamic of a system. With a pair of these hiding out raiders have to come prepared with heavy cruisers etc.

Use them or not use them is ref/player choice.

Also they don't just go on ships. Asteroid defence bases, planetary defence centres, that 10,000,000Dton highport station over your key world.

I am factoring both damage and range into mine so you have bands where you can fire spinal then capital bays then normal bays then turrets. Capital ships can then slug it out at long ranges far out of turret range and your gunships and fighters have to close to use turret scale beam weapons.

THink a DN and escorts coming into range of a small defending fleet. Scout drones locate tartgets and the spinal fires first, smashing at the smaller escorts to clear them out of the fight. THen the capital bays open fire, great salvos of laser or P-Beams striking an enemy capital ship, wearing it down as the ships close. Then as both fleets come into bay range the DN turns to hold the range open while firing every bay he has at the fleet which is now charging ahead for all its worth since half the fire power of its much smaller ships is turret mounted and out of range.

Thats just my idea anyway

 

[BP]

Good ideas - and like the 'Capital Bays' naming!

Some other limitation aside from damage/range would be nice - rate of fire/targeting with other weapon systems (i.e. targeting larger weapons requiring more ship movement to achieve, reflected).

The OP is looking for collaborators for S&P...

 

[Solomani666]

One of the main reasons I think that Capital Bays are needed is that some of the larger battleships and carriers and cruisers are nearly impervious to anything but a spinal mount meson gun. If you are going up against a Tigress, then it's just a waste of energy and ordinance to fire anything but a spinal mount weapon.

I am still trying to figure out what fighters are good for against a capital ship. Can anyone clue me in?


.

 

[barnest2]

Are they heck. Large particle bays in a large barrage will cut enormous holes in a tigress. Sure maybe not as rapidly as a spinal mount, but on a half megaton ship, you could mount... 100. On a needle that would be 80% facing, which is 80 large particle beam bays. Say it hits for 50% damage, that would be 360 damage. that's a spinal mount worth of damage right there.

I am still trying to figure out what fighters are good for against a capital ship. Can anyone clue me in?

They aren't really, at least not individually. In large swarms it can give you a goodly number of particle beams to hit a target with, using the barrage rules. But it does take a good number of them to do serious damage to the bigger ships.

 

[billclo]

Heck, I designed a 75k ton Heavy Cruiser that carries 80 particle beam bays, and I could have squeezed more on if I wanted to.

You could also hold the fighters back until the turreted defenses of the target are weakened somewhat, then send them in loaded with several torps each.

Or beat the snot out of the support craft.

 

[apoc527]

I built some 500/1000 ton bay weapons.


Please see "Megabays" around the end of this document. Ignore the number crunching unless you want to try to follow my math and see why I did what I did.

Comments welcome!

https://sites.google.com/site/apocfs/trav-docs/HighGuardRules.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

 

[Solomani666]

Are they heck. Large particle bays in a large barrage will cut enormous holes in a tigress. Sure maybe not as rapidly as a spinal mount, but on a half megaton ship, you could mount... 100. On a needle that would be 80% facing, which is 80 large particle beam bays. Say it hits for 50% damage, that would be 360 damage. that's a spinal mount worth of damage right there.

Tigress:

Armor = 15
Nuclear Dampers = 6

Resulting Damage = A BIG FAT ZERO


.

 

[billclo]

Are they heck. Large particle bays in a large barrage will cut enormous holes in a tigress. Sure maybe not as rapidly as a spinal mount, but on a half megaton ship, you could mount... 100. On a needle that would be 80% facing, which is 80 large particle beam bays. Say it hits for 50% damage, that would be 360 damage. that's a spinal mount worth of damage right there.

Tigress:

Armor = 15
Nuclear Dampers = 6

Resulting Damage = A BIG FAT ZERO


.

Nuclear Dampers are only effective versus Nuclear Missiles and Fusion Guns. They are ineffective versus Particle beams and bomb-pumped Torpedoes.

So those Particle beams ignore both types of screens and are only stopped by armor.

 

[barnest2]

Plus I said using barrage damage. Plus, hang on, A large particle beam aby does 9d6 damage. That's an average of 35 damage, a maximum of 54. SO it cuts through a Tigress like a hot knife through butter.

Stop being a fool please, and read the rules.

 

[Solomani666]

Plus I said using barrage damage. Plus, hang on, A large particle beam aby does 9d6 damage. That's an average of 35 damage, a maximum of 54. SO it cuts through a Tigress like a hot knife through butter.

Stop being a fool please, and read the rules.

Barrage rules: 9 - 15 = -6 = Big Fat Zero


P.S. Your "Fool" comment was rude and unwelcomed.


.

 

[barnest2]

Yeah, now combine 80 of them into a barrage, and use a good fire control system. I showed an estimate of 50% damage below, after all modifications, and that is 360 damage (that estimate includes armour).

It might have been rude, but it wasn't undeserved. You seem to not understand the way the barrage rules work. I'll show you


Say I roll 8 for my barrage. Lets add +4 from fire control. that gives me a total roll of 12.

Okay. -15 from armour, -3 from sand casters. That gives a total of -18.

12 - 18 is - 6. 12-6 is 6, which is a damage roll of 75%.

So 9x80= 720, 75% of 720 is 540 damage.

There you go. Large particle beam bays do massive damage to a tigress class.


(See here for an explanation of the barrage rules http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46856 )

 

[Solomani666]

Say I roll 8 for my barrage. Lets add +4 from fire control. that gives me a total roll of 12.

Attack = 12

Okay. -15 from armour, -3 from sand casters. That gives a total of -18.

Defense = 18

12 - 18 is - 6. 12-6 is 6, which is a damage roll of 75%.

So 9x80= 720, 75% of 720 is 540 damage.

Barrage attacks interact with defences slightly differently to normal
attacks. Instead of reducing the damage directly, defences such
as armour or sand provide a DM to the attack roll. Add up the
protection offered by the defences, and then subtract it from the
individual weapon damage score to determine the final DM.

So I get 12 - (9 <Lrg Prt Bay> - 18 ) = 3 Attack Strength

720 Total Damage * 0.10 = 72 Points of damage. Hardly devastating.


Thanks for pointing out my errors, but I still think your calculations are incorrect.


.

 

[barnest2]

No, look, the final DM is -6 not -18. That means that the final barrage roll is 6 not -6. Please read my post and/or Apoc's post before replying.

 

[rust]

Well, I have tried to follow this, and like each time I try to understand the
barrage rules it resulted in a severe headache and utter confusion. :lol: