[Spaceships] Warhead system

[munin]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Treat it like cargo space, and then figure the statistics of the warhead based on what fits?

If you calculate it based on warheads, you can fit a 32cm electromagnetic or grav gun warhead in an SM+4 Cargo Bay, which does 6d×8 dDamage.

You could also calculate the damage of a Cargo Bay full of explosives (not packed into a warhead designed to be launched). An SM+4 Cargo Bay holds 0.5 tons, which is 6d×12 dDamage at TL9 (Plastex B, $20K), 6d×15 at TL10 (High-Energy Explosive, $40K), 6d×20 at TL11 and 6d×28 at TL12 (Plasma Explosive, $100K) -- see p. UT88. Explosion dDamage does not scale linearly with number of cargo bays.

Also, just colliding with another ship will do at least 6d×45×(mps) dDamage (see Ramming or Colliding Spacecraft, p. SS61).

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by munin

Also, just colliding with another ship will do at least 6d×45×(mps) dDamage (see Ramming or Colliding Spacecraft, p. SS61).

Yeah, Kinetic Kill is almost always going to be better than a non-nuke payload. On the other hand you should be able to fit a pretty big nuke or antimatter warhead in there.

[Snoman314]

3 SM+4 modules as cargo give 1.5 tons, which would let you fit a 56cm bomb, thats 6dx140. Given that a dedicated SM+4 missile does 6dx240-280, that seems pretty good to me.

[Snoman314]

No, wait my bad, 6dx14 and 6dx24-28 respectively. looking at the old damage table. Yeah the collision is going to do the most damage no matter what you load up with.

[adimar]

Originally Posted by Snoman314

.... 6dx14 and 6dx24-28 respectively....Yeah the collision is going to do the most damage no matter what you load up with.

10x for your help guys.
It's not an either or situation.
It would be especially effective if the collision actually carried the drone through the armor and the bomb would detonate inside (I think bunker buster bombs work this way).

How would you treat this?

Adi

[panton41]

One thing to remember is that Spaceships takes a fairly realistic approach to the amount kinetic energy spaceships have. Challenger and Endevour were both impacted by a paint flake in space and the second case it penetrated half the depth of the glass (which is around an inch thick). I've heard an orbiting bolt would probably go in one side and out of the other of the Space Shuttle... longways. Every built-for-purpose space weapon design and used to date have kinetic-kill.

So you can see why at miles-per-second velocity explosives aren't worth the trouble.

[lexington]

Originally Posted by ciaran_skye

One thing to remember is that Spaceships takes a fairly realistic approach to the amount kinetic energy spaceships have. Challenger and Endevour were both impacted by a paint flake in space and the second case it penetrated half the depth of the glass (which is around an inch thick). I've heard an orbiting bolt would probably go in one side and out of the other of the Space Shuttle... longways. Every built-for-purpose space weapon design and used to date have kinetic-kill.

So you can see why at miles-per-second velocity explosives aren't worth the trouble.

A explosive has the advantage of being able to cause some damage even if it misses. In a setting without superscience engines being able to deny a slightly larger area by using a a nuclear or antimatter weapon might be worth it.

The hypervelocity talk makes me wonder about enormous shaped charge weapons. Would the lack of atmosphere extend the range of the jet?