05-20-2022, 09:48 PM | #11 | |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Charlotte, North Caroline, United States of America, Earth?
|
Re: (spaceships) SM based Hull dST/HP
Quote:
Our best playtesting so far has been TL8.
__________________
Hydration is key |
|
05-20-2022, 09:53 PM | #12 |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: (spaceships) SM based Hull dST/HP
Those are the ones.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
05-20-2022, 10:52 PM | #13 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
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." |
05-21-2022, 12:10 AM | #14 |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: (spaceships) SM based Hull dST/HP
I was using whatever was in the playtest. David seems to like that.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
05-21-2022, 04:12 AM | #15 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
|
Re: (spaceships) SM based Hull dST/HP
Quote:
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." |
|
05-23-2022, 04:19 AM | #16 |
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Not in your time zone:D
|
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. |
Tags |
basic set, spaceships |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|