High-Burn Thruster

[Nerhesi]

High Burn Thruster
A high burn thruster is an auxiliary chemical rocket designed to give a temporary speed boost to a ship.
This is easily mounted on a ship by adding an additional reaction drive, as described on page XX. Ship architects should note that a reaction drive used as a high burn thruster is likely to require far less fuel than a ship that relies on a reaction drive alone for thrust. The effect of a high-burn thruster is cumulative with that of the ship’s regular drive system.

Exxxccceeelllent - clarity!

Quick validation:

9G fighter (same as the 9G future tigress and other 500kton battleships - heh), unlike the tigress, it wants to strap on 15G high burn thrusters. Great.

a) 9G M-drive = 9% dtons (basic)
b) How much do the high burn thrusters cost? Like a full reaction drive? no change? so still 30%?
c) Lets this fighter only wants 1 hour (10 rounds) of high-burn 15Gs - so fuel cost (basic) would be 2.5% x 15G x 1 (one hour) = 37.5%

So 9+30+37.5, so 76.5% of the craft - that will do 9G normally (required combat speed for battleships now too), plus 1 hour burst at 23Gs. Correct?

I realise this is an extreme example but I'm just looking for Peer Review. The values are "realistic" - just trying to understand the new paradigm for small-craft, if things stay as is.

 

[Chas]

Minor typo in the Primitive and Advanced Spacecraft

Reaction Drive Advantages
Fuel Inefficient: This reaction drive requires 25% more fuel than normal. If two Disadvantages are used, it will require 50% more fuel than normal.

Should be "Disadvantages"

I've built a couple of my old 30t builds with the new rules and the markedly bigger tonnage of the high burn thrusters does rearrange things a bit forcing a couple of builds upwards in tonnage. Not to the point of preventing their initial function though. That being said, I've always looked at these in terms of the 6 minute turns, not hours of use heh. I'm sure a few players' ship builds have been nerfed.

One thing is for sure and as already stated every craft WILL take the highest maneuver drive their tech level allows.

I'm just getting my spreadsheet properly sorted then I'll get a couple of designs up for checking and consideration.

I'm building TL15 with the double advantage for the fuel (I like to think of Imperial Navy fleet designs).

 

[Nerhesi]

When you say you've looked at them in terms of 6 minute turns of fuel, I assume you still kept the ratio of 10 turns per "hour of fuel" to do that conversion? That's how I've figured combat effectiveness at +X gs of thrust...

 

[Chas]

Yep. I've found it easier to set up the excel in turns (just like it's suggested to keep track of fuel) so you know exactly how many rounds you can burn at top thrust.

Here's a build I've done for what was primarily started out as a reference design that I'm hoping people can relate to. I didn't do this thinking it was a specific role that would immediately slot into a fleet design as is (I'll put a couple of other builds up another time for that) but it's turned out not too badly.

TL 15, ye olde interceptor heavy fighter. I've not included the computer software and costs but the guts of it should be there, and unless I've made a mistake (which has been known to happen ho ho) it should be in line with the new rules.

I'm not that familiar yet with the combat rules to make a final call on the best balance of say dropping a couple of tons of armor or fuel and picking up something else. Regardless the general functionality of the design has panned out about right. It's higher in tonnage that the old rules, but still within the 50 fighter/cockpit ton limitation if that's what makes sense. I'm liking it actually, though I think my final build weapon wise would be advantages on the weapon as being long range, and high yield, rather than the very high yield here. Something to go attack a target at the edge of the sensor range quickly, or get out of Dodge in a hurry.

Not sure yet, but I'll probably go for something somewhat bigger, a strike destroyer with bells and whistles (no expense spared) or something for a follow up build and see how that pans out regards balance.

As it happens at this ship weight, the tons of fuel = the turns of thrust 16 the ship can do.

 

[Nerhesi]

You beat me to the punch! (of creating some small and not small craft examples).

