Breakaway Hulls and turrets

[Anonymous]

before i get into ships designed designed to operate as breakaways, lets say i dock 2 ordinary ships together

what's the limit on their maneuvering? i couldnt find anything in the rules

I cant find an acceleration limit for large craft externally docked onto a dispersed structure either (i don't remember the mongoose name)

i also couldnt find anything for power transfer between docked ships

 

[AnotherDilbert]

None of the situations has specific rules, as far as I know. Use Referee discretion.

before i get into ships designed designed to operate as breakaways, lets say i dock 2 ordinary ships together

what's the limit on their maneuvering? i couldnt find anything in the rules

I would say none; docked simply means mated airlocks. If you want to accelerate together you need Docking Clamps to hold them together.

I cant find an acceleration limit for large craft externally docked onto a dispersed structure either (i don't remember the mongoose name)

Configuration "Dispersed Structure". No specific limitation, Docking Clamps needed and can handle acceleration.

i also couldnt find anything for power transfer between docked ships

None, unless you take a few hours to bodge something. I would allow specialised UNREP Equipment to handle power.

 

[baithammer]

When a ship docks or undocks, neither ship can expend thrust or engage in combat for the duration of the docking sequence and the mainship is treated as unstreamlined and you need to recalculate thrust / jump as the combined displacement.

The total craft is "a ship". The sub-craft are "sections" with specific rules separate from the general design sequence.

Should check it against the Elemental Cruiser designs, as it uses the same basis as the breakaway hull minus the docking connector.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Each section is it's own. If a section is big enough for a hardpoint it has the usual amount.

Thank you, this certainly changes how I will use this...

Example: Take this Franken-Scout:
It is a breakaway design with three sections of 35.2 Dt each. Each section has two firmpoints and a missile barbette, for a total of three barbettes. One section is a landing section with 4 G and Armour 6, the other sections have 1 G and Armour 3, for a total of 2 G and Armour 4 (if we average Armour). One section has a 10 Dt bridge, the others a 3 Dt small craft bridge. All sections has a m/15 computer and a m/10 backup. The bridge section has a Military sensor suite, the others have Basic sensors.

Ammunition is limited, but it can launch 15 missiles per round. That should be enough to make a corsair hesitate...

Total craft:

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Tribarrel Battlecruiser:

150 kDt divided into three identical 50 kDt breakaway sections, each with a meson spinal, 200 barbettes, 235 turrets, and 5 fixed mounts.

The total ship has three spinals, much easier to overwhelm the enemies' dodging...

The total ship has 110000 Hull, so each section has 36666 Hull.

 

[AndrewW]

i also couldnt find anything for power transfer between docked ships

While there isn't specific rules, there is mention of this: (High Guard, page: 108, Express Boat)

The jump drive is powered by the battery, which is recharged during the normal refuelling operations.

 

[baithammer]

The total ship has 110000 Hull, so each section has 36666 Hull.

Did some checking with the ECC designs and the hull points for the pods are done from the pods displacement and not from the total hull points. (

Amara class total displacement = 75,000dt = 41,250 hull points

Pod total displacement = 2,600dt = 3.47% of total hull and expected value = 1,431 hull points

Pod actual Hull points = 1,144 Hull points - (2,600 / 2.5 = 1,040 x1.1 = 1,144)

Which is consistent with the pod having its Hull points based on its own displacement.

 

[Condottiere]

1. I suspect the rule was added to give some more colour to the design process, and as I recall, Tee Five also was more clear on subhulls.

2. It's pretty much subject to potential abuse, such as multiple spinal mounts, in that actually no real reason you couldn't have multiples per hull, except for game balance, as yup easi;y could clamp multiple minor meson spinal mounted hulls onto a pure rocket master hull, but we restrain ourselves from doing so or permitting it.

3. Analysis indicates that one hundred and five tonnes of hull could be used to create four firmpoints.

4. I don't care if I had to add an extra tonne to create a hardpoint: it would result in a two tonne turret, a six tonne barbette, a twenty one tonne point defence weapon system, and a fifty one tonne small bay; I tend to think that turrets are too small anyway to cram in that amount of weapons systems, and would look forward as everyone scrambles to recalculate their ship designs.

