Implications of the Firmpoint to Turret conversion rule

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
HalC
Mongoose
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:42 pm

Implications of the Firmpoint to Turret conversion rule

Postby HalC » Fri Apr 12, 2019 3:13 pm

Hello Folks,
This thread/topic is a sub-thread from another. Quoted below is the point that was made and the implications therein were something that leaped out at me the moment I read the rule on the second edition of MgT's HIGH GUARD.
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:49 am
HalC wrote: When I read the rules about converting a firmpoint to a small turret, I wondered "Can you transition two firmpoints into two turrets? If a player asked me that were I the GM, I'd say "No" for just that reason. 1 Turret per 100 dTons.
There is no such rule. Hard/firmpoints are limited by tonnage, turrets are limited by hard/firmpoints; a 70 Dt hull can have three single turrets, since it has three firmpoints.
This is not, repeat NOT a dig at AnotherDilbert - but a function of a set of implications that struck me when I read the following rule on page 23:

"A Firmpoint on a small craft is a fixed mount (typically forward-facing, but there is no requirement for this), but can be upgraded to a single (not double or triple) turret."

What meanings from that rule can be derived? First, weapons mounted on firmpoints tend to be fixed mount. Fixed mounts as you can determine elsewhere, suffer from the limitation that they can be fired into one arc at a given target. All other potential targets outside that arc are not permited to be fired upon. Second, based on the rest of the information regarding firmpoints - the weapons themselves are lesser versions than their hardpoint counterparts. But the second part of that one sentence tells us we're permitted to exchange a firmpoint for a turret.

Ok, fair enough. But then the question became one of "what is the difference between a single weapon hardpoint turret and a single weapon firmpoint turret?" That was followed by the next question "Once you replace a firmpoint with a turret, does any weapon mounted in that turret negate the firmpoint weapon limitation of less range and magazine capacity?"

Let's look at those two questions: If there had been reference to Firmpoint turrets as an entity distinctly different than hardpoint turrets, I didn't find it (if it is there, please feel free to point it out!). That then implies that in theory, there is no difference between a turret mounted weapon in a turret regardless of how that turret got situated on the hull (ie firmpoint conversion or an actual hardpoint). Why? Because the volume of a single weapon turret remains the same whether used on a firmpoint or a hardpoint. They still cost the same, they still take up 1 dTon of internal volume, and more importantly, they still require the same energy to operate. I can almost hear someone point out that firmpoints only require 75% of the energy of their hardpoint cousins - but the strict reading of that rule is that only the WEAPONS gain that discount, not the turret itself.

Now for the second question - should firmpoint conversions - permit normal weapons within the turret - seeing as the volume constraints of the turret are non-existent. The answer to that question has to take into account two things: A) weapons that are the same size etc are not going to differ in any other respect, consequently, they should have the same characteristics and B) it cannot violate the original premise laid out regarding Hardpoints:

That being...

"There are only so many weapons that can be attached to a ship, the limiting factors being the supply of energy, the stresses imposed upon the hull through the use of high-powered weaponry, and the surface area of a hull it is possible to cover with weapons."

Turrets by their nature, occupy real-estate from the category of not just volume itself, but also surface area. Full powered weapons impose stress. If a 100 dton hull can not permit more than one hardpoint's worth of weapons as a result of the quote immediately above, then a hull less than 100 Dtons can not withstand 3x the stress that the 100 dton hull cannot.

I can almost expect someone to say "But hey! These are smaller turrets housing smaller weapons!" It would seem however, that the counter to that thought is "It doesn't matter if the weapon turret system holds one weapon or three weapons, MgT High Guard treats them the same." In other words, you can't have three single turrets equal one Triple turret. You can't subdivide a single hard point such that you can have three single weapon turrets. It has to be either a Single Weapon turret, a Double Weapon Turret, or a Triple Weapon Turret.

Now, any time you have a subset of rules that permit a violation of the first primary rule, you have to ask yourself "Is this legal" or "is this what the authors intended"

Was it intended to permit a small craft to have more Volume allocated to turrets than ships that adhere to the Hardpoint rules?

Proof that the conversion of 1 firmpoint to 1 turret without limit does violate the rule is this:

When you have a hardpoint based ship, it can only have 1 turret per hardpoint. Thus, for a single 100 dTon hull, you are only permitted to allocate 1 dTon of volume for turrets.

A small craft converting three firmpoints to turrets now can allocate three dTons to turret space. That violates the basic rules for Hardpoints.

