Some questions on Spaceships

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Having more than one Spinal Battery is completely illegal by the building rules. A Spinal Battery has to pass through the core system in the center hull. You can only have one core system in the center hull, so you may only have one Spinal Battery.

Yes, you're right, I forgot about the need to go through the core system of the central hull.

I suspect that was meant in a different sense, like making a reactionless drive that is also a shield, or a weapon battery that is also a mining assembly, rather than deviating from the foundational 20-systems rule.

I'm not talking about deviating from the 20-systems rule. By the rules you can take, for instance, four habitat systems and consider them as a single habitat space, even while it game-mechanically functions as four systems. So you could take four major battery systems and consider them as a single weapon battery, even though game-mechanically it functions as four systems. With this most minor of modifications in the name of replicating the ship you have in mind, as the book encourages you to do, you end up with the desired effect.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I suspect that was meant in a different sense, like making a reactionless drive that is also a shield, or a weapon battery that is also a mining assembly, rather than deviating from the foundational 20-systems rule.

I think you're right, though using the 'larger systems' rule from SS7, p.5, you could use three systems to mount an oversized fixed medium battery of three guns the size of a normal major battery gun, which would then allow you to fire them all together quite legally. Given that this is the case, there's no reason other than the text in SS to not allow it for any number of guns as long as they are fixed and bear in the same direction.

As I said, I allow guns to be mounted more than one to a turret, and to fire as a single attack, subject to the other limitations (identical, etc.), so I'm a heretic anyway.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Rupert

As I said, I allow guns to be mounted more than one to a turret, and to fire as a single attack, subject to the other limitations (identical, etc.), so I'm a heretic anyway.

Well, I allow multiple turrets to be fired as a single attack. This was routine on ships in the 1930s, so I see no reason to assume it would be impossible at TL10.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Rupert

I think you're right, though using the 'larger systems' rule from SS7, p.5, you could use three systems to mount an oversized fixed medium battery of three guns the size of a normal major battery gun, which would then allow you to fire them all together quite legally. Given that this is the case, there's no reason other than the text in SS to not allow it for any number of guns as long as they are fixed and bear in the same direction.

As I said, I allow guns to be mounted more than one to a turret, and to fire as a single attack, subject to the other limitations (identical, etc.), so I'm a heretic anyway.

I'm pretty sure that's the intent behind the Starhawk design since it's the only way it could work.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by RyanW

Well, I allow multiple turrets to be fired as a single attack. This was routine on ships in the 1930s, so I see no reason to assume it would be impossible at TL10.

Actually, it was routine before WWI for battleships.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Rupert

I think you're right, though using the 'larger systems' rule from SS7, p.5, you could use three systems to mount an oversized fixed medium battery of three guns the size of a normal major battery gun, which would then allow you to fire them all together quite legally. Given that this is the case, there's no reason other than the text in SS to not allow it for any number of guns as long as they are fixed and bear in the same direction.

As I said, I allow guns to be mounted more than one to a turret, and to fire as a single attack, subject to the other limitations (identical, etc.), so I'm a heretic anyway.

Oh, I agree that there's no good reason for the restriction. As has been noted, a single operator firing multiple turrets, spread out across the hull even, is perfectly realistic at tech levels lower than Spaceships usually goes to.

It's just that it is, as you say, the text in Spaceships.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Actually, it was routine before WWI for battleships.

Knew the firing solutions were calculated and the guns triggered centrally, buy couldn't quickly find any explicit reference to guns being automatically laid from central control that early. I knew for sure the Mk. 33 did this.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by RyanW

Knew the firing solutions were calculated and the guns triggered centrally, buy couldn't quickly find any explicit reference to guns being automatically laid from central control that early. I knew for sure the Mk. 33 did this.

They weren't fully automatic, but I don't see having humans work controls to line up the gun's azimuth marker with the marker controlled by the director is any different from having a machine do it, aside from one of tech level.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by FeiLin

Also, why the lack of variety of missiles? Afaik the only choice I have is barrel size and "nuke, super or neither" (disregarding warp, which seems not to behave like missiles). What if I want ion missiles that stun ships, more penetration, or different range? Maybe even different speeds depending on ammo. I could, of course, just go in and add/change it, but then I'd have to open the can of worms of adjusting costs, etc, which I'd rather wait with.

There SHOULD be variety of missiles. For instance countermissiles should cost about a fraction per salvo of a shipkiller (or why didn't they throw them at the other formation in the first place). Missiles for delicate stuff like gunboat diplomacy, policework, and piracy should be more surgical. Conversely shipkillers should have better armor penetration capability than either countermissiles, or missiles made for light units or for skirmishing (the latter two can often be the same model). There should be different warheads like EMPers, Nukes, Laserheads, recon (and possibly conterrecon) drones, different attack plans and so forth. Some of these can be several apps put in the same guidance computer as options. But at the least there are reasons to have different sizes to make an expense worth the target.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

There SHOULD be variety of missiles. For instance countermissiles should cost about a fraction per salvo of a shipkiller (or why didn't they throw them at the other formation in the first place).

It's fairly hard to justify countermissiles rather than point defense beams or cannon. (Except for countermissile nuking.) You could have 16cm countermissiles used to shoot down larger 'shipkiller' missiles, but it's difficult to make larger shipkillers useful.

A 'short ramge' missile that cut off half the mass and probably 2/3s to 3/4s of the delta-V would be a helpful option, if you do want to use missiles for defensive fire.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Missiles for delicate stuff like gunboat diplomacy, policework, and piracy should be more surgical.

How do you do 'surgical' a gigantic hypervelocity impactor?

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Conversely shipkillers should have better armor penetration capability than either countermissiles, or missiles made for light units or for skirmishing (the latter two can often be the same model). There should be different warheads like EMPers, Nukes, Laserheads, recon (and possibly conterrecon) drones, different attack plans and so forth. Some of these can be several apps put in the same guidance computer as options. But at the least there are reasons to have different sizes to make an expense worth the target.

No Spaceships kinetic weapons have useful penetration factors, assuming warship armor is hardened.

The text has nukes and laser heads (though it doesn't really give instructions on how to play out the laser heads), and EMP missiles seem like a dubious proposition. Nobody's stopping you having drones, but drones aren't really missiles. SS5 does have sensor drones that are stated as missile replacements, though they're intended for exploratory/scientific use, not tactical recon.