Missile velocities

[Dom]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Thanks for that Dom.
I can see the problem is that military craft are armoured and so more dense.
How about taking the civilian % requirement (0.4% of hull tonnage per G) and multiplying by a factor based on the armour % fitted.
Off the top of my head if you took the armour % and divided by 4, round up, you would get a factor to multiply the maneuver drive requirement tonnage by to get the desired G rating.
I think I'll play around with it a bit more
Thanks once again,
Mike

I've just dug into the MT referee's handbook to see whether MT varies density of armour per dT by TL or not, as this would drive whether you converted the armour by its value or by its hull percentage taken over.

The MT rules have varying densities for the same volume of armour based upon different armour types (which are available at different tech levels). Thus, any conversion needs to work by volume of armour rather than value of armour.

The next question, which I haven't really looked at, is how you normalise the system. It would be tempting to take AV1-15 and convert such that (TL15) AV1 = 10T thrust/dT and AV15 = 30T thrust/dT. However, this would mean that most military ships will be better than the average. As a result, the system needs to be normalised so you hit the 30T Thrust per dT somewhere mid-range. At the moment, I'm pondering where to set this value. Once this is done for TL14/15, the system should work for lower TLs (which will be slower overall for the same armour value).

Does that sound reasonably logical?

 

[mike wightman]

Yep, sounds logical. It's similar to my suggestion of basing it on some derivation of armour %, since this varies by rating and TL, but I'm multiplying the civilian fusion drive % rating that you ended up with in order to avoid dealing with calculating the T/dT for each different rating (yours, which is the more accurate way of doing it).
AV1-15 and convert such that (TL15) AV1 = 10T thrust/dT
Shouldn't that be AV 0-15 with AV0 = 10T/dT?

 

[aramis]

Actually, MT has NO densities for armor in the stock rules, as armor (IN MT RM) takes no space...

Now, in Wood, WInd, Fire and Steam...

A good fudge is that civilian vessels tend to mass about 7-10 T per DT when loaded.

Military vessels can skyrocket, due to armor taking no volume, except for variant low tech designs...

 

[Richard Saunders]

Hello.
Laser turrets cant hurt anything with armour, so on this premise i have always seen turrets as point defence weapons (lasers are point defence like in Harringtons universe, and missiles are antimissiles also like in Harringtons universe), The real ship killer missiles are over 1ton and are fired out launch tubes.
Ship missiles can excelerate at 12g's but the drive burns out automaticaly after 12 turns (no saving role, no enginering roll and no feat will stop it burning out, this is to stop players saying if the missile can do it why cant we, and the engineer will continualy jury rig,damage repair,and miracle worker).
If the ship missile gets a hit it does 1d6 laser hits each has a 1 in 20 chance of doing a critical, only double but still ignores armour. This the opposite order to the rule book.
The anti missile has a laser warhead that fires just before hitting this may destroy the target if it dosn't the missile impacts, at the speeds they are going this will auto kill both.
Basicaly the ship missiles have limited armour (drive limitations) so nearly any hit will kill them, but they can hurt warships.
Several sizes of ship missiles.
1ton = 1d6 hits / average 3.5
5ton = 1d6+3 hits / average 6.5
10ton = 3d6+3 hits / average 13.5
each hit is added together from a single missile except for criticals, so a 10ton missile will on average do internals on an armoured ship.
So i exspect lots of comments please.
Bye.

 

[Dom]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Yep, sounds logical. It's similar to my suggestion of basing it on some derivation of armour %, since this varies by rating and TL, but I'm multiplying the civilian fusion drive % rating that you ended up with in order to avoid dealing with calculating the T/dT for each different rating (yours, which is the more accurate way of doing it).
AV1-15 and convert such that (TL15) AV1 = 10T thrust/dT
Shouldn't that be AV 0-15 with AV0 = 10T/dT?

Yes... it was late at night, or early in the morning,,,,

 

[Dom]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Actually, MT has NO densities for armor in the stock rules, as armor (IN MT RM) takes no space...

Now, in Wood, WInd, Fire and Steam...

A good fudge is that civilian vessels tend to mass about 7-10 T per DT when loaded.

Military vessels can skyrocket, due to armor taking no volume, except for variant low tech designs...

No densities are quoted directly, but the tables on page 63 have mods for armour type and for amount of armour that change the hull weight. Not true densities, but a hull of high armour rating should weigh more for the same material.

 

[Dom]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Yep, sounds logical. It's similar to my suggestion of basing it on some derivation of armour %, since this varies by rating and TL, but I'm multiplying the civilian fusion drive % rating that you ended up with in order to avoid dealing with calculating the T/dT for each different rating (yours, which is the more accurate way of doing it).
AV1-15 and convert such that (TL15) AV1 = 10T thrust/dT
Shouldn't that be AV 0-15 with AV0 = 10T/dT?

So, should I use a pure mid range (eg AV8) or one biased to lower AVs? I seem to remember that most CT ship armour in Fighting Ships is <AV6.

 

[mike wightman]

Heavy Cruisers and above appear to be AV10+, Cruisers around about AV5. I'd go for 8 as the mid range.

