Wick
03/15/21 04:07 PM
173.247.25.195
|
Quote:
Ok then … how about the use of a Particle Accelerator – The LHC 18 miles – vacuum – gravity fields – an atom smasher! This is about the closest we have to an example.
The Good: Now you're talking high-speed collisions.
The Bad: CERN pumps trillions of times more energy put into the system to ramp up particles to near light speed than what is produced by each collision. Dropships don't have trillions of engines to add extra power to help them navigate to a specific point in space. They have only their internally provided force and perhaps a very small amount of additional external force through gravitational slingslots.
The Ugly: Trillions upon trillions of particles are being slung around the accelerator, with almost all of them missing their target. The LHC is designed to capture those one in a billion collisions and track the collided particle's movement and energy. It is not a one-on-one system. If you put trillions of dropships along the transit path (even several million) then I'll grant a collision with any one of them is likely. But we're talking a one on one collision. If the LHC was running just two particles around the accelerator they could run it for billions of years and never see an event because they'd miss practically every time despite all the externally added energy. Your own example proves how hard it is for one tiny object in a volume of space trillions of times larger to collide with one other specific object of same size.
Quote:
This is after all a warship
The CF drive, control components, lithium fusion battery, and maximum armor for a warship add up to 48.5% of mass. Engines take up 6%. As yours will have two engines you must dedicate 12%.
This means a normal warship of this size has 45.5% of its mass available for crew quarters, grav decks, docking hardpoints, aerofighter and small craft bays, fuel, optional add-ons like an HPG, and of course weaponry, fire control systems, and heat sinks. Yours has only 39.5% of mass to dedicate to same, or 86.8% as much as a standard warship. Less if you're adding a gigantic reinforced ram as well.
You could potentially make up some of that 13% gap by scrimping on crew comforts like grav decks (though you'd need at least one for a healthy crew) and doing without things like an HPG, docking hard points, or craft bays. But offhand, if the two ships are built to similar performance, a classical warship is likely to outgun a duel-engined model by 13%, will be just as fast, will generally have a happier, healthier crew, may be able to haul some extra cargo or dropships to increase its non-combat usefulness, and will probably be cheaper to build (your second engine costs 48 million c-bills.)
The sole advantage a dual-engined model has is a quicker deceleration and acceleration into the opposite direction, because it no longer has to flipover. Since rules define that flipover can happen in as little as one minute (one turn), I'm doubtful its worth a 13% reduction in firepower, comforts, and general functionality. You can certainly build it, but its not going to come into battle and be sliced bread. If its fighting another warship of similar size, its likely to lose because it's outgunned, though thanks to a small edge in maneuverability it may be a little more adept and hunting smaller craft like fighters and dropships. (As this is normally the role of assault dropships, that's what I thought you were building. I don't think dual engines would help much, but I see them as more useful on an assault dropship than a warship.)
Nobody has a problem with a house rule to design and build such a warship. We have a problem that since the fifth post of this thread, you've been arguing that your house rule is better than real world physics and better than existing Battletech construction rules. The physics are not really lining up in your favor except for the lack of flipover to decelerate (a minor issue in terms of game combat rules since it occurs same turn), and the construction rules say you're at a 13% deficit on the things that matter to game rules (combat or roleplay.) Your craft has a niche, but only house rules that are way off base from existing physics or Battletech rules can make it significantly better than what we've already got. With a ram its obviously geared toward exceptionally close combat on the order of a few kilometer or less, where its second engine might make the difference between a successful ram and a miss - but most of the time a similiar weight warship is going to blow it away before it got that close. It's like a Hatchetman vs a Vindicator in open terrain. Similar weight and movement profiles, but the Vindicator's weaponry and range is probably going to stop the Hatchetman almost every time. You've built a Hatchetman, when one-on-one in open terrain the Vindicator is the better mech. A Hatchetman has use, but not in a role similar to the one you're describing. Redefining its profile (as an assualt dropship) or its role (close combat craft rather than hunter-killer) would help fill its niche better, but as a general purpose warship its just not attractive. All the mass for the second set of engine and the ram would be better served as normal weaponry. (I have the same complaint on swords and hatchets for mechs that try to pass themselves off as general purpose mechs instead of close range brawlers.)
Quote:
A ship under attack does NOT have everyone strapped down.
They best well better be, or at least have something to hold on to. At straight line thrust they can walk around, but flipovers to change direction in under a minute is going to need everyone prepared or bodies might be flying around the cabin. If standing then I'd hope they at least have a rail or something to hold on to. During combat, everyone takes battlestations which should involve some kind of safe position, a chair with straps or rails to grip. A helmet or hard hat would be ideal for anyone not strapped down.
A transit flipover is probably performed much slower than a combat manuever - probably taking many minutes to fully rotate around. Nobody needs to be strapped down at that rate but there's probably an intercom alert to warn everyone aboard that its about to happen so they a can be ready for it.
Sea ships don't need people strapped in because the Earth's gravity greatly outweighs most other g-forces encountered (and people's legs perform good shock absorbtion.) But if a ship gets hit hard enough people can be thrown aside, though the force of water against the hull (usually) prevents the ship from toppling over. There is no counteracting force in space.
Quote:
If you allow a fleet to reach to an inhabited planet and they open up with either an orbital bombardment or a nuclear strike or just drop a couple of RCTs onto the world - would you have preferred the expense of building a ship that could have keep this fleet who knows how far away or would you rather want to give up on such a cost and allow the fleet to reach its destination
I haven't seen you address the point of why you think its easier to engage the invasion fleet during transit, rather than at jump point or planetary orbit.
Invasion dropships are going to be most vulnerable when preparing to enter atmosphere for landing. And at the same time, defenders have airfields to provide the maximum number of sorties. This is when the the invasion fleet gets attacked by the defenders. Its leveraged risk: lowest for defenders while greatest for attackers. To engage at any other time is riskier for the defenders, because the invaders are less exposed earlier in the trip and the defenders can't muster the full might of their aerospace defense (such as land-based fighters), only deep space craft (dropships with whatever fighters they carry.) Like ghostrider said, its wasteful to try to stop an invasion fleet before they reach orbit because you might be wasting a resource that could have been better used at the opportune moment.
I will grant that a warship, assault dropships, or an aerospace fighter screen help reduce this risk to the attackers, but only if they can overwhelm the aerospace defense. And if the aerospace defense isn't strong enough to stop the invasion fleet when most vulnerable, then they sure aren't beating them during transit when the leverage is less in their favor. I don't understand why you'd argue to engage the enemy during transit when you'd have greater advantage at planetary orbit. The better argument for a transit engagement is that you're the attacker, you've just won the planet (or at least the aerospace phase), and are now trying to track down an escaping dropship before they can flee to the jump point. But this is pre-radio thinking where you've got to head off another ship before it can make port and report to authorities. With radio (and HPGs) an escapee has little bearing on the future course of events.
Your nuclear tipped missiles are the one exception, but there really isn't much defense against them once launched, and except for the Jihad and First Succession War, these don't come into play. In the event of nukes, you need to take out the warships or dropships carrying them ASAP and not wait for the dropships to began landing. (WOB really messed up the invasion protocol that had been standard for two and a half centuries.)
|
Requiem
03/15/21 04:31 PM
1.158.229.22
|
Quote:
the entire construction process and would allow craft to have 10 free heatsinks for almost nothing
Construction rules should be different for that of double plume drive to a single drive.
Quote:
Every deck would have to be redesigned as this would cause everything to be upside down
Sorry but no, as the ship resides permanently in space the deck plan would be the same as every other warship.
Quote:
The introduction of energy shields is yet another thing that removes the rule set.
Problem is every ship out there already has an energy shield otherwise every spec of dust etc would put a hole through the hull of the ship when travelling at extreme velocity.
Quote:
basically re-writes large chunks of the game.
Isn’t that the point, and considering this is going to be used in a home game … ?
Quote:
not to make a whole new game that is no longer Battletech.
What makes battletech? The nil range, the BattleMechs, the history? What is the reality of the game? Please define.
The Mechs are still there – the possibility of outrunning or out foxing my ship will be built in – it will not be every ship is caught scenario – thus the warships and the dropships are still there – in addition because this is a new ship it would be incredibly rare … thus the chance of encountering what is effectively a prototype weapon system will have little to real effect on the overall wars – unless it has proven herself in other battles and will be sent to a more important theatre based upon past experience - or other houses take note of its success and begin designing and manufacturing their own.
Quote:
No one can just take the concept and plug it into their games. It would require them to change a whole lot more then just the rules. This would include complete redesign of all their units, as the question would come, how all this tech was done and no one else had any of it?
Problem is this has occurred how many times in the game with virtually every new weapon system – as well as the clans themselves with their weapons and their omnis and their elementals – and this has also occurred how many time within the IS with re to new technology being developed from when the Helm memory Computer core discovered ….
It could be in there or it could be part of the Star League …. The Clans could even have a variant of the ship to fight the new IS variant
As for construction rules – every new technological improvement will violate the rules of past engineering concepts – buildings were once built solid for earthquakes – now they are built to sway. So these new swaying buildings violate the rules of the past and should all be torn down because they violate building regulations from the 1930’s?
Case in point – my PT dropship craft – absolutely makes sense – it is absolutely possible to manufacture given the time frame and yet will never see the light of day in the canon universe because they have the possibility of killing off every Clan warship and we can’t have that.
Quote:
Great detection gear removes the need of a lot of things
How about great communication equipment?
How about the Clans or the WOB improvements?
Did these kill the game?
Sorry but either the game improves, or it will cease to exist – so what will improve the game and keep it alive – what is required to make more people play the game?
Also, if you find this scenario fun why would anyone want to squash it? If you want a more realistic game where ranges of everything are increased 30-50X, add in massive missiles etch the current distances it just requires a new thought process or perhaps a new weapon … all that really matters is having fun after all.
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
ghostrider
03/15/21 06:21 PM
66.74.60.165
|
Had some thoughts about how to do some of what you want without destroying construction rules and other things.
First off, I would suggest the vehicle construction of a transmission to divert your thrust to other locations on the ship. 1/2 of the engine weight for all ways, to MAYBE 1/4 of the weight for a single direction.
The big down side would be the heat generated as the thruster is used, from the conduits to send the thrust to the front.
The blade could well be set up like the sword melee weapon for mechs. Just increase the size, weight, and damage to that of the ship being used that way.
One negative concept is if the blade doesn't hit straight on. It could possibly snap, especially if it is a sword. Hitting with the thinner side could cause this.
The ability to flip the entire ship, as not just the bridge, but everywhere on the ship would need to have that happen. This is just not worth the effort in my opinion. The engine room, which has issues with trying to work on it requires certain areas being open, and rotation of the room would not match up. The space required for all critical components would take up too much space.
Seating should be no more movement then forward/backward to the controls. Anything else would cause the operator to lose contact with their controls. Not something you want, especially the pilots doing so.
The issue with ships being built in space, is they are all designed to be flipped, not having a second set of thrusters change their direction quickly. So the entire ship would have to be redesigned to deal with that. And trying to train the crew to use the ship would be difficult at best. Don't even think you will be taken other ships, as they would not be set up the way you are trained for.
Show me in the rules where every ship in the game has an energy shield preventing damage to the front. Even Star Trek doesn't keep up shields at they are flying at impulse speed. Pressure wave, like breaking the sound barrier wouldn't exist in space.
Being used for home games, yet stated that it is to provide others with an alternative is contradictory in nature. With that being said, this is looking more like you have to play by my rules, not the ones provided by the game. Hence, not an alternative, but trying to force others to use your rule set.
This statement is why there is so many problems: What makes battletech? The nil range, the BattleMechs, the history? What is the reality of the game? Please define.
If you need to ask, then you don't understand the game at all. Again, this explains why the alt views have issues with those playing the actual game. Battle tech is using the rules provided by the company that owns the rights.
Not sure how the new weapons systems from the SL and clans broke the rules. They were more powerful, less weight, with greater range. They did not fire at kilometers, with the exception of the arrow system. The did not fire without producing heat. The new weapons did not weigh less then the other weapons that they replaced with the exception of the missile launchers. They went a bit far with those, yet they were not spammed on every unit found.
The XL engine weighed the same as the IS version, though didn't take up as much space.
The only real thing they did screw up is the streak system. The auto hit, that can't be used on other weapon systems.
The entire WOB line has done a lot of damage to the game.
If you want a more realistic game where ranges of everything are increased 30-50X, add in massive missiles etc
This is not Battletech. This is something far beyond what the game is set up to be. Again, it seems like you want a space battle game, not the ground battle game. Even Robotech's weapons for most units don't go past about 2-3 klicks on ground battles.
The entire history of the alt is to suggest that one persons vision is the only viable solution. Again, make your own game then present it. That is basically what seems to be presented here with the alt posts.
|
Requiem
03/16/21 02:14 AM
1.158.229.22
|
Quote:
1/2 of the engine weight … MAYBE 1/4 of the weight for a single direction
I was thinking 1/5 to 1/10th of the overall engine weight.
I agree additional heat sinks will be required for those near the engine plume only as the engine itself it not changing per say.
Quote:
the blade
Weight will be determined if it is a blade (1/5th the total weight of the ship) or an axe (1/10th the total weight of the ship)
Rues will have to be thought about re: positive and negatives.
Quote:
Flipping
This would be a non-issue as existing warships who have the same internal structure suffer nil effects so the same for this ship.
Quote:
this is looking more like you have to play by my rules
This is why you have massive number of beta tests where each member of the group is allowed to bring their ideas to the table until a consensus by the group is reached or it is killed off as a bad joke – becomes a detriment to the game. However, you will not know until it is tested a couple of times with different rules …
Quote:
Battletech is using the rules provided by the company that own the rights
No wonder we have issues.
Battletech, for me, is more than just the rules – it is the vehicles themselves – the idea of great Houses the concept of planetary invasions upon massive number of worlds – the ability to travel to different worlds – see new things – all the people and places and units that can be created – all the different worlds that can be thought up – all the different scenarios that can be thought up – reading a tactics book and putting it to work – the massive discussions that can be had regarding what is happening in the game but most of all it is the fun that can be had.
And yes, I agree the WOB line has inflicted a massive wound on the game that has yet to heal.
Quote:
If you want a more realistic game with ranges of everything are increased 30-50x … this is not Battletech
Sorry to say but I disagree … using the same machines etc – it is just with such a system communications and electronics will play a greater part in the game – though artillery will have to remain with their current ranges (for the most part) - this is where multiple maps will be required with different scales (like playing battleforce and Battletech at the same time) as far as I can see so far. Also aerospace assets and VTOL will play a greater role than given – that is unless you design a weapon that makes them and everything in the air obsolete.
But for me this is one of the thinks I really enjoy coming up with new scenarios and rule and seeing how they work within the game. This to me is part of the fun in the game.
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
ghostrider
03/16/21 03:03 AM
66.74.60.165
|
Given there will be no swing, but just a stab, an axe wouldn't work. This is why I suggested a sword. Piercing damage.
So with those few suggestions, you get pretty much what you want without gutting the entire construction rules. This is more likely to be used in other games, but not a given. Most would suggest just leaving it to ranged weapondry.
The idea of the weight for the extra thrusters is just using the rule of vehicle construction. It doesn't really do much besides shift the vehicle rules into a dropship/warship.
The risk of having great detection and longer range missiles is that the missiles can idf. So instead of having units come in with short range, direct fire weapons, you run into the artillery matches most of the time. Fire walls of missiles at the enemy, with some chance of something hitting. Things like MGs will only be used for defense of infantry.
I have always thought it is best to destroy an enemy away from your worlds. No damage means no needing to fix or rebuild things. This is how you avoid losing the ability to do things. But I am also used to play all sorts of games that you do not have all materials on hand at all times. Budgeting things, like what gets built first, and what is needed don't always match.
Example is playing a game in the middle ages. You should build a lumber camp/sawmill combination to increase the production of wood that you need to build with. Yet, you have to have some sort of defense up to prevent the hostile creatures from coming in and wiping out your town. If you can survive long enough, the sawmill combo will make the tower production that much easier. But it all dies if they destroy what little you have with you.
Old RTS games like the original warcraft, which was a lot like starcraft, not like the world of warcraft.
Interception of ships outside of the slowest points, IE jump point and near the world, is just too difficult to be risked. Given that a lot of systems have more the one potential target in them, it becomes more risky. Defiance is a huge target in it's system, but not the only world that has something worth hitting.
It is easier to strip mine a moon then the high deposit on a world, due to people protesting and causing issues in their area. No matter what some think, martial law doesn't hold up well, especially when the government is anything but a dictatorship. Even then, they have issues.
That means the mine on the moon is a prime target, as you are relying on that to get your ores, instead of the more expensive underground mines. Yes, you should still have some working, but hopefully this gets the point across.
|
Wick
03/17/21 01:10 PM
173.247.25.195
|
Quote:
Sorry but no, as the ship resides permanently in space the deck plan would be the same as every other warship.
Sorry but yes. Down (direction of gravity) is always toward the set of engines being used as their thrust is what provides the acceleration or deceleration which in turn provides a gravitational effect. For a single engine with flipover, this means people and furniture can have feet consistently facing a single direction (though loose items like people can float around during flipover or other near zero acceleration maneuvers like docking and jumping.) With two engines, gravity can operate both from "floor" and from "ceiling" of the same room, depending on which engine is being used. You must supply a second set of furniture, or allow the furniture itself to be flipped over to compensate or half the journey will be very uncomfortable for the crew and passengers.
So when the rest of us say its a second set of furniture (and possibly ship controls) for most habitable rooms on the ship, and potentially double cost for all of these things, this is what we meant.
(And this is just in reference to furniture. Your ship has even bigger problems when it comes to things like fighter and small craft bays. It would seem very difficult to launch, recover, and service craft if they didn't also get flipped around inside to match the new direction of gravity. And spacecraft are much larger, more sensitive objects to rotate than chairs, tables, and beds.)
|
ghostrider
03/17/21 02:28 PM
66.74.60.165
|
The only ship that talks about having different thrust systems is the Avenger dropship. It states the furniture and such need to be changed from rear to bottom settings as they enter a gravitational field in which they intend to land on. As warships and jumpship would never land on a planet (they would crash), It isn't necessary to change how the furniture is set up.
As a side note, the Monarch dropship says the transit drive is at the bottom of the ship, so there is no need to change the furniture placement on basically a civilian transport.
With Wick's information, this basically suggests having a ship with double the internal features, further reducing things such as weapons, armor, fuel, and everything else needed to run a ship. You would have so much space wasted on having to have the double sets it isn't worth it.
I hadn't really considered fighter bays, as just dealing with control of the ship was as far as I thought into this.
Another effect is when you are thrusting in reverse, the concept of up and down changes so much that any sort of commands would take a moment or longer to figure out where the person means. Normally the bow is the top side of the craft. Reverse thrusters would cause people to think top, which would be the aft at that point. Even trained crew would run into issues like this, and those not even trained would have a lot of problems.
There would would have to be a lot of research to even attempt this, as anyone trying to fly the ship would have some issues with delicate maneuvers, such as docking.