The only thing that is hazy at the moment is the translation of barbette's to fixed mounts/weapon allowances. I would think the barbette would take 2 weapon slots so the 50-ton fighter wouldn't be able to mount a missile launcher as well... maybe?

 

[Chas]

You beat me to the punch! (of creating some small and not small craft examples).

The only thing that is hazy at the moment is the translation of barbette's to fixed mounts/weapon allowances. I would think the barbette would take 2 weapon slots so the 50-ton fighter wouldn't be able to mount a missile launcher as well... maybe?

Good point. Actually I had a couple of questions still floating about. One of them was if it is allowed to even mount a barbette at all i.e. is it the equivalent of 3 weapon points? Would be useful to have this stated specifically.

In this case the jump missiles are a nice flavor add on, but far from critical given you can only fire one weapon at a time and there will be few occasions for that weapon point to be used in any event.

 

[Chas]

As an aside playing around with the spread sheet the light fighter is pretty much a non-entity in this rules set. There's not much point in not having Maneuver 9 and Armor 15. I doubt you're saving money vs. the survivability even if you wanted to build a budget fighter. Something to look at on a separate thread.

 

[AndrewW]

Actually I had a couple of questions still floating about. One of them was if it is allowed to even mount a barbette at all i.e. is it the equivalent of 3 weapon points? Would be useful to have this stated specifically.

Currently small craft are limited to a fixed mount, no barbette or turret.

 

[phavoc]

Would this fighter be able to power the barbette-classed PA? Now that power is a factor, it should make some smaller fighter armaments harder to shoe-horn in unless you up your PP for more energy.

 

[Chas]

Actually I had a couple of questions still floating about. One of them was if it is allowed to even mount a barbette at all i.e. is it the equivalent of 3 weapon points? Would be useful to have this stated specifically.

Currently small craft are limited to a fixed mount, no barbette or turret.

Yes, but what weapons can you put on a fixed mount? :lol: :wink:

I think the key sentence is here:

Turrets and fixed mounts use the same type of weapons but whereas a fixed mount may only fire at targets directly ahead of it, a turret rotates and may engage in target in sight.

The problem is the rules then state

Barbettes are effectively heavy turrets

Which is rules lawyer fodder.

There should be a sentence clearly defining what can, or what cannot be mounted on fixed mounts.

 

[Chas]

Would this fighter be able to power the barbette-classed PA? Now that power is a factor, it should make some smaller fighter armaments harder to shoe-horn in unless you up your PP for more energy.

With ease at TL15. Unless there's a mistake somewhere as I'm looking at a 20 ton build, you've got Maneuver 9, Armor 15, plus a barbette weapon and the design is with tonnage and power to spare.

I see wbnc has started a thread commenting on it, but at this stage your standard turret weapons are really going to struggle to make an impact in the Imperial Navy.

 

[Nerhesi]

I've already brought this forward to MAtt's attention. It's important that those 40+ ton smallcraft continue to be able to mount barbettes, so we need to provide the required clarity in the rules the confusion you gents are discussing above

 

[Chas]

Thanks for the note.

The general balance though does need a look at though I think in terms of what usage people are getting from standard turret weapons. Fighters will become a barbette weapon balance in the current rule set. Not necessarily a bad thing in that it's good to have fighters with punch so they are effective fleet components, getting two barbette weapons into a 100 ton hanger vs 1 barbette weapon hard point of capital ships for example.

The combat balance will need a look also, with long range particle beams/pulse lasers ruling the roost and little desire to dog fight. ?? I'll come back to that once I'm a bit more up to speed with the combat rules.

 

[Nerhesi]

My group has done extensive testing using this new ruleset here and I can share with you guys a lot of the findings. We have done testing with the assumption of barbettes being allowed on fighters (because we interpreted the rules the same way as you did Chas).

With the easily available high thrust values and high burn thrusters, the closing of range can happen rather quickly. While fighters on fighters can try to stand off, the usage of thrust for dodging inevitably allows range to close, albeit a little slower.

