Hardpoints and surface area

[mike wightman]

Hey, the table just disappeared

 

[mike wightman]

What if, instead of grappling the craft length ways the grappled craft is rear down to the tender?
i.e.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> ### ### ### = 3 riders
[][][][][][][][] = tender
### ### ### = 3 riders

vs.
# # #
# # #
# # #
[][][][][][][][]
# # #
# # #
# # #</pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[castlebravo]

Wasn't thought out enough.. so I took it out.

 

[castlebravo]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
What if, instead of grappling the craft length ways the grappled craft is rear down to the tender?

That could be, but if the rear of the rider is in contact with the surface of the tender as you say, in my mind that puts the main propulsion system against the tender's hull. Sounds like a safety violation!

I also was thinking in order to maintain positive contact with the grappels under the stress of acceleration, a better than 1/6 surface area contact would need to be maintained.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Castlebravo15:
At this point I would use whatever formula you use to relate displacement tons to surface area to convert and solve for your standard ‘X’ tonnage value (taking into account a 1/4 area value).

So you'd end up with something like:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">size of no. of
carried hardpoints
craft for grapple
10 1 per 6 craft carried
20 1 per 5 craft carried
30 1 per 4 craft carried
40-50 1 per 3 craft carried
60-100 1 per 2 craft carried
200-500 1
600-1000 2
2000 4
3000 5 etc. </pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Castlebravo15:
That could be, but if the rear of the rider is in contact with the surface of the tender as you say, in my mind that puts the main propulsion system against the tender's hull. Sounds like a safety violation!

Contra-grav launch

I also was thinking in order to maintain positive contact with the grappels under the stress of acceleration, a better than 1/6 surface area contact would need to be maintained.

This could be another of the things that's configuration dependent. That isn't a bad thing in itself, but I want to do all the crunch stuff in the background so that what is left looks simple... even though it isn't really

 

[castlebravo]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Contra-grav launch

Correct me if I wrong, but don't you need a strong gravitational force (like a planet) to get those pesky things to work. That's why you can't fly your grav tanks from planet to planet in system, only to low orbit... right?

 

[mike wightman]

Depends on the ruleset

You could just use an electromagnetic launch device, even a steam catapult should get the rider clear enough to fire up its propulsion system...
Mind you, if the magic reactionless thrusters are at play IYTU, then they can be used (I don't use them myself... ).

 

[castlebravo]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
You could just use an electromagnetic launch device, even a steam catapult should get the rider clear enough to fire up its propulsion system...

I would prefer a trebuchet to steam catapult

Either way, if I'm the captain of that tender, the last thing I want is someone to have the ability to fire their thrusters into my hull... as an accident or otherwise.

Even on a flight line your not technically permitted to park a car facing an aircraft.

I would, however, run with your idea that the rider is connected perpendicular to the tender, but with the rear facing space. Either bow against the tender's hull, or so that the rider is connected by the smallest possible surface area--like a cross.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">
# # #
[#][][#][][#][
# # # </pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[mike wightman]

That would work too

 

[castlebravo]

Well then the contact surface area is defined by a square/rectangle = width of tender x width of rider.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

I have a nasty feeling that by the time you've tweaked this to take account of sensors, radiators, hatches, etc, it's going to be simpler just to use surface area as per FF&S...

 

[mike wightman]

For sensors and comms gear it would be 1 hardpoint per complete system, i.e. just take off one hardpoint to represent all commo/sensor gear.

Traveller has magic heat sinks hidden somewhere, so the radiators are out (unless power plants are made much smaller, but then... )

I wouldn't bother with personal airlocks and hatches, they'd be too small to bother with.

And the idea is to take all of this into account "behind the scenes" and present the ship designer with the number of hardpoints remaining to accomodate the six items listed earlier.

LBB2 simplicity but with a few more simple options

 

[Fritz_Brown]

What about turret displacement? In HG (whatever ed. the reprints are) you can mix lasers in a turret, but the tonnage is based on the weapon you place in the turret ("regardless of the number of weapons of that type mounted in it."). How do you all figure the displacement? Do you average, or add?

 

[mike wightman]

Turret displacement is one of those things that needs to be defined carefully.

TNE got this right IMHO by giving each turret a definite size to install the weaponry inside.

In CT the turret took up no space at all, it is the fire control that costs 1 ton.

HG then confused the issue by saying its the turret that has the weight, regardless of how many weapons it carries.

The simple solution is probably replace the idea of single, double , and triple turrets with small, medium, and large lasers.

 

[Pickles]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
The simple solution is probably replace the idea of single, double , and triple turrets with small, medium, and large lasers.

It may be simple, but is it canon? I've always thought those weird triple turrets were great, like little baby battleship turrets. Reinforces the whole Traveller navy-not-airforce thing.

I've always liked the Striker design approach to turrets, but I would prefer a more modular system. A couple of decades from now I might actually have finished my HG/Striker/Book 2 hybrid.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

As of right now, I am taking the largest of the numbers to determine the "size" of the turret. So a triple turret with 1 beam laser, 1 pulse laser, and 1 sandcaster still takes 1 dTon.