A prime example would be a remote controlled car or plane. When moving away from you, the vehicles works fine. When coming towards you, the perception changes, so when the car turns right as commanded, it turns left from your point of view.
And with all of this, the costs skyrocket as well as the materials required to build it.
I can see having a special set just for emergency maneuvers, but not any long term use. Still think it would be too many things wasted for it.
Might suggest something like one time use of attached rockets, that come off like external tanks, if you really want to go this route.
|
Requiem
03/17/21 04:06 PM
1.158.229.22
|
Question: when driving a vehicle what is the percentage of the time spent driving forward – and what is the time spent breaking?
So 99% of the time the ship moves forward with the ram at the front – then for short periods of time it uses the front drive – post successful ramming (capturing the now powerless ship) to arrest its acceleration so that it can capture the ship.
As there is only one engine (which has a valve to allow energy to be diverted from one drive plume to the other at the other end of the ship) which is in the centre of the ship – thus for argument’s sake - couldn’t you arrange the furniture for one side of the ship and another way (depending on which engine is being operated) for the other with the bridge also in the centre?
Also all weapons on the ship are energy based – and if there are any fighters on board wouldn’t the be strapped to the bulkhead so no movement whatsoever or they could be strapped to a special gantry that moves them outside the ship – similar to the Expanse’s Rocinante – so that they can take off from there – or like the Macross saga’s ships.
Though I really can’t see the point as, like a vehicle, any breaking manoeuvre is for a short period of time – except when taking the ship that you have caught from extreme velocity to a dead stop.
Also training – isn’t this why all pilots sit is simulators for so long – how difficult could it be to use a simulator to get the crew adjusted to such a manoeuvre – as stated above for only short periods of time.
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
ghostrider
03/17/21 07:03 PM
66.74.60.165
|
There is no standard time frame for vehicles in motion or stopping. Give a specific type of vehicle, and conditions. A semi or train can go hours on end without hitting the brakes, while something like a bus could well stop every 200 feet or so.
Going for an estimate with every type of vehicle is difficult to even begin to figure out.
Not sure why it is assumed that a successful hit will destroy all power on a ship. Even if you hit it directly in the rear, some ships are not going to be immobilized from such a strike. The Mammoth being one that the thrusters are in pods on the sides, not in the rear. Some ships have multiple thrusters as well, which you are not going to be taking out with a single strike.
Now it is possible to hit the fusion engine, but with the critical damage tables, it isn't guaranteed.
The issue with multiple sets of furniture comes down to weight and space. It is just not feasible to do so.
The strapping down of units should be done, but if the stories say the unit can free itself, then the securing devices are questionable. The issue isn't so much the fighters moving, but if you need to launch them or get anyone inside of them, at the time of using the reverse thrust.
Depending on how they are released, would depend on if they can be released with reverse thrust. I would think holding the ship from above and just letting them go would be normal, as they 'drop' away from the ship, while going in reverse, the fighter would smash into the mechanism holding it for launch. It is possible to set it up so they don't, but this prevents using other ships that don't do this by trained crew. I know it should be researched before you do so, but that times time and money. It is just more economical to flip the ship, then reverse thrust.
And yes. The ship that is designed to ram should NOT be carrying fighters, or have launched them before you needed the reverse thrust.
Now there is an assumption with thinking you will stop a ship that has been rammed. First off, is if the power was taken out. Second is did your ramming lock the enemy ship. Third is if the opposite pulls from both ships will cause separation.
Now you were saying about other ships using this reverse thrust to try and pace another ship with. In order to catch the other ship, you will be doing a much faster speed. You may well need to reverse thrust for more then a few seconds in order to match the speed, ie slow down.
The issue with trying to train crews into using the system is the fact that there is no real data on how to use it. It would require a lot of testing to get any sort of standard on how to do the reverse thrust. And anyone hired would have to go thru a long training process, even once you get the guidelines set up.
As a side note, the ramming concept might be a good way to get boarders onto the enemy ship. Wether thru some internal means in the ram, or some special doors by the ram to allow them to get across.
Locking to the other ship would be necessary in this and your bringing the enemy ship to a stop.
|
Wick
03/17/21 07:50 PM
173.247.25.195
|
The better question is how much force is required to stop an object that is in motion. It's not clear if you really meant "moving" forward or "accelerating" forward. If you accelerated at 1G for 1% of the time, coasted for 98% of the time and then rammed a stationary target and decelerated to zero the remaining 1% of the time, you're going to inject a -1G during the ram to your occupants over that period of time. That's fine. But if you accelerate at 1G for 99% of the time and then hit your target, your occupants are effectively subjected to a -99G force. That's going to be fatal.
.
I was considering certain things like bridge controls being operable whether standing (or sitting) on the "floor" or upside down on the "ceiling". A trained crew could get used to that, just as RC car drivers can get used to changing left and right whether car is approaching or receding. I also realized that crews could reorient their cabins, mess halls, and such. Doors extending from "floor" to "ceiling" would operate identically. So I was left thinking what would be the hardest thing to flip upside down on a dropship or warship and arrived at the fighter/small craft bays.
