Why 1 turret per 100 tons?

[aramis]

Most modern naval large guns are still "Drop in the can, then hook it up" kind of affairs. Which is why many wrecks lack turrets: they fell right out as the ship rolled while sinking.

Some are secured in, but as a rule, even the 50+ tons of metal on a modern turret gun mount is a canister that drops into a socket. Mind you, not all. Just most.

 

[mike wightman]

I've just had a thought.
The CT ship that breaks this rule, the Gazelle class CE, mounts two five ton barbettes in place of its third hardpoint.
Would a rule like this work in CT?

Instead of installing a hardpoint for a turret mount, a naval architect can plan the installation of a five ton barbette. Up to two barbettes can be included for each hardpoint forfeited

 

[Piper]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I've just had a thought.
The CT ship that breaks this rule, the Gazelle class CE, mounts two five ton barbettes in place of its third hardpoint.
Would a rule like this work in CT?

Instead of installing a hardpoint for a turret mount, a naval architect can plan the installation of a five ton barbette. Up to two barbettes can be included for each hardpoint forfeited

It would certainly make your average pirate think twice before jumping the next free-trader to come along.
On a more serious level, wouldn't barbettes take up more surface area than turrets, yet still require the same structural support and plumbing?

The Gazelle has always been a problem for me. It looks like they counted the jump tanks as part of the hull size for determining weapon mounts which is a bad idea and seemingly contrary to the rules in HG.

 

[mike wightman]

Sorry, I haven't explained the idea clearly enough.
The barbette would be two to three tons of structural reinforcement with space for only a turrets worth of weapons.
What this means is that a PAW could be mounted in a normal hardpoint turret, but only as a single mount.
The barbette becomes a way to carry more weapons than would otherwise be possible.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Drop Tanks.

Ick!

I really, really, really dislike drop-tanks.

A lot.

 

[GypsyComet]

Because of issues like this, or for some other reason?

 

[mike wightman]

Maybe one dropped on his foot?

 

[Kayleb]

Originally posted by Admiral Morgan:
Small craft where somposed to be built with fixed mounted weapons not weapons placed in turrets on its hull.

^yeah, that's the way I always saw it. Small craft don't actually use turrets, but their limitations are the same as if they could have one (three weapons, 2 plasma guns etc)

About the 1 turret per 100T rule, I always explained it to my players this way:

When considering everything that is needed to support a turret, not only the physical structure itself, but also the gunners accommodation & life support, the power required, the fuel to produce the power required etc, naval architects adopted the 1 turret per 100t standard to avoid ship designs that became problematic. True a military ship could feasible support more turrets, but the weakening of the ships structural integrity that this produces is a prospect few military architects or commanders found appealing.

BTW, G'day everyone! My first post on these boards.

 

[far-trader]

Welcome aboard Kayleb

 

[JAFARR]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
Drop Tanks.

Ick!

I really, really, really dislike drop-tanks.

A lot.

Me Too! They really seem to be a way to create a limitation loophole.

 

[Pickles]

Never seen the need for the 1 turret per 100 dtons limit. Ship volume, crew requirements and EPs (all I can think of now, but I'm sure there are more) are enough of a real limitation without resorting to a 'game balance' rule.

I still favour the idea of surface area as a limiting factor, which would cause problems for huge spherical hulls. Maybe one day I'll write it into my design sequence ...

 

[Spinward Scout]

Now that's just ain't natural. If you can put more than one turret on a ship 100 tons or under, then you might as well let small craft get... a... jump... drive... Hey! That's a great idea!

Dameon

 

[jonathonbarton]

Necro-Post Alert...
IMTU, I never saw any reason for either the 1-turret per 100 Ton limit (which I kept anyway), OR the 100 Ton minimum for a Jump Drive. (which I did not, but I didn't do too many iterations to see just how small I could squeeze a viable jump-capable ship, either...)

Why a 100 Ton Scout Ship could mount a Jump Drive, but you couldn't build a Jump-capable ship on a standard 95 Ton Shuttle core makes no sense to me.

 

[far-trader]

Agreed, if anything the reasoning makes more sense (to me anyway) to say that there is a minimum size you can make the jump-drive and then allow that to be shoe-horned into any size hull.

And on the thread necromanitics, no worry, this one wasn't too dead

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I've just had a thought.
The CT ship that breaks this rule, the Gazelle class CE, mounts two five ton barbettes in place of its third hardpoint.
Would a rule like this work in CT?

Instead of installing a hardpoint for a turret mount, a naval architect can plan the installation of a five ton barbette. Up to two barbettes can be included for each hardpoint forfeited

Well, since the thread is resurrected I'll visit this point since I meant to but forgot

The Gazelle doesn't so much break the rule as bend it. It is a 300ton hull but it adds 100tons of drop tanks (yes, yes, ick, I agree) so either the designer goofed and called it a 400ton hull or cheated. Or (the way I do) it should be built as a 400ton hull with 100tons of drop tanks included.

As for the barbette vs turret to hardpoint idea I always figured a barbette should require more "hardpoint" allowance than a turret, not less, so I'd disagree with that idea.

In the end the 1 hardpoint per 100tons (like many of the design rules) is there to ensure a simple system that is not too hard to balance. It's not meant to be that accurate a model of reality.

 

[Flynn]

Regarding a Jump drive in a smallcraft: Perhaps there's a minimum size of hull gridwork that must exist? In that case, an artificial lanthanum grid could be deployed by a smaller craft to "occupy" 100 dtons worth of volume. Unless this was a rigid construct, however, astrogaters might have a bit more difficulty calculating jump coordinates for a variably-shaped energy field, perhaps making the task one difficulty level harder (or +5 on the DC for T20.)

But that gets us off-topic.

My apologies,
Flynn

 

[mike wightman]

Hmm, put an A jump drive, plus fuel, a model 1bis computer, a hardpoint, and two staterooms in the excess space of a shuttle and you get a jump 2, 3 G acceleration ship with 32 tons left for cargo or whathave you.

You could even fit a B jump drive, etc. and have about 5 tons left over. That's jump 4 and 3G...

I suppose you could rule that they need the equivalent of annual maintenance spent per month due to the lack of access space for regular maintenance work.

 

[aramis]

I love Drop Tanks! Mate them up to MT/TNE fuel rates, and you, too, can cross the islands!

The hardpoint rule is, simply put, a gamist mechanism to prevent highly improbable situations... like a 100 Td Non-starship with (100-B20-D10-SR8-C1-PF20) about 50 tons of weapons!

 

[far-trader]

Well, long as no one minds the slight drift (and my apologies as well)

I should clarify I don't hate drop tanks, just the way they are handled in Traveller. The idea is cool on a lot of levels but they need to be more expensive and restrictive. For example it shouldn't give you a free hardpoint (see Gazelle), if anything it should cost or restrict hardpoints. But of course ymmv* and fun is the goal.

* considerably with the use of drop tanks

 

[robject]

I thought the jump volume barrier was overcome at TL16+ anyway... makes TL16 an important milestone, it does (nice progression, what with AM coming into play at TL17).

And I agree that the Gazelle should be classified as a 400 ton ship, unless the design foregoes its extra armaments...