[Spaceships] Please look over my ship designs

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by RogerBW

(
(Yes, there's some radiation, but it's mostly gammas; it doesn't leave you with neutron-enriched air like the fission air-ram.)

The radioactive objection tot eh fission air-ram should be heavy elements lost from the reactor core. I don't think adding a neutron to nitrogen or oxygen usually leaves you with an unstable isotope. Even turning carnon-13 to carbon-14 is rather mild stuff as radiation goes..

[RogerBW]

I haven't been able to find solid numbers, only passing references to a project code HALITOSIS.

[kreios]

Originally Posted by RogerBW

Kreios:

Looks as if you're considering Advanced Combat with full vector manoeuvres for all participants, whereas I'm mostly interested in Basic Combat. (While it's not part of this thread, the campaign brief is that I'm more interested in why the fight has been happening than in exactly what happens during it.)

Well, I'd say I am trying to consider the performance in a simulation environment which mixes both the Advanced Combat system and some sort of mental model on how spacecraft move. I'm trying to find what the assumptions make the combat look like. Of course, these might not work nicely with the basic combat system - I've never looked at it for long.
But I agree with you: Why a fight happens (and the restrictions this places on you) is more interesting. (As is the strategic situation implied by the combattants).

Agreed, closing down to multiple smaller missile launchers makes sense in some cases. On the other hand, they do want a weapon with long reach but that can cripple, rather than destroy, an opponent - at least some of the missiles on board will be conventional warheads, unless there's a full-on war going on.

Yet large missiles have the far higher risk of doing more damage. Their larger damage (with conventional/kinetic warheads) might be necessary when fighting warships; in this case, you're probably already at war.

Originally Posted by RogerBW

(Many updates.)
Dymka: as I see it, the power plants are rigged for a quick startup when it's detected and has to close to engage.

That does make sense - use it against currently less-than-ready enemy spacecraft.

I've added cargo hold space, though I assume that hangar bays are generally not full and will have extra stores stowed in them at the start of a cruise.

That's an alternative too; I did not think about that.

I see nothing in the rules to suggest that missile launchers aren't fixed/turret/spinal just like beam launchers.

Yeah, you're right. It's a houserule I've mistaken for an official one. My argument is that there's no reason why a fixed missile launcher can't afterwards move into any direction.

Suggesting that the Prizrak should give up some of its firepower in favour of survivability is to misread the priorities of the Novaya Europan naval architects.

True, with the goal of pursuing the highest offensive firepower, PD is wasted. On the other hand, it'd increase the ammunition the enemy has to expend to kill the Prizrak from about two missiles to something like sixty.

The shuttle is a generic one: it can land vertically in vacuum if it needs to. Worlds with their own aerospace manufacturing capabilities, or simply enough money to buy custom-made craft, will certainly have ones that are tailored to their particular environments.

This makes sense.

(Yes, there's some radiation, but it's mostly gammas; it doesn't leave you with neutron-enriched air like the fission air-ram.)

Good to know; I wasn't sure about that.