If a small craft can convert 2 firmpoints into one barbette, and one firmpoint into a turret, it can allocate a total of 6 dTons of volume for turrets versus the 5 dTons that is permitted for the same approach (ie a barbette rather than normal turret).

Last but not least: A single small craft with 1 turret, can also mount two firmpoints. This contradicts what a single Hardpoint based ship is limited to.

This is why, had this been a playtest - I would have recommended that if you convert ANY of your firmpoints to a turret, they must ALL be converted to a turret, not just one - and that small craft under 100 dtons are not permitted to have Barbettes. As best as I can figure, a turret's only purpose is to change a fixed arc capacity to a 360 degree arc functionality.

Note - this "implication" aspect is just that - exploring all of the issues that can arise when you take into account the issues involving surrounding a specific subset of rules.

1) are converted weapons normally intended for firmpoints now turret based weapons? Implication answer: No. They still remain firmpoint weapons. To do otherwise violates the original premise that limits how many hardpoints a ship may have.

2) are converted turrets any different than regular turrets? Implied answer: No.

3) Can you have three converted turrets? Implied answer: No, since you can't have three turrets per 100 dtons with respect to hardpoints, converted turrets being the same as hardpoint turrets means that by having three converted turrets, you are in violation of the Hardpoint limits.

Your mileage may vary, but by outlining the WHY of my thoughts, you can at least see where I'm coming from, and make your own decisions accordingly. When something is not explicitly spelled out, sometimes you have to use deductive reasoning. When one follows a train of implications and finds internal inconsistencies - well, the issue becomes one of "Hey, if you had just left it alone, you could use the rules as written and be done with it - serves you right for pondering it!" Me? When I spot such an inconsistency, I tend to try to fix it (aka house rules). I don't demand that you do the same.

Why did I post this? Largely because I invite you to go through this and say "hey Hal, you missed this on page 93" Then I can say "oops, you're right, thank you for pointing it out!" I can revise my original train of thought and resolve what I see as inconsistencies and move on.

Incidentally? Having two extra turrets by means of the conversion rule permits small craft a little extra survivability. If you only have one turret, and suffer two turret hits, that's "Free damage" that doesn't affect the hull. If you have two turrets, you have a 1 in two chance of hitting a given turret with a turret hit. So, the first turret hit is essentially normal. The second turret hit however, has a 50/50 chance of hitting the same turret, or hitting a different turret. If it hits a different turret, you have just gained the following: You have turrets still able to fire after two turret hits. You also will lose a turret on the next turret hit. Potentially speaking, you only have a 50/50 chance that a fourth turret hit will hit Hull or it will hit and destroy your second turret. Either way? After three hits, you potentially saved yourself from having to take a hull hit. With only ONE turret, you would have automatically taken a hull hit from a turret hit. Having three turrets just makes that process all the more advantageous for the small craft in question.
NOLATrav
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2015 7:42 pm

Re: Implications of the Firmpoint to Turret conversion rule

Postby NOLATrav » Fri Apr 12, 2019 5:02 pm

We’ve always used the three weapon scales in the play test rules of v2. However we use a factor of 5 between them:

Personal = 1/5 vs Vehicle, 1/25 vs Ships
Vehicle/Smallcraft = 5 x vs Personal, 1/5 vs Ships
Ship = 25 x Personal, 5 x Vehicle/Small craft

I bring this up because it led to the firmpoint/hardpoint problem for us and here’s what we did:

1 firmpoint per 25 tons of Vehicle/Small craft (round up, so 80 dtons = 80/25=3.2 = 4 firmpoints
1 firmpoint allows 250kg of weapons/ammo in a fixed mount, 0 Power req’d (weapon may require Power)
1 firmpoint turret requires addl 250kg, 3 adj fire arcs, 0.25 Power req’d (think Millenium Falcon escaping Hoth)
3 firmpoints may be allocated as one Ship class single turret requiring 1.0 dtons and 1 Power (weapon may require addl Power)
4 firmpoints may be allocated as one Ship class barbette (treat as single turret) or as one Ship class Small bay

I use a combined range matrix so the vehicle class weaponry automatically has reduced ranges, but you could just use RAW to reflect the smaller, lighter weapons. It’s a little weird when you think about a Jeep with a LMG in the back but seems to be working otherwise.
DickTurpin
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 219
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 7:49 pm

Re: Implications of the Firmpoint to Turret conversion rule

Postby DickTurpin » Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:20 pm

There is not problem with the rule as written. The entire argument that "turning a firmpoint into a hardpoint" breaks the game is predicated on an inaccurate assumption. Small craft use firmpoints instead of hardpoints. Small craft weapons are usually mounted in fixed mounts. A FIXED MOUNT can be upgraded to a single turret, but the turret remains mounted on a firmpoint, it never becomes a hardpoint. All firmpoint restrictions still apply. The weapon range is reduced to Adjacent (or Close) and power for the weapon (not the turret) is reduced by 25%. This is clearly a smaller, less powerful weapon that would produce less stress on the craft and probably take up less space. If you want, it can be a smaller turret but it does not have to be.

For what it's worth, I do not consider the language about the reasons for limiting hardpoints to one per 100 tons as an actual rule. IMO it is just handwaving to explain a limitation that is in place for game balance purposes.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3625
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Implications of the Firmpoint to Turret conversion rule

Postby AnotherDilbert » Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:42 pm

HalC wrote: 1) are converted weapons normally intended for firmpoints now turret based weapons? Implication answer: No. They still remain firmpoint weapons. To do otherwise violates the original premise that limits how many hardpoints a ship may have.
Firmpoints are firmpoints, and hardpoints are hardpoints, and never the twain shall meet.
Firmpoint weapons remain firmpoint weapons whether mounted in fixed mounts or turrets.

HalC wrote: 2) are converted turrets any different than regular turrets? Implied answer: No.
Received wisdom is yes, turrets on firmpoints are different, they are smaller. The turret socket is 1 Dt in the craft, but the turret itself sticks out outside the craft. They still have the same cost and power requirement.

I can't say this is very clear or logical, but that is how it is according to Nerhesi.

HalC wrote: 3) Can you have three converted turrets? Implied answer: No, since you can't have three turrets per 100 dtons with respect to hardpoints, converted turrets being the same as hardpoint turrets means that by having three converted turrets, you are in violation of the Hardpoint limits.
Yes, small craft can mount several turrets (one per firmpoint). This is explicit in the firmpoint rules. Hardpoints have nothing to do with it.



You are conflating firmpoints with fixed mounts (greatly aided by an unfortunate sentence in the rules).

Firmpoints are a weak type of hardpoint upon which you can mount fixed mounts or turrets. The fixed mounts and turrets have the same characteristics as hardpoint fixed mounts and turrets.

In those fixed mounts or turrets you can in turn mount weak 'turret' weapons, but only one weapon per firmpoint.
HalC
Mongoose
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:42 pm

Re: Implications of the Firmpoint to Turret conversion rule

Postby HalC » Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:16 pm

NOLATrav wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 5:02 pm
We’ve always used the three weapon scales in the play test rules of v2. However we use a factor of 5 between them:

Personal = 1/5 vs Vehicle, 1/25 vs Ships
Vehicle/Smallcraft = 5 x vs Personal, 1/5 vs Ships
Ship = 25 x Personal, 5 x Vehicle/Small craft

I bring this up because it led to the firmpoint/hardpoint problem for us and here’s what we did:

1 firmpoint per 25 tons of Vehicle/Small craft (round up, so 80 dtons = 80/25=3.2 = 4 firmpoints
1 firmpoint allows 250kg of weapons/ammo in a fixed mount, 0 Power req’d (weapon may require Power)
1 firmpoint turret requires addl 250kg, 3 adj fire arcs, 0.25 Power req’d (think Millenium Falcon escaping Hoth)
3 firmpoints may be allocated as one Ship class single turret requiring 1.0 dtons and 1 Power (weapon may require addl Power)
4 firmpoints may be allocated as one Ship class barbette (treat as single turret) or as one Ship class Small bay

I use a combined range matrix so the vehicle class weaponry automatically has reduced ranges, but you could just use RAW to reflect the smaller, lighter weapons. It’s a little weird when you think about a Jeep with a LMG in the back but seems to be working otherwise.
If it works, great. :)

Point is - you don't mount a .50 caliber rifle in a mount designed for a 105mm cannon. You mount a .50 caliber rifle in a much smaller turret specifically designed to house it. If that is the case, the turret's will be so totally different that no one can mistake them for each other. If a normal turret requires 1 unit of power, then the firmpoint power plant should be much less massive, and use much less power (which your approach did admirably).

As for four firmpoints per given volume, I've no problem with it in a strict sense. 100 dTons (using GURPS terminology) is a mere *cough* 50,000 cubic feet. That is roughly 36'10" x 36' 10" x 36' 10" feet dimensions wise. So - yeah, 1 Hardpoint per 100 dTons is an arbitrary number. ;)

How many machinegun turrets could you mount in a vehicle with that kind of dimensions?
HalC
Mongoose
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:42 pm

Re: Implications of the Firmpoint to Turret conversion rule

Postby HalC » Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:29 pm

DickTurpin wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:20 pm
There is not problem with the rule as written. The entire argument that "turning a firmpoint into a hardpoint" breaks the game is predicated on an inaccurate assumption. Small craft use firmpoints instead of hardpoints. Small craft weapons are usually mounted in fixed mounts. A FIXED MOUNT can be upgraded to a single turret, but the turret remains mounted on a firmpoint, it never becomes a hardpoint. All firmpoint restrictions still apply. The weapon range is reduced to Adjacent (or Close) and power for the weapon (not the turret) is reduced by 25%. This is clearly a smaller, less powerful weapon that would produce less stress on the craft and probably take up less space. If you want, it can be a smaller turret but it does not have to be.

For what it's worth, I do not consider the language about the reasons for limiting hardpoints to one per 100 tons as an actual rule. IMO it is just handwaving to explain a limitation that is in place for game balance purposes.
For purposes of the "discussion" I asked questions that could conceivably be asked based on the rules as written (RAW). Truth be told, I had already come to the conclusion that firmpoint mounts are always governed by firmpoint rules (it would violate the internal self-consistency otherwise). Problem is - rules lawyers tend to fixate strictly on RAW at the expense of rules as intended (RAI). Rules as written imply that if a weapon is mounted on a firmpoint. Down-thread, AnotherDilbert points out that it was a poor choice of wording to link Firmpoints with "internal mounts". I have to agree in the sense that had this been "edited" for word count, it would have simply sufficed to note "Firmpoints are lesser weapon mounts than Hardpoints." That would have saved what, 29 words originally versus 6 words?

As I point out to others, it is far easier to criticize after the fact than it is to create. So, I'm not casting stones as the verbiage. That is why I very much appreciate ANY author who will answer questions about their work. It is also why, it is sometimes hard for an author to respond in the voice of "Rules as Intended" over "Rules as Written" because like most of us, Authors are human and forget things over time (good luck asking about a book written 10 years ago!).

In the end? There should have been a simple additional "thing" added to the Turret list. Firmpoint Turret, Single Turret, Double Turret, Triple Turret, Firmpoint Barbette, Barbarbette.

That is EASY to say with hindsight. ;)
HalC
Mongoose
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:42 pm

Re: Implications of the Firmpoint to Turret conversion rule

Postby HalC » Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:44 pm

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:42 pm


HalC wrote: 2) are converted turrets any different than regular turrets? Implied answer: No.
Received wisdom is yes, turrets on firmpoints are different, they are smaller. The turret socket is 1 Dt in the craft, but the turret itself sticks out outside the craft. They still have the same cost and power requirement.

I can't say this is very clear or logical, but that is how it is according to Nerhesi.
However - that is not what was actively written. For someone coming up against what is written with no contact with Nerhesi - this is clearly not the case. My suggestion? How hard is it to fix the errata with an updated PDF and then permit that to be issued (reissued in some instances) in lieu of this edition?
AnotherDilbert wrote:
HalC wrote: 3) Can you have three converted turrets? Implied answer: No, since you can't have three turrets per 100 dtons with respect to hardpoints, converted turrets being the same as hardpoint turrets means that by having three converted turrets, you are in violation of the Hardpoint limits.
Yes, small craft can mount several turrets (one per firmpoint). This is explicit in the firmpoint rules. Hardpoints have nothing to do with it.

The point being - per the rules as written in the ebook I have, the volume for a firmpoint turret is the same as the volume for a standard turret. The cost is the same, the energy cost to utilize is the same etc. Simply making it smaller, costing less, using less energy makes a firmpoint turret an entirely different beast. To say that Hardpoint rules have nothing to do with it is incorrect. BOTH firmpoint weapons and hardpoint weapons are housed in the same kind of turret. That specific link if you will, was what made the whole thing illogical enough to force me to examine the implications involved. Either the turrets are the same size or they are not. Saying out outside of the rules as written, unfortunately, does not change the implication.
AnotherDilbert wrote: You are conflating firmpoints with fixed mounts (greatly aided by an unfortunate sentence in the rules).

