Ship Design Philosophy
- Thread starter Condottiere
- Start date
SSWarlock said:
Yeah, the missile pack allows you 12 missiles for 1 ton. Difference is you can salvo 1 to all of them in a single turn.
There's a couple of flaws in their design though. There's no tonnage required for the missile housing, cost is only 2x the price of the missile (it allows you to mix them), and it's stated they can be only reloaded in a starport.
There's been a number of discussions for VLS-type missile systems being added to flesh out missile combat in Traveller setting.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Our VLS reserves/uses up a standard cubic area of space, which means anything larger than the given dimensions doesn't fit, and anything smaller wastes the space.
Though it's good to know that it's been covered; have they anything similar for torpedoes?
Though it's good to know that it's been covered; have they anything similar for torpedoes?
Condottiere said:
Some of the discussions centered around just straight tonnage. I had proposed doubling the displacement of the missile/torpedo to account for the launch cannister, and reloads were done by ejecting the launch cannister and replacing with a new one. Unlike the TCS rules, I had proposed reloads could be done in space if you weren't in combat, whilst TCS says you need a starport.
There have been a couple of threads regarding this. The last one, I think, also mentioned having more than one size missile, but kept the concept of torpedo as the biggie of the missile class.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Still digesting Merchants and Cruisers.
Two designs, a 2kT Escort Carrier and the Centaur class 800T Jump-1 mercenary carrier seem relevant, though those two grappling arms make it look more like a centipede. The Escort carrier lists twelve ten-ton fighters in a rather cramped hangar but it's Jump-4, and it has a launch tube.
So to summarize, twelve fighters, two full bays for complete maintenance, instant launch.
Going back to the centipede reference, have a maintenance hangar, grapple the fighters to the hull and save the displacement of the launch tube.
Two designs, a 2kT Escort Carrier and the Centaur class 800T Jump-1 mercenary carrier seem relevant, though those two grappling arms make it look more like a centipede. The Escort carrier lists twelve ten-ton fighters in a rather cramped hangar but it's Jump-4, and it has a launch tube.
So to summarize, twelve fighters, two full bays for complete maintenance, instant launch.
Going back to the centipede reference, have a maintenance hangar, grapple the fighters to the hull and save the displacement of the launch tube.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
VLS is more of a convenience when space is at a premium. If you have the space for reloading, a bay variant might be more convenient. Though I'd make an exception for a U-Boot aesthetic.
You could re-arm if you have a tender with the requisite loading equipment.
You could re-arm if you have a tender with the requisite loading equipment.
Condottiere said:
I see a VLS system useful by allowing you to launch more missile in a shorter time frame than a standard missile mount, and for ships, like say a freighter, that wants to have a quick-punch of firepower but really doesn't want to deal with launchers, magazines, etc.
For my Trav setting VLS missiles are in boxed-launchers (that can be refurbished and reloaded after usage). I used my experience with MLRS rocket pods as an example. They allow for a quick ripple-fire sort of attack, then you can eject the pod and place a new one in there. There are other examples of similar missile setups (both ground and naval based). My setting doubles the size of the missile for a pod (standard missiles are 12/Dton, boxed launchers are 6/Dton). It could be less, but it's an easy rule-of-thumb. A VLS system is most effective in an alpha-strike format. Otherwise a missile system that has a magazine is better in a longer battle. But I also don't have missile 'turrets'. For me all missile launchers are built into the hull. The VLS is really just the disposable-type missile, while the standard ones have a magazine feeding the internal launcher(s).
It's easier to slap a new pod in place than individual missiles. The pods can be refurbished if you want, but if you are in a combat situation I would suspect they'd probably be discarded. In peacetime or in a civilian setting they'd probably get stored back in cargo.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Ripple fire is inherent; though I wonder if they were a game mechanism to limit it.
I also wonder if fratricide is a factor.
I also wonder if fratricide is a factor.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
I calculate the size of standard missiles as 1.08 cubic metres/80 kilos, give or take.
TL12 missiles minimize out at 0.675 cubic metres/50 kilos.
TL12 missiles minimize out at 0.675 cubic metres/50 kilos.
Condottiere said:
Till the missile pack came out in TCS, by the rules at least, you ROF was max 3 per turret, or more if you had bays. But yeah, ripple fire should be considered.
Oh, and as far as fratricide being an issue? Naw. The missiles would clear the tubes more than fast enough. My old system, MLRS, the rockets were going supersonic before they fully left the launch tube. We could ripple fire the entire dozen in less than 60 seconds - and that was changing targets (had to rotate/elevate the launcher).
Condottiere said:
As best as I read the rules, the sizes of missiles don't go down as the TL goes up. Plus you have generic missiles, so all missile launchers take all missiles. Universalism! If I recall correctly, in the very first release of Traveller, like for the Scout ship, there was some verbiage out there that said the gunner manually reloaded the turret. But this was 1979, so anything was possible in the dark ages... even computers that displaced tons!
