Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-20-2022, 09:48 PM   #11
Verjigorm
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Charlotte, North Caroline, United States of America, Earth?
Default Re: (spaceships) SM based Hull dST/HP

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin View Post
Oh, this was at TL10 and during the test for the mapped system so all the station's weapons opened up at maximum range. Main Batteries, missiles, everything and not just the Tertiary Battery.
By mapped, do you mean with the tactical rules of SS3? I haven't tried those.

Our best playtesting so far has been TL8.
__________________
Hydration is key
Verjigorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2022, 09:53 PM   #12
Fred Brackin
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: (spaceships) SM based Hull dST/HP

Quote:
Originally Posted by Verjigorm View Post
By mapped, do you mean with the tactical rules of SS3?

.
Those are the ones.
__________________
Fred Brackin
Fred Brackin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2022, 10:52 PM   #13
Rupert
 
Rupert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
Default Re: (spaceships) SM based Hull dST/HP

I assume you had VRF batteries as the tertiary point-defence systems? Not that it probably makes that much difference - it comes out to an extra +2 RoF bonus to hit generally.

My thinking is that if you want survivable ships without doing too much hacking, you start with TL11^ force screens (depending on how one interprets the semi-ablative nature, they might need changes to how they function), and then start looking at rules like "Missile Shield" (SS:7, p.35), which will encourage the use of bomb-pumped laser warheads and proximity nukes (which if too strong can be countered by making nuclear dampers (SS:1, p.32) available which can be tiny systems and still kill off nukes as an option).

Making ships very fast with pseudo-velocity drives can help too - to catch them the missiles will also need pseudo-velocity drives, and if you 'design' the drives right that means they won't have much (or even any) closing velocity.

I do wish the series had included material on this sort of tweaking for more or less 'realism' and lethality, but at least it starts fairly grounded and well down one end of that spectrum, and is fairly easy to modify as required.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn

"A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history."
Rupert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2022, 12:10 AM   #14
Fred Brackin
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: (spaceships) SM based Hull dST/HP

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
I assume you had VRF batteries as the tertiary point-defence systems?
I was using whatever was in the playtest. David seems to like that.
__________________
Fred Brackin
Fred Brackin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2022, 04:12 AM   #15
Rupert
 
Rupert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
Default Re: (spaceships) SM based Hull dST/HP

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin View Post
I was using whatever was in the playtest. David seems to like that.
Funny, that.

Looking at SS:3, the Gibraltar-Class Battle Station's weapons are a secondary battery of 10 x 30 GJ UV lasers, a tertiary battery of 30 x 100 MJ VRF UV lasers, and a tertiary battery of 30 x 56cm missile launchers. Dropping them to conventional lasers (and thus making them improved) for double the RoF and therefore an extra +1 to hit might be an improvement, but I doubt it would matter.

To have any chance you'd need to use more optional rules to split the battery up further - make it three small systems, each of 30 x 30 MJ improved VRF lasers, for example. However, that might well still not be enough, so you'd need to go into complete houserule territory and already this is using an optional rule that adds complexity and spoils the clean simplicity of the 20-system design rules.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn

"A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history."
Rupert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2022, 04:19 AM   #16
jacobmuller
 
jacobmuller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Not in your time zone:D
Default Re: (spaceships) SM based Hull dST/HP

Spaceship durability?
I went with tanks in space. Battle wagons have 70% armour, sub SM vrf point defence, a single main weapon, maybe a secondary shared with the sub SM. Civilian vessels are cheap tin cans and vulnerable to vrf fire. Battleship main "guns" have missile reach. Missile Cruisers are a thing - ditto (torpedo boat) Destroyers - but versus 70% armour, with hardening, compartment optional rule (damage reduction /2), and high rof lasers, plus Xray antimissile missles, battleships kill battleships (slowly).
Frigates are low dr multirole - tougher than civilians but not designed for the battle line.
Edit: writeups of Area ECCW, Damage Reduction, etc, see Spaceships #3 & #4.
__________________
"Sanity is a bourgeois meme." Exegeek
PS sorry I'm a Parthian shootist: shiftwork + out of country = not here when you are:/
It's all in the reflexes

Last edited by jacobmuller; 05-24-2022 at 02:32 AM.
jacobmuller is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
basic set, spaceships

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.