Ship Design Philosophy

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Armaments and Not My Pebbles!

1. Pebbles should quite a lot of damage against the casings of missiles and torpedoes.

2. High Yield: When rolling damage for a High Yield weapon ... any ‘1’s rolled on the dice are counted as ‘2’s ... if all the weapons firing in the barrage have high yield, a +1 DM is used on the attack roll.

More probably not effective in a single canister.

3. Very High Yield (Double Upgrade): When rolling damage for a Very High Yield weapon, any ‘1’s or ‘2’s rolled on the dice are counted as ‘3’s ... if all the weapons firing in the barrage have high yield, a +2 DM is used on the attack roll.

Two to three damage for a single canister; +1 DM in a barrage.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Armaments and Not My Pebbles!

Hollowed out pebbles and filled with explosives, or any variant that dispenses cluster munitons, which means that the canister would have a retarded, slowed descent.

The smallcraft delivering this ordnance would be named a Cherry Bomber.

 

[wbnc]

i've heard that idea somewhere else recently

Sand and pebble can lead to some confusion, since most people go..Oh well it's just a bucket of sand and talcum powder....

But if it's a ball bearing the size of you fist, its a bit more intimidating than a "pebble" if i remember most sub munitions are about eh size of a baseball and packed with enough high explosives to blow out a cinder block wall.

a few of those would seriously wreck the day of any missile, small craft, or battle dress they hit going a few hundred FPS...basically would be like getting hit by a small autocannon or mortar round.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Armaments and Sandcasting

Sandcasting is remarkably lacking in operational details, but basically the canister is thrown out without guidance or propulsion.

However, if you view the canister as a container format, you can put stuff inside it that can include guidance and/or propulsion, but can only activate after it's been cast out.

In a gravity well, propulsion can be a free outside force that may allow controlled descent; if you need to add a rocket motor, the payload/warhead shrinks, and at it's basic configuration, has to be less than 1d6 missile damage.

However, if you assume a missile is 0.05 tonnes, the canister 0.04 tonnes, and the missile can be miniaturized to 0.03-tonnes, than the basic canister can be sabotted with a mini-missile speced with the basic characteristics of any specific missile type.

I doubt that a canister can act as an effective space mine, by itself.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Armaments and Fixed Mountings

1. I disagree with giving smallcraft five weapon slots at one hundred tonnes, but then I disagree that it can be described as smallcraft once it reaches one hundred tonnes.

2. You can substitute four fixed mountings of turreted weapons per hardpoint.

3. That means four fixed mountings of pulse lasers, beam lasers, sandcasters and/or missile launchers, or combinations thereof.

4. For the rather larger weapon systems, upto three plasma guns, or upto particle beams per hard point, or combination thereof

5. For barbette sized weapon systems, only one fixed mounting per hardpoint can be substituted, with the following exception:

6. The torpedo barbette would turn into an actual torpedo tube at five tonnes (should be more) representing launcher and handling equipment, allowing the torpedo to be reloaded internally.

 

[wbnc]

Spaceships: Armaments and Sandcasting

Sandcasting is remarkably lacking in operational details, but basically the canister is thrown out without guidance or propulsion.

However, if you view the canister as a container format, you can put stuff inside it that can include guidance and/or propulsion, but can only activate after it's been cast out.

In a gravity well, propulsion can be a free outside force that may allow controlled descent; if you need to add a rocket motor, the payload/warhead shrinks, and at it's basic configuration, has to be less than 1d6 missile damage.

However, if you assume a missile is 0.05 tonnes, the canister 0.04 tonnes, and the missile can be miniaturized to 0.03-tonnes, than the basic canister can be sabotted with a mini-missile speced with the basic characteristics of any specific missile type.

I doubt that a canister can act as an effective space mine, by itself.

This seems to be a subject that has a lot of interest lately
I agree that sandcasters need a bit more explanation, and perhaps a bit of expansion as a weapons system. Next time I get to set down with the design bureau I bring it up

If you increase the tech level of the payload. Say as little as 3 levels then you can justify shrinking a short ranged missile into a sand barrel size container, with it's own internal targeting system. You simply point it at the target, let it lock on and kick it out the tube.

