Spaceship-scale Turrets on ground structures

[Condottiere]

We got space stations.

And dispersed configuration.

 

[NOLATrav]

What’s the difference between a ton of feathers and a ton of lead, or a ton of starship drives and a ton of stateroom? They are all the same ton and the same mass and volume in Traveller.

400 ton airlock structure? You’ve got 4 starship scale hardpoints to work with, or 12 smallcraft scale firmpoints to work with (which is a stupid T5 thing, IMTU it’s one firmpoint per 25 tons rather than the illogical 35 tons presented in the rules), 16 vehicle scale slots (4,000 kg if you prefer) or a large number of battle dress/ robot slots to work with (you can do the math for those). Point being, keep the numbers and the processes simple and it all works. Tweak to your liking and have fun.

 

[MasterGwydion]

What’s the difference between a ton of feathers and a ton of lead, or a ton of starship drives and a ton of stateroom? They are all the same ton and the same mass and volume in Traveller.

400 ton airlock structure? You’ve got 4 starship scale hardpoints to work with, or 12 smallcraft scale firmpoints to work with (which is a stupid T5 thing, IMTU it’s one firmpoint per 25 tons rather than the illogical 35 tons presented in the rules), 16 vehicle scale slots (4,000 kg if you prefer) or a large number of battle dress/ robot slots to work with (you can do the math for those). Point being, keep the numbers and the processes simple and it all works. Tweak to your liking and have fun.

Now what if it is a structure? Like a house? Office building? Army barracks? Air Defense Building? The current rules say that ground-based structures do not use hardpoints and as many weapons can be added as the entity building them can afford. Surface structures cost 20 or 25k per ton to build, all starship components used are 1/4 of the cost as well.

 

[MasterGwydion]

We got space stations.

And dispersed configuration.

but the ISS is 100% modular. That is over the 70% allowable in Traveller.

 

[Condottiere]

We have pods.

They are attachable.

 

[NOLATrav]

Now what if it is a structure? Like a house? Office building? Army barracks? Air Defense Building? The current rules say that ground-based structures do not use hardpoints and as many weapons can be added as the entity building them can afford. Surface structures cost 20 or 25k per ton to build, all starship components used are 1/4 of the cost as well.

If you imagine a structure mapped out, kind of like a deck plan, you can approximate the "tonnage" of the structure. Like your 400 ton airlock structure you want to add weapon emplacements to. Then you can use the regular rules as a guideline to what might be a manageable number of emplacements for a given structure.

YMMV, just throwing out ideas. But I think you just answered your own question.

 

[MasterGwydion]

If you imagine a structure mapped out, kind of like a deck plan, you can approximate the "tonnage" of the structure. Like your 400 ton airlock structure you want to add weapon emplacements to. Then you can use the regular rules as a guideline to what might be a manageable number of emplacements for a given structure.

YMMV, just throwing out ideas. But I think you just answered your own question.

This would make sense. Thanks.

 

[agentwigggles]

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

As far as the gun on a spaceship is concern, its not moving either.

 

[MasterGwydion]

As far as the gun on a spaceship is concern, its not moving either.

No, but it does still feel structural stress at its joints when the ship is moved, either under its own power or by tugs. To Me that would require more structural reinforcement.

 

[Arkathan]

Structural reinforcement... like a hardpoint. Which you need to install the weapon.

 

[agentwigggles]

And M Drive give you interia dampening for free.

 

[Condottiere]

Do lasers have recoil?

 

[Arkathan]

Do lasers have recoil?

If a laser can push a light sail, then a laser emitter has recoil.

 

[agentwigggles]

If a laser can push a light sail, then a laser emitter has recoil.

I can see the reasoning for this. But when Photons emerge, they only exist at C. They dont push against anything to accelerate.
My understanding is that its recoilless.
And flashlights lose mass when its emitting photons.
So... I guess a laser cannon would also, lose mass.

 

[Arkathan]

I can see the reasoning for this. But when Photons emerge, they only exist at C. They dont push against anything to accelerate.
My understanding is that its recoilless.
And flashlights lose mass when its emitting photons.
So... I guess a laser cannon would also, lose mass.

The loss of mass in a flashlight is due to a chemical reaction in the battery that results in current flow and heat due to resistance in the bulb.
A ship's laser is getting its energy externally, from the power plant, where the mass loss is driven by fusion.

