Prev: RE: Stellar Games? Re: UNSC fleet carrier design Next: RE: UNSC fleet carrier design - still getting it wrong!

Re: [FT] UNSC design

From: Charles Stanley Taylor <charles.taylor@c...>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 18:46:15 +0100
Subject: Re: [FT] UNSC design

In message <002701c02408$a1abc0e0$>
	  "Paul Radford" <> wrote:

> >> Not *my* UN committee!  ;-)
> >>
> >> Mk
> Nor mine!
> >Do you have any UN designs, I'd be interested in having a look, I
> >found many (which is why I'm designing my own - see 'lazy' comment
> >above!) since starting this project I've found some on Paul Radford's
> >website:
> >
> >
> Thanks for the plug! :)

You're welcome
> >Under his campaign section - they are a bit different, and he's
> >some with Railguns (like K-guns, but with a different SSD symbol).
> The ssd symbol represents the magnetic guides for the kinetic
penetrator and
> also indicates the fire arc.
> In retrospect, having done these designs, i was kind of conforming to
> physical miniatures having what looks to be something that could be
> described as a spinal mount. I wouldn't normally do something like
> especially using perceived launch doors to determine how many fighter
> a ship carries. There are no game mechanics to describe how fighters
> launched other than each fighter bay can launch its group in a single
> Is this accomplished from a single rapidly recycling launch tube or
> each fighter have its own door? In game turns, it doesn't really
> Everyone, including myself seems to like the UNSC miniature designs
> really, any official ssds would require something new or different in
> that they are not entirely based upon B1-4 's, P-torps and SMLs like
> ships. If by design, or by artistic license, the miniatures really do
> suggest spinal mount.

Well, I was chatting to Jon T. at colours, and he said something very
similar :-)

On this subject, have you seen the UNSC Deep-Range Explorer, the whole
forward hull looks like a giant weapons array!
> The main question is what do they represent? Something like a wave
gun? A
> "big laser" weapon? A plasma bolt "cannon"?
> New weapons need new rules and to hope that my designs could get some
> of acceptance, i went with something that already exsists and has been
> playtested extensively (unlike perhaps the wave gun or nova cannon
> <shudder!>). I thought maybe a kinetic enregy rail gun and as such
> based them on K-guns. Equally, i could have thought plasma bolt
> K-gun arrived in my brain first.

Hmm.. question to list - has anyone out there done any playtesting on
Wave Guns and Nova Cannon? I know some think they are too powerful,
while others think they are too weak!

On the subject of spinal mounts, I've been thinking about extra-heavy
versions of the Pulse Torpedo (doing 2d6, 3d6 etc. damage, perhapse
longer range brackets) but havn't come to any conclusions yet, - and I'm
sure I've seen a 'Heavy Pulse Torpedo' on the web somewhere, but I
cannot find it now :-(
Also, one of the WWW write-ups of the UNSC mention that the NAC
'aquired' the pulse torp concept from one of their officers tour of duty
with the UNSC :-)
> Experience has taught many of us that thrust 4 ships really are not
the best
> for single arc weapons (I get the impression that NAC ssds are quite
> unpopular) but where Tuffleyverse designs are concerned, doctrine is
> important. IMHO i think this is a good thing. If you don't like them
> you don't use them or redesign them. Real world navies have doctrines
> tend to adhere to based upon historical and geographical experience.
> Chinese navy for example is based upon littoral and coastal operations
> little experience of deep water operations. Until about 10 years ago
> (apologies if i got this time scale wrong), the US Navy was almost the
> opposite to this. Anyway, i digress.
> So, while not completely effective, a class 3 rail gun is on average,
> same as a p-torp with regards to damage it can cause. A class 4 rail
gun is
> more effective. Cost effectivness in terms of mass and points cost is
> addressed here. If the UNSC ships were to have a thrust of 6, then
> single arc effectiveness would increase.

You don't want to know the problems my modular thruster concept is
causing me, but I'll stick with it, for now :-)
> However, what could be done to make a rail gun, something a little
> from a k-gun and not just a copy. Here is my suggestion. Alternate
> ammunition types.
> -KP (Kinetic Penetrator) are a sheathed kinetic penetrator similar to
how i
> imagine K-gun rounds to be, and as such inflict damage in the same way
> k-guns.
> -KPI (Kinetic Penetrator,  Incendiary) are a penetrative round
designed to
> penetrate the hull, vapourising into directed plasma. This could
ignite the
> very structure of the ship (pyphoric effect) and create significant
> overpressure capable of blowing out whole hull sections. In game
> they would damage equal to rail gun class. Each subsequent turn, the
> will take two points of damage from the spreading incendiary effect
until it
> is dealt wth by damage control teams (as in the same way that Sa'Vasku
> pods are dealt with).

Hmm.. reminds me of the early versions of the Kra'vak K-guns I saw in
the list archives, that had both slug and shotgun modes.

> Again, i am not speculating on costs in terms of mass and points.
> the mass could be increased by 1 to cover the cost of alternate types?

I think thats a good question for the list :-)
> Comments?

Well, I still think the Sol class SDN-X should have some cargo space -
the design I'm working on swaps a fighter bay for a capacity 6 MASS
hanger bay, and uses the cargo bay as either a barracks for ground
troops, or a science bay (depending on mission profile).
> Cheers,
> Paul


Prev: RE: Stellar Games? Re: UNSC fleet carrier design Next: RE: UNSC fleet carrier design - still getting it wrong!