Instead of Gunnery skill affecting the missiles accuracy, you simply give it a baseline accuracy with the gunner having no real effect on it's effectiveness since the targeting systems of a sandcaster would be a bit more primitive than a missile launcher.

Spaceships: Armaments and Fixed Mountings

1. I disagree with giving smallcraft five weapon slots at one hundred tonnes, but then I disagree that it can be described as smallcraft once it reaches one hundred tonnes.

2. You can substitute four fixed mountings of turreted weapons per hardpoint.

3. That means four fixed mountings of pulse lasers, beam lasers, sandcasters and/or missile launchers, or combinations thereof.

4. For the rather larger weapon systems, upto three plasma guns, or upto particle beams per hard point, or combination thereof

5. For barbette sized weapon systems, only one fixed mounting per hardpoint can be substituted, with the following exception:

6. The torpedo barbette would turn into an actual torpedo tube at five tonnes (should be more) representing launcher and handling equipment, allowing the torpedo to be reloaded internally.

If you look at the rules for starships and the rules for small craft there are a few points where they don't mesh well at all. But if you assume that there are radical structural differences between the two you can take away some of the gritting of teeth suffered by people who look closely at the rules.

Not my favorite solution to the situation..but it works with just a bit of explanation and some slight rewording rather than a rules overhaul.

If you assume A starship hull has to allow for integration of Jump Drive components, and various bits of widgetry that a small craft doesn't. this explains why small craft can mount a few more weapons, and cant support a jump drive.

Small craft get more guns as a slight balance to the fact they cant mount the external/Hull integrated hardware for a jump drive.


he subject of weapons slots, versus hardpoints is a bit of a clash of terms. Since on a starship you have a hardpoint where you can mount a turret, bay, or barbette. Small craft use weapon slots for a single weapon, with each weapon requiring a turret, although you can combine multiple weapons into a single turret,or fixed mount.

once again I dream of the day when a Unified theory of vehicle/smallcraft/starship design graces the pages of Mongoose ( the ruleset I have to work with), and drives away the confusion that haunts us daily....... Let us light candle and hope that someday this dream becomes reality.( Or that Some higher power sees fit to give me some idea of how to work out the differences, and combine them into one seamless form. Hopefully without rendering every design in print obsolete....)

 

[Condottiere]

It depends on applications that you can find for it, and start pursuing their practicality.

I've been pretty dismissive of sandcasting, until I asked myself, what else can you do with it?

As for inflight guidance, you could have the canister spool a fibre optic wire behind it, updating target information just before the mini missile separates and acquires it on it's own, though I think it's potential is best exploited by fire and forget.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Armaments and Water Cannons

Or their vacuum equivalents.

There are times when you don't want to put a hole through the hull of a spaceship that's interfering with your mission, just a gentle reminder to keep their distance,because the other usual method to make this point, playing chicken and ramming, can go disastrously wrong at the speeds usually encountered in space.

So far, there's no canon mechanism that will allow you to tune your laser, so etching your initials into the other guy's spaceship, or using it as a giant flashlight seem out.

You can put a shot across their bow, but that's a potentially an act of war, and if the other ship ignores it, your options shrink alarmingly. Or if it's a civilian ship, you are going to have to explain why you crippled it's drive or power plant, or even sent a boarding party to get control of their bridge.

So something non-invasive that gets your point across without leaving discernible damage.

If he's close enough to be annoying, he's close enough to cast at him.

Sand isn't going to cut it; pebbles, however, should make a rattling noise as they strike the hull, and no one will really feel that a caster represents much of a threat against a spaceship.

 

[wbnc]

As for inflight guidance, you could have the canister spool a fibre optic wire behind it, updating target information just before the mini missile separates and acquires it on it's own, though I think it's potential is best exploited by fire and forget.

