08-31-2020, 12:58 PM | #1 |
Join Date: May 2010
|
[Spaceships] Optional rule: dedicated power for weapons batteries
This is somewhat obvious, and I assume only wasn't made canonical because of its complexity. I've nevertheless decided to try to write a version of this rule that's as simple as possible:
A medium, secondary, or tertiary battery with one or more high-energy weapons (i.e. beams, electromagnetic guns, and/or grav guns) can be designated as having "dedicated power". A battery with this design option is not a high powered system. Instead, reduce the total number of weapons in the mount by half the number of high-energy weapons in the mount, rounded up. Each weapon "slot" used for dedicated power gives 80% of the discount for using a slot for cargo—in other words the power systems' cost per ton is 20% of that of a weapon. These adjustments to cost and number of mounts are cumulative with the effects of using slots for cargo.Note: these rules are based on assuming MHD turbines, rounding against the spaceship designer when there's an odd-number of mounts that need to be powered. Of course, you could just refrain from rounding, but I'm trying to avoid making things too complicated. Thoughts? Also, did I do my math right given my assumption of MHD turbines? |
08-31-2020, 01:27 PM | #2 |
Join Date: Feb 2016
|
Re: [Spaceships] Optional rule: dedicated power for weapons batteries
A combination system should probably consist of three SM-1 components, as it is the simplest build. For example, a SM+9 spacecraft could have a Self-Defense Component, which would consist of a SM+8 weapon battery, a SM+8 hanger bay (for interceptors/shuttles), and a SM+8 fission reactor. The SM+8 hanger bay could possibly hold 30 SM+4 AKVs equipped with 20 16cm missile launchers each, allowing for 120 16cm missiles per turn for 5 turns when fully deployed, meaning that the average freighter would have some teeth.
|
08-31-2020, 03:12 PM | #3 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: [Spaceships] Optional rule: dedicated power for weapons batteries
Your maths is off - a SM+8 hanger system holds 30 tons, and a SM+4 ship masses 10 tons.
Also, fitting 20 16cm launchers into a SM+4 ship is a neat trick, given that each one masses 0.5 tons, so they'll take up the entire ship's mass leaving no room for controls or sensors, let alone any manoeuvring capability - at best that's a 'missile pod', Honorverse style, which means the 'freighter' (really an auxiliary cruiser at this point) will need to provide all fire control and management for all those missiles. So actually it's not 120 missiles per turn for five turns, but more like 30-45 missiles per turn. Still not trivial, of course. Mind you, it's also $2-3 million per salvo, and the total missile load will be worth a significant fraction of the 'freighters' value.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
08-31-2020, 04:42 PM | #4 | |
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Shropshire, uk
|
Re: [Spaceships] Optional rule: dedicated power for weapons batteries
Quote:
Under the rules for smaller systems a small MHD and two major batteries, is a perfectly legitimate fit and looks for all the world like a self powered medium battery. |
|
08-31-2020, 04:58 PM | #5 |
Join Date: May 2010
|
Re: [Spaceships] Optional rule: dedicated power for weapons batteries
I don't know if combination systems of SM-1 components are actually "simpler". Part of the reason for this is just to condense what you write down on the spaceship's sheet. Also, the SM-1 components thing doesn't help with not overspending on the power plant for a secondary/tertiary battery that is either under-gunned or uses a mix of high-energy weapons and conventional guns/launchers.
|
08-31-2020, 04:58 PM | #6 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: [Spaceships] Optional rule: dedicated power for weapons batteries
While the rules for smaller systems and the like certainly allow for 'self powered' units, I think one reason that this wasn't written as an option is that it removes one of the interesting effects of being hit - you can't lose power and have to frantically repair a power plant or over-power a surviving one to get power back to systems.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
08-31-2020, 05:11 PM | #7 | |
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Shropshire, uk
|
Re: [Spaceships] Optional rule: dedicated power for weapons batteries
Quote:
|
|
08-31-2020, 05:55 PM | #8 |
Join Date: May 2010
|
Re: [Spaceships] Optional rule: dedicated power for weapons batteries
It's an extremely obvious use case, in fact Spaceships 8 (the main canonical source for examples of those rules) has multiple examples.
|
08-31-2020, 06:16 PM | #9 | |
Join Date: Feb 2016
|
Re: [Spaceships] Optional rule: dedicated power for weapons batteries
Quote:
|
|
08-31-2020, 07:26 PM | #10 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: [Spaceships] Optional rule: dedicated power for weapons batteries
Quote:
Also note that the Spaceships 8 ships that do this, of which I found five, all have that under-sized power plant as their only source of power for high-energy systems, and have only one high-energy system to supply, so they actually remain quite simple in play. My concern is that if one starts having systems with built-in power-packs, things become quite complex when damage is taken. Can the self-contained systems share power? If so, how much are they actually producing? And if they can, really the only difference between them and the normal systems is that their power plants are immune to getting shot up, dodging a chunk of the damage system. If they can't, there's some slight cost to them, but they're still really just a dodge, I think (though if someone did this with anti-matter power plants, making every powered system volatile, I think I'd be inclined to let them).
__________________
Rupert Boleyn "A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history." |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|