04-15-2018, 12:50 AM | #11 | ||
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Yukon, OK
|
Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions
Quote:
Quote:
But there should probably be a minimum firing distance. They key here though is t specifies beams, not guns as usable for the option. Presumably because the beams move so fast the missiles are effectively standing still. Point Defense missiles have terminal guidance so might be able to make up for that, especially if not dealing with ECM or evasive tactics.
__________________
My GURPS publications GURPS Powers: Totem and Nature Spirits; GURPS Template Toolkit 4: Spirits; Pyramid articles. Buying them lets us know you want more! My GURPS fan contribution and blog: REFPLace GURPS Landing Page My List of GURPS You Tube videos (plus a few other useful items) My GURPS Wiki entries |
||
04-15-2018, 12:56 AM | #12 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions
Quote:
VRF beams at 10 MJ are still good against (unarmored) missiles and shells, but 100 MJ is much more the thing for punching big ugly holes in small but somewhat hardened vessels. (Even there, against SM+5 or +6 with hardened armor a laser won't cut it.)
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
04-15-2018, 01:07 AM | #13 | |
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
|
Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions
Quote:
2 fusion torches on the rear gives 0.5 gee times 2 for high thrust times 3 for water which is 6.0 gee. 1 control room in the midships core. 11 tanks of water giving 15 divided by 2 for high-thrust divided by 3 for water = 2.5 mi/sec each. Total 27.5 mi/sec of delta-vee. Takes each one 7272 seconds to cross the range of a range X laser. Perhaps a better design for this purpose would be to dump the high-thrust and the water for 1 gee at six times the delta-vee, and take a run-up from outside range.
__________________
Decay is inherent in all composite things. Nod head. Get treat. Last edited by Agemegos; 04-15-2018 at 03:06 AM. |
|
04-15-2018, 01:18 AM | #14 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions
Quote:
You also left out power generation when filling in, there. The 6G may make sense for a dogfight drone intended for heavy tactical maneuvering, as opposed to a relatively simple attack run. Whether that role is plausible in space is questionable, to be sure.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
04-15-2018, 01:50 AM | #15 | |||
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
|
Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Decay is inherent in all composite things. Nod head. Get treat. |
|||
04-15-2018, 01:57 AM | #16 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions
Quote:
Which you can do, but seems to come a little out of left field here.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
04-15-2018, 02:21 AM | #17 | |
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
|
Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions
Quote:
I can't discuss the Nightgaunt because I don't have Spaceships 4. I'll leave you to it.
__________________
Decay is inherent in all composite things. Nod head. Get treat. |
|
04-15-2018, 04:22 AM | #18 |
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: New Zealand.
|
Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions
Wouldn't it be possible for a force shield to be deployed so that a high velocity ramming vehical struck it at a 45° angle or better? It might also be possible for better than 5° angle. Explosive missiles would have unchanged effects as would beams but kinetic effects (such as plain vanilla hard to spot space junk when travelling at speed) would be defused more efficiently. To further tie it in to the OP a larger mass ship would have benefits in soaking up the kinetic energy.
__________________
Waiting for inspiration to strike...... And spending too much time thinking about farming for RPGs Contributor to Citadel at Nordvörn |
04-15-2018, 04:40 AM | #19 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
|
Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions
Quote:
There is a post from David Pulver around 2008 talking about how he might scale HP to better represent the properties of large vehicles in WW II and the Falklands. I think that your thoughts about force screens are on the right track: settings with many big ships, such as Star Trek or the Schlockverse, usually have some kind of 'force field' technology, and that can allow big ships with big power plants to shrug off attacks. (Similarly, I don't know whether Spaceships assumes the kinds of armour arrangements which specialists talk about- many thin spaced plates and things like that- or the intuitive 'great solid hard masses' which 90% of gamers will envision).
__________________
"It is easier to banish a habit of thought than a piece of knowledge." H. Beam Piper This forum got less aggravating when I started using the ignore feature |
|
04-15-2018, 05:03 AM | #20 | |
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
|
Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions
Quote:
__________________
Decay is inherent in all composite things. Nod head. Get treat. |
|
Tags |
combat, spaceships |
|
|