TL15/16 Ship Designs - Final Attempt - On Topic Thread

[BP]

...
I would also suggest that a small cost penalty be applied - perhaps no 'standard design' discount for the ship or even double price for an experimental prototype.

In other words, no free lunch.

Game balance wise, 'cost' really doesn't mean much... maybe in a tourney, ala Trillion Credit Squadron, but even then the weapons costs would be small fry at this scale.

Hence the suggestion about additional tonnage/hardpoints. One could go further on rate of fire or some such, but then I think the OPs idea is that there is some not insignificant advantage given the above average TL.

 

[Solomani666]

Using the double barrel shotgun as an analogy, one common advantage of a DB shotgun is that one barrel can be loaded with birdshot and the other with buckshot, so whatever animal you encounter, you have the right ammo for the job.

Applying this to a starship spinal mount, perhaps the weapons should be different so that whatever the target, you have the optimal offensive weapon ready to fire.

Just going to make them both TL16 rapid fire Meson D's.
I want something that can reduce a Tigress to ashes in under 30 minutes.

 

[atpollard]

Just going to make them both TL16 rapid fire Meson D's.
I want something that can reduce a Tigress to ashes in under 30 minutes.

Then I believe that, within the framework of the rules, you are looking for a TL 16 prototype (and thus large and quirky) of a TL 17 Disintigrator.

[I suspect that Mongoose may not have published any stats on them yet, but earlier versions of the game will have them and T5 might have data.]

 

[atpollard]

...
I would also suggest that a small cost penalty be applied - perhaps no 'standard design' discount for the ship or even double price for an experimental prototype.

In other words, no free lunch.

Game balance wise, 'cost' really doesn't mean much... maybe in a tourney, ala Trillion Credit Squadron, but even then the weapons costs would be small fry at this scale.

Hence the suggestion about additional tonnage/hardpoints. One could go further on rate of fire or some such, but then I think the OPs idea is that there is some not insignificant advantage given the above average TL.

Game balance wise, IMTU a double spinal mount would be an experimental prototype - probably 4x the size and 20X the cost of a single spinal mount, with a 50% chance of not-firing and a 1 in 6 chance of exploding if both guns are fired together ... and hell yeah it would cost more hardpoints.

... but if your back is against a wall and you hit with both barrels, the enemy will be having a very bad day since I would combine damage dice for armor penetration.

If some polity wanted to build a fleet of them, then I would reduce the failure chances by 1 in 6 for each doubling of the number of ships. So for ship 2+, the weapon has a 3 in 6 chance of not-firing and no chance of exploding; for ship 4+, the weapon has a 2 in 6 chance of not-firing; for ship 8+, the weapon has a 1 in 6 chance of not-firing; for ship 16+, the weapon is a mature technology operating normally. Thus which ship of the fleet one encounters will make a big difference.

[but as you pointed out, that is clearly not the intent of the OP.]