Should we have spinal mount weapons besides Rail Guns?

[Colt Ward]

Pretty simple question, for settings with ships designed like BTU's they tend to have spinal mount weapons.  Sure they have turret/broadside light/med/heavy weapons of a class, but then it steps up to a spinal mount to give a weapon a bit more room and protection along the keel though a restricted firing arc forward.

[worktroll]

I'm an old High Guard player, so the idea of spinal mounts is nothing I have problems with.

I'd say that they'd be the "next stage" technology in BT naval architecture. BT physics doesn't tend to go exotic like meson beams; while the maths is dodgy, the materials science is very much "yes, but more" of current physics. Plus the state of cybertechnology appears less advanced than current 'real world' - mainly in terms of miniaturisation.

Perhaps the Star League might have gotten there, had it not had that minor unpleasantness. Perhaps something based on HPG/Jump technology might have come along, rather than exotic particle weapons. But the current game future doesn't look great for that sort of R&D being prioritised.

Would make a great campaign hook. The Lyrans are working on a Capital Gauss spinal mount throwing doorknobs the size of dropships, the Capellans on WarShip Stealth, the Kuritans on a spinal Uber PPC mount that can carve the coordinator's face on a moon. the Feddies on the Rotary Capital Autocannon spinal mount, etc ;)

[Colt Ward]

Yeah, my initial idea was that it would be buried along the core and you would look at something like a 1.2 modifier for damage but a 1.25 modifer for weight/crit/heat.  Harder to crit from the sides but easier from the nose?  Mostly I was thinking of Spinal NPPC.

Of course, I also wonder about such mounts for DS, both Spheriod & Aerodyne which would keep it in line with the post-Jihad paradigm shift.

[Luciora]

Aaah, I miss RL:Leviathan for that reason.  Different sized spinal mounts to choose from depending on the class of the ship and building around that.  Even wanted to design a carrier with a spinal mount, because it was prohibited.

[Maingunnery]

The Mass Driver is a ballistic Spinal Mount so that is covered, but I can see the value of a PPC variant.

[Colt Ward]

The Mass Driver is also out of scale from the NAC & Naval Gauss though?

[Maingunnery]

The Mass Driver is also out of scale from the NAC & Naval Gauss though?

Out of scale?

[Daryk]

Wondering the same thing as MainGunnery… Mass Drivers exist, and are spinal mounts...

[Colt Ward]

Hrm, rail guns was the wrong term- was thinking of something else.  But yeah, the Mass Drivers . . . we have a light/med/heavy mass driver IIRC, so they are not simply scaled up versions of a Heavy Naval Gauss but their own group of weapons.

[glitterboy2098]

The Mass Driver is a ballistic Spinal Mount so that is covered, but I can see the value of a PPC variant.

macross or yamato?

[Retry]

Hrm, rail guns was the wrong term- was thinking of something else.  But yeah, the Mass Drivers . . . we have a light/med/heavy mass driver IIRC, so they are not simply scaled up versions of a Heavy Naval Gauss but their own group of weapons.

I believe the mass drivers are fluffed as basically big, primitive versions of gauss rifles.

[Maingunnery]

macross or yamato?

Macross of course.

[Jellico]

How hard do you want your science?

The issue with spinal mounts is fine aiming. Nobody does a fixed forward firing weapon for a reason.

Next we have to ask how good our targeting systems are? I would have to say pretty awful. When I see a Mech based around one big weapon I think target because the odds are against me getting hit. I will literally turn my back on a Hunchback. That is how confident I am.

Then I am going to ask. Sure I can run a battleship scale spinal mount stem to stern, but can I run half a dozen destroyer scale spinal mounts port to starboard?

[The_Caveman]

I think we're asking the wrong questions.

What problem would an axial cannon solve that isn't already solved by the solutions that are available? I can't think of one.

Naval combat at WarShip scale is already a game of smashing eggs with sledgehammers. No WarShip design, unless deliberately under-gunned, can withstand its own broadside for more than a turn or two. Most of the canon ones are best off hiding at the extreme range bracket because they'll evaporate if engaged in close. There is no big, massively-armored target that needs a giant special weapon to crack it.

The only case where the axial mount makes sense is as a way to put direct-fire capital weapons on DropShips. DropShips actually have an argument for needing the range and single-shot firepower of a capital cannon, with the restriction of being limited to a single such weapon, and they don't have a KF drive to get in the way of installing it. And, being smaller, DropShips actually have the maneuverability needed to point the weapon at a target.

[Luciora]

It's simpler to house rule a nose only mounting for a singular Capital grade weapon based off tonnage then, rather than create a whole new weapon class, as capital class weapons are prohibited on dropships to begin with.  And I don't mean SubCaps.

The only case where the axial mount makes sense is as a way to put direct-fire capital weapons on DropShips. DropShips actually have an argument for needing the range and single-shot firepower of a capital cannon, with the restriction of being limited to a single such weapon, and they don't have a KF drive to get in the way of installing it. And, being smaller, DropShips actually have the maneuverability needed to point the weapon at a target.

[Colt Ward]

DS can mount capital missiles . . .

Good points The_Caveman . . . but while that applied to some warships, we have others that are a bit tougher depending on era.  For Jellico's points, I guess I need to play around with the Soyal to see how it works out.

[Luciora]

I knew there was an exception, forgot what it was.

[The_Caveman]

while that applied to some warships, we have others that are a bit tougher depending on era

Only a few. Outside of the Leviathan super-battleships (of which there were only ever what, two?) there is nothing in canon that can't be threshed by a single 70 FF weapon bay. Even a Mjolnir's front armor is penetrable to a quad Heavy NPPC mount.

