Author Topic: Fires and Magazine Explosions  (Read 3941 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jfelten

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • j
  • Posts: 187
Re: Fires and Magazine Explosions
« Reply #30 on: February 23, 2009, 05:39:26 AM »
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
This supports the view that is it is extremely difficult to get a nuclear weapon to explode by accident. However, it also demonstrates that the conventional explosives in the warhead can do a considerable amount of damage by themselves. At this point it occured to me that when an Aurora warship is hit by the nearby detonation of a nuclear weapon, only a fraction of the power of that warhead will actually hit the ship, with the rest of the explosion being wasted on empty space. Therefore the strength of the warhead in game terms really represents the fraction of the explosive power that would affect the ship. Even a single small nuclear weapon detonating inside a ship would apply all its energy against that ship and almost certainly destroy it. Which means that the best way to implement a realistic magazine explosion scenario is for the explosion to represent the conventional explosives within the warheads plus the missile engines, possibly the fuel and possibly a quantity of radioactive material. A large conventional explosion taking place within a ship is still going to go a massive amount of damage. I am tempted to assign an explosive amount equal to either a percentage of the warhead strength or a fixed amount (perhaps 1 point of damage) per missile. The percentage would likely be 10-20%. While the conventional explosives on a nuclear weapon are obviously not equal to 10-20% of the maximum warhead yield, they might be equal to 10-20% of the amount of energy that hits a ship from the nuclear detonation, especially as they would be exploding inside the ship.

Does this sound like a more reasonable scenario?

Steve

I suppose you'll have to run some numbers.  Obviously the amount of missiles in the magazine will vary depending on how many have been expended at that point, but if only a handful going off is going to blow the ship up, then that is what is going to happen most of the time.  

One thing people sometimes forget is that if something presents a danger, then efforts will be made to mitigate it.  It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to realize if you have a room full of explosives, there is a chance they might blow up in battle, and take steps to reduce both the likelihood or it happening and the damage should it occur.  I'm sure we could think up lots of ideas along those lines.  Perhaps something like the reported armored cargo holds on airlines such as
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static ... rity/2.stm
to channel the blast out and away from the ship.  I think we can assume that each magazine would be separated to reduce the chances of an explosion in one damaging another magazine.  

Wasn't there some sort of system in Starfire to try to automatically jettison antimatter warheads should the computer calculate that an explosion was imminent?  Not that something being in Starfire automatically makes it a good or bad idea.  

Whether the missile engine/fuel would explode is totally up to you.  It isn't a conventional chemical reaction so there is no reason to assume it would.  There is no believable way that much energy could be derived from a chemical reaction so it's pretty much wide open.
 

Offline SteveAlt (OP)

  • Global Moderator
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 820
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: Fires and Magazine Explosions
« Reply #31 on: February 23, 2009, 08:39:36 AM »
Quote from: "jfelten"
I suppose you'll have to run some numbers.  Obviously the amount of missiles in the magazine will vary depending on how many have been expended at that point, but if only a handful going off is going to blow the ship up, then that is what is going to happen most of the time.  

One thing people sometimes forget is that if something presents a danger, then efforts will be made to mitigate it.  It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to realize if you have a room full of explosives, there is a chance they might blow up in battle, and take steps to reduce both the likelihood or it happening and the damage should it occur.  I'm sure we could think up lots of ideas along those lines.
Well I assume warship designers are aware of the dangers but that hasn't stopped warships blowing up from magazine explosions on a regular basis. From the Napoleonic wars, to Tsushima, to Jutland and many engagements in WW2, including the loss of the Fus? in the last battleship action in history at the Surigao Strait. Remember the spectacular picture of HMS Antelope in the Falklands War? That was her magazine exploding due to damage caused by a 500lb bomb (after unsuccessful defusing attempts). So however much warship designers are aware of the dangers of magazine explosions and however much they would prefer they didn't happen, they plainly do happen on a very regular basis.

