The nearly impossible 100 dT J2 Starship

[far-trader]

If a warship were being tranported from the shipyard that built the hull to another shipyard that was scheduled to install the [turret-gun-firecontrol-hardpoint ... call it whatever makes you happy], they might cover the hole in the structure for transport (to keep rain and seawater out) but would they really install a box over the hole to 'reserve' the volume of the future [gun-holder-thingey]?

Transported how? Through normal space? Why bother. Inside another ship through jump space? No need. Through jump space under it's own power? Yes.

Not installing the thingey would make the physical displacement (total volume if completely submerged) of the warship less without it's weapons installed than its displacement with its weapon installed.

It could, or not. There really wouldn't be any additional cost involved in the "thingey" being the full shape and size of the turret to be filled later. You've already paid that cost in the hull design.

Is an unarmed Scout less than 100 dTons? Sure the engines were designed for the full 100 dTons, but the MD & JD rules are specific about tonnage.

If you want to use a definition where the turret is entirely or partly external/additional to the hull then yes you'll have to account for it. Build your unarmed Scout hull as 99tons even and save a few credits, but you won't be able to make a stable jump until you add your 1ton turret. The effect on maneuver is negligible.

I didn't create the rules and I don't think that they are broken, I am just having fun pointing out some consequences that tend to be overlooked (with good reason).

While some of us think there is no overlooked consequence to worry about. To repeat myself:

"The hardpoint is the turret is the fire control equipment is 1ton." (...or 2tons, or 3tons, or 5tons.)

When you build the hull you have to decide how many and how large your turret hardpoints are. They are built into the cost of the hull but must be so designed and can't be retrofitted later. You don't have to install the weaponry and controls and can leave the space empty, but the space is still there, covered over in whatever manner suits your vision. A bubble, a flat plate, a hatch.

...what about a Scout ship designed in HG to mount a Barbette (5 dT). Is there a difference in the ships tonnage without the weapon installed vs with the weapon?

In my opinion and others, no, it is still a 100ton ship, unarmed or armed, and looks pretty much the same. In one case (unarmed) the barbette/turret has no barrels/launch ports etc., and may even be an obviously fixed hull structure of the same size and shape. In the other case (armed) the barbette/turret is the size and shape of the weapon and has barrels/launch ports etc., and may even be observed to be trainable.

If in your opinion the ship is only 95tons when unarmed then you're stuck with not being able to jump until you arm it. The rest is insignificant.

 

[HG_B]

Thus it is NOT 'correct as [you] stated', but rather one possible interpretation that may or may not be correct.

So, show me the rule making turrets different tonnages based on 1,2 or 3 weapons.

I'll wait...

 

[McPerth]

Just a quirk that I mention for fun.
Please don’t try to fix it or seek an errata, just enjoy it.

Am I the only one that readed this part of the entry ?

Whatever should it be, I liked he reasoning given here by Atpollard. Tank you for puting a smile in my face (for some minutes, at least).

 

[atpollard]

While some of us think there is no overlooked consequence to worry about. To repeat myself:

"The hardpoint is the turret is the fire control equipment is 1ton." (...or 2tons, or 3tons, or 5tons.)

When you build the hull you have to decide how many and how large your turret hardpoints are. They are built into the cost of the hull but must be so designed and can't be retrofitted later. You don't have to install the weaponry and controls and can leave the space empty, but the space is still there, covered over in whatever manner suits your vision. A bubble, a flat plate, a hatch.

Thank you for your patience with me.
It is text like this …

F. Armaments: Any ship may have one hardpoint per 100 tons of ship. Designation of a hardpoint requires no tonnage, and costs Cr100,000. Hardpoints may be left unused if desired.

One turret may be attached to each hardpoint on the ship. When it is attached, one ton for fire control must be allocated. Turrets themselves are available in single, double, and triple mounts which will hold one, two, or three weapons respectively. Prices for turrets and weapons are indicated on the weapons and mounts table, (see below).

Turrets and weapons may be altered or retrofitted. For example, a single turret can have its pulse laser replaced by a beam laser when it becomes available; a single turret can be replaced by a triple turret when it becomes available. Weapons for installation in turrets include pulse and beam lasers, missile racks, and sandcasters. All are used in the space combat system described later in this book.

… that might lead me to think that:
“Any ship may have one hardpoint per 100 tons of ship.”
[hardpoints are 1)physical objects and 2) optional.]

“Hardpoints may be left unused if desired.”
“One turret may be attached to each hardpoint on the ship.”
[A ship can have a hardpoint with a turret or a hardpoint without a turret. The hardpoint and turret are two different physical objects.]

“When it is attached, one ton for fire control must be allocated.”
[Fire control – whatever it is – is part of the turret rather than the hardpoint.]

“a single turret can be replaced by a triple turret when it becomes available”
[It is a simple matter to remove a single turret and install a triple turret in its place. The hardpoint is universal and the turret is specific.]

Taken together, all of this might lead one to think that a ship could have a hardpoint without a turret, or a hardpoint with a single turret, or a hardpoint with a double turret, or a hardpoint with a triple turret, and that each combination might have a slightly different displacement …

… but if “some of us think there is no overlooked consequence to worry about”, then I stand corrected.

 

[far-trader]

Thank you for your patience with me.

Patience? Nah, just no need to feel worked up over your interesting diversion. And no McPerth you weren't the only one to read atpollard's caveat. In fact it's probably the only reason I waded into the thread. I'd hoped for a lighter less fractious debate than topics sometimes evolve into.

I do get your points, even agree somewhat, but long ago in the interest of my sanity decided the rules were not well written in some places and required an interpretation I could live with. Hence...


“Any ship may have one hardpoint per 100 tons of ship.”

∴ Hardpoints are an abstraction for the limitations of weapon placement.

“Hardpoints may be left unused if desired.”

“One turret may be attached to each hardpoint on the ship.”

∴ Unusued hardpoints are not a non-entity, and "attached to" in this sense is closer to "designated" in meaning, and not a physical "connected to" meaning.

“When it is attached, one ton for fire control must be allocated.”

∴ One ton of fire control (which per my link to Navy terminology encompasses the entirety of the weapon) must be "allocated" (meaning "reserved") when the turret is "attached" (meaning "designated").

Note the "for" in the rules quote instead of "of". With "for" implying "to be installed" where "of" would have implied "is installed" and "allocated" makes more sense (meaning reserved but not filled).

Rewritten those lines might be better stated as:

“Any ship may designate at most one hardpoint per full 100 tons of ship.”

“Hardpoints may be left unused when the ship is built, but one ton is reserved for later installation of a weapon system.” (replacing "fire control" with "weapon system" to avoid the confusion) In HG I'd just say the Turret is installed (no cost for turrets in HG).

“One turret may be installed per hardpoint. The turret is the container for the weapon system.”

“When a weapon system is installed the reserved space (or turret for HG) is filled.”

-------

“A single turret can be replaced by a triple turret when it becomes available.”

In my take on this I've also long seen this the way you mentioned earlier, that a (standard or light - 1ton) turret has 3 spaces for small weapons (lasers, missiles, sand). The whole single, double, and triple are just designations based on how many of those spaces are fitted with weapons.

In CT (in MTU and opinion) the costs for single, double and triple are the installation costs for the weapons and associated equipment. As noted HG did away with turret costs entirely, furhter supporting the notion that the turret is installed (but unused, empty) when the hardpoint is designated, with room for 3 weapons to be added.

Taken together, all of this might lead one to think that a ship could have a hardpoint without a turret, or a hardpoint with a single turret, or a hardpoint with a double turret, or a hardpoint with a triple turret, and that each combination might have a slightly different displacement...

No, I can't see that. It is pretty clear that a turret is 1ton no matter if it is single, double, or triple. It is less clear that a hardpoint can exist without a turret, and of course then said turret would be 1ton, so a hardpoint is 1ton. Hence my mantra of sanity:

"The hardpoint is the turret is the fire control is 1ton."

 

[atpollard]

So, show me the rule making turrets different tonnages based on 1,2 or 3 weapons.

I'll wait...

Right next to the section that says a triple turret with one weapon in it is really a single turret. HG is silent on the issue of single, double and triple turrets.

Show me where the LBB2 says that the single, double and triple turrets are the same size.

Now it's my turn to wait ...


Use some common sense: Which is larger ... a can of soda or a six pack? ... a two seat car or a four seat car? ... a turret designed for one missile launcher or a turret designed for three missile launchers?

Answer. None of the above because you say so.

 

[pendragonman]

I tried to tell you guys he was a sick, sick man. Twisted he is. :devil:

 

[atpollard]

In fact it's probably the only reason I waded into the thread. I'd hoped for a lighter less fractious debate than topics sometimes evolve into.

I do get your points, even agree somewhat, but long ago in the interest of my sanity decided the rules were not well written in some places and required an interpretation I could live with.

Ok, back to the lighter side then ...

If my Scout Ship (which has a turret to avoid the problems mentioned earlier) takes a nasty hit from a multiple missile attack ... ripping a gaping hole in my fuel tank, venting 10 dT of LH2 to space and leaving the 3 dT cargo hold depressurized and open to space ...

... Is my ship (with 13 dT now open to space to some degree) less than 100 dT and unable to jump away with the remaining fuel? :rofl:


Or another favorite of mine ... The Free Trader with two missile-beam-sand turrets is attacked by TIE fighters from three sides, so the first gunner has Turret #1 fire a missile at target 1 (forward) and sand at target 3 (aft) while maintaining a constant beam on the incoming missiles from target 2 (above and to the port) ... [and with his free hand, he slices cucumbers extra thin for some sandwiches after the battle]. The second gunner fires his sand at target 3 (aft) while also shooting a missile and beam at target 1 (forward) [While filling two positions - covering as the ship's Doc - to earn extra money.] After 3 shots, they reload the missiles and sand without missing with the beam.

... but wait, after surviving the encounter, the Free Trader ventures into High Guard, where regulators inform him that he has 6 single weapon batteries and needs a total of 6 gunners (but the fire control is still adequate). Fortunately, each of the regular crew members quickly learn Gunner-1 and fill in Two positions [although some complain when they learn that, for example, the Gunner-Pilot actually takes a cut in pay for filling two positions] aparently taking turns in the two gunner chairs.

... and these gunners only earn 1000 credits per month?

 

[rancke]

From the original rules it appears that the hardpoint takes up no tonnage; that the turret takes up negligble tonnage, regardless of the number of weapons; and that the fire control euqipment takes up 1T of internal space.

I admit that this interpretation faces problems when 2T fusion gun turrets and 5T PA barbettes show up. But for B2 rules it is consistent enough for practical purposes.


Hans

 

[robject]

Egads, THIS is what we spend our time talking about?

 

[rancke]

Egads, THIS is what we spend our time talking about?

Well, not ALL our time.


Hans

 

[far-trader]

Egads, THIS is what we spend our time talking about?

Only when we have nothing better to talk about

 

[rancke]

Only when we have nothing better to talk about

There's always near-C rocks...


Hans

 

[far-trader]

From the original rules it appears that the hardpoint takes up no tonnage; that the turret takes up negligible tonnage, regardless of the number of weapons; and that the fire control equipment takes up 1T of internal space.

What was that short-hand phrase you started using for repeated statements? I can't recall it so I'll just drop my topic appropriate mantra again...

"The hardpoint is the turret is the fire control is 1ton." *



* or 2tons, or 3tons, or 5tons

EDIT: Oh, and to repeat also, in case, in Navy parlance "fire control" is the whole thing inside the structure (turret) - gunner station(s), sights, rangefinders, electronics, guns, and gearing for turret training and gun elevation

 

[far-trader]

There's always near-C rocks...


Hans

I'm game (kidding, mostly... )

 

[atpollard]

I'm game (kidding, mostly... )

Just don't ask the Gunner living on foodstamps to shoot them down.

 

[atpollard]

Egads, THIS is what we spend our time talking about?

There are several fine debates on whether a 'mount' is a weapon or a turret scattered about. For me, this was a brief escape from that.

 

[HG_B]

There's always near-C rocks...


Hans

How near c?

 

[rancke]

What was that short-hand phrase you started using for repeated statements? I can't recall it so I'll just drop my topic appropriate mantra again...

"The hardpoint is the turret is the fire control is 1ton." *



* or 2tons, or 3tons, or 5tons

The hardpoint is not the turret. It's where you can install one. Doing so require 1T of interior space. As in inside the hull. Not protuding like a pimple on the outside of the hull like a tank turret protudes above the body of the tank.

EDIT: Oh, and to repeat also, in case, in Navy parlance "fire control" is the whole thing inside the structure (turret) - gunner station(s), sights, rangefinders, electronics, guns, and gearing for turret training and gun elevation

But do the rules use navy parlance? I've always thought of "the turret" as referring to the protuding part. Be that as it may, in the interest of clarity, I'll refer to the part of the turret that protudes above the surface of the hull as "the blister" from now on. (If there is a technical term, feel free to inform me and I'll start using that).

Under the B2 rules, the tonnage taken up by the blister is neglible. Which become harder to justify when we talk about 2T fusion gun turrets and especially 5T barbettes. The illustraions of the Gazelles makes the blister part of a barbette out to take up quite a bit of space outside the hull.


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

Ah, but fusion guns and PA turrets are not in LBB2.

High Guard makes the logical step of requiring the turret or barbette volume be accounted for under internal hull displacement.

now back to near c rocks...

and piracy....

and aslan invasions.....