 

[Straybow]

I dunno&#133 doubling the mass of a typical pointy wedge (Trav Scout or SW SSD), with a surface area around 100m²/dT, would take about .05T/m². That would be 6mm steel or 2½mm of tungsten (or equivalent densities).

That might stop an ordinary rifle bullet. You would need ten times that to stop a (std CT) light ship laser at moderate ship-to-ship range (5000km)!


Dangit, reality checks bite.

 

[Theophilus]

Sorry, I picked up this thread in the middle of page three.

What exactly is the question on armor %?

I know CT/HG uses hull Percentage for armor.
TL15 Ar-15 and TL12 Ar-7 take the same % (16%)

Ar in CT/HG can be converted to cm of armor using striker.

MT used the Striker armor value. (ie. TL15 armor was maxed at TL*3=45, 45+40(min armor)=85. [MT Ar-85 = CT Ar-15].
Combat in MT used the CT model, which divided Ar/5 (IIRC) which gave some funny numbers.

Therefore, We can convert CT/HG armor % to Type/Thickness, And MT Ar to Type/Thickness. Density slhould just be a matter of calculation.

 

[aramis]

Yes, you can find densities by using striker.

But, y'see, MT does not account for armor VOLUME at all!

Well, in the Wind, etc article, for certain types of craft, you need to calc it, and can reverse engineer the volume of armor, but that is getting pedantic.

Stock MT rules assume infintely dense armors of all kinds, as they have no armor volumes... (GD&R)

Seriously, though, that is the biggest design oversight in the system.

I liked the rest of the mechanics well enough (Although TNE's control stations worked just as well).

 

[Dom]

I've just been playing around with this further, and this is what I've come up with, based upon a mid-point of AV8 for the masses for military vessels. Conveniently, this gives a 0.1 factor in the formulae. The 0 AV rating means that there is an initial start factor.

Hence:

Converted MT TL9 Fusion Drive v2:
-----------------------------

% hull needed = G x (0.4+(0.1x AV))
where G = G rating desired, AV = armour value of ship

Work out the drive size in dT from this.

When the drive is running, it will generate 0.2 x drive size (dT) EP from the fusion reaction. This will add to agility calculation.

Fuel needed per turn (dT) = (0.0225 x drive size)/13.5

Notes:
1. There will be no upper G limit except for compensation. We know Traveller ships can maintain a 1G field inside during 6G operations. I'd suggest that you consider a maximum drive rating for manned ships. Table 214 in FFS2 does give some suggestions here (basically 1G comp at TL10 rising to 6G comp at TL15).
2. Such an engine could be used as a combat booster rating.
3. Such an engine would be attractive for short duration operations (eg fighters).
4. Technically, the power plant fuel could be reduced if such an engine was the primary drive, but I haven't gone through that in any depth.

I'll probably put this on the Power Projection site at some point as an option.

If we felt really mad, it would also be possible to convert the ion engines etc!

Cheers,

Dom


(c)2000-2004

 

[Dom]

Originally posted by Dom:
Converted MT TL9 Fusion Drive v2:
-----------------------------

% hull needed = G x (0.4+(0.1x AV))
where G = G rating desired, AV = armour value of ship

Work out the drive size in dT from this.

When the drive is running, it will generate 0.2 x drive size (dT) EP from the fusion reaction. This will add to agility calculation.

Fuel needed per turn (dT) = (0.0225 x drive size)/13.5

The bit I forgot = 4.725 MCr per dT of drive.

 

[Dom]

Originally posted by Dom:
Originally posted by Dom:
Converted MT TL9 Fusion Drive v2:
-----------------------------

% hull needed = G x (0.4+(0.1x AV))
where G = G rating desired, AV = armour value of ship

Work out the drive size in dT from this.

When the drive is running, it will generate 0.2 x drive size (dT) EP from the fusion reaction.

4.725 MCr per dT of drive.

Fuel for the above rocket is (0.0225* drive size (dt) ) / 13.5 per turn at full thrust.

More fun.

TL8 Plasma Rocket
----------------
% hull needed = G x (2.5+(0.625x AV))
where G = G rating desired, AV = armour value of ship

Work out the drive size in dT from this.
Fuel needed = (0.0045 x Drive Size (dT) )/ 13.5 per turn at full thrust.

When the drive is running, it will generate 0.005 x drive size (dT) EP from the plasma reaction.

5.4 MCr per dT of drive.

TL7 Ion Drive.

------------

0.000045G per dT with a maximum thrust possible of ~0.0045G (which assumes the whole ship is full of drives).

I'm not going to work this out right now

 

[GypsyComet]

Congratulations folks. You've just demonstrated why Star Wars makes more sense as a space combat model. Visual ranges, ECM, raw agility, and deflectors.

Happy now?

---

Sarcastic? Yes.
Serious? Mostly.

I for one wouldn't mind seeing Traveller space combat shortened by a factor of ten or more. Both parties have to cooperate (in some fashion) to come to proper combat ranges *and stay there*. Firing at someone you can't count windows on is wishful thinking. Etc. ad nauseum.

Cut turn lengths and other assumptions to 10% of the MT assumptions, while keeping rates of fire and accelerations approximately the same. Does the weapon selection of Traveller start to make more sense now?