hardpoint limitation

[Blue Ghost]

I'm curious if anyone knows the reason or justification for the one hardpoint per 100 ton rule for starship design?

 

[Timerover51]

I do not remember seeing any justification for it in the JTAS, but I suspect that Loren or Don McKinney might have known. Now, the best person to answer that is Marc.

 

[GypsyComet]

No engineers among the original writers. Simple as that.

When they did get someone with the skill set to get more technical, it was discovered that the "limit" is actually too generous by the time you hit the cruiser range. The Lightning class doesn't have enough surface area for all the things that need it.

The editions that use power requirements frequently feature the drives and weaponry as the main power hogs, limiting fitted weaponry in another way.

You can ignore the hardpoint limit or interpret it loosely, but you'll be redesigning everything from scratch, and *should* use a ruleset that has other limiting factors

 

[Timerover51]

I guess it depends on what you are designing. When you apply the "one hardpoint to every 100 Traveller Tons Displacement" to nautical vessels, you get some pretty odd results.

The Fletcher-class Destroyer was designed to 2050 tons standard displacement, which was the amount of water displaced as a specified load. A long ton of water occupies 35 cubic feet, and figure that you double the 2050 figure for above water volume, which might be a tad low. As 35 cubic feet is just a small fraction under a cubic meter, and there are 14 cubic meters in a Traveller displacement ton, when you divide 4100 by 14 you get just under 293 Traveller Displacement tons. That would allow for 3 hard points. The Fletcher initially carried five 5"/38 caliber guns and 2 quintuple 21 inch torpedo mounts, plus 3 twin 40mm mounts along with a various number of 29mm mounts. That is way more than 3 hard points. I did not include the depth charge racks and throwers in that either.

 

[agorski]

I like the greater flexibility in T5 where spinal mounts take only a single hard point and you can substitute 3 firmpoints for one hardpoint for smaller weapons and sensors.

 

[McPerth]

I guess it depends on what you are designing. When you apply the "one hardpoint to every 100 Traveller Tons Displacement" to nautical vessels, you get some pretty odd results.

The Fletcher-class Destroyer was designed to 2050 tons standard displacement, which was the amount of water displaced as a specified load. A long ton of water occupies 35 cubic feet, and figure that you double the 2050 figure for about water volume, which might be a tad low. As 35 cubic feet is just a small fraction under a cubic meter, and there are 14 cubic meters in a Traveller displacement ton, when you divide 4100 by 14 you get just under 293 Traveller Displacement tons. That would allow for 3 hard points. The Fletcher initially carried five 5"/38 caliber guns and 2 quintuple 21 inch torpedo mounts, plus 3 twin 40mm mounts along with s various number of 29mm mounts. That is way more than 3 hard points. I did not include the depth charge racks and throwers in that either.

When you consider the lowest weapon to occupy a HP in Traveller ships is a 250 MW laser, I guess none of the weapons you talk about would be seen as hardpoint needing...

There's no limit on those wepons in Travellre ships, though they are useless in starsip combat. I guess the main problema for a 300 Dton ship would be to mount all the crew needed for those weapons in a WWII ship (as at TL 6 computers help Little if at all) with Traveller standards...

About the OP question, I take is that it's just a metagame way to limit the weaponry in small ships.

It can be excused as the surface needs, etc..., but I keep guessing the mai nreason is metagaming, not engineering...

 

[Condottiere]

Bays used require ten hardpoints.

It's a speed bump to prevent Soviet style piling on of weapon systems.

More realistically, you can have more hard points, but every feature on the hull that requires structural strengthening, whether airlocks, bay doors, docking clamps, and so on, has to be accounted for.

 

[kilemall]

I've done quite a bit of thinking on this for my CT/HG tactical movement/merge version. Very close, just working through cost structure/kinetic effect for missiles. Cause one of the things that aggravated me about HG/TCS was no cost structure for bay missiles, and some of the freeing rules I put in means missiles can be more powerful and definitely requires movement/point defense/cost rebalancing.

