Ok, I worked up the basics for the Bombers. I've had this idea for a good
while. I'd built an SWACS a good while back last year or so and tried it once.
The model had me thinking about bombers the day I made it and now I've decided
to throw some fiction in as well. Its going to both the Atlanta Full Thrust
list as well as the International GZG list.
At the bottom is the information about the Strike Bombers. Let me know what
you think. The big question is the speed. I wanted to capture the effect of
extra speed that Bombers sometimes seem to have over interceptors over the
history of the type. Fast fighters can catch them easily but only if you buy
them. Otherwise you've got to be in the right place at the right time. I
figure the 4 CEF's limits the After Burner (Reheat for the Commonwealth types)
CEF burns.
I don't really en-vison these guys flying off of carriers. Though I
suppose that could be arranged. They take more space and seem to be more akin
to the bigger bombers.
*******
The mission had droned on for hours...Major Michael Jennings glanced at his
copilot, Lt Genie McCandles, who had her visor darkened, peering at the
projected virtual imagery of the 'Eurie' convoy and the surrounding space.
Glancing at his HUD, Jennings noted that they were still on course for the
target. The Euries had been shuttling supplies towards the Free Korean space
for several weeks now and the Admiralty had decided to pinch their supplies
off.
There had been waffling in Parliament for weeks as to whether the NAC was
going to help the Koreans or not. Finally after what had seemed like months it
had been agreed it was time to fight again. So, the Euries, attention directed
elsewhere, were in for more blows after several years of grudging peace. This
was as good a time to try out the new bombers as any. And, in a good tactical
situation too. This wasn't against the pair of Konstantin CVAs that this
convoy was bound for.
They'd spent months training. He had liked the idea from the time he'd heard
of it and had jumped at the chance to try a new ship. They didn't maneuver as
fast as the smaller craft, but they were faster.
Operating from fixed bases was much easier too. However the long flight times
from one side of the system to the other seemed to drag on for ever. The big
plus was being able to actually get up and go to the head, that sure beat
using piss bag that he'd used as a Lieutenant when flying Attack fighters in
the Black Lions.
"There they are!" Genie reported. Major Jennings looked at the tactical
display. The NAC raiding squadron of 4 Vandenberg Heavy Cruisers, 2 Black
Prince Battle Cruisers and 2 Beatty Class Fast Battle ships, had the Euries
running. Several of the Eurie Frigates and Cruisers were already streaming
reaction mass and atmosphere. Jennings could just make out several drifting
hulks as more data was transferred over the 'whisker net'. Several more
vessels were out ahead of the convoy trying to escape. They were dealt with
quickly by the Battleships, Battle Cruisers and Cruisers.
The line of Eurasion Solar Union Warships and merchantman stretched out for
8,000 Kilometers. There were still 3 Novogorod Frigates and three Tibet class
Light Cruisers. There were also a good number of merchant vessels present.
Looking closer he realized that one of the central vessels was a warship.
"Damn!...We're trailing them. This isn't where we're supposed to be. Someone
got the timing off... How's our intercept vector? "
"not great, but not bad." We should be able to land most of our birds. If the
Euries evade, then they'll loose all their cohesion and then they're lunch."
"Hmm, what's that center vessel?"
"Oh! Looks like an escort carrier of some kind. Its definitely not a
Tsiolkovsky."
"Fighters?"
"The tactical officer on the Nelson reports that the fighters are holding
position 4000 Kay from the Eurie ships. It looks like 3 groups. They aren't
engaging, just running Interference."
Jennings breathed a silent 'thanks'. He wasn't sure he wanted to see how the
Bombers faired against real pilots. They were faster mostly, but if the
intercept vectors were right, they'd be in very deep if those Eurie fighters
came out to play.
"Range?"
"30000 Kay almost on the dot" Jennings knew, but he was verifying just to be
doubly sure....'measure twice, cut once' as they say...
"Eagle One to all ships! Arm your birds! Fire when ready. I say again, Fire
When Ready. "
"Genie, fire when you're ready..."
"Birds Away!" Genie almost shouted.
Jennings glanced out the left cockpit window and then the right. He could just
make out the launch signatures of the nearer missiles in the strike package.
36 Thunder Strike Extended range Salvo Missiles and 24 Space Lance Heavy Anti
Ship Missiles in all. He'd never see them all as the distance between the 3
groups of 18 bombers was too great.
Jennings peered at the HUD and keyed the mode from his side stick. The icons
for all of the bombers in the strike package changed from Green to Amber
nearly simultaneously. They'd all launched. There wasn't any hung ordinance
and no targeting problems.
"All Birds Tracking"
"Eagle One to all ships, execute turn Sierra X-Ray"
As one, all of the bombers began a rapid turn to port and all fired their main
thrusters to change their heading fast.
"How are they tracking?"
"Most of the Tango-Sierras are homing, looks like a few have
wandered, Looks like a 60% strike. All of the Sierra-Lima's are
tracking, but the the rear units don't appear to have enough energy.
hhhmmm...I make 5 that won't intercept."
"Damn, better than average, but worse than the simulations...We need work on
the final approach vectors. Wing Commander Carter won't be happy, but then I'm
not either".
As they watched, the faster salvo missiles converged with ships. The few
fighters converged on their carrier to protect it. PDS fire flickered and
icons for missiles winked out as they were destroyed short. Then a Bulk
Carrier exploded along with a Voroshilev Heavy Cruiser. A Frigate exploded as
well.
After what seemed like hours but was only 10 minutes the much larger missiles
converged with their targets. The fighters again tried to protect their
charges. But this these were much harder to stop. Several ships were struck
with electromagnetic pulses and finely
focused beams from Bomb pumped X-Rays that targeting specific
systems. Some began to drop out of the formation. Another heavy freighter died
to a combination of beam fire from the NAC warships and missile warheads.
Out in the cold of space, men were dying. Some were not. Those that survived
would be picked up by the Raider group and interred in POW camps. Strangely
they'd be better off. Stories told of the brutal conditions on many of the ESU
warships. Especially the smaller ones. Only the larger vessels had anything
approaching the conditions that the NAC had aboard ship.
The Captain of the Iron Duke, a Black Prince class fast Battlecruiser,
whiskered a 'thanks for the assist' at the 3 bomber groups.
Satisfied that it was time to leave, Jennings ordered the wing to execute the
turn to the next Nav point on the way home.
*******
Full Thrust Strike Bombers
10 Pts each (60 pts for a squadron) Size 2 craft (double that of Fighters)
Mv 30"/turn (occurs during fighter movement)
12" Secondary Move (occurs during normal Secondary Move phase) 4 CEF
Dog-fight on 6's (tail guns)
Carry 1 of 2 strike packages (Fired During Ordinance Phase) Either 1 ER Salvo
Missile package or 2 MT Missiles
They operate as normal fighters and use the CEF burns to escape intercepting
fighters. They can out run fighters, but not for long.
They do engage ships outside of the normal fighter envelope as they have stand
off weapons. The missiles are fired in the normal Ordinance phase, meaning
they will have moved and then fired. This gives an option for a hard turn and
the beginning of a 12" burn away from the target area for home at the
"allocate fighter attacks phase".
In the first useage they ended up working quite well. Fighter cover was torn
between attempting to intercept them or the missiles. I settled on the ER
salvos based on tactical doctrine plus the fact that they are "theoretically"
moving forwards pretty fast from the launching platform, they'd not need to be
accelerating from a "slower" moving vessel.
I built the figs by hacking apart two standard fighters of differing types.
They end up looking pretty good sized and certainly seem appropriate.
I haven't decided if Advanced Bomber Types would be a good idea or
not. Obviously if so then the Fast/Long Range/Heavy forms are the
only appropriate. They'd be expensive and I think over the top.
Overgunned and WAY undercosted (should be close to 120 points).
Possible modifications:
*****
Strike Bomber stats: Mass: 2 each (Count each bomber as 2 for fighter morale
purposes).
Movement: 30" / 12"
CEF: 4 (cost: 1 per attack, 1 for missile launch, 1 for extra move)
Dogfight / Antiship: 5-6 = 1 point (reroll on 6).
"Heavy" fighter Carries 2 SML missiles, 12" range or 1 MT capship missile.
Cost: 12 each = 3 (std) +2 (heavy) +1 (limited fast) +6 (1/3 SMR cost or
capship MT missile) +0 (Dogfight/antiship cancel each other).
Add +6 per fighter for planetary based (covers part of the cost of the
carrier for play balance)
Squadron Rules:
3 fighters per wing. (36 per wing +18 for planet based)
Missiles are launched during Fighter Attack phase and automatically locks 1d6
missiles onto the target(treat SMLs as a single salvo, MT missiles as
individual salvoes). If the bombers have suffered previous losses, ignore
impossible rolls (1-4 missiles if only 2 bombers, 1-2 if only 1 bomber).
PDS is allocated after missile launch, but before number of missiles is
rolled. Note that the 12" range for the missiles could deny the ship PDS fire
at the bombers themselves. Potentially these Bombers could launch missiles (1
CEF), move to within range (1 CEF) and then attack with limited antiship (1
CEF).
*****
'Neath Southern Skies - http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
> -----Original Message-----
G'day,
> Full Thrust Strike Bombers
They don't look too bad...though I would've gone with 3 per squadron and
they're a bit undercosted. I would've guessed about 15 or 20 pts per fighter
off the top of my
head...basic = 3 + heavy = 2 (assuming harder to kill) + SMR or 2MT cost
(I
figure fast balances with less CEF), and hope dogfight vs anti-ship
comes out in the wash;)
I just have a couple of other questions.
1) Why are they faster than fighters (my knowledge of aircraft capabilities
stops with WWI so I still have a "bombers are lumberers" image). 2) How easy
is it for other fighters to hit them if they do get into dogfight? Are they
easier to hit (as well as finding it harder to hit their opponents
themselves)? 3) Why do they have to be land based? Is that based on where
bombers of today are stationed or some hard reasoning from your background or
ideas?
Cheers
Beth
> Overgunned and WAY undercosted (should be close to 120 points).
Yep, the tactics in the first try missed the Hmm move 30" now fire out to 36"
or even just under 54" (assuming a very slow target, ie big NSL or ESU mobile
fortress ships). After thinking further the cost was too low.
> Possible modifications:
Hadn't thought about morale....
> Movement: 30" / 12"
Hmm, leaving 1 for getting out of Dodge.... not bad.
> Dogfight / Antiship: 5-6 = 1 point (reroll on 6).
5 and 6? why not just 6. They aren't going to look for a fight....Their
defense is running fast and not being where the fighters are.
> "Heavy" fighter
Makes sense I think. Though, if they get caught near fighters, the fighters
should be able to make short work of them, they may be heavier, but the slower
turn rate would make them easy pickings.
> Carries 2 SML missiles, 12" range or 1 MT capship missile.
Hmm... given that torp fighters are size 1 and carry a single shot
mass 4 weapon...I'm inclined for the 1 ER SMR or 2 MT / ship. Though
the increased points cost above the standard cost of SMRs and MTMs at 15pts
and 3 mass per launching platform. Even better, you break this down nicely
just below here....
> Cost: 12 each = 3 (std) +2 (heavy) +1 (limited fast) +6 (1/3 SMR cost
For x2 MT armed about 16 each = 3 (std) +1 (limited fast) +12 (MT
missile cost)
for ER SMR armed 19 = 3 (std) +1 (limited fast) +15 (ER SMR cost)
> Add +6 per fighter for planetary based (covers part of the cost of the
Hmm makes sense. I like the balancing factors...
> Squadron Rules:
I'm pushing the idea that the defense against these is very handy PDS or an
outer defense of Interceptors specifically for catching these guys.
> Potentially these Bombers could launch missiles (1 CEF), move to within
Hmm, I don't envision any short range anti-ship weapons. Once they
fire their ordinance, they head for home fast.
Thanks for the ideas though....I'll definately have to boost the cost
and potentially the mass/ bomber.
> They don't look too bad...though I would've gone with 3 per squadron
Yep, the cost is definately a problem. I've also pondered shortening the range
of the MT missile to 2 runs at 18" (36" total) though that'd make coordinated
strikes among two differently armed groups trickier, they'd have to split
up...
> I just have a couple of other questions.
Every so often bomber development has had big fast sleek multi engine bombers
that were faster than the fighters normally sent to intercept
them. The best example of this is the B-17 at its inception. Very
fast compared to all of the other 'at the time' fighters. Later
super-charged fighters were faster, but they were 'fast fighters'.
The theory is that the Bombers are faster than standard fighters and in a
scrolly board match, they can out run the fighters given no bad
tactics or positions. But fast-fighters can out distance them in a
heartbeat.
> 2) How easy is it for other fighters to hit them if they do get into
I'm thinking the same as standard fighters. They are bigger and tougher but
the slower turn rate makes them more predictable targets, thus cancelling them
out.
> 3) Why do they have to be land based? Is that based on where bombers
Pretty much. One thing is I have a nice big asteroid chunk. The other is
system defense. One big problem of operating in littorial waters is the land
based air power trumping carrier based. How this would translate to space is
questionable since the carrier aircraft don't have to be so robust (no
slamming into the deck right?). However a "land based base" isn't nearly as
cramped and the aircraft can be bigger and more generous in fitment. No
folding wings etc.
Further, big bombers firing lots of missiles at ships that blunder into their
realms is some part of the Naval warfare history starting in WWII with the
sinking of several Italian ships by the Germans (after Il Duce's death).
> Cheers
Being so expensive, you want a little bang for the left-overs. A 5-6 =
1
kill against both fighters and ships is a trade-off. You might not have
good manoeverability for dogfighting, but you can fit more guns and bigger
guns on the large frame. It's guaranteed that you'll want to use these to
finish off cripples after the missile salvoes. (one reason I prefer attack
fighters over torp fighters is you can hang around longer).
Shipboard, SML salvoes and MT missiles are 2 mass on their own, so if you want
a fighter capable of delivering the full shipboard effect, your fighter
is going to need to be 3-4 mass (which defeats the purpose of fighters).
It's cheaper to send in a missile destroyer with SMRs/MT missiles once
you
get into these mass / costs (plus the added benefits of FTL).
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[mkw] Admiral Peter Rollins; Task Force Zulu
[Firestorm] GM Battletech Webgame#2
> -----Original Message-----
> At 5:20 PM +1000 5/30/01, Robertson, Brendan wrote:
Oh, aye, I do like the Attack fighters for their endurance and extended
utility. I just didn't want to make the bombers "god" when it came to air
combat....
> Shipboard, SML salvoes and MT missiles are 2 mass on their own, so if
Well, there isn't a need for magazines, handling gear and all the armoured box
stuff that they need shipboard. Compare what is needed to fire a Harpoon from
the air with what they use on the ground. Also the ground based missiles
usually need a booster.
The DD is cheaper, but does it have the at once throw weight?
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> Shipboard, SML salvoes and MT missiles are 2 mass on their own, so if
Don't look at the *SM*-ER. You have to look at the *SMR*-ER, since
that's
what your bomber is launching - it includes the mass of the hardpoints,
which your bomber certainly does need (unless it uses duct tape to secure the
missiles <g>). Similarly the MTMs include the Mass of their hardpoints.
A single ship-board SMR-ER is Mass 5 and costs 15. This Mass does not
include magazines or handling gear; but it *does* include the hardpoints
-
which the bomber needs too. Two MTMs including hardpoints is Mass 4 and costs
12.
IOW, unless you meant for the entire bomber squadron to have a total
payload of 1 SMR-ER or 2 MTMs, the ship-mounted *weapon* alone - without
the ship to carry it to the battle - costs more than your entire
*bomber*
(including missiles) :-/
> In another post Ryan wrote:
> Hmm... given that torp fighters are size 1 and carry a single shot mass
No, they don't carry "a single shot mass 4 weapon". They carry a
single-shot weapon with similar damage and *one-fifth the range* of a
mass
4 *multi-shot* weapon. Saying that the torp fighter weapon is the same
as a
P-torp is similar to saying that an 120mm tank round is the same as the
more-than-5-meter long tank gun which fires it, plus its magazine :-/
Your bombers do seem to launch the full-sized ship missiles though,
since they have the same range as the originals.
> Compare what is needed to fire a Harpoon from the air with what they
But in this case you're comparing launching a missile from the air with
launching it from the ground. A more relevant comparison is between launching
a cruise missile from a big flying aircraft and launching the same cruise
missile from a smaller flying aircraft.
Regards,
> At 7:51 PM +0200 5/30/01, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Don't look at the *SM*-ER. You have to look at the *SMR*-ER, since
I'm somewhere in between SMR-ER's and SM-ERs. But there are still
differences. I still envision SMR's inside the ship with access
points for maintenance and such. The SM/Magazine system is larger but
only if you keep the same number of rounds.
Difference between the Harpoons in box launchers on the deck of a
ship and those carried on an S-3. The Aircraft in effect is much of
that hardpoint itself.
SMRs are in effect, VLS; SMs, Mark 26 twin rail launchers. Though the bearing
angle has one wondering if it is a trainable mount or a missile capable of off
axis launches.
> A single ship-board SMR-ER is Mass 5 and costs 15. This Mass does
> IOW, unless you meant for the entire bomber squadron to have a total
Hard to split 2 MTMs between 3 aircraft....:)
> No, they don't carry "a single shot mass 4 weapon". They carry a
Sans the boosters. I'm abstractifying here just a bit mind you...Getting the
right feel, balance and difference in tactics is the trick.
> But in this case you're comparing launching a missile from the air
To a degree yes. However I'm still drawing a line between fighters and their
Delta Vee and the ships and their associated Delta Vee.
So given an increased cost to ~18pts / bomber with a ship sized
weapon (SMR-ER or x2 MTMs), does it still seem under-costed? Would a
bigger bomber make more sense. Mass 3 perhaps? Difference between a
Carrier fighter and a Land Based Maritime patrol craft (F-18 vs a
P-3)?.
Put your strike force on a ship and they take up 27 mass and 81 pts plus 96pts
for the bombers vs the 24 mass and 72 pts of the MT missiles.
Alot of this depends on how you envision SM's. You see them as standard
ordanance. From the masses as extrapolated from
from the rules I would say that a SM is mass 3-4 with 6
missiles.
How would I do it? I would let each Heavy carry 2 SM submunitions, give them a
6" range. Roll for missiles on target following
steps just like SG. (IE 11-12 missiles roll d12, 9-10 roll
d10, etc). Give them weakened fighter abilities but let them go in with their
missiles.
This is still really nasty but not as excessive. Giving me a gaurantee of a
salvo per fighter means I will instantly drop every other offensive weapon I
have in favor of these.
> At 4:01 PM -0400 5/30/01, Roger Books wrote:
A very good argument on the issue of scale. Hmm.
6" seems too short. 12-24" seems more like it.
> How would I do it? I would let each Heavy carry 2 SM submunitions,
Going on that, what about a middle ground based on the following:
2 SMs/ Bomber that makes 12 from a full strength group. Two dice
worth. Range from launch is 24" (changing numbers too much add confusion...)
1MT Missile per bomber giving you 6 of them per group. These MT missiles have
a two turn life span of up to 18" movement.
> This is still really nasty but not as excessive. Giving me a
Hmm. I see your point....
> On 30-May-01 at 18:24, Ryan M Gill (rmgill@mindspring.com) wrote:
> 2 SMs/ Bomber that makes 12 from a full strength group. Two dice
The problem with these is when does launch occur in your sequence? It appears
to occur after ship movement. That means a gauranteed on target for your
strike. That makes it far superior to a standard salvo missile strike. If you
move it back to "normal" launch time (IE before fighter movement) I would have
no problem with these.
The two biggest Italian ships sunk, being the Roma and some other, both
BB's, were sunk by 1-2 guided bombs. They were guided by the a little
stick in the plane.
> On 30-May-01 at 18:24, Ryan M Gill (rmgill@mindspring.com) wrote:
Intention is for these to launch during the Ordinance phase. Though perhaps
launching them during fighter movement would give the receiving enders to
shuffle fighters to intercept the missiles if they weren't in a position to
get the bombers.
In message <v04210105b73c094f6ebc@[192.168.1.11]>
> Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >On 30-May-01 at 18:24, Ryan M Gill (rmgill@mindspring.com) wrote:
One possibility is to extend the whole concept, tying in the concepts of
'small craft' and 'gunboats' that have been mentioned on the list from time to
time.
'Small Craft' are small, non-ftl craft of Mass 2 or 3, they typically
move as fighters, and use fighter-scale weapons.
In general, they can be faster, longer ranged, harder to kill, and/or
carry a heavier weapons load than normal fighters, however, they tend to fare
badly against fighters in combat.
I don't have any hard and fast numbers just yet but I'd say something like:
Basic Small Craft Primary Move = 12mu Secondary Move = 12mu Has 3 CEF Vs.
fighters as Attack Fighter
Attacked as fighter, attackers get +1 to rolls
No attacks vs. ships Cargo capacity: 1 (MASS 2 hull) or 2 (MASS 3 hull)
This is a basic shuttlecraft-type design - with minimal defensive
armament
Worth next to nothing NPV-wise (if it can be used as a BJ, then the cost
would rise).
Ok, not a lot if use - but various systems could be added - faster
engines, more fuel capacity, bigger weapons, etc.
One option would be an extension to Jared Nobles fighter design system -
see:
http://www.alaska.net/~jnoble/FT/
for details - this is something I'm going to have to work on at a later
date.
For the Strike Bombers:- Well, I personally consider the munition of a
torpedo fighter to be a single salvo missile warhead with only the terminal
burn motor attached. PDS does not try and shoot down the
missile - it instead tries to take out the launch vehicle (consider the
fighter as equivalent to the salvo missile main engine :-) - and the
roll to 'lock on' it the torp fighters roll 'to hit'.
Each strike bomber is twice as big as a fighter - so each can carry 2
torp missiles.
However - they are slightly faster (by 6 mu) but have shorter endurance
(by 2 CEF) - in my mind the reduced CEF outweighs the extra speed -
leaving some room for a longer range engine on the missiles (I'll go out on a
limb and say 12 mu).
Also, if we launch the missiles during the launch ordnance phase, the
bombers already have had their movement phase to make a 'bombing run' -
effective total range is 42 mu (30 mu move + 12 mu missile).
Full group of 3 strike bombers will launch a strike equal to 1 salvo -
depleted groups reduce the maximum number of missiles that lock on by 2 per
bomber lost.
Alternatively, each bomber carries 1 longer ranged missile, off the cuf I'd
say treat as an MT missile with reduced warhead strength (1d6 damage as
opposed to 2d6).
Well - probably way out - and I've no real idea as to cost (about 12 per
bomber brings 'em in to line with torp fighters?)
> At 7:46 PM +0100 5/31/01, Charles Taylor wrote:
[snip]
> In general, they can be faster, longer ranged, harder to kill, and/or
As they should...
> I don't have any hard and fast numbers just yet but I'd say something
Oh, wow, that's exactly what my Coast Guard Cutters need to have. I just made
these size 1 as they really only went to pick up people ala the CG Sea Kings,
Sea Hawks, Sea Sprites and Lynx's. I didn't figure on actually haveing a game
effect, but the larger High Endurance Cutters have bay space for these kind of
craft specifically.
I took 4 Arapahos and cut one down to make an extended hull model making 2
normal, and 1 larger type. I also took some other vessel, B5 small scale I
think, and used the bow section from the 4th Arapaho and built another similar
med sized high endurance cutter (24 mass iirc). All were painted white with a
blaze orange portion on the very tip of the 'NAC spade'. They all received a
nice Red and Blue diagonal stripe, US Coast Guard insignia on the sides. The
largest of the 4 received a smallish triangular shaped craft attached to a pin
off of its base post. The little Shuttle looks like a tiny, FT
scaled, version of the Microtac resin Shuttle/Courier. The 'SAR
pinnance' was painted blaze orange.
I figured the USCG would survive the amalgamation with the Canuks and Brits,
as it has a bloody long history and at the time a good sized force structure.
The mission would have just been extended into space, just like the navys'
were, in effect. Tradition is nice. An additional extension is Space Air
Rescue Service, ie PJs or Pararescue Jumpers.
A nice dovetail to this is that I can extend a Star Grunt scale to it and run
an NAC Pararescuemen scenario.
> Ok, not a lot if use - but various systems could be added - faster
[snip]
> Also, if we launch the missiles during the launch ordnance phase, the
Then why carry these compared to the torpedos with a 4-6 damage,
aside from the Standoff range?
Also the general idea is the allow the same mix of EMP or Needle missiles as
well in these "Air launched" MT Missiles.
Still all of the variant ideas has me thinking. I'm going to have to sit down
and compare the ideas and try to figure out the better balance here.
In message <p05100909b73c45778074@[157.166.130.123]>
> Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
[snip]
> >
The standoff range - no other reason ATM.
> Also the general idea is the allow the same mix of EMP or Needle
Well - this is very much a first draft - would upping the long ranger
version to 2d6 damage & allowing EMP & Needle warheads be unbalanced
(perhaps re-balance by reducing range/endurance?) (As we've seen EMP
weapons are a can of worms anyway :-).
> Still all of the variant ideas has me thinking. I'm going to have to
I'll be interested to see the results.
Any chance of putting up some pics somewhere so that we can see these cutters?
Bob Makowsky LCDR, USCG
HH-65 Dolphin IP
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 5:35 PM -0300 5/31/01, Bob Makowsky wrote:
Heh... piqued your interest did I? I'll have to get a camera and take
some pics. I also did a Coast Guard Style Tug/Cutter. Blaze orange
paint scheme and the black insignia....:)
> At 9:22 PM +0100 5/31/01, Charles Taylor wrote:
> > Then why carry these compared to the torpedos with a 4-6 damage,
Fair enough...:)
> > Also the general idea is the allow the same mix of EMP or Needle
I'm inclined to keep one of the results like the weapons, a shorter range from
the initial 18"x3 or 36" really seems the better
counterweight. Hence my thoughts on 18"x2 for the MTMs and 12-24" for
the Salvo Missiles. A stand off is still part of the idea.
I'm still a big fan of the EMP missile. Its one of the few methods I've seen
that's really good for hurting the FSE before they unleash thier form of
Froggie Hell on you with their Salvo Missiles.
I've been working up one class of SDN that has MT missiles and Standard and ER
Salvo Missiles. Aptly named the Long Beach Class SDN. Its still really just a
concept thingy, I've thought it'd be a good a way as any for OU vessels to be
armed. Though I'm sure there are a few folks out there that have OU ships with
their own particular SOP.
> >
I'm glad to see this list interested in the idea.
They aren't supposed to be complex and I'm trying to keep the basic ideals of
the game in mind. I, of course, don't want them unbalancing since the first
person I've tried them against was our local Eurie player. He's liking the
idea a lot and of course I'm certain the NAC will see the Euries making their
own and using them back on us....
*picture an Eurasion Solar Union intelligence officer ransacking archives on
20th Century Maritime bombers....his next promotion is just around the corner,
he's sure of it....*
Funnily enough, you've written almost exactly what I posted 2 days
ago...
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[mkw] Admiral Peter Rollins; Task Force Zulu
[Firestorm] GM Battletech Webgame#2
> -----Original Message-----
-
> effective total range is 42 mu (30 mu move + 12 mu missile).
Yes you did! I would like to see those pictures if you get a chance.
Thanks,
Bob Makowsky
[quoted original message omitted]
In message <B18DDC5F1158D311A66900805FD4718102C7C927@VSTASV1>
> "Robertson, Brendan" <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
> Funnily enough, you've written almost exactly what I posted 2 days
My fault for skimming the list :-(
OTOH great minds allegedly think alike (has anyone actually _proved_
this :-).
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> At 5:20 PM +1000 5/30/01, Robertson, Brendan wrote:
The magazines are empty spaces, the handling equipment is already figured into
the mass of launcher (which is why an empty launcher is almost as massive as a
full rack). The shipboard harpoon launcher is a steel tube that is long enough
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> At 7:51 PM +0200 5/30/01, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
Accessways only affect the volume, not the mass. The hardpoints are not going
to have zero mass, as they must be strong enough to hold the missile and craft
together at the craft's maximum accelleration.
> Difference between the Harpoons in box launchers on the deck of a
The unanswerable question is how much lighter would an S-3 be if it did
not have the hardpoints installed?
> SMRs are in effect, VLS; SMs, Mark 26 twin rail launchers. Though the
Actually, going by the descriptions, an SMR is a collection of six, closely
spaced holes in the hull, with each leading to a missile filled tube. The SML
has heavy blast doors at the inner end of the tube that leads to a magazine,
and includes equipment to shove missiles through the doors.
> >A single ship-board SMR-ER is Mass 5 and costs 15. This Mass does
Why does the ship-fired SM need a booster?
> >But in this case you're comparing launching a missile from the air
If the Maritime Strike Bomber is supplying the Delta Vee, then it must be
following the missiles in towards the target (which defeats the purpose
stand-off weaponry).
> So given an increased cost to ~18pts / bomber with a ship sized
> At 7:10 PM -0400 6/1/01, Richard and Emily Bell wrote:
But hard points are effectively mounting points that are integral to
the structure of the aircraft. Sure its a re-enforced point, but
nowhere near the same addition mass that you get for the armoured box
launchers on regular ships.
If the hardpoint on the aircraft is damaged enough to cause a problem then the
aircraft isn't likely there any more...
> The unanswerable question is how much lighter would an S-3 be if it did
Probably the difference of the S-3 minus a its wings?
> Actually, going by the descriptions, an SMR is a collection of six,
Heavier gear by far. Not integral portions of the ship. Its also more complex
gear that needs regular servicing, add companionways and hatches.
> Why does the ship-fired SM need a booster?
Off axis shots.
> If the Maritime Strike Bomber is supplying the Delta Vee, then it must
Likely it's pointed towards the target at launch. Perhaps the gross difference
between fighters and ships isn't as great as I make it out to be, but I figure
that the fighters have a significantly higher delta vee than do the ships and
that the missiles get some impetus from that....
Still at this point we're starting to argue hairs...
> The real problem is if they are firing missiles at 36mu, they need a
Huh? When have fighters needed Firecons for any of their weapons?
> At 10:08 1/06/01 -0400, you wrote:
> The real problem is if they are firing missiles at 36mu, they need a
If you want them to shoot at targets 'beyond their 6" range' at targets
without ant assistance it wouldn't hurt;)
> At 8:34 PM +1000 6/2/01, Derek Fulton wrote:
Hmm, I'd always abstractified the Firecons based on it being a group of people
that acted as fire controllers for multiple weapons. On a small ship (with
fewer weapons) it'd be a console with a screen or 4, with a large ship, it'd
likely be a small staff of people at consoles and an officer or MCPO. Must it
be a Mass 1 object for a tiny craft to operate as a bomber?
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> At 7:10 PM -0400 6/1/01, Richard and Emily Bell wrote:
Armored box launchers in wet naval service are much more massive than the
comparable space navy box, as the environment at sealevel, when subjected to
weather patterns can actually be at lot worse than the environment in space.
Unfortunately, you are hard pressed to locate the mass of the Mk141(?)
launcher for the harpoon. I do know that mount four exocets on what looks to
be a five tonne truck, so shipboard mountings need not be as heavy as you
think.
> If the hardpoint on the aircraft is damaged enough to cause a problem
No, hardpoints are not free. The structure of the wing must be altered to
allow a variable weight to be attached to it. The weight varies between the
extremes of the g-loading multiplied by the mass of attached object.
The
central hardpoint on the fuselage of an F-15 will support eighteen
thousand pounds, but the centerline tank is only allowed to weigh two thousand
pounds, so that the aircraft can maneuver while carrying it. Aircraft
hardpoints are
simple in comparison to an FT-style hardpoint, because the forces on an
aircraft hardpoint never wander very far
from the vertical axis (relative to the wing). FT-style hardpoints must
be rated for main drive and thruster pushes. If they are mounted any distance
from center of rotation, they must also resist rotational inertias.
The Maritime Strike Bombers probably need extra boosters to enable them to
carry the missiles, and not have radically different handling characteristics
after launch (which is why so much effort goes into precisely loading
aircraft).
> >Actually, going by the descriptions, an SMR is a collection of six,
Companion ways only take up volume. Putting a hatch in a solid wall only adds
the mass of hinges and a latch (and a fair amount of cost). The door hardware
may be heavy in absolute terms, but relative to the mass of material that
fills the volume, which would exist if it was a solid wall anyway, it does
need to be much in relative terms.
> >
Possibly when they fire at ranges greater than six mu
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> At 8:34 PM +1000 6/2/01, Derek Fulton wrote:
You have described the combat information center. The fire con is the very
precise tracking sensor that allows you to know where the target is likely to
be in the time it will take for your weapons to intercept it. The problem with
extremely precise sensors is that their field of view is
non-existant (from a searching perspective), so you need one for each
target that you are tracking.
[Extrapolating PSB from how the game is played]
The reason that fighters operate as closely to their carriers as they do is
because the fighter is physically too small to mount the sensors
It occurrs to me that we have all forgotten something very important about
> Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 18:26:38 -0400
Then they are big enough to be built as real ships using the ship construction
rules.
Otherwise one gets the SFB syndrome where the Hydrans would be best off
replacing the weapons on their weapon mounts with welded on Fighters attached
to the ships power grid.
Teh fighter rules are an approximation to allow such things to exist without
excessively complicating the ship construction rules. Not an example of a
functional alternative technology.
> But in this case you're comparing launching a missile from the air
I agree with Oerjan on this one. Drastically unbalanced.
But worth persisting with IMHO. It's a nice idea, has a neat feel to it, could
be a lot of fun.
My own initial thoughts (based on KISS...)
Option A: That an MSB is basically just a really, really extended range Salvo
Missile, one with 2 parts - the long-range booster ( or MSB itself) that
moves like a fighter, and the payload, which when launched, moves like a SM.
So they should be bought as such. Given we need 4 mass for a SMR (Rack), and 5
mass for
an ER-SMR, perhaps we should have 6 mass per bomber, ie the same as a
fighter squadron, you can fit one of em in a standard hanger. Costs in points
are
another issue - given the fact that 1 hit kills em, they have to go home
to reload their weaponry so will get at most 2 SM shots in a usual game, then
standard fighter cost of 12 seems good to me, maybe even a tadge high.
Think Tupolev Tu-95 + AS-4 Kitchen, if you're that way inclined.
Option B : An MSB is a flight of 6 not-aircraft, each with a D6 missile
on. They can be dogfought etc, and attritted away. When they launch their
"SM"
payload, they don't roll a D6 incoming warheads, you use the number of
surviving bombers. This means unintercepted MSBs are about 5/7 better
than a normal SM. A cost of 18 looks good here, same as a fast fighter.
Think Grumman A-6s + Standard ARM, similar deal.