« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Something ridiculous  (Read 1574 times)

Liam's Ghost

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7907
  • Miss Chitty finds your honor rules quaint.
Something ridiculous
« on: 27 March 2020, 22:17:49 »
I've been thinking about an alternate universe off and on, functionally a total reboot diverging all the way back to world war one. One of the things I considered as part of it was reworking how spacecraft worked, you know, without the baggage of decades of questionably reasonable canon in the way.

This came down to three points:
1) Fuel demands increase considerably, though probably not to the point of true realism. I was thinking of increasing fuel requirements by a factor of ten.
2) Effective range is largely a function of shot velocity. This means naval lasers, moving at the speed of light, have the longest effective range, at about 2 light seconds (600,000 kilometers). Since missiles can correct their course, they remain viable despite their typically low velocity. This means that combat is largely a combination of extreme long range laser spam and ridiculously huge clouds of naval missiles armed with nuclear warheads. Ordinary unguided ballistic weapons exist only as dedicated planetary bombardment systems, as a planet's not going to move out of the way by the time the shot gets there.
3) Thanks to their integrated anti-meteor systems, every large craft has some small amount of integral point defense, probably equivalent to one capital point's worth. So they have some protection, but still need extra escort, and nuclear weapons are still a viable option.

(it's also worth noting that these points make space combat relatively boring, with no real option for maneuver and tactics beyond who can throw the biggest wall of light and canned sunshine across the inky void of space, so it's really more of a background activity rather than the main focus of a story).

With these points in mind, I also threw this ridiculous thing together, as sort of an ultimate expression of that philosophy. It's worth mentioning that while I just said nuclear weapons were still a viable tactic, this thing doesn't carry extra point defense. That was kinda necessary, since the thousand naval lasers made fire-control cripplingly heavy. Missile defense is in the hands of the ship's two hundred small craft, who use their own point defense to protect the mothership.

Though it was built for a kooky alternate universe, if you find it useful for your standard battletech games, I'm not going to cry, though I'd question the sanity of the leader who devoted the industry and materials to building them. 


Crab Rave
Mass: 2,500,000 tons
Technology Base: Inner Sphere (Advanced) 
Introduced: 3145
Mass: 2,500,000
Battle Value: 394,174
Tech Rating/Availability: D/X-X-X-E
Cost: 8,178,750,000 C-bills

Fuel: 50,000 tons (125,000)
Safe Thrust: 0
Maximum Thrust: 0
Heat Sinks: 85,289
Structural Integrity: 1

Armor
    Nose: 560
    Fore Sides: 560/560
    Aft Sides: 559/559
    Aft: 559

Cargo
    Bay 1:  Small Craft (200)       20 Doors  
    Bay 2:  Cargo (154218.0 tons)   1 Door    

Ammunition:
   None

Dropship Capacity: 0
Grav Decks: 2 (100 m, 100 m)
Escape Pods: 0
Life Boats: 300
Crew:  258 officers, 287 enlisted/non-rated, 1000 gunners, 1000 bay personnel      

Notes: Mounts 8,393 tons of standard aerospace armor.

Weapons:               Capital Attack Values (Standard)
Arc (Heat)         Heat  SRV     MRV     LRV      ERV    Class       
Nose (17,000 Heat)
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
8 Naval Laser 55   680  44(440) 44(440) 44(440) 44(440)  Capital Laser
FRS/FLS (17,000 Heat)
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
8 Naval Laser 55   680  44(440) 44(440) 44(440) 44(440)  Capital Laser
ARS/ALS (17,000 Heat)
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
12 Naval Laser 55  1020 66(660) 66(660) 66(660) 66(660)  Capital Laser
8 Naval Laser 55   680  44(440) 44(440) 44(440) 44(440)  Capital Laser
Logged
Good news is the lab boys say the symptoms of asbestos poisoning show an immediate latency of 44.6 years. So if you're thirty or over you're laughing. Worst case scenario you miss out on a few rounds of canasta, plus you've forwarded the cause of science by three centuries. I punch those numbers into my calculator, it makes a happy face.

(indirect accessory to the) Slayer of Monitors!

VhenRa

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2251
Re: Something ridiculous
« Reply #1 on: 27 March 2020, 23:42:35 »
Damn... now I am imagining that battery being employed for ortillery...
Logged

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37301
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Something ridiculous
« Reply #2 on: 28 March 2020, 03:14:24 »
Instead of cranking up fuel consumption, I've advocated for reducing strategic thrust by a factor of 10.  That goes a long way toward plugging the gaping hole in physics, and leaves tactical thrust (with it's already much increased fuel consumption) alone.
Logged

Tyler Jorgensson

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2876
Re: Something ridiculous
« Reply #3 on: 28 March 2020, 07:28:11 »
I’m confused m: it has no engines?
Logged

Andras

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 826
Re: Something ridiculous
« Reply #4 on: 28 March 2020, 17:24:53 »
Lasers and nukes is how FASA armed Leviathans.

Of course, you could build 6 fighters that would split a battleship down the middle too.
Logged

Giovanni Blasini

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7141
  • And I think it's gonna be a long, long time...
Re: Something ridiculous
« Reply #5 on: 29 March 2020, 16:10:41 »
Quote from: Daryk on 28 March 2020, 03:14:24
Instead of cranking up fuel consumption, I've advocated for reducing strategic thrust by a factor of 10.  That goes a long way toward plugging the gaping hole in physics, and leaves tactical thrust (with it's already much increased fuel consumption) alone.

Another option to add to that would be to choose your basic specific impulse range for your spacecraft in tactical mode, and a separate one for strategic mode.  That's basically what Cray and I (mostly Cray) settled for with Battletech 2100/2200.  To simplify things for gameplay, rather than having everyone do multiple natural logs when designing ships, you could just do a rough set of tables.  Limiting maximum vessel mass also goes a long way, though that also requires dropping the minimum mass of JumpShips down.
Logged
"Does anyone know where the love of God goes / When the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
-- Gordon Lightfoot, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37301
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Something ridiculous
« Reply #6 on: 29 March 2020, 16:43:50 »
Since 100,000 tons appears to be a soft limit anyway (looking at the Bugeye), I'd totally be ok with lowering maximum masses.
Logged

Giovanni Blasini

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7141
  • And I think it's gonna be a long, long time...
Re: Something ridiculous
« Reply #7 on: 29 March 2020, 18:17:47 »
Quote from: Daryk on 29 March 2020, 16:43:50
Since 100,000 tons appears to be a soft limit anyway (looking at the Bugeye), I'd totally be ok with lowering maximum masses.

JumpShips can already go down to 50kt, whether primitive or otherwise.  I'd be fine with dropping them to 5000 tons, and combining subcompact with compact or primitive KF drives.  With this much fuel required, standard core KF drives become impossible, anyway, which is its own issue.
Logged
"Does anyone know where the love of God goes / When the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
-- Gordon Lightfoot, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37301
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Something ridiculous
« Reply #8 on: 29 March 2020, 18:36:02 »
Sorry, crossed wires with WarShips there...
Logged

Liam's Ghost

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7907
  • Miss Chitty finds your honor rules quaint.
Re: Something ridiculous
« Reply #9 on: 29 March 2020, 22:04:46 »
Some very interesting discussion.

Quote from: Tyler Jorgensson on 28 March 2020, 07:28:11
I’m confused m: it has no engines?

It's a space station (something the text readout doesn't make clear I realize), so it's only capable of what is laughably called "station keeping thrust".
Logged
Good news is the lab boys say the symptoms of asbestos poisoning show an immediate latency of 44.6 years. So if you're thirty or over you're laughing. Worst case scenario you miss out on a few rounds of canasta, plus you've forwarded the cause of science by three centuries. I punch those numbers into my calculator, it makes a happy face.

(indirect accessory to the) Slayer of Monitors!

Tyler Jorgensson

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2876
Re: Something ridiculous
« Reply #10 on: 30 March 2020, 00:03:47 »
Got it: I see it now with the "1 SI" rating :D
Logged

idea weenie

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4874
Re: Something ridiculous
« Reply #11 on: 01 April 2020, 19:09:29 »
Quote from: Giovanni Blasini on 29 March 2020, 16:10:41
Another option to add to that would be to choose your basic specific impulse range for your spacecraft in tactical mode, and a separate one for strategic mode.  That's basically what Cray and I (mostly Cray) settled for with Battletech 2100/2200.  To simplify things for gameplay, rather than having everyone do multiple natural logs when designing ships, you could just do a rough set of tables.  Limiting maximum vessel mass also goes a long way, though that also requires dropping the minimum mass of JumpShips down.

The other idea would be a fuel point equation where you plug in the total mass of the ship, and that gives you fuel points per ton.  You then multiple the fuel points per ton by a constant, and use a second constant to multiply the cost of the engine.  Essentially if you want a more efficient engine, you will pay for it.

Before a game, you multiple the current tonnage of fuel by the fuel points per ton, and record that for the number of fuel points available.  Each turn you multiply the thrust used by the current vessel's mass (in tons), and subtract that from the number of fuel points.  This part might need computer help if you want to allow for dropping Mechs, launching fighters/small craft, firing literally tons of ordnance, and number of tons of fuel burned.  (I am assuming you don't burn enough fuel during a turn to realistically affect the ship's total mass)

At the end of the game, you take the number of fuel points remaining, divide it by the fuel points per ton, and that is how many tons of fuel you have left.

The key is to use an equation to get your fuel points (and armor) rather than a table where people will tend to cluster around the break points, i.e. every 50,000 tons for Docking collar capacity
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
 

Register