 September 22, 2011 - 11:49am | The UPF has learned much in the campaign against the sathar war machine. To that end UPF Admiral Bez'ill Nebulon has authorized construction of a Dominator class destroyer. Traditionally heavy ship weapons have been placed in front of ships and designated FF or forward-firing. LocKneed's new design places the FF laser cannon on a mounting system that allows heavy ship weapons to be placed on the side of a ship allowing pass-by attacks. The mount allows the weapon to swivel several degrees left/right and up/down increasing it's effecting targeting area.  |
 October 11, 2011 - 7:20pm | In my last job we designed medical lasers. Many of them used flash lamps and capacitor banks. The sound was exactly like a photo flash unit, a pop/snap followed by a whine of the capacitors charging. However, many of the newer designs used diode lasers to pump a YAG crystal and they made no sound. These were much lower power than the flash lamp lasers that excited the crystal. Maybe if we could build high enough power diode lasers we would have the whining sound of the capacitors charging after each shot. -iggy |
 October 13, 2011 - 9:04am | I was wondering about the sound through the atmosphere. Thunder is the result of displaced air rushing back in after a lightining bolt has passed through (or so I am told). Wouldn't a laser cause something similar? At what speed does lightining travel? If not the speed of light, would the higher speed of a laser beam negate this rush of air? |
 October 13, 2011 - 12:50pm | Sorry I'm late for the conversation....A few thoughts. I think that the bigest advantage of energy weapons aboard any space craft over projectile weapons comes down really to space considerations, with projectile weapons using up valuable space for...ammunition. Energy weapons are more advantageous because they can either drain power from the ship's powerplant, or can have solar energy collectors and capasitors to charge them. This should be a consideration for any spacecraft that is going to perform extended missions beyond a central base. "do we sacrifice space that could be used to carry perishables, medical supplies or cargo, or do we mount a rail gun that will use that space up to carry ammo?" Most interstellar ships would likely have more energy weapons aboard simply because space would have to be allocated to lifesupport enabling the crew to survive the time between ports, while planetary gunships would probably have less energy weapons and more projectile, or missile weapons. "Hey guys I wonder what this does"-Famous last words "Hey guys, I think it's friendly." -Famous last words "You go on ahead, I'll catch up." -Famous last words "Did you here that?" -Famous last words |
October 13, 2011 - 1:17pm | Deryn_Rys, Interesting point. In my games power for weapons is a sudden burst of energy while power for technology is a steady stream. So... parabatteries can power a vehilce or ship system but not a weapon. Energy weapons use "drums", although they don't take up the same space as torps or seeker missiles they do take up space. Now you know the rest of the story. ;-) |
October 13, 2011 - 3:39pm | on an aside, do you consider that the displaced space for a particular weapon also includes space that is being used up to hold enough ammunition for a single combat? Or do you consider the displaced space is the actual weapon itself in which case you need to allocate cargo points that are used up for Ammunition, and then we have to figure out how much ammo can be stored in one cargo unit worth of space. I've always considered that a ship's energy weapons would divert power from the ship's power plant since during combat most ships would power down many non-essential systems and that energy would be used to charge up the ship's guns. Of course in our own spacecraft power is often stored in batteries or capasitors, and may be augmented by solar arrays and such. "Hey guys I wonder what this does"-Famous last words "Hey guys, I think it's friendly." -Famous last words "You go on ahead, I'll catch up." -Famous last words "Did you here that?" -Famous last words |
 October 13, 2011 - 6:30pm | on an aside, do you consider that the displaced space for a particular weapon also includes space that is being used up to hold enough ammunition for a single combat? Or do you consider the displaced space is the actual weapon itself in which case you need to allocate cargo points that are used up for Ammunition, and then we have to figure out how much ammo can be stored in one cargo unit worth of space.
I go by the KH space allocations. A RB takes up 40 cubic meters, each salvo takes up another 10 cubes. Hence, a frigate's RB with 4 salvoes chews up a total of 80 cubic meters. Ditto for the torpedo launchers, the launcher itself displaces 75 cubic meters, and every torpedo in te magazine chews up an additional 20...hence the frigate's launcher and two torpedoes takes up a total of 115 cubic meters. Granted it gets a little screwy on fighters, the launcher and three rockets takes up 40 cubic meters on a hull that displaces a total of 31 cubic meters...but I chalk that up to the rules mentioning with regards to warships "techniques in miniaturization permit many possibilities". |
 October 13, 2011 - 10:03pm | I wouldn't think a ship would necessarily need to travel in the same direction as its FF weapon in order to do the "pass by" firing to port or starboard mentioned. Cutting thrust, the ship can continue in the direction it was heading and (within the 10 minute KH game turn) turn in any direction it wants to fire its FF weapon. The only advantage I can see in having a turret mounted LC would be to allow for firing in directions other than the direction the ship was heading AND accelerating in. Here's a fun concept. (FF) = Forward Firing only weapon. (AF) = Aft Firing only weapon. A freighter could mount an aft firing LC for use when being pursued by hostiles. Have any of you ever considered mounting FF weapons pointed aft? Or if the ship was large enough, one LC forward and one LC aft? My SF website izz: http://ragnarr.webs.com |
 October 14, 2011 - 4:41am | Other then direction of fire the other big impact of having a FF weapon is that it has a narrow field of fire. I think KH 2.0 should lose FF and have broadside weapons and turret weapons, with a few limits on the number of weapons on the side of a ship. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
October 14, 2011 - 8:03am | Captain Rags, in the tactile game board, I'm not sure that's possible. It seems the game board is treated as if ships are flying atmo. At least that's my impression. Player Number One, "I want to use my full ADF, pass by the destroyer, cut thrust and turn my assaults scout's nose to point at destroyer and fire the FF AR's! Can I do that Captain GM Rags?" |
October 14, 2011 - 9:36am | Here's a fun concept. (FF) = Forward Firing only weapon. (AF) = Aft Firing only weapon. A freighter could mount an aft firing LC for use when being pursued by hostiles. Have any of you ever considered mounting FF weapons pointed aft? Or if the ship was large enough, one LC forward and one LC aft?
I've done this several times, mostly with shuttlecraft but occasionally with NPC bad guy vessels as well. It would certainly behoove any smugglers to mount aft-firing weaponry to help with any pursuit situations. Granted, considering the nature of civilian craft, such weaponry is often limited to pod lasers....going by the MHS rulings you can almost have two laser batteries for one laser cannon, whereas adding a single MHS:1 pod laser doesn't affect performance on anything HS:2 or larger. |
October 14, 2011 - 9:46am | Captain Rags, in the tactile game board, I'm not sure that's possible. It seems the game board is treated as if ships are flying atmo. At least that's my impression.
According to the KH rules, the weapon may fire at any target that passes within its field of fire/range. A ship can move ten hexes, but it doesn't necesarily attack at the end of the movement phase, it can attack anywhere along the way in any hex it passes through. If it passes through the field of fire of a FF (or RF - rear firing) weapon, that weapon (assuming it can be utliized in the non-movement phase, re:MPO weapons) may fire at the ship as it passes through that field of fire. So using my example below of a smuggler utilizng a RF pod laser system, anytime a pursuing vessel passes behind the craft at a range of five hexes (within that three row field of fire for a FF weapon), that pod laser may fire. Anytime that smuggler ship can position itself so the RF weapon is able to engage pursuit craft, it can fire. Tactically, the LB is still superior...but the rules do not limit the FF (or RF) weapons by any means either. Tactically, any ship pursuing a FF/RF only vessel will try to stay out of that FF/RF field of fire and use battery weapons on the fleeing craft, and in the case of fighter craft they would want to attack from the undefended flanks of such craft and use their superior perfromance to avoid the FF/RF end of that ship. Still, the fleeing ship can maneuver at any time during its movement phase and try to line up that FF/Rf only weapon. |
October 14, 2011 - 8:01pm | Err, sure. But nothing in the board games rules I know of states you can turn within the hex and fire in any direction. You need to burn an MR to do that. I think that's what we were talking about? Like in atmo, a ships tail follows its nose. Is that cause the nose knows? or Knows nose?  |
October 14, 2011 - 10:12pm | I went in a slightly different direction when it comes to smaller laser weaponry such as laser pods. What I do in my campaign is allow smaller ships to be armed with an LT (laser turret) which is a reduced version of a LB. Same range but half the damage (1d5). I actually decided on LTs prior to reading anything about Laser Pods. I also allow a reduced size laser cannon (dmg: 1d10) for smaller ships. My SF website izz: http://ragnarr.webs.com |
October 15, 2011 - 9:32am | Err, sure. But nothing in the board games rules I know of states you can turn within the hex and fire in any direction. You need to burn an MR to do that. I think that's what we were talking about?
Like in atmo, a ships tail follows its nose. Right. Ive been asked that in numerous sections..."can I turn without changing direction to line up my cannon?" I've never had a problemwith expending MR points for tha, but the thing is they have to expend MR poitns in the next phase to get "back on track" so to speak or else they cannot change velocity (unless they really want to slow down after executing a 180). I was just pointing out the myriad of possibilities that exist for firing patterns in any given move. |
October 15, 2011 - 9:38am | I went in a slightly different direction when it comes to smaller laser weaponry such as laser pods. What I do in my campaign is allow smaller ships to be armed with an LT (laser turret) which is a reduced version of a LB. Same range but half the damage (1d5). I actually decided on LTs prior to reading anything about Laser Pods. I basically did the same thing, "pod laser turrets". I just went in a different direction...same damage as the LB but half the range. I also allow a reduced size laser cannon (dmg: 1d10) for smaller ships.
That's something I'm fiddling around with in my pf-100 game. I have three variants of laser cannons available, mark-1 to mark-3 cannons. Each one goes up in both range and damage...so the mark-1 can be affixed to smaller craft, the mark-2 for entry grade capital ships (frigates & destroyers), and mark-3 for cruisers. As history progresses, the mark-1 cannon evolves into the "modern pod laser" and the mark-2 & 3 cannons are mergered to become the "modern LC". |
October 19, 2011 - 8:44pm | pf-100 sounds kool! Another aspect to laser weaponry in SFKH that I'm forced to ponder; the greater the range, the weaker a laser beam becomes so that a smaller laser weapon has a less effective maximum range. Another way to go (the way I go that is) is to keep the same range for LBs and LTs (Laser Turrets) and just reduce the damage. Six of one, half dozen of the other I suppose, eh? My SF website izz: http://ragnarr.webs.com |
October 20, 2011 - 9:26am | Range Diffusion - This optional rule negates the to-hit penalty associated
with beam weapons. Knight Hawks states that each
hex a beam weapon travels reduces the chances to hit
by 5%. For example; a ship firing its laser cannon at a
ship 3 hexes away will incur a 15% penalty to hit.
Instead this optional rule reduces the damage by 1
point (rounded down) for every two hexes the beam
travels. Simply divide the number of hexes by 2 to find
the damage reduction. For example;
An Imp class privateer fires a laser battery on a
Volong starliner at a range of 7 hexes. Laser
batteries have a range of 9 hexes and do 1d10
damage. The Imp player hits and rolls 6 for the
damage. 7 hexes / 2 = 3 which results in the
privateer causing 3 points of damage in stead of 6. |
October 20, 2011 - 12:27pm | Yep, the range diffusion rule (wow, all this time I hadn't realized it was optional...I have always invoked it thinking it was mandatory) expounds on that premise fairly. Works the same way in AD with laser rifles and pistols...lesser chance to hit at greater ranges but the damage is still the same. It's consistent in that regard as well. |
 October 20, 2011 - 12:48pm | Range Diffusion - This optional rule negates the to-hit penalty associated
with beam weapons. Knight Hawks states that each
hex a beam weapon travels reduces the chances to hit
by 5%. For example; a ship firing its laser cannon at a
ship 3 hexes away will incur a 15% penalty to hit.
Instead this optional rule reduces the damage by 1
point (rounded down) for every two hexes the beam
travels. Simply divide the number of hexes by 2 to find
the damage reduction. For example;
An Imp class privateer fires a laser battery on a
Volong starliner at a range of 7 hexes. Laser
batteries have a range of 9 hexes and do 1d10
damage. The Imp player hits and rolls 6 for the
damage. 7 hexes / 2 = 3 which results in the
privateer causing 3 points of damage in stead of 6. I'm assuming that optional rule is in the Remastered version that Bill did. It doesn't seem to be in the original rules, just the -5% to hit per hex which isn't an optional rule in the original Ad Astra Per Ardua! My blog - Expanding Frontier Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine |
October 20, 2011 - 1:25pm | As Tom pointed out, Range Diffusion is not optional. The optional part is mine. :-) Check out the Knight Hawks Expanded article which appeared in Issue #14. I prefer less damage verses less chance to hit (which is fairly abysmal already, imo.). Sorry for the confusion. Just keep swimming! |
 November 3, 2011 - 7:22pm | It is equally wrong to call blasters "lasers" - If Star Wars is a reference blasters are not lasers at all, they are considered to completely different weapons and given specifically separate references and schematics. In space - all sounds are contained to ship and direct-hull contact... and large weapons will frequently have muffle-architecture to keep the crew from going deaf. On ground-side - soldiers trained for heavy-fire engagements and long-range independent mission activity that can notice a pin drop from a grenade at 30ft without line-of-sight in a warehouse... they will likely notice and recognize a more deadly noise, So it depends on how often the local population is called on to recognize and respond to a noisy car engine or a energy weapon discharge. The well equipped soldier can add attachments to his helmet a power-frame that enhance the reliability of his senses many-fold, and further add field suggested recognitions to various phenomenon detected by sensors even more sensitive than the enhancers, link to observation networks and correlate via HQ cyber-comp conditional assessment databases all in real time. In shorter terms, a hostile laser discharge on the battlefield will likely be noticed for what it is, and so will a hostile sneeze. All Physics is based on the observably physical universe, but not all of the science of the true universe is interested in being contained in observable physics. God may not play dice with the universe, but the universe cheats anyway. Oh humans!!  We discover a galactic community filled with multiple species of aliens, and the first thing we think about is "how can we have sex with them?".~ anymoose, somewhere on the net... so... if you square a square it becomes a cube... if you square a cube does it become an octoid? |
