Breakaway Hulls and turrets
- Thread starter PsiTraveller
- Start date
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Reminds me of how I used to cruise down the California highway in a pickup; the difference would be scale and speed.
And yes, you do have to adjust for crosswind.
And yes, you do have to adjust for crosswind.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Fire the guns in the opposite direction to stabilise it - also the real reason why redneck and texan pickup truck stereotypes are the way they are?
PsiTraveller said:
This process only works if you are permitted to design the core hull in conjunction with the sub-hulls. Each "unit" is designed as its own hull, which means that the 202 dTon hull has to be built as just that, a 200 dTon hull. The four units of 49 dTons would then have to be constructed with firm points. The problem with this practice is that it doesn't take into account the following issues:
A single firm point can be exchanged for a single weapon turret. Since a 49 dTon hull can have 2 firm points, in theory, it can have 2 small turrets (I'll use the terminology of small, medium, and large turrets to denote a single weapon turret, a dual weapon turret, and a triple weapon turret respectively.
This rule allows for violation of the 1 turret per 100 dTon rule right off the bat. In order to fix THAT issue, I'd simply state that when a firm point is converted to a Small turret, it automatically negates the ability to have more than one "firm point" armed with a weapon system. In other words, a 2 firm point hull can either be armed with a small turret weapon OR two firm points, but not both.
There is a reason for that line of thinking:
If you have a 400 dTon hull - the most weapons it can be armed with are: 4 x 3 or 12 single weapons. Note that a Triple turret takes 3 out of the 12 in a single shot. But bear with me...
If you have four hulls of 49 dTons - each armed with a single turret - that is 4 weapons total. Add to this the turret totals of 6 weapons possible on the 202 dTon hull, and you end up with 10 weapons. This is less than the 12 possible.
But, even if we went with 2 firm points per module - four modules...
That's 8 firm points plus 6 weapons.
Now for the difference in combat with that monstrosity:
8 weapons have been made such that:
1) weapon ranges are reduced such that none may be greater than "close range"
2) weapons with ranges medium or less are reduced in range to "adjacent"
Pulse Lasers drop from Long range to Close Range
Beam Lasers drop to Adjacent Range
Missile racks also suffer somewhat in that they lose 2/3rds of their ammunition capacity as compared against a standard Turret.
Now come the next question...
per the rules it says this:
"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."
Think about that for a second.
Logically, if one has this cost as a one time cost regardless of how many sub-hulls there are, and these "things" purchased for 2 MCr per ton consumed has to be links that keep the hulls together, permit power couplings etc between hulls - a single ship with two sub-hulls, will have stronger connections between each other if there are only two sub-hulls than if it has 3 sub-hulls. These "links" are supposed to render the two sub-hulls immune to issues such as acceleration etc so that they might operate as a single hull right?
I have a strong sneaking suspicion that the 2% cost is PER additional sub-hull. Put another way? Suppose you're dealing with a single "Hull" that has two sub-hull components. Combined Hull capacity is 1000 dTons. 2% of that works out to be 20 tons right?
Now, if 20 tons handles the two hulls, but you take the interpretation that the 2% is a one time cost, then you're looking at a total of 20 tons keeps the ship operating as a whole and supports the single sub-hull at any given rate. If you assume that the 2% "extras" goes into the MAIN core hull, then 20 dTons supports the second sub-hull. Add a THIRD sub-hull, and now the 20 that was dedicated to handling 2 hulls, is split now between 3 hulls instead.
Since I don't have access to the material, I don't know if they followed it as 2% per additional sub-hull added to the core hull or not. But if they don't handle it that way, then there is an inherent "logic" issue here that if I were to play MgT - I'd house rule immediately.
Last but not least...
Firmpoints are FIXED arc weapons (usually forward facing). Despite having more of them, they do less damage AND they are limited in arc of enemy engagement.
All I can say at this point is that the rules are rather specific: you combine the elements together from its component parts. You don't get to add hard points because when combined, they equal a larger ship. The Core unit, designed as a 202 dTon hull remains a 202 dTon hull throughout the entire process from start to finish.
Thanks for the confirmation. 
So, a four module breakaway system plus a core module, results in a loss of 8% of the ship's combined hull volume. Would it be safe to assume that this percentage loss is shared between the two hulls on a pro-rated basis?
For instance, let's take a situation where we have a 400 dTon hull and a 600 dTon hull combined to rate as a 1,000 dTon hull. .02 x .4 = .008 and .02 x .6 = .012. The volume lost to the 400 dTon hull due to reinforcement would be 8 dTons, while the loss to the larger hull would be 12 dTons. Otherwise, the loss of volume is to the Core Unit only?
Just thinking aloud.
So, a four module breakaway system plus a core module, results in a loss of 8% of the ship's combined hull volume. Would it be safe to assume that this percentage loss is shared between the two hulls on a pro-rated basis?
For instance, let's take a situation where we have a 400 dTon hull and a 600 dTon hull combined to rate as a 1,000 dTon hull. .02 x .4 = .008 and .02 x .6 = .012. The volume lost to the 400 dTon hull due to reinforcement would be 8 dTons, while the loss to the larger hull would be 12 dTons. Otherwise, the loss of volume is to the Core Unit only?
Just thinking aloud.
AndrewW
Emperor Mongoose
HalC said:Thanks for the confirmation.
So, a four module breakaway system plus a core module, results in a loss of 8% of the ship's combined hull volume. Would it be safe to assume that this percentage loss is shared between the two hulls on a pro-rated basis?
