External ordance

[phavoc]

If you have ever played the game Starfire (or read the novels) you'll understand the reference. In the Starfire universe warships can carry additional missiles on external launch racks that typically get fired in the first combat round - saving them is a bad idea as the first point of damage you get destroys any external ordnance you may be carrying.

Many aircraft today carry their weapons externally, slung beneath the belly or wings. With the discussion of firmpoints for small craft I thought about scaling that up for adventure-class ships (yeah, could be applied to major combatants, but if you look at it more from a poor-mans weapons upgrade, regular naval guys would turn their noses up at it).

Essentially you would get 2 firmpoints per 100 tons, up to 2,000 tons. Each firmpoint requires the allocation of 1 ton of displacement. For that 1 ton you can mount 1 torpedo or 8 missiles in a pod. Because they are more or less external (or perhaps internal, but unarmored) they can be easily destroyed. That would be the less expensive version. For more credits you could put them deeper in the hull and they would get full armor protection. They can't be reloaded during combat so essentially they are one-shot weapons. They don't fit canon material, but could go into the alternate section as options if people want them.

Something like this could be a nasty surprise for any attacker, or defender, expecting perhaps easy prey and that Free Trader launches a couple of torps... Not sure if this would be too much extra firepower, or if it would make ship encounters less fun because of the added damage throweight.

Right now it's just an idea.

 

[Condottiere]

I've given this issue a great deal of thought, but current rules pretty much eliminate the option.

 

[wbnc]

The rules for external cargo clamps could be used....since you simply allocate tonnage to the clamps...if you are carrying torps/missiles/bombs all you would really have to do is add a system link to account for the data/power feeds to the external hardpoints...or add a drone control rig to the pod, allowing it to act as a gunner.

so it would basically be

external cargo clamp+system link to determine the cost and tonnage of systems needed for the ship itself

for the weapons pod it would be
fixed mount+drone rig+weapons for a basic missile rack it would be around 3.5-5 tons for one ton of external missiles

it's not as quick and dirty as just bolting a bomb to the wing..but it is inside the broad boundaries of the rules set, and allows you to take into account all the little bits, and costs of reinforcing a ships hull to carry all that stuff strapped to it.

 

[phavoc]

The rules for external cargo clamps could be used....since you simply allocate tonnage to the clamps...if you are carrying torps/missiles/bombs all you would really have to do is add a system link to account for the data/power feeds to the external hardpoints...or add a drone control rig to the pod, allowing it to act as a gunner.

so it would basically be

external cargo clamp+system link to determine the cost and tonnage of systems needed for the ship itself

for the weapons pod it would be
fixed mount+drone rig+weapons for a basic missile rack it would be around 3.5-5 tons for one ton of external missiles

it's not as quick and dirty as just bolting a bomb to the wing..but it is inside the broad boundaries of the rules set, and allows you to take into account all the little bits, and costs of reinforcing a ships hull to carry all that stuff strapped to it.

I hadn't thought specifically about cargo clamps being used, but that's not a bad idea. This could be done with the introduction of torpedo or missile pods.

If you have seen Middenfaces' SDB artwork the neck of the ship a box-like appearance right behind the bridge. I had thought they could be disposable missile pods, that when used up they could be detached to lighten the load and improve the ships G-rating.

 

[wbnc]

The rules for external cargo clamps could be used....since you simply allocate tonnage to the clamps...if you are carrying torps/missiles/bombs all you would really have to do is add a system link to account for the data/power feeds to the external hardpoints...or add a drone control rig to the pod, allowing it to act as a gunner.

so it would basically be

external cargo clamp+system link to determine the cost and tonnage of systems needed for the ship itself

for the weapons pod it would be
fixed mount+drone rig+weapons for a basic missile rack it would be around 3.5-5 tons for one ton of external missiles

it's not as quick and dirty as just bolting a bomb to the wing..but it is inside the broad boundaries of the rules set, and allows you to take into account all the little bits, and costs of reinforcing a ships hull to carry all that stuff strapped to it.

I hadn't thought specifically about cargo clamps being used, but that's not a bad idea. This could be done with the introduction of torpedo or missile pods.

