| By David Kass (Dkass) on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 04:39 pm: Edit |
Spinal (Narrow) Mount Heavy Weapons
he basic idea is that maneuverable (especially nimble) ships can use
their maneuverability to aim their weapons instead of relying on
mounts with broad firing arcs. The removal of the aiming hardware
would then free up sufficient "space" to add extra weapons.
The general mechanic is that the ship's heavy weapons are replaced
with ones with mauler-like firing arcs in a one to two exchange. Or,
another way to put it would be that the ship doubles the number of
heavy weapons, but the all have mauler-like weapon arcs. The ships do
not suffer from shock, unless it previously suffered shock. The
energy, arming cycle, damage from each weapon doesn't change.
The mauler-like firing arc (denoted M+ on the SSD?) is the mauler arc
(E8.23) out to range 10. The 5 hex columns that can be targeted at
range 10 are then extended to the weapon's maximum range. If
the ship is using (E8.27), then the arc extends along parallel hex
spines (varying between 3 and 4 hexes wide), it does NOT continue as a
widening wedge.
Spinal/Narrow Mount wapons can be distinguished from standard weapons
at Tactical Intelligence level I (their existence might be revealed
earlier by the total number of heavy weapons).
The concept was generally introduced during the 4-Powers War Era
(Y158-Y162), but this varied from race to race and weapon to weapon.
Photon (concept) Y159
Disruptor Y160 (The concept was introduced as early as Y157, but the
research did not succeed until later).
Plasma-F Y173
Fusion Y162
Hellbore Y169
TRL Beam (conjectural) Y172
PPD never (since they are only mounted on larger ships, the ISC never
considered a spinal version).
Particle Cannon (concept) Y184
There are a number of special cases as shown on the SSDs (for example,
the FX disruptor on the Lyran DW is not replaced).
The only plasma torpedo to be "spinalized" is the F-torp. In this
case, it is treated as a fixed mount (always launching in direction 1
relative to the firing ship), but the tracking arc is the mauler-like
firing arc. Spinal F-torps do not have stasis boxes--their size
prevented the doubling of the number of launchers. An F-torp in a
Spinal F-torp launcher has a 1 point holding cost. [This was added
after considering a spinally equipped SEA.]
In general, the designs had a significant number of problems and while
a few ships were so equipped, most considered the concept a failure.
There are a few exceptions. The Klingon research did eventually lead
to the X-disruptor.
The first problem is engineering. In a number of occasions the
desired miniturization was not possible (either the weapon in general
or a specific weapon mount). This "excuse" could be used to make all
the ships conjectural.
The second type of problem that doomed many of the designs are
tactical issues. The two main ones are the inability to get the
weapons in arc and the lack of power to actually use all of them when
the target is in arc. A number of other ships/races have specific
tactical/doctrinal issues.
I'm currently going through the R-sections choosing ships to receive spinal mounted weapons. The basic approach is common size class 4 ships with an A or better turn mode, excluding Police ships. From looking at a few, 1/3 movecost ships end up with too little power.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 04:44 pm: Edit |
Could just say the ship in question cannot have turned on the impulse of fire.
| By David Kass (Dkass) on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 04:54 pm: Edit |
Loren, are you suggesting an added restriction? If not, I'm confused by your comment.
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 08:50 pm: Edit |
Sorry, I meant that in place of the Maneuver class. That is any ship could have it, not just highly maneuverable ship but to reflect some need to focus the meneuver to aiming then restrict ships from being able to fire during other maneuvers; such as any sort of turn. You could not HET and fire in the same impulse for instance. Or even a normal turn. Any impulse where you have moved straight (or not at all) is available to fire this type of weapon.
| By David Kass (Dkass) on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 11:17 pm: Edit |
Thanks for the explanation. I was thinking of the size restriction as a doctrine issue, not a physical limitation (I've worked up a D6 version I've been experimenting with). So I'd let any race that "wants to" to make the switch on a CW or cruiser. Based on my limited experience with the idea, cruisers don't do that well--the opponent drops its #1 and then guts it before the weapons are effective.
What I've found is that a ship needs about a 2 TM advantage to effectively bring the weapons to bear. This usually means a TM A frigate maneuvering against an TM C CA in a squadron action...
In duels, the spinally armed ship seems to maneuver for a close range hack and slash with full overloads aiming for a decisive edge. It then comes down to whether it gets the shot before being crippled...
I guess I'm reluctant to add additional maneuvering restrictions--the narrow arc is bad enough as is. Now if playtesting says more is needed, a maneuver restriction like you propose sounds good.
Edit: fixed to say TM where correct (thx Loren)
| By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 11:38 pm: Edit |
You mean "TM A Frigate" and "TM C CA"?
