Forums of the Megaverse®

And there is another "design consideration".

Warships are armored. Armor protection is measured
by thickness (ie. thicker armor withstands more if
from the same material). Thicker armor is heavier.
Spacecraft can carry a limited amount of mass -
so the ship's surface must be minimalised.

Add in the factor, that ships usually face the enemy,
so the design is better to have a small front, with
thick armor (ie. the Warshield is a plausible design,
as the Dwarven Iron Ship, yet the Smasher and the
Berserker's artwork does not conform these guidelines,
not to mention the ship's own dimensions.)

Just my two cents.

Adios
KLM

Because the Contra-gravity (read: anti-gravity) propulsion designs used by 90% of the races in the Three Galaxies, eliminates drag.

Therefore, I can have a whole universe filled with Borg Cubes, and all of them can land on a planet without collapsing under their own weight.

Braden, GMPhD wrote:Because the Contra-gravity (read: anti-gravity) propulsion designs used by 90% of the races in the Three Galaxies, eliminates drag.

Therefore, I can have a whole universe filled with Borg Cubes, and all of them can land on a planet without collapsing under their own weight.

Huhhh? How drag comes to the CG?

Of course a rather fragile looking design, like the Doombringer
can enter an atmosphere with CG without collapsing, but drop
ships are supposed to be fast and maybe manouverable during
drop (of course they can fly in a slow pace, straight line, the
flak crew won't object).

But only Intruder vessel are attributed not to be affected by drag.

(By the way, Intruder vessel are said to be flashing, but of course
visual scans only reveal them at 1000 miles, while black, stealth
craft from the 3 Gs are spotted from like 5000 miles).
Adios
KLM

gadrin wrote:It might require significant shields for big blocky things to land in an atmosphere without burning or breaking up.

Errr... Reentering stuff heats up, because they are slowed down
by the atmosphere.

CG drive can slow down a ship, to effectively zero airspeed.

Adios
KLM

remember though, with enough thrust, even a brick can fly.

the CG drives would allow those blocky designs to operate in an atmosphere because they don't need aerodynamic lift. and if you employ shaped shields, even drag can be reduced.

as for reentry, if you have enough Delta-V, you can bring yourself to a virtual stop, matching the planets rotational speed and direction, which would allow you to just drop in

darkmax wrote:Okay.... now I don't mean to be rude, but just why are most the spacecraft designs so..... rigid?

Breaux drew most of them. That's why they look the way they look.

Artists perogative. Some artists envision boxy, utilitarian shapes for spacecraft, others imagine sleek and stylistic.

If you want a good assortment of each, check out Babylon 5

I loved the Membari comment on Human ship design...

Also, any one know when the rifter article for rifts compatible ship design is coming out?

Soon as I write them...


Thing is, there is no real rhyme or reason as to how the current, published ships were put together... so coming up with a "sytem" that would not only let you build new kinds of starships, but would also let you build a Doombringer, is neigh impossible.

1, Building a Doombringer:
While not impossible, but IMO the Doombringer in its current form
is just a waste of imperial resources. Inadequate point defense,
almost no middle or long range anti-fighter capabilities (except
CAPs, of course), and so on.

2, Ship classification:
-Fighter (a few tons)
-Corvette/light frigate (from 500 tons)
-Frigate (from 3000 tons)
-Destroyers are seemingly just a subclass of frigates
(with anti-ship purposes in design)
-Cruiser (from like 20 kTons)
-Battleships (from 200 kTons)
-Dreadnoughts... (Braden once set up a good limit)

Carriers range from corvettes to dreadnougt in size,
some can even argue that the Scimitar is a carrier.
(Well, at least it is seriously disadvantaged without
her fighter and PA compliment)

Adios
KLM

After a given size, tidal forces come into play, as well as radial force.

Even the structures' own gravity.

Another factor is whether the vessel can be moved FTL or not.
Same for shields. Small vehicles seem to have better shield/armor
ratio than larger craft.
-----------------

Tonnage is the measure of mass. Maybe displacement could also
be measured, but lenght in itself (even with other dimensions)
is pointless.

