Rob ecrire:
>I had not considered a TL15 modular design before. Hmmmm...I would need
>to think about it for a while before dismissing it. For merchant usage,
>I think that you are correct--redundancy would be too expensive (by the
>rules, I mean, of course)
Consider: Ten 10-ton hulls (plus the spine to mount them on) will cost
and weigh more than a single 100-ton hull. Also, for carrying cargo,
there will be more space wasted in 10 small cargo bays than in one large
one. Economically it's bad news. (But we already agree on that one)
>The current
>damage rules for spacecraft are just a slightly revised version of High
>Guard, as you know, and are not set up to handle some of the more exotic
>things that we can think of.
Well, I would say that a group of modular hulls acting as a unit would have
to be treated as one unit damage wise. Consider: A nuclear warhead hits
a ten 10-ton hulls vs. a single 100-ton hull. Not a big difference damage
wise. But you're quite right. The current damage system wouldn't cover it.
> BTW, why couldn't it enter the atmosphere? As long as it has more that 1G
> of lift, it ought to be able to fly, albeit slowly.
It would HAVE to fly slowly. As the rules see it, unstreamlined ships are
not capable of flying in an atmoshere. To my mind, they could. So the
compromise is that they could with a LOT of trouble. Now for modular ships
to do so would require some kind of ultra heavy duty docking locks for the
modules. Now, if these babies can stand up to the thrust of the engines,
they should be able to stand under their own weight. But getting them to
do so would require such structural reinforcement that any saving in
construction (if any there be) would be lost by the buttresses required.
>The rules
>might work without them, _IF_ we knew how missiles worked. (If missiles need
>continual guidance from the launcher, then the number that can be fired is
>limited by the number that can be controlled, otherwise the number that can
>be fired is limited only by the cost of the missiles. In the former case,
>ship designs could dispense with the turret limits for game balance puposes,
>since there would be some sort of balance between increasing power requirements
>for energy weapons and increasing control requirements for missiles, but in the
>latter case, a High Guard/TCS style campaign would have to consider the cost
>of resuplly in order to remain balanced.)
I don't think that the vast forces of the Imperium, the Zhos, the Aslan,
K'Kree, Hiver, Droyne... etc. etc. will all be using the same system of
missile guidance.
Some will used robotic seeker heads, some will used semi-active seeker heads,
active seeker heads, passive seeker heads... The US now commonly uses four
types of air to air missiles, three of which use different types of seekers.
From what we are given, we have to assume that the traveller missiles are
an average of all the possible types.
However, what *I* guess is that since the standard (Book 2) description of
a missile rack sez three missiles per rack, I assume that each rack has
three long range maser communicators. (That 750,000 Cr per has to go
toward SOMETHING). Thus a battery can launch three salvoes of missiles and
keep all under control. It would be possible to have more missiles under
control but would cost more.
Now, the missiles themselves cost about 20,000 Cr. Using the old system of
missile rocket engines & fuel, there's not a lot left over for electronics
but some. Still, a maser comm (even a short range one) costs close to
20,000 Cr. Thus only a reciever can be present.
IMO, The missile's trajectory is calculated by the ship's computer, fed into
a simple electronic head and fired. Mid course corrections are sent to the
missile via maser comm. Finally, in the missile's terminal phase, it is
coming in on a precalculated trajectory designed to surprise the targets
defencive batteries. A very small onboard computer takes it through the
targets defences and explodes the warhead.
Missiles get a +1 for long range and a -1 for short range. (Rules)
This must be because the missiles are harder to detect at longer ranges.
If you don't see them being launched and track them till you can fire at
them, you don't have a lot of chance to avoid them or engage them with
counter battery fire.
Also, the longer the range they are fired from, the more the missiles will
be able to diverge and approach the target from unexpected angles. Then
the counter batteries only get a few shots at the missiles during the VERY
short interval after they are detected and before they hit.
Make any sence?
Scott 2G Kellogg