Relevant aspect is that I figure from a rules justification standpoint is that hardpoints mean not just the turret space, but the power and control and computer runs to and from the hardpoint, and a lot of ship 'toughness' is hull points. Ties into hull meaning not just structural integrity but all of those cable/power run redundancies plus fuel lines.

Past a certain point of hull damage the ship does not have bridge/computer/engineering/fuel functionality, all the redundant lines have been broken/cut and the ship cannot take even 1G acceleration without breaking apart.


So, hardpoints HAVE to be defined to allow defined plans to fit everything between the hull exterior and access to all systems including future installed weapons at the hardpoints.

I therefore allow more hardpoints then the game does, but at a harsh penalty of having less hull points and thus the ship becomes more fragile to hull damage (not just combat, but environmental impacts of various types). Conversely, a ship that has fewer hardpoints is tougher then a full hardpoint set.

So example, a Type A with two hardpoints would have 200 tons of hull damage it can take before breaking apart. A Type A with one hardpoint could take 300 tons of damage, four hardpoints is 100 tons, zero hardpoints is 400 tons.

Type S with one hardpoint is 100 tons hull, two hardpoints is 50 tons hull, zero hardpoints is 200 tons hull. You get the idea.


So you can create say the Missile Boat from the game Imperium, with overloaded missile bays on a smaller hull and expendable ship.

If someone absolutely insisted on redoing their designed for hardpoints, I would charge them a full hull cost to cover redoing the whole hull and it's runs/lines.

 

[CaptRet]

I think when you get to the larger vessels (those of thousands of tons), you fast reach a point where the hard-point turret weapons are merely auxiliary (much like the anti-aircraft guns on WW II-era battleships). At that point, the ships are relying for their primary weaponry on bays and spinal mounts.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Interesting. I've been tinkering with T5 starship design, and it just occurred to me that creating a scout that had four or eight turrets would be an interesting escort design. Pilot, navigator, maybe a medic, an engineer and four or eight guners double bunking in submarine fashion (that is the common area is essentially the corridor, for those of you who've been on a Gato class or other WW2 sub), with the usual spaces for the jump, maneuver and powerplant. However, and I haven't done the calculations yet, powering four or eight turrets would suck up fuel and available power. But after an engagement tenders from larger ships could refuel these things.

Note, I'm not actually designing such ships, it was just an idea that came to me as I was dithering with a "legal" concept of my own. And it just made me wonder why there was a limit on hardpoints. I mean I understand the metagaming reasons for it, but as per GypsyComet's comment, I did not know there were on engineering types at GDW when the game was drafted up.

The structure thing seems like a good in game explanation.

 

[kilemall]

I think when you get to the larger vessels (those of thousands of tons), you fast reach a point where the hard-point turret weapons are merely auxiliary (much like the anti-aircraft guns on WW II-era battleships). At that point, the ships are relying for their primary weaponry on bays and spinal mounts.

Remember my CT/HG thing is a merge of the systems, and so yes the bays and spinals matter much more for big ship combat.


CT/HG original has limits on bays and spinal too, which I loosen up, so multiple spinals are possible if it's big enough and it's more in a Very Big Barbette or Turret.



Same thing re: hull damage limits, cram more weapons in and that battlecruiser could get to breakup damage with one spinal shot.


More design freedom, more consequences.


Oh and railguns too. just cause.

 

[kilemall]

Note, I'm not actually designing such ships, it was just an idea that came to me as I was dithering with a "legal" concept of my own. And it just made me wonder why there was a limit on hardpoints. I mean I understand the metagaming reasons for it, but as per GypsyComet's comment, I did not know there were on engineering types at GDW when the game was drafted up.

The structure thing seems like a good in game explanation.

Thanks, I do try to explain things for my players. Some actually are engineers and do a lot of indepth naval warfare and can also argue the game side of things, so throwing something different needs both logic and game value.


As for T5, I don't have my books yet, but I have to think there are battery/capacitor systems. Divert from maneuver, charge those pups up before battle- or carriers could charge fighters in the bay before launch.


For CT/HG hybrid, my rule is use capacitors, add 10% tonnage to all power plant and capacitor at power plant costs for distribution mixers to allow mix and match source and destination. Otherwise it's a one way charge to capacitors and then specific systems are powered from those capacitors only.



