Spaceship-scale Turrets on ground structures

M

MasterGwydion

Emperor Mongoose
If you mount Starship-scale weapons on a building, do buildings have hard points? Or can you literally build a building which is just a line of turrets?
 
It hasn't been clarified.

I'd say you could have a firmpoint for a seventy cubic metre space, or a hardpoint for a fourteen hundred cubic metres.

Reinforced, concrete or otherwise.
 
Condottiere said:
It hasn't been clarified.

I'd say you could have a firmpoint for a seventy cubic metre space, or a hardpoint for a fourteen hundred cubic metres.

Reinforced, concrete or otherwise.
Click to expand...
If it doesn't have to move, it would have way less structural needs to support a turret. Even on a space station, they have M-0.5 Drives, so need more support as well.

So, some rules for structures might be handy. Right now, We only seem to have what is in the Drinaxian Companion and those rules are... problematic, at best. I went and read them after Geir mentioned them in another post. Basically everything is 25% of the cost, plus the cost of the building shell for surface structures for 25,000Cr/ton or 5,000Cr/ton of subterranean pipes, wiring, and such. Buildings do not have to be connected to be considered the same structure, but after some undefined distance, they are considered separate structures. Problematic. lol
 
The biggest bugbear (Hobgoblin? Troll? - no, that last one is misleading in a forum setting) is that an asteroid hull can be gotten for Cr 4000 per ton (and that includes gravity, which, without it, save Cr2000 on a planetoid - but save Cr25000 on a standard hull, go figure) so... Yeah, need to think on it and deal with the 'planetoid exception' somehow. Or else say: it's not a structure or a cave, it's a partially excavated planetoid hull. Problematic.
 
Rock solid canon.

While space weapons have no weight onboard spacecraft, they do if bunkered.

So, supporting infrastructure would be required.
 
The reduced cost of hull represents the reduced structural needs. You need a building (hull structure) to install components, like turrets.
When you build the structure for the weapon, you make the equivalent of a hardpoint (which must be installed and paid for). The ground base is not limited to 1 per 100 tons. You can spam turrets and bays to your heart's content. Then you have to power them and keep them stocked with ammunition where applicable (and missile turrets are the only effective bays if things get into ground weapons range.
The distance is not indeterminate, it is a soccer field (100 meters) Drinaxian Companion pg 81.
 
Geir said:
The biggest bugbear (Hobgoblin? Troll? - no, that last one is misleading in a forum setting) is that an asteroid hull can be gotten for Cr 4000 per ton (and that includes gravity, which, without it, save Cr2000 on a planetoid - but save Cr25000 on a standard hull, go figure) so... Yeah, need to think on it and deal with the 'planetoid exception' somehow. Or else say: it's not a structure or a cave, it's a partially excavated planetoid hull. Problematic.
Click to expand...
I would appreciate this. :) Thank you! That Drinaxian Companion construction rules that you mentioned to Me? It says 2,000Cr/ton, but I am guessing that it does not include stuff for gravity. It should, so you can build on worlds with lower or higher gravity and still have 1G inside your structures.
 
I found this a moment ago in the Drinaxian Companion, pg81 under Weaponry and Combat. "A base is not subject to the same hardpoint limitation as a starship and can have as many weapon mounts as the builders can afford."

Now that makes Me wonder, what is the difference between a planetoid ship with no M-Drive and no J-Drive and an asteroid base. The costs to build are vastly different.
 
Condottiere said:
Rock solid canon.

While space weapons have no weight onboard spacecraft, they do if bunkered.

So, supporting infrastructure would be required.
Click to expand...
If the ship is able to land on a planet, wouldn't it need the same support structures? That's a can of worms best left on the shelf I think :eek:
 
Talon Greyfeather said:
If the ship is able to land on a planet, wouldn't it need the same support structures? That's a can of worms best left on the shelf I think :eek:
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that planetoid hulls cannot land on a planet, at least not one with an atmosphere. I could be wrong on that though. I think the defining factor would be thrust. If a structure is designed to have thrust, then it would have to be considered a Hull and not a building.
 
