Alright. I think I'm finally ready to respond to this message. Long post ahead; fair warning.
I think you may be on to somthing but is see a few problems.
first
3. TORPEDO - specifically for heavy ordnance or specialized equipment.
ok this is a bit to ambigous. There is the problem that these weapons can very widly in size and that will effect the number of rounds that fit in a given volume of space alot. How about this
3. TORPEDO - Heavy antiship/antistation missiles
4. CAPITAL SHIP MISSILES - Massive weapons with standoff range and onboard target aquisition gear. (TAG) Theas can attack the surface of planets too.
5. MINES - Stand alone ordinace with limited movement capabilities and sofisticated TAG. These are normaly used as area denial weapons or as part of fixed fortifactions.
6. SPECIAL - specifically for anything that's not a gun, missile, mine, or torpedo.
Okay, I'll grant you that calling it "torpedo" is ambiguous. I'm not thrilled about the idea of having so many subdivisions, however...
Let's try this:
2. LIGHT ORDNANCE - for missiles and mines
3. HEAVY ORDNANCE - for torpedoes and capship missiles
4. SPECIAL - for non-projectile weaponry. Considering making this for heavier guns as well, such as the capship plasma and PTC.
That's the set I've got in the current revision anyway, and it seems to work pretty well. I simply limit Capship missiles to capital ships and group them in with heavy torpedoes, and wrangle missiles and mines together.
The second problem is here
ARC COVERAGE
1. HARDPOINT (only type available in the Metal Age) - single weapon gun/missile only. Guns can only fire directly ahead.
2. SPONSON - Weapon covers a single combat arc.
3. BARBETTE - Weapon covers two arcs.
4. LIMITED TURRET - Weapon covers three arcs.
5. TURRET - Weapon covers all four arcs.
None of these trems have anything to do with arc coverage. Most are literally all types of gun mounts. That said mount type is also important info important and needed information. Limited turrets should be droped because this is a kind of open armored vehical turret and thay arn't used anymore because they compromise crew protection. Barbette should be droped from the list because it means the same thing as sponson in old termanology and in for modern naval weapons means this
In warships from the age of the dreadnought forward, the barbette is the non-rotating drum beneath the rotating gun turret (properly known as the "gunhouse") and above the armoured >deck on a warship. It forms the protection for the upper ends of the hoists that lift shells and their propelling charges (e.g. cordite) from the magazines below
Well, I kinda like this terminology. Yes, I understand that they all refer to different turret types, but going with a set of specific terms lets a GM know at a glance what kind of firing arc a weapon will have
For the record, there's second definition of a barbette (the next paragraph down in the same Wikipedia article you quoted); that's the one I was going with:
When applied to military aircraft, largely in aviation history books written in British English, a barbette is a position on an aircraft where a gun, or guns, are in a mounting which has a restricted arc of fire when compared to a turret, or which is remotely mounted away from the gunner. As such it is frequently used to describe the tail gunner position on bombers such as the B-17 Flying Fortress, with American English aviation books usually describing this position as a "flexible" gun mount, when the term "turret" itself is not used.
Tubes in Privateer were used as a housing for missiles in addition to acting as a launcher; I need them to act as a magazine type to keep consistent with that usage.
More than anything, though, I want to use the terms I've selected for added flavor.
Now we still need to sort out the firing arcs. Now I agree with the decision to limit th gunfire to 2D. I spent about 2 years back in the 90's trying to make Star Fleet Battles a 3D game and gave up because I concluded that a CGI enviroment was th only place you could do somthing like that and keep the game playable. That said you are still going to need more then 5 arc definitions. The arc of a weapon really shouldn't effect the cost. This is because the mount type determines the mobility of the gun to chase tragets; however it is the physical location of the weapon the determins how much of the sky it can actually see. Fireing arc definitions are tied heavily to the movement system. This is because movement determins where the target ends up in relation to the gun. So How exactly are the ships going to move? Is it a hex based system like most, or somthing more free form? At any rate each gun mount will have to have the arc assigned individualy based on mount loaction. Here are some examples.
ARC COVERAGE
1. F - Front the 60 degree arc defined by the hex in front of the ship.
2. A - Aft the 60 degree arc defined by the hex behind the ship
3. LF - Left Front the 60 degree arc to the front and left of the ship.
4. RF - Right Front the 60 degree arc to the front and right of the ship.
5. LA - Left Aft the 60 degree arc to the back and left of the ship.
6. RA - Right Aft the 60 degree arc to the back and right of the ship.
7. HEM - Hemisphereical 180 degree arc. thes can be centered on 1 of the 6 60 degree (also called primary) arcs or the left or right in which case the edge is along the ships centerline.
8. OTS - Over the Shoulder 300 degree arc centered on 1 of the primary arcs and can fire into all other arcs except the 1 directly opposite the centered arc.
9. C - Center very narrow arc only covering the hex row down the center of 1 of the primary arcs.
10. S - Side 120 degree arc centered on the ships left of right side.
11. 360 - 360 degree arc.
Examples in use.
FHEM - Front hemisphere
LAOTS - Left aft over the shoulder
AC - Aft centerline
RS - Right side
Well......the combat system is set up so that a player group can choose how they want to handle it. Movement (and therefore shooting) are dependent upon the grid type selected, either a physical grid (which makes combat like D&D), an abstract grid (which makes combat more like a miniatures game), or no grid (which makes combat more like what you see in early video RPGs like Dragon Warrior or Final Fantasy I). For the physical grid, the default is
an orthogonal grid. I have tried to put in rules for hex grids if that's what players prefer to use (largely because I've been playing TacOps and the hex grid has grown on me a bit), but for the most part, the rules assume the use of the orthogonal grid.
Starfleet Command III, instead of
Starfleet Command I/SFB.
The general combat system rules are
here. The sub-Chapters of Chapter Nine that follow handle the specifics for the various scales of combat, with Capital Ship combat handled in
Chapter 9.4. Those rules are complete, though I have in recent days had reason to consider revising them a bit; notably, rules for combat in asteroids and minefields is missing, as are the rules for commodity dropping when pirates/transports are destroyed. I also like the idea of weapons being able to fire into "hemispheres", though that's going to take some rather substantial tweaking to implement.
The other thing about the weapons stations is that I will be extending them to vehicles (actually, it's the other way around - I will be extending the vehicle weapons stations to capital ships). Vehicles and capital ships are largely treated the same way by the game, with capital ships being a very specialized form of space vehicle. So the same terminology will have to apply to both.
What I can offer is a compromise for those who want to use a hex grid, and say each type of mounting can cover a certain number of degrees. The more I gave this issue thought, the more I realized something like this is actually required. I mean, you have a choice of orthogonal or hexagonal grids, which means there needs to be a system in place to handle both types of grids...
So, with that in mind, the Arc Coverage (flavor text) becomes:
1. HARDPOINT (only type available in the Metal Age) - single weapon gun/missile only. Guns can only fire directly ahead (up to a ten degree cone).
2. SPONSON - Weapon covers a single combat arc (between 10-90 degrees).
3. BARBETTE - Weapon covers two arcs (between 91-180 degrees).
4. LIMITED TURRET - Weapon covers three arcs (between 181-270 degrees).
5. TURRET - Weapon covers all four arcs (between 271-360 degrees).
Armored Dual Gun Sponson x 32 ((10 Port, 10 Starboard; Mass Driver), (6 Fore, 6 Aft; Neutron Gun))
Hex Missile Turret, Double Bank x 2 (12 ImRec, 12 IFF each, standard) Mag size is a guess, and I still haven't been able to figure out just what a "CASE" system is supposed to be.
Armored Dual Gun Limited Turret x 16 ((8 Fore/Port/Aft; Antimatter Gun), (8 Fore/Starboard/Aft; Antimatter Gun))
Armored Triple Gun Turret x 9 (<final heavy gun selection>)
Again, let me know if I've got a mistake here. Does this whole thing sound like something that'd work better than what I have now?
Ok so there are a few changes
Weapons Station x 63
1. Armored Dual Gun Turrets x 32 [(10 LHEM, 10 RHEM; Mass Drivers), ( 6 FHEM, 6 AHEM; Neutron Guns)]
2. Hex AA Missile Launchers, Double Bay CASE x 2 (360; 100 ImRec, 100 IFF each, standard) CASE stands for Cellular Amunition Storage Equipment. It is for containing ammo explosions in the magazine. It blows all the explosive force out into space. The army uses it on tanks and the navy on AEGIS ships. The magazine is destroyed but the ship and the weapon system survive.
3. Armored Dual Gun Turret x 16 [(8 LHEM; AMG), (8 RHEM; AMG)]
4. Armored Triple Gun Turret x 9 [( 5 FOTS, TBD), (2 LHEM+A, TBD), (2 RHEM+A, TBD)]
I think we getting closer What do you think of the changes?
Okay...so now that I've adjusted the system again, here's what we would wind up with:
Weapons Station x 63
-Armored Dual Gun Sponson x 32, 20cm Armor [41,600]
-Portside Hemisphere x10; 180 degrees; Mass Driver, Heavy Long-Range (5/3/45), [100,000].
-Starboard Hemisphere x10; 180 degrees; Mass Driver, Heavy Long-Range (5/3/45), [100,000].
-Foreward Hemisphere x6; 180 degrees; Neutron Gun, Defensive (3/11/250), [300,000].
-Aft Hemisphere x6; 180 degrees; Neutron Gun, Defensive (3/11/250), [300,000].
-Armored Dual Gun Sponson x16, 50 cm Armor [50,800]
-Portside Hemisphere x8; 180 degrees; Antimatter Gun (Experimental) (1/8/300), [8,000,000]
-Starboard Hemisphere x8; 180 degrees; Antimatter Gun (Experimental) (1/8/300), [8,000,000]
-Armored Hex Light Ordnance Turret, Double Bank x2, 50 cm Armor [10,600]
-Turret x2; 360 degrees; Image Recognition, Civilian Grade x100 (6/9/170; Friend-or-Foe, Standard x100 (8/12/170), [350,000,000]
-Armored Triple Special Limited Turret x4, 50cm Armor [18,550]
-Portside Hemisphere + Aft x2; 225 degrees; Mass Driver Cannon, Very Heavy (Experimental) (2/25/1530) [3,300,000]
-Starboard Hemisphere + Aft x2; 225 degrees; Mass Driver Cannon, Very Heavy (Experimental) (2/25/1530) [3,300,000]
-Armored Triple Special Turret x5, 50 cm Armor [23,188]
-Forward; 300 degrees; Mass Driver Cannon, Very Heavy (Experimental) (2/25/1530) [8,250,000]
Total Weapons System Cost: 381,784,138 credits
This of course, assumes the Very Heavy Mass Driver for the main batteries. It turns out to be substantially cheaper than the Neutron Guns. I may need to adjust what you proposed for the heavy guns actually; you've got Mass Drivers stronger than Neutron Guns, when in universe its usually the other way around.
The "experimental" designation of some of the guns is a workaround for their service entry dates, a special case I'm making just for this ship. Simply put, those guns didn't exist prior to the TK war, and no other ship from the era has them (otherwise, Confed would likely be using them on other designs by the time of WC1).
Okay...so after all the adjustments, here's the final set of in-game statistics I was able to come up with:
====
Name:
Montana/Vanguard-class Battleship (Proposed)
Service Date: 2630
Make: Medium Dreadnought
Size Class: 26 (a.b.b.v. 252,205,133.95 m^3)
Strength Index: 77,100
Cost: 23,634,270,280 credits
HD: 78/67/86
Initiative: +8 (Eighth Class Engine)
Maximum Speed: 150 kps (Primary), 35 kps (Auxiliary)
Combat Speed: 1 (Primary), 1/5 (Auxiliary)
SHP: 20,000 (Tenth Class Shields, Phase)
AHP: 9,250 (185 cm Titanium)
Crew/Passengers: 2345 Crew (39 Senior and Flag-Grade Officers; 78 Junior Officers, NCOs and WOs ; 2228 Enlisted) / 87 Passengers
- Accommodations: 850 100 m^3 Staterooms
Cargo Capacity: 10,000 m^3
- -Cargo Arrangement: 10,000 m^3 from chassis
Hangar Capacity: 2,051,200 m^3
- Hangar Arrangement: 1,710,000 from accommodation space, 41,200 from cargo space, 300,000 from accessories
- Fighter Compliment: 30 F-27/A Arrow-V Light Fighters, 2 Hermes Marine LCs + 8 large, 4 medium and 1 flag shuttle.
Weapons Stations: 63
- Armored Dual Gun Sponson x 32, 20cm Armor
- Portside Hemisphere x10; 180 degrees; Mass Driver, Heavy Long-Range (5/3/45)
- Starboard Hemisphere x10; 180 degrees; Mass Driver, Heavy Long-Range (5/3/45)
- Foreward Hemisphere x6; 180 degrees; Neutron Gun, Defensive (3/11/250) 24x25
- Aft Hemisphere x6; 180 degrees; Neutron Gun, Defensive (3/11/250)
- Armored Dual Gun Sponson x16, 50 cm Armor
- Portside Hemisphere x8; 180 degrees; Antimatter Gun (Experimental) (1/8/300)
- Starboard Hemisphere x8; 180 degrees; Antimatter Gun (Experimental) (1/8/300)
- Armored Hex Light Ordnance Turret, Double Bank x2, 50 cm Armor
- Turret x2; 360 degrees; Image Recognition, Civilian Grade x100 (6/9/170; Friend-or-Foe, Standard x100 (8/12/170)
- Armored Triple Special Limited Turret x4, 50cm Armor
- Portside Hemisphere + Aft x2; 225 degrees; Mass Driver Cannon, Very Heavy (Experimental) (2/25/1530)
- Starboard Hemisphere + Aft x2; 225 degrees; Mass Driver Cannon, Very Heavy (Experimental) (2/25/1530)
- Armored Triple Special Turret x5, 50 cm Armor
- Forward; 300 degrees; Mass Driver Cannon, Very Heavy (Experimental) (2/25/1530)
Further Accessories and Pods: 41
- Capship Systems Adapter
- Backup Shield Generator Mount
- Class Ten Shield
- Hospital Module
- ECM-3 Module
- SWACS Module
- Repair Bay Module
- Aux Reactor Mount x1
- Sixth Class Engine
- Eighth Hangar Bay Module
- Carrier Systems x4
- Phase Shield Generator
- Tractor Beam
- Ramscoop
- Tracking Computer
- Inertial Target Tracking System
- Expendable Pod Mount x22
- Escape Pods x22 {2816 x 0.195 m^3}
Chassis Accessories: Ion Engine, Impulse Engine, Matter/Antimatter Reactor, Akwende Drive, External Docking Port x2.
Flaws/Bonuses: None
Notes: None
(Bleeding forum software won't let me keep any of my indentations, dammit. Sorry if it's not wholly readable).
====
Couple of quick notes, things I know you'll point out:
The name covers both possibilities. A
Montana-class battleship has some historical significance; I had a
Vanguard-class in SFRPG (and it too was an early era ship). So either name works; lemme know which one you finally decide upon.
The cost does not include the onboard fighter compliment; ordinarily it would.
Couldn't tell you how this ship's Strength Index rates against other ships, but that's mainly because I haven't done much of any yet. The SI of the
Wake-class is 7,790, if that tells you anything.
The numbers given for the specific crew are comparable in proportion to those of an
Iowa-class battleship. I didn't include the marine or fighter detachment complements, I just realized...
Accommodation Spaces can be set up to handle more than one person using the system as it stands. Stateroom size and larger can house up to three persons without the need to invoke "hot-bunking", which in-game would invoke a DC penalty on pretty much everything anyone might try to do. I know you mentioned a six-person capacity for the crew in your initial notes; this was the best I could do without having to invoke the penalty.
The complement of
Arrow-Vs is in-universe; it's considered a "venerable design" by the time of WC3. These of course would probably be an earlier model with the speed of the later models (WC4) but crummy armament (ala Armada). The rest of the craft really don't exist in universe; those would need their own sets of stats.
The weapons stations for the ship's missiles are an approximation. Now that I understand what a CASE system is (it is something I'd heard of before, just not something I knew the name of), the way something like that would be set up in the system as it stands is with however many Armored Light Ordnance Turrets you would need for each individual missile, with no specified magazine size (i.e. a single missile per turret). There isn't enough available accessory space on this chassis for 400 such weapons stations, something I may need to address.
Accessories: the Capship Systems Adapter is specifically required for the Engines (150 kps is fast for a Medium Dreadnought chassis). The Backup Shield Generator Mount and corresponding second Class Ten Shield were necessary to get the shields up to the desired 2000 cm equivalent level. I switched to the Eighth Hangar Bay Module (from the Quarter) when I took another look at the desired fighter compliment (still can reduce the hangar space if you'd like, of course; there is one more smaller size module available and I've shoved a fair amount over from accommodations and cargo). Engines in-game refer to the "Engine System", and so include the individual reactors, piping, thrusters and so forth; the system does not track specific amounts of power production, just speed and fuel efficiency. That's why I switched things over to a single Auxiliary Reactor Mount; that single mount will cover the entire auxiliary system, with a Class Six Engine providing the indicated 25% performance.
For all the trouble this thing has given me, it's still just the first draft...lemme know if you want to make changes or if you have further questions. This has been a good test of how things are working so far if nothing else. I am liable to not work on this again today, of course (mainly because I haven't spent any time today working on the game itself).
It showed the mass drivers did a tiny bit more damage but the Neutron cannons shot further and used a bit more power. That actually makes since when you consider that a mass driver shell is alot bigger then a neutronium pellet but because of the neutronium pellet's much higher density it will have a higher inertia and there for greater reliable range. Also a rail gun; which is what a mass driver is; uses far less power then a grav field sling like the neutron gun.