New Stuff for Submersibles

I've been working on a deepwater survey shuttle. It needed some stuff that wasn't in the book, so here's what I came up with:

Specialized Hull: SUBMERSIBLE CAPABILITY
SU Cost: 1 x size
Power Cost: None
Most starships cannot submerge in liquids or extreme pressure gases; they're not built for it, so the pressure of diving into an ocean or lower levels of a gas giant crushes them (or at least causes substantial damage, though shield modifications can affect this). However, it is possible to build a ship with a specially designed and reinforced hull which allows for underwater movement. The necessary modifications occupy SUs equal to the ship's size, but cost no Power. Ships with submersible capability take no damage when entering or flying in deep water. A ship must have Outer Hull Resistance 6 or higher to be submersible-capable.

To make only the detachable part of a ship (like a separable saucer) submersible-capable costs only .25 x size (minimum of 1 SU).

To determine a ship's speed underwater, take its sublight speed rating, multiply by 100, and that is its speed in knots. IE, a ship capable of .5c in space can go 50 knots underwater. If a ship that is not submersible-capable is improvising with structural integrity fields and deflector shields to survive underwater, that speed should be halved. IE, .5c is good for 25 knots. Narrators may modify this number according to the sleekness of the design.

Sensor Package: ECHOLOCATION

Both Lateral and Navigational Sensors benefit from the Echolocation packages. These add-ons can emit both simple sound waves and more exotic energy forms like tetryon pulses to gather information in high-density environments like deep water and gas giant atmospheres. They have even proved useful in especially dense nebulae, although a more typical "thin" nebula lacks the fluidic density to carry compression waves.

For research and navigation, the Echolocation package is usually operated in active mode, transmitting pulses and analyzing the returns. In tactical situations, it has proven wiser to limit active sensor use, rely primarily on passive listening, and not go active until the benefits outway the drawback of highlighting your own position.

In game terms, use the Lateral or Navigational Sensors Gain Package tables (pg 51) to determine Class, SUs, and Test Result Bonuses. The Bonuses act only to counteract the interference penalties of operating in a high density environment.

SUBMERGED SILENT DRIVE

SU Cost: (3 x Class) + Size
Power Cost: 10 Power per class per round of use

Submerged Silent Drives (SSDs) use active noise cancellation technology to mask the sound of a submersible operating underwater. They are classed like Cloaking Devices and have the same SU cost per Class (pg 62). Their only affect is to limit the noise produced by the submersible, so they have no affect on active echolocation sensors, and of course they're completely useless in space.

Looks great.

Thanks, Omega. I'll be giving the Nautilus-class bathyshuttle one last check, and probably post it within the week.

Has anyone come up with rules for using phasers underwater? I'm thinking that range would be drastically limited, and damage would decrease with range.

Also, I'd allow ACB jacketing to reduce the range penalty. Any thoughts on that?

Phasers underwater could also lead to interesting effects, like boiling water around it, or disintegrate (or vaporize ?) it, thus creating unpredictable water currents. I don't know how to factor these effects in game terms, though, but I would keep them in mind if an unmodified phaser were to be fired underwater.
On the other hand, a photon torpedo (with adequate alteration to its engines) could work very well, too well actually, since an underwater explosion has usually a larger area of effect.

Sarge, blue-green frequency lasers work well underwater, so perhaps phasers can be adjusted to do the same...

mactavish out.

Cool writeup!

You could put a containment field on the phaser, which would maintain it's coherency underwater, but limit it's range more (though space-combat-ranges are probably unrealistic underwater anyway hehe)

Phasers are not light, so the colour won't make too much of a difference :)

Yeah, Tobian, a containment field was what I was thinking of. That's why I suggested ACB, annular containment beam. Even with that, I think the damage should fall off rapidly with range as the beam boils its way through the intervening water. Phasers would not be at all covert underwater; the superheated steam bubbles would be a dead give away with every shot.

it would be the ultimate fish steamer :p "Sir, we missed.... damn" *20 tonnes of steam cooked cod rises to the surface* :D


On the flip side it would be excellent to stun all your enemies.. Water is after all conductive, and phaser fire contains a lot of charged plasma, so at low power settings, with an ACB jacket, you could stun the ship :)

Another thing to consider (I did this in my e-book) Is using a system like the Bussard ramscoop, reconfigured, as a silent drive system. Basically tweak your shields, and use the large magnetic fields to pull your ship through the water, like advanced magnetic drive systems of today. Or in the case of a dedicated system, a specific drive unit, mounted inside a tube, so it gives off almost no external radiation source, while whipping along like lighting :)

TBH We already know Starfleet shields can cloak the ship to 'primitive' sensors anyway, with a slight modification you could use your shields to make you super aerodynamic, so you efficiently displace water with the minimum of turbulence!

Wow, this is cool. Could any of this be used in the CODA system? I would love to use this stuff in my campaign.

I don't have Coda, so I can't say how complicated it would be to crunch the numbers for the conversion. Probably somebody here has a system for making the change. If not, then just take the idea and make up numbers that seem right to you.

And if you do use any of these ideas in a game, let me know how it works out. I love to hear feedback and constructive criticism of my ideas.