This is your other possible niche for axial cannons: getting around the arbitary 70 FF cap on the size of a single weapon bay without having to use a nuke. But there is so little in-universe that even merits having such a capability that I would classify it as a solution in search of a problem.

[Jellico]

DS can mount capital missiles . . .

Good points The_Caveman . . . but while that applied to some warships, we have others that are a bit tougher depending on era.  For Jellico's points, I guess I need to play around with the Soyal to see how it works out.

Just for clarity I wasn't referring to the Soyal's mass driver. It has a number of rules that the spinal mount mafia would want removed.


If the thresholds don't get a heavily armoured ship the natural 12s will. When you draw fire like a capital ship 12s aren't rare any more.

[Retry]

Other than the "rule of cool", I'd imagine a spinal mount built into the hull would be lighter, cheaper, and less vulnerable than a turreted mount.

[Col Toda]

Think I seen a conjectural one wrote up by Adam Gratun one of the writer"s of the Jade Falcon Sourcebook . It seems that the Navel PPC has Damage : Heat : tonnge have  uniform ratios  along all examples so he disigned a PPC one .  Ask Herb Beas he might still have the submission ?

[Intermittent_Coherence]

My thoughts exactly The Caveman.

Frankly, the rule against Dropships mounting full scale capital weapons is almost entirely game design fiat.
There's literally no justification for it. Or rather every excuse against it can easily countered by appropriate construction penalties. If recoil was an issue, add a minimum requirement for SI, for heat, add heatsinks, etc. Even the mass of these capital scale weapons isn't game breaking for the designs typically used as pocket warships.

[Col Toda]

The Naval PPC is the Only Capital Energy Weapon that has an obvious solution for a Spinal Mount . No others do . It is Work to develop any game . Any and all arguments against doing so : none is as valid it ditracts from the ground pounding mech fights . If they introduce a spinal mount and it bug zaps drop ships before they land then they is no mech fight . Boring . Probably the reason it was not introduced sooner or at all .

[idea weenie]

One alternate idea was a circular particle accelerator style NPPC, that would be a waist gun rather than spinal gun.  It also required the ship to maneuver to aim it at a target

Other than the "rule of cool", I'd imagine a spinal mount built into the hull would be lighter, cheaper, and less vulnerable than a turreted mount.

The argument about why BA weaponry is smaller than Mech weaponry would be useful.

BA weaponry is smaller because the whole platform (the BA) handles all the turning and aiming of the weapon, while a Mech has to include motors/myomers to maneuver the weapon

A similar rule for Spinal weaponry would be that you get the weapon at half mass, but have to spend thrust to aim the weapon at a target.  Plus some other limit to the number of targets the ship can engage each turn?

[HABeas2]

Think I seen a conjectural one wrote up by Adam Gratun one of the writer"s of the Jade Falcon Sourcebook . It seems that the Navel PPC has Damage : Heat : tonnge have  uniform ratios  along all examples so he disigned a PPC one .  Ask Herb Beas he might still have the submission ?

Nope. Never even heard of it.

- Herb

[The_Caveman]

The rules for large spacecraft in BT just don't have the proper sort of rock-paper-scissors relationship between armor, speed, and firepower to really justify the concept of one ship class being an impenetrable armored hulk while another is a glass cannon with a BFG that is the only weapon that can crack that armor.

Every combat ship in BT plays more or less the same. Axial cannons demand a much more dynamic relationship between ship categories. Otherwise they are destined to walk an extremely fine line between ridiculously overpowered and practically useless. Aside from "bigger is better" there is simply no payoff to using an axial cannon when a bunch of regular nose-mounted cannons would do the same job. But bigger would need to be much better, which would threaten to squeeze conventional weapons out.

If gameplay were substantially different, perhaps in the sense of "threshold hits are the only hits that matter", there might be an opening for huge single weapons that allow ships of smaller classes to punch vastly above their weight in exchange for all the restrictions of an axial mount.

[Talen5000]

My thoughts exactly The Caveman.

Frankly, the rule against Dropships mounting full scale capital weapons is almost entirely game design fiat.
There's literally no justification for it. Or rather every excuse against it can easily countered by appropriate construction penalties. If recoil was an issue, add a minimum requirement for SI, for heat, add heatsinks, etc. Even the mass of these capital scale weapons isn't game breaking for the designs typically used as pocket warships.

Easy enough  to explain away.


Test Bed Alpha 1 was a Smoke Jaguar experimental vessel. Based on an Overlord chassis, its main claim to fame was the Class 10 naval grade cannon around which it had been built.

Test firing of the system took place at the Test fire range at the Artemis asteroid cluster. The weapon successfully fired and hit its target, but the recoil of firing caused the DropShips internal structure to collapse and fold in on itself.

Faced with the Khan's wrath, the scientist team involved persuaded him to grant another chance. This time, the scientist team involved removed any chance of recoil by installing a light naval grade laser. This time, only 35% of the DropShips internal structure melted as it proved unable to cope with the thermal energies generated by the firing.  Indeed, later investigations showed that if the power links had not been severed by heat, the entire vessel would have been lost.

Fieros Folly, as the tests became known, were not a total loss. They proved that DropShips lacked both the mass to absorb the recoil of capital grade weapons, and the mass to act as a thermal sink. In doing so, the need for a spine to absorb and redistribute the energies involved throughout the entire vessel was proven.


However, you do speak truth. There is little real need to have such separate construction systems for similar vessels. In that, I do agree.

[I am Belch II]

Could you throw 12 NL-55s together and call that a spinal laser?? 12 to keep it under the 70 pt threshold or more if you get around that rule.

[Daryk]

It's better to break up the NLs into bays of four for maximum bracket firing and AAA mode benefits.

[pheonixstorm]

the Feddies on the Rotary Capital Autocannon spinal mount, etc ;)

I really want this.

RNAC40 xp