If you want an external gantry or mount your aerospace externally, that's fine I guess but its a very fragile setup for a warship, especially one that's considering ramming another. And while you might be able to refuel and give your pilots a way to enter/egress, it doesn't really give your crew a chance to maintain aerofighters such as repairing armor or replacing weapons. And please don't ask the red shirts to have to put on pressure suits and service craft outside the ship while moving many millions of kilometers per hour. The armor of a warship and dropship can withstand the impact of dust particles and micrometeorites in space at this velocity, and perhaps fighters can as well, but not individual pressure suits. Bay doors with a dedicated internal service area is definitely the better way to go.
Conceptionally, I'm thinking each bay would be some kind of cylinder, with door to space on one end and airlock doors to interior of warship on the other end, and can roll around 180 degrees to service either orientation via gears that rotate teeth on the cylinder's rim. I see no technical reason why this couldn't be done, but its added cost and weight so you'll need to penalize yourself in the construction rules - maybe double cost and 50% more mass for each fighter/small craft bay seems fair to me. A -1 penalty to structural integrity might also be fair, since this is a less robust setup than normal.
|
Requiem
03/17/21 09:02 PM
1.158.229.22
|
suggest we all have a read of the following
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4026/contents.html
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
ghostrider
03/17/21 11:09 PM
66.74.60.165
|
The thought came up with the different gravity plane of things like cargo stored. Liquids tend to have to be stored pouring spout up. A flip of gravity will destroy that concept, as well as anything stored, that has to be accessed when the gravity is in the opposite direction. Such things as ammo stored with the tip up, would definitely have some issues especially when it has to be removed from a storage facility.
The launch boom was just an example. I would figure most launch bays were similar, though not exactly like the old Battlestar Galactica style, but much shorter. But an older post made me question that. If the bay is for launch and recovery, then something has to be different about it. The Leopard example shows this. There isn't room for anything like a landing bay for it. So fighters would have to land directly into the 150 ton bay, which it would have to launch from. Then the idea of a boom to release and clamp onto a fighter came thru my mind. This doesn't mean this is how it is done, as there are other ways to do this.
And come on. Red shirts know they are expected to die all the time. Get out with your thruster pack and fix that leaky fuel line while the warships are firing their full compliments. You're to small to target. 
|
Requiem
03/18/21 01:05 AM
1.158.229.22
|
As all Ships are utilizing a main exhaust nozzle to propel the ship forward at a steady acceleration, I have come to a personal realization that the idea of up/down – flipping a ship or not – allowing combat at extreme velocity has created many issues I did not even consider (the way furniture is facing – can it all just flip over due to the design at the same time) due to the physics etc and is become difficult to determine.
The real issue is, however, can a ship utilizing an exhaust nozzle system actually propel the ship whereby …
“A typical 1-week transit from jump point to planet will see a flip over velocity of 3 million meters per second after 3.5 days at 1G acceleration, or about 1% of light-speed. That's 10.7 million kilometers per hour.” (Cray’s post 03/12/21)
NASA - Project Orion – nuclear pulse drive - 19 to 31 Km/s ?
Should not there be two propulsion systems already – a chemical rocket that have a high specific impulse to achieve escape velocity – however this cannot be sustained over a long period of time – thus the need for an ion rocket that has a low specific impulse propulsion.
If you can maintain craft at such high speeds and at the same time say that technology has ‘devolved’ it sounds difficult to believe!
Is it time to consider an anti-gravity drive or some other such drive – it may be science fiction but this is sounding a little too implausible?
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
ghostrider
03/18/21 03:03 AM
66.74.60.165
|
The chemical rocket is not necessary, as the game says any ship with more then 3 speed can escape earth's gravity. Wether that works out in the actual numbers or not, I have left that up to those that deal with the numbers.
As the thrust from the fusion engine seems adequate to move the ships as is, I don't really see why it couldn't do the launch. Other worlds, that have higher or lower gravity, seem to be missing from the standard worlds colonized.
For the game, and the ability to plug things into other peoples universes, other drives is a bit much.
With that said, the problem with the high tech/low tech comes from real life. A person can own a simple cd player, yet never be able to make any of the components, especially the laser. The ability to form a jump field is way beyond anything we have today, yet that is older then most of the other things in the game. The armor for one is a 'newer' invention, as it is beyond the stuff used in the 80's. It was never upgraded with all the other armor until much later in the games development. And even that is limited.
The fluff in the Avenger dropship tells of the ship personnel having to release the clamps holding the furniture, and manually moving the stuff into the new position to clamp it back down. What was once a long corridor, has rungs on one side, so it becomes a ladder when the other drive/gravity is superior. The fact is, to keep things functional, you would have to redesign everything, and possibly have the table legs in the way when gravity is in 'reverse'.
And the last thing you want to have, is your command deck flipping over at the wrong time.
|
Requiem
03/21/21 08:01 PM
1.158.229.22
|
Just another article on the issue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_travel_using_constant_acceleration
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
Requiem
03/28/21 06:11 AM
1.158.229.22
|
Question?
Given the acceleration of a drop-ship and a warship – if a ship decides to run from a fight how can the battle continue?
Also if a ship is able to do small acceleration ‘jumps’ around a planet does any ship have the detection equipment available to even find them quickly within the system - and if they commit to such a strategy, and if given chase can’t they just accelerate ‘jump’ back.
With the acceleration and velocity available to any ship – all normal ordinance weaponry becomes absolutely-useless even at an extremely close range they could just accelerate out of the way – the only weapons that can engage such a vessel is one that has all energy weapons.
Thus the idea of normal naval engagements are now something completely different - who has the greatest range in detection equipment and who has the ability to speed up and slow down on a dime has the greatest advantage in any naval battle
Thoughts?
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
l0rDn0o8sKiLlZ
03/28/21 09:27 AM
73.216.131.208
|
- Wouldn't that speed be imparted to the ballistics as well? If my ship is moving 1,000 m/s across the Z plane and I fire my guns with a muzzle velocity of 1,000 m/s across the Y plane than my ballistic's velocity would be 1,000 m/s across the Z plane AND 1,000 m/s across the Y plane.
- How do they when you are shooting at them? Or where you are aiming to? What about a spread? Shouldn't any competent FCS be able to predict the enemies based on their demonstrated acceleration? And why around a planet? Gravity makes you go slower, if anything you'd want to be well away from a gravity well to do such a thing.
"Woad Raider, kill things today."
|
ghostrider
03/28/21 02:30 PM
66.74.60.165
|
Distance is the initial key for fleeing a combat if the other side wants to maintain it. Speed them becomes the over all factor. As ships do run from combat, it isn't the death matches most want to believe. Not only in the novels, but in the game scenarios, there are more then a few that say just that. A ship was successful fleeing a battle, and was trying to repair what it could.
The detection gear may well be a large part of why ships are able to flee from combat, especially when they are on the losing side.
The ordinance idea just depends on the speed of the vessels. Going 24 hexes a turn, may well be too great for ballistics, and maybe even missiles to hit another ship, especially at range. This is reflected in the to hit numbers of space battles. It is very rare to get a to hit number of even 4, as that requires high gunnery skill and a stationary object. SO there is some built in physics to this issue.
The issue of slowing down has been discussed, without artificial gravity, it isn't something that will evolve without turning the entire ship.
Detection would be a good jumping off point to a space battle, but not the end all. The speed and firepower is the major point, but not the only one. Skills and luck do come into the equation.
Let's see if I can explain the thing about ballistics in space. The shot would continue on it's trajectory at speed, but the enemy ship would be accelerating away from where it was, and this doesn't even consider any sort of turn. So the shot would look like it curved, even though it was still heading out straight from the point it left the barrel. Aiming in front of the ship is then the next argument, but depending on the speed, it still might not be enough, or bounce off the armor without doing damage.
Around a planet does not necessarily mean in the gravity well. But to be honest, having the attacker basically stationary as it tries to do anything benefits the defenders.
The key to this idea comes from speed itself. Even in space, shots only have a maximum speed they can travel, but will not slow down due to friction. So a muzzle speed of say 1000 fps will travel at that speed until gravity or impact changes it. Getting into sling shot effects is beyond the topic for this.
So your 18 k hex will cause lag time. This increases for each hex they are away from you. Lasers being the 'instant' flight weapon, yet trying to keep the focus on a single spot is the issue.
|
Requiem
04/10/21 08:45 PM
1.158.229.22
|
I have given up on the idea of having a ship with two drive plumes – one front and back and I now endorse a new theory.
Given that BattleMechs can move similar to a human – why not warships?
Why not design the ship so that the entire drive area is modular – it can move in an arc so that the engine etc can move through a 180 degree arc thereby slowing the ship down without the need to conduct a roll.
Also providing a ship with a moveable drive enables it to move at angles undreamt of by current warships – 1st to create such a ship will thus have a competitive advantage upon all others.
Also why not give them arms so that they can grapple with enemy ships – allow boarding actions etc
Why limit the design to a single modular form when the possibilities are expanded with the concept of arms and legs that a battleMech can employ.
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
ghostrider
04/10/21 09:34 PM
66.74.60.165
|
The big issue with the drives is ships interiors are not set up to handle the dramatic shifts in direction. The structure does have some issues, but nothing like the crew. Having the engine shift is much like having vector thrusters.
Otherwise, you might get more for less with just increasing the thrust of maneuvering thrusters. A full combat ship that doesn't have anything that has to be locked down is possible, but not realistic in the BT universe. Ammo being one main concept issue for almost any combat ship. Yes, all energy could fix this.
