Shuttle

Went back to regular turrets. Back on track. 4.5 dtons set aside for the grav bikes, and we still have 4.95 dtons cargo for the High passengers.  ♥♥♥LOVE BOAT♥♥♥

As for colour scheme i was thinking basic black, don't get me wrong i like a good Varga theme, but we need to look tough but we also need to be classy. Sorry fur balls but class before clan art. 

Basic black would be more professional. Plus, I think a lick of black paint is a part of the "stealth" kit isn't it? If we go for the "reflec" option then maybe it'd probably be shiny ... like Padme's ship. 

Thankfully, color schemes are not Gev’s call...

Tenacious Techhunter said: Thankfully, color schemes are not Gev’s call... hahahaha yes

Just tweaked the shuttle sheet a little bit. The movable things like G-Carriers and Grav Bikes have been cut and pasted into the "Cargo" section to separate them from the features that are structural changes to the ship. So far we're looking at a standard Assault Shuttle with the following modifications: Breaching tube 4x staterooms  Double turrets instead of Double Fixed mounts.   Autocannons and Flame Throwers replaced with Gatling lasers and Grenade Launchers  1dton of space allocated to Sand Caster barrels has been converted into a fridge containing champagne and caviar (1dton luxuries) Additional cabin space for 4 passengers.  TL13 hull (Hull 2, Structure 2) This still leaves us with enough room to haul 4dtons of cargo for the passengers. 1 G-Carrier 1 Imperial Grav Bike and 1 Darrian grav bike 1 Air/raft.  We also have room to add one additional personal scale weapon. I'm thinking a Support Laser because it uses the Gun Combat (Laser Rifle) skill. But if anyone has a better idea suggest away. The personal scale weapons can actually be pretty big. Field Artillery is within the scope of what can be mounted. The issue is finding a crew member who has the skill to use the thing. I figured Support Laser because Jeff has sick laser rifle skills. It's also handy for anyone else who has any kind of gun combat skill. They could at least get a lvl 0 using it. But if we go for heavier weapons we have to use the Heavy Weapons skills. The Swordworld EM Gatling Gun would be cool. Kayleb has good skill with that. But anyone without any kind of Heavy Weapon skill trying to use it would suffer a -3 ... which sucks a bit. 

Except me its 0 because JoT 2 and dex 9, but i'd prob be flying while you guys shoot haha, small ship 2 and dex 9.

Wouldn't be a bad call to move the PGMP from the Darrian Grav Bike to the Shuttle; more likely to need it on the Shuttle than the Grav Bike. We can put something smaller, and more reasonable, on that bike.

Tenacious Techhunter said: Wouldn't be a bad call to move the PGMP from the Darrian Grav Bike to the Shuttle; more likely to need it on the Shuttle than the Grav Bike. We can put something smaller, and more reasonable, on that bike. I was thinking about that. But maybe the PGMP would be great on the bike seeing that we're not getting a second combat equipped G-Carrier to escort the VIP carrier?  I was thinking Charoux's bike up front checking for trouble and the Darrian bike as a rear guard ready to roar up and deliver pain. The reason I thought that could be a cool idea was because the PGMP has a bit of anti-vehicle punch. I was even thinking that we could get another couple of bikes that have only "defensive" weapons and gear mounted so that we could function without trouble on high law worlds.  But a PGMP-14 on the shuttle would be sweet. I was mainly thinking about the Support Laser so that we can make use of Jeff's Gun Combat (Laser Rifle) - 5 skill. I figured that the more opportunities that he has to use that skill the better. A burst from that thing can deliver 6d6+4 damage, and with at least +5 to hit we're looking at a pretty sick piece of kit. Plus it could have that cool Millennium Falcon leaving Hoth coolness when it drops down and starts zapping up the place.  

Quick note - If we want PGMP-14s (the coolest plasma gun) for the shuttle then we're gong to want to pick them up on Tenalphi. Lunion is only TL 13. 