For instance, let's take a situation where we have a 400 dTon hull and a 600 dTon hull combined to rate as a 1,000 dTon hull. .02 x .4 = .008 and .02 x .6 = .012. The volume lost to the 400 dTon hull due to reinforcement would be 8 dTons, while the loss to the larger hull would be 12 dTons. Otherwise, the loss of volume is to the Core Unit only?
Just thinking aloud.
Yup, the connections and such go on both sides.
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
Care to enlighten us how hardpoints are supposed to be handled for breakaway sections?AndrewW said:
A
Anonymous
Guest
AnotherDilbert said:
While we're at it, what about this situation? USMC is strapping armored vehicles to ships to defend against speedboats.
The sensor and gun on a ground vehicle is better designed to locate and engage similar sized targets than the stuff on ships.
I don't see any reason why it won't work for specialised armed small craft, turret-armed aircraft and whatever else.
AnotherDilbert said:
I had no problem handling the way hard points are supposed to be handled.
Treat each breakaway ship as its own ship. Build each one as if it were the ONLY ship involved. Then, when you finished with that, you simply add together everything per the rules as if it were a single ship to determine the ship's overall aggregate stats when it is ONE single ship.
Put another way? We're not building a 400 dTon Hull and splitting it into 5 sections - we're building five hulls, and combining it into ONE hull that is capable of breaking away into separate elements. You don't get to say that the ship starts with four hard points if its aggregate total is 400 dTons - and when it breaks apart, what happened to them. The ship is built up of its aggregate parts first, then joined together, and then flies as if it were but a single ship.
My only suggestion is that one should not be able to have a turret AND a firmpoint in the same hull, as it essentially violates the premise that you can only have one turret per 100 dTons of ship. The rules are specific enough that 1 firmpoint equals 1 small turret (single weapon) and that two firmpoints combined are equivalent to a Barbette. 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.
In any event - the example I gave earlier of having 8 firmpoints amongst four small craft elements is not abusive. Ranges are reduced for the weapons involved, or magazine numbers are reduced by a total of 2/3 for each of the missile launcher firm points.
Would you want to have the equation that 1 hardpoint can be traded in for 3 firmpoints? Would you then trade all of the hard points for 3 firmpoints? My answer to that is simple:
Take a single craft of 200 or 400 dTons - arm it with nothing BUT firmpoints in lieu of hard points. Take that new craft up against its original configuration and see which one wins the most battles. My bet is that it will be the original configuration.
baithammer
Mongoose
Turrets on hard points can be any of the options listed, while firm points restrict it to a single turret with firm point rules for the weapons contained. ( Further, 2 firm points can be exchanged for a Barbette.)
baithammer
Mongoose
Range is capped, energy reduced and ammunition capacity is reduced. ( Damage remains the same.)
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
1. When I originally interpreted the two percent wastage as per extra hull, I was contradicted in this forum.
2. It's also inflexible, as various types of attachments might need more or less clamping or connections, depending on actual size and configuration.
3. Firmpoint rules don't give leeway for dual and triple turrets, despite the fact that the weapon aystems are twenty five percent smaller, and all turrets remain a tonne; in any event, a sing;e firmpoint turret shouldn't require more that half a tonne.
4. Being transversible, hardpoint and firmpoint turrets enjoy the same degree of fire arcs, possibly more so on a smaller hull.
5. Just plop on the turret of a tank or self propelled artillery on an attack boat, it's now a monitor.
6. An artillery piece by itself would become a portee.
2. It's also inflexible, as various types of attachments might need more or less clamping or connections, depending on actual size and configuration.
3. Firmpoint rules don't give leeway for dual and triple turrets, despite the fact that the weapon aystems are twenty five percent smaller, and all turrets remain a tonne; in any event, a sing;e firmpoint turret shouldn't require more that half a tonne.
4. Being transversible, hardpoint and firmpoint turrets enjoy the same degree of fire arcs, possibly more so on a smaller hull.
5. Just plop on the turret of a tank or self propelled artillery on an attack boat, it's now a monitor.
6. An artillery piece by itself would become a portee.
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
Thank you, this certainly changes how I will use this...AndrewW said:
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
I would say we are deeply into highly situational problems and Referee fiat.Moppy said:
If we want rule systems that covers this explicitly we would need a few more books, and I would regularly forget most of the rules...
baithammer
Mongoose
Condottiere said:
The 1 dt is the connection between the turret and ship, not the turret itself.
Further, small craft apparently don't have the structure necessary to support larger turrets.
Barbettes are an odd duck with it, suppose its needed for torpedoes as firm points don't have any other options. ( Even the direct to hard points torpedoes are not available to firm points.)
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
That is not what the short, vague rule seems to say:HalC said:
The total craft is "a ship". The sub-craft are "sections" with specific rules separate from the general design sequence. The total craft has Hull points, and the sub-craft are given a proportion of those; e.g. a 120 kDt ship divided into six 20 kDt sections has 80000 Hull and each section has 13333 Hull, despite a normal 20 kDt hull would have 8000 Hull.HG said:
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.HalC said:
Sometimes, yes; e.g. instead of a missile barbette on a hardpoint I could have a missile barbette on two firmpoints and a single laser turret for PD on the third firmpoint.HalC said:
With a good crew three single laser turrets on firmpoints would be better at PD than a triple laser turret on a hardpoint.
Take the Fessor above: The core section has two hardpoints, so six firmpoints, and each of the four small sections has two firmpoints. The core section can mount three missile barbettes and each small section a single missile barbette for a total of seven missile barbettes. That is significantly better than the four missile barbettes a 400 Dt ship would normally have. You give up some magazine space, but no range.HalC said:
