Calculating hard points

[JAFARR]

The rules state one HP per 100 ton of hull. They also state that small craft may mount a HP. What about an odd ball like say a 425 or 450 ton hull? Along the same line do you have to use a HP to mount anti-personal weapons like a machine gun or can they be mounted some other way?

I normally don't use non-100 ton multiples for hull size, but I just did one to see how big it would have to be to get a J2 ship with 200 tons of cargo. The end result was 425 tons with J2, M2, 16.5 SR (including a 10 ton owner's suite), 10 LB, and 175 tons of cargo space. If I wanted to drop it to M1 and drop some SR it would hit the 200 ton cargo target.

 

[dean]

It's clearly per 100 dtons, not fraction of 100 dtons.

AP weapons I don't think are covered by the rules, but I'd house rule it to say if you wanted the weapon to have the protection of the hull armor factor, then it has to be in the hardpoint. Otherwise it can be mounted externally/remotely controlled at a marginal cost, so long as it's less than 100 kg. Above that it has to be in a turret.

Dean

 

[GypsyComet]

Don't think of it in "one formula" mathematical limits. There is a boundary condition.

So it is 1 hard point per full 100 dtons, but always at least one.

 

[Icosahedron]

I mount permanent ground-attack weapons in turrets (250MW max), but I allow detachable support weapons to be tripod mounted in open mounts near a hatch during atmospheric manoeuvres. If you like, you can mount a machine gun inside an open airlock like the side door of a helicopter or on an access hatch like a tank commander. You'd better detach them before you go orbital, though...

 

[JAFARR]

Kinda sums up how I read the rules. Just checking to see if I had missed something in some of the later rule sets, seeing as I don't normally use them.

 

[mike wightman]

Use TNE FF&S and you can chuck the hardpoints rule - as long as you have the surface area and internal volume you can mount the weapon.

 

[atpollard]

Use TNE FF&S and you can chuck the hardpoints rule - as long as you have the surface area and internal volume you can mount the weapon.

What about compatibility (similar situations yielding similar results)?
How many missile launcher turrets can I mount on a classic 100 ton Type S Scout/Courier in FF&S?

 

[Andrew Boulton]

What about compatibility (similar situations yielding similar results)?
How many missile launcher turrets can I mount on a classic 100 ton Type S Scout/Courier in FF&S?

About 86, although there's only enough volume for 33.

 

[atpollard]

About 86, although there's only enough volume for 33.

So the CT Scout can mount 1 turret with up to 3 missile launchers and the TNE Scout can mount up to 33 turrets. [sarcasm] Yup, those results are practically identical. Certainly not a difference that would affect actual game play. [/sarcasm]

 

[far-trader]

So the CT Scout can mount 1 turret with up to 3 missile launchers and the TNE Scout can mount up to 33 turrets. [sarcasm] Yup, those results are practically identical. Certainly not a difference that would affect actual game play. [/sarcasm]

Not quite, 33 launchers I think is what he meant, so 11 turrets. TNE turrets are 3dtons each so 33 of them would be 99dtons in your 100dton Scout (unless that's what he meant... )

And even mounting 11 turrets (33dtons) would be using up every cubic cm of hull volume (or more) not dedicated to making the ship fly, including the staterooms, so there's nowhere to put the crew. Of course with enough automation and virus... :devil:

With a little reasonable application TNE design is not that different from CT (Book 5) design in functional building. What it does allow is a greater degree of freedom to sacrifice some areas for others and create custom components instead of being stuck with the more cookie cutter choices of the simpler CT builds.

 

[atpollard]

Could someone post a TNE version of the classic Type S Scout so I could see the difference in the 'official' redesign? (Assuming that they bothered with a redesign rather that just translating the basic statistics of a LBB2 design.)

Is FF&S it a viable alternative for creating hulls and Hard points that are reasonably compatible with CT LBB2, CT:HG and MegaTraveller? (Which are reasonably inter-compatible with each other).

 

[far-trader]

For what it's worth I was just looking at it, and a quick calculation shows there's enough left over surface area for about 60 turrets (but it would look darned silly covered in turret blisters o

Without impacting the design beyond reasonable you might be able to fit in 5 additional turrets by sacrificing the 11tons of cargo and 4tons of hanger space, but to make it work it would mean relocating fuel to those spaces so the turrets can be spaced and put somewhere they can actually fire from. So, technically, ignoring crewing, power, fire directors and magazines, a Scout ship could mount 6 turrets, without being (totally) silly. I still don't think that means it could or would be done (and my figures may be off some).

Could someone...

I'll see about getting back to this later, unless someone beats me to it. Probably can't just post the page, will have to "editorialize" it some.

 

[far-trader]

Could someone post a TNE version of the classic Type S Scout...

Not sure this will tell you what you want to know but here it is:

They pretty much had to redesign it as there are so many differences...

Maneuvering for one, limited thrust restricted by needing reaction mass, so instead of 4 weeks on a paltry couple tons of powerplant fuel, you need several tons of fuel for just a few G hours of thrust. No zipping all over without a care, you need to actually figure out how long to burn and how long to coast if you're going any distance.

Lifters for another, not needed (or part of drives in CT) now they are separate and take power and space.

Same as control panels, electronics, life support, reasonable hanger space, etc... A dozen little things that all add up, and even more quickly at the CT TL9 for the Scout. The TNE Scout is designed at TL15, not because it should be imo, but because it was the only way it could be.

Here's a rundown:

It's still J2 2G but instead of 4 weeks thrust you have 40 G-Hours. Of course the powerplant sips fuel even compared to HG balances that somewhat. It runs for a year on a fraction of a dton.

Electronics are comparable (for an active duty Type S - all that attic space and back end full of gear). A big folding passive sensor array (the attic finally makes sense), a honking long range maser comm and good radio, a big powerful active sensor array, and a densitometer and neutrino detector. In other words, a proper Scout ship. Full of snooping gear.

It still has the air/raft, though in TNE they were rebuilt at 2dtons so the hanger is still 4dtons (as a minimal hanger, tight fit, 2x craft volume).

Staterooms are a little fudged, 2 standard and 2 small, instead of 4 standard. More cramped. And about 11tons of cargo space left.

Naturally it has a (minimal) fuel purifier aboard, but it takes several hours to purify.

 

[far-trader]

...

Is FF&S it a viable alternative for creating hulls and Hard points that are reasonably compatible with CT LBB2, CT:HG and MegaTraveller? (Which are reasonably inter-compatible with each other).

I'm not getting this part. Can you rephrase it?

 

[far-trader]

Long answer short, even in TNE most ships held to the 1 hardpoint per 100dtons, 1 bay per 1000dtons, and 1 spinal weapon per ship rule. Probably out of a desire for closer compatibility to the previous rules. I seem to recall a few designs that went a little farther but nothing crazy like 6 turrets on a 100dton ship

 

[PFVA63]

Hi

Hi,

I have a copy of TNE somewhere, but haven't used it in a long time. However, in "GURPS Traveller: Interstellar Wars" I belive that they do something similar. Specifically, for a given ship you first calculate the notional surface area for a spherical craft of that size and then apply a multiplier for your specific hull configuration (0.3 for a cylinder or a needle/wedge, 0.25 for a flattened sphere or close structure, or 0.2 for a sphere or dispersed structure). You are then allowed to fit one hardpoint per 1000 sq feet (93 sq meters) of surface area (rounded to the nearest number - I think). Thus for a 100 dton wedge you can fit 2 hard points (1.97 rounded up).

Don't know if this is of any help.

Regards

PF

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Here's my version of a TL12 Scout, using Andy Akins' FF&S2 spreadsheet:

http://www.traveller3d.com/scout-courier-12.xls

 

[atpollard]

Is FF&S a viable alternative for creating hulls and Hard points that are reasonably compatible with CT LBB2, CT:HG and MegaTraveller? (Which are reasonably inter-compatible with each other).

I'm not getting this part. Can you rephrase it?

Probably not, but I can try to explain. In HG, it allows components from LBB2 to be intermixed with components from HG. I like HG, but suppose I wanted to design a Scout that was able to function as a airframe.

Striker and MegaTraveller would both alow me to create an airframe hull, and the Megatraveller hull would be substantially compatible with the LBB2 and HG design systems. (I define compatible as being as close to LBB2 and HG than they are to each other, and closer than the CT:Striker system is to either LBB2 or HG.)

In this way, I use the MT rules to fill in the gaps in HG (like airframes and chemical rockets).

So my original question is can FF&S be used to expand the options even further. If I design a hull in FF&S, can I use HG to pack it full of components and produce a reasonable HG design? Or is FF&S SO different that the components are hoplessly incompatible.

 

[far-trader]

So my original question is can FF&S be used to expand the options even further. If I design a hull in FF&S, can I use HG to pack it full of components and produce a reasonable HG design? Or is FF&S SO different that the components are hoplessly incompatible.

Short answer I'd have to say (for TNE FF&S1 anyway) is incompatible. Not hopelessly so, but you have to do a lot of conversion guesswork because of the different paradigms.

One easy example being the standard basic turrets. In CT/HG and MT(?) they are 1dton while in FF&S they are 3dtons.

Some of the alternate technologies (psionic transfer drives for example) may be quite adaptable (as they don't rely so much on fitting the TNE system) but they are the minority of systems in the book, and some are broken/incomplete even then, as I recall.

Best I could say about it for you purpose is it might be a good source for ideas with a little thought about how to apply them to Traveller to give you a headstart. Or you might find yourself needing to reinvent it all to properly fit because of the differences.

Hope that helps.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

So my original question is can FF&S be used to expand the options even further. If I design a hull in FF&S, can I use HG to pack it full of components and produce a reasonable HG design? Or is FF&S SO different that the components are hoplessly incompatible.

Yeah, that should work. Many components (drives & accomodations) are very similar.