A photon exists due to the deceleration/reduction of orbit of an electron. When it drops in the... potential well... into a lower orbital, it emits the photon. That motion is covered under Newtonian physics - but in a basically random direction. A laser bounces them around until all the photons are aligned into a coherent beam, or hit a lens after many bounces that focuses the beam. That last bounce out is not cancelled, and applies the same pressure as the photon hitting a light sail - even if that last bounce was not aligned with the back of the emitter. Do the bounces of other photons cancel? Only if they hit an opposite wall at the same time. Do they cause microscopic vibrations that are not necessarily going to be noticed by the firing ship (without high tech sensors of the type that would most likely only appear during testing? Yes.
Is there recoil in a laser? Yes.
Is that recoil coherent, like the beam so that it acts like ballistic recoil? Not necessarily. But one thing that is often depicted in Traveller is the use of a stationary or semi-stationary laser in a turret that aims via a mirror. The bounce off that mirror IS related to the beam's direction and that recoil would equal the pressure applied to a light sail. Now, that isn't a whole lot of pressure we are talking about.

 

[phavoc]

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.

Well, the problem is that games don't model reality well. And because it's a game people tend to try and min/max designs, characters, etc. Game designs don't care about habitability or things like "wasting" space on having more than one head for a ship.

When the issue becomes one of intent and how one can skirt both the design rules and the intent then it's the issue I mentioned. You are looking a variant where the rules that both the same - an asteroid hull is the same whether it's a ship or a stationary base. Space stations follow ship rules, asteroid bases should do the same.

What you are looking for is additional complexity that doesn't provide much of a reward for gaming. If you want an evil asteroid lair then just throw the check ook out the window and design it as an evil lair. Game settings for sessions should not follow the same rules imposed upon players for natural reasons.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Well, the problem is that games don't model reality well. And because it's a game people tend to try and min/max designs, characters, etc. Game designs don't care about habitability or things like "wasting" space on having more than one head for a ship.

When the issue becomes one of intent and how one can skirt both the design rules and the intent then it's the issue I mentioned. You are looking a variant where the rules that both the same - an asteroid hull is the same whether it's a ship or a stationary base. Space stations follow ship rules, asteroid bases should do the same.

What you are looking for is additional complexity that doesn't provide much of a reward for gaming. If you want an evil asteroid lair then just throw the check ook out the window and design it as an evil lair. Game settings for sessions should not follow the same rules imposed upon players for natural reasons.

Then how did Wildeman get built? No one has a 50 billion+ ton shipyard. So, by the rules, Wildeman and how many other places can't exist? Careful or your concerns about intent will require a complete rewrite of Charted Space to fix. Now what about a moonbase? Size 1 planet. Build the base inside of the moon. Is this a ship or a stationary planet? Where is the dividing line? You can't play a game on intent. You can play by the rules and do the best you can with no brutalizing them to the point of cheese.

In the thing I was working on when I made the OP? I put 12 laser turrets on the surface of a Size 1 moon. Hardly what I would call abusing the system.

 

[Condottiere]

You have differing design rules covering different aspects, which I prefer to saying different environments.

I'm pretty sure you don't need a fourteen hundred cubic metre truck to host a triple laser turret, and that would break spacecraft design.

 

[phavoc]

Then how did Wildeman get built? No one has a 50 billion+ ton shipyard. So, by the rules, Wildeman and how many other places can't exist? Careful or your concerns about intent will require a complete rewrite of Charted Space to fix. Now what about a moonbase? Size 1 planet. Build the base inside of the moon. Is this a ship or a stationary planet? Where is the dividing line? You can't play a game on intent. You can play by the rules and do the best you can with no brutalizing them to the point of cheese.

In the thing I was working on when I made the OP? I put 12 laser turrets on the surface of a Size 1 moon. Hardly what I would call abusing the system.

Nobody "builds" an asteroid or moon (cept maybe the Empire). You can generate specifics for them from WBH, but not build in the ship-sense.

I don't know why anyone would bother trying to "build" a 50 billion ton station. What is the point? These are locations, not PC structures and/or ships. This goes beyond what is needed in any game. For things such as these you simply create them without need for building.

 

[Condottiere]