5. The current firmpoint rules are a reaction against min maxing smallcraft to create overwhelming firepower, in a pretty much same doctrinal manner as the battle rider strategy, and maybe to recreat that Star Wars ambiance. Was it well thought out? Probably not, since only after the fact ruling permitted missile range to go beyond obvious firmpoint range restrictions, and why on earth can you combine two firmpoints and have a five tonne barbette, and not a dual one tonne turret?

6. As regards to having a spaceship act as a platform for armed vehicles, I already have decided to add a howdah, gantries and gondolas to my SpaceBalls, to let the CAVALRY have a look down, shoot down capability, as the SpaceBalls glide across the countryside; since performance is affected by volume, not actual weight, they're all open topped, though you could just as easily open a cargo hatch, park them in the hold, and shoot from there, which is what I had intended to do with a meson sled.

7. I the two percent wastage was fixed, you could easily blister the hull with ten tonne blisters, and give each a missile launcher.

 

[baithammer]

I tend to think that turrets are too small anyway to cram in that amount of weapons systems, and would look forward as everyone scrambles to recalculate their ship designs.

The displacement taken up in the hull is only the connector for the turret not the actual turret itself. ( Same as the difference between a drop tank and the drop tank connector.)

why on earth can you combine two firmpoints and have a five tonne barbette, and not a dual one tonne turret?

Have a feeling that is to allow for torpedoes, as the smallest platform for torpedoes is the barbette. ( The new container rules require hard point in order to mount a torpedo container.)

I the two percent wastage was fixed, you could easily blister the hull with ten tonne blisters, and give each a missile launcher.

Two limitations.

1.) More space needed for the gunners
2.) Firm point missile racks and barbettes have to be reloaded more often. ( 4 in rack / normally 12 and 8 in barbette / normally 25)

Here's a tweak that might balance things out.

1.) Instead of 1 firm point under 35t, 2 firm point 35t-70t, 3 firm points 71t+ , do 1 hard point for 71t+
2.) Remove Barbette from firm points
3.) Require turret to take up 2 firm points

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Did some checking with the ECC designs and the hull points for the pods are done from the pods displacement and not from the total hull points.

Pods are not breakaway sections, but follow their own rules.

Hull points of each section will be proportionate to the total Hull points of the ship.

 

[Condottiere]

Originally, torpedoes were external one shot launchers, affixed one per firmpoint.

 

[baithammer]

Did some checking with the ECC designs and the hull points for the pods are done from the pods displacement and not from the total hull points.

Pods are not breakaway sections, but follow their own rules.

Hull points of each section will be proportionate to the total Hull points of the ship.

The pods use the same construction as a breakaway hull minus the connector, such as having a bridge in the pod with its own power source.

As to proportionate, the total of each sections hull points is the total Hull points of the ship and is borne out by the closest design we have to the breakaway with the ECC designs.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The pods use the same construction as a breakaway hull minus the connector, such as having a bridge in the pod with its own power source.

Pods are explicitly not breakaway sections.

Installing pods is a dockyard job requiring several weeks of work, as they become an integral part of the final design and are not a detachable or breakaway component.

 

[baithammer]

The pods use the same construction as a breakaway hull minus the connector, such as having a bridge in the pod with its own power source.

Pods are explicitly not breakaway sections.

Installing pods is a dockyard job requiring several weeks of work, as they become an integral part of the final design and are not a detachable or breakaway component.

You missed the point in that the mechanics follow a breakaway hull but without the connector, hence why it takes weeks of shipyard work to change them up.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

You missed the point in that the mechanics follow a breakaway hull but without the connector, ...

I did not miss it, I disagree with it.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello all,

Sorry about being a few months behind in this reply, I stumbled on the topic when I was looking for information on the difference between modular construction and a modular hull.

1. A breakaway hull, per MgT HG 2e PDF page 12: "A ship can be designed so it can operate as two or more independent vessels, breaking or splitting away from one another. Each section must have an appropriate bridge and power plant to operate it. Maneuver drive, jump drive, sensors weapons, screens, and so forth are all options that can I and, under normal circumstances, should) be included in each section. While the sections are together drives, power plants, and weapons can all be combined when calculating performance. This whole process consumes 2% of the combined hull tonnage for the extra bulkheads and connections needed, and costs an additional MCr2 per ton consumed. Hull points of each section will be proportionate to the total Hull points of the ship."

"For example, you have a 1,00 ton ship and decide to split so 400 tons can break away as a separate vessel. You install 20 tons of maneuver drive in 40 ton section which gives it a Thrust 5, while the 600 ton section has 66 tons of maneuver drive giving it Thrust 9. When combined the 86 tons of maneuver drive giving the 1,000 ton vessel Thrust 8. It typically takes 1D rounds to separate a breakaway hull."

The 400 Fessor Cargo Multipurpose ship being a breakaway hull requires that the hull to use 400 x 0.02 = 8 tons of the hull for extra bulkheads and connections. Since each pod is 96 tons mounting four pods = 196 tons the other hull is 204 tons. The 204 ton hull can have two hardpoints and can mount 2 turrets from the start. Each of the pods being 96 tons would be able to mount three firmpoints each.

Personally, since the design is using pods I feel that the Fessor is more of a modular hull as described on HG 2e page 35.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Personally, since the design is using pods I feel that the Fessor is more of a modular hull as described on HG 2e page 35.

We have several methods of flexibility available:

Modular Hull: Internal modules that can be switched out quickly. Needs no extra hull or armour. Does not affect the size of the ship or drive performance. See HG p102: Modular Cutter or HG p208 Kokirrak.

Breakaway Hull: Entire sections of the ship can break away and operate separately. Each section needs their own hull and drives. Drive performance is added when the sections are together. See wikipedia LASH. E.g. StarTrek USS Enterprise saucer separation.

Pods: External pods that are semi-permanently attached to the exterior of the hull. Each pod require its own hull and armour. Drive performance is changed when pods are attached or detached. From Element Class Cruisers.


If the Fessor was using Modular Hull it would have a fixed size and fixed drive performance. To make parts detachable, so that we have flexible size and drive performance, we need a breakaway design.

Since each pod is 96 tons mounting four pods = 196 tons the other hull is 204 tons.

4 × 96 = 384?

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello AnotherDIlbert,

Personally, since the design is using pods I feel that the Fessor is more of a modular hull as described on HG 2e page 35.

We have several methods of flexibility available:

Modular Hull: Internal modules that can be switched out quickly. Needs no extra hull or armour. Does not affect the size of the ship or drive performance. See HG p102: Modular Cutter or HG p208 Kokirrak.

Breakaway Hull: Entire sections of the ship can break away and operate separately. Each section needs their own hull and drives. Drive performance is added when the sections are together. See wikipedia LASH. E.g. StarTrek USS Enterprise saucer separation.

Pods: External pods that are semi-permanently attached to the exterior of the hull. Each pod require its own hull and armour. Drive performance is changed when pods are attached or detached. From Element Class Cruisers.


If the Fessor was using Modular Hull it would have a fixed size and fixed drive performance. To make parts detachable, so that we have flexible size and drive performance, we need a breakaway design.

After I shutdown my computer I rethought my comment on being a modular hull and I was hoping to make a correction before anyone replied. I also had a comment that the Star Trek USS Enterprise was a breakaway hull and then removed it.

I also missed the information that the pods are found in the Element Class Cruisers so thank you for information. A new item I need to add to my collection at some point.

Since each pod is 96 tons mounting four pods = 196 tons the other hull is 204 tons.

4 × 96 = 384?
[/quote]

I made an edit of my original sentence and thought I had changed the 196 to 49, I'm blaming web gremlins for changing the number. Thank you for catching the error.

The Fressor is effectively five hulls linked together and is made up of four 49 ton small craft hulls being carried by a 204 ton star ship.

The four 49 ton pods adds up to 196 tons this means that the core hull is 204 tons which supports a maximum of two hardpoints.

Looking at the Fessor where is the information found for the gravitic drives being used by the pods?

How can a pod be maneuvered without sensors since the computer is using the virtual crew program to avoid having a pilot onboard or be remotely piloted?

 

[PsiTraveller]

The 49 ton sub pods have 0.5 tons of M Drive, giving Thrust 1. They have Basic Sensors and a 10 Bandwidth computer running virtual crew. So the pod can act as a drone basically, there is no bridge.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello PsiTraveller,

The 49 ton sub pods have 0.5 tons of M Drive, giving Thrust 1. They have Basic Sensors and a 10 Bandwidth computer running virtual crew. So the pod can act as a drone basically, there is no bridge.

Thank you for the clarification that the Gravitic Drive of the 49 ton pod is a Maneuver Drive.

I failed to notice the pods sensor package was basic and that the section showing zero under Sensors on the record sheet was for power. another thank you for pointing me in the right direction.