Also, I assume these ships can use Directed Turn Modes?
| By David Kass (Dkass) on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 11:45 pm: Edit |
Yep, directed modes can be used. But remember this is a game long decision (with free movement, I've always found that the turn restrictions outweigh the extra arcs, but YMMV)...
| By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 12:53 am: Edit |
When do you see phasers becoming spinal mountable?
Fed spinal CA - base? what base?
Hydran spinal Ranger - in return for needing range 0-1 centerlined, it gets twice the number of fusion beams...
I'm generally very wary of this concept as a general rule/refit. Wouldn't mind a specialised class or two.
Fighters get FA arcs, so the equipment to traverse an arc can't be that massive. But fighter physical size is magic anyway.
The first warp powered ship with such a limited arc is the Rom Falcon. They thought it useful enough with turn mode D to build several, so turn mode need not be a huge criterion.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 02:21 am: Edit |
Quote:The mauler-like firing arc (denoted M+ on the SSD?) is the mauler arc (E8.23) out to range 10. The 5 hex columns that can be targeted at range 10 are then extended to the weapon's maximum range. If the ship is using (E8.27), then the arc extends along parallel hex spines (varying between 3 and 4 hexes wide), it does NOT continue as a widening wedge.
Quote:The first problem is engineering. In a number of occasions the
desired miniturization was not possible (either the weapon in general
or a specific weapon mount). This "excuse" could be used to make all
the ships conjectural.
Quote:Could just say the ship in question cannot have turned on the impulse of fire.
| By William Curtis Soder (Ghyuka) on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 03:39 pm: Edit |
Instead of doubling the weapons, I'd think that the weapons increase should only be by a third. I really doubt that the aiming hardware would take up that much space to justify doubling the mount. Also as an alternative, all of these heavy weapons must be mounted in the same place toward the center of ship.
| By David Kass (Dkass) on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 09:27 pm: Edit |
Andrew, I guess I wasn't clear. It isn't intended as a general refit, but a number of specific ships for each race.
I don't see phasers ever going spinal (at least not for standard alpha quadrant races--they're needed for SW defense).
Fed CA--yea I came yo the same realization. See my next message...
Ranger--I'm still looking at the Hydrans. Given that fusion beams have a suicide overload, I'm not sure spinal fusions are really worthwhile (available power becomes a significant limit). Also, the Ranger fusions are split arcs and may not be convertable (tecnobabble to avoid the problem) or it might end up with split arcs and shock (due to not actually being along the ship's length).
The Falcon is a mauler and I've found them to be less arc dependent since half the time their contribution is due to their reserve power. In a few cases I'm looking beyond TM A ships.
MJC wrote,
Its a possibility, but it would end up making the ships useless in fleets (which usually engage at long ranges). And fleets are one of the places where these ships seem to be interesting (in that most can usefully fire standard loads, but not overloads).
Quote:Alternately you could just say the the ship's navigational computer ( which is now control firecontrol ) can not target size class 1 or smaller object at ranges greater than R10 and thus keep the Mauler diagram as is.
I don't understand why you feel they would have to fire on the same impulse. This especially for ships like the FWN that have two independent mounts (one on each warp engine).
Quote:I can't see the weapon working unless one also requires that all the spinal-weapons fired on the same impulse be rolled in the same Narrow Volley.
1/3 increase is messy. Most small ships have 2 heavy weapons, so would see no gain. Even at 3:2, too many ships have their two weaopns mounted separately, giving them no benifits. Also, based on (limited) playtesting, 2:1 seems to be what is needed to make the ships interesting and fight differently from normal ships. Further playtesting could change this and chane the replacement ratio.
Quote:Instead of doubling the weapons, I'd think that the weapons increase should only be by a third. I really doubt that the aiming hardware would take up that much space to justify doubling the mount. Also as an alternative, all of these heavy weapons must be mounted in the same place toward the center of ship.
| By David Kass (Dkass) on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 09:32 pm: Edit |
Starting on the individual races and their specific conversions. These are sufficiently similar to the standard hulls I haven't done any SSDs (I also don't have a good way of doing SSDs).
Federation
SFF Spinal Frigate
This design never went beyond early simulator studies. The basic hull
was just not sufficiently maneuverable to ever bring the photons to
bear. It also made the DD look over-powered when trying to hold or
load overloaded photons. Y159 CJ, has 4 photons
SFFG Spinal Improved Frigate
The simulator SFF was updated with the '+' refit primarily because the
design was sometimes used as a surprise for cocky cadets. Y162 CJ,
has 4 photons
SNC Spinal New Cruiser
As the alliance prepared to go on the offensive, the SNC was
considered as a base buster. It was assummed that the narrow arc
would not be a problem against a stationary target. Unfortunately,
when the concept was developped, it was found that the shape of the
photon arming chamber could not be modified and at best three spinal
photons could replace a pair of standard photons. With only 6
photons possible, no ship was ever converted. Y177, UNV has 6 photons
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 10:07 pm: Edit |
Quote:I don't understand why you feel they would have to fire on the same impulse. This especially for ships like the FWN that have two independent mounts (one on each warp engine).
Quote:Requiring narrow salvoes would make sense. I'd be concerned that it would be too limiting and make the ships too luck dependent to be fun. I can technobabble allowing them to be independent by firing at slightly different times (nanoseconds apart) as the ship tries to keep them aligned.
Quote:Even at 3:2, too many ships have their two weaopns mounted separately, giving them no benifits.
| By William Curtis Soder (Ghyuka) on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 02:36 am: Edit |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
1/3 increase is messy. Most small ships have 2 heavy weapons, so would see no gain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increasing heavy weapon damage output by 50% is a dramatic change for any ship. I don't know about you but getting hit by 3 fully overloaded photons from a frigate is worse than 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Even at 3:2, too many ships have their two weaopns mounted separately, giving them no benifits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's only because we envision two different versions of a spinal mounting. I'm looking at it as reloacating the heavy weapons towards the center of the ship and aiming them by aiming the ship. You are looking at is as doubling the existing mounting and restricting the firing arc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Note that it is quite difficult to actually end a turn with an uncooperating target in the mauler arc beyond range 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funny, after years of running maulers and/or a megaphaser equiped ship, I've never really had too much of a problem with this. Either that or I accepted this as a tradeoff for my better damage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Most of the ships I've experimented with have had power issues meaning they either maneuver or fully arm their weapons (and if not fully arming their weapons they end up being weaker versions of the base hull).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to the world of frigates and destroyers. They almost never seem to have enough power, especially overgunned ones.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
think a tank turret size relative to the size of the main gun
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First off, that would depend on which tank you were using as a comparison since some of those gun barrels are pretty big. Keep in mind that a lot of a turret has nothing to do with targeting hardware. If not needing to hold a gunner and tank commander in it, you could probably make that sucker a whole lot smaller.
| By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 01:21 pm: Edit |
A phaser spinal mount could be a neat "perk" for a ship.
We already have in the game phaser 1's and 2's (arguably similar mounts, witht the same energy cost to arm, but different targeting systems.
there are the phaser 3 defense phasers.
a fixed aperture phaser 4 mount where the whole ship has to be "aimed" to hit the target might qualify as a 'heavy weapon'.
too bad phaser 4's cant be mounted on ships.
Oh wait. didnt the Juggernaught have phaser 4's?!?
| By Bruce A. Campbell (Ltlsoup) on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 03:00 pm: Edit |
Make the MegaPhaser a spinal mount weapon. add 4 to 6 boxes of armor to protect the ship from the heavy radiation. You lose the armor you take damage from your own weapon.
| By William Curtis Soder (Ghyuka) on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 03:22 pm: Edit |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
a fixed aperture phaser 4 mount where the whole ship has to be "aimed" to hit the target might qualify as a 'heavy weapon'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mega-Phasers fit this bill, Jeff
| By David Kass (Dkass) on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 08:52 pm: Edit |
MJC, sorry for misunderstanding what you wrote. If this goes with requiring narrow salvoes, I certainly won't bring mounting points into it. KISS will apply and it will either be normal weapons fire or apply to all spinal weapons fired that impulse--no fancy new rules. Right now I'm going to leave the issue open for playtesting (I can technobabble it either way).
As far as the arming cost, much like the Fed DD, the ship can always only arm some of the weapons. In my limited testing, the extreme power issues are part of the fun and differences (these ships can almost completely trade speed for firepower).
William wrote,
I agree and that is the reward for getting the target in the arc while having the power to arm the weapons (although with photons, its more like 2 hitting instead of 1).
Quote:Increasing heavy weapon damage output by 50% is a dramatic change for any ship. I don't know about you but getting hit by 3 fully overloaded photons from a frigate is worse than 2.
I should mention I regularly play small ships and these make normal small ships feel overpowered--its another level of issues. Unlike maulers and mega-phasers (that come with extra power), these ships have massive power problems (only holding fully overloaded photons approaches mega-phaser damage/power ratios and holding photons has its own problems). Even if they manage to end the turn in a firing position, they usually still find themselves trading firepower for EW. I find these much more difficult to use than maulers. I haven't played much with mega-phasers, but they don't weaken the rest of the ship's weaponry. I'd be interested in hearing of any tests of spinal weapon armed ships (the Klingon F5N is interesting).
