Ship Design Philosophy

While the ideal military encounter is overwhelming force at the point of contact, commerce warfare is about just sufficient force to accomplish the mission.
 
Missiles: Fragmentation

With the default propulsion of sixty seven and a half percent, fragmentation warheads only take up thirty two and a half percent, about a tad less than a third.

Considering that fragmentation warheads only need proximity, that speed may be excessive against incoming threats.

I wonder if three gees is sufficient to intercept fifteen gee, as the damage is area effect?
 
R1O1q4m.jpg


Surround sound artificial gravity plated deck, ceiling and walls.
 
Spaceships: Engineering and 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. 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.


How much less fuel?

Why not a variant with extra manoeuvre drives?

Or manoeuvre drive variants that are limited to orbital and hundreder orbital range.
 
Condottiere said:
Spaceships: Engineering and 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. 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.


How much less fuel?

Why not a variant with extra manoeuvre drives?

Or manoeuvre drive variants that are limited to orbital and hundred orbital range.

I can't see rhyme nor reason for chemical rockets in the 3I setting.

If you add M drives with limits in gravity wells (orbit to 100D) then it might be an idea to explain how anti gravity works for vehicles, as to my mind, this crosses over.
 
It depends on the design rules.

In Mongoose First, it was worth it to build a pint defence interceptor around them.

Now they only cost one fifth as much as the equivalent manoeuvre drive, and weigh twice as much.
 
I can see why a setting neutral design sequence would have them.

It would be good to see the crossover between ships, small craft, grav vehicles and aircraft described for the Third Imperium.
 
Starships: Subsidized (Armed) Merchant Cruisers

The classic view of this would be fast passenger liners that are paramilitarized enough to deal with small commerce raiders and light warships, who bring two advantages, not just speed but sustained speed, and range, besides the fact that you have an available platform that you just have to stick on a set of four to six inchers.

Design rules give you a hardpoint every hundred tonnes that can easily support a turret, which is basically the equivalent of a flyswatter, and every ship can easily be equipped that way.

To really develop some firepower, the Admiralty subsidizes ships that include fifty or hundred tonne weapon bays in their hulls, which any yard could fairly swiftly fill with an appropriate weapon system, perhaps one bay for every one or two thousand tonnes.

During peacetime, the weapon bays could be used as storage or even carry appropriately sized cargo.
 
Or make the space on a ship modular and mothball the bay weapons till time of crisis when they can be fitted. In peace time cargo, passenger or fuel modules could be used. Also avoids heavily armed civilian ships wandering around and makes the ship cheaper and more able to pay its mortgage thru regular trade.
 
In my forever quest for more detail, I wonder what the different bay weapons actually measure. I mean, we know their displacement but as someone recently posted, I figure that bays would be similar to smaller spinals rather than a collection of large turrets/barbettes. Would that make the modules an inappropriate shape for more general cargo modules?
 
Bays are standard mounts:
Weapons may be mounted in bays, large areas near the skin of the ship's hull. Bays are available in 100-ton and 50-ton sizes (the size indicates the tonnage required) and must be installed during construction. The weaponry in bays is easily removed and replaced by other bay weaponry as the need arises.

Hence they must be fairly boxy, quite unlike long drawn-out spinals.
 
Where as the mass driver is clearly going to resemble a miniaturized version of spinal railgun, the rest are clusters of weapon systems, so bays seem more of an abstraction.
 
Starships: Corvettes

If I had to list the features that define this as a warship type, I'd go with one to two killotonnes, with a minimum acceleration of five, and at least one bay weapon.

Optimally, it would be below two kilotonnes to take advantage of the smaller size; above that, destroyers would be more interested in immunity from turret and barbette criticals.
 
Spaceships: Quirks

Prototypes should have quirks, but they may carry over to the actual production design.

From a design perspective, we're only interested in quirks in how much bang for a buck they bring, though the roleplaying aspect, especially for the ones that don't directly effect operating cost like being fuel inefficient, could be quite entertaining; like someone decided to simplify plumbing, and it all originates from a central pipe, in the centre of the ship, so the flush toilets, the showers, the laundry and the kitchen are all clustered around that.
 
Spaceships: Booby Prize

It's difficult for a spaceship to sink in space.

It continues to float with any number of holes in it.

Since you can't deactivate the fusion reactor magnetic bottles to let it blow up, to deny it's capture by the enemy, you're going to have to emplace scuttling charges, if you can't propel it into the nearest gravitational well.
 
Back
Top