Freedonian System Defense Boat

[Hal]

Hello Folks,
I'm ripping through the Adventure Class Ships I portion of the Apocrypha 1 CD using HGS and noted that there is a minor *ahem* issue with the ship as described. In a nutshell, someone apparently forgot that a 500 dton hull can not be armed with a 50 ton missile bay. As if that weren't enough, the 50 dton missile bay was in addition to 5 hard points worth of turrets.

As listed, the ship carries the following turret armaments:

1 Triple Beam laser turret as one battery
2 Fusion Gun dual turrets as one battery
2 Particle Accelerator turrets as one battery

My suggested "fix" for this is to remove the 50 dton missile bay entirely, and substitute a single hardpoint with a triple missile turret.

My inclination is to reduce the 2 dual fusion gun turrets to a single dual fusion gun turret of 1 battery, in order to include a single missile weapon turret.

Thoughts on the matter?

 

[robject]

I agree with your latter inclination: sacrifice a fusion gun for a missile barbette.

I ported most of the FASA ACS designs to Traveller 5's ACS design system, but the SDB is one of the designs I passed up.

 

[far-trader]

I seem to recall some other small (under 1000ton) ships (though no specifics leap to mind) that included bay weapons.

A loose interpretation of the bay weapon requirement ("one bay per 1000tons of hull") might allow a bay weapon in a hull below 1000tons (interpreting the "per 1000" to mean "any fraction of").

And then the subsequent hardpoint calculation would allow some turrets ("one hardpoint per 100tons of hull not otherwise allocated to weapons").

In this case (and also interpreting the "per 100tons" to mean "any fraction of") would allow 5 hardpoints in addition to the 50ton bay:

500ton hull / 1000tons = (rounding up) 1 bay weapon = 50ton bay installed

500ton hull - 50ton bay weapon = 450tons hull / 100tons = (rounding up) 5 hardpoints

I'm sure that's what they did. I'm not sure that's legal. It might have been clarified in TCS or somewhere.

 

[far-trader]

...My inclination is to reduce the 2 dual fusion gun turrets to a single dual fusion gun turret of 1 battery...

Then why not make it a single fusion gun? You need 4 fusion guns to get the next USP rating after 1 fusion gun. So save the expense and power and make it 1 single fusion gun turret, or stick with the 2 dual fusion gun turrets.

I'd base any such decisions on the available power. How many EPs does the ship have after computer and agility?

(actually, I'd probably say fudge the rules and allow the bay weapon and turrets as described, using the looser interpretation I described, they're Freedonians, what do you expect :smirk: )

 

[robject]

I'm with Far Trader. I like the looser interpretation.

 

[mike wightman]

A loose interpretation of the bay weapon requirement ("one bay per 1000tons of hull") might allow a bay weapon in a hull below 1000tons (interpreting the "per 1000" to mean "any fraction of").

And then the subsequent hardpoint calculation would allow some turrets ("one hardpoint per 100tons of hull not otherwise allocated to weapons").

In this case (and also interpreting the "per 100tons" to mean "any fraction of") would allow 5 hardpoints in addition to the 50ton bay:

500ton hull / 1000tons = (rounding up) 1 bay weapon = 50ton bay installed

500ton hull - 50ton bay weapon = 450tons hull / 100tons = (rounding up) 5 hardpoints

I'm sure that's what they did. I'm not sure that's legal. It might have been clarified in TCS or somewhere.

This is how I did it for years.

Still can't see what's wrong with it

 

[far-trader]

The huge mutant fly in the ointment though is Hal is trying to do it strict HGS which won't allow the loose interpretation

(well, it will and it won't, you can build a 500ton hull with a 50ton bay and 5 turrets, and just ignore the "can't do that" and reports of -10 hardpoints )

 

[Hal]

See, the problem is this <evil grin>

While it is "Nice" to allow for the idea of a 50 dton bay to be installed in any given ship, the fact is, that if this were the standard rule, then every single ship ever designed/published for use with Traveller, would have included them as "Standard options". Looking at all of the Fighting Ships published in Supplement #9, would have included that option as a matter of course, but they didn't.

Now, what impact would that have on ship designs for use with High Guard in general?

The number of weapon systems for any sub 1,000 dton hull, exceeding 100 dtons in size, should be able to field a total of Tonnage/100 (hardpoints) +1 (weapon bay).

Somehow, I don't think that this was/is the intended rule for High Guard.

There is another consequence of the rules interpretations offer thus far.

Suppose you have a 5000 dton hull. Per the 1 bay per 1,000 dtons rule, you can have a total of 10 bays right? However, ten fifty ton bays equals 500 dtons. 5,000 - 500 = 4500. Does this mean that the 5,000 dton hull can now carry 45 more turrets, or does it mean that the 5,000 dton hull may not carry any other hard points at all, having used up 10 hardpoints per single bay utilized?

If that were the case, why aren't we seeing more 5,000 dton designs with five 50 dton bays plus 45 hard points? The Midu Agashaam 3,000 dton hull has a 50 dton weapon bay and 20 hard points. By the reasoning given above, one would have expected that there be a total of 29 hard points plus 1 bay weapon

Mind you, I can play the same game of min/maxing, but the preponderance of evidence seems to go the other way.

