 November 9, 2009 - 2:38pm | The rules say the torps are nuclear armed and do 4d10 damage They dont specify warhead type for the seeker and the mine but these are also high damage weapons; 5d10 and 3d10+5 respectively. I would think that they also could be said to be nuclear as well. The rule descriptions do say that both mines and seekers detonate. The mines do a little less damage as they are more stand off ish Anyone have thoughts on this? I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 November 13, 2009 - 10:45am | Remember that paint chip that almost went through the shuttle's cockpit windows. On velocity ... when we start letting the true velocities involved enter into the game we have to question weather achieving a direct hit with a single torpedo (or seeker missile) would even be possible considering the extreme speeds -- (torpedo traveling at 41 miles per second), not to mention its target speeds. And this doesn't factor in the fact that, barring super science solutions, the torpedo would be traveling in the same vector as its launching ship and would have to alter course and work with or against that initial velocity to reach its target. I agree with all the above mentions of damage pertaining to merely getting hit by anything at these speeds. But the very speeds we are discussing makes it less likely that single warhead weapons would be used to achieve direct hits. Tip of the hat to who mentioned it above, but I have also read material on nuclear explosions in space which suggested that without the medium of an atmosphere, the shock wave damage wouldn't amount to much at any significant distance. Radiation damage could be significant, but probably would be comparable to a solar flare which SF ships would have to have some sort of shielding against anyway, so that would be moot. Which brings us back to very close "hits" (which would be highly unlikely) or stand off weapons -- nuclear pumped x-ray lasers, cluster munitions launching hundreds of slugs/rods/penetrators/warheads etc ... via rail gun or coil gun, or the missile itself acts like a super large sabot round (but with the hundreds of submunitions mentioned above). A relativistic shotgun, so to speak. If the missiles merely deliver the submunition packages, then these could possibly be retrieved/reused, which makes them more like the AKV's described in SJG's Transhuman Space. Perhaps the missile weapons would be best served trying to get in front of the target vector (leading the target a bit), much like WWII flak batteries. |
 November 13, 2009 - 1:55pm | Double post ---deleted--- At least I got to scare an alien rabbit thingy...... |
November 13, 2009 - 11:55am | ..... just like you or I might be capable of whipping up a crude longbow out of twine and a curved section of tree limb. But like that crude bow.... I agree Shadow. I make bows http://www.restlessspiritbows.com/ and I am here to tell you people think they could make one because they appear simple enough. They dont have a clue. What most people would come up with would be pathetic at best. They are far more complex than anyone realizes. I know this thread isn't about bows. I am just relating. Now Jump the complexity up by 20,000 years from bows to a nuke and very few if any people could homebrew one. Let alone a delivery system. Even a ships drive system shouldn't detonate if rigged. It would more likely have a melt down. To build a nuclear bomb or missile nowdays it takes legions of people all across the country and massive amounts of equipmnet and resources to built them. So, I don't think a chracter could design and build one within the scope of the game. At least I got to scare an alien rabbit thingy...... |
 November 13, 2009 - 3:34pm | This is a really fun conversation. There are two things that it brings to mind for me. One, this is a science fiction game. I have no doubt that computer and sensor technology will have advanced sufficiently to allow direct hits on vehicles at those velocities particularly considering the limits on maneuverability. Two, I am probably remembering this wrong, but I saw somebody estimate that the energy it would take to reach alpha cenauri from earth was greater than the entire yearly output of energy for the planet earth. So the ships in the game would have astoundingly dense (and efficient) energy sources which would probably have amazing weapons potential. |
November 13, 2009 - 7:53pm | We could also, though, counter that argument by suggesting that if tracking, sensor, and computer technology is so advanced as to allow achieving a direct hit with a missile weapon even at such incredible speeds and requiring extremely precise calculations and millisecond corrections to vector, how then would it be possible for beam weapons, which would travel at the speed of light against targets that in comparison would be standing still (or moving very slowly), to miss? I do agree with you, though, that you should never let the truth (or in this case, the facts) get in the way of a good game. As far as achieving a direct hit at such speeds, anything is possible in science fiction, so I'll concede the point. However, if you are looking at spicing up the game by making some more of the mechanics closer to hard science, it would still be a very fun setting. Changing the weapons to be stand off rather than direct contact is only a matter of game feel and shouldn't change tactics or effectiveness too much. |
 November 13, 2009 - 8:04pm | By the way, even if the homemade torp doesn't detonate, the kinetic energy will still do some damage to the pirate. Twenty tons of torpedo(assuming 1 cu. meter=1 ton), travelling at approximately 66,667 m/s(roughly four hexes in a ten minute turn)* equals roughly 44 terajoules of energy, or about the same yield as nine kilotons of TNT. As Georgie pointed out, who needs nukes? *BTW, this doesn't take into account the freighter's velocity, which would be added to the torp's own upon launch. Coming in late to this topic, while you are correct the high velocities of the objects are far more lethal than a nuke could get it still presents one problem. You have to hit the target first. Nukes have a definite advantage over direct fire weapons like laser in that they are "area effect" weapons. They don't need to hit with laser point accuracy all they have to do is come close enough. So even if you can throw tungsten shells at even 1% of light, you are firing at a target thrusting at maybe 4G's some 40,000 Km away. Not an easy firing solution. With a nuclear torpedo all you have to do is get that warhead to within (depending upon it's yield) any where from 1 to 10 Kms of the target and it's hit automatically. In space I beleive they've found nuclear blast radius is much larger. In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. |
November 14, 2009 - 4:18pm | I agree with the proximity idea. But they have found due to nuclear orbital detonations that the blast is less effective due to the vacuum of space. At least I got to scare an alien rabbit thingy...... |
 November 15, 2009 - 3:26am | BTW, Shadow, are you going to mass produce and sell those dice? I think that there might be a market for them.  Sure, right along side my d6 set that is numbered 7-9 twice each on one and 5-0 on the other...I call them "the d% Ultimist Nullifiers" LOL |
