Full name:  
Password:  
Register 
It is currently Wed Oct 17, 2018 10:06 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:10 pm
Posts: 32
First, I am trying to point out, that increasing the time in which the laser fire, reduces the radiant power of the laser. I used 10^6 to show that increasing the time to a large amount decrease the damage, to that of only being able to burn paper, from drilling thougth steel.

Second, B1.12 TURN LENGTH: " One turn in AV:T is 128 seconds. A turn is subdivided into 8 segments of 16 seconds." Which means , that it is 16 seconds per segment, not 8.

Third I think that the laser ( or at least the ZDLS) fire for less the 16 seconds. Here why, ZDLS cool down time, is +1. Which from my understanding, means that the weapon can be fired, in the next segment. If the ZDLS was firing for all 16 seconds, it would mean that It cooloing system, was keeping the temp of the laser, at the same temp, as when it was not firing?! To me that makes on sense. It could be that the laser fires for 4 seconds, and then cools down for the next 12. But I am only saying that it "could" be this way. I don't what to put words into Ken mouth and say that it is this way.

Foruth, after reading the rule book, for Attavk Vector tactical, I noted, that all anti ship weapons, could be used to defended the ship! Before I read the book, I thought that some weapons, could only be used to destroy other ships. A coil gun shell being used to shot down a coil gun shell was something new to me. But after look at the problem from an engineering stand point I could not see anything worng with Ken logic.

So if all the offensive weapons could be used to defended the ship, then why are there defensive weapons that could not be used against enemy ships.

I see no point in building two types of lasers, just like most of you would see no reason in 10 different types of lasers. The more different types of lasers you have, the more different machine tools you need to build them. You would also have to train more people to build to different types of lasers. And I don't even what to get into the whole, "we have parts for the ZDLS, but not the anti ship laser" logistics thing.


 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 4:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 10:00 am
Posts: 5095
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Andrew Nelson wrote:


So if all the offensive weapons could be used to defended the ship, then why are there defensive weapons that could not be used against enemy ships.



Because in all the cases where an anti-ship weapon is being used defensively, it's a sub-optimal solution compared to the dedicated defensive weapon of the same type.

When you try to reverse the problem, the defensive weapons might do a point of damage, at which point even one point of armor stops them cold.

Your ZDLS example isn't too far off; it's assumed to be firing for a significant portion of the segment, and is available for re-application next segment so long as power is available.

Quote:
I see no point in building two types of lasers, just like most of you would see no reason in 10 different types of lasers. The more different types of lasers you have, the more different machine tools you need to build them. You would also have to train more people to build to different types of lasers. And I don't even what to get into the whole, "we have parts for the ZDLS, but not the anti ship laser" logistics thing.


Here's why you have ZDLS lasers and anti-ship lasers.

Anti-ship lasers can engage one inbound target per segment. Tops. Moreoever, on the segment that it's doing that, it's not engaging other ships.

ZDLS lasers can engage up to ten, though four or five is more likely.

You can fit two ZDLS lasers in the same weapon mount space (a broad function of surface area and hull depth) that you can fit the smallest anti-ship laser.

Having both ZDLS lasers and anti-ship lasers means you can shoot ships and engage larger salvoes of incoming seekers at the same time. The fact that your anti-ship lasers can also engage seekers means that in a pinch you can divert some offensive firepower to bolster this.

_________________
Ken Burnside
President
Ad Astra Games


 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:10 pm
Posts: 32
If the ZDLS fire for 4 out of 16 seconds, then does it mean, that no matter the cool down time of the anti ship lasers, they all fire with in an 16 second segment? From what I understand the entire damage of the anti ship lasers are with in one segment, no matter which type of laser is use. Meaning that for an 2SRLS, that it fires for 16 seconds, then cools for the next 48 seconds. And for an 3SRLS, if fires for 16 seconds, then cools for 80. seconds? To me, this would mean that the lasers are desiged to fire for 16 seconds ( for full powered anti ship lasers), no matter, the size or energy level of the laser. I don't think that It would come out like this, unless someone desiged it to.

Ken from what I understand about the setting, these space ships are build in space, right? So from what you said, it is cheaper to build all the space for two sets of machine tools, get both sets to orbit, and two sets of crews to build the weapon, then it is to design one laser, and ship up all it needs to build it.

