The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Underwater Energy Weapons
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech -> Underwater Energy Weapons Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5687
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2018 1:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
A weapon that exists in official stats (barely: it's included on exactly three out of all the official WEG stats) is the Pulse Laser. However, Pulse Lasers are indistinguishable stats-wise from regular Laser Cannon, so they pretty much just exist because a stat writer thought they sounded cool.

What I'm thinking is that Pulse Lasers could be re-worked to be laser cannons specifically tuned to function underwater, reducing or negating the penalties to blaster weapons listed in Battle for the Golden Sun. All that would be required from there is re-naming the weaponry on the three ships that already have pulse weapons...

An initial thought on the techno-babble would be that the individual pulses create a pocket of super-heated steam in their wake, which eases the passage of the next pulse, which in turn eases the passage of the next bolt and so on and so forth.

A first draft on the differences between standard Lasers and Pulse Lasers:
    Pro:
    -When fired underwater, a Pulse Laser only loses 1D of Damage (instead of 2D) and hits at normal Difficulty (regular Lasers suffer a +5 Difficulty at all Ranges)

    Con:
    -Pulse Lasers are bulkier and more expensive, due to the specialized equipment and tuning needed to generate the pulse effect. Double weight and cost for Laser Weapons (as listed in Tramp Freighters); installation and repair costs unchanged.

I like it.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Zarn
Captain
Captain


Joined: 17 Jun 2014
Posts: 703

PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The VA-111 Shkval is a weapon system that uses supercavitation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval

The Iranians claim that they have a Hoot. Literally. That's what it is called.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoot_(torpedo)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12388
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm surprised they haven't called it the Mother of All Torpedoes yet.

In all seriousness, though, I really like the idea of hyper-cavitating torpedoes for underwater use. It ties in nicely with my alternate theory for space-based torpedoes being encased in an energy sheath that allows them to penetrate shields.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
MrNexx
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 1383
Location: San Antonio

PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wonder about MonCal and Quarren weapon systems.
_________________
"I’m telling you, you’ll never have a deeper sleep than curled up in a Wookie’s lap."
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12388
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2018 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MrNexx wrote:
I wonder about MonCal and Quarren weapon systems.

I was wondering the same, off and on, but unless someone comes up with rules for allowing Mon Cal capital ships to operate underwater, I don't see it being much of an issue.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12388
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2018 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zarn wrote:
The VA-111 Shkval is a weapon system that uses supercavitation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval

The Iranians claim that they have a Hoot. Literally. That's what it is called.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoot_(torpedo)

Considering the Shkval is actually rocket-propelled, a standard proton torpedo might almost work underwater. If the energy sheath surrounding the torpedo can be explained as flash boiling the water around the torpedo to create the equivalent effect of cavitation, the only real question would be guidance...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Pel
Line Captain
Line Captain


Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 984
Location: Texas

PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2018 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think Star Wars sensors would work underwater, but with reduced range. Weren't there some rules about this or maybe that dealt with sensors in a nebula. I forget.

Unless you want to retrofit them with an accoustic suite, then just treat them as sensors with a specified range, say 4 km passive and 2 km active, or whatever numbers you feel comfortable with.
_________________
Aha!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5687
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
What I'm thinking is that Pulse Lasers could be re-worked to be laser cannons specifically tuned to function underwater, reducing or negating the penalties to blaster weapons listed in Battle for the Golden Sun. All that would be required from there is re-naming the weaponry on the three ships that already have pulse weapons...

An initial thought on the techno-babble would be that the individual pulses create a pocket of super-heated steam in their wake, which eases the passage of the next pulse, which in turn eases the passage of the next bolt and so on and so forth.

A first draft on the differences between standard Lasers and Pulse Lasers:
    Pro:
    -When fired underwater, a Pulse Laser only loses 1D of Damage (instead of 2D) and hits at normal Difficulty (regular Lasers suffer a +5 Difficulty at all Ranges)

    Con:
    -Pulse Lasers are bulkier and more expensive, due to the specialized equipment and tuning needed to generate the pulse effect. Double weight and cost for Laser Weapons (as listed in Tramp Freighters); installation and repair costs unchanged.

CRMcNeill wrote:
MrNexx wrote:
I wonder about MonCal and Quarren weapon systems.

I was wondering the same, off and on, but unless someone comes up with rules for allowing Mon Cal capital ships to operate underwater, I don't see it being much of an issue.

It's a valid question. Mon Cal don't only make capital ships.

Nexx, I used CRM's idea of Pulse Lasers on the Mon Cal freighter I designed as the follow-up to the DeepWater, and it works like he described above. The ship has a submarine mode and the weapon eliminates the difficulty penalty and reduces the underwater damage reduction from shooting underwater. I'll share the ship when it is ready.

Pel wrote:
I think Star Wars sensors would work underwater, but with reduced range. Weren't there some rules about this or maybe that dealt with sensors in a nebula. I forget.

