Rail Gun for Space weapon?

[Blue Ghost]

*nods*

It was a shortcoming that had us putting down the game several times. Your starship, if you have one, was supposed to be your fire support platform when the natives got hostile, and it's like having to wait or be forced to buy Striker for fire support rules doesn't feel cool. Still, I'm glad the rules are there.

 

[jec10]

That's easy, Beam laser 20 "shots" per 15 seconds, pulse laser half that. Again one of those bits buried in Striker...

In MegaTrav it is 30 shots per minute for both (RefMan p74).

I'm not sure where you're getting the numbers you're quoting from in Striker. I'm looking at my copy and I'm simply not seeing that.

 

[Condottiere]

Ideally, in Mongoose you get close enough to be able to scream gangbang, time slows down to six seconds per tun, and you empty your magazines.

 

[whartung]

FF&S was a more mature model that tried to normalize everything. With TNE/FF&S you can shoot an auto-cannon at a starship and have a good idea of what it can or can't do, similarly, you can fire a laser turret at a grav truck and get at least a model consistent result.

 

[infojunky]

In MegaTrav it is 30 shots per minute for both (RefMan p74).

I'm not sure where you're getting the numbers you're quoting from in Striker. I'm looking at my copy and I'm simply not seeing that.

Takes a bit of work, starting with the final Numbers of Targets number from the Laser Bonus to hit chart, from there go up to the Autofire chart which gives the number of shots per phase. A phase is defined as half a Turn i.e. 15 seconds. Look at page 10, Striker book 4

 

[aramis]

FF&S was a more mature model that tried to normalize everything. With TNE/FF&S you can shoot an auto-cannon at a starship and have a good idea of what it can or can't do, similarly, you can fire a laser turret at a grav truck and get at least a model consistent result.

It's big failure (and MT's as well) was failure to account for large craft needing access space internally for maintenance, while armour and personal transport vehicles generally externalize same (in the case of armor. via removable panels).

 

[whartung]

It's big failure (and MT's as well) was failure to account for large craft needing access space internally for maintenance, while armour and personal transport vehicles generally externalize same (in the case of armor. via removable panels).

Was it really? Do you think this oversight had a dramatic impact on combat effects? At most, it affected "balance", right?

Obviously, especially when exemplified by deck plans, we cram staterooms and corridors hull to hull. But outside of completeness, does this really affect gameplay?

 

[Blue Ghost]

Well, sort of kind of. When I ran "Across the Bright Face" ... I think it was with my third group of players ... the PCs came across the rebelling miners. The PCs with ACRs and whatever else being who they were, thought they'd walk all over these guys, so I gave the miners some "heavy artillery" in the form of an industrial laser bore. I based it off a starship turret. Only we didn't have rules for starship fire support / PC-weapon interaction. So I had to wing it.

It didn't change the story much, but it sure changed how my players approached taking on some heavy artillery.

I think the rail gun, being a potential fire support weapon, needs to have this addressed.

 

[pendragonman]

Well, sort of kind of. When I ran "Across the Bright Face" ... I think it was with my third group of players ... the PCs came across the rebelling miners. The PCs with ACRs and whatever else being who they were, thought they'd walk all over these guys, so I gave the miners some "heavy artillery" in the form of an industrial laser bore. I based it off a starship turret. Only we didn't have rules for starship fire support / PC-weapon interaction. So I had to wing it.

It didn't change the story much, but it sure changed how my players approached taking on some heavy artillery.

I think the rail gun, being a potential fire support weapon, needs to have this addressed.

I based the (ship) turret weapon on the VRF, which already has personal combat values.

 

[Blue Ghost]

I based the (ship) turret weapon on the VRF, which already has personal combat values.

That's a good solution for PC personal combat. I think my thinking at the time was that it was more powerful than an XYZ gun, but I can't remember what solution I came up with.

 

[pendragonman]

That's a good solution for PC personal combat. I think my thinking at the time was that it was more powerful than an XYZ gun, but I can't remember what solution I came up with.

Well, it has been stated earlier in the thread that the rail gun is more akin to a mass driver, and since we have already gone and put it up to a plasma weapon at TL 13 and above (where the alphabet energy artillery would take over for personal combat), the barbette, small bay and large bay versions should probably be mass drivers (out of Book 4, Mercenary, Artillery) for personal combat below TL 13.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Yeah, I can't remember if I had Book 4 at the time. I probably did, just didn't think to look in it.

 

[aramis]

Was it really? Do you think this oversight had a dramatic impact on combat effects? At most, it affected "balance", right?

Obviously, especially when exemplified by deck plans, we cram staterooms and corridors hull to hull. But outside of completeness, does this really affect gameplay?

Balance matters not.
Yes, it does affect play - for MT and TNE - because of all the follow-on assumptions based upon the Striker power plants table, and their conversions in MT, which were equated on the basis of 14 Td of PP = 1 EP (HG)...

... which means the weapon pens are all based upon a striker error of 256 MW instead of 128.

This affects many systems in both, including TNE radiator space needed, laser power factors (and sizes, and in TNE, ranges), and thus available space for weapons, cargo, and crew.

 

[kilemall]

Aramis, there is that scaling up bit in Striker- the larger the power plant, the less space per megawatt generated.

I would assume some of that 'freed space' would be under the hull access.

 

[infojunky]

Well, it has been stated earlier in the thread that the rail gun is more akin to a mass driver, and since we have already gone and put it up to a plasma weapon at TL 13 and above (where the alphabet energy artillery would take over for personal combat), the barbette, small bay and large bay versions should probably be mass drivers (out of Book 4, Mercenary, Artillery) for personal combat below TL 13.

Remember that Plasma guns are introduced at TL10, not TL13....

It's that odd break point, Laser at TL9, then Plasma at TL10 then Fusion at TL12....

 

[aramis]

Aramis, there is that scaling up bit in Striker- the larger the power plant, the less space per megawatt generated.

I would assume some of that 'freed space' would be under the hull access.

No. It would all be in the smaller systems which were converted based upon EP usage. Most explicitly lasers and PA Beams.

Follow the math here.
14 kL of PP is 256 MW.
7 kL of PP + 7 kL of access space is only 128 MW.
14 kL of HG drive is 1 EP. CT ship deck planning says only half the space is actually drive; striker presumes 100%.

A striker laser ...
Beam 250 MW, 16.5 Tonnes, 16.5 kL. +FC. 62.5 kW out, 1250km range.
Pulse 250 MW 3 lens, 16.584 Tonnes, 16.6 kL, 83.333 kW out. 1666km range
All those halve with a properly only 7kL per Td of actual PP.

Similar math follows the same basic issue - the conversions in striker assume the full Td is PP on ships, when even the ship deckplans rules specify half or so.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Beam 250 MW, 16.5 Tonnes, 16.5 kL. +FC. 62.5 kW out, 1250km range.
Pulse 250 MW 3 lens, 16.584 Tonnes, 16.6 kL, 83.333 kW out. 1666km range

Slight nitpick, sorry:

H. Output: The output of a beam laser is equal to its input divided by 4. The output of a pulse laser is equal to its input divided by its number of lenses.

Beam: Power_Output = 250 MW / 4 = 62.5 MW.


P.S. The abbreviation of litre is l, hence a kilolitre is kl, or more commonly m³.

 

[pendragonman]

Remember that Plasma guns are introduced at TL10, not TL13....

It's that odd break point, Laser at TL9, then Plasma at TL10 then Fusion at TL12....

Yes, plasma weapons that start out as plasma weapons begin at 10, but we aren't talking about plasma weapons that start out as plasma weapon.

Earlier in this thread it was stated that at TL 13 the mere velocity of the rail gun round would cause the projectile to become plasma. And IIRC it was you who said it.

 

[kilemall]

Aramis, lost me at 1 dton = 256Mw. I believe that's a correct assumption for HG but not good for Striker.

You have to correlate the power plant AND the scale efficiencies table.

Per m³ output per tech level (fusion only)-

2Mw 9-12
3Mw 13-14
6Mw 15

Now that's baseline. Scale efficiencies multiplies that. I will save us all trouble and just give the output for 1 dton at volume efficiency for 14m³. So the above x 14 x 3 for scaled output efficiency.

84Mw 9-12
126Mw 13-14
252Mw 15

So that's quite a TL variance and efficiency jump for per ton- conversely, the smaller the plant the less per m³ output there is, which shows up in the robot microfusion power plants too.

It DOES track on the relative percentage of ship per power plant number per tech level-a little fudgy, but very close.

Now does that translate to access space? I would say it does just as a judgement aspect of designing a power plant for increasingly large volumes that are not practical to have hatches/plate/pullout access. It's just too darn big to maintain otherwise.

Oh, and when quoting laser ranges in Striker, especially in the context of space combat, please do not neglect the environmental rules and fail to multiply ranges x1000 for vacuum.

IMO at least a similar multiplier should apply to MDs, but is not. Course, MDs are not relativistic so it's a bit problematic to give them that kind of range and put common to-hit numbers on them.

BTW that laser number gives you how close you have to be orbitally to execute laser ortillery strikes- or shoot back with ground lasers. Technically you could build huge ground lasers that outrange conventional turret lasers.

 

[mike wightman]

How do you hit anything with them since they are limited to the range of their direct fire control?
Ship mounted fire control must be several orders of magnitude better than the direct. fire control system you can put in vehicles.

Striker is a set of rules to simulate ground battles - it does a poor job of integrating ship weapon systems and should probably be taken with a metric ton of salt when attempting to rationalise ship weapon capabilities.