Adios
KLM

warship names should classified by role, not mass or size.

a 2 million metric ton warship with only a popgun for armament and tinfoil for armor should not count as a battleship, despite it's size.
a compact ship designed to take massive amounts of damage and dish out the same should not be considered a patrolship.


if you rely on carried fighters/ships for your main attack/defense, your a carrier.
if your designed to carry lots of big guns and heavy armor, your a battleship.
if your a ship that sacrifices armor for speed, and mounts a decent armament, your a frigate.
ect.

darkmax wrote:

KLM wrote:After a given size, tidal forces come into play, as well as radial force.

Even the structures' own gravity.

Another factor is whether the vessel can be moved FTL or not.
Same for shields. Small vehicles seem to have better shield/armor
ratio than larger craft.
-----------------

Tonnage is the measure of mass. Maybe displacement could also
be measured, but lenght in itself (even with other dimensions)
is pointless.

Adios
KLM

I would have to agree that those forces do exist, but their effects are very minimal in Zero-G environment. There is no gravity to pull down the object, no pressure from the exterior and certainly no friction to cause structural integrity to fail. Technically speaking that is. When it starts moving, that again is another matter.

As long as the vessel is not required to go into the atmostphere of a planet, radial and tidal forces would not even come into play.

Hehe... No tidal forces out of an atmosphere? The gravitiy of Earth
(and the g of the Sun) does create tidal forces on the Moon.
So, there are gravital and tidal forces. And we not even touched
the vessels own gravitiy (whether it is from artifical gravitiy
or "natural" gravity of a several million ton battleship)

No radial force? You mean the Executor can turn like a TIE
without tearing itself apart?

Tonnage is mass based on gravity, thus weight. Displacement is how much water a vessel displaces when floating in water. In a Zero-G, that means very little. As I have mention before, you can built a spacecraft to whatever size you want because there is little or no metal fatique.

Yeah, one can fail an exam in physics mixing up weight and mass.
The "displacement" is misunderstandble, so insert "volume" instead.

But still, aside from various radiations, and temperature fluctuation,
even a structure placed into interstellar space (ie. no tidal forces
from nearby planets and stars), would have to deal with its own
gravity.
I admit, that vast structures can be made made, but after a certain
limit it will collapse from its own mass/gravitiy!

But honestly, I do see your point. That's why I say it is difficult to come up with a satisfactory set of rules for building spacecrafts. Those of us who knows a bit more, tend to worry more about how it really work, but this is just a fantasy game.

While I tend to be meticulous, and somewhat a rules lawyer,
I still do not have a problem with shield, CG, FTL...

But I still cannot accept, that two craft from the same
"power to be" differ so greatly, like the SAMAS (250 MDC, cca.
500 kg, with ammo, railgun and pilot) vs. the UAR-1 (350 MDC,
18 tons).

And while we have HUGE numbers in the Three Galaxies, they
still suffer from this problem.

Adios
KLM

That's cool.
Just reiterates that there should be a line producer.
In my world, there would have been vehicle creation rules based on type before any vehicles were stated, so that future GMs could roll their own

I don't think tonnage is the way to go
Its hard for us to say how much weight/tonnage/mass a science fiction ship has if we don't even know what its made of. And I'm sure some of us will have problems with the number crunching.

Volume may work, if its a simple crate. Add numerous bulges(MC-80a), wings and any other features for the ship is just gonna add more numbers to be crunched. Wind up being more like math homework then anything.

Having someone first make the decks plans will just make your head hurt when you start assigning numbers to it(How much MDC does a section of hull that 10mX10mX2.5M? How many personnel would it take to man it for all three shifts? How many fighters can I fit into this bay with out it being cramped?)

In the end I think it should be something like from MiO, you buy a basic template and add what ever you want to it to suit your needs. Its simple and you get right into the game quicker instead of sitting around playing with numbers. Though you would need to have rule for almost every part of it just to cover all the "what if..."s

I do not mind boxes with guns and engines...

...as long as it is not a trans-atmospheric craft, which
is supposed to manouver throught enemy flak.

Radial forces reacts best when there is friction.

Err... Isn't radial force is the one, used in slings to
throw the bullet? (if not, blame my dictionary)

If so, how friction comes into the picture?

-----------------

I don't think tonnage is the way to go
Its hard for us to say how much weight/tonnage/mass a science fiction ship has if we don't even know what its made of. And I'm sure some of us will have problems with the number crunching.

Volume may work, if its a simple crate. Add numerous bulges(MC-80a), wings and any other features for the ship is just gonna add more numbers to be crunched. Wind up being more like math homework then anything.

Tonnage: One could assign a value for different MDC materials
per kg (or pound for non-metric preference), be it handwavium
or molecularly bonded chrome.
(After the authors overcome the shock, that if a 5 kg body armor
provides like 50 MDC, how much MDC could be provided by
20 tons of such armor and applied to 50+ ton MBT...)

One could assign values to CG engines... Also based on mass.

Etc.

Volume works, and I do not mind, if a frigate has a "50.000 cubic meter"
volume in stats, but in "reality" it is somewhere between 45 and 55
thousand.

And - again - let me bow before Dead Boy's LEGO projects.

Adios
KLM

On a related note:

The amount of cargo that Phase World ships can carry is completely screwed. In working out how much cargo, in terms of "cans", a trade ship can carry.... well, it turns out that a ship with internal cargo bays can transport more goods than a ship of similar size with cargo strapped to its outside.

So if these things of mine ever see print, just remember: my figures are right, CJ's are waaaay off.

I think a ship class needs to be sorted on the factors traditionally used to sort ships:

Armour
Firepower
Role
Size.

Any classification system must take these into account.

Oh and no classification system is really absolute and each navy usese their own classification system. For example for years the former Soviet navy deployed a vessel they classed as a Destroyer but was in truth, probably the most powerful surface to surface combatant made since the second world war and was probably a battlecrusier in the terms typically used by Western navies.

Jefffar wrote:I think a ship class needs to be sorted on the factors traditionally used to sort ships:

Armour
Firepower
Role
Size.

Any classification system must take these into account.

And sensors, speed and manouverability. I also guess,
you accounted shields into the "armor" category, and
fighter/robot/pa into firepower.

Oh and no classification system is really absolute and each navy usese their own classification system. For example for years the former Soviet navy deployed a vessel they classed as a Destroyer but was in truth, probably the most powerful surface to surface combatant made since the second world war and was probably a battlecrusier in the terms typically used by Western navies.

Agreed.

As a side note, the (former) Kirov class - if you meant that - was
classified as cruiser. The Sovremennij wasn't more powerfull that
the Arleigh Burke.

Besides, WWI destroyers ranged from 400 tons to 1500 tons,
now destroyers range from like 4000 tons to around 10.000...
(the range of pre-dreadnought battleships).

Adios
KLM

KLM wrote:

Jefffar wrote:I think a ship class needs to be sorted on the factors traditionally used to sort ships:

Armour
Firepower
Role
Size.

Any classification system must take these into account.

And sensors, speed and manouverability. I also guess,
you accounted shields into the "armor" category, and
fighter/robot/pa into firepower.

Adios
KLM

I'd say Sensors, Fighters, Robots and PA count as role specific equipment.

Armour in relation to firepower has been traditionally used in determining ship classes.

ie A battleship was a ship with battleship class weaponry and armour capable of withstanding a hit from such a weapon while a Battlecruiser was a ship with battleship class weaponry but armour only capable of absorbing a it from a cruiser class weapon.

By playing with features like armour and firepower you often get interesting results. Again if we look at the battlecruiser class, because it had relatively thin armour, it was much faster than battleships and could thus outrun them. However it's heavy guns made it slower than a cruiser - but then again any cruiser coming into range was likely to get blown to kingdom come before it could return fire.

There will be times when the speed an agility of a ship are important classification tools, but in those situations the speed and manouvreability are more closely related to role rather than anything else.

For example, if you build a particularly fast and agile destroyer (probably sacrificing firepower and armour to do so) there are a number of roles this destroyer could excell at. It would make an excellent commerce raider, able to hit convoys fast and escape before heavier ships arrived. it would also make a good escort itself, able to interpose itself between its charges and the enemy. It would also make a decent patrol ship for a local area, able to respond to distant threats quickly. If you further reduced the armour and made room for extra heavy weapons, it would be an excellent platform for hard hitting strikes agaisnt enemy capital ships (like a Smasher or Hunter). If you instead increase the sensor fit it becomes an excellent reconascience vessel.

So our particularly agile and speed destroyer could be classed as the following, depending on the other equipment fits

Raider Ship
Destroyer - Escort
Patrol Ship
Attack Ship
Recon Destroyer

The link below, gives excellent insight into ship design
process (and easily digestive, and even fun to read):

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-035.htm

Adios
KLM

You forgot Crusier between the Frigates and Battleships.

You forgot Carriers

You forgot the sub classes of Frigate - Patrol Ship and Destroyer.

darkmax wrote:

Jefffar wrote:You forgot Carriers

For simplicity sake, carriers come under battleships. Sub-classes are generally ignored in Palladium Books, don't you think so?

Errr... Even seafaring carriers range from 10.000 tons to 90+ ktons.

That means - in the Three Galaxies - from frigate and up...

Even a Proctor could be outfitted to be a PA carrier.

Adios
KLM

And I meant like 10 Silverhawks to be assigned
to the above Proctor variant - to be "spacecraft"
carrier, but of course the vessel can funtion as a troop
carrier (in this case Ground Pounder PA's) and
"amphibious attack craft".

Both cases, the carried vessels pose the greater
power - therefore the heavy starfighter just stepped
into the carrier definition.

Adios
KLM

If you really wanted, you could modifiy a Procter fighter to cary a Scorpian Light fighter.

I'd consider it more of a nasty surprise.

BtW, did you notice, that the 6 ton Scorpion carrier the 2 ton GR-1000 CG gun and one ton of ammo?

Adios
KLM

darkmax wrote:

KLM wrote:BtW, did you notice, that the 6 ton Scorpion carries the 2 ton GR-1000 CG gun and one ton of ammo?

Adios
KLM

err... no, not really. You mean the Scorpion carries a 2t CG gun & 1t of ammo? I would think this is possible as long as the vessel is nowhere near gravity

Yeah, the main gun of that fighter is identical to the GR-1000 (range, damage, payload matches), so at best it is a beefed up military version,
so with stronger, lighter materials is may be a bit lighter - maybe
2 tons (with ammo) as a bottom line.

As a side note, the F-15E is rated:
Empty Weight 31,700 lb (14379 kg)
Maximum Takeoff Weight 81,000 lb (36741 kg)

As for the "nowhere near gravitiy"... While weight is subject to
gravity, mass is not.

Adios
KLM

darkmax wrote:

KLM wrote:Yeah, the main gun of that fighter is identical to the GR-1000 (range, damage, payload matches), so at best it is a beefed up military version,
so with stronger, lighter materials is may be a bit lighter - maybe
2 tons (with ammo) as a bottom line.

As a side note, the F-15E is rated:
Empty Weight 31,700 lb (14379 kg)
Maximum Takeoff Weight 81,000 lb (36741 kg)

As for the "nowhere near gravitiy"... While weight is subject to
gravity, mass is not.

Adios
KLM

You do have to account for the fact that weight is mass plus gravity. Same mass, different gravity, different weight.

As for the F-15E case, you have to remember that the gross weight include fuel. And another thing, the F-15 engines' thrust ratio has to be considered. I remember that it is a fuel guzzer.

But as I said, in space, the possiblility is quite endless. However, a spacecraft has to have certain characteristics for atmostpheric operations, not just thrust alone. Structural integrity is far more important in an atmostphere than in space.

The problem was, that a spacecraft can or cannot carry its maximum
takeoff mass's half in weapons (built-in weapon in this case, but the
"bomber " scorpion also carries 2 cruise missiles)?

Now, we have a fossil fuel dependant craft, which is capable
to carry almost that ratio in weapons, yet it is built without the
super light/strong MDC materials, with hundreds of years behind
the three galaxies technologically.

How the bold part came to importance?!

Adios
KLM