Unless you want to retrofit them with an accoustic suite, then just treat them as sensors with a specified range, say 4 km passive and 2 km active, or whatever numbers you feel comfortable with.

I was wondering about this, but more than that I was wondering how starship sensors should work in the atmosphere too since our stats are in space units. And should weapon ranges be lower under water then in the atmosphere?
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12388
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2019 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've played around with sensor ranges on some earlier stats, particularly ground vehicles with anti-air weaponry. It makes sense that sensors should have different ranges based on the environment in which they're operating, but there are a lot of different factors. I went with modifiers for the base range in SUs for Sensors: SUs = kilometers for atmosphere and SUs = 100 meters for surface. So, going off of the Sensor stats Whill sent to me for the WIP MonCal freighter, it has Sensors of:
    Passive 15/0D
    Scan 30/2D

    Search 65/2D+2
    
Focus 5/2D+2

However, in Atmosphere, that range would drop to:
    Passive 15km/0D
    Scan 30km/2D
    Search 65km/2D+2
    Focus 5km/2D+2
And if on the ground (and detecting other targets on the ground), the range would be:
    Passive 1.5km/0D
    Scan 3km/2D
    Search 6.5km/2D+2
    Focus: 500m/2D+2
I suppose the ground/surface ranges would be appropriate for submerged operations, too...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5687
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
I've played around with sensor ranges on some earlier stats, particularly ground vehicles with anti-air weaponry. It makes sense that sensors should have different ranges based on the environment in which they're operating, but there are a lot of different factors. I went with modifiers for the base range in SUs for Sensors: SUs = kilometers for atmosphere and SUs = 100 meters for surface. So, going off of the Sensor stats Whill sent to me for the WIP MonCal freighter, it has Sensors of:
    Passive 15/0D
    Scan 30/2D

    Search 65/2D+2
    
Focus 5/2D+2

However, in Atmosphere, that range would drop to:
    Passive 15km/0D
    Scan 30km/2D
    Search 65km/2D+2
    Focus 5km/2D+2
And if on the ground (and detecting other targets on the ground), the range would be:
    Passive 1.5km/0D
    Scan 3km/2D
    Search 6.5km/2D+2
    Focus: 500m/2D+2
I suppose the ground/surface ranges would be appropriate for submerged operations, too...

I love this. SU to km in atmosphere, and divide that by 10 for ground to ground and underwater. Simple.

Before you've stated that atmos weapon ranges should be used as-in for submerged weaponry. I think of targeting computer technology to partially be an application of sensor technology, and part of the weapon range to be from its targeting computer.

Below is the weapon from the same ship. The long range of the weapon is still under the ground/aquatic Sensor Search range. Do you still feel that submerge weapon range should equal atmospheric range? Should some aspect of ground/aquatic sensor range be a cap for aquatic weapon range?

Quote:
...Weapons: 

Dual Pulse Laser 
Fire Arc: turret

Crew: 1
Skill: starship gunnery
Fire Control: 2D

Range:
--Space: 1-3/12/25

--Orbital: 2km-6km/24km/50km

--Atmosphere: 100m-300m/1.2km/2.5km
Damage: 5D*

*When fired underwater, a Pulse Laser only loses 1D of Damage (instead of 2D) and hits at normal Difficulty (regular Lasers suffer a +5 Difficulty at all Ranges)

_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12388
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's a little confusing the way it's written...

The "Orbital" range for the laser cannon is just for orbital bombardment, and would only be used if your characters were in orbit and trying to hit a target on a planet's surface; once in atmosphere, the laser cannon would revert to the Atmosphere Range.

As far as weapon ranges in atmosphere, having aerial sensors be much longer ranged than the weaponry is consistent with the real world, where fighters can have radars that can detect and lock on to targets ten, twenty or even a hundred miles away (the venerable F-14/AIM-54 missile combination could actually make stand-off guided missile attacks against them), but the cannon are still limited to a kilometer or two.

Having sensors in-atmosphere have much greater rang helps to preserve the feel of sensor-assisted aerial combat, as well as inserting much more realistic ranges. Stand-off attacks could still be possible with sufficiently long-ranged guided or homing missiles, though.

If, on the other hand, you're more interested in preserving the World War II-era combat feel, you could always pare down the sensor ranges to 1 SU = 100 meters. Even an A-Wing moving at All-Out would still require several rounds to move from extreme sensor range to close enough to attack.

I did also elsewhere suggest a Range-based Difficulty modifier for Sensors to better simulate the tendency of sensors to gradually lose effectiveness as range increases, rather than simply having a hard limit. Just use the Sensor Range as a base, then:
    -5 Difficulty if at or less than 50% of range.
    +10 Difficulty if more than 100% but less than 200% range.
    +20 Difficulty if more than 200% but less than 300%.
    Then +40 at 301-400%, and so on.
This allows skilled sensor operators a chance to show off a bit by picking out sensor contacts at extreme range.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5687
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
I did also elsewhere suggest a Range-based Difficulty modifier for Sensors to better simulate the tendency of sensors to gradually lose effectiveness as range increases, rather than simply having a hard limit. Just use the Sensor Range as a base, then:
    -5 Difficulty if at or less than 50% of range.
    +10 Difficulty if more than 100% but less than 200% range.
    +20 Difficulty if more than 200% but less than 300%.
    Then +40 at 301-400%, and so on.
This allows skilled sensor operators a chance to show off a bit by picking out sensor contacts at extreme range.

That's a good option.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5687
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2019 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
Before you've stated that atmos weapon ranges should be used as-in for submerged weaponry. I think of targeting computer technology to partially be an application of sensor technology, and part of the weapon range to be from its targeting computer.

...The long range of the weapon is still under the ground/aquatic Sensor Search range. Do you still feel that submerge weapon range should equal atmospheric range? Should some aspect of ground/aquatic sensor range be a cap for aquatic weapon range?


CRMcNeill wrote:
It's a little confusing the way it's written...

The "Orbital" range for the laser cannon is just for orbital bombardment, and would only be used if your characters were in orbit and trying to hit a target on a planet's surface; once in atmosphere, the laser cannon would revert to the Atmosphere Range.

Orbital had nothing to do with my question, I just copied the entire weapon stats. And I understand when each set of ranges would be used. I thought I got the format from your stat block. How should it be written?

CRMcNeill wrote:
As far as weapon ranges in atmosphere, having aerial sensors be much longer ranged than the weaponry is consistent with the real world, where fighters can have radars that can detect and lock on to targets ten, twenty or even a hundred miles away (the venerable F-14/AIM-54 missile combination could actually make stand-off guided missile attacks against them), but the cannon are still limited to a kilometer or two.

Having sensors in-atmosphere have much greater rang helps to preserve the feel of sensor-assisted aerial combat, as well as inserting much more realistic ranges. Stand-off attacks could still be possible with sufficiently long-ranged guided or homing missiles, though.

If, on the other hand, you're more interested in preserving the World War II-era combat feel, you could always pare down the sensor ranges to 1 SU = 100 meters. Even an A-Wing moving at All-Out would still require several rounds to move from extreme sensor range to close enough to attack.

I'm ok with atmosphere sensor range being longer than atmosphere weapon range. I was asking if you still feel that aquatic weapon range should equal atmospheric range, or if it should be reduced further?

I was also asking that if aquatic weapon range is ever longer than aquatic sensor range, should the weapon range be capped at sensor range range? Does your option of being able to exceed sensor range with added difficulty mean that it is no big deal if aquatic weapon range works about to be longer because you should be able to exceed sensor range if you roll good enough anyway?
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12388
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
Orbital had nothing to do with my question, I just copied the entire weapon stats. And I understand when each set of ranges would be used. I thought I got the format from your stat block. How should it be written?

For some reason, I was thinking you were talking about using the orbital range as the Atmosphere range for the laser cannon. Never mind, then.

Quote:
I was asking if you still feel that aquatic weapon range should equal atmospheric range, or if it should be reduced further?

Well, if we're going by the baseline in Battle for the Golden Sun, then no. Blasters underwater only have increased Difficulty to hit, not a reduction in absolute range.

Quote:
I was also asking that if aquatic weapon range is ever longer than aquatic sensor range, should the weapon range be capped at sensor range range? Does your option of being able to exceed sensor range with added difficulty mean that it is no big deal if aquatic weapon range works about to be longer because you should be able to exceed sensor range if you roll good enough anyway?

I think so, but with qualifications. In my latest iteration of Sensor rules, I added an additional step (Detected, Located and Identified) with the restriction that a ship could only be successfully targeted by a ship's weaponry if it had been Located or Identified, as detected merely meant that the sensor was aware that something was there, and its general direction and distance.

Like garhkal's signature used to say, you can't hit it if you don't know it's there...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5687
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
I think of targeting computer technology to partially be an application of sensor technology, and part of the weapon range to be from its targeting computer.

CRMcNeill wrote:
I think so, but with qualifications. In my latest iteration of Sensor rules, I added an additional step (Detected, Located and Identified) with the restriction that a ship could only be successfully targeted by a ship's weaponry if it had been Located or Identified, as detected merely meant that the sensor was aware that something was there, and its general direction and distance.

Like garhkal's signature used to say, you can't hit it if you don't know it's there...

You can't hit what you don't know is there, which is one reason that I thought targeting computers used sensor technology to tell you what possible targets are where. I never thought that RAW was so dysfunctional that it allowed you to shoot at targets that didn't know were there. But I supposed I should look at your sensor rules.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0