If you have seen Middenfaces' SDB artwork the neck of the ship a box-like appearance right behind the bridge. I had thought they could be disposable missile pods, that when used up they could be detached to lighten the load and improve the ships G-rating.

well now that ships are built on percentages, and we have the tools to build small compact pod. By creating 3-4-5 ton small craft..a gun missile pod should be pretty straight forward.

it seemed to me that cargo clamps , or docking clamps with the appropriate systems aboard the carrier vessel would be the best approach.you build the pod, attach it to a clamp, and then it fires on it's own,through a system link, or someone crawls inn it and fires it manually.

since a pods tonnage would affect thrust, and jump. And,the costs for it's hull, and systems, are paid fully..it's not cheating, or rules bending..just applying existing rules in a new manner.

 

[cavebear]

I like that idea. You can build an up-scaled version (say a Gatling rail gun system) in a pod like this one

or it can be a laser or whatever. The pod can be ejected if the ammo is used up and you have to run for it. Made for quick and dirty missions, could be a cheap weapon for a cash strapped group.

 

[Condottiere]

If you follow current rules, you'd need a ten tonne hull with a command module and a computer, that you can clamp and operate remotely.

 

[wbnc]

If you follow current rules, you'd need a ten tonne hull with a command module and a computer, that you can clamp and operate remotely.

revised rules don't have a minimum hull size

so a drone gun pod would be...
4 ton hull
1 ton reactor+0.5 tons fuel ( or draw power through system link)
1.5 ton drone rig(which takes the place of a cockpit)
1 ton fire control
fixed mount single missile launcher, with 12 missiles standard to launcher, no reloads.
if you bumped it to 5 tons you can add armor. sensors would be basic sensors with associated DMs for lock on, and detection.

which is about the same size as a barbette...but can be carried as a clamped small craft/drone turret

with this set up the carrier ship would only need a docking clamp. since the drone rig would handle crew functions and take direction from the pilot of the fighter/starship

a 10-30 ton fighter would loose a point or two of thrust carrying a gunnery pod, but would double it's firepower. a 100 ton ship might not loose any thrust due to the way the percentages break down.

6% of 100 tons is 6 but 6% of 105 is only 6.3 so adding .5 tons of drive allows a ship to carry a gun pod with no loss of thrust...with it's own reactor aboard the gun pod wouldn't need any additions to the power requirements of a ship. That's assuming the ship has a full cargo bay, if the skipper drops 5 tons cargo he can carry the pod with no need for engine upgrades, or loss of thrust.

if a 100 ton scout is running with an empty cargo hold it has full thrust, full jump, and has an extra gun/launcher to boot...if he needs to dump the pod it will continue to fire on it's own until it runs out of fuel or is destroyed.( Roll Barrels and run!!!!)

no it's not cheap, but it allows for a ship to get a small boost in the amount of firepower it carries...and for a fighter/smallcraft that might be all it needs.

 

[cavebear]

I guess "cheap" should be in relative terms. Cheaper than having to buy a new ship :mrgreen:
But I can really get behind this kind of extra fire power! Seeing you build up one makes it seem a lot more doable than I was thinking at first.

 

[wbnc]

I guess "cheap" should be in relative terms. Cheaper than having to buy a new ship :mrgreen:
But I can really get behind this kind of extra fire power! Seeing you build up one makes it seem a lot more doable than I was thinking at first.

if the pod gets shot up..it's an insurance write off.


And to reduce the cost go with:
Non-gravity hull
Budget Hull
and a TL-8 reactor...it only needs enough power for sensors, and weapons..since it doesn't need life-support or other basic systems. presto...the Saturday night special of the starship wold.

It's really a matter of looking at pods and modules as small self contained ships...strapped to the main craft.then it's a matter of plugging in numbers.

 

[cavebear]

if the pod gets shot up..it's an insurance write off.

And to reduce the cost go with:
Non-gravity hull
Budget Hull
and a TL-8 reactor...it only needs enough power for sensors, and weapons..since it doesn't need life-support or other basic systems. presto...the Saturday night special of the starship wold.

It's really a matter of looking at pods and modules as small self contained ships...strapped to the main craft.then it's a matter of plugging in numbers.

Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant

 

[wbnc]

if the pod gets shot up..it's an insurance write off.

And to reduce the cost go with:
Non-gravity hull
Budget Hull
and a TL-8 reactor...it only needs enough power for sensors, and weapons..since it doesn't need life-support or other basic systems. presto...the Saturday night special of the starship wold.

It's really a matter of looking at pods and modules as small self contained ships...strapped to the main craft.then it's a matter of plugging in numbers.

Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant

Thank you, I'll be here for two shows nightly ,and four on weekends...be sure to tip the waitress

 

[Condottiere]

I'd use batteries for a missile or torpedo pod.