Supplies would be second.
For the grapple arms, it might be an idea to check out the Octopus tug. They do have the very thing you are suggesting, though it is a dropship. As the game does not really get into the process of grappling to board, there isn't a whole lot that can be said about it. Shuttles seem to be the main thing they want you to use. But getting a ship like the Octopus that can hold itself to a ship should not mean this way of boarding is impossible. It would be a good way to insure your transport doesn't leave if you have everyone on board try to take the enemy craft.
In the description, the Octopus, and the SL version, suggest they might well be used as such, as they fluff points out the lack of need for the large lasers they carry. I want to say 8 of them, but too lazy to look it up right now.
|
Wick
04/12/21 05:41 PM
173.247.25.195
|
I don't see any reason why grappling arms wouldn't work to "grab on to" another warship to help with boarding actions, but I question practicality. Are marines going to exit the boarding craft and enter the boarded craft through such a limb? That sounds risky and requires an overengineered grappling arm. Or will they still board by using small craft like the Shuttle or Bus or by attaching a dropship and walking through the airlock? Using a boarding craft or dropship kind of defeats the purpose of grappling arms.
It works in marine warfare because waves can toss two craft around and your boarding vessel may be a plank between the two, but I'm not sure it's as applicable to space combat.
Rather than to grab hold or provide a boarding entry method I find a better use for "arms" for a boarding dropship to be maneuverable enough to block the bay doors for aerospace craft to prevent escape or retaliation. Something like the Octopus, that used its arms to barricade the bay doors could be practical. It doesn't have to attach to anything, just float out there a few meters off the hull - nothing could launch or land without damage. The arm could be expendable, but an escapee wouldn't take the chance. And as close to the bay door that it was, it couldn't really be blown up without damaging the door and ruining the usefulness of the bay until repaired.
|
ghostrider
04/12/21 07:45 PM
66.74.60.165
|
The Octopus tells how they would do so. There is a docking collar on the ship that allows them to form a seal in the area it touches. As the ship is 'promoted' for rescue operations, this ability is stated so they can rescue people when the normal doors are an issue. What does get me with the fluff is the ship supposedly 'tows' another ship, though the nose of the Octopus is supposed to attach, with the arms being at the nose, and the engines are at the rear of the ship. Reverse, as towing would be, isn't possible if you look at the issues of thruster position, but that is a different thread.
So the boarders basically seal a spot on the hull of a ship, cut their way in, and do what they intend to do.
One potential use of a ship with arms, may well be to slow a ship, or cause it to constantly be moved out of position to fire properly, as shoving the nose in a direction would do. Much like the Hammerhead Corvette in Rogue One did to the Star Destroyer. The thrust for the Octopus is said to be very powerful in the fluff. I would think it is better then some of the side thrusters on most ships.
One more note, the fluff and novels tend to have people aboard ships out of space suits, so a nasty but effective way to remove resistance is to vent the air out, while invading with suited marines, such as power armor would allow. Boarding a ship that has a cargo door destroyed would not be a problem if done right. If forced to retreat, you simple break the sealed lock and vent those in the bay chasing your troops out of the ship.
|
Starhound
08/04/21 02:19 PM
78.80.114.39
|
Hello guys, and sorry for the thread necromancy
Quote:
I have given up on the idea of having a ship with two drive plumes – one front and back and I now endorse a new theory.
Given that BattleMechs can move similar to a human – why not warships?
Why not design the ship so that the entire drive area is modular – it can move in an arc so that the engine etc can move through a 180 degree arc thereby slowing the ship down without the need to conduct a roll.
Also providing a ship with a moveable drive enables it to move at angles undreamt of by current warships – 1st to create such a ship will thus have a competitive advantage upon all others.
Also why not give them arms so that they can grapple with enemy ships – allow boarding actions etc
Why limit the design to a single modular form when the possibilities are expanded with the concept of arms and legs that a battleMech can employ.
with the moveable drives you have exactly same problem as with two drives at the opposite sides of the ships. Your "UP" and "DOWN" directions switches. So your crew strapped into the chairs suddenly finds their chairs hainging from the ceiling, crewmembers not strapped find themselves falling down.
To put it short: Quote:
Down is parallel to thrust axis, in the direction the exhaust is traveling.
In theory, your idea of the moveable engine isn't impossible, but you'd also need to flip the bridge, engine room, living quarters... every room and corridor, or you'd need every station twice, mirrored on the floor and ceiling, and let the crew to change while engine is off for moving. It is doable, yes, but it is complicated, and it takes precisous space and weight you'd otherwise use for the cargo, propellant, weapon systems, supplies, whatever... Flipping the ship midway is just better.
P.S. I'd like to recommend you reading through excellent "Atomic Rockets" website, more specifically parts dealing with the torchships
|
|
|
Extra information
|
1 registered and 53 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie
Print Topic
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is enabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 16494
|
|
|
|
|
|
|