Quote
Perhaps something like the reported armored cargo holds on airlines such as
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static ... rity/2.stm
to channel the blast out and away from the ship.  I think we can assume that each magazine would be separated to reduce the chances of an explosion in one damaging another magazine.  
According to the reports I read, that hardening is to prevent the loss of a airliner to a few ounces of semtex. It isn't going to work against any serious bomb. Once again, I can only quote the numerous ships lost the magazine explosions and point out that the designers of those warships were no doubt well aware of the risks. In any event, in v4.0, you now have the option to design your own magazines and choose how much protection you want them to have.

Quote
Wasn't there some sort of system in Starfire to try to automatically jettison antimatter warheads should the computer calculate that an explosion was imminent?  Not that something being in Starfire automatically makes it a good or bad idea.  
I think it was called the CRAM system. As noted in the magazine design I laid out in an earlier post, this will be part of v4.0 as well. It isn't going to be 100% successful though, which is when the magazine explosions will happen.

Quote
Whether the missile engine/fuel would explode is totally up to you.  It isn't a conventional chemical reaction so there is no reason to assume it would.  There is no believable way that much energy could be derived from a chemical reaction so it's pretty much wide open.
From what I have read, it doesn't matter if the engine/fuel explodes as the conventional explosives in the nuclear warheads are going to do plenty of damage by themselves. For example:

On May 22, 1957, a B-36 ferrying a nuclear weapon from Biggs Air Force Base, Texas to Kirtland accidentally discharges a bomb in the New Mexico desert. The high explosive material detonates, completely destroying the weapon and making a crater 25 ft in diameter and 12 ft deep. .

On March 11, 1958, a B-47 bomber accidentally drops a nuclear weapon over Mars Bluff, South Carolina. The conventional explosive trigger detonates, leaving a crater 75 feet wide and 35 feet deep

On November 4, 1958 , a B-47 catches fire on take-off and crashes, killing one crew member. The high explosive in the nuclear weapon on board explodes leaving a crater 35 feet in diameter and 6 feet deep. Nuclear materials are recovered near the crash site.

These were all gravity bombs with no engine or fuel. In addition, the Department of Energy Nuclear Security Administration states that an explosion of the HE in a nuclear warhead will disperse radioactive material and propel shrapnel up to 2000 feet, which indicates the strength of the conventional explosive. The relevant factsheet is: http://www.doeal.gov/laso/EmergencyPubl ... tsheet.pdf

British Ministry of Defence Guidelines issued to local authorities near nuclear weapon storage sites states that detonation of the HE in a warhead would propel explosive fragments up to 600 metres (1950 feet)

All of the above makes it abundantly clear that the amount of HE involved in just one warhead, exploding in a confined space and expending all of its energy against the ship, is going to cause a considerable amount of damage. Therefore I have decided to go with magazine explosions causing 20% of the warhead damage. As I stated earlier, when a nuclear warhead explodes outside the ship the vast majority of the warhead yield doesn't hit the ship so the Aurora warhead damage is based on the tiny fraction that does hit the ship. Therefore the actual percentage of the real warhead yield involved in an HE explosion is probably about 0.1%.

Steve
 

Offline jfelten

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • j
  • Posts: 187
Re: Fires and Magazine Explosions
« Reply #32 on: February 23, 2009, 08:59:04 AM »
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Well I assume warship designers are aware of the dangers but that hasn't stopped warships blowing up from magazine explosions on a regular basis. From the Napoleonic wars, to Tsushima, to Jutland and many engagements in WW2, including the loss of the Fus? in the last battleship action in history at the Surigao Strait. Remember the spectacular picture of HMS Antelope in the Falklands War? That was her magazine exploding due to damage caused by a 500lb bomb (after unsuccessful defusing attempts). So however much warship designers are aware of the dangers of magazine explosions and however much they would prefer they didn't happen, they plainly do happen on a very regular basis.

I'm not sure I would call it "a very regular basis".  It was certainly a very tiny percentage of warships that had their magazines explode.  And I certainly wouldn't count anything from the time of wooden ships and black powder.  They took what precautions they could but the technology was very crude.  It is a wonder they didn't blow up right and left.  

Quote from: "SteveAlt"
According to the reports I read, that hardening is to prevent the loss of a airliner to a few ounces of semtex. It isn't going to work against any serious bomb. Once again, I can only quote the numerous ships lost the magazine explosions and point out that the designers of those warships were no doubt well aware of the risks. In any event, in v4.0, you now have the option to design your own magazines and choose how much protection you want them to have.

Yes but that is a civilian passenger airliner where things like minimizing weight is critical and the likely threat is a fairly small bomb.  It was just to illustrate that it is possible to harden and compartmentalize a ship vs explosions.  We are talking about warships armored to resist nuclear and antimatter warheads after all, even if only a small percentage of that energy impact the armor it is still a lot of energy.

Anyway, we'll know more once 4.x is out and people have a chance to try it out.
 

Offline SteveAlt (OP)

  • Global Moderator
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 820
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: Fires and Magazine Explosions
« Reply #33 on: February 23, 2009, 10:39:32 AM »
Quote from: "jfelten"
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
Well I assume warship designers are aware of the dangers but that hasn't stopped warships blowing up from magazine explosions on a regular basis. From the Napoleonic wars, to Tsushima, to Jutland and many engagements in WW2, including the loss of the Fus? in the last battleship action in history at the Surigao Strait. Remember the spectacular picture of HMS Antelope in the Falklands War? That was her magazine exploding due to damage caused by a 500lb bomb (after unsuccessful defusing attempts). So however much warship designers are aware of the dangers of magazine explosions and however much they would prefer they didn't happen, they plainly do happen on a very regular basis.

I'm not sure I would call it "a very regular basis".  It was certainly a very tiny percentage of warships that had their magazines explode.  
It's not by any means a very tiny percentage. I don't know why I keep continuing this discussion when you ignore the facts I present but I'll give it one more go. Restricting ourselves to capital ships as they were the most important, lets look at the major battles of WW1 and WW2

WW1
Dogger Bank: 1 ship lost (German). 1 ship heavily damaged by a magazine explosion (Also German)
Jutland. 5 capital ships sunk (3 British and 2 German): 4 out of 5 lost to magazine explosions.

So in WW1, out of six capital ships lost in battleship actions, two thirds were lost to magazine explosions! (Blucher was really a large armoured cruiser so its actually 80%)

WW2 (lets look at German losses first)
Bismarck was battered to destruction - no apparent magazine explosion
Tirpitz was attacked several times but was eventually sunk by RAF Lancasters after a bomb started a fire that caused a magazine explosion and blew the C turret off the ship.
Battle of North Cape: Scharnhorst crippled by magazine explosion in A and B turrets and eventually sunk. No British losses
Gneisnau (sister ship of Scharnhorst) was severely damaged in a bombing raid when her magazine exploded (losing her entire bow). She took no further part in the war.

So of the four German battleships, three suffered magazine explosions.

British losses:
Royal Oak - torpedoed by U-47. (From uboataces.com) "The resulting fire ignited the cordite magazine, causing it to go off with a fiery orange blast right up through the decks"
Hood - completely destroyed by magazine explosion. 3 survivors
Barham - torpedoed by U-331. Magazines exploded and she sank with loss of 2/3rd of her crew
Repulse - sunk by Japanese aircraft
Prince of Wales - same (both ships capsized due to damage from torpedoes)

So of the five british battleships lost, three suffered magazine explosions

Japanese losses
Hiei - sunk by US aircraft
Kirishima - lost at Guadalcanal. No contemporary report of magazine explosion but when the wreck was found in 1992, the bow had been blown off.
Mutsu suffered a catastrophic magazine explosion and sank instantly
Yamashiro - sunk at Surigao Strait
Fuso - lost to magazine explosion at Surigao Strait
Musashi - sunk after repeated bomb and torpedo hits
Yamato - sunk en route to Okinawa. "At 14:23, having taken 10 torpedo and 7 bomb hits, Yamato's forward ammunition magazines detonated. The smoke from the explosion—over 4 miles (6.4 km) high—was seen 100 miles (160 km) away"

So the Japanese lost three battleships to magazine explosions, including the largest battleship ever built, and possibly four

US losses
The only two permament (as in never refloated) US Battleships lost were Arizona and Oklahoma. Arizona was lost to a catastrophic magazine explosion

So rather than a tiny percentage, it appears that around half the battleships sunk in WW1 and WW2 suffered magazine explosion. I hope this finally squashes the myth that magazine explosions were a rare event and explains why I believe they are needed to maintain realism in Aurora. In so many games, from Starfire to SFB, you have to pound every ship to complete destruction. That is simply doesn't reflect the real world where many ships, including some of the most powerful ever built, were lost to sudden, catastrophic explosions. I really don't want to spend any more time on this when I should be testing v4.0 so this will have to be my final word on the subject.

Steve
 

Offline waresky

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1482
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Alpine Mountaineer..ohh Yeah!
Re: Fires and Magazine Explosions
« Reply #34 on: February 23, 2009, 03:20:54 PM »
The game r ur,Steve.
Am agree with u all,if u put into Aurora the magazine troubles am happy,every things in Aurora r welcome.

Good work.

p.s: 4.0 r nea rto coming?:D..or u waitn 4.1?
 

Offline IanD

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 678
  • Thanked: 14 times
Re: Fires and Magazine Explosions
« Reply #35 on: February 24, 2009, 08:55:08 AM »
Steve a minor correction or two! :roll:   I assume they can be treated much as Steve suggested for magazines.

Regards
Ian
IanD
 

Offline SteveAlt (OP)

  • Global Moderator
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 820
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: Fires and Magazine Explosions
« Reply #36 on: February 24, 2009, 10:30:21 AM »
Quote from: "IanD"
Thus for a total of 63 Capital ships to see service in WW2, 27 were lost as a result of enemy action (41%) of those 11 suffered magazine explosions as a result of enemy action (17% of the total, 42% of those lost).
Thanks for the corrections and additions. The general point remains the same though, which is that magazine explosions were a common problem, despite no doubt considerable efforts on the part of designers to prevent them.

Quote
In term for Aurora I guess there should be a possibility of a critical hit, which can then result in:
Before I work my way through the list, am I correct in assuming you haven't played the game yet, or at least haven't fought a battle, as many of these points are already covered within the game?

Quote
Engine room hit and loss of all or some % propulsion, (repairable),
Each engine is tracked separately. Each can be hit, which reduces propulsion power and speed and has the possibility of a secondary explosion. They can be repaired.

Quote
Machinery space hit ranging from Power pile ruptured – no electrics ship dead in space, radioactive tomb, (unrepairable), reduced scrap value, to power conduits damaged/destroyed, (repairable) – ship dead except for no or little movement.
There are not machinery spaces in Aurora in the above context. However, reactors are needed to power energy weapons and can be damaged. This may result in slower firing or useless weapons and again there is the possibility of secondary explosions.

Quote
Magazine or other volatiles etc hit – ship disintegrates or  % lost or breaks in two (all unrepairable), reduced scrap value.
Magazine hits in v4.0 have a potential to cause a magazine explosion. The chance of this happening will depend on the design of the magazine and the severity of the explosion will depend on the ordnance (if any) in the affected magazine.

Quote
Bridge hit, x time before emergency controls rigged.
The Bridge is a separate system in Aurora, although at the moment the only real consequence of a bridge hit is the possible death of the ship commander. I should probably add some further penalty based on slow response to commands.

Quote
Life support hit – This need to be a reduction in efficiency/range habitability of ship – don’t know how you would implement this?
Life support (shown as Crew Quarters in Aurora) can be hit , although there is no set penalty yet.

Quote
This also raises the question of separate engine rooms (as in Starfire) and machinery spaces; do you really want all your reactors in one place?   :roll:   I assume they can be treated much as Steve suggested for magazines.
in Aurora, each engine on a ship is treated individually, as are individual reactors, and can be damaged independently.

Steve
 

Offline waresky

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1482
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Alpine Mountaineer..ohh Yeah!
Re: Fires and Magazine Explosions
« Reply #37 on: February 24, 2009, 11:18:26 AM »
This posts r better than a Rules Book:)
Ive fought 2 only Capitals  (Cruiser Vs Cruisers,Pinnace,CLE,Destroyers,PDC Missiles platform)Battles (more same as skirmish than a real Naval heavy battle)
 

Offline IanD

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 678
  • Thanked: 14 times
Re: Fires and Magazine Explosions
« Reply #38 on: February 24, 2009, 01:39:20 PM »
The reason for the post was that is supported your position, 17% of your battle line exploding can seriously ruin your day! :o

Steve wrote
Quote
Before I work my way through the list, am I correct in assuming you haven't played the game yet, or at least haven't fought a battle, as many of these points are already covered within the game?
I have played the game, up to 3.1 but waiting for the features in 4.0 to start again. However you are right I have yet to find another race out there, even the ones I planted!

Quote
in Aurora, each engine on a ship is treated individually, as are individual reactors, and can be damaged independently.
I have lost the occasional engine to failed maintenance but the idea of a critical hit was to make the penalty somewhat more extreme, I supposed that if your engine compartment received the close attention of a nuclear warhead you might end up with a pile of slag rather than the remains of an engine you could repair. It also separated maintenance failures from battle damage.

Quote
There are not machinery spaces in Aurora
My assumption, since wet navy ships need a power plant and current ion engine designs all require an electricity supply. I thought they were "hidden" in the design, I didn't take into account Trans Newtonian physics!

Regards
Ian
IanD
 

Offline Larac

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • L
  • Posts: 15
Re: Fires and Magazine Explosions
« Reply #39 on: February 25, 2009, 03:01:25 PM »
To begin with perhaps use the Armor on a system to also help degrade the fire, and then a new Tech line for Fire Fighting/Fire Deterrents.

In space an easy way to stop a fire is of course starve it.

Between Selective venting and CO2 floods one should be able to control fires to some degree.

Of course CO2 is fairly easy to come by as a by product sort of from Humans, but systems would take room and mass always a trade off.

Most small craft and perhaps up to Destroyers would skip it and use a After Event system, but the really big stuff would be looking for all sorts of ways to stop it from starting in the first place.


Switching Topics
Been reading a lot of Ian Douglas as these are fleet battles things like Fires are ignored but implied. A good read though.

Is there a good author that focuses on a single warship, read  most of Weber, Drake, and others. But always looking for more.

Also read the Destroyer Men books about a US destroyer in another Earth, that was a good single ship focused even if wet Navy.

Thanks All
Lee
 

Offline SteveAlt (OP)

  • Global Moderator
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 820
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: Fires and Magazine Explosions
« Reply #40 on: March 03, 2009, 07:19:43 PM »
Quote from: "IanD"
Quote
in Aurora, each engine on a ship is treated individually, as are individual reactors, and can be damaged independently.
I have lost the occasional engine to failed maintenance but the idea of a critical hit was to make the penalty somewhat more extreme, I supposed that if your engine compartment received the close attention of a nuclear warhead you might end up with a pile of slag rather than the remains of an engine you could repair. It also separated maintenance failures from battle damage.
That's a good point. The reason that systems wrecked by hostile fire and systems that have failed through maintenance are treated the same is for ease of gameplay rather than realism. Otherwise I would have to track two type of damages and two types of repair and display both to the player. I didn't think the minor improvement in gameplay would be worth the increase in complexity. Critical hits are possible in Aurora but they take the form of additional damage due to secondary explosions, which falls within the existing damage resolution.

Quote from: "IanD"
Quote
There are not machinery spaces in Aurora
My assumption, since wet navy ships need a power plant and current ion engine designs all require an electricity supply. I thought they were "hidden" in the design, I didn't take into account Trans Newtonian physics!
They are sort of hidden in the design. Again it comes down to gameplay vs complexity. I am trying to find a balance where the things you have to consider when designing a ship are fun and challenging rather than tedious. I am even considering removing separate power plants and adding the reactor cost and space directly to beam weapons (using the reactor tech line on the beam weapon design screen). This would simplfy design a little and prevent one of the areas that I am not completely happy with, where loss of a reactor slows down weapon firing when in reality you would probably stop using one or more of weapons to maintain the rate of fire. That would involve power allocation though which I really want to avoid.

I do agree that some type of general power failure would make an interesting situation so I will give that some thought.

Steve
 

Offline SteveAlt (OP)

  • Global Moderator
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 820
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: Fires and Magazine Explosions
« Reply #41 on: March 03, 2009, 07:24:33 PM »
Quote from: "Larac"
To begin with perhaps use the Armor on a system to also help degrade the fire, and then a new Tech line for Fire Fighting/Fire Deterrents.
There is a tech line for damage control system, which will cover fighting fires as a higher damage control rating increases the speed at which fires are extinguished.

Quote
In space an easy way to stop a fire is of course starve it.

Between Selective venting and CO2 floods one should be able to control fires to some degree.

Of course CO2 is fairly easy to come by as a by product sort of from Humans, but systems would take room and mass always a trade off.

Most small craft and perhaps up to Destroyers would skip it and use a After Event system, but the really big stuff would be looking for all sorts of ways to stop it from starting in the first place.
jfelten made a good point about the limited supply of oxygen to feed a fire, even if external venting is not possible, so I am reconsidering the overall effect fires at the moment.

Quote
Switching Topics
Been reading a lot of Ian Douglas as these are fleet battles things like Fires are ignored but implied. A good read though.

Is there a good author that focuses on a single warship, read  most of Weber, Drake, and others. But always looking for more.

Also read the Destroyer Men books about a US destroyer in another Earth, that was a good single ship focused even if wet Navy.
I have read Ian Douglas's inheritance trilogy and the more recent Legacy trilogy. I very much enjoyed both, although his publisher needs to employ a better proof-reader :)

I haven't read the Destroyer Men books but I will take a look.

Steve
 

Offline Kurt

  • Gold Supporter
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1405
  • Thanked: 1368 times
  • 2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
Re: Fires and Magazine Explosions
« Reply #42 on: March 08, 2009, 10:58:47 AM »
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
I have read Ian Douglas's inheritance trilogy and the more recent Legacy trilogy. I very much enjoyed both, although his publisher needs to employ a better proof-reader :)

I haven't read the Destroyer Men books but I will take a look.

Steve

I heartily recommend the Destroyermen books.  I've only read the first one, which is the only one out in paperback so far, but it was very good.  The author knows his WW 1/II destroyers, the military, and did a good job setting up an alternate earth.  

Having said that, I am reading The Price of Admiralty by John Keegan right now, and I'm on the chapter about Jutland.  it fits in with this topic very well, as I have just read his description of the destruction of a third of the British BC force by German fire, largely due to inadequate flash barriers in their turret design.  

This got me thinking about damage resolution in Aurora, and it might be time for you to revisit this, Steve, although probably not for 4.0.  The new armor system is very interesting, but has made internal armor and turret armor problematic.  Currently, Aurora treats turrets and other weapon mountings as internal systems, when turrets can only be considered external systems, and most other weapons mountings are probably the same.  Hmmm...basically, Aurora currently considers turrets as having the same armor as the rest of the ship, right?  Because first the ship's armor must be breached, and then damage can be scored on internal systems, including the turret.  

Perhaps it would be interesting if, during the design process, the designer could add extra armor to the turret.  Unlike the current system, the new system would use the armor system currently used for the hull, so that by adding additional armor to the turret the designer is adding additional lines of armor to that one area of the ship.  The amount of armor needed for each line would be based on the size of the turret, using the same formula as is used for the ship's hull.  The same scheme could be used for the ship's engines and power plants, which, IIRC, are the only things that can be armored now.  Hmmm...this might be too complex, though.  That would be adding multiple seperate armor boxes for various systems, all of which would have to be tracked.  

I don't know, I just feel that with the armor and penetration changes, it is probably time to standardize this issue.  

Kurt
 

Offline schroeam

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • s
  • Posts: 217
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • "Let's try a new strategy, let the Wookiee win"
Re: Fires and Magazine Explosions
« Reply #43 on: March 08, 2009, 09:18:39 PM »
Quote from: "Kurt"
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
I have read Ian Douglas's inheritance trilogy and the more recent Legacy trilogy. I very much enjoyed both, although his publisher needs to employ a better proof-reader :)

I haven't read the Destroyer Men books but I will take a look.

Steve

I heartily recommend the Destroyermen books.  I've only read the first one, which is the only one out in paperback so far, but it was very good.  The author knows his WW 1/II destroyers, the military, and did a good job setting up an alternate earth.  

Having said that, I am reading The Price of Admiralty by John Keegan right now, and I'm on the chapter about Jutland.  it fits in with this topic very well, as I have just read his description of the destruction of a third of the British BC force by German fire, largely due to inadequate flash barriers in their turret design.  

This got me thinking about damage resolution in Aurora, and it might be time for you to revisit this, Steve, although probably not for 4.0.  The new armor system is very interesting, but has made internal armor and turret armor problematic.  Currently, Aurora treats turrets and other weapon mountings as internal systems, when turrets can only be considered external systems, and most other weapons mountings are probably the same.  Hmmm...basically, Aurora currently considers turrets as having the same armor as the rest of the ship, right?  Because first the ship's armor must be breached, and then damage can be scored on internal systems, including the turret.  

Perhaps it would be interesting if, during the design process, the designer could add extra armor to the turret.  Unlike the current system, the new system would use the armor system currently used for the hull, so that by adding additional armor to the turret the designer is adding additional lines of armor to that one area of the ship.  The amount of armor needed for each line would be based on the size of the turret, using the same formula as is used for the ship's hull.  The same scheme could be used for the ship's engines and power plants, which, IIRC, are the only things that can be armored now.  Hmmm...this might be too complex, though.  That would be adding multiple seperate armor boxes for various systems, all of which would have to be tracked.  

I don't know, I just feel that with the armor and penetration changes, it is probably time to standardize this issue.  

Kurt

Perhaps treat the turret as a hardpoint and have the armor setting for the turret in the turret design, much as internal armor for engines is accounted for in their design.  The actual type of armor is decided when the ship is built, but the layers of armor is accomplished when the turret is designed.  A probablility (size of turret or hardpoint vs size of ship) could be derived to determine if a turret or other hard point is hit, or the hull of the ship.  Damage to either could then be figured with the possible destruction of the turret, or damage internally, whichever would fit.

Adam.
 

Offline SteveAlt (OP)

  • Global Moderator
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 820
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: Fires and Magazine Explosions
« Reply #44 on: March 12, 2009, 06:41:31 AM »
Quote from: "Kurt"
This got me thinking about damage resolution in Aurora, and it might be time for you to revisit this, Steve, although probably not for 4.0.  The new armor system is very interesting, but has made internal armor and turret armor problematic.  Currently, Aurora treats turrets and other weapon mountings as internal systems, when turrets can only be considered external systems, and most other weapons mountings are probably the same.  Hmmm...basically, Aurora currently considers turrets as having the same armor as the rest of the ship, right?  Because first the ship's armor must be breached, and then damage can be scored on internal systems, including the turret.  

Perhaps it would be interesting if, during the design process, the designer could add extra armor to the turret.  Unlike the current system, the new system would use the armor system currently used for the hull, so that by adding additional armor to the turret the designer is adding additional lines of armor to that one area of the ship.  The amount of armor needed for each line would be based on the size of the turret, using the same formula as is used for the ship's hull.  The same scheme could be used for the ship's engines and power plants, which, IIRC, are the only things that can be armored now.  Hmmm...this might be too complex, though.  That would be adding multiple seperate armor boxes for various systems, all of which would have to be tracked.  

I don't know, I just feel that with the armor and penetration changes, it is probably time to standardize this issue.  
I certainly need to remove the internal armour as it was part of the old armour rules. I am just not sure yet how to replace it. One option is the same as the new magazines, where you can increase their HTK by adding armour. This means I don't have to track actual damage to internal armour but it makes internal systems harder to destroy at the expense of space. I could do that with engines, power plants and turrets. Another option, as you mention above, is to have separate "sections" of armour covering different parts of the ship but that would increase the complexity of both design and damage resolution quite a lot. It would also mean more armour was required for the same level of protection.As an example, five 10m3 spheres have more surface area than one 50m3 sphere so more armour would be required to cover them all to the same depth. I think the HTK system is probably the better option but I am open to ideas.

Steve
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77