Lasers Turrets in CT vs. TNE/FF&S

[Allensh]

Let's say I wanted to do a version of a ship designed for, say, T4 or TNE. In those versions, turrets weren't listed as single double or triple; they just made the lasers bigger. So, if I wanted to put equivilent firepower on a ship...what size turret in CT would best equal a 120Mj turret? or one of the other sizes?

Allen

 

[mike wightman]

I haven't got the books in front of me for the exact mj rating of the turret weapons but a rough rule of thumb would be:

small laser = single laser turret
medium laser = dual laser turret
large laser = triple laser turret

small, medium and large being the relative mj inputs of the T4/TNE laser.

 

[aramis]

Let's say I wanted to do a version of a ship designed for, say, T4 or TNE. In those versions, turrets weren't listed as single double or triple; they just made the lasers bigger. So, if I wanted to put equivilent firepower on a ship...what size turret in CT would best equal a 120Mj turret? or one of the other sizes?

Allen

MT lists a single laser at 250 MW...

 

[Zparkz]

To puit it simple, there is no good way to convert CT/MT starship weapons to T4/TNE as power, volume, damage rating and armor values are vastly different.

 

[Allensh]

To puit it simple, there is no good way to convert CT/MT starship weapons to T4/TNE as power, volume, damage rating and armor values are vastly different.

This is true...of course what I was asking about was a "rule of thumb" about going FROM T4/TNE back to CT (or in actuality, MGT).

As an example. the description of the Lintula Sunrise from "The Long Way Home" says that the laser is 56MW. Would this be best represented as a single laser turret, do you think? I realize there is no direct way to convert it, mainly just looking for ideas on what "looks" right.

Allen

 

[Zparkz]

The best way to do it is to trat each TNE laser turret as a CT/MT triple laser turret. It is easier to stick with the number of hardpoints rather than trying to convert anything else.

Most TNE designs I have seen stays at one turret pr 100 ton or one barbette for each 200 ton. However, TNE does not limit number of turrets to ship size. If you have the volume and surface area available, it fits.

 

[sabredog]

If you want to go from TNE megajoules to CT just convert them to megawatts. As Aramis points out, a shipboard laser in MT is 250 MW.

Well, according to Striker (which was for CT) the shipboard beam laser is also a 250 MW job. It seems the Megawatt is the CT standard. I'm not too up on the conversions, but it ought to easy to look up how to convert one into the other.

If that doesn't work just use referee's fiat and proclaim that a small laser is a 250 MW beam laser and call it good.

 

[far-trader]

Of course another part of the problem is CT turrets were 1ton each while TNE turrets were 3tons each. Probably best to just convert on a per turret basis though, with something as has been suggested, about 250MW = 1 beam laser (and maybe 125MW = 1 pulse laser) with some leeway either side. Should get you close enough

 

[GypsyComet]

If you want to go from TNE megajoules to CT just convert them to megawatts. As Aramis points out, a shipboard laser in MT is 250 MW.

Well, according to Striker (which was for CT) the shipboard beam laser is also a 250 MW job. It seems the Megawatt is the CT standard. I'm not too up on the conversions, but it ought to easy to look up how to convert one into the other.

Striker's approximations are where the MT numbers came from, actually.

The TNE/T4 numbers were reduced by so much because a bit more knowledge of physics was available by that time. It had been pointed out that, among other problems, the idea of 750 MW (for a triple) being channeled through *wires* into a tiny turret bump, turned into coherent light in that tiny turret and directed outwards would, quite simply, boil off the turret, any crew being unfortunate to be close by, and a fair chunk of hull, not to mention those wires. 750MW is a LOT of energy. Whole cities today run on 10MW or less in many cases.

 

[far-trader]

...The TNE/T4 numbers were reduced by so much because a bit more knowledge of physics was available by that time. It had been pointed out that, among other problems, the idea of 750 MW (for a triple) being channeled through *wires* into a tiny turret bump, turned into coherent light in that tiny turret and directed outwards would, quite simply, boil off the turret, any crew being unfortunate to be close by, and a fair chunk of hull, not to mention those wires. 750MW is a LOT of energy. Whole cities today run on 10MW or less in many cases.

That's long been a gripe of mine, and the knowledge of the physics was well known (just not by the game designers I guess ) and whole cities ran on about the same energy, even way back then.

Of course you can manage to lower the cooking temperature by stretching that 750MW over the space combat turn. Take the HG turn of 20 minutes for example and instead of 750MW pouring through the system continuously figure a 1 minute cycle and 20 shots fired to attempt that hit each turn. Then the triple turret is only burning 37.5MW, or 12.5MW per laser. A much more reasonable number. And maybe* more what the designers had in mind.

* or they may retcon it in

 

[sabredog]

That's long been a gripe of mine, and the knowledge of the physics was well known (just not by the game designers I guess ) and whole cities ran on about the same energy, even way back then.

That sort of thing always caused me a lot of anxiety when running Traveller over the years. It was one thing when I was 16 and running it 30 years ago, when mainframes used punchcards and a pocket calculator was cutting edge if it did fractions, but over time it got a lot harder to rationalize shipboard computers running (seemingly) slower than my old Trash-80, not to mention all the breakthroughs in physics, math, and biology. For a while I spent more time agonizing adapting the game to current advances than playing it. And drove my players nuts doing it, too.

In the end I've just left it alone and embraced the old school goofiness of CT's odd gaps in technology and theory. It's one of the reasons I never played the other versions: I was afraid of getting lost again in all that confusion of reconciling reality with a game.