 December 11, 2012 - 4:54pm | Can anyone explain why only small ships with high speed can shoot ARs? Is it the deep space equiv of firing LOS thus they are only suitable for fighters and assault scouts? OR is there some technical reason that I'm just ignorant of? I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 December 11, 2012 - 5:30pm | Big ships can mount assault rockets on batteries, but fighters are only big enough to mount them like torpedoes. I can see "Missile Destroys/Cruisers" with volleys of assault rockets at their front, but that would encourage enemy ships to attack their sides. I would assume warships would rather mount torpedoes and cannons, then a bunch of fixed rockets. Although, it would make more sense on a privateer/yacht configuration, but such a ship would be seen as too heavily armed for a civilian ship. Oh, and having to rearm them! |
December 11, 2012 - 6:58pm | Big ships can mount assault rockets on batteries, but fighters are only big enough to mount them like torpedoes. That would actually be in contradiction to the printed rules but I would go with it latter in the setting ruling that assualt rockets were very much a LOS fighter type weapon the required the spead and hull size restrictions of the KHs rules when they were introduced but over time with new targeting packages a mega turret/battery was developed for hvy ships to fire this weapon- perhaps post Sathar War 2; which would be a logical development for this weapon system over time. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 December 12, 2012 - 10:58am | I always considered it this way. Assault rockets were designed as a weapon system for smaller craft such as fighters and assault scouts and were not intended for larger craft like frigates. I think of it much in the way of how a sidewinder missile is great on an F-16 but completely unnecessary on a Navy missile destroyer which uses a different set of missile weapons more suited for its size and mission parameters. Now that's not to say that Assault Rockets couldn't be house ruled in for launchers on Frigates or privateers but the necessity of these weapons on ships that can mount torpedoes and particle beam weapons starts to loose its appeal as effective use of space. Re-arm also poses a problem for a frigate or larger vessel. When they carry Rocket batteries it is assumed that they have ammo magazines that provide salvo reloads right there (up to their storage capacity). A fighter can land / dock with its base or carrier and crews can re-arm the smaller craft right there. Where as a larger ship would have to dock outside, arming crews would have to bring weapons out using work pods or robots, and the ship would then have to un-dock to get back in the fight. A very long process during a space battle. I am not against having AR on larger ships but the logisitcs of it out weigh the benefits. Like mounting a M-16 on a tank, yeah you could, yes it would shoot at the bad guys, but it would make more sense to just run them over with the tank. I think the SFKH game designers did a good job designing the system by limiting AR to small ships. I think a house rule for arming corvettes and privateers with AR is definitely worthy of further discussion. I think also that the speed of the delivery craft may have been a design factor (but not a game mechanics factor). If the rockets are unguided then you have to have fast ship to get in and deliver its fast rocket and get back out. I think they may modeled AR after WWII torpedo bombers IMO - just speculating. |
 December 12, 2012 - 6:33pm | Considering the allocated volume listed in the KH manual and the actual displacement of a HS:1 craft, there isn't enough room for an assault rocket launcher and the rockets. ;) Actually the rules don't specify that the AR is strictly for small craft, rather for craft with a minimum MR:4 --- so technically a HS:5-14 craft wth a full compliment of atomic drives that went through the canon alterations to improve performance could feasibly mount the AR launcher if the MR was boosted to 4 by sacraficing other systems. Or just for the sake of arguement, have a variant UPF frigate that has has ADF/MR:3/4 instead of the canon 4/3 and it could mount the AR system. |
December 13, 2012 - 5:26am | I'm partial to fighters with a laser system over the AR as they dont need to rearm in battle. But they they dont last in battle very long either, especially if you are play basic game rules. I think the requirement that ships have a MR4 suggests that the game designers were thinking in terms of modern fighters getting a lock on and firing at ships which suggests an attempt to simulate dogfighting to me even though the rules are piss all lousy to do that activity. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
December 14, 2012 - 12:13am | Am I the only one around here who hates the tactical combat rules and limitations of the Knight Hawk game? Dont get me wrong, I like the vertical layout of the ships, the look of the Sathar ships, the systems used for trading, and the Assault Scout kicks ass! But I hate the custom ship-building system, the chunky combat system, the need for human fighter pilots (as its more logical to have them automated, and they are not highlighted in the modules), the massive inconsistencies with the ship types with the lack of detail in the campaign book, the way ion engines need to be on struts (they are not dangerous enough to warrant being mounted away from the hull), etc. |
 December 14, 2012 - 4:20am | Not a fan of KH. Mostly I have always enjoyed the ships with long winding corridors like the Nostromu and the Living Ship in Farscape. KH ships are just cramped little things with way too much wasted space and never seem realistic especially for the Vrusk. How they move around them I never picture. Combat system could use some work too. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
December 14, 2012 - 4:43am | The thing with SF ships is the artificial gravity is more "real" rather than using some technology that relies on unexplainium (re: decks prallel to the main axis like Star Wars, Trek, Traveller, etc). That and the fact that most of them are too big for atmospheric landing, there's no need for a decks-parallel configuration. The idea that those Star Destroyer things in Clone Wars can land and take off from planetary surfaces is laughable at best. Granted writers botched that deck arrangement again and again in SF: the Serena Dawn/Omicron, Hepplewhite Inc scout ship, and Sathar scout ship all come to mind. |
 December 18, 2012 - 9:07pm | I agree that KH is not the best in many fields. As far as the combat system is concerned, I have been experimenting with the Attack Vector: tactical system. I like it so far, but I havnt play tested it yet. Here is the website fyi http://www.adastragames.com/downloads/AVT_Flyer.pdf Reasonable men adapt to the world around them; unreasonable men make the world adapt to them. The world is changed by unreasonable men. Edwin Louis Cole |
 January 15, 2014 - 6:09pm | AR's are relatively short range so they mainly are only useful for close in fighting such as a fighter or AS straffing a capital ship or for a capital ship to use to defend against small ships. ----------------------------------------------- |