 

[wbnc]

now theres an idea..too bad you cant use some sort for capacitor for energy weapons..simply charge it up with a set number of power points slowly over time..

When when the capacitors reserve of power points is depleted you cant fire that weapon again until teh capacitor is recharged or the weapon is connected to the main power supply

 

[phavoc]

now theres an idea..too bad you cant use some sort for capacitor for energy weapons..simply charge it up with a set number of power points slowly over time..

When when the capacitors reserve of power points is depleted you cant fire that weapon again until teh capacitor is recharged or the weapon is connected to the main power supply

You can. Though the rules don't have things like that in place. It's something you'd have to come up with that makes sense. Either capacitors or actual "ammunition" or cartridges of some sort that are self-contained batteries (other game systems use chemical lasers or something similar in this same vein). Capacitors seems like a better way, but if the ammunition-style concept works better, then that would be the way to go.

 

[Reynard]

Do modern day naval vessels (what Traveller ships are equivalent) regularly strap on weapons to the sides of their hulls to up the amount of weapons they can carry? Why not? All that wasted surface area could make even the smallest warships badass weapon platforms. I don't think it's fair the military doesn't use every square centimeter of surface area to carry weapons! I mean, if jet fighters and helicopters can put weapons on the outside then warships should do the same. There's nothing in the rules of 21st century naval warfare saying you can't.

 

[cavebear]

Do modern day naval vessels (what Traveller ships are equivalent) regularly strap on weapons to the sides of their hulls to up the amount of weapons they can carry? Why not? All that wasted surface area could make even the smallest warships badass weapon platforms. I don't think it's fair the military doesn't use every square centimeter of surface area to carry weapons! I mean, if jet fighters and helicopters can put weapons on the outside then warships should do the same. There's nothing in the rules of 21st century naval warfare saying you can't.

Yes, they do have "strap-on" weapon packs

But...they usually need to be mounted behind screens that help to impair radar signatures (like on the Canadian Halifax-class frigates where you can see that the VLS system (both port and starboard) are hidden behind such screens ) though the harpoons are not. The angles on the harpoon system all ready allow for a minimal radar signature and you can mount Harpoon quad packs and other weapons quite easily.

http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/halifax-class-patrol-frigate-3d-model/298632

Now the Royal Danish Navy uses a really cool modular system that can be for weapons to deck cranes: See http://www.digplanet.com/wiki/StanFlex for more info.

I first saw this system in 1999 when I was in Singapore at the military Armsdex. Very cool stuff and very compatible IMO with Traveller.

 

[Reynard]

Ah, so it is possible to cover a naval ship in weapons. I'm amazed it is not done on a regular basis on all ships.

Just need to get rid of the pesky limiter for the number of weapon systems on a spaceship or starship.

 

[phavoc]

Do modern day naval vessels (what Traveller ships are equivalent) regularly strap on weapons to the sides of their hulls to up the amount of weapons they can carry? Why not? All that wasted surface area could make even the smallest warships badass weapon platforms. I don't think it's fair the military doesn't use every square centimeter of surface area to carry weapons! I mean, if jet fighters and helicopters can put weapons on the outside then warships should do the same. There's nothing in the rules of 21st century naval warfare saying you can't.

If you look at Russian ships you would think so. Some of their frigates and destroyers were crammed with weapon stations. And that's before you see them with sometimes very large cruise missile launchers. These were typical for the 80s-90s class of ships. Some of their more modern versions have gone more of the way the US Navy has, with less weaponry appearing above the decks.

 

[cavebear]

Ah, so it is possible to cover a naval ship in weapons. I'm amazed it is not done on a regular basis on all ships.

Just need to get rid of the pesky limiter for the number of weapon systems on a spaceship or starship.

No need to cover a ship in weapons at all. In-fact, too many people (especially those building 3D models of spaceships) put way too many weapons on a ship to the point that they are getting in each others way.

As calibres became standardized, accuracy improved, rate of fire increased and damage inflicted improved, less was better. You could have just a couple of guns with more ammo in ready storage but these weapons had a much better "to hit" capability and would do greater damage to an opponent.

There was less equipment that could go wrong and it was harder to actually hit them whereas if you had a ton of weapons on deck, you had a very good chance of losing a bunch every time you got hit and you would also lose the crews manning them.

Crew sizes could be reduced as well. Now you could have a short (guns), medium, (ship to ship/air missile), long (over the horizon missile) weapons mix and be a much more effective fighting force.