Spaceship-scale Turrets on ground structures

phavoc said:
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
Click to expand...
I was putting laser turrets on the surface of an airless Size 1 rockball to protect the 400-ton ship-sized airlock doors to the mining complex inside. The book doesn't say civilian structure. It just says structure, so I guess it could be a military building. I made them pop-up turrets with 12 armor, so what would have taken 2 tons if I put it on a 100-ton ship, costs Me 5 tons to account for the fact that the turret is 60% armor. lol 2 for the pop-up turret and 3 for the armor.
 
MasterGwydion said:
I was putting laser turrets on the surface of an airless Size 1 rockball to protect the 400-ton ship-sized airlock doors to the mining complex inside. The book doesn't say civilian structure. It just says structure, so I guess it could be a military building. I made them pop-up turrets with 12 armor, so what would have taken 2 tons if I put it on a 100-ton ship, costs Me 5 tons to account for the fact that the turret is 60% armor. lol 2 for the pop-up turret and 3 for the armor.
Click to expand...
Ah. I went by the very first post. Any asteroid should follow ship building rules.
 
I do believe spacecraft hulls can be constructed from aluminum.


2892-entry-0-1665221609.jpg
 
MasterGwydion said:
No engines, jump or engine. Should Wildeman be considered a ship or a planet? It is a hollowed out asteroid that people live and work in.
Click to expand...
Even without engines I'd treat it like a ship. It would be akin to building a 500 Dton hull and not treating it like a ship because you didn't put engines in it.
 
phavoc said:
Even without engines I'd treat it like a ship. It would be akin to building a 500 Dton hull and not treating it like a ship because you didn't put engines in it.
Click to expand...
At what size then does it become a "not ship"? I doubt that you could fit all of Wildeman in a shipyard.
 
MasterGwydion said:
At what size then does it become a "not ship"? I doubt that you could fit all of Wildeman in a shipyard.
Click to expand...
It's not a question of size at all. It's one of purpose and whether or not the intent is to skirt the limitations that are present.

If you want a ruling then a small pebble is not a ship. A 100,000 dton asteroid is treated like a ship for installing turrets.
 
I figure five tonnes is the minimum for a firmpointed turret.

As to whether that actually makes sense, since you could quite easily install a triple turret in the same volume, it's what the current rule set states for smallcraft sized chunks.
 
phavoc said:
It's not a question of size at all. It's one of purpose and whether or not the intent is to skirt the limitations that are present.

If you want a ruling then a small pebble is not a ship. A 100,000 dton asteroid is treated like a ship for installing turrets.
Click to expand...
Intent is not a game mechanic. Game mechanics need to be objective to work. If you build a city inside an asteroid, then it is a structure, not a ship, so you mount defensive lasers on its surface to defend your home. 1,000 years later, some idiot adds engines to it making it a ship. Do the guns stop working? It is either always a ship or never a ship. The rules do not work otherwise, so there has to be an objective dividing line between asteroid ships and asteroid habitats. To Me, that dividing line is if the structure was designed as a ship, then it is a ship. If it was designed as an asteroid base, then it is an asteroid base. They are unfortunately, two different rulesets to build the exact same object.
 
Depends on how uptight you are about the construction rules and your definition of modular. Most sensible people can figure it out.
 
Sigtrygg said:
Depends on how uptight you are about the construction rules and your definition of modular. Most sensible people can figure it out.
Click to expand...
I am using the Traveller CRB and HG to define what "modular" means. Also, since I believe game rules are the same as the laws of physics within the game universe, I follow them or change them if they make absolutely no sense.

So, to answer your question, the ISS is neither a ship, nor a space station. It is an impossible object under the current rules. I have a thread about this, but I have no idea how to link that thread to this conversation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
High Guard Smaller Weapons
5 6 7
Replies
132
Views
4K
Condottiere
C
Geir
Updated Vehicle Handbook in the works
73 74 75
Replies
1K
Views
47K
MasterGwydion
M
M
Shipyard Construction Rate
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
Condottiere
C
F
Rules Clarification: Maneuver Drive + Reaction Drive
Replies
14
Views
234
rinku
R
Terry Mixon
For When Your Type P Corsair Just Isn't P Enough
3 4 5
Replies
95
Views
2K
GypsyComet
GypsyComet
Back
Top