Solomani Confederation (Military)

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Armaments and Torpedo Pylon

1. Generally speaking, the Sword World ship designs are a lot more innovative and interesting than the canonized Confederation ones.

2. The Confederation should send a Technical Cooperation Mission to the Spinward Marches.

3. Looks like torpedo pylons are back on the menu.

4. Firmpoints can have single capacity.

5. Hardpoints have double capacity.

6. But I must have missed the update that fixed mounts now require a tenth of a tonne, whether set or on a per weapon system basis.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Armaments and Heavy Ordnanced Pods

1. First off, Sword World heavy ordnance is not the same as Confederation heavy ordnance.

2. Second, they're housed externally in hardpointed streamlined disposable pods.

3. The pods are discarded, like bullet casings are ejected from a gun.

4. A pod has six spaces, different ordnances can be mixed and matched to take them up.

5. Apparently, as long as it's loaded, you have to direct power to the pod.

6. Frankly speaking, the Sword World lowered teched heavy ordnance is way better than that of the Confederation.

 

[Condottiere]

Dirtside: Armaments and Planetary Defence Cannon

1. As flak defence, unclear about the spread of ball bearings.

2. Probably a deterrence to a capsule assault.

3. You could put the light variant on a grav sled.

4. You could also place a deep meson site underneath the cannon.

5. There are probably easier and cheaper ways to establish a no fly zone.

6. Low technologized colonies might have one, especially along the Aslan frontier, moreso that the initial assault doesn't knock out the starport and/or primary command centre.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Armaments and Integrated Munition System

1. This and a spinal mount are incompatible.

2. Kinda reminds me of the Wayfarer in the Honorverse.

3. Takes up five percent of total tonnage and ten tonnes per missile launcher.

4. Requires ten percent of total hardpoints and one per missile launcher.

5. A salvo is four missiles per launcher, with a total of ten.

6. One hundred sixty seven percent denser storage capacity.

7. So it becomes a sort of optimization between standard launch systems and integrated one.

8. I would think the concept is basically sustained bombardment during battle, which sort of indicates they expect engagement at fairly close ranges, and presumably multiple targets.

9. For a two kay tonne ship, that would be hundred base, plus sixty for six launcher clusters, for eight hardpoints, twenty four launchers and two hundred forty missiles, versus one medium bay, with twenty four launchers and two hundred eighty eight missiles.

10. Two hundred twenty for fourteen hardpoints, forty eight launchers and four hundred eighty missiles, versus two medium bays and five hundred thirty eight missiles.

11. Two hundred eighty tonnes for twenty hardpoints, seventy two launchers and seven hundred twenty missiles, versus three medium bays and eight hundred sixty four missiles; twenty tonne difference missile storage equals four hundred missiles, though the bay ship still has another seventeen hardpoints leftover.

12. To make it really work, it's probably all or nothing.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Armaments and Integrated Munition System

13. It suddenly struck me that acquisitting targets may be a problem.

14. In the above example we have two hundred and eighty tonnes, which requires a six member team, base four plus one per full hundred tonnes.

15. Assuming all six are gunners, each would control three launch clusters.

16. If each cluster is autonomous, you would have eighteen separate targets.

17. As I understand combat rules, outside of specific computer control, each launch cluster would require one gunner or gunner crew to operate.

18. One option could be is that before the start of each turn, any number of launch clusters could be allocated to any gunner, who could only nominate one target for those allocated launch clusters.

 

[Condottiere]

Equipment: Confederation Navy Officer's Revolver

1.

2. Personalized ones give an accuracy bonus.

3. Though you could overdo it, and have them handmade; not quite sure how that works in an equitable society.

4. My first thought is just get a handmade gauss pistol - not so fast!

5. I cross referenced pistols, since I was curious what technology levelized twelve variants gave you.

6. You get a point more in damage, and the longest ranged pistol in Traveller, basically submachine gun.

7. This would be a duelling pistol, assuming this was a custom in the Confederation.

8. You could, of course, exchange the bullets for High Explosive Armour Piercing; you know, in case of bears.

9. I probably would have used ten millimetre, being bearable.

10. A five chamber cylinder could make it lighter and slimmer.

11. I'm not sure if you can spare the expense and just get a really spiffed up technology five original; it would be ten times cheaper and let's assume the ammunition would be compatible.