In flight guidance isn't a major issue. The AIM-54 Phoenix had its own radar and made it's terminal approach under internal guidance.

Assuming that someone actually spends a few dollars on radar and computer guidance systems in the next thousand or so years. A compact self guided weapon would be reasonable. Once the gunner selected a target, and the missiles own internal systems locked onto it after launch


A simple interface between the gunner and the missile would be enough..once the gunner points the missiles sensors in the right direction. Bringing the desired target into the detection window of the missile. The missiles own sensors sweep for target, and then the missile basically says..I can detect these targets!..which one do I engage?

The gunner confirms the selection and hits the firing control.. the ejection system fires out the container the missile then boosts free on it's own motors, and it's off to the races...the gunner goes on to selecting his next round of ordnance. Waits for the autoloader to cycle, while he gets his next round of firing solutions from fire control.

Main while the missile is off hunting down it's target using it's own sensors...of course the system is more vulnerable to jamming, since the gunner can't override the missiles controls if the missile locks on to a decoy, or chaff bundle...so the weapon gets no bonus for sensor locks, or gunner skill....just a nice flat number to roll against.

 

[Askold]

You're right, the railgun barbette does have an internal magazine of twenty rounds.

If we don't want to make the fifty tonne missile bay redundant, we'll have to make it the barbette equipped with six launchers, which would take up a tonne, with loaders, and you could allocate three or three and a half tonnes for the magazine, complete with handling equipment (presumably), so thirty six to forty two missiles, with blow out panels directing any hit/blast into space.

I wonder if it's necessary to armour it. You could place another magazine a little distant underneath it, connected by an elevator that moves a little complicately through the ship armour, so that an explosion doesn't flash directly downwards.

This is not so much an issue with railgun rounds, since they're solid shot and not a combination of warhead and rocket propellant.

I'd say the armor is covered under the ships armor, and defiantly there would be some sort of anti-flash system to keep a chain reaction from opening up the ship like a beer can with a cherry bomb stuffed in it.

and there we have it. the Missile barbette... Simple flexible, moderately useful with variant ammo loads available.

I just want to point out that with this logic, wouldn't it mean that there is no reason why the torpedo barbette wouldn't have room for torpedoes normally. I mean, if the weight of the barbette also includes the weight of the torpedoes then either you count it twice or the weight of that component changes when you fire. Similarly if the barbette or turret is supposed to include the weight of the armour (rather than simply assuming that some of the ship's armour is on the turret/barbette) then the weight would need to be changed depending on the amount/type of armour on the ship.

Torpedo barbettes however do not specify they have an internal magazine.

Each torpedo takes up two and half tons of space. They are normally purchased in two–shot loads of five tons each. A barbette holds two torpedoes.

Missed that thanks Andrew....

 

[Condottiere]

The design system can be too abstract.

 

[Askold]

I'm just saying that I assume that the turrets and barbettes include the weight of the weapons and associated machinery including loaders and such, but their weight (as a component) does not include everything and they can have some "empty" room for things like ammo.

 

[Condottiere]

Tonnage is calculated on the concept of enclosed space, which I'd give it a pass on transitioning to jumpspace, otherwise, you wouldn't need to drop those tanks, or would calculate on the power required to push the ship minus fuel, since most of it is coalescing around your ship.

More dodgy with calculating mass in realspace.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Ultralite Fighters

We all know that in this iteration of the design rules, minimum weight is capped at ten tonnes, though surprisingly overlooked for Space Stations.

Why do we want something below ten tonnes?

1. It's a smaller target, if by leaving out a tonne gives you an additional DM of hard to detect.

2. Anything that relies on cost directly related to tonnage, smaller is better, especially when it comes to engineering, who tend to be the most expensive component, unless you count computers, which take up no space.

3. In reality, at that size, it shouldn't matter how much percentage you spend on armour, it's relatively paper thin to even a tincan, who are renowned for having next to no armour.

4. The other aspect is payload, specifically armament, since it doesn't matter if it's ten tonnes ot thirty nine, you only get allocated one weapon slot. In theory, that could be taken away below that, but I'd say that wouldn't work since you can integrate them into three tonne modular frames.

