Spinal Mount Ships w Weapons Removed?

[SpaceBadger]

I don't have the Azhanti High Lightning game, but have picked up a few items from other publications, and am confused about the idea of removing weapons from a spinal mount ship.

As I understand it:

- early AHL-class ships had a spinal particle accelerator, and later ones had a spinal meson gun

- Tukera Lines at some point bought four AHL-class ships w weapons removed

- Marc Oberlindes through some tricky maneuver bought the famous Emissary AHL-class ship w weapons intact, and everyone was surprised bc the weapons should have been removed

So, if a spinal mount ship is built around its main weapon, how and why would one ever remove that main weapon without seriously weakening the structure of the hull? The whole ship is a big flying weapon, so why would you ever want to remove that instead of just starting over and building a new ship?

 

[mike wightman]

Both the PA and meson gun are big accelerator tunnels. At one end you have the particle generation apparatus and the length of the tube consists of accelerator plates.

You can take all the machinery out of the tube and leave an empty accelerator tunnel.

What the rules allow are fitting a weapon of the same size into the now empty tunnel. In the case of the AHL the new weapon was a TL15 meson gun which just so happened to be the same size as the TL14 PA that had been removed.

 

[samuelvss]

I do not think that the spinal mount is structural, as much as it is fixed. There are open spaces in the structure of the ship, into which are installed a weapon that is in a fixed mount along the long axis of the hull.

In another thread herein, there was discussion about having more than one. It is forbidden by HG2. IMHO, it is not so much that the ship can only hold one, as that the ship can only aim one. So indeed, if you had more than one, they would in essence all be one weapon, for which there is not a table. IMTU, were I to permit it, they would all still share the same "to-hit" roll.

 

[savage]

TNE

Most of my heavy ship designs supported multiple Spinal mounted devices.

FF&S1 introduces dual spinal mount carriages. I adjusted that for T20.
Also if damaged how would it very be completely replaced.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

IMHO, it is not so much that the ship can only hold one, as that the ship can only aim one. So indeed, if you had more than one, they would in essence all be one weapon, for which there is not a table. IMTU, were I to permit it, they would all still share the same "to-hit" roll.

The dual firing could only work at a certain range, though, dependent on the angle between the two mounts. You would seriously impact the flexibility of your weaponeering solutions. (Of course, you already have lost flexibility by requiring that you aim your whole frickin' ship to hit something.)

 

[savage]

different mounts

The dual firing could only work at a certain range, though, dependent on the angle between the two mounts. You would seriously impact the flexibility of your weaponeering solutions. (Of course, you already have lost flexibility by requiring that you aim your whole frickin' ship to hit something.)

I would not recommend it on an AHL. But one of the solutions was fore and aft mounts. As more me, I added other mounts for my million+ dt ships; spiral...etc. It seems when you get that heavy a spinal mount(s) should be more interesting.

Also the standard sizes are just that "standard" production. FF&S1 mentions other options/sizes.

 

[The Oz]

I require weapons to mounted as "fixed" if their volume is more than 1/100th of the ship's volume.

I also allow for weapons to be "turret" mounted if the ship they are mounted on is at least 100x the volume of the weapon.

Combining this with the rules Mike and I came up with to make big ships less vulnerable to meson guns and more tough all around, and you get my Tigress-X class dreadnought, which carries four type-R meson gun turrets to back up the main spinal mount. I had to give up a bit of the missile firepower (only 400 batteries) and she's only jump-3, but I don't think the Admiralty would complain. She has nearly the same meson firepower as a squadron of battle riders (and far more secondary firepower) and she's a lot tougher.

 

[BlackBat242]

Yep... even by HG2 there was a way to get multiple aim-able spinal mounts on one ship... a Tigress class SD could carry a bunch of large cruiser-sized ships (with spinal mounts, but without jump drives or the fuel tanks for same) on the outside of its hull... just lock them into a docking cradle that attaches to the main hull via a powered ball-joint.

Call it the "Spiny Urchin" class.

 

[savage]

approach

I require weapons to mounted as "fixed" if their volume is more than 1/100th of the ship's volume.

I also allow for weapons to be "turret" mounted if the ship they are mounted on is at least 100x the volume of the weapon.

Combining this with the rules Mike and I came up with to make big ships less vulnerable to meson guns and more tough all around, and you get my Tigress-X class dreadnought, which carries four type-R meson gun turrets to back up the main spinal mount. I had to give up a bit of the missile firepower (only 400 batteries) and she's only jump-3, but I don't think the Admiralty would complain. She has nearly the same meson firepower as a squadron of battle riders (and far more secondary firepower) and she's a lot tougher.

Good approach. I use something very similar. Nice Tigress. For me I saw the need to protect 10Mdt stations with a bit more umph...

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello SpaceBadger,

I don't have the Azhanti High Lightning game, but have picked up a few items from other publications, and am confused about the idea of removing weapons from a spinal mount ship.

As I understand it:

- early AHL-class ships had a spinal particle accelerator, and later ones had a spinal meson gun

- Tukera Lines at some point bought four AHL-class ships w weapons removed

- Marc Oberlindes through some tricky maneuver bought the famous Emissary AHL-class ship w weapons intact, and everyone was surprised bc the weapons should have been removed

So, if a spinal mount ship is built around its main weapon, how and why would one ever remove that main weapon without seriously weakening the structure of the hull? The whole ship is a big flying weapon, so why would you ever want to remove that instead of just starting over and building a new ship?

HG2 "Major Weaponry: A single major weapon may be specified for any ship. This weapon may be either a particle accelerator or a meson gun, and forms the spine, or foundation, of the ship."

As mike Wightman indicated the weapon is a basically a huge tube, similar to a gun barrel, that have the components attached to make a particle accelerator. The ship's hull is then built around the tube. When the meson gun came on line the particle accelerator components got replaced with those for a meson gun.

According to the back story the AHL's where being taken out of service. One way to remove a ship from service is cut the hull into pieces which did happen to a couple. Another way is to gift or sell the hull minus the really good stuff, like the top of the line PA or MG spinal mount, to an ally. The third option was to again strip out the good stuff and sell to a commercial enterprise.

The basic reason of stripping out the spinal mount is that the Imperium Navy wants to have the edge in weaponry over a potential target.

At least that is how I understand the subject.

 

[Carlobrand]

I don't have the Azhanti High Lightning game, but have picked up a few items from other publications, and am confused about the idea of removing weapons from a spinal mount ship.

As I understand it:

- early AHL-class ships had a spinal particle accelerator, and later ones had a spinal meson gun

- Tukera Lines at some point bought four AHL-class ships w weapons removed

- Marc Oberlindes through some tricky maneuver bought the famous Emissary AHL-class ship w weapons intact, and everyone was surprised bc the weapons should have been removed

So, if a spinal mount ship is built around its main weapon, how and why would one ever remove that main weapon without seriously weakening the structure of the hull? The whole ship is a big flying weapon, so why would you ever want to remove that instead of just starting over and building a new ship?

Both the PA and meson gun are big accelerator tunnels. At one end you have the particle generation apparatus and the length of the tube consists of accelerator plates.

You can take all the machinery out of the tube and leave an empty accelerator tunnel.

What the rules allow are fitting a weapon of the same size into the now empty tunnel. In the case of the AHL the new weapon was a TL15 meson gun which just so happened to be the same size as the TL14 PA that had been removed.

So, think of it as being like a big ol' gun barrel with the firing chamber removed. Lay in some flooring and make it a cargo bay, or maybe additional quarters, or make it a flight deck.