Ship weapon revisit

[tuz_sen]

Currently a turret takes up no space and the tonnage assigned is for the fire control. I purpose that we remove separate fire control and assign turrets a volume I think 1 ton per weapon point (ex. 2 tons for a double turret.)

Then when to comes to small craft move the weapon restriction to a turret/turret equivalent restriction with 10-30 ton craft limited to single turrets, 40-60 ton craft limited to double turrets or barbettes, and 70-100 craft limited to a single triple turret, a barbette, or a bay. Removing the ability for things like 100 ton small craft mounting 5 rail gun barbettes because they are only limited by number of weapons, currently.

Anyone else have any input towards this in the interest of changing some of this with high guard 2?

 

[phavoc]

Currently a turret takes up no space and the tonnage assigned is for the fire control. I purpose that we remove separate fire control and assign turrets a volume I think 1 ton per weapon point (ex. 2 tons for a double turret.)

Then when to comes to small craft move the weapon restriction to a turret/turret equivalent restriction with 10-30 ton craft limited to single turrets, 40-60 ton craft limited to double turrets or barbettes, and 70-100 craft limited to a single triple turret, a barbette, or a bay. Removing the ability for things like 100 ton small craft mounting 5 rail gun barbettes because they are only limited by number of weapons, currently.

Anyone else have any input towards this in the interest of changing some of this with high guard 2?

This is one of those gray areas. The turret is outside of the ship, thus it doesn't technically take up volume inside. This gets even fuzzier when you get into bay weapons, because the "bays" may be actual bay's INSIDE, or turrets OUTSIDE - in either case they still must allocate 1 Dton for fire control.

The weapon points for small craft is also kind of fuzzy. If a 10 ton craft could mount a single fixed laser, why can't a 20 ton mount two, a 30 ton three, etc. Some of that comes down to power requirements (power output per power plants has never been defined).

The whole question of hardpoints is one of those debates that doesn't have a happy ending. Modern naval warship design also assigns "hardpoints" to vessels. Russians tend to cram more weapons on the decks, but they have their own limitations. Western-style vessels are probably a better analogy. Yes, spacecraft don't have bottoms, but weapon orientation is a moot point since in Traveller all weapons can be brought to bear.

I think unless you are willing to dig much deeper into the entire question of powerplants, weapon power requirements and space requirements, the system, with it's weaknesses, does work for the most part.

 

[tuz_sen]

While it inside outside debate is just that I feel that a turret while not taking up inside volume should still be taken in to account for things like drive performance.

 

[phavoc]

While it inside outside debate is just that I feel that a turret while not taking up inside volume should still be taken in to account for things like drive performance.

MGT doesn't use mass for things like that, just displacement. So it wouldn't factor into the calculations.

 

[tuz_sen]

While it inside outside debate is just that I feel that a turret while not taking up inside volume should still be taken in to account for things like drive performance.

MGT doesn't use mass for things like that, just displacement. So it wouldn't factor into the calculations.

My argument never touched on mass (different debate which as you point out not part of MGT) only volume which as far as I understand is what MGT means when it says displacement (note that currently when you talk about the displacement of a modern ship you are really referring the the weight because displacement is the weight of water space the ship needs to occupy.) as it defines 1 dton (the unit of ship design) as 14.--- Cubic meters, a volume.

Edit: *sigh* It appears I may be derailing my own thread.

 

[sideranautae]

I require 1 ton set aside for each turret and that must be set aside at time of construction. (maintains ship displacement accuracy) Each weapon control station is 1/2 ton. Each station can control one battery.

 

[Nerhesi]

Page 42 and Page 57, under chemical batters:

"making significant use of long range communicators or energy using weapons (such as lasers, rail guns, meson guns, fusion guns and particle beams)."

Page 48, second paragraph:
"There are no limits on the fitting of non–energy weapons, lasers and railguns." This indicates that non-energy weapons are not lasers or railguns.

Yet the example given of the turret drone has a powerplant that supports 0 energy weapons, and has a rail gun. And of course, the actual page 61 description curiously omits railguns from the description making it clear that Rail guns can be mounted.

So by Raw, it would seem sure Rail Gun are not energy weapons, however:

They are limited to Short Range. Period. If someone is being true to RAW, that means even the increased TL improved range will not change the fact they can't be fired past short range. So changing Optimum range to Medium doesn't change the text description saying they simply can't be fired past Short.

Also, they're 5 tons a railgun and NOT inexpensive, and that doesn't include space per ammo. Actually, they're always a bad choice - its a trap. I would gladly mount a missile bay and be launching 12 missiles a turn per large scale fighter rather than have rapid fire mounts for barrage battles. This is of course you've already filled up on 1 energy barbette and 1 particle turret for your first 3 energy weapon choices.

 

[dragoner]

While it inside outside debate is just that I feel that a turret while not taking up inside volume should still be taken in to account for things like drive performance.

No, because look at small craft bays, much larger than turrets and they do count against tonnage, and thus drives. Mostly empty space though.

 

[Imeanunoharm]

Yet the example given of the turret drone has a powerplant that supports 0 energy weapons, and has a rail gun. And of course, the actual page 61 description curiously omits railguns from the description making it clear that Rail guns can be mounted.

Without specifically checking, you'd have to say that rail guns are energy weapons in that they require a large amount of energy to fire the slug. Sounds like another error in an example, in that respect. Once fired though, the slug doesn't really conform to the common conception of "energy weapons", in that they are beams of energy. Hence the confusion methinks.

 

[sideranautae]

Yet the example given of the turret drone has a powerplant that supports 0 energy weapons, and has a rail gun. And of course, the actual page 61 description curiously omits railguns from the description making it clear that Rail guns can be mounted.

Without specifically checking, you'd have to say that rail guns are energy weapons in that they require a large amount of energy to fire the slug. Sounds like another error in an example, in that respect. Once fired though, the slug doesn't really conform to the common conception of "energy weapons", in that they are beams of energy. Hence the confusion methinks.

I agree. The energy required for a rail gun puts it into the "energy" weapon category as far as PP requirements go.

 

[Nerhesi]

Sorry folks - you can mount as many rails guns as you can ship-weapons.

High Guard, Page 61:

The armaments allowed to a small craft are further restricted by its power plant type. It may only equip up to the number of ship–scale lasers and, particle weapons – allowed by the following table. The number of missile launchers or projectile weapons is not limited by the power plant letter.

Take a look at the second part - they not only avoid mentioning rail guns as restricted, they clearly indicate they are NOT restricted.

And really - it is still inferior to 3 particle beams and 2 missile launchers, or 1 barbette, 1 particle beam and 2 missile launchers.

 

[sideranautae]

Sorry folks - you can mount as many rails guns as you can ship-weapons.

Yes, we know this. Some of us were simply commenting on the ridiculousness of the rule. :roll:

 

[GypsyComet]

That really depends on the mass of the ammunition and the rate of fire. Even if we assume that the Plasma and Fusion weapons use similar masses and rates of fire, those weapons also have to bring the ammunition up to a plasma or fusing plasma state, and deploy gravitic and/or magnetic focusing to keep the plasma bolt from simply dispersing 10m beyond the launcher.

If a ship damaging laser at light-second ranges isn't "high energy", then a glorified heavy gauss weapon isn't either.

 

[Anonymous]

The whole question of hard points is one of those debates that doesn't have a happy ending. Modern naval warship design also assigns "hard points" to vessels. Russians tend to cram more weapons on the decks, but they have their own limitations. Western-style vessels are probably a better analogy. Yes, spacecraft don't have bottoms, but weapon orientation is a moot point since in Traveller all weapons can be brought to bear.

Do modern naval ships assign hard points in order to manage recoil and other stresses on the vessel? If so I can see why a limit based on the hull size would be appropriate and reinforcing the structure/hull could increase the number of hard points.

I think unless you are willing to dig much deeper into the entire question of power plants, weapon power requirements and space requirements, the system, with it's weaknesses, does work for the most part.

Has anyone written house rules or considered and chosen not to? I can see how making house rules fit existing ships would effectively limit the ships the same way they are now making house rules pointless for most settings but if you went the whole hog and redesigned ships for your own setting it could work.

It is a large amount of work. :shock:

Personally I like the idea of a power requirement for the different components of a ship, along with power plants listing their outputs. Figuring that into the design to limit what a ship can mount, along with the space requirements would add to the designs "believability" and gives scope for after market gadgets to tune the performance of a ships components.