 

[Hal]

The huge mutant fly in the ointment though is Hal is trying to do it strict HGS which won't allow the loose interpretation

If I were Jeff Goldblume in the Movie THE FLY, then I could be considered to be the huge mutant fly, but alas, I've not participated in any teleportation experiments (that I know of).

 

[mike wightman]

Fighting Ships is so broken I wouldn't worry about it.

The HG2 rule for armour 0 is clearer than the the rule for bays, and yet most people ignore the fact that to have armour 0 costs you tonnage. I say allow the 1 per 1000t round down interpretation.

T20 allows it sort of too

 

[Hal]

One can ignore the "custom" established by Fighting ships, or even from other published sources, but, one needs to evaluate the actual ramifications of the use of Weapon bays in the manner proposed.

First, if you permit the rationale of "Non-weapon allocated tonnage" for turret uses, and ignore the 1 per 1,000 dtons conventional usage, the following will occur:

3,500 dton hull, with three 100 dton weapon bays (since the max is 1 bay per 1,000 dtons). Allowing one to utilize a fractional 1000 dtons for a weapon for 500 dton hulls, means then, the 3,500 should logically be able to utilize 4 weapon bays. Ok, now you've got 400 dtons allocated to weapon bays, out of 3,500, leaving you with 3,100 dtons unallocated to weapons, and thus - 350 hardpoints available for weapons.

In theory, such a ship would be able to field 4 weapon bays AND 310 turrets. The same holds true then, with a 25,100 dton hull. It permits one to have 26 weapon bays, and because you've not allocated any further weapon systems such as a spinal mount or what have you, you can still allocate another 225 turret weapons to the mix.

After checking specifically with the keeper of the flame where HG rules are concerned, the response was (and I quote)

"Already previously clarified as NOT legal."

In any event, how one rules their own version of HG for their own games (ie houserules) is up to them. Retrofitting the original published ship designs so that they comply with the HG rules set is the goal I'm pursuing as best as I can.

 

[DonM]

I'm the one who clarified this for Hal...

I tried to get Marc on this last year, in a desperate attempt to save an idea I had for HG designs modeled after SFB's fast patrol ships....

Designs under 1000 tons whose sole armament was a bay weapon; like a spinal weapon for small ships.

Nope.

Actually, first I tried to convince the ct-starships list, and, thinking I could convince Marc, and use his agreement to bolster my side of the discussion on the ct-starships list...

I lost both. And apparently enough of us tried to do this in TCS tournaments that it's one of the reasons MT uses hardpoints for weapon sizing -- to make it very clear it's not allowed...

 

[far-trader]

But...

I AM FREEDONIAN!



So I don't need to follow your silly Imperial bureaucratic nonsense



(pity I missed that mix-up on CT-Starships, I'd have had your back, probably wouldn't have helped much though)

 

[far-trader]

Here's another thought on the FSDB, bump it up to 1500tons. Keep the missile bay, keep the 5 turrets, no hardpoints cheated, happy happy Just an idea.

 

[Whipsnade]

I tried to get Marc on this last year, in a desperate attempt to save an idea I had for HG designs modeled after SFB's fast patrol ships.... Designs under 1000 tons whose sole armament was a bay weapon; like a spinal weapon for small ships. Nope.

Don,

And then Mongoose went ahead and did it anyways for MgT and apparently with Marc's blessing.

Go figure.


Regards,
Bill

 

[aramis]

I'm the one who clarified this for Hal...

I tried to get Marc on this last year, in a desperate attempt to save an idea I had for HG designs modeled after SFB's fast patrol ships....

Designs under 1000 tons whose sole armament was a bay weapon; like a spinal weapon for small ships.

Nope.

Actually, first I tried to convince the ct-starships list, and, thinking I could convince Marc, and use his agreement to bolster my side of the discussion on the ct-starships list...

I lost both. And apparently enough of us tried to do this in TCS tournaments that it's one of the reasons MT uses hardpoints for weapon sizing -- to make it very clear it's not allowed...

Apparently you convinced Mongoose, tho'...

Capital Ships
• Standard spacecraft and small craft can always carry one bay
but the maximum number is limited by displacement/1000,
multiplied by the power plant rating number (rounded down,
but with a minimum of one). For example, a 2,000 ton ship with
a type N power plant (rating of 2) would be able to support a
maximum of 4 bays.
MGT HG p48​

 

[Hal]

Don,

And then Mongoose went ahead and did it anyways for MgT and apparently with Marc's blessing.

Go figure.


Regards,
Bill

And...

Apparently you convinced Mongoose, tho'...

Capital Ships
• Standard spacecraft and small craft can always carry one bay
but the maximum number is limited by displacement/1000,
multiplied by the power plant rating number (rounded down,
but with a minimum of one). For example, a 2,000 ton ship with
a type N power plant (rating of 2) would be able to support a
maximum of 4 bays.
MGT HG p48​

One has to laugh sometimes at the perversity of the Universe.

 

[far-trader]

FREEDONIA WINS!!

(sorta)

 

[rancke]

So how many weapon bays can a Tigress carry if we're to believe Mongoose?


Hans

 

[far-trader]

So how many weapon bays can a Tigress carry if we're to believe Mongoose?


Hans

Does it matter? IT'S a FRIGGIN TIGRESS!! o:

It might be interesting to figure out but I'm too busy trying to fit bay weapons in small craft at the moment :devil: