[High Guard] Weapon and component questions

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
Bardicheart
Mongoose
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:53 pm
Contact:

[High Guard] Weapon and component questions

Postby Bardicheart » Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:18 am

Apologies if any of this has already been asked and answered but I hadn't seen it and while playing around with the rules and various components I came across some bits I wasn't clear on.

p. 17 states that Command Bridges can only be put on ships of 5,000 dT or larger? Why is this?

pp. 67-68 Plasma pulse cannons have an Auto rating of four so presumably a single turret would do 2d+4 damage, correct? Would a dual turret be 2d+6 (2 for dmg dice +4 for Auto) or 2d+10 (2 for dmg dice + 4 for auto + 4 for auto)? Or can only one such cannon be put in a turret (sort of like the old rule about particle beams in turrets).

Does the 1 Particle beam per turret limit still hold? I didn't see this anywhere but may have missed it.

The Solar Pulse Generator, how much tonnage does it need, I did not see this listed?

p. 70 Collectors, do these actually power the jump drive, if so does that mean that no PP from the power plant are needed? Example, a 800 dT ship at J-3 normally needs 240 PP to power its jump drive. If this was replaced by collectors, in addition to removing the need for 240 dT of hydrogen fuel, would we no longer need the 240 PP from the power plant?

p. 42 Life Sensors and Life Sensor Analysis Suite. Is the later an upgraded version of the former (as in, used in place of) or is it meant to be added in addition too the former?

Think that's about all for now, still working my way through everything.
P. Sean ONeal
Writer / Artist / Building Contractor and space junky (or monkey)
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3234
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [High Guard] Weapon and component questions

Postby AnotherDilbert » Tue Nov 20, 2018 11:30 am

Bardicheart wrote: p. 17 states that Command Bridges can only be put on ships of 5,000 dT or larger? Why is this?
It might be a hangover from MgT1, where 5000 Dt was a Capital ship. Distributed arrays also start at 5000 Dt.

Bardicheart wrote: pp. 67-68 Plasma pulse cannons have an Auto rating of four so presumably a single turret would do 2d+4 damage, correct? Would a dual turret be 2d+6 (2 for dmg dice +4 for Auto) or 2d+10 (2 for dmg dice + 4 for auto + 4 for auto)? Or can only one such cannon be put in a turret (sort of like the old rule about particle beams in turrets).
Depending on Single Fire, Burst, or Full Auto.
A single turret would do 2D, and either +0, +4, or three attacks at +0.
I assume a triple turret would do 2D+4, and either +0, +4, or three attacks at +0.
There are no limitations on how many weapons of a specific type can be put into a turret.

Note that the equipment in the High Tech chapter is generally assumed to not be available in the default Traveller setting.

Bardicheart wrote: Does the 1 Particle beam per turret limit still hold? I didn't see this anywhere but may have missed it.
No, if you are shopping in the High Tech chapter, Quad turrets with four particle weapons are possible.

Bardicheart wrote: The Solar Pulse Generator, how much tonnage does it need, I did not see this listed?
It seems to take no tonnage: "The solar pulse generator is a highly unusual weapon that is distributed across the hull of an entire ship, ..."

Bardicheart wrote: p. 70 Collectors, do these actually power the jump drive, if so does that mean that no PP from the power plant are needed? Example, a 800 dT ship at J-3 normally needs 240 PP to power its jump drive. If this was replaced by collectors, in addition to removing the need for 240 dT of hydrogen fuel, would we no longer need the 240 PP from the power plant?
As far as I know Collectors only replace the jump fuel. Power from the power plant is still needed.

Bardicheart wrote: p. 42 Life Sensors and Life Sensor Analysis Suite. Is the later an upgraded version of the former (as in, used in place of) or is it meant to be added in addition too the former?
Both seems unnecessary:
Life Scanner Analysis Suite (TL14)
A development of the life scanner, the Analysis model also takes atmospheric and environmental factors into account ,,,
I would say the Analysis Suite is a more advanced version of the same thing.
Note that add-ons like Signal Processing and Mineral Detection Suite clearly state that they are used in addition to a regular sensor.
locarno24
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3036
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:46 pm
Location: Wildly Variable

Re: [High Guard] Weapon and component questions

Postby locarno24 » Tue Nov 20, 2018 11:54 am

Not true - a CA-type capital hull was 3,000 dTons, and the Command Bridge was available even to non-capital ships.
Understand that I'm not advocating violence.
I'm just saying that it's highly effective and I strongly recommend using it.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 723
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: [High Guard] Weapon and component questions

Postby baithammer » Tue Nov 20, 2018 12:13 pm

Mgt 2ed High Guard
Capital Ship: A military ship of more than 5,000 tons.
Command Bridges appear to be intended for capital ships.
Bardicheart
Mongoose
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:53 pm
Contact:

Re: [High Guard] Weapon and component questions

Postby Bardicheart » Tue Nov 20, 2018 1:18 pm

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 11:30 am
Bardicheart wrote: p. 17 states that Command Bridges can only be put on ships of 5,000 dT or larger? Why is this?
It might be a hangover from MgT1, where 5000 Dt was a Capital ship. Distributed arrays also start at 5000 Dt.
I'd wondered that too. For some context, I've been toying with some fiction set in Deneb sector involving some of the feuding noble families. That got me to thinking about huscarle fleets, their composition and the 2000 dT (according to Sector Fleets) "cruisers" that seemed to be their "flag ships". So assume a 2000 dT huscarle cruiser acting as a flag ship, maybe a couple of 1000 dT escort destroyers, a couple or four 800 dT merc cruisers for putting boots on the ground, and some Gazelle close escorts to round out the flotilla. That certainly seemed like a good case for the huscarle cruiser to merit a command bridge with which to coordinate that flotilla so I set about tinkering with some possible TL 12, 14, and 15 designs. That's when I came across that bit in High Guard that said it was only for larger ships and it set me to wondering. Just doesn't make sense to me as a limitation but I'm trying to stick to the RAW for now. Didn't know if it had come up before or if there was any errata on it.

I'm still of mixed feelings about it. On the one hand its 20 dT for only a +1 Tactics (naval) bonus on a ship where 20 dT is fairly precious (then again I put in quite the spacious noble deck, complete with spa, lounge, hyrdoponics garden, and even a small training area handy for when two nobles want to settle a dispute with a duel :) ). On the other hand it just seems to fit the concept of the ship very well... wealthy noble, wants the best of everything, its their flag ship so they want a over the top bridge, etc. even if that tonnage might have been better applied elsewhere. Maybe I'll just leave it to sticking a 4 dT briefing room on the back along with a few other extras.
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Bardicheart wrote: pp. 67-68 Plasma pulse cannons have an Auto rating of four so presumably a single turret would do 2d+4 damage, correct? Would a dual turret be 2d+6 (2 for dmg dice +4 for Auto) or 2d+10 (2 for dmg dice + 4 for auto + 4 for auto)? Or can only one such cannon be put in a turret (sort of like the old rule about particle beams in turrets).
Depending on Single Fire, Burst, or Full Auto.
A single turret would do 2D, and either +0, +4, or three attacks at +0.
I assume a triple turret would do 2D+4, and either +0, +4, or three attacks at +0.
There are no limitations on how many weapons of a specific type can be put into a turret.
Still wrapping my head around that, so pardon some questions.

How would that work exactly, I'm assuming burst would give you the +4 and full auto lets you hit 3 targets at +0. So against say light fighters you could do 2d+4 against a single wing or 2d three times against multiple wings (or the same wing which is even nastier). How would that work in missile defense? Its starting to seem like a highly effective weapon.
AnotherDilbert wrote: Note that the equipment in the High Tech chapter is generally assumed to not be available in the default Traveller setting.
Noted, mostly I was just looking things over. I think some of it would fit nicely for a Fading Suns cross over (The energy shields in particular which are a staple of that setting). A few things I don't think would present a problem in OTU (like the collectors which are arguably already there) and I'm still wondering about the pulse plasma cannon. I wouldn't have expected to see tractor beams in OTU but there's the new Gionetti class light cruiser with a medium tractor bay... mixed feelings about that as well.
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Bardicheart wrote: Does the 1 Particle beam per turret limit still hold? I didn't see this anywhere but may have missed it.
No, if you are shopping in the High Tech chapter, Quad turrets with four particle weapons are possible.
Yikes! :shock: Well that's just evil! :lol:
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Bardicheart wrote: The Solar Pulse Generator, how much tonnage does it need, I did not see this listed?
It seems to take no tonnage: "The solar pulse generator is a highly unusual weapon that is distributed across the hull of an entire ship, ..."
Well that's quite odd.
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Bardicheart wrote: p. 70 Collectors, do these actually power the jump drive, if so does that mean that no PP from the power plant are needed? Example, a 800 dT ship at J-3 normally needs 240 PP to power its jump drive. If this was replaced by collectors, in addition to removing the need for 240 dT of hydrogen fuel, would we no longer need the 240 PP from the power plant?
As far as I know Collectors only replace the jump fuel. Power from the power plant is still needed.
I'm still confused about it since it states this...
These are accumulators, sweeping up exotic particles
captured by a canopy and removing the need to carry
separate fuel for the jump drive. This charge is released
in a single spike to power a jump drive; collectors
cannot be used for normal ship operations.
That would seem to indicate its actually generating power, but which can only be used for the jump drive as well as removing the need for jump fuel. If that is correct then collectors could be quite nice, if you don't mind having to park in one spot for a week while they recharge. Course with so much space savings you can afford to mount two sets of collectors and two jump drives so you can jump and then jump again. Used with a bit of fore thought it could be quite a tactical advantage. Again, not sure how I feel about it, just reading, learning and mulling things over.
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Bardicheart wrote: p. 42 Life Sensors and Life Sensor Analysis Suite. Is the later an upgraded version of the former (as in, used in place of) or is it meant to be added in addition too the former?
Both seems unnecessary:
Life Scanner Analysis Suite (TL14)
A development of the life scanner, the Analysis model also takes atmospheric and environmental factors into account ,,,
I would say the Analysis Suite is a more advanced version of the same thing.
Note that add-ons like Signal Processing and Mineral Detection Suite clearly state that they are used in addition to a regular sensor.
That was my impression as well but it wasn't exactly clear. Oddly enough it was something I was considering for one of my huscarle cruisers. My thinking was that since trade is not only the life blood of the Imperium but likely what keeps many of those nobles wealthy they'll be wanting to make trade deals of their own. So off they go in their flagship huscarle cruiser to make an impressive display and negotiate some trade deals. Naturally their envoys would want every scrap of information they could get about a particular world that might give them any edge in negotiations. It occurred to me those life sensors might be a good way of getting some current info about population density, industrial development and so forth. Couple that with some other advanced sensors, listening in on planetary communications and so forth and you might be able to develop a good picture of what a planet values, what it needs, what it can offer before you ever meet with the first diplomat... which would be a nice edge. Or not, again, just tinkering with ideas.

Plus it was also of interest for a Clarke class research ship I was tinkering with (unrelated to the huscarle thing, just an idea for a larger science ship I was toying with).

Appreciate all the replies.
P. Sean ONeal
Writer / Artist / Building Contractor and space junky (or monkey)
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 723
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: [High Guard] Weapon and component questions

Postby baithammer » Tue Nov 20, 2018 1:58 pm

These are accumulators, sweeping up exotic particles
captured by a canopy and removing the need to carry
separate fuel for the jump drive.
Only replaces fuel.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3234
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [High Guard] Weapon and component questions

Postby AnotherDilbert » Tue Nov 20, 2018 2:07 pm

locarno24 wrote: Not true - a CA-type capital hull was 3,000 dTons, and the Command Bridge was available even to non-capital ships.
You are quite right, I was probably confusing it with Distributed Arrays.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3234
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [High Guard] Weapon and component questions

Postby AnotherDilbert » Tue Nov 20, 2018 3:36 pm

Bardicheart wrote: How would that work exactly, I'm assuming burst would give you the +4 and full auto lets you hit 3 targets at +0.
Yes.

Bardicheart wrote: So against say light fighters you could do 2d+4 against a single wing or 2d three times against multiple wings (or the same wing which is even nastier).
We can attack several targets if they are very close. I would say only the same wing in normal cases.

Bardicheart wrote: How would that work in missile defense?
Technically only lasers can PD:
Core, p160 wrote:Point Defence (Gunner)
Using a turret-mounted laser (beam or pulse), a gunner can destroy incoming missiles.

Bardicheart wrote: Its starting to seem like a highly effective weapon.
The Auto trait is very tempting, but 2D damage is not enough to penetrate heavy armour.

A Heavy Plasma-Pulse Bay might be an effective crit-fisher?

Bardicheart wrote: If that is correct then collectors could be quite nice, if you don't mind having to park in one spot for a week while they recharge.
Collectors is in the Imperium setting, but it's alien tech, not available to the Imperium.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3234
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [High Guard] Weapon and component questions

Postby AnotherDilbert » Tue Nov 20, 2018 3:45 pm

Bardicheart wrote: That got me to thinking about huscarle fleets, their composition and the 2000 dT (according to Sector Fleets) "cruisers" that seemed to be their "flag ships". So assume a 2000 dT huscarle cruiser acting as a flag ship, maybe a couple of 1000 dT escort destroyers, a couple or four 800 dT merc cruisers for putting boots on the ground, and some Gazelle close escorts to round out the flotilla.
What ships a noble has would depend entirely on how powerful and rich he is. I would not expect a Baron and a Duke to have comparable ships.

It would be a prestige coup to have a real Capital ship, with a real Command Bridge, when everyone else is running around in piddly little Escorts...

Bardicheart wrote: On the one hand its 20 dT for only a +1 Tactics (naval) bonus on a ship where 20 dT is fairly precious ...
The DM+1 adds directly to Initiative, which is very important since high initiative shoots first.

You can get the same effect with a Sub-Command Centre (additional small bridge).

Bardicheart wrote: ... (then again I put in quite the spacious noble deck, complete with spa, lounge, hyrdoponics garden, and even a small training area handy for when two nobles want to settle a dispute with a duel :) ).
But that is really important!
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6519
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: [High Guard] Weapon and component questions

Postby Condottiere » Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:13 pm

Regarding command bridges, you'll have to ascertain the writer's intent.

They used to be able to be accommodated on small command ships, so it could be since bridge costs are now based on hull size, more so that they have a minimum cost.
Bardicheart
Mongoose
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:53 pm
Contact:

Re: [High Guard] Weapon and component questions

Postby Bardicheart » Wed Nov 21, 2018 2:31 am

Still mulling over the command bridge restriction, it still doesn't make sense to me. Especially given that Condottiere and Locarno are both correct, in the past smaller ships could have it and with the cost being based on the hull size there seem to be more arguments for allowing than against restricting. Maybe something worth considering for an eventual HG errata.

