Incoming!! But how fast?

[whartung]

While HG2 doesn't explicitly mention managing EPs, the black globe, gee/agility limited to PP/M drive number, and emergency agility examples are all there. Seeing as most damage to power plants involves reducing the plant's rating rather then destroying the plant outright and seeing as we've energy requirements listed for weapons, shields, and computers, we should be juggling EPs as damage accrues.

Yea, it's a damage control problem, not a overall tactics issue because of cheap, abundant power. Power is simply not as constrained of a resource as it is in SFB. On large ships, the single largest consumer is the spinal, so taking that out of the fight empowers the bulk of the rest of the ship.

Even then, the power decisions are not interesting. Do you want to fire 3 50t Meson bays, or 100 factor 9 BLasers? That's almost no decision at all.

Finally, the M-Drive doesn't seem to have much of a EP requirement at all (nor the J-Drive, for that matter).

 

[flykiller]

Yea, it's a damage control problem, not a overall tactics issue

it's dc and overall tactics and design. it's ep management. for example I drew up one ship that has extra power generation, for 1) firing the beam lasers at double-shot and then 2) emergency jump power without maneuver reduction should the battle situation warrant it.

 

[mike wightman]

Yea, it's a damage control problem, not a overall tactics issue because of cheap, abundant power. Power is simply not as constrained of a resource as it is in SFB. On large ships, the single largest consumer is the spinal, so taking that out of the fight empowers the bulk of the rest of the ship.

The point Bill is making is that once battle is joined taking power plant hits reduces EP, but the rules as written don't allow you to track how you re-allocate the available EPs. Reducing the spinal weapon factor doesn't reduce the amount of EPs you have to use, even though it is now a reduced factor, nor can you decide to fire your spinal at a lower EP cost for a reduced factor - a true EP allocation system would make such things possible.

Even then, the power decisions are not interesting. Do you want to fire 3 50t Meson bays, or 100 factor 9 BLasers? That's almost no decision at all.

Depends on the target - if they are meson screened then you bays are worthless, if there is a flight of incoming missiles you would want the lasers.

Finally, the M-Drive doesn't seem to have much of a EP requirement at all (nor the J-Drive, for that matter).

Agility is the measure of the m-drive power requirement - if you want agility 6 you need a m-drive - 6 and a pp-6. If you want to maintain agility 6 then a pp-6 becomes the minimum you put in your ship. You then uprate the power plant to power the weapons, screens and computer.

 

[kilemall]

The point Bill is making is that once battle is joined taking power plant hits reduces EP, but the rules as written don't allow you to track how you re-allocate the available EPs. Reducing the spinal weapon factor doesn't reduce the amount of EPs you have to use, even though it is now a reduced factor, nor can you decide to fire your spinal at a lower EP cost for a reduced factor - a true EP allocation system would make such things possible.

Agreed- as written the rules have two power settings- 'blaze away with everything while moving at a crawl' and emergency agility 'run away while neglecting to power basic defensive systems'.

I don't think I would want to allow proportionate power settings on spinal weapons. The Wave Motion Gun gets powered, or it doesn't.

 

[kilemall]

Not done with this topic.

One of the issues I am dealing with and may have prompted the line-em-up Imperium resolution style of HG is resolving mass missile combat.

Missiles in flight using even SS3/minis style is several turns, that can add up to several times as many missile swarms to track as ships.

But if we turn SS3 missile design on it's head, think in terms of total burn worth as 30G for a standard warhead, then maybe we can get 1-2 turn resolution on average AND a longer range.

So my goal is to design three missile types, 30G1, 15G2 and 10G3, that should do much better tactically and operationally then the 5G6.

Since the formulas let you plug in Gs, the first pass looks doable but expensive.

 

[kilemall]

First try, found I could not quite fit in a 30G1 missile with a warhead.

I can get a 27G1 readily enough, but not the target.

So I changed my parameters and expectations.

Decided this was a snapshot dogfighting/antimissile missile, and that at the speeds it is attaining I don't NEED a warhead. It will be a kinetic impactor, contact damage alone with the 1 hit per 3G closing speeds rule.

That lets me ditch both the warhead AND the detonator, 11kg to play with.

I'm a big fan of multiple sensors to make the countermeasures tougher, so at least two- IR and Radio. IR in particular for antimissile work.

Controller 300cr 3kg
IR 800cr 1kg
Radio 400cr 1kg

Continuous Burn is cheaper but a weight hog, this missile isn't lasting long enough for Discretionary Burn to be worth it, so Limited Burn it is.

I'm going for a high G count, so we'll try 35Gs, use the proportionate weight rule and see what we get.

Casing-35LB 10,500cr 40kg
Fuel- 7,000cr 1 kg

That's 46kg, so 50:46 x 35 = 38G

So.

The standard dogfighter missile is a kinetic kill missile with no detonator or warhead, has a Limited Burn 38G1 propulsion rating, has IR and radar/radio homing, and costs 19,000 Cr.

Assuming a zero vee target, it will deliver 12 hits of damage near the end of it's run.

In practice I would determine what G the missile was at at time of impact, so it could be much less. For instance, if the impact occurred on the first third of the missile's run, it would be going say 12Gs and only deliver 4 hits on a zero vee target.

 

[mike wightman]

Won't work at short range.
You keep conflating acceleration with velocity. Vector damage is due to acquired velocity not acceleration rating.

If you fire your 27g missile at a target 3 hexes/300mm/3"/3 range bands away you get one point of damage plus one point of damage per 300mm etc of vector of your target towards you.

 

[kilemall]

Won't work at short range.
You keep conflating acceleration with velocity. Vector damage is due to acquired velocity not acceleration rating.

If you fire your 27g missile at a target 3 hexes/300mm/3"/3 range bands away you get one point of damage plus one point of damage per 300mm etc of vector of your target towards you.

I will continue to use the term 3G for 'acquired velocity' AND acceleration, it's a handy term to discuss both. i.e. at 1/3 the run of 38G during a turn it's acquired 12G vee and therefore will deliver 4 points of damage, as opposed to it's full potential 12 hits.

Probably better to just talk 30000 km and let the user translate the mechanics into their movement resolution system.

I have no warhead in it so it doesn't do the initial 1 point you define, just the +1 hits per 300mm velocity. A warhead would do a minimum of 2 points damage anyway.

I made the point about less damage up close already, so I don't know what you think you are teaching me here about the parameters of the weapon.

And properly speaking it's the relative closing velocity, not missile vee plus target vee.

If the missile AND target are closing on each other, then yes it would be calculated something like that (properly adding both vees together then dividing by 300mm/3G/30,000km etc.).

If the missile is chasing a target then the target's vee would be subtracted from the missile's vee, lowering the damage.

 

[mike wightman]

I said a target at 300mm - that's one point of damage from velocity vector.

I also said +1 point of damage per 300mm of vector towards you - which is relative closing velocity as you say.

I don't mean to coma across as snarky over this.

If you don't stress vector over g rating you will have some people thinking a 30g missile will inflict 10 damage at any range, rather than based on relative velocity vectors.