Starships - Are We Bringing Enough Guns?

[aramis]

For point defence in space combat the argument would be that they lack range. For use on the ground, B4 didn't have any rules for spaceships, HG was about major ships having it out in deep space, and Striker could've had such rules, but presumably Frank thought them a poor use of word count - not really on topic, and if someone wanted to add a small gun to a space ship they could whip up some rules easily enough - at the time of publication (1981) people doing that was the norm, after all.

Note that striker was post-81, and the rules for personal scale vs ships in s7 make bk4 weapons, even the rpz, pretty useless at ship scale.

 

[Grav_Moped]

While it's explicit that B2 designs do not need a powerplant to jump, I see nothing in HG79 as to why the HG designs require a powerplant.

HG'79 was the start of the Pn=Jn design requirement, and HG's jump drives were substantially smaller than those in LBB2.

(Edit: something something starship operators supplement, of which I lack a copy. Someone'll comment on it I'm sure.)

 

[aramis]

HG'79 was the start of the Pn=Jn design requirement, and HG's jump drives were substantially smaller than those in LBB2.

Also, lbb2-81 required pn >= jn.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Also, lbb2-81 required pn >= jn.

Yes. I've assumed this was to align with LBB5 (both), while not changing anything else about the formulae in LBB2 from '77 so as to maintain backward compatibility.

J-drive should be smaller; it isn't, but LBB2 power plants don't improve by TL so there's little reason to change that. 10Pn fuel requirement is unchanged from '77, just redefined as "4 weeks" (to align with LBB5) from "one trip" (of any duration) in '77. As in '77, LBB2 uses power plant fuel allocation as the tonnage constraint on maneuver capability (LBB5 used the maneuver drive and power plant tonnage directly for that).

 

[aramis]

Yes. I've assumed this was to align with LBB5 (both), while not changing anything else about the formulae in LBB2 from '77 so as to maintain backward compatibility.

J-drive should be smaller; it isn't, but LBB2 power plants don't improve by TL so there's little reason to change that. 10Pn fuel requirement is unchanged from '77, just redefined as "4 weeks" (to align with LBB5) from "one trip" (of any duration) in '77. As in '77, LBB2 uses power plant fuel allocation as the tonnage constraint on maneuver capability (LBB5 used the maneuver drive and power plant tonnage directly for that).

Bk2 is roughly 2.5% per Jn and 1.5% per Pn, and 1% per Mn. The tables actually make it slightly better at larger tonnages...
I like Bk2 because of tons of system per hit.

I do wish MT had maintained Bk5 ship design (it's ratings compatible, but not design compatible.)

 

[Enoki]

The fewer, bigger weapons are what kill ships vs just make noise.

Small weapons for small ships, big weapons for big ships, and since fighters "don't work" (because they only mount small weapons which don't kill ships), there's little need for small weapons to fight off clouds of fighters.

Ergo, fewer, but bigger weapons.

Exactly. In High Guard, you can build an "All or Nothing" battleship. That is, you max out the armor and other protection, mount a single spinal mount of the largest size that will fit, give it enough power plant to move and shoot. The result is that anything less than a higher end spinal mount has ZERO effect against it. Putting all those smaller turrets on a ship is a total waste of money.

Think of this design as the "Space Carrot" in STTOS.