Traveller Store CotI Features New Posts Mark Forums Read Register


Go Back TravellerRPG.com > Citizens of the Imperium > General Traveller Discussions > The Fleet

The Fleet Ship designs, strategies, and tactics.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 10th, 2005, 02:34 AM
castlebravo castlebravo is offline
Citizen: SOC-10
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 62
Gallery : 0
castlebravo Citizen
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
What I was aiming for was an alternative way to balance the number of weapons available to a ship, without having to track EPs for the weapon systems.
Following some excellent suggestions I'm wondering if max. hull hardpoints can be used as a much more versatile accounting system in simple ship design?
I think you hit the nail squarely on the head. You can generalize away EPs by saying that a ship of 'X' displacement has the necessary EPs inherently to supply ‘Y’ hard points. Works for me.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old April 10th, 2005, 02:56 AM
mike wightman's Avatar
mike wightman mike wightman is offline
Noble
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 16,614
Gallery : 0
mike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizen
Post

The next thing to do is get the number of hardpoints in the original tables sorted out.

As I said, I based the whole thing on 300m2 per hardpoint, and rounded down.
This could be changed, especially if hardpoints are also going to be used for:
weapons
external grapples
launch bay doors
cargo hatches
sensor/comms arrays
propulsion nozzles
__________________
The beauty of CT LBB1-3 is that the ref is free to make such decisions for themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old April 10th, 2005, 03:10 AM
castlebravo castlebravo is offline
Citizen: SOC-10
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 62
Gallery : 0
castlebravo Citizen
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I based the whole thing on 300m2 per hardpoint, and rounded down.
a ~17.5 meter x ~17.5 meter square is a fairly large area and provides allot of wiggle room for everything you mentioned, perhaps save the main aft propulsion nozzles (for large capital ships). Even a large 5 meter diameter antenna could fit comfortably within that footprint.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old April 10th, 2005, 03:14 AM
castlebravo castlebravo is offline
Citizen: SOC-10
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 62
Gallery : 0
castlebravo Citizen
Post

For comparison, a Trident II (D5) SLBM launch tube is only ~2 meters in diameter and ~14.6 meters deep into the hull. Launch bays... the wingspan of a F/A-18 Hornet (w/ wing-tip missiles) is ~12.3 meters.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old April 10th, 2005, 03:43 AM
mike wightman's Avatar
mike wightman mike wightman is offline
Noble
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 16,614
Gallery : 0
mike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizen
Post

Propulsion nozzles would be best handled by losing a percentage of hull hardpoints per G rating IMHO.
__________________
The beauty of CT LBB1-3 is that the ref is free to make such decisions for themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old April 10th, 2005, 04:18 AM
Pickles
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Gallery :
Post

This is saving me a lot of work!

Far Trader: Drop tanks, surface-mounted craft and hatches: I suggest calculating these on a case-by case basis and subtracting the area from the hull total.

Castlebravo: For sensor arrays, perhaps the old 'just how much of this computer volume is actually computer' debate can help out. Calculate hull space lost according to computer rating?

Sigg: The %/G rating for nozzles is elegant and going straight into my house rules.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old April 10th, 2005, 04:39 AM
mike wightman's Avatar
mike wightman mike wightman is offline
Noble
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 16,614
Gallery : 0
mike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizen
Post

I was thinking of something really simple:

weapons
hardpoints required already discussed, although spinal mounts should cost 1 hardpoint for the muzzle

external grapples
one hardpoint per grapple per "X" tonnage of carried craft or tank - what should the tonnage be?

launch bay doors
one hardpoint per launch bay, although a larger door would be needed for larger carried craft - I'll have to look at this one some more

cargo hatches
one hardpoint per cargo bay door

sensor/comms arrays
one hardpoint per full sensor/comm array. Extra systems may be carried for redundancy purposes but that'll cost you mare hardpoints.

propulsion nozzles
what's a sensible % per G rating? 1%, 2%, 5%, or 10% of hardpoints lost per G rating?
__________________
The beauty of CT LBB1-3 is that the ref is free to make such decisions for themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old April 10th, 2005, 05:07 AM
castlebravo castlebravo is offline
Citizen: SOC-10
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 62
Gallery : 0
castlebravo Citizen
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I was thinking of something really simple:
weapons
hardpoints required already discussed, although spinal mounts should cost 1 hardpoint for the muzzle
Not sure I am comfortable with my thoughts on this yet... but I note that per the three-gun turrets (guns elevate independently, so not triple-turrets) for the 16"/50 Mk 7 naval guns on Iowa class battleships...

13 meters long x 11 meters wide for the armored gun house (just the part of the mount you see above deck) with another 13 meters of gun tube protruding from the front of the gun house to the muzzle.

So say basically 26 meters x 11 meters.

This beats your 17.5 x 17.5.

Does anyone else visualize these type of ‘large’ mounts on heavy cap ships? Maybe two hard points for large mounts?

Even as I write this I am thinking... "the idea is to keep it simple stupid!"
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old April 10th, 2005, 05:16 AM
mike wightman's Avatar
mike wightman mike wightman is offline
Noble
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 16,614
Gallery : 0
mike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizen
Post

Ah, but the triple turret you've just mentioned would be the equivalent to a 50t or 100t bay, and thus cost 2 hardpoints to install (see note at the bottom of the original tables )...
__________________
The beauty of CT LBB1-3 is that the ref is free to make such decisions for themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old April 10th, 2005, 06:51 AM
castlebravo castlebravo is offline
Citizen: SOC-10
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 62
Gallery : 0
castlebravo Citizen
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
one hardpoint per grapple per "X" tonnage of carried craft or tank - what should the tonnage be?
The key value in one ship (the tender) conducting a close grapple of another (the rider) is not so much the rider's tonnage, but the contact surface area -- surface area of the rider that obscures the tender’s surface area.

Following again the kiss principle, if we think of the dorsal area of the rider in close proximity to the ventral surface of the tender, then say perhaps 1/4 (just the top) of the total surface area of the rider affects the tender’s available surface area.

At this point I would use whatever formula you use to relate displacement tons to surface area to convert and solve for your standard ‘X’ tonnage value (taking into account a 1/4 area value).
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

This website and its contents are copyright ©2010- Far Future Enterprises. All rights reserved. Traveller is a registered trademark of Far Future Enterprises .
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.