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
  #31  
Old April 10th, 2005, 08:14 AM
castlebravo castlebravo is offline
Citizen: SOC-10
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 62
Gallery : 0
castlebravo Citizen
Post

Well then the contact surface area is defined by a square/rectangle = width of tender x width of rider.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old April 10th, 2005, 08:58 AM
Andrew Boulton Andrew Boulton is offline
The Adminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Barnsley, UK
Posts: 9,527
Gallery : 41
Andrew Boulton Citizen
Post

I have a nasty feeling that by the time you've tweaked this to take account of sensors, radiators, hatches, etc, it's going to be simpler just to use surface area as per FF&S...
__________________
[LEFT]COTI Admin - [URL="http://www.traveller3d.com/calendar/index.htm"]Traveller Calendar [/URL]editor [I]-[/I] [URL="http://www.traveller3d.com"]www.traveller3d.com[/URL][/LEFT]
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old April 10th, 2005, 09:05 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

For sensors and comms gear it would be 1 hardpoint per complete system, i.e. just take off one hardpoint to represent all commo/sensor gear.

Traveller has magic heat sinks hidden somewhere, so the radiators are out (unless power plants are made much smaller, but then... )

I wouldn't bother with personal airlocks and hatches, they'd be too small to bother with.

And the idea is to take all of this into account "behind the scenes" and present the ship designer with the number of hardpoints remaining to accomodate the six items listed earlier.

LBB2 simplicity but with a few more simple options
__________________
The beauty of CT LBB1-3 is that the ref is free to make such decisions for themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old May 3rd, 2005, 05:39 PM
Fritz_Brown's Avatar
Fritz_Brown Fritz_Brown is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,032
Gallery : 1
Visit Fritz_Brown's Blog
Fritz_Brown has disabled reputation
Post

What about turret displacement? In HG (whatever ed. the reprints are) you can mix lasers in a turret, but the tonnage is based on the weapon you place in the turret ("regardless of the number of weapons of that type mounted in it."). How do you all figure the displacement? Do you average, or add?
__________________
1836! Come and take it!
IMTU tc++ ru+ ge+ 3i+ c+ jt au pi+ he+ t5(LBB0020)+ and tp++ (that's Proto-Traveller!)
My CotI blog!
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old May 4th, 2005, 02:28 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

Turret displacement is one of those things that needs to be defined carefully.

TNE got this right IMHO by giving each turret a definite size to install the weaponry inside.

In CT the turret took up no space at all, it is the fire control that costs 1 ton.

HG then confused the issue by saying its the turret that has the weight, regardless of how many weapons it carries.

The simple solution is probably replace the idea of single, double , and triple turrets with small, medium, and large lasers.
__________________
The beauty of CT LBB1-3 is that the ref is free to make such decisions for themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old May 4th, 2005, 05:03 AM
Pickles
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Gallery :
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
The simple solution is probably replace the idea of single, double , and triple turrets with small, medium, and large lasers.
It may be simple, but is it canon? I've always thought those weird triple turrets were great, like little baby battleship turrets. Reinforces the whole Traveller navy-not-airforce thing.

I've always liked the Striker design approach to turrets, but I would prefer a more modular system. A couple of decades from now I might actually have finished my HG/Striker/Book 2 hybrid.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old May 4th, 2005, 09:06 AM
Fritz_Brown's Avatar
Fritz_Brown Fritz_Brown is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,032
Gallery : 1
Visit Fritz_Brown's Blog
Fritz_Brown has disabled reputation
Post

As of right now, I am taking the largest of the numbers to determine the "size" of the turret. So a triple turret with 1 beam laser, 1 pulse laser, and 1 sandcaster still takes 1 dTon.
__________________
1836! Come and take it!
IMTU tc++ ru+ ge+ 3i+ c+ jt au pi+ he+ t5(LBB0020)+ and tp++ (that's Proto-Traveller!)
My CotI blog!
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.