Magazine Explosions

[sloanjh]

Yes, it would also be a lot simpler to treat weapons equally with regard to the core concept. The advantage of lances (for example) would be to penetrate armour in the first place.

A few random replies to the thread:

Yes, in my 2nd post I originally had "HS or HTK destroyed" (for the % chance of penetration to core).  I deleted HTK and just said HS because you want things like hangers (with high HS/HTK) to NOT be a good shield for the core.  A ship with high HS/HTK (like hangars) in the surface area will and should have damage more quickly penetrate to the core than one with low HS/HTK (i.e. dense) components.  So a hangar which can absorb 1 damage point will stop the first point of damage, but its loss will lead to a much higher likelihood that the next point of damage will get through to the core compared to the loss of e.g. a laser mount.

Also, I think it's really important to keep the core concept really simple.  As Steve said (to paraphrase), the reason he's resisted (with good reason) distribution of components is that it leads to micromanagement nightmares.  I think dividing the components into two pieces is a great compromise between the random damage of Aurora and the predictable ordered damage of SF.  As such (if Steve puts it in), there shouldn't be a lot of tracking of components that are partially in and partially out - it should be a couple of very simple yes/no answers: "Is this component eligible for the core?"  "Is it in the core?".

I thought about whether magazines should be allowed to be in the core (due to transport distance) when I suggested it.  My feel is that this is a "gameplay over reality" issue - the transport distance issues are modeled in the lower RoF compared to box launchers (which should be required to be on the surface), while the ability to protect magazines by burying them in the middle of the ship is one of the primary gameplay motivations for the introduction of the mechanic.

I thought of the "armored core" idea too.  Since Steve's calculations are already based on radius it wouldn't be that hard to do.  It's probably a step too far over the complexity line though, especially when you start asking if there's another armor box pattern in the inner layer.

One thing I thought of after posting - internal explosions should probably ignore the core/surface shielding effect since you're already in the body of the ship.

John

[Barkhorn]

We can get the "core" mechanic by just allowing the player to draw the armor pattern, instead of having them all be rectangular.  Non-rectangular armor patterns already work fine for damage calculations, you can see it on damaged ships.

A system in the "core" would just have more armor segments above it on the armor pattern.  We don't need any new mechanics.

[chrislocke2000]

I like the idea of magazine destruction potentially causing a catastrophic failure of the vessel but agree some better ways to mitigate this would also be good. Was just thinking that perhaps the damage control rating of a vessel could not only support rate of repair but also improve the chances of avoiding a magazine explosion. This would probably mean that larger ships with fuller damage control would have a better chance of avoiding the problem.

On a separate note I was just thinking that with the potential change in states of components to now include damaged would another look at how damage controls work be a good idea. If a damaged component came with a risk of becoming destroyed if damage control was not applied in a certain period of time it could make that a lot more relevant in the normal combat time scales rather than just being an after the fact action if your ship has survived the combat.

[alex_brunius]

We can get the "core" mechanic by just allowing the player to draw the armor pattern, instead of having them all be rectangular.  Non-rectangular armor patterns already work fine for damage calculations, you can see it on damaged ships.

A system in the "core" would just have more armor segments above it on the armor pattern.  We don't need any new mechanics.

This might be an interesting way to do it, but then we also need some way to visualize and specify what components are covered with what armor thickness.

Sort of yes, sort of no. It really depends on how the engine works; a rocket engine benefits greatly from putting the reaction chamber as closely as possible to the nozzle. It means a much lower amount of things to cool for one. For a seagoing ship with propellers? Drive shafts are very efficient ways of transferring energy, which makes it possible to extend the distance between the energy source and the propeller.

Agreed. But given the technobabble of "fluid dimension" used in Aurora for propulsion I don't think a rocket engine is relevant for anything except maybe conventional engines.

[IanD]

Sorry I am late to this discussion.

It may be worth remembering that most magazine explosions were the result of a cordite fire - the propellant! Thus while the nuclear warhead may contribute only 20% or less of its explosive potential (up to antimatter warheads) the sorium fuel may contribute considerably more. It depends whether being TN material some of the resultant energy is expelled "out of phase" with this universe. Only Steve can tell us that  .

I quite like the idea of core area which has some form of extra protection, be this thickened armour or whatever. But I suspect the most apposite solution may be to apply the KISS principal.  .

Ian

[mandalorethe1st]

I agree with Ian.   

The biggest threat will be the fuel carried by the missiles.   I think it would be more appropriate to base the explosive damage off of the fuel contained in the magazine than the warheads.   this way, drones and other ordnance are just as deadly if struck.   Nuclear warheads are unlikely to detonate in an explosion, and the HE 'starter' would be negligible compared to the fuel in the storage (could be modeled at 20% total theoretical damamge).

Aside:  I think the energy from 1 trident missile booster is enough to melt all of the steel in a submarine that carries it.   

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I agree with Ian.   

The biggest threat will be the fuel carried by the missiles.   I think it would be more appropriate to base the explosive damage off of the fuel contained in the magazine than the warheads.   this way, drones and other ordnance are just as deadly if struck.   Nuclear warheads are unlikely to detonate in an explosion, and the HE 'starter' would be negligible compared to the fuel in the storage (could be modeled at 20% total theoretical damamge).

Aside:  I think the energy from 1 trident missile booster is enough to melt all of the steel in a submarine that carries it.

I did consider using the fuel. However, in that case what happens when the ship's main fuel tank gets hit? I also considered have the missile engines explode (using the same rules as ship engines) but they weren't really powerful enough.

[Conscript Gary]

If I remember right the lore justification for missile engines being allowed higher multipliers than the current power tech was that they were solid-fuelled, correct? With that in mind, their volatility compared to normal fuel could be justified, whether by itself or combined with the engines.

[tobijon]

I don't know about the multipliers, but didn't the fuel efficiency for missiles compared to ships now work according to the same formula in C#? that heavely implies the same fuel being used.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I don't know about the multipliers, but didn't the fuel efficiency for missiles compared to ships now work according to the same formula in C#? that heavely implies the same fuel being used.

Yes, missiles and ships use the same rules now.

[alex_brunius]

Hmm... Do we need big ass guns firing Anti-Matter slugs that are stored in magazines just to have an excuse for big magazine explosions? 

[Bremen]

There's no reason fuel has to be volatile and warheads shouldn't be; since sorium isn't treated as explosive anywhere else in the game, I figure it's best to assume it isn't easily set off without the equipment to do so (thus explaining engine explosions). Meanwhile, yeah, nukes don't go off if you set them on fire, but not all missiles are nukes and it might be weird to have different rules for antimatter missiles. Also, these are TNE nukes, they might be different.

I'd say go with what's most intuitive to the player, and that's probably having the missile warheads explode.

[Person012345]

If the intention is that a magazine explosion will usually be devastating to the ship then it's mechanically fine to use the warhead strength as the factor rather than overly complicate things using some new fuel explosion rules (which wouldn't necessarily make "realistic" sense either). A dead or crippled ship is a dead or crippled ship.

[Rook]

First off, I just blew through this entire thread in one go.  .  .   So, I apologize if I missed something, or misread something. 

I'm all for catastrophic magazine detonation.   I think it needs to be in there, a rare chance, depending on your ship design and technology, but a real possibility.   And since magazines, generally, are associated with big explosions when damaged, or even just lightly touched with any kind of abnormal amount of energy, I feel like its a good place to apply the risk.   

As well, the 100% warhead damage seems reasonable.   

My only question(s) is this.  .  .   Does the location of the explosion matter? Is it damage on "nearby" components? or does it move through the ship?

If it's not a question of location, could it be? Is there some kind of formula we could use to determine a probable "blast radius" inside the ship.   If X number of Y strength missiles detonate, a size Z explosion is applied to A number of components.   Or, perhaps that's already how this is working.  .  . 

Edit: Thinking about that, I realized that, at least with most of my larger ships that might actually survive a major explosion, there are MANY small components.  Mostly engineering spaces.  Which means, I'm not good enough at math for this.

[tobijon]

the components dont have a fixed position.  the damage is applied to components in the ship, until all of the damage has been done if i recall correctly.