5. We can also squeeze more of them in to a given size of hangar, and essentially use a smaller sized launch tube.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Armaments and Torpedoes

.. Torpedo
... Basic 7A
.... 4d6.10/10
.... KCr 5
... Bomb-Pumped 9C
.... 6d6.10/10
.... hit as missile
.... defend as laser
.... point defense DM-2
.... KCr 16
... EMP 9C
.... 1d6.8/8
.... disables three systems for 1d6 turns
.... KCr 16
... Nuclear 7A
.... 6d6+c.10/10
.... KCr 15
... Ortillery 8B
.... 8d6.8/10
.... attacks to hit DM-2
.... point defence DM+2
.... KCr 12
... Plasma CF
.... 3d6.6/12
.... ship armour -3
.... KCr 18

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Armaments and Power Plants

One thing that tends to annoy me is the requirement that the power plant has to match factors with the jump drive, and/or the grav thrusters, whereas I tend to think it should be balanced off with a total energy requirement, so that you could have a situation that a cruiser making a run for it has to channel all it's remaining power to the jump capacitors.

That also makes have non-energy, or non energy intensive weapon systems, rather attractive, since you'd have to account for all that power being used by spinal mounts and slightly smaller variants, as well as maintaining nuclear dampers and meson screens.

Essentially, it makes sandcasters and missiles relevant.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Armaments and Tracked Turrets

As I recall, that feature was on the original X Boat Waystation.

So what can you do with a tracked turret? The point was to shuttle it around to cover blindspots in a non-moving space station.

I think that if you upgrade it to a tracked barbette, it can be much more useful, if add in a couple of detours and maintenance tunnels, that allow the barbette to pop in and out.

First of all, if the barbette carried torpedoes, it would be easier to divert it to a tunnel after it fired, and reload it. If you strictly followed the hundred tonne hard point rule, it also makes it fairly easy to replace a destroyed barbette, or if we're back to turrets, with one in the stores.

I mentioned barbettes, because at five tonnes, you could also replace the weapon systems with a docking clamp, or any other utility tool.

You'd have to have multiple tracks criss crossing the hull, in case any section gets destroyed.

 

[wbnc]

I hate to admit it..but The extra book keeping of energy drain would make those useless weapons systems more attractive.


And the tracked, Barbette is a deviously wonderful Idea. Wish I had the book that idea came from...that track system would also make transfering cargo easy...a sled with locking clamps rolls out to the outer hull, the cargo loaders lock down a cargo container and the system whisks it away to the cargo bay, no muss, no fuss.....

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Armaments and Tracked Turrets

The most unusual aspect of the Starcom toy line was its use of Magna Lock technology. The action figures had tiny magnets implanted in their feet. Not only did this allow them to stand on the vehicles and playsets without falling off, but it also activated devices in the playsets. For instance, if one placed a figure in the elevator of the Starbase Station playset, its Magna Lock magnets would cause the elevator to rise to the top by itself. On the same playset, if one put a figure within a cannon, the Magna Lock magnets would activate a mechanism that made it turn and fire its rockets.

You could have a crane place a module, and magnalock it on a sled; or just on the hull.

The vehicles and playsets also delivered Power Deploy features, which uses automatic wind up mechanisms that allows them to perform multiple actions all in a touch of a button, without the use of batteries. For example, with the touch of a button, the Starcom StarWolf unfolds its front, and both its wings. All in all, they offered plenty of moving parts (hidden compartments, cannons, folding wings, etc.).

Of course, in pursuit of performance and jumpability, always looking for a way to expand enclosed space, or get more out of hangar space.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Armaments and Tracked Turrets

One variant could be:

Loading Belt (TL7+): ... used to load and offload cargo from a freighter cargo pod, ... The TL 12 version uses high-powered magnetic to propel the cargo containers, increasing the work output to that of 25 crewmen. ... the TL12 is Cr10,000; 1 ton