Spines

[Reban]

It's really interesting to see Marc's notes on this, thanks Rob.

It answers one question I was going to ask; why are spines designed with a separate power source when ACS weapons are assumed to have independent built in power sources on the mount.

According to these notes its a design consideration originating with Marc. Likewise he's allowed for magazines/fuel for spine scale weapons.

But in the wake of a published ACS where the power source is assumed to be on mount is there a good reason for changing that for spines in BCS? Does it over complicate the design or does it add something?

Also its really good to see mention of a "Fighter Launcher" as I've regretted that there are no launch tubes in ACS.

I was wondering if a really large ship (megaton battlewagon), could maybe be fitted w/smaller spines in turrets, similar to early 20th century wet navy capital ships?

My understanding of a Spine is that its so big, the ship is built around it. This holds true even if there are multiple spines. This doesn't invalidate the idea of spines in a turret, it just means the biggest element of the ship design is the turret, for a visual idea of what I mean consider; the USS Monitor in the US Civil War could be a BCS ship with two spinal weapons in a turret.

 

[robject]

Well then they're not really spinal weapons anymore (by definition). They're oversized turret weapons mounted in an oversized turret.

You're right: they become "main guns" or "big guns".

 

[robject]

... in the wake of a published ACS where the power source is assumed to be on mount is there a good reason for changing that for spines in BCS? Does it over complicate the design or does it add something?

That's a good question. That will depend on the nature of the spine, I suppose -- but you've already said that: "does it add something" to the game? That's a GREAT question. It was just an assumption of mine, since HG spines appear to be power pigs... but that way lies madness...

Let's brainstorm about it.

I think the assumption is that the spine is "just TOO BIG" to have some Fusion+ reactor and a bank of capacitors.

 

[Reban]

Its a good assumption. There are so many classic sci-fi super weapons that draw tremendous amounts of power to fire that it would be sad to lose that from the spine design.

Some consequences of designing a separate power sources:

1. You could also have multiple or back-up power sources.

2. If you allow 1. above then there should be an entry for the spine's power source on the damage tables to allow for a power kill.

3. A separate power source could be designed to power separate spines of different natures. So you could have a big pplant and switch it between the PAW and the Meson Gun as needed.

 

[Selandia]

I was wondering if a really large ship (megaton battlewagon), could maybe be fitted w/smaller spines in turrets, similar to early 20th century wet navy capital ships?

What would be the point, if the tactical system do not care for field of fire, of using many guns in turrets rather than a brace of axial firing wpn a.k.a. small spinal weapon (as the torpedos of a MTB). (no sarcasm intended)

If semantic is of importance, I think that a true spinal mount is a wpn around which is built the ship.

Have fun

Alain Tremblay

 

[Ulsyus]

* Additional "weapon": Fighter Launcher (Spine or Bay only)

Does that pressage a consideration of fighters as a weapon to be launched at a target, not dissimilar to missiles, but with a persistent effect rather than being one use as with missiles?

It's really interesting to see Marc's notes on this, thanks Rob.

Hear hear

t answers one question I was going to ask; why are spines designed with a separate power source when ACS weapons are assumed to have independent built in power sources on the mount. ...

According to these notes its a design consideration originating with Marc. Likewise he's allowed for magazines/fuel for spine scale weapons.

But in the wake of a published ACS where the power source is assumed to be on mount is there a good reason for changing that for spines in BCS? Does it over complicate the design or does it add something?

Wouldn't that come down to the level of detail desired (say BR vs HG) and the flow-of-game outcome that's desired?

 

[Ulsyus]

My understanding of a Spine is that its so big, the ship is built around it. This holds true even if there are multiple spines. This doesn't invalidate the idea of spines in a turret, it just means the biggest element of the ship design is the turret, for a visual idea of what I mean consider; the USS Monitor in the US Civil War could be a BCS ship with two spinal weapons in a turret.

That would depend on the levels of weapon permitted by the rules, and the size of the vessel being developed. Spinal mounts may be that because not of simple displacement proportions, but because of dimensions: if it's long and thin, it may not take up that much space on the vessel but if you want it armoured or part of the defended vessel then it ship has to be build around it.

Similarly, a designer of a mega-vessel may opt for a series of smaller spinal mounts that are fitted into rather biggish turrets, the dimensions of which allow for them to manoeuvre independently of the vessel. There's still be limitations on this, the least of which could be the angular momentum built up by swinging those big buggers about to bear on a target. Ultimately, it may be simpler to simply just put a few of them in parallel spines in the ship, not thrust for a period (turn), swing the whole vessel around and pop some shots off that way.

That's a good question. That will depend on the nature of the spine, I suppose -- but you've already said that: "does it add something" to the game? That's a GREAT question. It was just an assumption of mine, since HG spines appear to be power pigs... but that way lies madness...

Let's brainstorm about it.

I think the assumption is that the spine is "just TOO BIG" to have some Fusion+ reactor and a bank of capacitors.

Maybe, but does it require its own power plant in order to be able to continue firing independently of the vessel that's carrying it? Does that mean that the sensors and MFDs that enable the target to be engaged will have redundant systems with their own emergency power systems as well? If they did, could that be simply represented in the game by way of the vessel having a higher level of "toughness" or such?

 

[Reban]

That would depend on the levels of weapon permitted by the rules, and the size of the vessel being developed. Spinal mounts may be that because not of simple displacement proportions, but because of dimensions: if it's long and thin, it may not take up that much space on the vessel but if you want it armoured or part of the defended vessel then it ship has to be build around it.

Similarly, a designer of a mega-vessel may opt for a series of smaller spinal mounts that are fitted into rather biggish turrets, the dimensions of which allow for them to manoeuvre independently of the vessel. There's still be limitations on this, the least of which could be the angular momentum built up by swinging those big buggers about to bear on a target. Ultimately, it may be simpler to simply just put a few of them in parallel spines in the ship, not thrust for a period (turn), swing the whole vessel around and pop some shots off that way.

Maybe I can explain my concept of what a "Spinal" weapon is better. In my understanding something that qualifies as a spine is a weapon big enough or powerful or power hungry enough to require the ship to be built to carry it, rather than designing a ship and fitting it out with (in the T5 ACS concept) what are largely modular turrets, barbettes, bays and mains.

In other words the ship is designed/built/conceived around the spinal weapon.

I think this is well expressed in the way Robject is treating spines in his vision of BCS as "payload". Designing a BCS ship to be big enough to have a percentage of its volume large enough to accommodate the the spinal weapons system.

The origin of the "Spinal" idea may well be that the weapons system formed the keel around which the ship was built but I don't see it as being limited to that form.

I suppose over the years and bouncing between FF&S and CT designs my concept of what turrets, bays and spines are has become a lot less rigid than a set of dimensions to go with a certain volume. Especially when it comes to turrets I think less about contemporary naval turrets and more about aircraft turrets, especially ball turrets.

T5 deckplan design supports this view because a certain volume translates into a number of deck squares or cubes that it is up to the designer to place. Of course I'd favour sensible design; PAWS should be long or roughly circular, spines should for single massive blocks etc.

If you tak a 1000tons of spinal mount I'm perfectly happy to imagine that on a deckplan as something long and thin that the ship is built around or a big block represent a huge weapons emplacement or a circular racetrack accelerator form that looks like the classic idea of a turret.

Maybe, but does it require its own power plant in order to be able to continue firing independently of the vessel that's carrying it? Does that mean that the sensors and MFDs that enable the target to be engaged will have redundant systems with their own emergency power systems as well? If they did, could that be simply represented in the game by way of the vessel having a higher level of "toughness" or such?

I like the idea of the need for a dedicated powerplant being the reason that there are BIG SHIPS in the TU.

According to ACS sensors would have their own powerplants on their mounts. There are also clear rules on emergency and reduced power for ships.

I think spinal powerplants should certainly have their own entry on the damage tables, allowing for both the extra "toughness" factor and the possibilty of lucky or targeted hits taking out a Spinal weapon.