As for what ships a noble would have, that's drifting a bit but the short of it is my read of both the Deneb Sector and Sector Fleets left me with the impression that capital ships were off limits for a noble's huscarle fleet (not to be confused with the Colonial Fleets a noble might also command, but which don't actually belong to said noble). That taken with Sector Fleets reference to a 2000 dT huscarle cruiser acting as the flag ship, it seemed a reasonable conclusion that that was the general size limit for private "warships". But those were the constraints I am working within while tinkering with design concepts. Its mostly for my own amusement and also to just gain experience working with the 2e design rules, so in any larger sense I suppose it doesn't really matter. YMMV

For reference: Sector Fleets p. 28 for more on Huscarle Cruisers; Deneb Sector p. 2 last paragraph regarding nobles and their private fleets and wars, p. 15 for more on the Bad War after which nobles were forced to give up their capital ships, p. 22 for some additional notes on sector Dukes and their personal fleets, p. 34-39 for some more info on small ship fleets, budgets and the specific Imperial prohibition against using capital ships in their private wars and a 2,000 dT cap on the ship size that can be used. Also gives more info on sector rivalries, fleets and so forth. Whether or not those limitations apply to the entire Imperium is debatable, but in the case of Deneb it intrigued me.
AnotherDilbert wrote: The DM+1 adds directly to Initiative, which is very important since high initiative shoots first.

You can get the same effect with a Sub-Command Centre (additional small bridge).
I hadn't really fully considered the initiative difference, good point. I was entirely unaware of the second point, do you happen to have the reference for that handy? Its something I'd like to look at an make a note of. In part because looking over my designs I had used 60 dT for the bridge. However, looking at the table in HG it appears the intent was that a 1001 to 2000 dT ship would have a 40 dT bridge and anything over 2000 dT should have the 60 dT bridge. That being the case, I would have an extra 20 dT to play with, so I could have a 40 dT main bridge and up to a 20dT "tactical" bridge for the same tonnage I've already allocated.
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Bardicheart wrote: ... (then again I put in quite the spacious noble deck, complete with spa, lounge, hydroponics garden, and even a small training area handy for when two nobles want to settle a dispute with a duel :) ).
But that is really important!
Joking aside, it actually really is. One, because it fits the concept of the ship, its not an Imperial Navy ship. So while it may be 3 parts warship, its also 1 part diplomatic ship and 1 part personal yacht. That lavish deck is also where the ship's patron noble meets with diplomatic envoys and making an impression is another part of the diplomatic strategy. Having fresh fruit, vegetables and herbs prepared by a personal chef at meals is another aspect of the "impress the hell out of them" strategy or the fact said ship carries 3 stewards as part of the crew (chief steward, 2nd stew and 3rd stew; could have gone with one and a couple protocol droids but 3 living breathing stewards is so much more personal with round the clock concierge service). Same reason on the one ship I have mostly done it carries a platoon of hand picked marines; during such negotiations one squad of which would be posted as an honor guard around the "noble deck" in their class As and generally doing their best to look impressive. Appearances do matter, that has guided a number of my design choices. So I went for the feeling that in that part of the ship you feel more like you're at someone's estate rather than being aboard a small warship. Course an Imperial Navy ship designer might view that as a horrible waste of tonnage but then I'll point said naval architect at the Midu Agasham with 31 extra gunners (and 155 dT of staterooms and common space it doesn't need) instead of 6 points of armor it does need and just smirk. :wink: Plus it all helps make this particular ship concept different and interesting and fun to design. (Hmmm, maybe that sub bridge is where they stick the patron noble so he's not in the way during combat, but lets him think he's still important. LOL An now I am being silly. :wink: )

On the topic of Pulse Plasma Cannons for Point Defense, wonder if that was just an omit? Seems like an autofire weapon would be well suited for point defense. Thoughts?

On the collector thing and power usage, read the other half of that quote and consider the implication. I'm still mulling that one over as to how I would handle it, but Dilbert's point about it being alien tech not available in OTU (and I don't see it being fitting in FS either which is the only other setting I'm currently really concerned with) kinda makes it a mostly moot point. Other than just understanding what the intent of the rules were.

Appreciate all the feedback.
P. Sean ONeal
Writer / Artist / Building Contractor and space junky (or monkey)
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3234
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [High Guard] Weapon and component questions

Postby AnotherDilbert » Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:08 pm

Bardicheart wrote: Still mulling over the command bridge restriction, it still doesn't make sense to me.
I agree it's a bit arbitrary. If you want a bigger bridge it should be possible.

Bardicheart wrote: I was entirely unaware of the second point, do you happen to have the reference for that handy?
Sub-Command Centres are in the Element class cruiser book. You may find a preview on Kickstarter.

Basically a Sub-Command Centre is a specialised command node dedicated to one function (e.g. Power Plant or Missile armament), giving a DM+1 on tasks concerning that function. It's as big and expensive as a small bridge.

Bardicheart wrote: Course an Imperial Navy ship designer might view that as a horrible waste of tonnage but then I'll point said naval architect at the Midu Agasham with 31 extra gunners (and 155 dT of staterooms and common space it doesn't need) instead of 6 points of armor it does need and just smirk.
By default a military ship should have two gunners per turret, bay, or screen. With 20 turrets, a bay, and six screens that is (20+1+6)×2 = 54 gunners, which is at least within shouting distance of the allocated 62 gunners. It should also have a few sensor operators, which are absent. And a few more engineers. And some flight crew?

We might assume that military ships have both centralised and local gunnery crew for redundancy, plus a command structure within the Gunnery Department, leading to the large number of gunners.

But I agree that a supposed warship with no armour or other defences is rather ridiculous, just as it was in CT.

Bardicheart wrote: On the topic of Pulse Plasma Cannons for Point Defense, wonder if that was just an omit? Seems like an autofire weapon would be well suited for point defense. Thoughts?
While energy weapons could PD in CT&MT, it's no longer the case in MgT and T5. As it is explicit and consistent I don't think it's an oversight.
Bardicheart
Mongoose
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:53 pm
Contact:

Re: [High Guard] Weapon and component questions

Postby Bardicheart » Thu Nov 22, 2018 1:55 pm

Regarding command bridges:
If I'm designing something that needs to be RAW, I won't use them, but for me personally I would allow it. Granted, its not overly practical on smaller ships in most cases and on the 2,000 dT huscarle cruisers I'm working on I'm opting not to use them. It would be nice and it would fit the concepts but I just keep running into needing that tonnage elsewhere. On the other hand I've thought of some other instances where it would make complete sense, like say a 1000 dT breakaway craft on a 200,000 dT battleship that is essentially a 1,000 dT "escape bridge" (... prepare to separate the saucer section... ).

I haven't gotten Element Cruisers yet, that will have to wait for a bit. But thanks for the info.

Regarding gunner / crew requirements:
I'm not sure I agree on the gunners numbers, on larger ships it may be possible to do that (I haven't tried building capital ships with the new rules yet so I'm just reserving comment on that). On smaller ships, and the Agashaam at only 3,000 dT is barely out of the small ship category, having those extra gunners is a luxury it can't really afford. The original Agashaam didn't have them either, 6 officers and 27 ratings for a total of 33 crew, nearly half of just what the 2e version has in gunners alone. It should have 3 sensor techs, and if it were me I'd prefer 4. On the huscarle cruiser I'm currently working on it carries 6! (Two stations standard, +4 additional ones and then crew staterooms for all six crew giving it a nice EW capability for its class.) While I like the idea of needing more crew, having common spaces, etc. I think its also pushing up against design limits of what can be squeezed in and has reached a point it is going to force a rethink of the "classic" ship designs. But that's just my opinion.

I take your point about the redundancy and placement of crew, with some being in fire control and others being in the actual weapon bays or turret batteries, etc. I'll keep that in mind for when I eventually attempt designing a larger ship. I'm just not sure that's always going to be practical, the bigger the ship in Traveller the easier those things seem to be to do, but when you scale down things get very tight. For my huscarle cruiser I tried to stick to military standards, but found that soaked so much space I didn't have the tonnage for other features I wanted to include. So it has 1 per turret or barbette (no bay weapons), and the 2 nuclear damper screens are operated by a single crew (can't have his excellency going sterile from radiation after all). I ended up with 20 gunners organized into 5 groups / batteries + the screen operator + a weapons officer. Each of the gunnery groups would have one crewman as a junior officer, originally I'd wanted to have an extra officer but just didn't have the space for it. So it ended up being quasi military. Designing on that scale with the particular role constraints I chose has been both interesting and fun though.

Anyway, this kind of runs into one of the problems I have with Traveller's military ships in general, they're pure military. Call it a Star Trek influence or what you like but it always seemed odd to me that the ships were mostly just gunners, engineers, officers and a bit of medical. There was no consideration to other missions like exploration, diplomacy, etc. as was more typical of Federation ships. But that's just a design preference, I find ships that have some capacity to fulfill other missions more interesting to design than an austere pure military ship... that's easy, spread sheet and min/max the hell out of it.

Regarding Point Defense:
Thanks for the info about PD and lasers. I haven't seen T5 I at all so does indeed sound like a deliberate choice. Does make me kind of scratch my head but then again those weapons likely won't show up in a game unless I include them in the Fading Suns conversion I'm tinkering with and in that case I can always just add a setting rule change if I think its needed.

Speaking of which, I could use a bit of advice regarding a setting rule regarding bay weapons. Fading Suns has ships with large (surface navy) battleship style turrets. A cruiser (roughly 20,000 dT but without the need for jump drives or fuel) would have 2 such turrets mounting "large" weapons, while a destroyer (roughly 5,000 to 6,000 dT) would have up to two such turrets but limited to "medium" weapons. The biggest ship being their dreadnoughts which are around 100,000 dT and can have up to 3 large turrets. So my first thought is that these turrets are essentially a bay weapon in a turret giving it a superior firing arc. What I haven't sorted is the construction rules for such weapons. My choices so far are either to rule that those turrets and their mounting are part of the hull class, its built in so just stick an appropriate bay weapon in there at standard tonnage and done. That's by far the easiest way to handle it. Second choice would be to work out some sort of additional tonnage for mounting a bay weapon as an armored turret. I've considered several different options for doing this, including using the break away rules to make such a turret (as far as additional tonnage consumed, etc.). That might include assigning a tonnage limit to each turret for each ship class, so for example a destroyer might be limited to 50 dT per turret while a cruiser gets 500 per turret and a dreadnought might have a mighty 1000 dT per turret; but those are just some current notes, I'm far from decided. Whether a cruiser puts a single large bay weapon in the turrets or 5 medium bay weapons is up to the designer. Here's the question, has anyone attempted anything similar and if so how did you handle it? Appreciate any food for thought anyone can offer.
P. Sean ONeal
Writer / Artist / Building Contractor and space junky (or monkey)
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3234
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [High Guard] Weapon and component questions

Postby AnotherDilbert » Thu Nov 22, 2018 3:59 pm

Bardicheart wrote: Regarding command bridges:
If I'm designing something that needs to be RAW, I won't use them, but for me personally I would allow it.
Agreed, your game is your game, especially if it's a non-default setting.

Bardicheart wrote: Regarding gunner / crew requirements:
I agree the number of gunners (& engineers) is too high. I'm just trying to rationalise the "2 gunners per turret" guideline. On larger ships I use "For ships of more than 5,000 tons, the referee can opt to reduce the required crew by two thirds" ruthlessly to reduce gunners & engineers, and compensate with automation such as Repair Drones.

Small warships are difficult; they don't really have space for offence, defence, and speed at the same time. Really small warships (<1000 Dt) are really difficult.

Bardicheart wrote: Anyway, this kind of runs into one of the problems I have with Traveller's military ships in general, they're pure military.
This is an effect of the ancient stable Imperium, there is not much exploring to do... The IN guards the borders established millennia ago.

On the other hand we have the Scouts dedicated to exploration and dirty tricks.

Bardicheart wrote: Speaking of which, I could use a bit of advice regarding a setting rule regarding bay weapons. Fading Suns has ships with large (surface navy) battleship style turrets.
I wouldn't worry much about overhead for the turrets.

I might make some simple rule such as:
Each major turret is max 5% of the ship.
Bays and spinals can only be mounted in major turrets (all the bays is a single weapon: same target, single attack, multiply damage after armour).
Escorts can only mount small bays, cruisers can mount medium bays, battleships can mount spinals.

Example: a 50 kDt cruiser can have turrets of 2500 Dt, each containing 25 medium bays.

Example: A 200 kDt battleship major turret could be up to 10 kDt. A 3DD particle spinal can be mounted in each major turret.
Bardicheart
Mongoose
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:53 pm
Contact:

Re: [High Guard] Weapon and component questions

Postby Bardicheart » Thu Nov 22, 2018 5:43 pm

Bardicheart wrote: Regarding gunner / crew requirements:
I agree the number of gunners (& engineers) is too high. I'm just trying to rationalise the "2 gunners per turret" guideline. On larger ships I use "For ships of more than 5,000 tons, the referee can opt to reduce the required crew by two thirds" ruthlessly to reduce gunners & engineers, and compensate with automation such as Repair Drones.

Small warships are difficult; they don't really have space for offence, defence, and speed at the same time. Really small warships (<1000 Dt) are really difficult.
It's been a definite challenge with these huscarle cruisers, but that's also made it a lot of fun. I may share one of my results soonish, see what some of you think. If I gave up the noble deck, the science section, I could easily add another 20 or so gunners and bring it up to "military" standards, but it wouldn't be as nearly an interesting ship if I did. Meanwhile I'm trying to squeeze another 20 dT out of her somewhere, if I can, she'll pull 7 Gs thrust! Fastest ship in the fleet (I can almost hear a noble bragging about that). But that's the Voshtar, she's a bit of a special case... bleeding edge TL 15, almost TL 16, she was a beaut! Shame she was destroyed a few hours into her maiden voyage, but that's another story. :wink:
Bardicheart wrote: Anyway, this kind of runs into one of the problems I have with Traveller's military ships in general, they're pure military.
This is an effect of the ancient stable Imperium, there is not much exploring to do... The IN guards the borders established millennia ago.

On the other hand we have the Scouts dedicated to exploration and dirty tricks.
True, and I have some serious quibbles about the size and function of the Navy.

Speaking of the Scouts and dirty tricks... I'm still mulling over this tidbit from the description of the 2e Kokirrak class battleship / dreadnought, "Within the last decade, several ships have
been disposed of to other services such as the scouts, and to other governments, including sector navies and client-states in the Spinward border regions of the Imperium."

The Scouts have dreadnoughts??? :shock:

Another design I have quibbles with, the 2e Merc Cruiser. What merc unit wants to operate out of a ship with no medbay? "Doc... I been shot." "Aww, did you get a boo boo, here's a first aid kit. Walk it off." "Yer all heart doc..." :?

As for the FS bay turret thing, I'm still mulling it over. I guess I could go with some sort of "turret" points, problem is what they allowed in the setting doesn't follow any simple ratio to tonnage so I'll have to ponder that one some more. For the most part, still leaning towards 1 turret = 1 bay weapon.
P. Sean ONeal
Writer / Artist / Building Contractor and space junky (or monkey)
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3234
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [High Guard] Weapon and component questions

Postby AnotherDilbert » Thu Nov 22, 2018 6:53 pm

Bardicheart wrote: I may share one of my results soonish, see what some of you think.
Please do!

Bardicheart wrote: ... she'll pull 7 Gs thrust! Fastest ship in the fleet ...
Slowpoke...

>10 g is fast (nowadays).

Bardicheart wrote: "Within the last decade, several ships have been disposed of to other services such as the scouts, and to other governments, including sector navies and client-states in the Spinward border regions of the Imperium."
I'd guess that, at least officially, it's not a dreadnought in Scout service, just a big ship with powerful drives. Excellent as the centre of long-range expeditions?
Annatar Giftbringer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:35 am
Location: Uddevalla, Sweden
Contact:

Re: [High Guard] Weapon and component questions

Postby Annatar Giftbringer » Thu Nov 22, 2018 7:52 pm

Bardicheart, you’d love the Element cruiser box! Not only does the very generous amount of common areas include stuff like gyms, theatres, conference room, hairdresser and spa (!) but the crew roster list shows where mission specialists, diplomats and cadets would fit in the chain of command, plus it has additional staterooms for such personnel.

Furthermore, the modular design lets you customize your ship. Want some scientists? Install an exploration pod: 2,600 dtons of scientists, specialist sensors and labs.



Regarding plasma pulse turrets and point defense, I’d say that while the rules only allow lasers to perform PD this could be due to one of two things; either because the core rulebook only covers laser, missile and sandcaster turrets and the items in the high tech chapter of High Guard are a later addition, or because lasers are actually the only weapons that can shoot down incoming missiles. I see two potential solutions:

A) Install a beam laser in one mount of each plasma pulse turret.

B) Houserule, but if any of the non-laser turrets should be able to perform PD, it would IMHO be the rapid-firing plasma pulse cannon. Look at the Vehicle Handbook, it has non-laser anti-missile systems on p. 49, so perhaps it wouldn’t be completely unreasonable to allow PP turrets to perform PD, thanks to its auto rating?



Regarding the Fading Sun large turrets, what’s to say a bay weapon has to be internal? Use the small, medium and large bays as written in High Guard, but on the deck plan you place them partially or fully in external turrets? The old version of the Azhanti High Lightning showed its missile bays as huge turrets.

For truly massive turrets, go for spinal weapons :) As noted in High Guard (p. 29) there’s nothing stopping you from using several small spinals on a huge ship, as long as you’re not using the third imperium setting...
Annatar Giftbringer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:35 am
Location: Uddevalla, Sweden
Contact:

Re: [High Guard] Weapon and component questions

Postby Annatar Giftbringer » Thu Nov 22, 2018 8:05 pm

Oh, and regarding the mercenary cruiser... It does have a med bay, but for some reason it only shows on the deckplan, not on the stat page... Look at the gunnery deck, the red area is a med bay (clearly labeled on the 2D plans)
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6519
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: [High Guard] Weapon and component questions

Postby Condottiere » Thu Nov 22, 2018 11:31 pm

You used to be able to link turrets together, presumably under the control of a single weapon station.

As regards a rational usage of command bridges, your most likely course is to house rule it.
Bardicheart
Mongoose
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:53 pm
Contact:

Re: [High Guard] Weapon and component questions

Postby Bardicheart » Fri Nov 23, 2018 8:12 am

Annatar, thanks for the info. If and when I get interested in designing big ships with the 2e rules that sounds like a good buy. For now though those modules are bigger than the little 2,000 dT huscarle cruisers I'm working on! :lol: Until I feel I have a better mastery of the rules for small ships I don't want to tackle big ships just yet.

Re: Merc Cruiser: Then its 4 dT over tonnage, add up the listed components and its already at 800 dT, you'd have to reduce the common space by 4 dT to make room for it (which makes sense to do and I can't see using the ship without at least one medbay space. For a platoon I'd prefer two (10 beds) given soldiers tend to get hurt and that ship likely is the only form of medical that may be available.

Dilbert:
I'm still getting used to the new drive options, too many decades (gulp, I'm getting old... :? ) of being used to 6 Gs being the top end for anything other than a fighter. I'm still finishing up the marine pinnace carried by the Voshtar (it carries two custom built pinnace, well it did... before it went boom!) which pulls 9 Gs. Its primary purpose it to transport the marine platoon and possibly some additional personnel from ship to planet quickly, with boarding operations being a secondary function. Short of it being, 12 pts armor, 9 Gs acceleration, carries 32 marines in fold up benches and has a further 6 chairs for additional passengers (perhaps a noble, medical personnel, scientific personnel, depend on what the "away team" needs... except my "red shirts" show up in full battle dress! :D ) The other designs I'm working on are TL 12 or 14 and tend to be slower, so the Voshtar would have had a significant edge over them (which still didn't save her in the end).

As for the Scouts... I dunno what they're doing with it, but I'll think twice about dissing anyone in the Scout service ever again! :lol: But seriously, yeah I could see them operating some light to heavy cruisers, even a battle ship, with reduced gunnery crews and weapons but more science and so forth, in other words... they do the Federation thing; that actually makes sense to me. (A rebuilt Kokirrak class battleship on a 5 year mission to boldy go... :wink: Could be a campaign idea in that)

Condottiere:
I was working under the assumption we could still do that. That was part of my concept in designing the FCC for the Voshtar. The way I've set it up in emergencies all her guns could be operated in batteries by as few as 5 gunners. If that's no longer the case I may need to step away from the computer and scream for a bit. Cause that would make NO sense at all to me.

Re: Fading Suns and big turrets.
Appreciate all the advice. Here's some more info to help clarify what I'm struggling with.

Fading Suns has specific ship "classes" for hulls rather than tonnages. Its a bit odd and abstract but that's what I have to work with. I want to do a conversion where ships are built by tonnage using Traveller rules so I'm having to approximate a lot of things. Each "hull size" has a specific volume associated with it presented in a somewhat clumsy way. Instead of giving us a volume to work with or a tonnage as in Traveller, we have a listing for X meters long by Y meters wide, by Z meters high. But its more abstract than that, that's actually only the internal volume of the deck plans and does not necessarily reflect the exterior volume, size or shape of the ship... so... lots of handwaving going on there. What I first did was just calculate the volume, the approximate that in Traveller dT and finally I did a bit of rounding and adjusting to come up with my finall converted tonnages for each class. You can see that below (I hope the table is legible):

Fading Suns
Shuttle............1...........10x5x7..........2/2 shields..................350 m3...............25 dT..................20 to 50 dT
Explorer...........3..........30x10x7......... 2/2 shields................2,100 m3.............150 dT.................100 to 200 dT
Raider.............4..........35x12x10........2/2 shields................4,200 m3.............300 dT.................300 to 400 dT
Escort.............4..........40x13x10........2/2 shields................5,200 m3.............400 dT.................400 dT
Frigate........... 6..........60x20x15........4/4 .......................18,000 m3 ...........1,300 dT ............1,200 to 1,500 dT
Galliot ........... 7 .........70x23x17....... 4/4 .......................27,370 m3 ...........2,000 dT .................2,000 dT
Fast Frtr ........ 8 ..........65x33x25.......4/4....................... 53,625 m3 ........... 3,800 dT ................ 4,000 dT
Small Frtr ...... 10 .........90x38x30 ...... 6/6.......................102,600 m3 ...........7,400 dT .............6,000 to 8000 dT
Asst Lander......10........100x33x25 .......8/8
Destroyer.........10........100x33x25 .......8/8........................ 82,500 m3 .......... 6,000 dT ............5,000 to 6,000 dT
Cruiser............14........140x47x35 ...... 9/9 ...................... 230,300 m3 ......... 17,000 dT .............. 20,000 dT
Large Frtr ....... 15 .......150x40x38 ...... 6/6 ...................... 228,000 m3 ......... 16,300 dT .......... 16,000 to 20,000 dT
Lux Liner ........ 15 .......140x50x38 ...... 6/6 ...................... 266,000 m3 ......... 19,000 dT .......... 16,000 to 20,000 dT
Dreadnought ..... 25 ......250x80x62 ......12/12 ...................1,240,000 m3 ......... 90,000 dT ............ 100,000 dT

So first column is the ship type, 2nd column is the FS "hull size rating" third column is the FS internal size, fourth column is the max energy shields for that ship type (FS uses energy shields instead of armor generally so I've been looking at those rules in the High Tech chapter, still tinkering with that), fifth column is the FS volume in cubic meters, six column was my first "approximate" dT equivalent, and finally the last column was my final "converted" tonnage equivalent which in some cases was a range of tonnage.

Now we come to the turrets, FS has spinal mounts that work pretty much the same way as Traveller spinal mounts, so that part is easy. FS also tends to mount most of its weapons in broadsides bay style, so for the larger ships mounting bay weapons port or starboard, again pretty simple conversion. But, they also allow a certain amount of "weapons" to be mounted in turrets and certain ships can have a certain number of turrets of differing sizes. There's no easy ratio here between the number and type of turrets and the hull volume / tonnage which is my biggest sticking point. Here's a short list of ships an their turret allowance

Frigate ......... 1 "medium"
Galliot .......... 1 "medium"
Destroyer ...... 2 "medium"
Cruiser ......... 2 "large"
Dreadnought ... 3 "large"

Note that their medium and large weapons have no direct coorelation to medium and large bay weapons in Traveller. What I've semi-concluded is that for Frigates, Galliots and Destroyers that would actually be a small bay weapon. For Cruisers that would be 2 medium bay weapons, and that leaves Dreadnoughts king of the heap at 3 large bay weapons as "big turrets". Now here's the rub that's giving me headaches. If I said that in the setting that if you want to build a ship of that class it has to fall within the designated tonnage and then it just is automatically allowed that number of bay weapons to be mounted as turrets, that would work... easy and done. But, then I got the bright idea (which is where things usually start going wrong) of trying to come up with a more flexible system that includes some sort of setting rule involving tonnage as the basis for what type and how many turrets can be mounted on a hull. That's where I'm stuck.

Note: FS has jump gates so jump drives are not needed on ships, meaning most of that tonnage can be used for drives, weapons systems and crew compartments. Despite this Hollistic got a little wonky and I have official deckplans for more than one ship that allocates tankage for jump fuel even though they don't use it! But perhaps not surprising considering I'm given to understand that long ago, Fading Suns started out as someone's Traveller campaign setting.

Anyway, that's where I'm at with the FS thing.

I may post the Voshtar ship stats (and maybe some of the others once I get further along with them) in another thread soonish, I want to muddle over a couple design choices first and maybe finish the pinnace designs. My plan is once I finish the stats to draft full deck plans and then 3D model the ship (including some of the interior). As a side note, this all partly began because I've been in a creative funk lately about 3D modelling projects and I got the idea that maybe designing some Traveller ships and then 3D modelling them might get me going again. I seem to work better when I creating things with more context (ship history, purpose, etc.), so far so good.
P. Sean ONeal
Writer / Artist / Building Contractor and space junky (or monkey)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 16 guests