While stand off long range weapons (particle barbettes, Tachyon cannons, etc) do have advantages, using higher damage fusion weapons is an excellent option that gives the designer something to think about. Do I trade in that range advantage for a larger bite when I finally make it into range? Do I get a TL+1 weapon and increase the range on it.. but what if the enemy interceptors has Particle Weapons with increased range as well!

Fighters are much more balanced now as well due hull damage always being done, and due to Effect adding to damage values. The crazy days where a heavy fighter with reinforced hull would survive a particle bay hit are gone - this is a good thing. We can keep the hardness of armour as is for smallcraft, which is logical, because they simply dont have the "meat" of bigger ships (hull value).

Dogfighting is actually very very cool and effective. It allows fighters, which will normally be weathered down by incoming fire to buzz at super close ranges around larger craft. It also allows them to enter "fur-balls" themselves when their squadrons meet. Of course these arent some big turning fights - theyre still happening at 10km away or so but it is a good abstract of the fast paced nature of closer-space-combat.

The new dynamic we discovered has to do with thrust though. Everyone in combat, from your battleships to you fighters are now packing 9G - it is silly not to. What sets smallcraft apart, and I think this is probably cool - is that smallcraft are now the prime candidates for packing reaction-drive high-g burn thrusters. Now if this stays as is, do we need to adjust range values? Because we can easily build some interceptors that basically go from distant to very long in 1 turn, and to close in 1 turn.

Barbettes are almost a must now, they allow fighters some bite and it maintains the dangerous nature of heavy strikecraft fighting eachother - a heavy fighter can 1-2 shot another heavy fighter - which is a positive and a good thing.

I think we need to investigate torpedo-bomber style craft - while they can only have a torpedo barbette (Singular), they should be able to carry many torpedos or so

 

[Chas]

I’ve done this design as a reference point. A 2000 ton job, the maximum sized ship that cannot be hit by spinal mounts. It’s a strike battle rider, I’ll call the Werewolf. It would be tender transported. Or an interceptor design for system defense. A pack hunter able to catch, attack and hurt much larger capital ships, when its size makes life difficult for them to hit it.

A lot of interesting balance points here.

As commented the Fusion Gun bays are out of whack in terms of the damage dealt. This ship size can mount a fair few medium bays. If these are all doing 2DD damage it’s a slap in the face to much larger spinal weapon mounting ships and this needs a look. Not sure of the final balance of Nuclear Dampers in capital ships, if this is expected to rein this in...

A nice point of this design is if fusion bays get nerfed is putting medium Mass Driver bays in, the high thrust strike ship being the kind of design that will allow effective closing of range. High yield Tachyons are also going to be very nasty. Still, as it is the thrust 8 was where I thought the best balance was between speed and the need to up the offensive output from the very high tonnage used by the reaction drive. A high thrust reaction drive 8 where you can close from Distant in 3 turns rather than 2 at highest possible TL15 thrust 25 seems a sweet spot. That is RD8+M9=17 thrust in the Werewolf with the afterburners blasting.

This is also a good reference design for considering monitors of equivalent size. If you swap out the weight of the reaction drive and fuel that is a lot of Reinforced Hull. So if you’re looking at a non-spinal mount, no jump small battle-rider monitor or system defense boat this gives a pretty much equivalent design while getting up to 900 hull points. Which might make the fast strike version a non-entity in many fleet designs. I think you could better off in fleet style engagements having a bunch of these sort of monitors that can soak up damage, while dishing it out. Conversely the reaction drive strike ship is a good tender ship. The tender can be well away from the action and the strike ships able to get the battle front in good time. Or perhaps more critically when things go wrong able to out run the pursuit and get back to a tender with time to connect and jump.

Jammer sensors plus stealth vs. Reflec armor – not sure of the balance here in trying to stop locking on a craft vs the ad on in armor. (?? You guys looked at this Nerhesi?) This balance will be tech level dependent. Regardless I like the idea of this kind of strike ship being ambushers. Sneaking up having been dropped off far away and then charging in.