 

[Condottiere]

Equipment: Confederation Navy Combat Shotgun

1. So I wondered why everything was specced at technological level twelve, and what you get for that.

2. Not much, in this case.

3. Range is the same.

4. Still bulky.

5. You do get two more points of damage.

6. Costs seven times more.

7. Has one more bullet in the magazine.

8. If you want the drum magazine, the assault shotgun not only is automatic, is three times cheaper, and has six more bullets.

9. If you're serious about shipboard defence, I'd opt for the magrail rifle for the kind of effect I suspect they're looking for.

 

[Condottiere]

Equipment: Våben Af Personlig Forsvar

1. I think this is supposed to be a sawed off twenty gauge sporting shotgun.

2. It's not bulky.

3. Range is half.

4. As a survival gun, it is cheaper than Confederation Naval Revolver.

5. I'm not sure I'd choose it for close quarters, since it has only five shots.

 

[Condottiere]

Equipment: Palvelupistooli

1. Basically a heavy revolver without the bulk trait.

2. Ammunition doesn't seem caseless.

3. Detachable cylinder for quick reloading.

4, I wonder if bulk removal was created by using low velocity rounds.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Hulls, Tonnage Range, and Symmetry

1. Sword World smallcraft construction tries to build either twenty, forty and eighty tonners.

2. It looks like this is repeated in the hundreds, thousands, and tens of thousands.

3. My take on the Confederation Navy construction policy would be similar.

4. This helps not only with hangar and docking facilities, but standardization of engineering.

5. Of course, this depends a great deal on what the designers think these hull types are supposed to do, and what tonnage would allow them to best accomplish that.

6. My base would thirty five tonnes, being the minimum for two firmpoints, and not too far off from forty tonnes.

7. In theory, the range would be thirty five to forty nine tonnes, where you'd be pretty agile, only need a single cockpit, and as mentioned above, qualify for two firmpoints.

8. Seventy tonnes, being double of thirty five, grants you three firmpoints.

9. If you pushed this further, one hundred five tonnes should permit four firmpoints.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Hulls, Tonnage Range, and Symmetry

10. Below thirty five tonnes, ten to thirty four tonnes, you'd also be pretty agile, but you'd be deprived of one extra firmpoint.

11. Half of thirty five is seventeen and a half tonnes.

12. Eighty percent of thirty five is twenty eight.

13. Minimum smallcraft size is ten tonnes.

14. Militarily, it becomes a question of the smallest size viable for specific missions or purposes.

15. Commercially, more or less the same, without worrying about the number of firmpoints, since if one weapon system doesn't deter someone, two aren't likely to do that as well.

16. There are probably cases for three different tonnages for the ten to thirty four range.

17. Smallest possible, being ten tonnes.

18. One size below thirty five tonnes, which usually would be below eighty percent, since otherwise you might as well just get a thirty five tonner.

19. And something inbetween ten and twenty eight.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Hulls, Tonnage Range, and Symmetry

20. Going in the other direction, the two ranges would be thirty five to forty nine, and seventy to ninety nine tonnes.

21. Fifty to sixty nine really doesn't make sense, militarily speaking.

22. You could also say that nothing between thirty six to forty eight tonnes makes sense.

23. Ratio of thirty five to forty nine is five to seven.

24. For planetary based fighters, size isn't that much of an issue, since you can always build larger hangars.

25. On the other hand, hangar space tends to be at a premium onboard a starship, or even if you just dock them along the hull.

26. You can make a case for a forty nine tonne assault shuttle, since it's primary payload would be ground troops, or Marines, and you'd want to squeeze the maximum number of them inside, hopefully fully equipped.