MasterGwydion said:
I was under the impression that planetoid hulls cannot land on a planet, at least not one with an atmosphere. I could be wrong on that though. I think the defining factor would be thrust. If a structure is designed to have thrust, then it would have to be considered a Hull and not a building.
Click to expand...
Land? Sure. Ask the dinosaurs about that. Take off again? Not so much. But more to the point: if it never took off in the first place, then it's a little mountain (ok, hill, knoll, whatever) with caves in it. And that seems allowable, regardless of atmosphere - and a station can be a hull without trust (yes, a minimal M-drive but that's not required).

Anyway, I'm looking at structures. I would think a comparison to vehicles would be more like it - a cart with no wheels (or a un-mobile mobile home), or a floating grav city instead of an air/raft. And yes, a Structure: Open-frame, 1 Space, is what we would call a chair.
 
With a powerful enough trebuchet, sure.


di15Ti.gif
 
Geir said:
Land? Sure. Ask the dinosaurs about that. Take off again? Not so much. But more to the point: if it never took off in the first place, then it's a little mountain (ok, hill, knoll, whatever) with caves in it. And that seems allowable, regardless of atmosphere - and a station can be a hull without trust (yes, a minimal M-drive but that's not required).
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter if the station doesn't have thrust. If a station doesn't have thrust, it must be nudged periodically to keep it in orbit. So perhaps if it is not designed to be moved it can count as a structure, but otherwise it is identical to a ship as far as creation rules go. No need to pay for the gravity stuff unless you are on a low-g or high-g world. Heck, no need to be sealed unless the atmosphere isn't breathable. lol. What will really break your brain is building structures on the surface of a large planetoid monitor, say the 1,500,000Dton monitor in the Core Depot system. The whole place shaking as the engines power up for the first time in years. :p
Geir said:
Anyway, I'm looking at structures. I would think a comparison to vehicles would be more like it - a cart with no wheels (or a un-mobile mobile home), or a floating grav city instead of an air/raft. And yes, a Structure: Open-frame, 1 Space, is what we would call a chair.
Click to expand...
Your sense of humor always makes Me giggle! lol.

I have not picked up the Vehicle Handbook yet. I was thinking that maybe after stuff like fusion plants are fixed in an update, then I buy it. All 3 rulebooks should be interchangeable. High Guard, Vehicles, and Robots. So, structures should also easily fit into this.
 
MasterGwydion said:
If you mount Starship-scale weapons on a building, do buildings have hard points? Or can you literally build a building which is just a line of turrets?
Click to expand...
I think the simple is "Yes". Energy weapons have no recoil and as such you'd not need to add special structual reinforcement to channel the recoil energy away.

"Would they" is probably a better term. I think only PC's would come up with the idea of mounting weapons on a civilian structure. In theory you'd expect anyone to mount weapons on targets that wouldn't house civilian population - or at least if we are talking ground-to-orbit or starship classed weapons. A Km distance (or even ten Km) to place the weapon outside a civilian area would have no real difference for the ground defender and it would (possibly) make the civilian structures less of a target. Anyone employing city-smashing weapons won't care of course.

Now, if you are using ballistic weapons like in WW2 or prior, then placing weapons on structures (or building them to mount them) is quite reasonable. I give you the Hardrock Flak-tower hotel! https://hamburg-business.com/en/news/hard-rock-hotel-open-flak-tower-heiligengeistfeld
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Geir
Updated Vehicle Handbook in the works
12 13 14
Replies
261
Views
4K
Sigtrygg
Sigtrygg
M
Shipyard Construction Rate
2 3
Replies
55
Views
920
Condottiere
C
MadBeardMan
Traveller on Roll20 - Looking for beta testers
Replies
18
Views
368
TrooperSJP
T
M
More random economics thoughts - Starport Docking Fees
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
2K
phavoc
P
M
Shipbuilding and shipyards
2
Replies
23
Views
555
Condottiere
C
Back
Top