Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl
I am thinking that a good design for realistic capital ships will have four fuel tanks, three armor (one per section), three hangers for drones, two major batteries for beam weapons, two habitats, one tertiary batteries for missiles, one tactical comm/sensor array, one control room, one fusion reactor, one fusion drive, and one hanger for shuttles. At TL10, that gives a delta-v of 240 mps, which should be sufficient for most capital ships. A SM+12 capital ship will have 900 SM+4 drones, 900 40cm missiles with 10 megaton antimatter warheads, and 30 SM+6 shuttles.
The beam weapons are probably improved 30 GJ lasers with a total RoF of 40 on a 3-minute turn, dealing 6d×10 (2) burning d-damage up to a range of 10,000 miles and 6d×5 (2) burning d-damage at a range of 30,000 miles, allowing for orbital bombardment from GSO of missiles and lasers. The soft targets get the lasers and hard targets get the antimatter missiles. A pure spaceship of terror will exchange the missiles for 2,700 40cm bombs with 10 megaton antimatter warheads, which ends up not even doubling the payload cost, which it would drop from GSO.
|
I'm not sure what you mean by "good" or "realistic". If you mean that it would work well in some hypothetical set of rules that make more sense than the
Spaceships rules, I mean maybe, I guess. But in RAW missiles larger than 16cm are usually a bad choice, mainly because they cost more but are no harder for point-defense guns to destroy. That rule actually sort-of makes sense: the missiles delta-V stats that can probably only be achieved by making the unarmored, so they're going to be real fragile. But realistically armored missiles should be an option alongside unarmored ones. If armored missiles were an option, larger ones would tend to have more armor, and give them a clear reason for being.
*sigh*. I wish Vehicles 4e were out. Seems unlikely to
ever happen, though.