Author Topic: Arrow IV launchers on the Lysander (Read 6189 times)

GBscientist · « **on:** 11 April 2011, 10:44:00 »

In TRO:VA the Arrow IV launchers of the Combine's Lysander class submersible carrier are listed in the stats as having a 'Body' placement and the fluff describes them as 'box launchers'. My reading of this is that the launchers are vertical launch tubes, much like we see on modern real-life warships, but there is absolutely no basis in the rules to back up my impression.

So, my question is, have the PTB ever addressed the issue of the Lysander's Arrow IVs, or have they left it as Standard Answer #1?

JPArbiter · « **Reply #1 on:** 11 April 2011, 12:26:50 »

I am pretty sure that much like the Triton Missile Sub, the Lysander is a VLS style launch system

Peter Smith · « **Reply #2 on:** 11 April 2011, 16:36:10 »

It's just fluff.

BATTLEMASTER · « **Reply #3 on:** 11 April 2011, 18:24:06 »

So should I treat the missiles as only being able to fire in the forward arc?

Then again I could just settle for a VLS house rule. I could use the same argument for the Mars Assault Vehicle :)

Weirdo · « **Reply #4 on:** 11 April 2011, 23:03:14 »

If I were GMing, I'd allow a Lysander's missiles a 360-degree arc. Not so on the Triton, as those are specifically noted as firing to each side.

By a strict rules interpretation, I'd agree that the Lysander's missiles are forward firing, probably in forward-angled launchers like most modern Russian heavy missile mounts.

Ghostbear_Gurdel · « **Reply #5 on:** 11 April 2011, 23:43:02 »

Quote from: Weirdo on 11 April 2011, 23:03:14

If I were GMing, I'd allow a Lysander's missiles a 360-degree arc.

I agree with this with one exception. I would not allow direct fire attacks. After all you cannot point the launcher at the target and bore sight with a VLS system.

Weirdo · « **Reply #6 on:** 12 April 2011, 00:22:33 »

Indeed, that seems reasonable.

I am Belch II · « **Reply #7 on:** 12 April 2011, 10:30:43 »

A VLS system on a ship should take up less space, or have the ability to fire faster then a normal luncher.

Weirdo · « **Reply #8 on:** 12 April 2011, 11:54:44 »

If you worked up a OS Arrow IV system and mounted lots of those, the slots would fill you up FAST. My advice would be to simply place a launcher(or a few) on the ship, and fluff that for safety reasons, the VLS cannot fire more than *number of actual launchers* missiles at a time. Kinda like how for a short while, designer experimented with outfitting a Higgins boat with a huge number of artillery rockets Katyusha-style, but found that if they fired them all at once, the heat caused the boat to melt and the backblast cut the hull in half.

GBscientist · « **Reply #9 on:** 12 April 2011, 17:53:38 »

Here's a link with a bit more about the ships Weirdo is referring to. As I recall from a book on odd WWII weapons, the LCT(R)s had to ripple-fire their rocket banks and flood the rocket deck to avoid the burn-through Weirdo mentioned. They were very successful in their role, though, and scared the Germans shitless.

Therefor, I would totally be in favour of a support ship that was loaded to the gills with nothing but Arrow IVs, whether or not they were VLS-mounts.

Continuing on the topic of vertical missile lauchers, I like the caveat that a VLS in BattleTech can't do direct-fire, but I would hope that it retains its SAM capacity. Also, there are RL exampled of VLSs that have a limited number of cells, but a significant reload system. The Russian Kirov class of battlecruisers is a decent example.

Weirdo · « **Reply #10 on:** 12 April 2011, 18:56:10 »

Guh, Kirovs #P...That's where you mount a bunch of CM-90s and call them a VLS.

GBscientist · « **Reply #11 on:** 12 April 2011, 21:49:21 »

Someday I'd really like to make an Oscar knock-off with a pair of CM/90s and twelve reloads each.

JPArbiter · « **Reply #12 on:** 13 April 2011, 08:34:50 »

I still wanna see someone make an Iowa, like the Missouri right before she was decomissioned.

Moonsword · « **Reply #13 on:** 13 April 2011, 08:46:16 »

Quote from: Weirdo on 11 April 2011, 23:03:14

By a strict rules interpretation, I'd agree that the Lysander's missiles are forward firing, probably in forward-angled launchers like most modern Russian heavy missile mounts.

I'd go with the strict rules, personally. The Lysander's mounts (all of them) are illegal under the construction rules. You can pick through to place most of them in the right hexes, but the Arrows are more problematic since body wasn't a legal firing arc to begin with.

Quote from: GBscientist on 12 April 2011, 21:49:21

Someday I'd really like to make an Oscar knock-off with a pair of CM/90s and twelve reloads each.

Cray did something sort of like that a while back, but it may not be in the archives any longer.

Quote from: JPArbiter on 13 April 2011, 08:34:50

I still wanna see someone make an Iowa, like the Missouri right before she was decomissioned.

That's not really doable. Long Toms don't match the guns very well and trying to duplicate the ship's Tomahawk fire capability at that point would be a nightmare. The tonnage is possible, but the slot requirements probably doom the whole attempt.

BATTLEMASTER · « **Reply #14 on:** 14 April 2011, 16:33:57 »

I think the Battletech Thumpers are likely as powerful as the 16 inch guns on Big Mo were in RL. If you really want a good battleship gun, go for an NAC/10 :)

Moonsword · « **Reply #15 on:** 14 April 2011, 16:59:12 »

My point was about the range, not the firepower. The 16" guns on an Iowa-class battleship can reach out 38km. A Long Tom reaches less than half that. Cruise missiles might be able to match the reach but they throw the whole vibe off for me.

BATTLEMASTER · « **Reply #16 on:** 14 April 2011, 18:05:16 »

I understand what you were trying to get at.

Aren't the board game ranges truncated for ease of play? If I remember correctly, the RPG range stats for the Long Tom are more what we would expect from a 20-ton artillery piece in the 31st century.

Moonsword · « **Reply #17 on:** 15 April 2011, 07:15:31 »

The board game ranges on the main weapons are. I don't know or especially care whether they bothered or not with artillery, but it's not really getting to all the questions here. I'd be fine with Long Toms as the general style as long as you're not trying to say "This is what the Missouri was in BattleTech!"

Also, Long Toms are 30 ton weapons, not 20 tons, and their range might be a bit short, but it's nowhere near what it could be. Getting into comparisons like that is far beyond my interests, especially when you ask the question of whether shells should be behaving like artillery or bombs, which are far less powerful.

BATTLEMASTER · « **Reply #18 on:** 15 April 2011, 09:01:09 »

Oh, whoops! I was getting my artillery cannon weights confused :D

I am Belch II · « **Reply #19 on:** 15 April 2011, 11:40:08 »

I always thought that the Long Tom's was more like a 8" Howitzer Gun, more then a 16 inch gun from the Iowa's.

Moonsword · « **Reply #20 on:** 15 April 2011, 15:08:10 »

Quote from: I am Belch II on 15 April 2011, 11:40:08

I always thought that the Long Tom's was more like a 8" Howitzer Gun, more then a 16 inch gun from the Iowa's.

The British 8" howitzers are rather smaller and have much shorter ranges than a Long Tom. Heck, the US Army M110 self-propelled version is smaller than a Long Tom. In terms of matches to performance based on tonnage, there's not really one for an 8" howitzer - as usual, BattleTech weapons don't map well to real-world weapons.