You would think that with the limited resources you have in other space, that you would design your weapons with duel functions. Form what I understand, after reading the books, is that these weapons were designed as single use weapons, but crew found a way to use them for sub-optimal solutions, like using a coilgun shell, to shoot down a missile, or an anti ship laser to shoot at incoming seeking weapons. You would think that some of the engineers would talk to the ship crew, in order to improve the weapons and defensive systems of the ships that they are trying to design. It like saying that I will design the next main battle tank, with out talking to the crews of the old one, to find out what went wrong with the old main battle tank. These ships are not 10 dollor weapons (I know that they are a lot more, I'm just pointing out something.). You would think, for all the money that they put into these weapons of war, that they would take a few days to ask around, in order to make them better.

Also why can't the anti ship lasers "beams" move from one target to the next? Is it because the are desired that way, or is it because they have to be that way? You would think that with the increase in the time the beam came out for an anti ship laser, that you could move the beam to other target, in the same segment. Maybe it is how it is mounted, or that the anti ship lasers fire for half a second, instead of 16.


 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 4:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 10:00 am
Posts: 5095
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Andrew Nelson wrote:
If the ZDLS fire for 4 out of 16 seconds, then does it mean, that no matter the cool down time of the anti ship lasers, they all fire with in an 16 second segment? From what I understand the entire damage of the anti ship lasers are with in one segment, no matter which type of laser is use. Meaning that for an 2SRLS, that it fires for 16 seconds, then cools for the next 48 seconds. And for an 3SRLS, if fires for 16 seconds, then cools for 80. seconds? To me, this would mean that the lasers are desiged to fire for 16 seconds ( for full powered anti ship lasers), no matter, the size or energy level of the laser. I don't think that It would come out like this, unless someone desiged it to.


An anti-ship laser fires for less than a second. It puts out a LOT of energy (and a lot of waste heat) in that time frame.

A ZDLS laser fires for somewhere around 12-14 seconds (and possibly longer) - we abstract how long it fires for a very very good reason.

Quote:
Ken from what I understand about the setting, these space ships are build in space, right? So from what you said, it is cheaper to build all the space for two sets of machine tools, get both sets to orbit, and two sets of crews to build the weapon, then it is to design one laser, and ship up all it needs to build it.


No, you design a standard point defense laser that's suitable for multiple classes of ship - then you make sure it plugs into the ship.

You design a standard anti-ship laser that's (generally) the best mix of range, damage, mass and power requirements for the doctrine you're building for - and then you use it on as many ships as possible.

You then build dozens of copies of each ship, each with a half dozen or more lasers, and you keep the production lines open to keep spares going.

Quote:
You would think that with the limited resources you have in other space, that you would design your weapons with duel functions. Form what I understand, after reading the books, is that these weapons were designed as single use weapons, but crew found a way to use them for sub-optimal solutions, like using a coilgun shell, to shoot down a missile, or an anti ship laser to shoot at incoming seeking weapons.


Because a dual use weapon is NEVER as good as a pair of single use weapons. See discussions about the musket-halberd. The fact that the anti-ship weapons can be used as anti-seekers does not mean the anti-seekers can be used as anti-ship; they're designed around different parameters.



Quote:
You would think that some of the engineers would talk to the ship crew, in order to improve the weapons and defensive systems of the ships that they are trying to design. It like saying that I will design the next main battle tank, with out talking to the crews of the old one, to find out what went wrong with the old main battle tank.


Most main battle tanks have a main gun, and either a single .50 cal or a pair of grenade launchers, for anti-personnel weapons. Trying to make the main gun into an anti-personnel weapon usually makes it useless as an anti-tank weapon.

Same thing with anti-ship lasers versus ZDLS. A system designed to shift from target to target with a near constant beam is very different from one designed to deliver a LOT of energy to a single target in a very short period of time. Even if you kept the former on a ship's armor long enough to "drill" for a point of damage, the ranges don't make it remotely practical, given that the average unarmored system takes about 3 damage points to destroy a box.

Quote:
Also why can't the anti ship lasers "beams" move from one target to the next? Is it because the are desired that way, or is it because they have to be that way?


They're not set up for it, and setting them up for it would make them about 50% larger for motion dampening systems.

Quote:
You would think that with the increase in the time the beam came out for an anti ship laser, that you could move the beam to other target, in the same segment. Maybe it is how it is mounted, or that the anti ship lasers fire for half a second, instead of 16.


You're working from an erroneous set of assumptions on this.

Anti-ship laser does its energy delivery in under a second. The rest of the time, it's stabilizing from thermal effects, shunting waste heat, and in general dealing with the majority of the power fed into it being turned into randomly excited IR photons.

ZDLS delivers its energy over a significant fraction of the segment, doesn't get to the same degree of precision in terms of spot size (it doesn't need to for the target it engages) and is designed for near continuous operation.

One is the equivilant of an anti-tank round. The other is the equivilant of a flechette round to kill an incoming missile. Different tools for different jobs.

_________________
Ken Burnside
President
Ad Astra Games


 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 6:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 12:16 am
Posts: 62
Location: Cambridge, ON, Canada
Andrew Nelson wrote:
So from what you said, it is cheaper to build all the space for two sets of machine tools, get both sets to orbit, and two sets of crews to build the weapon, then it is to design one laser, and ship up all it needs to build it.

You would think that with the limited resources you have in other space, that you would design your weapons with duel functions.


I'm not an engineer, but... an 8MRLS weighs like 200 tons and has a 6.02 meter wide lens that is designed to turn 8 points of power into a few moments of pulsed, high-energy destruction to a single point over a long range. The amount of work required to make that weapon equally efficient at rapidly tracking and firing on a series of dispersed targets with low power beams might at least add up to an expensive tool set and an extra 25 tons of on board equipment. ;)

Even if I could do it, I would then lose the damage resistance of having two separate systems with completely different mission profiles. It's like trying to get a 127mm naval gun to do the same thing as a Phalanx CIWS. I'm sure that someone in the Pentagon is willing to spend the billions of dollars to try it, but... why?


 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:10 pm
Posts: 32
Note, Richard that The Warfighter's Encyclopedia list one of the Primary functions of the Phalanx Close in weapon system as Anti-ship.

From the Warfighter's Encyclopedia

" Primary Function: Anti-ship, surface, and air threat missile defense"

https://wrc.navair-rdte.navy.mil/warfighter_enc/weapons/shiplnch/Guns/ciws.htm

Thougth may be the reason, that it can be used as an anti ship weapon, is because todays ships use more stealth then armor.

Quote:
Quote:
You would think that some of the engineers would talk to the ship crew, in order to improve the weapons and defensive systems of the ships that they are trying to design. It like saying that I will design the next main battle tank, with out talking to the crews of the old one, to find out what went wrong with the old main battle tank.


Most main battle tanks have a main gun, and either a single .50 cal or a pair of grenade launchers, for anti-personnel weapons. Trying to make the main gun into an anti-personnel weapon usually makes it useless as an anti-tank weapon.

Same thing with anti-ship lasers versus ZDLS. A system designed to shift from target to target with a near constant beam is very different from one designed to deliver a LOT of energy to a single target in a very short period of time. Even if you kept the former on a ship's armor long enough to "drill" for a point of damage, the ranges don't make it remotely practical, given that the average unarmored system takes about 3 damage points to destroy a box.


Ken I was using main battle tanks, as an example why engineers need to get feed back about the products they design. I was not trying to ask why can't I turn a main gun into an anti personnel weapon. I don't think that a military star ship, and a ground based main battle tank can be compared on any level. I was trying to point out, that engineers need to ask the people how use there products, how they use them, what went wrong, and the question that I never see asked, what went right. I'm not saying that the main gun on a battle tank is = to the anti ship lasers, and the machine gun is = to the ZDLS.

Note that some main battle tanks, have anti personnel ammunition.

The following are anti personnel ammunition that work in the guns on main battle tanks.

M1028 120mm Canister
105mm M456A2(HEAT-T) Tank Ammunition: it has duel roles in that it kills dismounted infantry and lightly armored vehicles.

But lets get back on point ( and not if main battle tanks = military star ships).


 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 10:00 am
Posts: 5095
Location: Milwaukee, WI
OK - back on point:

1) ZDLS systems are designed for near constant fire at lower energy levels.

2) Even if, by some miracle, you managed to get enough ZDLS systems to hit the same spot on a target for long enough to aggregate to 1 damage point, the 2d10- soak roll to kill a system makes it highly unlikely that you'd actually DAMAGE a box of stuff on the enemy ship, even if you hit an unarmored surface. Maybe if you fired on extended radiators...

3) Anti-ship lasers pump a LOT of energy out in a very short time frame. Most of their mass is devoted to heat and energy management systems to keep them from damaging themselves when they fire, plus some for optics and mirror management.

4) Anti-ship lasers are capable of firing at lower power levels to fry an inbound seeker. Coilguns can be used to engage other seeking weapons. In theory, you can do this with missiles, but the overhead in game mechanics probably makes it less than worthwhile.

5) Anti-ship lasers do not switch between targets in the same segment, even in low power mode; doing so would add more mass than a dedicated ZDLS system to each laser, and a dedicated ZDLS system is more robust, more capable in the job, and more energy efficient.

_________________
Ken Burnside
President
Ad Astra Games


 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 10:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 12:16 am
Posts: 62
Location: Cambridge, ON, Canada
Andrew Nelson wrote:
Note, Richard that The Warfighter's Encyclopedia list one of the Primary functions of the Phalanx Close in weapon system as Anti-ship.
From the Warfighter's Encyclopedia
" Primary Function: Anti-ship, surface, and air threat missile defense"
...
Thougth may be the reason, that it can be used as an anti ship weapon, is because todays ships use more stealth then armor.


A Phalanx CIWS has an "anti-ship" (more like anti-boat, I expect) role only because there are vulnerable targets available. Lots of 20mm shells will damage present-day ships (or at least exposed bits on them, I imagine...) and will certainly be effective against whatever small boats happen to come into range. There isn't really a comparable target for ZDLS in the Ten Worlds--anything that it could hit is probably armored, or at least capable of a decent soak.

The point of my 127mm cannon versus Phalanx analogy is that the 127mm gun can't efficiently fill the role of the Phalanx. The Phalanx can rapidly detect, track, and hit several close-in targets in order to protect its ship. Because of the weapons and sensors it uses to do this, the Phalanx has a useful capability against small craft at short range as well.

The 127mm cannon MIGHT be able to shoot down a missile if you put enough effort into it. You could, say, build gun-launched point defense missiles and fire them out of the cannon, one at a time. You could also put all of the sensors and control systems onto the 127mm turret. It still probably won't have as fast a response time as the Phalanx (heavier turret, at least) and won't fire as quickly (obviously....) but if you wanted to, why not. The problem is that you are working with a system that seems inherently inefficent for the new role you're trying to give it. The barrel's too long. The rate of fire is too slow. The equipment is too heavy to track super rapidly. You can only mount it in certain spots on your ship. You need a big magazine. And so forth. So why bother?

By analogy: TW full-size lasers. Big. Heavy. Hot. Presumably the focusing hardware takes longer to turn onto a new target than a little ZDLS laser. Etc. Sure, maybe you could engineer them to be more useful zone defense systems--but why make them do something at which they are inherently inefficient, when you could mount a much more efficient and probably simpler and cheaper system instead? Perhaps if you had unlimited resources and minimal mass and space constraints... none of which seem to be the case when it comes to TW warship design. :)

Going waaay back to the point:

Quote:
I see no point in building two types of lasers, just like most of you would see no reason in 10 different types of lasers.


The point to having multiple types of lasers is that each type has unique capabilities. There are at least four or five distinct classes of lasers in the TW (ERLS, CRLS, SRLS, MRLS, ZDLS) each of which comes in various sizes and perhaps with options such as armor piercing modes. Each class has its own niche in TW combat. The state of TW technology does not seem to allow for an UberOmniLaser capable of filling all of the roles equally well. This is a GOOD THING, as it means that the various ship classes actually have interesting gameplay differences. :D

...these slow overnight shifts.... too much time to spend on forums.


 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 12:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:17 am
Posts: 192
Location: Calgary
Andrew Nelson wrote:
Note, Richard that The Warfighter's Encyclopedia list one of the Primary functions of the Phalanx Close in weapon system as Anti-ship.

From the Warfighter's Encyclopedia

" Primary Function: Anti-ship, surface, and air threat missile defense"

https://wrc.navair-rdte.navy.mil/warfighter_enc/weapons/shiplnch/Guns/ciws.htm



The reason the phalanx's primary mission is anti-surface is that it is already bolted onto warships and firing on surface targets provides an excuse not to remove it. Its original prime mission was splashing anti-ship missiles, but those threats have grown to the point that nothing a phalanx can do will actually stop them. The most modern of the soviet era missiles were of a size and construction that peppering them with 20mm cannon fire would not only not destroy them, but it was even unlikely to make them miss, especially as they only spent a handful of seconds in the envelope of the phalanx. Replacing the M61 rotary cannon with the GAU-8 would solve the lack of kill potential, but that would not be possible with a self contained mount.

_________________
Q: Why are children so cute?
A: So parents do not kill them.


 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 2:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 12:13 am
Posts: 258
Location: Dallas TX
Richard Bing wrote:

A Phalanx CIWS has an "anti-ship" (more like anti-boat, I expect) role only because there are vulnerable targets available. Lots of 20mm shells will damage present-day ships (or at least exposed bits on them, I imagine...) and will certainly be effective against whatever small boats happen to come into range. There isn't really a comparable target for ZDLS in the Ten Worlds--anything that it could hit is probably armored, or at least capable of a decent soak.


Freighters, maybe?

But since they never appear on the combat map...

Quote:
The point to having multiple types of lasers is that each type has unique capabilities. There are at least four or five distinct classes of lasers in the TW (ERLS, CRLS, SRLS, MRLS, ZDLS) each of which comes in various sizes and perhaps with options such as armor piercing modes. Each class has its own niche in TW combat. The state of TW technology does not seem to allow for an UberOmniLaser capable of filling all of the roles equally well. This is a GOOD THING, as it means that the various ship classes actually have interesting gameplay differences. :D

...these slow overnight shifts.... too much time to spend on forums.


What are ERLS and CRLS?

_________________
Co-pilot to pilot as their plane, half rolled over, hurtles toward the ground at a 45 degree angle:
"I don't like your attitude."


 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 4:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 10:00 am
Posts: 5095
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Jon Brase wrote:
[
What are ERLS and CRLS?


Extended Range Laser System (800 nm laser) and Close Range Laser System (1600 nm laser). The former has longer range and slightly less damage than an MRLS, the latter doesn't quite have the efficiency and throughput of an SRLS, nor does it have the range of an MRLS.

See the weapon tables in the writeups in Nexus Journal #1 for the size 2 version of each of these.

_________________
Ken Burnside
President
Ad Astra Games


 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:19 am
Posts: 148
Location: Here
Richard Bell wrote:

The reason the phalanx's primary mission is anti-surface is that it is already bolted onto warships and firing on surface targets provides an excuse not to remove it. Its original prime mission was splashing anti-ship missiles, but those threats have grown to the point that nothing a phalanx can do will actually stop them. The most modern of the soviet era missiles were of a size and construction that peppering them with 20mm cannon fire would not only not destroy them, but it was even unlikely to make them miss, especially as they only spent a handful of seconds in the envelope of the phalanx. Replacing the M61 rotary cannon with the GAU-8 would solve the lack of kill potential, but that would not be possible with a self contained mount.


That mode was intended to defeat the same sort of light boat with bomb aboard that hit the Cole, not exactly an "anti-ship" weapon that might engage a cruiser profitably. Oddly, I'd be willing to bet that a ZDLS might be able to successfully engage a shuttle, the analogous target.

Which does not mean your five inch mount and phalanx should be the same system in real life, nor does it mean they should be the same system in the setting.

_________________
Graves <Orieni>


 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 4:40 pm
Posts: 242
Mark Graves wrote:
That mode was intended to defeat the same sort of light boat with bomb aboard that hit the Cole, not exactly an "anti-ship" weapon that might engage a cruiser profitably. Oddly, I'd be willing to bet that a ZDLS might be able to successfully engage a shuttle, the analogous target.

There's plenty of civilian targets that would be perfectly vulnerable to a ZDLS. However, there's little need to play out blowing up weather satellites and the like.


 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 4:33 am
Posts: 389
Location: Foster, R.I.
Also note that the Phalanx is effective against ships at a range of maybe a mile or two. In an engagement between warships, that can be effectively written off as never going to occur.

I suppose that a ZDLS could eventually damage a ship if it were at docking range...
-Kle.


 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 12:13 am
Posts: 258
Location: Dallas TX
Even at longer range it will work if you add rules for damage to the paint job... :P

_________________
Co-pilot to pilot as their plane, half rolled over, hurtles toward the ground at a 45 degree angle:
"I don't like your attitude."


 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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 post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron







Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
mile200 v1.0 desgined by CodeMiles Team (msi_333)