27. These odd sizes are based on exploiting, min maxing, the current design rules.

28. It's the primary reason I would have the Confederation standardize their docking clamp at one and a quarter tonnes, for a capacity of thirty seven and a half tonnes.

29. A smaller clamp would very much depend on what size of smallcraft would be practical between ten to twenty eight tonnes.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Hulls, Tonnage Range, and Symmetry

30. Commercially, maximization of volume would be preferable, which when compared against performance, would be forty nine and ninety nine tonnes.

31. Forty nine is pretty close to the canon cutter, while ninety nine to either the default shuttle or scout.

32. Militarily, it's thirty five and seventy, where performance and firmpoints are prioritized.

33. Thirty five is in the middle of a ship's boat and a pinnace, while seventy seems a little free floating.

34. What's been introduced are the twenty five tonne small utility boat, the seventy five tonne large utility boat, and the hundred tonne small packet boat.

35. On an aside, aesthetically speaking, they look like post Soviet Russian designs, not the sexy Sukhois, but rather drab depressing ones complete with prison cell windows.

36. That would explain the prison block accommodation layout.

37. Commercially, if you follow Sword World precedent, twenty five tonnes would be appropriate.

38. Militarily, odd as it may seem, seventeen an a half tonnes.

39. Practicality would indicate some form of compromised tonnages that serve both commercial and military needs.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Hulls, Tonnage Range, and Symmetry

40. And since you can now use a dual cockpit can control a two hundred tonne spaceship without penalty, you can extend the fighter and utility craft to one hundred and ninety nine tonnes.

41. In theory, one hundred and ninety nine tonnes deprives you of one hardpoint, but makes up for it with okay agility.

42. One hundred ten tonnes would permit one hardpoint and one firmpoint.

43. One hundred thirty five tonnes permit one hardpoint and two firmpoints.

44. One hundred seventy tonnes permit one hardpoint and three firmpoints.

45. Militarily, you probably would use the hardpoint to install a bay weapon system.

46. While the firmpoints would limit the range of most weapon systems, this does not apply to missiles and torpedoes.

47. Or sandcasters.

48. You could install lasers, which could also act as point defence.

49. And you could combine two firm points to install a five tonne barbette.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Hulls, Tonnage Range, and Symmetry

50. Commercially, this would make the options twenty five, forty nine, ninety nine, and one hundred ninety nine tonnes.

51. Each volume more or less doubles, and in that sense would take advantage of whatever the Sword Worlds had in mind.

52. Militarily, you'd end up with seventeen and a half, thirty five, seventy and one hundred forty tonnes.

53. One hundred forty tonnes is close enough to the optimum of one hundred thirty five tonnes.

54. And now whether it's possible to reconcile the two volume ranges.

55. At the upper end, it would have to be standardized at one hundred ninety nine tonnes, for parallel reasons.

56. Commercially, you'd want to maximize volume at minimum of per tonne cost.

57. Considering the potential size of likely weapon systems, as well as engineering and armour components, for a heavy fighter you'd want as much as volume that doesn't compromise performance, as well.

58. Is there any possibility for spaceship between ninety nine and one hundred and ninety nine tonnes?

59. In theory, yes, but in practice you could always attach secondary hulls and external stores.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Hulls, Tonnage Range, and Symmetry

60. Once you go past a hundred tonnes, you might as well go all in.

61. That would include investing in expensive electronics to ensure maximum possibility of a hit, not just engineering and armour for optimal survival.

62. You don't really need a fighter with three firmpoints.

63. Seventy tonnes and three firmpoints is the same volume as two thirty five tonne hulls with a total of four firmpoints and more agility.

64. A military transport would be useful, in which case you might as well maximize volume with ninety nine tonnes.

65. Strike boats tend to be mentioned for the three firmpointed range.

66. My feeling is that this is at best opportunistic, and if required, you could convert a civilian model rather than designing a specialized vessel, or even modify a military transport.

