Ship Combat: The Particle Barbette

[phavoc]

Energy weapons project their energy in a specific direction. There would be minor leakage of the radiation once it left the shielded barrel, however that energy is traveling at the speed of light away from the ship, so exposure should be negligible at best. A ship or crew would be exposed to far more incoming radiation from weapons. Plus the ships operate in space and basic radiation protection is the norm. Ergo, unless your weapon is misfiring or I'll-maintained gun crews should receive no exposure. The exception could be if the beam is traveling the length of the ship, though unless it has lost its focus that, too, would be negligible. If the energy stream is already degrading that much from the time of firing its range would be severely limited.

And fusuon/plasma weapons would have to utuilzie some sort of containment process in order to strike a vessel at any distance of more than a few hundred meters. Otherwise firing plasma would dissipate rapidly like a flamethrower.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Particle beams aren't firing radiation at the target, instead its a stream of particles that on contact with the target super heat it and create ionization. ( Radiation flash.)

Just heating will not produce hard ionising radiation, you would need a nuclear reaction for that.

The particle beam itself IS hard ionising radiation.

 

[Jackstar]

By default no Particle or Fusion turrets in MgT2. If you use the High Tech chapter you can use four of them in standard Quad turrets.

When I read the High Tech chapter, i assumed that the Particle and Fusion turrets are complete turrets (single only).
A quad Particle turret would be a monster weapon doing 3D+9 damage (using 34 power and costing 18 MCr). That is comparible to a Small Particle Bay: 6D damage (using 30 power and costing 20 MCr) for 1 ton rather than 50.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

When I read the High Tech chapter, i assumed that the Particle and Fusion turrets are complete turrets (single only).

They are turret weapons, just like a laser. Note that the Turret Weapon table on p68 does not list a tonnage. They are mounted in turrets with no specific limitations.

A quad Particle turret would be a monster weapon doing 3D+9 damage (using 34 power and costing 18 MCr). That is comparible to a Small Particle Bay: 6D damage (using 30 power and costing 20 MCr) for 1 ton rather than 50.

Yes, they are completely overpowered. The basic assumption communicated during beta was that the High Tech chapter contains optional rules, not used in the default Third Imperium setting. Hence the balance issue was not addressed.

So, by default we have no meson bays, tractors, or particle or quad turrets (just like T5).


If you want to use Particle and Fusion turrets, it is probably a good idea to limit them to single turrets only.

 

[Sigtrygg]

T5 now has quad turrets...

it also requires plasma guns, fusion guns and particle accelerators to be mounted in barbettes; there are two different sizes of barbette, the 3t single weapon barbette and the 5t dual barbette.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

T5 now has quad turrets...

So it does, I had forgotten.

 

[phavoc]

Nothing wrong with quad weapons in a turret, though if we are talking a standard-sized turret, the best they should be able to mount would be light lasers and such. There's already a Tardis-like effect for turrets and how the magically can be larger than their displacement AND hold weapons,

Stacking more weapons in a turret should have a larger volume cost, since you have more energy feeds and such to power them. Barbettes for the heavier weapons is a good call.

 

[baithammer]

There's already a Tardis-like effect for turrets and how the magically can be larger than their displacement AND hold weapons,

Turrets listed displacement is for room taken up inside the ship not the overall turret.

Vehicles provides some information which can determine the exterior dimensions of the turret however.

1 space = 0.25 dt

1 spaceship turret weapon = 1 space / 0.25 dt minimum
1 crew position = 1 space / 0.25 dt

With the only difference in the turrets is the mount price, it hints that the dimensions would be for a triple mount and a crew position.

So,

3x Spaceship weapons = 3 spaces / 0.75 dt
1x Crew position = 1 space / 0.25 dt

Total 4 spaces / 1.0 dt, which would mean the turret is the same dimensions as its base. ( Quad Turret is the outlier as to keep the same dimensions you'd need to omit the crew position.)

 

[Anonymous]

There's already a Tardis-like effect for turrets and how the magically can be larger than their displacement AND hold weapons,

Turrets listed displacement is for room taken up inside the ship not the overall turret.

I thought this initially then decided that if it was a significant external volume extension, it would reduce drive potential or cause misjump, and now we're discussing external cargo again.

 

[phavoc]

The reason I said Tardis-like is that the 1 ton internally is supposed to cover the crew position, fire control, access, power conduits, even missiles and missile feed mechanisms. The turret itself doesn't take up any space. Then when weapons start getting added in those weapons need to take up space, but the rules allow them to not need to. T5 has increases this number to 4 without any sort of space penalty.

The system already is quite forgiving for spaces, as many things are handwaived (lifesupport being one of them). That's ok, to a point. Eventually though all the hand waving and ignoring of things starts to take a toll. We all know that PC's love to kite their ships out with max weapons, as do many ship designers. Many, if they had to make a decision, would eliminate crew quarters, heads and hallways to cram more weapons on a ship. It's not realistic, but it's a game so it's a norm.

Weapons really should be taking more space to better reflect their complexity. After all, that's the point of a warship - to move those weapons from point A to point B so you can go pew-pew at the enemy. Warship designers have to live with trade-offs in reality. If Traveller wants to hang on to it's science (even pseudo-science) tagline, these things have to be taken into account.

Otherwise let's stop pretending and just call it space opera. And then you can do all kinds of silly things. It's not like the game hasn't teetered on that edge since the beginning (psioncs anyone?).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The official answer is something like this:

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.

Despite sticking out it does not affect performance, unlike external load. It has been the same since CT, where turrets took no space (only 1 Dt for fire control). Logic does not enter into it...

 

[AndrewW]

The system already is quite forgiving for spaces, as many things are handwaived (lifesupport being one of them).

I just figure life support equipment is figured in already, each 1 ton space includes the life support necessary for that space. As for a central location could be useful, what if life support takes a hit? But there's the keep it simpler and not complication things too much option we have.

 

[Jackstar]

3x Spaceship weapons = 3 spaces / 0.75 dt
1x Crew position = 1 space / 0.25 dt

Total 4 spaces / 1.0 dt, which would mean the turret is the same dimensions as its base. ( Quad Turret is the outlier as to keep the same dimensions you'd need to omit the crew position.)

Quad turrets make a little bit more sense if you use High Technology Weapons with 3 lots of Size Reduction: 30% smaller, so 0.175 dt each or 0.7 dt for 4.

 

[Condottiere]

1. Life support for turrets can be outsourced.

2. Missiles and their launching mechanisms would be the least flexible weapon system to try and stuff into a turret; followed by sandcasters.

3. Magnetic containment beyond the barrel of the weapon systems in question seems questionable; there must be some law or phenomenon of physics that ensures minimal energy dispersion over fifty thousand kilometres; identify it, and it may explain why there is no radiation contamination at the source.

 

[Anonymous]

2. Missiles and their launching mechanisms would be the least flexible weapon system to try and stuff into a turret; followed by sandcasters.

2) The lack of box launchers in Traveller turrets, and their very low rate of missile launch, is very unusal. I don't get it. It doesn't need to be changed, but it's really weird.

Missiles not being able to do counter-missile fire is another one. (Or if they can, I can't find the rule in classic or mongoose 2).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

1 space = 0.25 dt

Not quite.

1 Space = 0.25 tonne = 250 kg.
1 Dt = 14 m³
Apples vs. oranges.

1 spaceship turret weapon = 1 space / 0.25 dt minimum
1 crew position = 1 space / 0.25 dt

The turret requires 4 Spaces, and then each turret weapon at least 1 Space each, so a filled triple turret requires 7 Spaces. VH, p44.
Note that, by RAW, even barbette (and bigger) weapons require a turret, unless fixed mount.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Quad turrets make a little bit more sense if you use High Technology Weapons with 3 lots of Size Reduction: 30% smaller, so 0.175 dt each or 0.7 dt for 4.

Reduced Size doesn't matter; The Vehicle Handbook mandates a minimum of 1 Space per weapon and 4 Spaces per turret.

A Reduced Size barbette would save some Spaces.

 

[phavoc]

The system already is quite forgiving for spaces, as many things are handwaived (lifesupport being one of them).

I just figure life support equipment is figured in already, each 1 ton space includes the life support necessary for that space. As for a central location could be useful, what if life support takes a hit? But there's the keep it simpler and not complication things too much option we have.

Distributed life support, from a battle damage aspect, makes sense. But from a practical standpoint it does not. The air and water needed for each compartment is local, thus limited. Plus your maintenance costs would be astronomical (which may explain the cost for life support for non-attended rooms...)

 

[Condottiere]

In battle, the gunners should be wearing a spacesuit, though the helmet could be off or the faceplate could be open.

 

[Anonymous]

T5.10 allows a ship to be "over tonned" by a few percent without affecting the maximum drive potential. You take penalties on things like powerplant fuel usage and combat agility. I like the idea and it does provide a mechanism to resolve problems like total hull volume errors, without breaking the jump drive or using fractional maneuver ratings.