Dec Update - Spinal mount weapon damage
- Thread starter Chas
- Start date
now that would be a good way to make the 10ks work for their supper. force them to run the gauntlet to get into the range band where their weapons have best effect.
if I remember right, WWII destroyers had to get well within the range of a big ships secondary guns to release their payloads...the equivalent of firing spinal mounts I'd say. same with subs, they had to get inside the defensive screen of a ship to fire their torpedoes.
that would make the firepower of a 10k rather risky to use. they could rush a 100k Line, and get off several good shots, but they could not afford to stay there for long, the secondary bays, and turrets of the big ships would eat them alive,not to mention the guns of screening vessels. why not add a rule, a ship below 25k tons has optimum reduced range( 1 step) for it's spinal mounts.below 10k ships have range reduced by 2 steps..beyond that range they get greatly reduced damage.
and as for the request for an example..I am sorry my brain just refuses to properly process the request..do you mean, historically, from existing material..or a build using the currently proposed rules ..
if I remember right, WWII destroyers had to get well within the range of a big ships secondary guns to release their payloads...the equivalent of firing spinal mounts I'd say. same with subs, they had to get inside the defensive screen of a ship to fire their torpedoes.
that would make the firepower of a 10k rather risky to use. they could rush a 100k Line, and get off several good shots, but they could not afford to stay there for long, the secondary bays, and turrets of the big ships would eat them alive,not to mention the guns of screening vessels. why not add a rule, a ship below 25k tons has optimum reduced range( 1 step) for it's spinal mounts.below 10k ships have range reduced by 2 steps..beyond that range they get greatly reduced damage.
and as for the request for an example..I am sorry my brain just refuses to properly process the request..do you mean, historically, from existing material..or a build using the currently proposed rules ..
Not saying it shouldn't be the case. In fact you definitely want that bottom line on not being able to hit smaller vessels. What I said was that to keep game balance what you shouldn't do is have spinal mounting tenders that can wipe a cruiser and above ship out while not being able to be hit themselves by the big ship's spinal. It immediately provides a weapon tonnage disparity that the game doesn't need. There's 3-4ktons of weapons that the big ship is not using against the rider. Not so critical at dreadnought level, terrible at cruiser level when space is at a premium. That 4ktons is 40x 100 ton bays that you don't have to fight tenders with... a losing proposition if you want cruisers to still be viable as a fleet element.wbnc said:
There's various ways to improve this phavoc and it I'd recommend a rewrite just to be completely sure of the total balance, it is the most important part of the game system. It doesn't need to be that complicated actually. In the Nov release riders were pretty much sidelined, Dec release big ships are pretty much sidelined, you just need something in the middle. At 100 times DD damage rather than 1000 and/or bigger tonnage for spinals (and/or up the power which would be reasonable) and everything looks a lot better.
I'd like to see a big jump in power actually which would mesh well with other aspects of the game. 700 power points to do 6 x 3,500pts of hull damage is well out whack with other weapon power usage.
I'd also like to see the spinal matrix redone from the ground up. I'm not sure on the original premise of the A, B, C... types, but that should be outdated at this stage. I can't see any rationale for the make up. I mean look at C vs. A. What's the point in A?
If I were doing it from scratch I'd base spinal mounts on tonnage, the tonnage of a weapon determined by the percentage of the ships tonnage.
set the standard tonnage at around 30% of the ships total tonnage, and beak it down into 1000 ton blocks for damage.
( at 1000 ton minimum tonnage you an get a spinal mount on a 3500 ton ship. It should be powerful enough to take down cruisers, and destroyers, but not do enough damage to take on Big boys..so basically a skirmisher/screening vessel weapon at minimum tonnage)
you could dedicate less tonnage if you like but that means your main gun isn't as powerful as other ships that devote the full 30%..which is only an advantage to really big ships who don't need the full 30% to deal significant damage.
Now everyone has to work to fit in that really big gun in.
assign traits to the weapon by energy type to determine cost, TL,range, armor penetration etc...
Particle
Meson
Railgun
and add an
Ion version( might not destroy the ship but it will be out of action and vulnerable to capture/destruction...or at worst give you time to flee you recently discovered secret base)
and
laser/plasma type ( lowest tech available, poor mans spinal mount)
I'd need help to run the numbers for damage per ton, the goal being for a 100k with 30% of it's tonnage in spinal mount being able to one shot a 25K or blow.... if they hit...
where a 10k ship with 30% can take down a 100k in say ten shots...or gang up and hit multiple times per round...
the idea I have in my head is that if this one on many fight happened the smaller( 10k) ship would have to rush in...that big spinal mount missing fairly often, but when it hits..one of the attackers just folds under the attack..gone, nothing but scrap metal.
once the 10Ks gets into range, they open up with their spinal mounts, and are now under fire from long range secondary guns...missiles, torps etc...but if they are lucky they can deal fatal damage to the big ship, or force it to retreat, before they lose half their numbers.
set the standard tonnage at around 30% of the ships total tonnage, and beak it down into 1000 ton blocks for damage.
( at 1000 ton minimum tonnage you an get a spinal mount on a 3500 ton ship. It should be powerful enough to take down cruisers, and destroyers, but not do enough damage to take on Big boys..so basically a skirmisher/screening vessel weapon at minimum tonnage)
you could dedicate less tonnage if you like but that means your main gun isn't as powerful as other ships that devote the full 30%..which is only an advantage to really big ships who don't need the full 30% to deal significant damage.
Now everyone has to work to fit in that really big gun in.
assign traits to the weapon by energy type to determine cost, TL,range, armor penetration etc...
Particle
Meson
Railgun
and add an
Ion version( might not destroy the ship but it will be out of action and vulnerable to capture/destruction...or at worst give you time to flee you recently discovered secret base)
and
laser/plasma type ( lowest tech available, poor mans spinal mount)
I'd need help to run the numbers for damage per ton, the goal being for a 100k with 30% of it's tonnage in spinal mount being able to one shot a 25K or blow.... if they hit...
where a 10k ship with 30% can take down a 100k in say ten shots...or gang up and hit multiple times per round...
the idea I have in my head is that if this one on many fight happened the smaller( 10k) ship would have to rush in...that big spinal mount missing fairly often, but when it hits..one of the attackers just folds under the attack..gone, nothing but scrap metal.
once the 10Ks gets into range, they open up with their spinal mounts, and are now under fire from long range secondary guns...missiles, torps etc...but if they are lucky they can deal fatal damage to the big ship, or force it to retreat, before they lose half their numbers.
As Chas' examples kind of highlight, if you want to keep the damage the same as it is in the current version, bring up the displacement tonnage of the spinals by 10x. Power by 10x as well.
Or
Keep as is, but then drop damage by 10x (so it's x100 not x1000) - functionally the same.
As for starting from scratch, as to what WBNC has said before (and many of us as well); if we were going to start from scratch:
1) Have 3 categories. Railgun, Meson, Particle.
2) Each category have a simple formulate based on spinal mount weight. Example:
Railgun Spinal: Medium Range. 1,000-50,000 weapon weight. 1DD (x200) per 1000 tons. 100 power per 1000 tons. Damage reduced by 1% per target's armour points. Cost 10MCr per 1000 tons.
Meson Spinal: Long Range. 1,000-50,000 weapon weight. 1DD (x200) per 1000 tons. 500 power per 1000 tons. Armour ignored. (Screens to function as per whatever screen rules). Cost 100MCr per 1000 tons.
Particle Spinal: Very Long Range. 1,000-50,000 weapon weight. 2DD (x200) per 1000 tons. 1500 power per 1000 tons. Damage reduced by 2% per target's armour points. Cost 50MCr per 1000 tons.
A DM -4 penalty to hit applies targets that are smaller than the weapon size. DM -8 penalty to hit targets smaller than (weapon size / 10)
TL table to still apply, granting up to 40% size reduction for example.
The above is a SWAG (scientific wild ass guess) btw - just a quick brainstorm around a simple solution. With a basic forumula in place, we can then tweak the actual values to make sure it is "balanced". Based on the above, a Particle Spinal that weighs 50,000 tons (or 30,000 tons after TL bonus), can potentially 1-shot a 300,000 ton ship. Thats a 10:1 to ratio - but it is completely unrealistic. It assumes max damage, a free floating spinal weapon with perhaps a saddle and a guy in a space-suit, and target with no armour. Realistically however, you end up with a 40,000ton battle rider, wielding the top-end particle spinal, 1-shotting a 136,500ton cruiser that has 12 armour, on an average damage roll. That I think is much much more palatable
Or
Keep as is, but then drop damage by 10x (so it's x100 not x1000) - functionally the same.
As for starting from scratch, as to what WBNC has said before (and many of us as well); if we were going to start from scratch:
1) Have 3 categories. Railgun, Meson, Particle.
2) Each category have a simple formulate based on spinal mount weight. Example:
Railgun Spinal: Medium Range. 1,000-50,000 weapon weight. 1DD (x200) per 1000 tons. 100 power per 1000 tons. Damage reduced by 1% per target's armour points. Cost 10MCr per 1000 tons.
Meson Spinal: Long Range. 1,000-50,000 weapon weight. 1DD (x200) per 1000 tons. 500 power per 1000 tons. Armour ignored. (Screens to function as per whatever screen rules). Cost 100MCr per 1000 tons.
Particle Spinal: Very Long Range. 1,000-50,000 weapon weight. 2DD (x200) per 1000 tons. 1500 power per 1000 tons. Damage reduced by 2% per target's armour points. Cost 50MCr per 1000 tons.
A DM -4 penalty to hit applies targets that are smaller than the weapon size. DM -8 penalty to hit targets smaller than (weapon size / 10)
TL table to still apply, granting up to 40% size reduction for example.
The above is a SWAG (scientific wild ass guess) btw - just a quick brainstorm around a simple solution. With a basic forumula in place, we can then tweak the actual values to make sure it is "balanced". Based on the above, a Particle Spinal that weighs 50,000 tons (or 30,000 tons after TL bonus), can potentially 1-shot a 300,000 ton ship. Thats a 10:1 to ratio - but it is completely unrealistic. It assumes max damage, a free floating spinal weapon with perhaps a saddle and a guy in a space-suit, and target with no armour. Realistically however, you end up with a 40,000ton battle rider, wielding the top-end particle spinal, 1-shotting a 136,500ton cruiser that has 12 armour, on an average damage roll. That I think is much much more palatable
Now that looks like a good start. 
in your rough sketch version, are particle beams affected by dampeners?...or do they just loose the radiation trait? I like stripping away the radiation trait and letting raw damage go through.....a stream of high energy particles is going to act like a near cee sandblaster, even if the radiological effects are lost.
also I'd suggest that firing a particle beam spinal into atmosphere is highly problematic..halve it's damage, and strip it of radiation trait if firing into atmo( any atmosphere thicker than trace, or thin). the air is going to act like an energy sump, and scatter lighter particles...will make for one heck of a light show though...
in your rough sketch version, are particle beams affected by dampeners?...or do they just loose the radiation trait? I like stripping away the radiation trait and letting raw damage go through.....a stream of high energy particles is going to act like a near cee sandblaster, even if the radiological effects are lost.
also I'd suggest that firing a particle beam spinal into atmosphere is highly problematic..halve it's damage, and strip it of radiation trait if firing into atmo( any atmosphere thicker than trace, or thin). the air is going to act like an energy sump, and scatter lighter particles...will make for one heck of a light show though...
Well with Radiation fixed at 2Dx50, we are in a really good position in that we dont need to touch it Radiation treated hull stops 1000 rads, so only an 11 or 12 will give you some rads. Ive always been against instantly-radiating crews on military vehicles. (If you can't tell already, I'm against instant kabooms in pretty much any game, ever. The faster your combat, the more FPSish and/or luck-based it is, with little room for tactics and strategy).
However, you bring up great points about particle weapons and atmosphere Lets get the numbers right (and Matt on-board) and add all the frills
Radiation treated hull stops 1000 rads, so only an 11 or 12 will give you some rads. Ive always been against instantly-radiating crews on military vehicles. (If you can't tell already, I'm against instant kabooms in pretty much any game, ever. The faster your combat, the more FPSish and/or luck-based it is, with little room for tactics and strategy).However, you bring up great points about particle weapons and atmosphere
Lets get the numbers right (and Matt on-board) and add all the frills alright, lets do the numbers...
lets start with a 10K ship using a 3k particle beam
that's a damage score of 6dd
equivalent to a current Particle E spinal in dice, but 1k tons lighter, and 4500 power (6x the current requirement)
the ship need 300 tons of Tl-12 reactor just to power the spinal mount. Or, 225 tons of TL-15 reactor..and that is excluding maneuver, secondary weapons and basic systems.
as for a top end we have
A 100k ship with 30% devoted to spinals can mount 30 blocks, doing 60dd, but that requires 45,000 points of power....which needs....2,250 tons of reactor at Tl-15
it looks like the real limiting factor in this scheme is going to be power....
100k ship Needs
20k basic systems power
60k m-drive power, just to move at thrust 6
45K Spinal power at 30% spinals
that's gonna take 6250 tons of reactor at TL-15 just to move and fire spinals.
so to power screens, secondary weapons, spinals, and move...that's gonna burn up nearly 45-50% of the ships tonnage. In reactors and spinal mounts. that's a lot of tonnage to devote to a single weapon system.
my thoughts:
1) leave the power requirements as stated, it makes powering those beasts a big challenge..and the extra reactors needed counterbalances the raw firepower.
2a) cap individual spinals at 5-6k tons, doing 10-12DD max,( since new rules allow for multiple spinals the ships can mount multiple units to use up rest of the 30% limit)
2b)if allowed a ship with 30k tons of spinal is going to vaporize anything it hits, is the loss of tonnage/hardpoints due to spinals and reactors enough to counterbalance that much firepower.
lets start with a 10K ship using a 3k particle beam
that's a damage score of 6dd
equivalent to a current Particle E spinal in dice, but 1k tons lighter, and 4500 power (6x the current requirement)
the ship need 300 tons of Tl-12 reactor just to power the spinal mount. Or, 225 tons of TL-15 reactor..and that is excluding maneuver, secondary weapons and basic systems.
as for a top end we have
A 100k ship with 30% devoted to spinals can mount 30 blocks, doing 60dd, but that requires 45,000 points of power....which needs....2,250 tons of reactor at Tl-15
it looks like the real limiting factor in this scheme is going to be power....
100k ship Needs
20k basic systems power
60k m-drive power, just to move at thrust 6
45K Spinal power at 30% spinals
that's gonna take 6250 tons of reactor at TL-15 just to move and fire spinals.
so to power screens, secondary weapons, spinals, and move...that's gonna burn up nearly 45-50% of the ships tonnage. In reactors and spinal mounts. that's a lot of tonnage to devote to a single weapon system.
my thoughts:
1) leave the power requirements as stated, it makes powering those beasts a big challenge..and the extra reactors needed counterbalances the raw firepower.
2a) cap individual spinals at 5-6k tons, doing 10-12DD max,( since new rules allow for multiple spinals the ships can mount multiple units to use up rest of the 30% limit)
2b)if allowed a ship with 30k tons of spinal is going to vaporize anything it hits, is the loss of tonnage/hardpoints due to spinals and reactors enough to counterbalance that much firepower.
Another thing that can be done is to simply require MORE power, but allow for capacitors to be built into the weapon. Say you have a three-turn charging time to power a spinal mount. You can't hold the charge in the capacitors (or while you can, ships don't because it's maintenance expensive... since we are talking fleets you can get away with a monetary rather than a technological restriction).
With a charging cycle you now have time for smaller vessels to close, for bays and other weapons to fire on a per-turn basis, and when you DO get to fire off that spinal it WILL do some major damage to it's target. But now you have reasons to mount secondary armaments, and those bigger ships with more secondary systems have a chance/reason to mount them.
If anyone is playtesting this, try spacing out your shots and see how that works. You could even add in a 'quickfire' option, assuming you charged it with enough power and you get to shoot one turn after the other - at the risk of burning out your weapon. We've had lots of good and interesting suggestions on the thread. Might be better to have them as alternate rules, or something along those lines.. maybe in the Companion book? I prefer keeping 'standard' combat pretty simple, but sometimes that doesn't work out very well.
With a charging cycle you now have time for smaller vessels to close, for bays and other weapons to fire on a per-turn basis, and when you DO get to fire off that spinal it WILL do some major damage to it's target. But now you have reasons to mount secondary armaments, and those bigger ships with more secondary systems have a chance/reason to mount them.
If anyone is playtesting this, try spacing out your shots and see how that works. You could even add in a 'quickfire' option, assuming you charged it with enough power and you get to shoot one turn after the other - at the risk of burning out your weapon. We've had lots of good and interesting suggestions on the thread. Might be better to have them as alternate rules, or something along those lines.. maybe in the Companion book? I prefer keeping 'standard' combat pretty simple, but sometimes that doesn't work out very well.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Capacitors could be multi-purpose, they could hold the charge for a jump or for spinal mount shots.
wbnc said:
Sure, that's a good alternative. One turn = 33% charge/33% damage, two turns = 66% charge/66% damage. and at three full turns you get 100% charge/100% damage. I guess you could even go with an overload, too, at 4 turns and say 150% charge/125% damage (just to ensure it isn't TOO good). And overloads mean you run the risk of disabling your own main gun.
Been mulling this over. My personal preference is to get a simple set of weapon options that work for the desired ship build matrix. I.e. look at what is wanted as a fleet structure in the perceived traditional Traveller mould.
The interesting bits in terms of driving a single super shot or otherwise can be offered as options, once the basic matrix is build and proven to be workable. There's a fair bit of risk with unintended consequence here.
Things we do need to be careful over:
- not making the spinal weight too high. You quickly make spinals unable to fit into cruisers. A straight 10x multiplier for the weight definitely doesn't work. This should be incremental and also can be kept in line with bay weapon damage in terms of how easy a battle rider is to take down with secondary weapons.
- the minuses to hit low tonnage capital ships. 5k and 10k is arbitrary in terms of that both are one shot destruction by a spinal. What we need to concern ourselves with is final battle rider size.
- If Matt's stated paradigm of wanting to 3 shot a 75kton cruise is good we are looking at one shot a 25kton ship i.e. one shot = 10,000 hull points as the base average. But if the basic spinal size paradigms change too much the 75kton ship isn't what it is supposed to be in this concept.
To that end I'd suggest the goals of the design process could be:
* to achieve effective spinal mounting cruisers from 50k tons upwards on jump 4
* have effective spinal mounting battle riders of about 3 per 75 kton of jump 4 TL15 cruisers. The 3 riders can one shot the cruiser. The cruiser can take out two of the riders: 1 by spinal mount, 1 by bay & turret damage... it can take out 3 riders if it gets to double shoot the spinal mount in the same round. This is likely to be an easy benchmark to work around. The riders should have an edge, as they are vulnerable to fighters and smaller ships in a way the cruiser isn't with its additional hull points.
Going by a 50% carry weight of tenders at jump 4, we get a nice simple matrix here. A 50 kt tender to carry three 8.3kton battle riders is the equivalent of a 75kt cruiser. This completed matrix will then be easy to transpose backwards in TL and jump #. A lower jump number means more bays for the cruiser and another battle rider on the tender. Lower TL means Jump 4 doesn't work for the cruiser or the tender as weights shoot upwards from loss of advantages and bigger spinals that lose a TL size reduction bonus. Easy.
So:
Change the to hit minuses for that base level back to the original 5k and 2k. (it can be modified upwards for more powerful variants)
Revise the spinal tonnage and power usage slightly so the damage output of the spinals match what can fit in the cruiser. This may well not balance out perfectly and I'd under shoot for the riders spinal. I don't think we want 3 x 8.3 kt riders creaming a 100kton battle ships.
To be continued... with actual representative builds :lol:
The interesting bits in terms of driving a single super shot or otherwise can be offered as options, once the basic matrix is build and proven to be workable. There's a fair bit of risk with unintended consequence here.
Things we do need to be careful over:
- not making the spinal weight too high. You quickly make spinals unable to fit into cruisers. A straight 10x multiplier for the weight definitely doesn't work. This should be incremental and also can be kept in line with bay weapon damage in terms of how easy a battle rider is to take down with secondary weapons.
- the minuses to hit low tonnage capital ships. 5k and 10k is arbitrary in terms of that both are one shot destruction by a spinal. What we need to concern ourselves with is final battle rider size.
- If Matt's stated paradigm of wanting to 3 shot a 75kton cruise is good we are looking at one shot a 25kton ship i.e. one shot = 10,000 hull points as the base average. But if the basic spinal size paradigms change too much the 75kton ship isn't what it is supposed to be in this concept.
To that end I'd suggest the goals of the design process could be:
* to achieve effective spinal mounting cruisers from 50k tons upwards on jump 4
* have effective spinal mounting battle riders of about 3 per 75 kton of jump 4 TL15 cruisers. The 3 riders can one shot the cruiser. The cruiser can take out two of the riders: 1 by spinal mount, 1 by bay & turret damage... it can take out 3 riders if it gets to double shoot the spinal mount in the same round. This is likely to be an easy benchmark to work around. The riders should have an edge, as they are vulnerable to fighters and smaller ships in a way the cruiser isn't with its additional hull points.
Going by a 50% carry weight of tenders at jump 4, we get a nice simple matrix here. A 50 kt tender to carry three 8.3kton battle riders is the equivalent of a 75kt cruiser. This completed matrix will then be easy to transpose backwards in TL and jump #. A lower jump number means more bays for the cruiser and another battle rider on the tender. Lower TL means Jump 4 doesn't work for the cruiser or the tender as weights shoot upwards from loss of advantages and bigger spinals that lose a TL size reduction bonus. Easy.
So:
Change the to hit minuses for that base level back to the original 5k and 2k. (it can be modified upwards for more powerful variants)
Revise the spinal tonnage and power usage slightly so the damage output of the spinals match what can fit in the cruiser. This may well not balance out perfectly and I'd under shoot for the riders spinal. I don't think we want 3 x 8.3 kt riders creaming a 100kton battle ships.
To be continued... with actual representative builds :lol:
Yeah we definitely dont want 3 x 9kton battle riders creaming a battleship. My personal preference is to allow a 1:3 creaming ratio 
So that 50kton spinal weapon, that at TL+4 weighs only 30kton, on a 40kton ship, can 1-shot a 100kton target. Of course this is your 1 weapon, no jump battle-rider that is complete fodder to any smaller ships too.
Matt indicated a 75k ship being taken out by a 2-3 shots from a decent spinal. I'm not sure if that qualifies as the biggest spinal. Also - 2-3 shots would mean 2-3 average shots - keep in mind that a max damage shot is doing near double that.
Interested in hearing Matt weigh in further feedback now
So that 50kton spinal weapon, that at TL+4 weighs only 30kton, on a 40kton ship, can 1-shot a 100kton target. Of course this is your 1 weapon, no jump battle-rider that is complete fodder to any smaller ships too.Matt indicated a 75k ship being taken out by a 2-3 shots from a decent spinal. I'm not sure if that qualifies as the biggest spinal. Also - 2-3 shots would mean 2-3 average shots - keep in mind that a max damage shot is doing near double that.
Interested in hearing Matt weigh in further feedback now
yeah, we would be doing all this for practice if there is no chance of it being considered.
I think we need to set the "Decent" standard as the mid line weapon. Since we are allowing for smaller and larger weapons the mid line is likely the one that would be installed on the average ship. Anyone who wants to pack the biggest weapon into a ship is going to have to make some serious sacrifices for all that firepower.
I think we need to set the "Decent" standard as the mid line weapon. Since we are allowing for smaller and larger weapons the mid line is likely the one that would be installed on the average ship. Anyone who wants to pack the biggest weapon into a ship is going to have to make some serious sacrifices for all that firepower.
If we set approximately 10,000 hull points as the desired damage from a single shot of the "decent" spinal weapon. That would work out at 3DDD (the triple DDD are the 1000x) which would get variance in average. Better would be 6VV which is 6d x 500. and a good number for a decent weapon if this finally capped out at 8VV.
You might then allow some high tech or specialized option for the super dreadnought to double this 8VV output with massed capacitor charger or something which is a good idea... you should be able to do more with more but it wouldn't necessarily be entirely cost/performance effective, but allow a place for the planet smashers.
Back at 6VV this needs to be about 5000 tons (including power plant tonnage consumption) at TL15. That will go into a 8.5 kt rider M9 tightly. It will go into a 75kt cruiser okay, but the secondary weaponry is crimped. In that balance if you want the bays to take out a 8.5kt rider in a turn this will need to be watched carefully. We're still waiting for the barrage rules and screen rules so I won't beat this with a stick.
A fair balance point can be tweaked as the powers that be prefer.
One point that I'm still in the process of trying to decide I like or not is limiting the spinal weapons to long range. Let the snipers snipe would give a distinct push in favor of the cruiser vs. the battle rider. Which might not be a bad thing.
You might then allow some high tech or specialized option for the super dreadnought to double this 8VV output with massed capacitor charger or something which is a good idea... you should be able to do more with more but it wouldn't necessarily be entirely cost/performance effective, but allow a place for the planet smashers.
Back at 6VV this needs to be about 5000 tons (including power plant tonnage consumption) at TL15. That will go into a 8.5 kt rider M9 tightly. It will go into a 75kt cruiser okay, but the secondary weaponry is crimped. In that balance if you want the bays to take out a 8.5kt rider in a turn this will need to be watched carefully. We're still waiting for the barrage rules and screen rules so I won't beat this with a stick.
A fair balance point can be tweaked as the powers that be prefer.
One point that I'm still in the process of trying to decide I like or not is limiting the spinal weapons to long range. Let the snipers snipe would give a distinct push in favor of the cruiser vs. the battle rider. Which might not be a bad thing.
PsiTraveller
Cosmic Mongoose
I am not sure if this has been posted elsewhere, but what about a change in armour rather than trying to figure out damage scaling?
Another thread mentioned that a WWII battleship had/has so much armour that modern weapons will not penetrate it. The ship is slow but the armour slabs protect it from attacks.
We are discussing attacks that cause 10,000 hull points of damage a hit, but the protection value is 15, so 9 985 points get through.
If armour scaled per thousand tons then smaller weapons, even spacecraft sized lasers and particle beam turret weapons might not even scratch the paint. so a TL 15 armour protected battleship might ignore the first 15 000 points of damage from a spinal. Smaller spinals may have scaing damage and not damage the bigger ships. Their beam weapons, or missiles or even spinal weapons cannot penetrate the thick slabs of armour that the 100,000 ton ships are using.
Armour is placed on at a percentage of hull size, bonded superdense is put on at .8% per point, so a bigger ship has more armour per point, a 100 ton ship as .8 tons of armour per point, a thousand ton ship has 8 tons of armour per point, 10 times more. Use that differential in armour to scale the damage that gets through.
So far all the talk has been about the weapon damage, but all the larger ships seem to be eggshells with sledgehammers, there is no advantage in spending any money on armour once the Destructive weapons come into play, there is no damage reduction for having 800 tons of armour for an armour value of 10. Against smaller ships a 100 000 ton big ship is relying on its 40 000 hull points to ignore sub 1000 ton ships from doing much damage from 'regular' weapons, and praying it does not get hit by a spinal attack that will take away a third of its hitpoint in a single hit.
Have armour mean something for big ships.
Another thread mentioned that a WWII battleship had/has so much armour that modern weapons will not penetrate it. The ship is slow but the armour slabs protect it from attacks.
We are discussing attacks that cause 10,000 hull points of damage a hit, but the protection value is 15, so 9 985 points get through.
If armour scaled per thousand tons then smaller weapons, even spacecraft sized lasers and particle beam turret weapons might not even scratch the paint. so a TL 15 armour protected battleship might ignore the first 15 000 points of damage from a spinal. Smaller spinals may have scaing damage and not damage the bigger ships. Their beam weapons, or missiles or even spinal weapons cannot penetrate the thick slabs of armour that the 100,000 ton ships are using.
Armour is placed on at a percentage of hull size, bonded superdense is put on at .8% per point, so a bigger ship has more armour per point, a 100 ton ship as .8 tons of armour per point, a thousand ton ship has 8 tons of armour per point, 10 times more. Use that differential in armour to scale the damage that gets through.
So far all the talk has been about the weapon damage, but all the larger ships seem to be eggshells with sledgehammers, there is no advantage in spending any money on armour once the Destructive weapons come into play, there is no damage reduction for having 800 tons of armour for an armour value of 10. Against smaller ships a 100 000 ton big ship is relying on its 40 000 hull points to ignore sub 1000 ton ships from doing much damage from 'regular' weapons, and praying it does not get hit by a spinal attack that will take away a third of its hitpoint in a single hit.
Have armour mean something for big ships.