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
1. Weapons - HG page 53, you get to choose between miniaturization or improvements.
2. Tried to design a TIE Fighter; solar panels inadequate for required performance. Primary hull without aesthetic paired antennas seems rather beach bally. If catapulted out of launch tubes, probably reminiscent of Wing Commander Mass Driver projectiles.
2. Tried to design a TIE Fighter; solar panels inadequate for required performance. Primary hull without aesthetic paired antennas seems rather beach bally. If catapulted out of launch tubes, probably reminiscent of Wing Commander Mass Driver projectiles.
F33D said:
The annoying (not another one!) thing about bays, especially missile ones, is that they are frustratingly light on logic and reasoning. A 50ton bay can launch 12 missiles in a salvo. But there's no info on why the damn thing takes up so much space. 12 missiles only displace a single ton. The description offers no information on what the other 49 tons of space are used for. Torpedo bays are the same.
This is the same lack of detail surrounding missile turrets and torpedo barbettes. Nothing is there about on-mount ammunition, or the requirement for a magazine. If you "store" a missile as cargo, that shouldn't normally be considered ammunition for the launcher.
Augh! Where is the Definitive Guide to Traveller Starships? Where is Janes when you need them??
phavoc said:
Everything above & more is why I've taken the SRD and am basically rewriting. One ship design system (from 100t on up), a new weapon system (turrets are more like close in weapons. Think Millennium Falcon turrets. Large Bays & Spinal are LONG range, heavy weapons), sensor systems that are actually better than TL 7.
. Etc., etc.Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
The definitive guide to Traveller technology is probably Fire Fusion and Steel.
True, but I can just about buy into a 50 dTon bay for Torpedoes. After all, you're 'flinging' 7.5 dTons per shot, in three 2.5 dTon blocks. Handling equipment for weapons like that taking up most of a decent-sized room is more or less believable.
A missile bay, by comparison, fires only 1 dTon's worth of ordnance, as you point out. I've no idea what the rest is for, either. If the 'missile launcher' was explicitely some sort of mass driver to impart an initial acceleration, fair enough, but then there would be/should be a difference between the turret missile racks and the missile bay tubes.
locarno24 said:
I'm not sure we have anyone on here who used to handle naval shells, especially the larger-caliber ones, but I'm former artillery, so I'm familiar with the concepts. I was MLRS, and if you know much about missiles, you know that MLRS has two types of rounds - the smaller 227mm round, there are six per pod. The larger ATACMS has one round per pod and is 610mm caliber. Actually, the ATACMS missile (at 4m) could roughly be considered similar to a Traveller Torpedo round (AFAIK no dimensions are out there for a torp round, just the displacement...anybody know any different?). It's a bit shorter than a Trav torp, but seems to fit the bill better. Size-wise, the old Honest John rocket is approximately the same size given for a torp (length wise at least, we don't know how wide one is).
Reloading is very easy and straightforward, and if you could actually create an external environment that was the same every time, you could do auto reloads with no more than twice the actual footprint of the vehicle (assuming you don't need to worry about where you dispose of your empty pods). People are only required because of the many variables you have being out in the field.
But I would think that torpedoes would be handled like naval shells, since we are talking about magazines to store them in. You would certainly need some tonnage for the equipment to have the ready rounds. But not the tonnage that is set aside. Since missile's don't bend very well, your machinery is going to probably store them horizontally on a track-like mechanism. The torps would be fed from the magazine to the launcher, and then loaded. Assuming you had an external turret "bay" the only time you might need to alter their plane would be to load them (though missiles all have bearing, so you should be able to launch vertically and let the torp's gyro's re-orient it towards the target.
Turret's store a single round onmount. Nothing in the description of missile or torpedo bay's says anything about onmount ammunition storage. The torps would be handled in the same way the missiles are. In some ways though, the missile possibly would require more tonnage, as you have to have 12 feed mechanisms to the three of the torpedo. And while the torpedo is physically larger, you can turn off gravity in the turret area so you only have to worry about mass - which the machinery should be able to easily handle without being overly large.
So, in summary, machinery the size of a room (and lets be generous and give 10Dtons (that's a pretty good room) is MORE than sufficient to handle weapons of that type. So the question still remains... what's the rest of the space used for? Since it's not ammo, those are some pretty generous maintenance access points!
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
I vaguely recall that sandcasters and missile had three rounds in the can, before you needed to reload them. Can't find any mention of that in Mongoose.
Loading the large calibre capital ship guns was an involved process, since you had to try to insulate the powder from any possible fires before sending up the load to the turrets. Since it came in bags, probably simpler than trying to manoeuvre a complete missile into a tube.
Loading the large calibre capital ship guns was an involved process, since you had to try to insulate the powder from any possible fires before sending up the load to the turrets. Since it came in bags, probably simpler than trying to manoeuvre a complete missile into a tube.
Similar threads
