Spaceships: Missile launchers and their individual mass
 

Pardon if this has been covered elsewhere...

Oh, and warning! Math ahead!

So, according to the Spaceships PDF, as missiles increase in diameter by initially 4cm, and eventually 8cm at a time, their mass increases by a factor no higher than 2.0. At the same time, based on the unloaded mass calculations, launchers themselves, increase in mass by a factor no less than 3.0.

Is this as expected? Is the machinery required to deal with launching missiles likely to increase in size more rapidly than the missiles themselves? The numbers begin to get, well, pretty crazy over time:

Imagine my surprise; I started this project thinking that smaller missile launchers ought to have larger magazines than the big ones - boy was I wrong!

In point of fact, I begin to think that the magazine size for these launchers needs to be growing at a much higher rate, to keep the launchers themselves (and the attendant hardware, etc) from growing beyond all common sense.

Thoughts?

Re: Spaceships: Missile launchers and their individual mass
 

Hmmm. I don't really do math. :) BUT...each higher size launcher also includes quite a few more (larger) missiles and that means a lot of structure for racking them, transporting them, etc. Take a look at the deckplans I made for our Star Trek game (hope you can see it without being a member):

http://www.cartographersguild.com/al...chmentid=39236

This is based on some plans I found on the Internet, but I think they're licensed and thus approved by Paramount. We never see inside a ST ship's torpedo bay in any show but I'd say this machinery looks plausible...and there's a lot of it. That would be a pretty bulky bunch of tritanium or duralloy or whatever. The ship is a Nova-class, which I'm pegging at SM+12 and the Spaceships worksheet I'm using gave me 56cm torps.

Don't know if that helps at all. I'm just using spaceships for a rough framework but I've been happy with the way the weapons/shields/armor have scaled. It turned out very Star Trek like without a lot of work on my part.
M

Re: Spaceships: Missile launchers and their individual mass
 

The plan looks like the offcial stuff used in DecipherTrek Not that I consider the Paramount stamp proof of accuracy. Paramount does not appear to given a Regulan Silme Worm's end segment about any of this.

We do see a torpedo bay insides in Wrath of Khan and then.... I think the 6th movie. A photon torpedo casing is about the size of a coffin if the edges were rounded off.

Of course, Voyager only hit the Delta Quadrant with about 40 of the things so doctrine may be much more important to StarFleet than physical possibilities.

I didn't try and look at the math too closely becasue I know the mass of a Spacships Missile Launcher (all things included) is always 5% of the ship's nominal mass (300 tons, 1000 tons. 3000 and so on). That's just the way Spacships works.

<shrug? Maybe I've missed the point.

Re: Spaceships: Missile launchers and their individual mass
 

Yup, I definitely allow for larger missiles (by mass) and more of them. I'm just not sure that the machinery to move 4-ton missiles would go up to 1,220 tons, even if they are 56cm in diameter, when the 2-ton missiles were being managed by gear that massed 90 tons. It seems excessive to me.

I'm all for automation machinery and storage systems with heavy bulkheads and large, airy open rooms for the crew to work around the systems in, but this is inconsistent and that's what bothers me most.

Yeah, but I'm the first to admit it's pedantic.

A Major Weapon weighs 5% of the ship's mass, including it's ammunition. When we subtract that ammunition, the amount the actual launcher and associated non-ammunition machinery starts out at 1/3 of a percent of the mass, and goes up from there, eventually getting to the point that it's over 4% of the mass of the ship. For missiles that aren't, honestly, that much bigger in diameter.

Maybe the lengths are significantly more? But then, it's the missiles that should weigh more, not the launchers...

Re: Spaceships: Missile launchers and their individual mass
 

Sorry, can't answer this one. Spaceships module design is non-transparent, even in playtest.

If this were the old days when G:Traveller modules were designed with Ve2 I could tell you something.

Re: Spaceships: Missile launchers and their individual mass
 

This touches on something I've been wondering for awhile - missiles, if one looks at both aircraft and naval vessels, in my understanding typically aren't carried in launchers that are reloaded in operation. You don't [as far as I am aware] have a magazine of 20 missiles to go with a single launcher system, you have an array of launchers - or just a few missiles, much larger relative to the platform carrying them than Spaceships missiles seem to be.

I've been wondering how to make something more like an Osa Class missile boat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osa_class_missile_boat) - a small ship which carries a few very large, powerful missiles with the expectation being that once it fires it's payload it bugs out and goes home / is sunk / achieves some other form of resupply.

How would you guys represent this sort of "Single Missile / Small Number of Missiles" system in Spaceships? Similarly - is the "Magazine" of missiles intended to represent a large number of launchers rather than something where it's reloaded? If so, shouldn't the rate of fire be higher than that of a large gun, given you only need the time to lock a new target, prepare the missile to fire, etc?

Re: Spaceships: Missile launchers and their individual mass
 

Ships that fire huge missiles should take an External Clamp and fit a missile to it.

I can't explain the difficulty of getting that cool "ripple" of missiles being launched. The Rapid Fire option should probably be available for missiles as well as guns.

Re: Spaceships: Missile launchers and their individual mass
 

That's not literally true for ships at least. There are or were a number of USNavy missile systems that had separate magazines and self-loading launchers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...nching_Systems

......makes it mostly "were". Vertical launch systems seem to be the modern trend but not too long ago in the era of the "twin-arm" and "sngle rail" systems there were internal magazines.

It's still probably a better option for smaller systems. The 8 cell AA missile system on the Nimitz class can be relaoded on the ship but presumjably has to be done manually. In a vacum environment that could be very inconvenient.

As to what you can do, the simple answer is ignore the issue. Spaceships is a very low detail system and whether the SM+5 Main Battery launcher is one reloadedable tube with 6 reloads or 7 non-reloadable tubes is below the system's level of resolution.

Re: Spaceships: Missile launchers and their individual mass
 

Not really. With reloads, it can only fire a single missile a turn. With non-reloadable tubes, it can fire all of the missiles at the same time.

Personally, I simply take half of the missiles that the battery would normally hold and use that as the number of launch tubes. You lose some missiles because now each missile cell needs to either be strong enough to withstand the missile's exhaust (for a hot launch) or include machinery to toss the missile a bit away from the ship (a cold launch). Either way, you have an increased amount of mass.

Re: Spaceships: Missile launchers and their individual mass
 

ROF depends on Turn length. Only some multi-tube launchers can fire all at once and those are frequently for unguided rockets.

At any rate, Spaceships really is very low resolution on the time scale. Being able to do something multiple times in one second doesn't _mean_ anything in Spaceships.