High Guard: Fix or reimagine?

[travlar]

Yes, there would be batteries bearing, but the batteries bearing on another moving object would remain stable as the batteries occluded, would be replaced by batteries coming into the clear. Another bonus would be less of a need to maneuver to bring batteries to bear. Yes, the powerplant's EP's would need to be calculated for the weapons. This is just from an engineering standpoint, personally I like the aesthetic of Traveller ships as they are.

Okay, I guess I can see that, and I guess if you have to point the ship in the direction it accelerates in, the potential advantage of having more firepower focused on one target would be outweighed by the extra difficulty in maneuvering. What about a cube, though? You'd get more surface area without (I think) much loss of anything else.

Over-Clocking of the Powerplant specifically, it isn't something that would be done, especially if it would lead to powerplant failure, which could be considered to be a catastrophic event. How it would be done if the Jump drive needs more power (and how IMTU how I always have figured it to be done) is to give the Jump drive it's own powerplant; thus if the J drive fails it would not disable the whole ship.

Ah. Well, I guess that makes sense. If you haven't yet, you might want to point this out in the thread for the ACS design...

I wonder what it would look like if the ship design and combat were focused on realism. Even if it doesn't stay that way, that might actually be a good starting place, and then add desired less realistic elements in.

 

[mike wightman]

How do you make space combat realistic in Traveller when it is based on so much magic?

 

[far-trader]

Saving throws

 

[Dragoner]

Okay, I guess I can see that, and I guess if you have to point the ship in the direction it accelerates in, the potential advantage of having more firepower focused on one target would be outweighed by the extra difficulty in maneuvering. What about a cube, though? You'd get more surface area without (I think) much loss of anything else.

Square ship shapes would distort more and require more reinforcement to prevent the walls of the hull trying to bulge during maneuvers or even for pressurization. In the context of what a ship is trying to do, a sphere is a much more stable shape. I believe a cube would also block more weapons than a sphere if it would be covered with weapons.

Ah. Well, I guess that makes sense. If you haven't yet, you might want to point this out in the thread for the ACS design...

I wonder what it would look like if the ship design and combat were focused on realism. Even if it doesn't stay that way, that might actually be a good starting place, and then add desired less realistic elements in.

If a new ACS is released, I will point it out.

Yes, I agree that keeping an eye on realism is a good thing. I like the simple designs of CT though, too often realism in games comes at the expense of playability.

 

[McPerth]

Square ship shapes would distort more and require more reinforcement to prevent the walls of the hull trying to bulge during maneuvers or even for pressurization. In the context of what a ship is trying to do, a sphere is a much more stable shape. I believe a cube would also block more weapons than a sphere if it would be covered with weapons.

I've read on a JTAS (IIRC JTAS 20) that Spinal mounts would require a minimum length to be able to be effective. It also said that smaller PAs would require a doughnut shaped structure to accelerate them, and that, should this doughnut structure be damaged, they'd be out of comision, unlike a lineal one (spinal). That was the reasoning it gave (again IIRC) to be reduced in rating instead of knocked out, unlike bays or turrets, that are mostly KOd at the first damage they take.

If so, for a sphere to have a lineal Spinal weapon, you would need quite a large sphere, while the same volume on a more linear form (cylindrical or wedge shaped) would allow them on smaller ships, as you can have a longer line with the same volume.

EDIT: As this same article (again IIRC) also said the Meson weapons also need to accerate particles under the same principle, what I said would aslo apply to them.

EDIT II: The article I refered to was on JTAS 13, pages 6+. JTAS 20 also talked about PAWS, but was not what I refered to here.

 

[Dragoner]

I've read on a JTAS (IIRC JTAS 20) that Spinal mounts would require a minimum length to be able to be effective. It also said that smaller PAs would require a doughnut shaped structure to accelerate them, and that, should this doughnut structure be damaged, they'd be out of comision, unlike a lineal one (spinal). That was the reasoning it gave (again IIRC) to be reduced in rating instead of knocked out, unlike bays or turrets, that are mostly KOd at the first damage they take.

If so, for a sphere to have a lineal Spinal weapon, you would need quite a large sphere, while the same volume on a more linear form (cylindrical or wedge shaped) would allow them on smaller ships, as you can have a longer line with the same volume.

EDIT: As this same article (again IIRC) also said the Meson weapons also need to accerate particles under the same principle, what I said would aslo apply to them.

EDIT II: The article I refered to was on JTAS 13, pages 6+. JTAS 20 also talked about PAWS, but was not what I refered to here.

I remember those JTAS articles, it's where I'm getting my Anti-Matter PAW from. The Tigress is one such huge sphere, however to my taste I like the starship as they are in Traveller, even if they are more of a descendant of an aircraft fuselage than an actual purpose built spacecraft.

Though if one elongates a sphere, you get a cylinder such as the 50 ton cutter design, still rather boring if all large ships were that shape.