They are metallic hydrogen capacitors so they need to be discharged before they heat up and expand losing cohesion and releasing their energy. There is a roll for explosion based on how close they are to full charge for how long.

 

[mike wightman]

Hardpoints should be based on surface area.

TNE did this and so did GT ISW - I made a post about hardpoints based on surface area for CT/HG a very long time ago.

Here is the old thread:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=3797

 

[CaptRet]

And perhaps there would be more room for hardpoints on non-jump capable vessels, like System Defense Boats and Battle Riders ? Lots more available room, if you don't need a jump drive and associated "avionics."

 

[atpollard]

I always liked the idea of a link between hardpoints and surface area but found the TNE style detailed calculations WAY too much work for too little benefit. IMTU I adopted a far simpler approach.

If you want more than the standard number of hardpoints, pay for the larger HULL.

As an example, let’s say you want to build a 400 dTon ship with 6 hardpoints instead of 4. So the cost of a standard 4 hardpoint hull is 400 dT x Cr 100,000 = MCr 40. The cost of a standard 6 hardpoint hull is 600 dT x Cr 100,000 = MCr 60. So a custom 6 hardpoint, 400 dTon hull would cost MCr 60 and contain 400 dT of internal volume. If you choose to add armor, then you also need to add armor based on a 600 dT hull. All hull modifications and calculations are based on a 600 dT hull, and all internal components and performance are based on a 400 dTon ship ... you just have extra “skin” to mount turrets to.

 

[kilemall]

I always liked the idea of a link between hardpoints and surface area but found the TNE style detailed calculations WAY too much work for too little benefit. IMTU I adopted a far simpler approach.

If you want more than the standard number of hardpoints, pay for the larger HULL.

As an example, let’s say you want to build a 400 dTon ship with 6 hardpoints instead of 4. So the cost of a standard 4 hardpoint hull is 400 dT x Cr 100,000 = MCr 40. The cost of a standard 6 hardpoint hull is 600 dT x Cr 100,000 = MCr 60. So a custom 6 hardpoint, 400 dTon hull would cost MCr 60 and contain 400 dT of internal volume. If you choose to add armor, then you also need to add armor based on a 600 dT hull. All hull modifications and calculations are based on a 600 dT hull, and all internal components and performance are based on a 400 dTon ship ... you just have extra “skin” to mount turrets to.

Nicely elegant solution!

 

[Shadow Shack]

And perhaps there would be more room for hardpoints on non-jump capable vessels, like System Defense Boats and Battle Riders ? Lots more available room, if you don't need a jump drive and associated "avionics."

Supplement-7 Traders & Gunboats spells this out for the SDB in its pages, yet it's still sporting the textbook four 1-ton hardpoints for a 400 ton hull...I'm actually of a mind to make those two missile turrets into a missile bay, considering the size of the magazine coupled with the artistic rendition that makes it look like a forward firing system rather than a pair of turrets.

Granted Book-5 doesn't allow for that as the hull needs to be at least 1000 tons for such a bay.

 

[mike wightman]

Several traveller ship design systems have now moved on from that silly CT HG limit on bays.

The bay should just require the ship be able to find the space (volume) for it. The actual firing port need be no more than one hardpoint/unit of surface area.

 

[Blue Ghost]

It might also be an in game Imperial regulation, and maybe there's a treaty with other governments that limit civilian and civil service ACSes to one turret per hundred tons for self defense.

It doesn't explain something like FASA's "Chamleon" though, or other oddities. But it seems like that given the wild west nature of Imperial space and elsewhere, that someone somewhere decided to put the breaks on ships' weapons.

Just an idea.

 

[Condottiere]

The reason you have embedded hardpoints in ships, is so that the ship structure can support the gun, and the cannon doesn't tear itself off the hull when it fires.

Experience has taught naval architects that some ships are just too weak to support large calibres, as the recoil would continuously weaken the ship's structure.

I have no idea how this relates to Traveller weapon systems, especially energy ones, except maybe that build up of energy and sudden release creates recoil.