Firmpoints are a weak type of hardpoint upon which you can mount fixed mounts or turrets. The fixed mounts and turrets have the same characteristics as hardpoint fixed mounts and turrets.

In those fixed mounts or turrets you can in turn mount weak 'turret' weapons, but only one weapon per firmpoint.
As expressed in another post - I was aware of that fact, but listing the implications as though I were arguing as a rules lawyer would - rules as written.

To present a point and then present its contradictions is to argue against the point as presented. ;)

None the less - if this is an "errata" issue that has been addressed via Nerhesi - is there any location that has the errata on what the actual "firmpoint" turret stats are supposed to be? If not, then my original point stands. Rules as Written (and not fixed) imply one thing, when the intent was supposed to be something else. In other words...

RAW vs RAI

:)
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3625
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Implications of the Firmpoint to Turret conversion rule

Postby AnotherDilbert » Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:40 pm

HalC wrote: How hard is it to fix the errata with an updated PDF and then permit that to be issued (reissued in some instances) in lieu of this edition?
Several people including me complained about this in beta, it wasn't changed then so unlikely to be changed now, I guess.

HalC wrote: Either the turrets are the same size or they are not.
This was one of the first things I commented about in beta; it ended up about here:
Nerhesi wrote:
Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:07 pm
AnotherDilbert wrote:A 5t barbette is 5t. If you are telling me that a 5 dT barbette is smaller than an identical 5 dT barbette on a ship, I will question your logic.
If you are telling me that this is the way it is, and will remain that way, I will accept that and shut up.
I think I may have to question your logic here.. but I think you've missed something more like it :)

A 5 dt particle barbette takes 12 power, and does 4D with a range of very long.
a 5 dt firmpoint particle barbette takes 9 power, does 4D with a range of Close.

Therefore they are NOT identical. The difference isn't just a "sorry we only put weaker versions on fighters". No, there is something different about them.

They take up the same SPACE on the INSIDE of the ship - who knows what is sticking out. This is the same logic that states a triple turret with 3 missile rack is the same SPACE as a single launcher with 1 missile rack. Obviously they differ somehow despite being the same "size" for construction purposes. The same logic would be use for firmpoints. Yes they consume the same size "internally" - but rather than having something of size x sticking out, you have something of 1/3x sticking out.
HalC
Mongoose
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:42 pm

Re: Implications of the Firmpoint to Turret conversion rule

Postby HalC » Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:48 pm

Can anyone tell me if there is an errata out there for "Heavy Turrets"? Page 24, top right corner, shows a table with the following entries:

Fixed Mount
Single Turret
Double Turret
Triple Turret
Pop-Up Mounting

That's fine. I can see that to use a turret, you need 1 energy (regardless of whether it is a single, double, or triple turret. Adding the pop-up feature doesn't do much other than to require extra volume at an additional cost.

But when I went looking for the Barbettes on the other hand, the only thing I could find was that it takes up 5 dTons of volume. Am I correct in presuming that it, if it is the same as a regular turret (albeit HEAVY per the description on page 25) that it too requires 1 energy to operate in addition to that required by the weapons housed within?

It doesn't say it requires 1 energy, and there isn't a table entry for it requiring energy like the laser turrets do. Is this an oversight, an errata item (where turrets do not require 1 energy to rotate, track etc) or what?
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6998
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Implications of the Firmpoint to Turret conversion rule

Postby Condottiere » Sat Apr 13, 2019 2:55 am

1. Turrets tend to need power to traverse, though you could handcrank them.

2. Fixed mounts were originally introduced to flavour Solomani ship design, but the obvious advantages involved allowed cross fertilization to fightercraft in general.

3. The implications were clear once I did a paragraph by paragraph dissection of the new High Guard edition, but having pointed them out once to see if anything happened, didn't feel obliged to continue on an endless and thankless crusade to get them clarified or errataed, especially when contradictory interpretations were being pushed.
baithammer
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Implications of the Firmpoint to Turret conversion rule

Postby baithammer » Sat Apr 13, 2019 7:25 am

HalC wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:48 pm
But when I went looking for the Barbettes on the other hand, the only thing I could find was that it takes up 5 dTons of volume. Am I correct in presuming that it, if it is the same as a regular turret (albeit HEAVY per the description on page 25) that it too requires 1 energy to operate in addition to that required by the weapons housed within?

It doesn't say it requires 1 energy, and there isn't a table entry for it requiring energy like the laser turrets do. Is this an oversight, an errata item (where turrets do not require 1 energy to rotate, track etc) or what?
Barbette's displacement value is its connector to the ship, the displacement on the outside (Just like turrets) isn't counted against this.

Further, the Barbette is an integrated solution with weapon and heavy turret as a single unit.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3625
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Implications of the Firmpoint to Turret conversion rule

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sat Apr 13, 2019 7:33 am

baithammer wrote: Barbette's displacement value is its connector to the ship, the displacement on the outside (Just like turrets) isn't counted against this.

Further, the Barbette is an integrated solution with weapon and heavy turret as a single unit.
Quite, since there are no "dual barbettes" there is no need to separate the barbette housing from the weapon, they come prepackaged, just like bays.
Moppy
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:42 pm

Re: Implications of the Firmpoint to Turret conversion rule

Postby Moppy » Sat Apr 13, 2019 1:42 pm

The upper bound on turret exterior volume is the additional space for a pop-up turret.

I haven't checked the rules but I am assuming that is defined somewhere.

Is it any different for barbettes, turrets and bays? Because that will indicate how much can be external.
baithammer
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Implications of the Firmpoint to Turret conversion rule

Postby baithammer » Sun Apr 14, 2019 10:04 am

A Triple turret is 1dt for all the components, so easily fits into the popup turret hold.

The vehicle guide provides an idea of how big the components are, with each turret weapon being 0.25 dt (1 space) and the gunner position also being 0.25 dt (1 space) for a total of 1.0 dt (4 spaces) outside the ship.

The exception is the quad turret which would be 1.25 dt in exterior displacement.

Barbettes and Bays in Mgt 2ed are integrated packages and don't have popup equivalent. ( Although Vehicles guide has rules for more classical bay system.)
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3625
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Implications of the Firmpoint to Turret conversion rule

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:10 am

baithammer wrote: The vehicle guide provides an idea of how big the components are, with each turret weapon being 0.25 dt (1 space) and the gunner position also being 0.25 dt (1 space) for a total of 1.0 dt (4 spaces) outside the ship.
1 spacecraft displacement ton = 14 m³. It is a measurement of volume.
1 vehicle Space = 250 kg = 0.25 tonne. Is is a measurement of mass.

apples ≠ oranges.
baithammer
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Implications of the Firmpoint to Turret conversion rule

Postby baithammer » Sun Apr 14, 2019 12:18 pm

To place a spacecraft weapon into a vehicle, simply
multiply the tonnage of the weapon by four. This is
how many Spaces it will consume, to a minimum of 1
Space.
So no, spaces aren't just mass it is also used for displacement. ( Much like thrust 1 is used for both speed and acceleration, where thrust 1 = 1g as 1g = 10m/s^2")
NOLATrav
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2015 7:42 pm

Re: Implications of the Firmpoint to Turret conversion rule

Postby NOLATrav » Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:10 pm

baithammer wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 12:18 pm
To place a spacecraft weapon into a vehicle, simply
multiply the tonnage of the weapon by four. This is
how many Spaces it will consume, to a minimum of 1
Space.
So no, spaces aren't just mass it is also used for displacement. ( Much like thrust 1 is used for both speed and acceleration, where thrust 1 = 1g as 1g = 10m/s^2")
This is what allowed my group to make the changes I listed upthread. House rules, but they work for us and are now internally consistent IMTU.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3625
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Implications of the Firmpoint to Turret conversion rule

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sun Apr 14, 2019 5:30 pm

baithammer wrote: So no, spaces aren't just mass it is also used for displacement.
The Vehicle Handbook uses several different conversion factors, sometimes it is 1 Spaces per Dt, sometimes 4 Spaces per Dt, and sometimes up to 10 Spaces per Dt.

There is no single simple conversion factor between mass and volume.
baithammer
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Implications of the Firmpoint to Turret conversion rule

Postby baithammer » Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:02 am

The Vehicle Handbook uses several different conversion factors, sometimes it is 1 Spaces per Dt, sometimes 4 Spaces per Dt, and sometimes up to 10 Spaces per Dt.
Could you list some, as I've only seen one area where there is a difference and that was the shipping size which aligns with storage in a hangar.
Linwood
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:41 am

Re: Implications of the Firmpoint to Turret conversion rule

Postby Linwood » Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:42 am

Yes please - i’m curious too.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests