Walegrin Re: Design Challenge: Nautical SDS « Reply #30 on: October 08, 2006, 06:44:59 PM »from: Takiro on October 08, 2006, 09:08:16 AM
Yeah this is new territory for me as well. How about the vessel/vehicle in question must have a nuclear reactor to have capital weaponry. Then of course that power amplifier we talked of. Vehicles not equipped with a nuclear power plant lack the energy needs to properly utilize these weapons.
By nuclear do you mean having either a fission or a fusion powerplant?
And I'd say that offhand if you were to be mounting cap missiles you wouldn't require a Fission/fusion powerplant?
Has anyone figured crew requirements for teh cap weapons? As I recall SV crewing requirements for weapons is based on tonnage. But I don't have my books in front of me at the moment. Can anyone check that?
Walegrin Re: Design Challenge: Nautical SDS « Reply #31 on: October 08, 2006, 06:48:34 PM »from: Takiro on October 07, 2006, 05:49:54 PM
This just in. Walegrin has informed me that Maverick on CBT has put up a spreadsheet for building Support Vehicles. This will no doubt with this Nautical SDS challenge. Enjoy!
http://faileas.greywolf.googlepages.com/SupportVehicleWorksheetV0.9i.xlsGoing by a post over on the HMP boards that should be a link to the full file. Since there have been many reports of problems with the files as Maverick posted them on CBT, he had it split into two files to get around CBT's attachment limit, it may be better to download it from here.
Takiro Re: Design Challenge: Nautical SDS « Reply #32 on: October 21, 2006, 07:21:18 PM »Okay sticking with the Verne Cargo Sub modification idea I found something useful today going through my notes.
Launcher Type Launcher Mass Missile Mass Minimum Rounds Complete Ammo Complete System
Barracuda 90 tons 30 tons 10 300 tons 390 tons
White Shark 120 tons 40 tons 10 400 tons 520 tons
Killer Whale 150 tons 50 tons 10 500 tons 650 tons
AR-10 250 tons Depends 10 Depends 550B/650WS/750KW
So we got 3,300 tons to play with on the Verne.
4 Killer Whale Systems = 2600 tons this leaves 700 tons for Fire Control, Extra Crew, Cargo
5 White Sharks Systems = 2600 tons this leaves 700 tons for Fire Control, Extra Crew, Cargo
7 Barracuda Systems = 2730 this leaves 570 tons for Fire Control, Extra Crew, Cargo
Killer Whales have a damage potential of 16 points of Capital Scale Damage
White Shark have a damage potential of 15 points of Capital Scale Damage
Barracudas have a damage potential of 14 points of Capital Scale Damage and are more accurate
So what do you think? Any ideas for fire control? Extra Crew?
Walegrin Re: Design Challenge: Nautical SDS « Reply #33 on: November 02, 2006, 12:30:00 AM »Offhand Takiro I'd say either go for the max damage potential, the KWs, or the increased crit chance, the WS.
I have concepts in mind but getting them to a stat form is being tricky.
Walegrin Re: Design Challenge: Nautical SDS « Reply #34 on: November 02, 2006, 02:37:47 AM »I reading the SV construction rules I came across something interesting. Crew for heavy weapons, shich I assume cap weapons would be, is 'calaulated on a per-weapons basis, with one gunner per 3 tons of weapon(rounded up) required'. Page 110 of Combat Equipment.
So that would mean that a single Barracuda launcher would require 30 crew and a Killer Whale would require 50 crew. I don't have AT2 in front of me but I can guess that the numbers for lasers will be as large.
I guess my question is this - do was follow the construction rules and calculate crews that way or do we 'house rule' something else? Personally I am unsure right now. Part of me wants to keep the rules as they are so that things are consistent but then again part of me feels that the crew that the rules require is excessive. Comments or ideas?
Takiro Re: Design Challenge: Nautical SDS « Reply #35 on: November 03, 2006, 12:09:33 AM »Wow that is a lot of crew! Why not just do it the AeroTech 2 way? Isn't that just an extra person per weapon? I think 30-50 is a tad bit excessive.
Walegrin Re: Design Challenge: Nautical SDS « Reply #36 on: November 03, 2006, 12:41:41 AM »from: Takiro on November 03, 2006, 12:09:33 AM
Wow that is a lot of crew! Why not just do it the AeroTech 2 way? Isn't that just an extra person per weapon? I think 30-50 is a tad bit excessive.
I can't recall the AT2 crewing rules.
Walegrin Re: Design Challenge: Nautical SDS « Reply #37 on: November 05, 2006, 02:04:45 AM »from: Takiro on November 03, 2006, 12:09:33 AM
Wow that is a lot of crew! Why not just do it the AeroTech 2 way? Isn't that just an extra person per weapon? I think 30-50 is a tad bit excessive.
I may have found a way around the seemingly excessive SV weapon crewing requirements - drones. Gonna poke that option out somemore on th is side and see. Unfortunately I have been unable to get teh SV worksheet/spreadsheet thingy to work.
I know from posts on the HM boards that people have used itI just can't get it to work on my comp. *grumbles*
Takiro Re: Design Challenge: Nautical SDS « Reply #38 on: November 08, 2006, 11:10:51 PM »Sorry about not responding sooner Walegrin. Been way busy.
On warships per AeroTech 2 I believe the rule, on Warships granted, is one gunner per capital weapon and one gunner per every six standard weapons.
To be honest I can't get the damn spreadsheet to work either. Really frustrating especially after advirtisting it here. Angry
Anywho how would you do drones?
Walegrin Re: Design Challenge: Nautical SDS « Reply #39 on: November 09, 2006, 12:22:10 AM »from: Takiro on November 08, 2006, 11:10:51 PM
Sorry about not responding sooner Walegrin. Been way busy.
No worries man.
from: Takiro on November 08, 2006, 11:10:51 PM
Anywho how would you do drones?
Basically I'm looking at placing a number of launchers(likely just single shot, multiple reloads can be done once the system is proven) on a remotely controlled sub called a 'pallet'. The pallets are placed wherever required either by beiong piloted there remotely or moved there by a sub with the tractor mod. Once in place they are monitored/controlled by the crew of thier tender. Tenders will have multiple pallets under thier control. Question or suggestions welcomed at this point.
I think I am aslo changing my opinion on missile types to use. After reading the ATr2 rules I'm thinking that Barracuda missiles might be better since the -2 to hit will offset the penalty for firing thru atmosphere. That said the design will/should be set up so that different missile types can be loaded. So you couyld do say 6 WS or 7 Barracuda.
Bradshaw Re: Design Challenge: Nautical SDS « Reply #40 on: November 09, 2006, 05:35:32 PM »Hmm maybe this weekend when I come over to play madden Ill take a crack at a design. I was thinking of using a NPPC the image from Starship Troopers of the shots fired into space from the large alien asses makes me think of ppc shots
Takiro Re: Design Challenge: Nautical SDS « Reply #41 on: November 09, 2006, 05:40:16 PM »LOL! Don't think about strapping capital weapons to sharks thanks.
Takiro Re: Design Challenge: Nautical SDS « Reply #42 on: September 10, 2009, 08:55:25 PM »bumping this one up again
Takiro Re: Design Challenge: Nautical SDS « Reply #43 on: September 10, 2009, 09:25:59 PM »Perhaps not along the Nautical SDS line of thought I was thinking of a Patriot Missile System that could intercept incoming Nuclear Missiles. I figure Amaris used the Nukes against the SLDF and Terrans enough that they would be thinking of some sort of interceptor.
Even single shot capital missiles appear to be too large for conventional ground vehicles aka a mobile launcher. So I'll take ideas for designing and accomplishing this.
master arminas Re: Design Challenge: Nautical SDS « Reply #44 on: September 11, 2009, 09:10:53 AM »Try using Piranha or Swordfish sub-caps in that role, Takiro. They are even smaller, and in the point-defense role should be pretty decent, ala Patriot.