I’ve not got anything more than straight offensive weaponry on this design. Looking at it by the time you provide for enough smashing power to fulfill its primary purpose, say a pack hunter of a marauding cruiser squadron, I'm not sure anything purely defensive such as sandcasters in the remaining say 5-10 hardpoints are worth the investment. The turrets for small craft attack, maybe fragmentation missiles? But would want to see the final fleet action rules for this. It might be better having the bays as the offensive punch and everything else able to protect against attacks one way or another. Or I'll fine tune the ship for ultra-close combat, looking to get inside missile screens.

I think the boon for larger bridges is a no brainer and as likely a part of any build as maximizing the Maneuver drive. Comments anybody?

Anything in the fundamental ship design that people think are must haves that are missing? Nuclear dampers? These are a tough call in their one to one aspect in small ships, chewing up a lot of tonnage. Still dropping one 100 ton bay for 5 could make sense. Meson dampers we'll have to see the final fall out of meson bays. In real terms it should have more tonnage spare for missile and torpedo extra ammo, but will be holding off the final weapon break down here until the rules are finalized in any case.

P.S. What’s up with the hull designs? Any reason not to do everything as a close hull? I guess this is a hold over from the original rules set vs. spinal weapons. A non-consideration in this build as it cannot be hit by spinals. Given the importance of hull points in the new rules, there'll be a lot of these Close hulls in small craft.

Edit: and would definitely want to swap out that torpedo bay below for more torpedo barbettes.

 

[Nerhesi]

Goo findings Chas. We have a lot of overlap in what we were testing. I think we need an artificial limit on reinforced hull for both smallcraft and space-craft. We were creating giant "screen ships". Like 20+ screens and dampeners, and like triple the hull values.

The good thing is the existence of these options is a very good step in the right direction for mgt2. More meaningful options! But we just need to make sure that there are no crazy extremes.

We have definitely tested stealth but we did notice something that makes it a little bit more sane. Detection and lockon are different.

Stealth hull may help you with detection, but jamming isn't going to help you there. So you the enemy needs to roll at a -4 (stealth hull), to detect you. But you're jamming doesnt/shouldnt help. That doesn't stop people from detecting you, just locking on to you!

So enemy with great sensors rolls sensors skill roll, +6 from sensors, vs target number of 12. Which means you'll still most likely be detected. But if you have a great jamming package, then lockon will be more of a directly opposed even roll

 

[AndrewW]

Goo findings Chas. We have a lot of overlap in what we were testing. I think we need an artificial limit on reinforced hull for both smallcraft and space-craft. We were creating giant "screen ships". Like 20+ screens and dampeners, and like triple the hull values.

Stacking of screens is limited by TL, somewhere along the way that bit went missing, but can be seen in the current High Guard.

 

[Nerhesi]

Yeah - but our current conversations are operating without that limit.

Because now you have ridiculous DD fusion guns and torpedos.

So you should be able to neutralize that with effective screens, the 6 screen limit (I think it was right andrew?) is a little obsolete now.

 

[AndrewW]

So you should be able to neutralize that with effective screens, the 6 screen limit (I think it was right andrew?) is a little obsolete now.

Yup 6. Though they may be getting some adjustment with the new rules.

 

[Chas]

Will definitely be interested in understanding where people think the balance is with nuclear dampers. You have to have a lot of them to combat a bay load of nuclear torpedoes coming at you. Would be good to understand what happens in frigate class ship sizes up to full capital ships when full torpedo bays are unleashed.

I didn't explain very clearly what I was driving at with the reflec armor discussion. What I was thinking is that given that:
a) effect stacks on damage
b) the boon of a sensor lock on your target is often going to be at least the +3 that reflec offers let alone the advantage of actually hitting
I reckon reflec is effectively made redundant by the stealth rules. ?? That -4DM against locking of stealth, when stacked with other electronic counter measures such as the Emission Absorption Grid is very important. Blocking a lock works against any attack, far more valuable than just getting an armor bonus vs. lasers.