• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Ship Design Systems

Originally posted by GypsyComet:
IIRC, the C-PAWS is the atmospheric weapon of choice because preperatory ionization of the firing path is possible. This can't be done for an N-PAWS, but it requires the particle stream to be neutral over all.
So I actually pulled out the old books on this (Mason and MacDaniel: The Transport Properties of Ions in Gases) and have come to the conclusion that C-PAWs work better in atmosphere for the following reason. The radial velocity of an ion (due to Coulomb repulsion) out of an ion beam is v=KE where K is the ion mobilty and E the radial electrical field. Now K in a vacuum could be huge as it can be related to the mean free path of the ion in the gas. The equation above is not exactly the case in vacuum because under those conditions the number density of the ion beam itself becomes important but it does point to a constraining effect atmosphere has on beam spread.
This is also for low density beams. Higher density beams will end up generating a radial magnetic field (do to the moving charges) that will help to delay (but not prevent) radial beam expansion. Still when your going near the speed of light delay is good.

Even came across this nifty little paper, that explains the latter somewhat.
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1984/jul-aug/roberds.html
 
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ptah:
I also like the idea of the missile being deadlier at short range so there should be concern if a squadron of enemy fighters penetrate the fleet's fighter screen.
The classic torpedo run idea - I like it too.
</font>[/QUOTE]Exactly! 19th century navel combat is the feel I prefer, a battleship surrounded by destroyers to prevent missile attacks. The destroyer escorts are there to soak up that "+1 missile" on the "N+1 salvo" and the BB their to pound on the enemy DE and BB, among other things.

The combat system alteration being, missile defenses are very good at taking out incoming missiles (due to increased vulnerability to fire not necessarily increased susceptability), so missiles fired at short range have a much better chance to hit. This provides a role for the fighter/a more heavily armored missile delivery vehicle.
And also an increased role for anti-bomber interceptors and escorts.
What DMs do you actually use in High Guard for this?
What I use currently is a highly modified form of HG. But I still have the original heretical texts ;) . I removed the short range penalty and boosted defense at long range. Modifications are dependent on defense.

TO HIT: long: +0; short: +0
Beam: long: use Damper table
Beam: short: use standard table
Sand: long: -1; short: +0 (for non-KKM)
Repulsor: long: +0; short: -1
Damper: long:+0; short:+0

My current aproach makes use of point-defense systems and a whole slew of other alterations, but that's for another thread if interested.

I like escorts so much in my modified version of HG combat I've added an escort "box" to the force "box" with rules geared to supporting designs of escorts. Actually two designs, one anti-figther, one anti-missile.
Another good idea, could you give further explanation?
Certainly, but to keep it brief as this is integral to more modifications and this is very much wargame vs PC scale, but also willing to discuss further elsewhere. I use a range-band type HG approach, similar to what you've described. Within each range band there is a Force Box and Escort Box for each player. Ships in an Escort Box cannot fire on ships in another box. Ships in a Force Box can fire on any other ship.

Escorts can defensive fire on missiles targeted at ships in the Force Box (this is one of their roles) or themselves. However, an attacking player can opt (should a Escort decide to defend) to have the missiles attack the escort with auto-lock and +5 to hit. These escorts are putting themselves in harms way to defend the Force Box.

Ships in the Escort Box can also intercept ships that are attempting to penetrate the Escort Box and attack ships in the Force Box. To intercept, the escort must have manuever and agility greater than or equal to that of the enemy ship. This still does not guarantee the ship does not get through but you can attack it. Ships that get through get a free attack against ships in the Force Box in the turn they pentrate although defensive fire is allowed.

That's the most relevant part in brief.
 
Originally posted by Ptah:
My current aproach makes use of point-defense systems and a whole slew of other alterations, but that's for another thread if interested.
Yep, I love to collect High Guard variant rules

Could you put them in another thread?
Certainly, but to keep it brief as this is integral to more modifications and this is very much wargame vs PC scale, but also willing to discuss further elsewhere. I use a range-band type HG approach, similar to what you've described. Within each range band there is a Force Box and Escort Box for each player. Ships in an Escort Box cannot fire on ships in another box. Ships in a Force Box can fire on any other ship.

Escorts can defensive fire on missiles targeted at ships in the Force Box (this is one of their roles) or themselves. However, an attacking player can opt (should a Escort decide to defend) to have the missiles attack the escort with auto-lock and +5 to hit. These escorts are putting themselves in harms way to defend the Force Box.

Ships in the Escort Box can also intercept ships that are attempting to penetrate the Escort Box and attack ships in the Force Box. To intercept, the escort must have manuever and agility greater than or equal to that of the enemy ship. This still does not guarantee the ship does not get through but you can attack it. Ships that get through get a free attack against ships in the Force Box in the turn they pentrate although defensive fire is allowed.

That's the most relevant part in brief.
That's a pretty interesting way to do it.

I definitely think you should post more about this, the force box idea is an excellent one IMHO.
 
Scott: did you remember to add JumpDrive surface area? it, also, adds up. As do weapon SA's.
 
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Yep, I love to collect High Guard variant rules

Could you put them in another thread?

That's a pretty interesting way to do it.

I definitely think you should post more about this, the force box idea is an excellent one IMHO.
Thanks Sigg. I'll put this up in another thread. How about under The Fleet sub-forum?. This week is going to be very busy at work so I may not have the time to polish and post it before next weekend.
 
Hey Aramis

Nope I completely forgot, so those are the max cut-offs for STL vessels only

Surface Area requirements of volume/3 for Jump drive grid seems a bit steep: I think that I'd probably go for something like "5% of surface area per jump number" although I'd think that someone would have figured out how to lay sensors etc over that, since the jump field has to extend *past* the grid itself, or no vessel with even superficial damage could jump...

Even with that my WAG for surface area on the AHL class is:
14% HEPLAR
40% Jump Grid (!!)
3% P-Plant (assuming PP-5 at tech 12)
0.3% P-Plant Radiators (assuming PP-5 at T13+)

That leaves a fair pile of area available for weapons, the Fuel Tender etc, launch tubes and fighter docking bay etc. Note also that this is for a sphere (simplest to model on) and not the "Close Structure" which has 1.4x the surface area. CT didn't bother itself with sensors etc. so unless the AHL is packed with passive sensors it is probably still possible to get something "close" especially given that the milestone for "close" would be the CE (losing PA barbettes and getting laser barbettes) or the type S (Holy sensors Batman!)

Also note that if it is covered in turret sockets (600 at 10 m^2 each) this "only" takes an additional 14% of the surface area required, again assuming a sphere, so that's really 10%. Even the screens shouldn't eat that much area...

Now I'm curious: where can I find the AHL conversion experiment, or stats on the AHL (since my CT stuff is in a box in another city entirely...)

In case anyone cares, a 1 MT spherical ship can manage Jump-5 by using almost its entire surface for the jump grid, and it better be powering that with batteries!

In any case, the jump grid area goes in my bin for "If I'm trying to Fix FF&S-3" along with other gems like
minimum armour value = thrustx10
and the incredibly sluggish speeds for missile autoloaders.

Scott Martin
 
Back
Top