Quote:Welcome to the world of frigates and destroyers. They almost never seem to have enough power, especially overgunned ones.
Redesigning ships from the keel up strikes me as a bad proposition in that it is too much effort for the gain and the result would be no spinal ships at all. Also note that most Klingon ships don't have a good central location to mount forward facing weapons (the nose of the boom seems too fragile).
Quote:That's only because we envision two different versions of a spinal mounting. I'm looking at it as reloacating the heavy weapons towards the center of the ship and aiming them by aiming the ship. You are looking at is as doubling the existing mounting and restricting the firing arc.
| By David Kass (Dkass) on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 08:57 pm: Edit |
Klingons
This concept seems particularly Klingonish, thus the number of designs they considered/converted.
E3N Narrow Beam E3
The E3N was the ship for which the Klingons developped the narrow beam
disruptor. While the E3N could generally bring its disruptors to
bear, it was already unerpowered with two disruptors. The two that
were converted were soon lost in combat when they stopped to try to
fire all four disruptors. Y160, 4 disruptors
F5N Narrow beam F5
The F5N was the second Klingon attempt to field narrow beam
disruptors. Not being nimble, the F5N had a more difficult time
bringing its disruptors to bear, but at least when it did they could
all (barely) be fired. A small number of F5N were kept in service
(receiving the B and K refits with other F5) until Y180 (when the last
was lost in combat). They were usually used in fleets, but were
sometimes encountered on solo patrols. Y162, 4 disruptors.
NF5C/NF5L
The Klingons considered mounting narrow beam disruptors on an F5C to
make use of its "extra" power. No ship was ever converted.
Apparently this was primarily due to the Klingons considering narrow
beam disruptors fleet weapons (they give flanking light ships the
ability to hurt their target) while viewing the F5C's role as leading
independent F5 squadrons. Y164, 4 disruptors, UNV.
FWN Narrow Beam F5W
Two FWN were built to replace the lost F5N. They were considered
fleet support ships. In the FWN, the original concept actually became
useful, since the FWN actually had sufficient power to fire all the
disruptors and move. Plans to convert many (or even all) F5W to FWN
never occurred due to the end of the war. Y180, 4 disruptors.
ND6 Narrow Beam Battlecruiser
One D6 was converted to use narrow beam disruptors. The ship was kept
on the Federation front, primarily on independent patrols. It was
intended to use its superior maneuverability to attack and destroy
lone CA due to its much higher crunch power. The concept never quite
worked (although it was a nasty surprise for at least on Federation
Captain). During the Federation invasion, it became the "poor fleet's
mauler." Badly damaged in Operation Nutcracker, it was repaired as a
standard D6K. It received both the B and K refits. Y163, 8
disruptors.
| By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 11:32 pm: Edit |
Hmmmm.
A Fed DD that replaces 4 photons with 4 ph-1 FA, then installs 6 photons on a spinal mount with a mauler arc?
The heck with the torpedos.
Just give me 8 ph-1 on a SC 4 ship.
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 12:34 am: Edit |
D.Kass:
It's okay I just thought your interpretation of what I wrote was WAY out of left feild.
As to Narrow Volleys...yeah, keep it simple and require a narrow salvo for any and all spinal mounted weapons fired that impulse.
Technobable would be when your ships navigational computer points you ship at the target, all spinal mounted weapon fire parrallel to eachother and either all miss or all hit.
Throwing in a SC rule would be a lot of extra work for little gain ( although it would explain why this was mounted on more frigates than cruisers ).
Also note, UIM ( and possibly Derfacs if not restricted to R10 ) can not be used to fire the Disruptors ( although perhaps a UIM mode designed to aid and enhance the navigational computer could be fun ).
Quote:Hmmmm.
A Fed DD that replaces 4 photons with 4 ph-1 FA, then installs 6 photons on a spinal mount with a mauler arc?
The heck with the torpedos.
Just give me 8 ph-1 on a SC 4 ship.
| By Jeff Tonglet (Blackbeard) on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 12:55 am: Edit |
8 ph-1 in a spinal mount? and no photons? Why?
| By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 06:54 pm: Edit |
Because an MC 0.5 ship with 15 warp engine boxes can't really move and arm four photons let alone six or eight of the buggers.
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 07:18 pm: Edit |
Cross-posted from Scary Ships:
The Seige Tug
| By David Kass (Dkass) on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 10:30 am: Edit |
I've been trying to avoid "base busting" spinal units because there doesn't seem to be a real tactical tradeoff. They're just better due to the extra weapons (and no more difficult to use--every ship has a maneuver advantage against a base and low speeds/stopping are much less of an issue).
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |
