Hello Everyone: A few months ago, I mentioned that I was working on some near
future rules. (I've abandoned my attempt to get them published. This is
because I would have to give up my rights to them and couldn't put them up on
the web for the rest of you to see.) I've just put up my first draft of these
rules on my WWW page. I have come up with the following: *Autocannons: A
varient of the railgun that has a shorter range, and limited ammunition. *Beam
weapons weigh and cost more. *I tweaked up my dustcaster rules.
I plan on adding the following: *A full background and ships to go with them.
*Info on Kinetic Kill Missiles (i.e Normal Missiles) and Nuclear Missiles (a
missie that causes both physical damage and EMP effect).
*Rules for SDI type stuff like bomb pumped X-Ray lasers sats.
"brillant pebbles", MIRVs, and other such stuff.
Mind you this is a rough draft and I'm a ways away from finishing it. Any
suggestions are more than welcome.
Later,
> On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Alan Brain wrote:
> Mark A. Siefert wrote:
Will do, I also want to add the concept of reaction mass (i.e. fuel).
> Secondly, the biggest problem with hard-kill mechanisms is going to be
I'm tempted to dump my B5 rules (What's the point? JT's rules are coming out
soon, and I am really dissapointed in them.) and incoporate the EW rules into
this system.
While I am on the subject of these near future rules, I want to bring up
another idea I am having trouble with: AUTOCANNON AMMO EXPLOSIONS! IMHO, if an
autocannon takes a hit, their is a chance that any remaining ammo will cap off
and do further damage to the ship. I have to techniques: 1. The Catastrophic
Method: When an autocannon is damaged in a threshold roll (except those caused
by EMP weapons) roll a seperate d6 and if the result is a 6 then the ammo in
the magazine goes (in the immortal words of Commander Susan Ivanova) "BOOM!"
Multiply the amount of ammo left by the rating of the cannon. This is the
amount of damage you
take. Yes Virgina, you can completely destroy a ship this way. The near future
is a dangerous place for space combat.
2. The Not-So-Catastrophic Method: The same as above. Except
you don't multiply the number of ammo by the level of the cannon. Just
> At 10:33 PM 2/24/97 -0600, you wrote:
fuel).
How about: rate fuel in points per mass. make this high (20-40?) or
ships won't have enough fuel to really manuever....
> I'm tempted to dump my B5 rules (What's the point? JT's rules
Whats the point?!? I am still looking for the best b5 rules right now! I would
like to see more ships for your version.
> While I am on the subject of these near future rules, I want to
> any remaining ammo will cap off and do further damage to the ship. I
> mark off damage equal to the amount of ammo in the magazine.
http://www.uwm.edu/~cthulhu
> =======================================================================
Method #2 dosn't sound too bad.
> Mark A. Siefert wrote:
Just checked out your rules.
Just one thought, why would autocannon rounds have an explosive filler? A
massive object that strikes the target will do a lot more damage than a
similar one that gets broken into small fragments. Not to mention that some of
these fragments will come back at you. (exactly why aircraft don't fire self
destroying cannon rounds, they would suck the fragments into their own air
intakes)
> On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Ludo Toen wrote:
Your probably right about the warhead. I'm thinking more of the
delivery system. Because conventional firearms woundn't operate in a
vaccum, these cannon rounds are designed to be more like mini-rockets
than gun-powdered driven bullets. The cannon is kind of a launch tube
with a rapid fire action. Since the fuel and oxygen source for the autocannon
round if very volitile, it can blow up real good if you hit them
jjjuuuusssssttt right. Besides, I want near future space combat to be really
dangerous.
Later,
> Mark A. Siefert wrote:
-->8---
> Any suggestions are more than welcome.
Firstly, please use Newtonian movement.
Secondly, the biggest problem with hard-kill mechanisms is going to be
In message <Pine.OSF.3.91.970225121128.24017A-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>
> " writes:
> delivery system. Because conventional firearms woundn't operate in a
> with a rapid fire action. Since the fuel and oxygen source for the
A reasonable design object, but work out how much free oxygen is in a
typical cartridge case -- the oxidiser is in the propellant charge and,
apart from little mechanical problems like lubricants boiling off in vacuum,
there is no fundamental reason why conventional guns wouldn't work.
> On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Ludo Toen wrote:
> Your probably right about the warhead. I'm thinking more of
Why ever not? Lubrication of moving parts is a problem, but other than that,
no worries. Cordite etc contains its own source of oxidant. There is not
enough oxygen in a gun tube to support complete combustion of any propellant,
the propellant must have its own oxidant already in it.
True even for Gunpowder - the Saltpetre.