Let's begin with: the price of the tender is one of the few things about it that is correct. I get MCr274.77, which is what the supplement gives as the price. Therefore, there was - when the ship was designed - no effect on the price. Whether there was an effect on the tonnage, probably not: I actually show 4 dTons more space available, which goes against the hypothesis that the turrets were costing more tonnage. I would again caution against using the deck plan to infer tonnage, as we know the deck plan is pretty wildly off.
That's not to say we shouldn't consider errata'ing in a cost in tonnage or credits for pop-turrets retroactively. I can't really see why a pop turret should take up much more space than a regular turret mechanically. I don't think you need an entire dTon of machinery to lift the thing into position. However, it's an interesting balance effect to keep the things from being abused, so probably useful from that perspective. If we're going to incorporate the Challenge article into canon shipbuilding, it'd probably be a good idea to revise the tender to add that bit in.
Let me be a little more specific the Bait: Q Ships in Traveller is in JTAS 25 which at the time was part of Challenge 25. FFE 008 JTAS Issues 25-33 are canon material.
The article uses the 20% discount for standard designs which strongly suggests that the pop turret is an item created for CT Book 5 High Guard 2nd edition.
The pop turret, in my opinion, at the very least is an addition to the design and construction rules for Book 5 2nd edition. However, the pop turret was originally introduced in a Book 2 design which, again in my opinion, needs to be included in the design and construction rules.
In theory the mobile turret takes the place of fixed turrets that would have needed hardpoints, fire controls, and weapons installed to cover the same positions on the hull. Instead of a turret and one ton of fire control a track is attached to the hull using the hardpoint not being used by a fixed turret.
To make a turret a pop turret a mechanism is needed to raise and retract the turret, fire control, and weapons out of or into the hull. The same applies to changing a fixed turret to one that is mobile. In the case of the mobile turret a mechanism is needed to move the turret on the tracks installed along the hull.
I can not see how adding bits and pieces to standard systems does not increase MCr and/or tons of space needed in the hull. Okay, the mobile turret is an exception since the one ton of fire control is not inside the hull. However the mechanism that moves the turret and the tracks have to cost something.
I have several problems here. First and foremost, there's no combat effect for the tracked turrets. It makes for a nice story in Supplement 7, but neither of the CT rules systems, not Book 2 nor High Guard, sets any limit on a ship using all its available weapons while docking or undocking a subsidiary craft. That leads to problem 2: players are not going to want to be charged an extra cost or an extra charge in hardpoints or tonnage for a system that doesn't have any effect in combat.
Problem 3 lies in the nature of the hardpoint: we really don't know what it is. It's an arbitrary convention. We really don't know why you couldn't mount two or three or four missile or sandcaster turrets to a scout/courier: they don't represent much hull stress whether firing or just sitting there. That being said, we don't have any basis for suggesting that a tracked turret would take up more hardpoints than a regular turret.
I would suggest that we not charge an additional cost in tonnage, credits, or hardpoints for a design element that has no impact in the combat system. The pop-turret is one thing: it makes it possible for a ship to disguise its firepower. The tracked turret is quite another thing: it doesn't provide any measurable benefit. It amounts to an alternate way of doing things, a clever flourish by the designer that looks nifty but doesn't have a game effect. As such, it shouldn't come with added cost - the manufacturer wouldn't offer an option that cost more and didn't provide some benefit.
Problem 1: "First and foremost, there's no combat effect for the tracked turrets."
Problem 2: "players are not going to want to be charged an extra cost or an extra charge in hardpoints or tonnage for a system that doesn't have any effect in combat."
Supplement 7 page 14 Peculiarities first paragraph, the last two sentences: "Further, although the
tracked turrets are a reasonable idea for the situation they are intended to cope with, they are poorly equipped to handle many other situation. As a result, any weapons on express boat tenders can be expected to fire at -1 at all times.".
Does a -1 to fire at all times affect combat?
Problem 3 Part A: "lies in the nature of the hardpoint: we really don't know what it is. It's an arbitrary convention."
I may be taking things out of context, but in the real world a hardpoint is a strengthening of certain points to the internal or external structure of an aircraft's frame and points on the wings. There purpose is to allow the mounting of different items to the aircraft.
Here is a link to a site showing the weapons load of an F-15,
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15.htm.
The location of the missiles, bombs, and wing tanks are hardpoints.
The Titanic and her sisters had hardpoints included in the design so that they could be armed in time of war.
Problem 3 Part B: "We really don't know why you couldn't mount two or three or four missile or sandcaster turrets to a scout/courier: they don't represent much hull stress whether firing or just sitting there. That being said, we don't have any basis for suggesting that a tracked turret would take up more hardpoints than a regular turret."
In Book 2 we don't know why there can be only one jump drive, maneuver drive, or power plant other than the rules say so. In the case of hardpoints and turrets the designers and play testers decided that one hardpoint per one hundred tons of hull fit the game balance they were going for.
We don't know how 50 kg/110 lb. missiles or 50 kg/110 lb. sandcasters are launched either so how do we know how much stress is applied to the turret and supporting structure.
Problem 3 Part B: "we don't have any basis for suggesting that a tracked turret would take up more hardpoints than a regular turret."
The best example I can think of in the real world is something like the monorail in Seattle, WA. The rails are fixed to the top of pillars, a kind of hardpoint in my opinion, allowing the monorail to move from point to point. At stations where the monorail stops to take on or off load passengers there are more pillars/hardpoints supporting the weight of the monorail, tracks, station on the passengers.
Change the monorail car into a mobile turret running on a track along the exterior of a ship's hull does in my little fuzzy bit of old gray matter makes sense that more than one hardpoint is needed.
Here is another way to look at the reason why a mobile turret needs more hard points than a fixed turret.
I'm going to change the two mobile turrets to fixed which now leaves both sides of the tenders hull exposed to fire. To cover this gap I install a turret on each side. The tons needed is for the four turrets is 4 x one ton of fire control and cost is (4 x turrets MCr) + (4 hardpoint MCr).
After a bit more pondering a mobile turret doesn't take up any internal space from the hull since the fire control is part of the mobile turret's structure.
I think we both agree that there will be a cost for turret and fire control of a mobile turret. Further the first hardpoint is something I think we agree on.
Does it make sense that a turret that includes parts to move it along a length of track cost the same as a standard turret and only need one hardpoint to support the tracks and the turret?
