Book 5 discounted starship cost

[Condottiere]

This is probably edition specific.

My take on pop ups is that depopped, the volume is reduced by whatever tonnage was protruding, since my rationale is that you pay for the total tonnage, and not for the half that's currently being occupied by a depopped pop up, turret or otherwise.

A pop up feature after construction would require a recalculation.

 

[coliver988]

While T5 it is probably close to what Classic envisions

 

[ThornPlutonius]

Not quite, it takes no space inside the hull.


What we know:

1) Turrets takes no space in the hull (LBB2 p15).
2) A gunner can be in the turret (LBB2 p38).
3) Turrets can be decompressed, hence they have space for people (LBB2 p34).

The only conclusion I can make is that turrets take space, but outside the hull. Presumably 1% or so is too little to impact drive performance.


Of course, LBB5 changes all of this...

The ability to be pressurized/depressurized does not imply there is room for a human being. Soda cans and bottles of propane are pressurized and are usually not large enough to hold a human being. I find it to be illogical to say we "know" a turret has space for people because it can be depressurized.

Starting with bombers built towards the end of WWII, turrets have been almost universally remotely operated. They are only large enough to hold the weapon and what is hoped to be an adequate amount of ammunition. This is to allow for the realities of increasingly high altitude operations. Remotely operated, non-human-occupied turrets make even more sense for space vehicles.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The ability to be pressurized/depressurized does not imply there is room for a human being. Soda cans and bottles of propane are pressurized and are usually not large enough to hold a human being. I find it to be illogical to say we "know" a turret has space for people because it can be depressurized.

OK, but the rules discuss depressurisation in the context of crew safety and what happens to people in case of explosive depressurisation, see LBB2'81 p33-34.

Without people potentially in them, there would be no need to depressurise turrets, or even ever pressurise them. The other compartments that can be depressurised are clearly places people can be expected to be.


Later, the rules specifically discuss gunners in the turrets:

Gunner interact interfaces the expertise of the gunner in a specific turret to the hit probability of those lasers hitting the target.

Together I would say this means the turrets take some space (that can be pressurised), and can contain a gunner.

 

[ThornPlutonius]

OK, but the rules discuss depressurisation in the context of crew safety and what happens to people in case of explosive depressurisation, see LBB2'81 p33-34.

Without people potentially in them, there would be no need to depressurise turrets, or even ever pressurise them. The other compartments that can be depressurised are clearly places people can be expected to be.


Later, the rules specifically discuss gunners in the turrets:



Together I would say this means the turrets take some space (that can be pressurised), and can contain a gunner.

I choose to read the bit about being "in" a turret to mean in/at its control area. I choose to read the bit about depressurizing a turret to be an error in the text, which interpretation works better with the rules about construction and volume, etc., and with my understanding about "real life" turrets.

Our Traveller Universes clearly are at variance. Blessed be the variance!

 

[coliver988]

I choose to read the bit about being "in" a turret to mean in/at its control area. I choose to read the bit about depressurizing a turret to be an error in the text, which interpretation works better with the rules about construction and volume, etc., and with my understanding about "real life" turrets.

Our Traveller Universes clearly are at variance. Blessed be the variance!

Yay for variance! I've always had a difficult time with the idea of putting people physically in the turret, but thought that the pressurization part was access to the interface workings of the turret part outside the hull where the energy/sand/missiles get launched from to the inside of the hull where the fire control and possibly loading mechanisms were.

So the turrets themselves are not pressurized nor manned, the control interface in the ship IS pressurized but can be separately depressurized in the even of enemy fire targeting the turrets. The 1st 2 images from T5 I added a bit ago is what I was thinking, the 3rd with a manned turret is just trying to et to those old WW2 movies where the gunners are sitting in those little bubbles below the plane. Or Star Wars in the Millenial Falcon.

 

[Condottiere]

The paradigm shifted in nineteen seventy seven, making crewed turrets not only viable, but man(ned)datory(ian)

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Blessed be the variance!

Agreed!

And, obviously, IMTU trumps any rules.

 

[Brandon C]

The fact remains that in CT LBB2 a turret pf any capacity of weapon type takes up no. volume.

When designing the hull you designate hardpoints and pay for them - no adding hardpoints at a later time.

More properly, the turret/fire control should be called a casemate or sponson then (think of the 6 pdr gun mountings on the sides of British WWI tanks).

Personally, though, I don't mind allowing a jump drive to operate with a very slight increase in volume, treating a hull at 100% rated as normal and, say, 105% at max before you need a larger jump drive.

 

[Kakistocrat]

More properly, the turret/fire control should be called a casemate or sponson then (think of the 6 pdr gun mountings on the sides of British WWI tanks).

Given Craig’s example turret image in post 22 above, “casemate” would have my vote for the least ambiguous term. (Don’t sponsons stick out from a ship’s side?)

 

[kilemall]

For the CT/HG hybrid, I've got hardpoints as an absolute hard no-fudge never change number, because it affects the running of fuel and power and computer and control cables and redundant hull support.


Which directly affects the hull damage and thus 'toughness' of the ship to maintain fuel/power/control.

 

[Brandon C]

For the CT/HG hybrid, I've got hardpoints as an absolute hard no-fudge never change number, because it affects the running of fuel and power and computer and control cables and redundant hull support.

This does eliminate the entertainment (to the rrferee) of players trying to install and maintain a weapon (even just a fixed missile rack) in a ship never designed to be armed.

 

[Condottiere]

Casemate, sponson, turret and barbette have different implications, especially in terms of bearing.

 

[kilemall]

This does eliminate the entertainment (to the rrferee) of players trying to install and maintain a weapon (even just a fixed missile rack) in a ship never designed to be armed.

Oh, I think I would achieve entertainment if they insisted. Downgraded damage stats, cable runs in the middle of hallways downgrading their high passage ticket prices or failing inspections and resulting bribes, rough fuel skimming means something breaks that wouldn't have before bloodtree shade mechanic work on the ship, etc. etc.

 

[kilemall]

Casemate, sponson, turret and barbette have different implications, especially in terms of bearing.

Agreed- IF the ship is under constant accel.


If not, any kind of 'agility' where the ship is scooting in different directions to complicate targeting, and the ship would have enough freedom to roll/yaw any weapon into firing position.

 

[Brandon C]

If not, any kind of 'agility' where the ship is scooting in different directions to complicate targeting, and the ship would have enough freedom to roll/yaw any weapon into firing position.

Alternately, cut thrust to zero, use maneuvering thrusters to quickly rotate your weapons to bear on a target, fire, maneuver back to your movement vector, fire thrusters back up.

 

[Straybow]

It isn't the turret volume inside/outside/added/subtracted that's broken. It's the must-be-exactly-100-dT that's broken. Assume reasonable rounding rules and the conflict goes away.

 

[kilemall]

It isn't the turret volume inside/outside/added/subtracted that's broken. It's the must-be-exactly-100-dT that's broken. Assume reasonable rounding rules and the conflict goes away.

Where people see conflict, I see opportunity for choice/consequence.

 

[Brandon C]

It isn't the turret volume inside/outside/added/subtracted that's broken. It's the must-be-exactly-100-dT that's broken. Assume reasonable rounding rules and the conflict goes away.

It was a choice that made sense at the time: a referee could design a Book 2 ship with pencil and paper, without need of a calculator. However, everything is a tradeoff, and what you gain in simplicity you sacrifice in detail (and realism). It only looks like a flawed approach now because we have hand computers with spreadsheets that can easily allow a more detailed approach.

 

[kilemall]

Shouldn't standard small craft be discounted?