67. The difference between ninety nine and a hundred tonnes is one tonne.

68. You could make the case that hundred tonnes would be a better target, that would allow the hull to be used as a small starship and have a full hardpoint.

69. Ninety nine tonnes is more agile, three firmpoints should provide equivalent defence, and you can always superglue a one tonne container to the hull to provide sufficient ballast for a stable jump transition.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Hulls, Tonnage Range, and Symmetry

70. Below fifty tonnes, a compromise can be reached.

71. Smallcraft and fighters based on static bases, whether planetary or satellite, can be designed to forty nine tonnes.

72. Hangar space isn't going to be that much of an issue as in a starship.

73. Starship based fighters and smallcraft would be thirty five tonnes.

74. In theory, you can design a ship's boat around a module, though that means the size would have to be carefully adjusted so that it would be universally usable and accepted, at least within the Confederation.

75. Thirty tonne module is possible: one and a half tonne cockpit, one tonne fuel, one tonne reactor, one tonne manoeuvre drive.

76. Default acceleration would be 2.85, and you'll have enough life support for a day.

77. Which leaves us with half a tonne cargo space, where you could conceivable stretch out your legs and store additional oxygen bottles.

78. Going by the game rules, you standardize the tonnage so you can interchangeably utilize hangar and docking facilities.

79. Even with differing hull configurations.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Hulls, Tonnage Range, and Symmetry

80. Does the Confederation Navy need fighters below thirty five tonnes?

81. Actually, yes.

82. These would take the roles of trainer, light attack, patrol, point defence and ground attack.

83. To be clear, fleet squadrons wouldn't need them, as they would have constant CAPs of thirty five tonners, which pretty much would be multipurpose/mission platforms.

84. It much more cost effective for the Confederation Navy to have a single high performance fighter model.

85. Even for whatever qualified for an escort carrier, it could support a squadron of thirty five tonners, plus another squadron of utility/patrol craft.

86. However, for commerce protection, you could accommodate a light fighter in the Hurricat role, when the Confederation navy assets are a little overstretched.

87. Light attack is basically either as a missile or torpedo platform.

88. The Confederation Navy is also obligated to support the Confederation Army, when called upon, which is where ground support comes in.

89. Patrol would be more of a presence mission, more a way of marking your territory cheaply, than an attempt at a serious confrontation.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Hulls, Tonnage Range, and Symmetry

90. You actually do need a reason to have and prefer light fighters.

91. It's not agility, since it's the same whether it's ten or forty nine tonnes.

92. It's basically cost and volume that creates more bang for buck than thirty five tonner.

93. Twenty five tonnes is about half of forty nine, but too close to thirty five tonnes that would have double the number of firmpoints.

94. So that would shrink the range from ten to twenty tonnes.

95. One thing that thirty five tonners have going for them, is that they're large and capable enough to invest in computers and sensors.

96. Hard to justify that for a single firmpoint

97. Costs of hull, armour and engineering are tied to the targetted volume of the hull.

98. And that should be balanced to the value (not necessarily cost) of the weapon systems that would be brought to bear.

99. And maybe the survival of the pilot and flight crew.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Hulls, Tonnage Range, and Symmetry

100. Light fighter would have to be built around a dual cockpit, since it's primary function would be as an advanced trainer.

101. This would be followed by eleven point two percent armour and nine percent manoeuvre drive for twenty point two percent.

102. Then you have minimums one tonne reactor and one tonne fuel tank.

103. Dual cockpits haven't an option for detachment, but I'm not too sure how you would incorporate two escape capsules.

104. You can add armoured bulkhead around the cockpit.

105. There's not much difference is sensor costs, more in terms of power and volume.

106. The real variables would be how many tonnes of sensors you want to install, and how much ordnance you plan on carrying.

107. Because firmpointed weapon systems basically don't take up any volume.

108. When not used for training, the additional seat would be for a dedicated sensor and/or weapons officer, which is where the additional investment would be a pay off.

109. And of course, how advanced of a computer you'd want, to handle the increasingly sophisticated and expensive software.