...Do these new Naval weapons offend you, or do they just make sense?

[Red Pins]

So, in my AU, the survivors of the Wolverine Annihilation are building a fleet.  They know perfectly well they don't have the resource base or population to match the Clans if they're discovered, so they're looking to create newer, better, weapons to take advantage of the stagnation of the Scientist Caste.  Although these innovations are old news for other military branches, naval versions have never been developed.

• Naval ER-Lasers offer the same benefits as standard Clan ER-Lasers, higher heat in exchange for added range.  There may be a slight increase in damage as a couple hundred years of technological advances in laser technology are applied to their design.
• Naval Pulse Lasers follow the same principle.  Higher heat and damage at the expense of range.
• Naval Gauss (Repeater) use the same principle as the Clan Hyper-Assault Gauss (HAG), fitting a second set of capacitors to a Naval Gauss weapon to fire a second shot, for a small increase in mass and heat.
• Precision or Flechette Naval AC ammo would follow the same general rules as the mech equivilant, but are able to be fired out of standard NACs.  I think the Precision rounds would be wire-guided, but I'm not sure if it would work.  The Flechette rounds would remain in one piece out of the gun, then be triggered by a proximity fuse at a short distance from the target or within range of a ASF squadron.  They would roll on the Cluster table and have the standard bonus to hit smaller targets like DropShips below 500 tons, but be ineffective against Small Craft or ASF.

(*Edit; Poor grammar in the Subject bar.  I blame the booze.)

[serack]

the flechette imo would still do damage to small craft and asf, maybe not to hit bonuses but bonuses for bracketing ??

[Red Pins]

the flechette imo would still do damage to small craft and asf, maybe not to hit bonuses but bonuses for bracketing ??

Maybe.  I'm still trying to decide - I want to keep the cheese to a minimum.  For now, targets have to be between 200-500 tons to target them with Flechette rounds.

[Fireangel]

None of the above;

Naval lasers already go out to extreme capital range (50 hexes); only the NL-35 has a long capital range (40 hexes).

Naval lasers already use a form of pulse technology in order to meaningfully hit moving targets at 900 km.

Naval Gauss already fire multiple projectiles; they have to in order to hit at ranges of 900 km (all NGauss have extreme capital range).

Naval autocannon use "contained laser-ignited plasma (known in some circles as the "Orion in a bottle" technique}" essentially nuclear-grade explosions to propel the projectiles; practically speaking, they already use high-tech ammo in order to hit at the ranges involved. Balance-wise, giving capital weapons anti-small craft (sub 500 tons) capability, removes the need for AAA standard scale batteries.

[HobbesHurlbut]

Change Flechette to Flak, describe it as timing fused shells graded for AAA work, They make an area of attack just like how you use indirect fire from your artillery, target the space hex, roll for scatter (this explain the vastness of the space, the movement of the ship and the asfs and the shell's movement, and the constantly changing of the timed fuse setting before its 'launch'). Halved the NAC damage, make the remaining damage cluster groups of 5 pts or 10 pts each, there's no "splash" to adjacent hexes though (the space hex is too big, the damage can't radiate to adjacent hexes). This let you set up an actual flak barrage.
How's that for complicated flak rules in space? :P

[Fireangel]

Change Flechette to Flak, describe it as timing fused shells graded for AAA work, They make an area of attack just like how you use indirect fire from your artillery, target the space hex, roll for scatter (this explain the vastness of the space, the movement of the ship and the asfs and the shell's movement, and the constantly changing of the timed fuse setting before its 'launch'). Halved the NAC damage, make the remaining damage cluster groups of 5 pts or 10 pts each, there's no "splash" to adjacent hexes though (the space hex is too big, the damage can't radiate to adjacent hexes). This let you set up an actual flak barrage.
How's that for complicated flak rules in space? :P

Uh... no.

Want flak? Just use the screen launcher rules for shells. Caveat: screen launchers are among the best AAA devices around; hive that capability out to NAC ranges and you will render all AAA standard weapons bays obsolete.

[Gryphon]

For reasons that Fireangel already pointed out, ER or Pulse are options that aren't really needed here.

For the Gauss repeater, make it a considerably less damaging railgun with Long range instead of Extreme, but have it hit more often. If each hit is scaled high enough to maybe penetrate for a crit, but low enough that it isn't simply blowing armor off wholesale, then this weapon has a point. Also, give it a slightly lower penalty to his Dropships and Smallcraft, but have it tend to hit with fewer rounds.

I personally think that instead of mounting tons of lighter weapons for defense, warships should have relied on bracketed lasers and flak ammo for NACs from the get go, and just carried Escort Dropships (Assault Dropships intended primarily for defense) and fighter wings instead. Putting hundreds of Mech/ASF scale guns on something as large as these sorts of ships end to be is a bit ungainly, and really, most of these weapons should be utterly useless against a capital scale opponent anyhow.

"They hit me with how many AC-20s? 8! Hmm..."
*Marks off 3-4 points*
"Alright, my turn!"

[HobbesHurlbut]

Uh... no.

Want flak? Just use the screen launcher rules for shells. Caveat: screen launchers are among the best AAA devices around; hive that capability out to NAC ranges and you will render all AAA standard weapons bays obsolete.

Fire. Do you see anything in the post I made that say you *may* ignore the penalty to hit on the small crafts?

[Zureal]

whats wrong with ER lasers? give them a 60 hex range :D lol, much better, also. Doint naval lasers already have a "pulse mode" to them for when they switch to AAA mode? need to dig that out of my old handbook and find that. and thought there were already differint kinds of NAC ammo as well.

Also, NAC flack ammo would not make PD obsolite or sdandard AAA obsolite, u still need things for in close as well as thoes pesky boarding shuttles. wich, with the NACs relative huge size to them makes smaller targets harder to track

[Gryphon]

The issue there is that 10 tube capital ship missile rack already makes it hard to justify guns likes NACs. So long as you avoid using nukes, you can hit even ships that are heavily protected with AMS with sufficient damage to really, really hurt.

Adding a flak shell to NACs to engage them, even if they prove to be fairly effective, would allow you to both increase the value of NACs as a defensive weapon system, and bring the game back around to the gunboats in space concept. If you really want to go with missile platforms/arsenal ships in space, Battletech wasn't really the setting for you anyhow.

Though now i am trying to imagine A-Pods scaled to warships...

[Red Pins]

Naval lasers already go out to extreme capital range (50 hexes); only the NL-35 has a long capital range (40 hexes).  Naval lasers already use a form of pulse technology in order to meaningfully hit moving targets at 900 km.

I checked the 'Naval Laser' page on Sarna, and they even have, "As of 3067, there are no known Extended Range, Pulse, or Heavy versions of Naval Laser systems" at the bottom of the article, just above their list of references.

Naval Gauss already fire multiple projectiles; they have to in order to hit at ranges of 900 km (all NGauss have extreme capital range).

...Sarna again!  "...Propel a ferrous projectile", second line on the 'Naval Gauss Rifle' page.  It leads me to believe it fires a single shell.

Naval autocannon use "contained laser-ignited plasma (known in some circles as the "Orion in a bottle" technique}" essentially nuclear-grade explosions to propel the projectiles; practically speaking, they already use high-tech ammo in order to hit at the ranges involved. Balance-wise, giving capital weapons anti-small craft (sub 500 tons) capability, removes the need for AAA standard scale batteries.

...Um  Sarna is no help with this one.  Still, the means of firing the projectile doesn't seem to be relevant here, and none of the books seem to mention using anything to enhance the accuracy of the NAC ammunition.

Granted Sarna is no way to settle an argument, but since I don't have access to my books for a while, can you quote your source?  Thanks!

[Red Pins]

Change Flechette to Flak, describe it as timing fused shells graded for AAA work, They make an area of attack just like how you use indirect fire from your artillery, target the space hex, roll for scatter (this explain the vastness of the space, the movement of the ship and the asfs and the shell's movement, and the constantly changing of the timed fuse setting before its 'launch'). Halved the NAC damage, make the remaining damage cluster groups of 5 pts or 10 pts each, there's no "splash" to adjacent hexes though (the space hex is too big, the damage can't radiate to adjacent hexes). This let you set up an actual flak barrage.
How's that for complicated flak rules in space? :P

Uh... no.

Want flak? Just use the screen launcher rules for shells. Caveat: screen launchers are among the best AAA devices around; hive that capability out to NAC ranges and you will render all AAA standard weapons bays obsolete.

...Ok...  So, Hobbes...  'Flak' is a area-attack, eh?  So, take the AC damage potential, divide by 2 (for a minimum of one 5-Capital damage point group), then what?  Roll on the Cluster table?  I was thinking about this today at work - perhaps I could fire a 'Flak round' to set up a 'minefield' (ie, high-speed spysical projectiles) and roll on the Cluster table.  Since these are (essentially) useless to use in an attack against a heavily-armored WarShip, lets suppose using standard damage values.  A NAC-10 does 100 damage, split into 10 submunitions each does 10 standard damage, and rolling on the Cluster table determines the number of impacts.  Its harder to aim the guns at a small target, and I don't want to change that idea, so how about leaving the small target modifier in the to-hit calc?  Wait, there is a small target modifier, right?  (Sorry, I don't play aerospace.)

Fire, I'll read up on those Screen Launchers, thanks! O0  But the fluff for the AU has the Clans as the source for most of their military developments.  There may not have been any way for them to steal physical samples and plans, etc, either.

[Red Pins]

Though now i am trying to imagine A-Pods scaled to warships...

[applause]

[Fireangel]

I checked the 'Naval Laser' page on Sarna, and they even have, "As of 3067, there are no known Extended Range, Pulse, or Heavy versions of Naval Laser systems" at the bottom of the article, just above their list of references.

No such reference in TacOps.

My point is that for the massive damage at range, a form of ER and pulse technology is already integral to your plain-vanilla NL-35's, 45's and 55's. That is why there is no "pulse naval lasers".

...Sarna again!  "...Propel a ferrous projectile", second line on the 'Naval Gauss Rifle' page.  It leads me to believe it fires a single shell.

Sarna is simply repeating information from the piddly 'mech-scale Gauss. TacOps describes the Naval Gauss as developed as an alternative to naval AC's and makes no mention whatsoever of the composition or rate of fire, though the implication, given the NAC's status as a giant machine guns (ibid pp. 331: "...fling single or bursts of kinetic munitions...") it is only reasonable to assume the same of a NG is the same: some models fire a single 200kg slug, some others ten 20kg slugs. Given the sheer velocities involved (900km in 1 minute = 15km/sec = 54,000kph = 33,554mph), not counting the relative velocities of the firing and target vessels, I'd put money on multiple projectiles.

...Um  Sarna is no help with this one.  Still, the means of firing the projectile doesn't seem to be relevant here, and none of the books seem to mention using anything to enhance the accuracy of the NAC ammunition.

It is relevant: flak ammunition requires fuses of some sort; for contact fuses you might as well use standard rounds.

Think of what the propellant actually is; essentially the power of a nuclear explosion; the projectiles go from a velocity of zero to more than 43,200 km/s in a fraction of a second; any sort of fuse (proximity or distance) will likely not survive. Heck; I wouldn't be surprised if the rounds are partly or wholly melted as they are fired.

Granted Sarna is no way to settle an argument, but since I don't have access to my books for a while, can you quote your source?  Thanks!

TacOps pp. 331-3, 408-9

...Ok...  So, Hobbes...  'Flak' is a area-attack, eh?  So, take the AC damage potential, divide by 2 (for a minimum of one 5-Capital damage point group), then what?  Roll on the Cluster table?  I was thinking about this today at work - perhaps I could fire a 'Flak round' to set up a 'minefield' (ie, high-speed spysical projectiles) and roll on the Cluster table.  Since these are (essentially) useless to use in an attack against a heavily-armored WarShip, lets suppose using standard damage values.  A NAC-10 does 100 damage, split into 10 submunitions each does 10 standard damage, and rolling on the Cluster table determines the number of impacts.  Its harder to aim the guns at a small target, and I don't want to change that idea, so how about leaving the small target modifier in the to-hit calc?  Wait, there is a small target modifier, right?  (Sorry, I don't play aerospace.)

Non-capital missile capital weapons firing on small craft (defined as 500 tons or less) get a +5 to-hit penalty.

IF you want to do flak as some kind of cluster round, My suggestion is to reduce the penalty but also reduce the damage; any kind of system that requires multiple rolls is not going to be effective due to the abstract nature of collective bay fire and fixed damage.

Screen Launchers are described in TW pp. 251 and has construction stats in TM pp. 342. It has a capital sort range and targets a hex, causing 15 points of standard-scale damage to the nose of each and every unit in the hex, which can wreak havoc on fighter squadrons.

Fire, I'll read up on those Screen Launchers, thanks! O0  But the fluff for the AU has the Clans as the source for most of their military developments.  There may not have been any way for them to steal physical samples and plans, etc, either.

[CloaknDagger]

Sarna is simply repeating information from the piddly 'mech-scale Gauss. TacOps describes the Naval Gauss as developed as an alternative to naval AC's and makes no mention whatsoever of the composition or rate of fire, though the implication, given the NAC's status as a giant machine guns (ibid pp. 331: "...fling single or bursts of kinetic munitions...") it is only reasonable to assume the same of a NG is the same: some models fire a single 200kg slug, some others ten 20kg slugs. Given the sheer velocities involved (900km in 1 minute = 15km/sec = 54,000kph = 33,554mph), not counting the relative velocities of the firing and target vessels, I'd put money on multiple projectiles.

But that just doesn't line up with what it's always been. AC have always been described as varying from either on large round or a burst, and the Gauss Rifle has always been one large projectile. I don't see why it's suddenly different.

[Giovanni Blasini]

Poll has no "none of the above" option, and, as such, would automatically make a minimum of one item appear reasonable in its results, just by default by receiving a minimum of one vote.

The scales involved make an HAG-style naval basis seem a bit unreasonable.  Specialty munitions would, as mentioned, probably not survive the nuke being set off to fire them.  Pulse laser fire seems to already be accounted for with bracketing and anti-fighter modes, and I'm not sure would be worth the loss of a range bracket to make expressly spelled-out versions.  Lastly, extended range lasers would need a new range bracket tacked on above the extreme-range bracket, which would create its own issues, and the accuracy at that range would be so abysmal that I'd question the point.

[CloaknDagger]

What about Beam Lasers/PPCs?

It fires a continuous beam, so it tears apart strikecraft and missiles.

Or alternatively, quick turrets. 50% weight boost on a weapon to remove the penalty for shooting strikecraft.

[Fireangel]

What about Beam Lasers/PPCs?

It fires a continuous beam, so it tears apart strikecraft and missiles.

Or alternatively, quick turrets. 50% weight boost on a weapon to remove the penalty for shooting strikecraft.

That's what NL's and NPPC's are.

Given the arcs in large craft, it is a given that the weapons are mounted on some sort of turret.

[CloaknDagger]

That's what NL's and NPPC's are.

No, they fire bursts. Do you have any idea how shitty a laser would be if it actually took as long to fire as it does in the MechWarrior games?

Given the arcs in large craft, it is a given that the weapons are mounted on some sort of turret.

Yes, but obviously the turrets suck if they get a penalty for hitting small targets. Not a big problem, just shove more power into the turret engine.

[evilauthor]

Given the arcs in large craft, it is a given that the weapons are mounted on some sort of turret.

I'd quibble this insofar that Broadside arcs are narrow enough that BS mounted weapons aren't turret mounted; they're internally mounted and pointed out gunports and the 30 degree arc is simply the ship adjusting its orientation just enough to bring those weapons to bear. Although I will admit BS-mounted weapon can probably be aimed independently of ship movement, but not by very much.

But for the other arcs? Definitely turret mounted.

[idea weenie]

I'd want to make Tactical missiles and their launcher using Drone ASF/ARTS.  The 'launcher' (ARTS) only gets a single shot (drone ASF) and has to be reloaded outside of battle (transfer another drone fighter from storage).

The fighter would be programmed to volley missiles when in range (RL/10 or MRM?) then kamikaze into the enemy ship.  With drone remote control tech, the controller can guide it to a better impact.

The fun part is you can select from different sized drones beforehand, so you can configure your loadout before the battle.  Unfortunately,you don't get to change the loadout during battle, and reloading is impossible unless you win/disengage.

[Giovanni Blasini]

Even more evil: a 50-ton drone you could launch out of an AR10.

Either way, though, add Alamos on its hardpoints.

[Red Pins]

But that just doesn't line up with what it's always been. AC have always been described as varying from either on large round or a burst, and the Gauss Rifle has always been one large projectile. I don't see why it's suddenly different.

...Basically what I was going to say.

[Red Pins]

Poll has no "none of the above" option, and, as such, would automatically make a minimum of one item appear reasonable in its results, just by default by receiving a minimum of one vote.

Um.  Sorry about that - I'll try to remember for the next poll I start.

The scales involved make an HAG-style naval basis seem a bit unreasonable.  Specialty munitions would, as mentioned, probably not survive the nuke being set off to fire them.  Pulse laser fire seems to already be accounted for with bracketing and anti-fighter modes, and I'm not sure would be worth the loss of a range bracket to make expressly spelled-out versions.  Lastly, extended range lasers would need a new range bracket tacked on above the extreme-range bracket, which would create its own issues, and the accuracy at that range would be so abysmal that I'd question the point.

You jump around a bit here, but first, you have a WarShip - I'm not saying its a Corvette - big enough to carry it.  Surely, if you could fit a mass driver on one, an extra bank of capacitors to power a second shot for a N-Gauss will fit.

Second, I agree the fuses might not survive a NAC firing.  My only answer is 'willing suspension of disbelief'.  Take the RL physics out of it and save a catgirl.  Beyond that, how about just reducing the to-hit penalty and inflicting a fraction of the damage of a standard round, depending on size?  (For example, a NAC/10, 10 single-point hits, -1 to-hit for targets under 500 tons.  A NAC/40 does 40 single-point hits, -4 to-hit for targets under 500 tons.)

Third, "Bracketing and anti-fighter modes"?  That sounds promising - is that from SO?  Its the only core rulebook I still don't have.

Last, the ER lasers.  Like the old Large Laser, an ER-Laser would have a new set of Short, Medium, Long, and Extended ranges.  They will have the same modifiers.

[Red Pins]

I think I missed one.

My point is that for the massive damage at range, a form of ER and pulse technology is already integral to your plain-vanilla NL-35's, 45's and 55's. That is why there is no "pulse naval lasers".

...Um.  Darn!  Source?

[Giovanni Blasini]

Um.  Sorry about that - I'll try to remember for the next poll I start.

You jump around a bit here, but first, you have a WarShip - I'm not saying its a Corvette - big enough to carry it.  Surely, if you could fit a mass driver on one, an extra bank of capacitors to power a second shot for a N-Gauss will fit.

Second, I agree the fuses might not survive a NAC firing.  My only answer is 'willing suspension of disbelief'.  Take the RL physics out of it and save a catgirl.  Beyond that, how about just reducing the to-hit penalty and inflicting a fraction of the damage of a standard round, depending on size?  (For example, a NAC/10, 10 single-point hits, -1 to-hit for targets under 500 tons.  A NAC/40 does 40 single-point hits, -4 to-hit for targets under 500 tons.)

Yeah, but that largely takes away the advantage of bracket fire or, alternatively, overbalances things too far in the benefit of hitting.  It also takes away the role of naval lasers and capital missiles on WarShips, by giving their secondary anti-fighter role to the already overpowered NACs.

Third, "Bracketing and anti-fighter modes"?  That sounds promising - is that from SO?  Its the only core rulebook I still don't have.

Both are covered in Strategic Operations, yeah.  Believe me, WarShip combat is dramatically different.  If I recall correctly, Strat Ops also covers naval ECM rules, which are another major change.

Last, the ER lasers.  Like the old Large Laser, an ER-Laser would have a new set of Short, Medium, Long, and Extended ranges.  They will have the same modifiers.

...Um, NL/45s and NL/55s already fire at Extreme range, same as the medium and heavy naval PPCs.  For full-scale capital energy weapons, only the NL/35 and light naval PPC are limited to long range catagories.

[CloaknDagger]

Naval weapons DO have hex ranges. And they should be used. Not all naval weapons should be made equal.

As for anti-strikecraft, all naval ships need are either better turreting so that the large weapons can actually hit them, or naval sized (100 tons+) anti-fighter weapons because LBX10s on a warship is idiotic.

[Giovanni Blasini]

Naval weapons DO have hex ranges. And they should be used. Not all naval weapons should be made equal.

Naval weapons have individual ranges only when individual weapons fire rules are brought into play.  The standard rules have range brackets.  Under the standard rules, the NL/45, NL/55, Medium Naval PPC and Heavy Naval PPC are already extreme-range weapons, reaching the maximum range permitted under the the standard rules for the game: 60 hexes.

Creating "extended range" versions of capital lasers would, perhaps, extend the ranges out to, what, 60 hexes (keeping in mind that the absolute maximum range for any capital weapon under these rules is the 56-hex light naval gauss rifle)?  And when using standard ranges....there's absolutely no benefit.  To extend range beyond 60 hexes would require a major rules revision, and a fifth range catagory which would, then, open up another can of worms:  why isn't the "uber-extended range" catagory available for standard scale weapons used on fighters or BattleMechs?

Further, I suspect that creating more advanced capital weapons is hard.  Case in point: the Clans have managed to exceed the Star League's biggest vessel (the non-combat Newgrange class) with their Leviathan class heavy battleship.  They've made moderate advances in hull protection.  They're still using, essentially, the same capital weapons the Terran Hegemony developed, often as early as the beginning of the 24th Century.  Given how intently the Terran Hegemony sought to ensure they had better WarShips than the Houses (the Texas and McKenna are both parts of this arms race, as were the M-5 Caspars), I'd have assumed that they too tried their hand at more advanced capital weapons...and failed.

As for anti-strikecraft, all naval ships need are either better turreting so that the large weapons can actually hit them, or naval sized (100 tons+) anti-fighter weapons because LBX10s on a warship is idiotic.

Anti-small craft weapons are already in place under standard rules:  naval lasers and capital missiles.  Once you add subcapital missiles and lasers to the mix, you have even more options.  None of these require "idiotic" LB-10Xs.