I'm all for it.

Crunch time is coming up. We need to set the gear on this shuttle in stone before we fly off with it.  Just a few things that folks need to say "Yay" or "Nay" to: Default personal scale weapons on the shuttle are 4x Autocannons and 4x flame throwers. I've replaced all of those with 4x Point Defense Gatling Lasers and 4x Support RAM launchers. The thinking behind this is that you never need to keep track of ammo for lasers, and RAM launchers are versatile being capable of shooting out offensive and defensive grenades like frags. The one big problem with the RAM launcher is the price of the grenades though. Support Launchers have 2x 20round mags that feed into the weapon. If we load one up with regular frag grenades and one up with multi spectrum grenades that comes to  27000cr worth of grenades ( 600cr per Frag, 750cr per MS smoke ). It would actually be cheaper to put in a plasma gun ( PGMP-12 costs 20000cr ). RAM launcher can empty a 20 round box in 6 combat rounds, but plasma guns don't run out of ammo.  PGMPs can't throw out smoke though. It just depends on how married we are to the idea of smoke.  Also added a support laser to bring the number of personal weapons the ship can carry up to her max if 9.  I thought it would make a cool tail gun or chin turret. Support Lasers use the Gun Combat (energy rifle) skill so I thought it would be handy for folks like Jeff who have ranks in that.  The double fixed mounts have been replaced with two double turrets. The turrets are still loaded with the default Beam Laser / Sandcaster combo. This could be different. Both are great defense against lasers and missiles. We could go nuts and replace one of the double turrets with the rail gun barbette we looted from those pirates. Not needing to carry the Mid Life Crisis has freed up enough space for that. And putting on the barbette means that the other turret could be upgraded to a triple.  Currently has 4 staterooms and 1dton of luxuries. Control cabin for 4, and regular cabin space for 4. So 16 passengers all up. Maybe 20 if the staterooms double up. Is this enough?

I never said the Air Raft we would be carrying would be the Mid-Life Crisis. I assumed we would be getting our own fully-enclosed Air Raft at some point, for tooling around town picking up supplies. Sometimes you want an unarmored vehicle to take with you, to cruise around town in a low-key fashion. It sounds like maybe we should drop to just 2 RAM launchers, and get 2 of something else. I think two PGMPs would be a good idea, and would mow down reflec a lot easier. I find it a bit hard to believe that you can’t get a smoke round version of a sandcaster barrel... Since we have double turrets and not triple turrets, can we also have 2 fixed-mount weapons for the pilot to fire, should circumstances be appropriate? The Rail Gun Barbette is going in our big ship.

If the shuttle is only going to be used for short transport trips of passengers and some cargo, why do we need state rooms? Would it not be possible to get high quality "crash couches" for the passengers? If its just used to go from orbit to ground and back, A couple of hours trip, the state rooms are not needed. You might need 1 if the pilot is going on a long haul trip across the system, but not any more. With nice plush couches we could also fit more passengers and cargo. we could still have 1 ton of cargo set aside for luxuries per passenger and even if the couches and life support for each passenger came to 1 ton each that would mean a huge difference in in profit.

Tenacious Techhunter said: I never said the Air Raft we would be carrying would be the Mid-Life Crisis. I assumed we would be getting our own fully-enclosed Air Raft at some point, for tooling around town picking up supplies. Sometimes you want an unarmored vehicle to take with you, to cruise around town in a low-key fashion. It sounds like maybe we should drop to just 2 RAM launchers, and get 2 of something else. I think two PGMPs would be a good idea, and would mow down reflec a lot easier. I find it a bit hard to believe that you can’t get a smoke round version of a sandcaster barrel... Since we have double turrets and not triple turrets, can we also have 2 fixed-mount weapons for the pilot to fire, should circumstances be appropriate? The Rail Gun Barbette is going in our big ship Adding air raft back into the cargo panel. I had deleted it. Or do we want to just swap out the G-Carrier with the Air/raft when we need to? Adding it back in for now.  So 4x PD lasers, 2x Support RAM and 2 PGMPs. Sounds cool.  I know you can get chaff for sand casters that gives a penalty to missiles and sensors trying to get a lock on. Smoke would be cool though.  About turrets - A ship this size can tote a total of 4 ship scale weapons. The original had two fixed double mounts. So far we chopped out the fixed mounts and put in a pair of double turrets. It is actually possible to fly a ship and fire a turret at the same time. I'd imagine it to work a bit like the Apache and Cobra gunships where the chin turret tracks in response to the gunner's helmet movements. A pilot could have holo heads up gear that lets him "look" at targets and attack them while he flies. If that idea's no good, maybe the turrets could be rigged so that they can lock into the forward position when needed, turning them into a kind of "fixed" mount that the pilot can use? Each pilot and gunnery roll would take a -2 hit either way ( if you're rolling both in one round that is ). If we're keen on weapons that the pilot can use how about a VRF Gauss gun? The one in the CSC does 5d6 AP damage with an auto rating of 10. It also uses the Gun Combat (slug rifle) skill which I think Izek is building up, so he'd be pretty good with it.  The Rail Gun Barbette is going in our big shi :( VIC e. said: If the shuttle is only going to be used for short transport trips of passengers and some cargo, why do we need state rooms? Would it not be possible to get high quality "crash couches" for the passengers? If its just used to go from orbit to ground and back, A couple of hours trip, the state rooms are not needed. You might need 1 if the pilot is going on a long haul trip across the system, but not any more. With nice plush couches we could also fit more passengers and cargo. we could still have 1 ton of cargo set aside for luxuries per passenger and even if the couches and life support for each passenger came to 1ton each that would mean a huge difference in in profit Yep. The main thinking behind the state rooms was really to provide the maximum level of passenger comfort. It can also take about three days to make a trip from a regular gas giant's orbit to an average system's main world. Three days is a lot of time to spend in a chair. I think at one point people were talking about taking passengers to the main world on board the shuttle while the ship skims from the gas giant? If we're never going to do that then you're totally right about not needing those state rooms.  1 dton of luxuries per passenger might not be the best way to go. Each passenger would effectively take up 2.5 dtons ( 1.5 + 1 for the luxuries ), meaning that staterooms would actually be more economical space wise. The idea behind luxuries is that each dton equals Steward-1. So when "Each level of Steward skill (including level 0) allows the steward to effectively look after two high passage passengers on board a ship" each dton of luxuries lets you carry a pair of high passage passengers. This rule is really for larger ships making longer trips through jump space, but I thought it'd be cool to bring the principle across into our shuttle. So every two high passengers with 1 dton of luxuries would take up 4dtons - the same as a stateroom, but without the luxury.  I guess it doesn't make a huge amount of difference. We're choosing between a bed and caviar. I'm thinking the caviar is a winner, but it really depends on what kind of trips we think we're going to be taking. Shorter trips then caviar for sure. 

One of the reasons that Crow is heading over to Rhylanor for his surgeries is so he can pick up any TL 14-15 stuff we need. If we want to get the PGMP's and/or any high tech gear, let me know. As for the staterooms vs. luxuries debate, I would say that keeping one stateroom is a good idea, just in case a VIP needs some privacy or something. In general, though, allowing the shuttle to carry more passengers in greater comfort is probably the way to go.

Well there's not a huge difference space wise.  2 passenger seats 3dtons 1 stateroom 4dtons .  And if we add one dton per two passengers the tonnage is exactly the same - but we get extra lux.  When it comes to PGMPs, the PGMP-14 is the nice one. But for 1/5th the price the PGMP-12 is almost as good. 

Just nailing the lid down on our flying coffin. Ship scale weapons: Dorsal Double Turret - B-Laser ( accurate, High Yield ) and Sandcaster ( Very High Yield, Easy to Repair ) Ventral Double Turret - B-Laser ( accurate, High Yield ) and Sandcaster ( Very High Yield, Easy to Repair ) Personal scale weapons: Chin turret 2x VRF Gauss Guns -  Gun Combat (Slug Rifle)  CSC p107 Dorsal turret PD Gatlling Laser -  Heavy Wpns (Energy weapons)  CSC p90 RAM Grenade Launcher -  Heavy Wpns (Launchers) CSC p119 Ventral turret PD Gatlling Laser - Heavy Wpns (Energy weapons)  CSC p90 RAM Grenade Launcher - Heavy Wpns (Launchers)  CSC p119 Sponson mounts (left and right) Left PGMP-14 - Heavy Wpns (Man Portable)  CSC p97 Right PGMP-14 - Heavy Wpns (Man Portable) CSC p97 Aft dorsal turret Support Laser  - Gun Combat (Energy Rifle)  CSC p90 SEATS Control cabin - 4 seats Regular cabin space - 5 seats 1st Class cabin space - 6 seats ( with 3 dtons of luxuries and 6dtons of cargo space. Protected by armoured bulkhead )

Is everyone cool with the post above? I guess it's speak now or forever hold your peace. Once we've officially started flying it around it'd be too late to change it without a visit to the shop.  The thinking behind the gatling laser/RAM launcher turrets is that they could be automated "point defense" turrets. I guess that means that they either need their own computer drone brain or they need to be linked to the ship's computer. Could be linked to the sensors to lock in and fire at incoming missiles. RAM launchers with anti-laser aerosol grenades could be triggered to fire in response to incoming laser fire. 

Looks good to me, Alby!

Maybe mount the weapons like so, instead: Chin Mounted VRF Gauss Guns (Best damage against Armor) Dorsal Mounted: Support Laser (High-Intensity Single Shots are better spent on fast moving targets) Side-Mounted: Left & Right PGMPs Left & Right Grenade Launcher (Best not fired straight up or straight down) Ventral Mounted: Gatling Laser (Rapid Fire is better spent on closer targets)

Pakkrat says.....as a Referee, and a story Referee at that, I'm not going to call the Shuttle on firing arcs unless it becomes blatantly abusive to the spirit of vehicle to vehicle, vehicle to starship or vehicle to personal confrontations.   That said, and with future Referee caveat, this sub-topic of weapons placement is really only aesthetics and weapon ergonomics in my book.

Pakkrat said: Pakkrat says.....as a Referee, and a story Referee at that, I'm not going to call the Shuttle on firing arcs unless it becomes blatantly abusive to the spirit of vehicle to vehicle, vehicle to starship or vehicle to personal confrontations.   That said, and with future Referee caveat, this sub-topic of weapons placement is really only aesthetics and weapon ergonomics in my book. Seconded.

I’m not hearing a “no”...

Well I specifically put the Support laser as an aft ventral turret so that it could serve as a tail gun and also attack ground targets. Dorsal turrets are more to defend against things flying above you - like missiles from orbit and such. So that's why the Support laser is a belly/butt gun and one of the point defense gatling turrets was dorsal.  There is also a belly PD gatling gun on the belly to defend against missile attacks from the ground. 

Maybe words from those we weapons were placed for would be helpful when placing them? The idea was that Izek would use the VRFs Jeff on the Support laser Kayleb on the PGMPs or other heavy weapons if needed.  Personally I think this is more than just aesthetics. I know we have a Ref statement saying that he's not going to call us on weapon arcs and such, but weapon arcs are actually a part of the game. Lets just say we're being chased through a canyon. Weapons on the front aren't really the tool for the job when fighting off pursuers. Having a turret on top of the craft is great, but when your flying it's hard to visualize that same turret attacking targets on the ground unless they're distant, or unless the pilot does some kind of crazy barrel roll.  In space combat it would never matter. But in personal scale combat I think it should. Especially if the ship is on the landing pad and we're waiting for the power plant to fire up. 

What is the speed of the shuttle, you have its M drive size but not total G's

Realistically speaking, in space combat, a ship has a 50-50 chance of being out of view of a turret due to the ship’s hull. Of course, then you actually have to track things. :P

VIC e. said: What is the speed of the shuttle, you have its M drive size but not total G's Thanks for that.  It hasn't changed from the stats given on p26 of Traders and Gunboats.  So she still accelerates by 4Gs and has a power plant rating of 4.  Tenacious Techhunter said: Realistically speaking, in space combat, a ship has a 50-50 chance of being out of view of a turret due to the ship’s hull. Of course, then you actually have to track things. : Well in space combat you have 6 entire minutes to tumble the ship and bring each of your weapon arcs to bear. So weapon placement really doesn't mean a lot in space combat.  The only real time when weapon facing is important is when the ship is involved in personal scale combat. Even then it doesn't mean much. It means a lot when the ship is on the ground though. If we have to shoot at baddies who have chased us back to the ship and need to fight them off while our power plant warms up then weapon placement suddenly means everything. 

Alby said: Well in space combat you have 6 entire minutes to tumble the ship and bring each of your weapon arcs to bear. So weapon placement really doesn't mean a lot in space combat. The only real time when weapon facing is important is when the ship is involved in personal scale combat. Even then it doesn't mean much. It means a lot when the ship is on the ground though. If we have to shoot at baddies who have chased us back to the ship and need to fight them off while our power plant warms up then weapon placement suddenly means everything. I completely agree with this, and it seems to be baked into the rules this way from all that I can see.

Well, again, I was speaking realistically.

Tenacious Techhunter said: Well, again, I was speaking realistically. I think we're all trying to be realistic here TT.  If the turrets are dorsal/ventral, have a little bit of elevation and can depress a bit then there are arcs that both turrets can fire into.  The purple bit. It makes a Doughnut of Death that encircles the ship. 

I don't think a belly turret is a good idea as when landed its useless and dig into the ground or get ripped off in a hard landing.

Yeah, I was being conservative when I said “50-50”. Belly turrets depend on landing gear to not get squished; either that, or desperate cartoonists .

Fair point I guess. Could make it a pop-up(down) turret, but that will take up space that's probably better used for something else.  Should we stick with the cheek turrets as per the original image for the assault shuttle? Means we're missing out on the rear arc and focusing on the forward arc - which is okay. More "assaulty" and less defensive. 

This is the future. Putting people in turrets was always a stupid idea. We’ll just control it remotely.

Tenacious Techhunter said: This is the future. Putting people in turrets was always a stupid idea. We’ll just control it remotely. But ... it's less Star Warsy that way!

Hey if we go with the cheek turrets like in the image, do you think there'd be a way to make them lock in the forward position so that the pilot could use them both as if they were fixed mounts again? Seems like a simple idea but probably needs a GM thumbs up. 

Tenacious Techhunter said: This is the future. Putting people in turrets was always a stupid idea. We’ll just control it remotely. In Jeffs opinion, he believes that he will do a much better job, and become an important turret asset, if he was placed on the support laser. (Side note, Jeff doesn't really care about dying, if he dies in combat atleast he made an effort to help. But if he died of cancer or a virus/pathogen, then he'd be pretty pissed)

Alby said: Hey if we go with the cheek turrets like in the image, do you think there'd be a way to make them lock in the forward position so that the pilot could use them both as if they were fixed mounts again? Seems like a simple idea but probably needs a GM thumbs up.  I would figure it would be their default “standby-ready” position, but, if not, I would think it should be one of the default fire control modes.

This. I would love to have had the time to knock up some kind of robot/computer thingo for the point defense turrets. I'm hoping a regular computer loaded with Intelect, Expert Hvy Wpns (launcher) and Expert Hvy Wpns (energy weapons) will do for now. The idea is that when active the turrets automatically target incoming missiles or lob multispectral smoke grenades when laser sensors on the hull detect a hit.