From: Paul Dale (Pauli)
[][stuff 'mentioned above' delete]
[]>If firing arcs are to be used, I presume some means of abstracting it can be done,
[]>as you mentioned above.
[]
[] Isn't that what the batteries bearing is all about? That is what I thought
[] it ment. The figures from High Guard are a little on the high side (50% of
[] all batteries bear at least), I don't remember the MT figures off the top
[] of my head but I am pretty sure that the table was almost the same.
But you have to remember -- the original batteries bearing is based on 16 minute
turns. Presumably, ships can rotate on their axis to bring additional weapons
to bear. With a smaller time scale, the batteries bearing idea would have to be
expanded.
[]>This will SIGNIFICANTLY alter the armaments of large ships (since 2x size is
[]>not equal to 2x weapons). Spinal mounts have their hardpoint limits checked, but
[]>only use 1 hardpoint (firing port).
[]
[] Are you suggesting that if the mount requires 50 hard points it can only be
[] placed into a ship with 50+ hardpoint and once built in it only uses one
[] phardpoint? Seems a little silly to specify the minimum sized ship that
[] can contain the mount especially when the mount already uses a volume.
[] I also feel that it would be quite difficult to put a decent spinal mount
[] into a ship that didn't make the necessary hardpoint count --- they have this
[] annoying property of using a LOT of power and space.
Well, I suppose the hardpoint limit could be dropped. If the ship has the
volume to handle it, it can have it. It would still only take 2 hardpoints
(aiming lenses or whatever for minor corrections -- the target must still be
in the hexes forward).
From: Adrian Hurt
[]> Well, turrets are armored, but probably not as much as the main hull.
[]
[] Again, why not? Since the ultimate objective is to make rules which
[] work for space vehicles as well as for air/ground vehicles, note that
[] tank turrets are often as well armoured as the hulls.
Well, in such a case, surface hits destroy targeting sensors on the turret, but
leave the turret and weaponry largely intact. So it basically boils down to
surface hits being nothing but sensors/commo hits.
[]> Perhaps a surface hit welds the turret in one place, or (as I stated for
[]> lasers) blows away the reflective surface of a vane.
[]
[] Does such damage occur with tanks? As for the reflective vanes, what happens
[] if I cover my ship with the same material as the vanes? (In personal combat,
[] this is what reflec armour does.)
I presume that the material can't take a direct hit, but works at oblique angles.
Maybe it's just too expensive to use as armor. YGIAGAM.
[]> (btw, is there any reason WHY only one spinal mount is allowed? If the ship
[]> is large enough, could it not have 2 parrallel, or 3 triaxial mounts?
[]
[] This is something that I've wondered, too. (And on this mailing list on a
[] few occasions. :-) What about catamaran designs? Take two 30,000 ton
[] cruisers and join them together with a big lump of metal. You now have one
[] 70,000 ton cruiser with two meson guns. (I said it was a big lump, 10,000
[] tons! :-)
If you take 6 meson spinal mounts and wrap them around the axis, you get the
"Gatling Gun" class. :)
From: "Robert S. Dean" [email removed]
[] The main 'problem' with removing turret restrictions is the effect that it
[] would have on missile and (to a lesser extent) sand turrets. Before this
[] can be discussed, we really need to decide how missiles work. If missiles
[] require guidance from the launching ship for a significant fraction of
[] their flight, then the 'game balance' limitations on missiles should be
[] based on the number of control channels/transmitters that the launching/
[] guiding ship has available. This would make them somewhat like missiles in
[] Star Cruiser/2300AD. If you wanted a missile launching specialty vessel,
This means was used because missiles were actually used like drones. Most had
a laser that the missile could fire at the target. Others exploded to power
a bank of lasers. This was mostly due to the effects of stutterwarp, with ships
shifting positions in the blink of an eye.
[] hand, if missiles are 'self guided', along the lines of the missile designs
[] that have been posted here using the Robots book, there is really no basis
[] for limiting the number of missiles that a single ship can launch in a
[] turn, EXCEPT for the cost of the missiles. My players, in their space
[] combat session two weeks ago, burned through MCr1.5 worth of missiles,
[] which is prohibitive for many player groups (I hope.) In a Trillion Credit
[] Squadron setting, forcing players to purchase and transport the missiles
[] (and sand--we should insert the sand canister prices form Old Traveller in
[] MT) would cut down on their use a bit.
Thi is as it should be. If you want your ship to do a deathwind attack, launching
hundreds of missiles in a single volley, you better have a deep wallet to buy new
ones.
The sand prices should be in there anyways.
[] This was mapped out on hex paper. Using vectored movement. Now, we assumed
[] that missiles accelerate at 8 Gs. This allows them to out run even a 6 g ship/.They were moved as though they were ships, and damage was inflicted on the
[] turn they intercepted the targe.
If I remember MAYDAY rules correctly, you could bought missiles with a G-rating
and an endurance. 12G was the maximum burn. Thus a 12/3 missile could make up to
12 hexes of vector changes per turn for up to 3 turns.
[] Another reason for the 20 min turn is damage control. The rules say that
[] the engineers can attempt to repair systems during combat. Well, 20 min
[] seems fair for that. If you go down to 30 second turns then you'd barely
[] have enough time to bring the secondary systems on line, nevermind repair
[] a fusion plant with a hole in it!
Well, My intentions are to simulate the feel of most SF movies.
[] And when a laser turret has an ROF of 60 (I think) combat kills take only a
[] few seconds.
So letting it fire for 20 times as long is a better thing?
===============================================================================
Well, let us say, for the moment, that the really poor limitations (no more than
1 spinal mount, 1 hardpoint/100t) are chucked in favor of reasonable limitations
(turrets and bays limited to increasing hull volume by 40%, or something).
We now face the prospect of multitudes of laser and missile attacks being
fired from each ship. How should a barrage of 30 lasers be handled with
regards to "to hit" and damage? Should it be (2d6+attack DMS) crossreferenced
with (2d6+defenseDMS) to find a %hit? If so, how will the table be constructed?
If ATTDM=0 and DEFDM=0, what is a 7-7 result? 50% hits? 10% hits?
===============================================================================
Sandcasters. If ever there was a boneheaded idea, this is it. I am probably
goind to implement sand like the shields of 2300ad. An electromagnetic field
generated by the hull traps and circulates the ablative particles. Sand Dispensers
pump a steady stream into the field to maintain the level of protection. Maximum
shield strength is dependant on the power of the shield generators.
The cost and power requirements of a shield system is dependant on the hull
surface area.
===============================================================================
Just more stuff to kick around. I'm still looking for the TDR vehicle rules
that were done way earlier in the year.
===============================================================================
Burton Choinski Phoenix Technologies, LTD
"All opinions are mine, not Phoenix's" Cambridge, MA
===============================================================================