• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Why manned turrets?

Back by popular demand...

c821923.jpg

I like that.

On a side note, a B-17 like Ball Turret was how I originally envisioned turrets back in the day, though after awhile I realized that this type of mount wouldn't really work based on the Traveller ship design rules. Now I tend to envision something more like an external bolt on system.
 
Civilian ships have compensators that match their engine G rating. There is no movement or maneuvers greater than that. A Free trader with a Mdrive of 1G rating can only do that. Not sure what else you'd be referring to when you say, "but not for rapid evasive combat related manoeuvres and associated stresses." as that doesn't exist.

In MT, it's made clear in SSOM that ships can thrust up to 400% of the ship's MD rating for short periods (up to 20 minutes), and that thrust can be off axis - from 170-180°, it's 25%, and at 90% it's about 50%, and within 10° of axis, it's 100%.

and that's how most ships take off....
 
In MT, it's made clear in SSOM that ships can thrust up to 400% of the ship's MD rating for short periods (up to 20 minutes), and that thrust can be off axis - from 170-180°, it's 25%, and at 90% it's about 50%, and within 10° of axis, it's 100%.

and that's how most ships take off....

I'm talking CT. In MT does it say that internal comp doesn't account for that?
 
Usually, a missile impact on a tank that doesn't penetrate make a really, really loud heavily metallic WHANG! and often lossens metal from the inside of the armor, which in turn is what gets the crew kill (at last) and sometimes a brew up as that interior metal often superheats and flies around with a decent percentage of the velocity of the missile. That stuff from the inside of the armor is called spall. Spall is how HEAT rounds get their kills. Spall is also the armor that is pushed inside as a kintetic energy penetrator pushes its way thru, like a SABOT round.
Yeah - in other words the kinetic energy is expended on other things than imparting motion to the entire tank - namely secondary 'collateral' damage or intentional interior damage in the case of a penetrator.

Now, about G-compensators. They have their limits, and that is the limits of the M drive. Kinetic Energy from missiles can impart G to the ship that can overwhelm the G-compensators. It really isn't that hard when the ship only has 1 or 2 g g comps. We are talking about 20 m/s^2 change. This includes the sudden, sharp breaking that can be caused by a series of explosions in direct opposition to the movement vector.
The explosions aren't really anywhere near as effective outside the ship that is not in an atmosphere - most of the kinetic energy is in the mass... and most is not going to be converted as covered above.

The exception would be missile strikes against an armored hull that successfully absorbs all the kinetic energy elasticly - but then we are talking more mass against the puny mass of the missile... so enough KE to impart 10+ m/s^2? Situationally - i.e. small mass ship, large delta V - perhaps, but that looks weak...

But we are going to physics arguments, and you guys tell me over and over again that they make no sense in this game. Please point me to a canon source that declares DEFINITIVELY AND NOT INTERPRETIVELY whether passengers inside a ship are affected by combat maneuvers or not, and that ship vectors are or are not affected by nearby explosion.
I've never seen any such explicit statements in my limited CT material... (Classic Reprint) HG pg 17 states grav plates 'allow high-G maneuvers while interior G-fields remain normal'. (I actually always played this way, didn't really realize till recently that the rules stated such... maybe they didn't in my earlier LBB 5?).

That's all that is needed as I don't think a missile or missile scale space explosion would normally be totally elastic and would not impart significant movement to a ship (100 dton+ vessel) exceeding 1G. (But I haven't done the math, except that 100 dton is reasonably approximated by the volume of a 747-100 which masses ~170,000 kg 'empty' - and its hull is aluminum and its engines/pp are probably a bit less mass than Traveller ship drives. <shrug> Might be wrong, these are just seat of the pants calcs...)

However, CT as written is strongly in the Space Opera camp from my perspective (and stated in the LBBs somewhere if I'm not mistaken) - few of my players would go along with non-visible space lasers, nor most other 'realistic' physics... ;)

I allow boosting M-Drives and my players take advantage of that during combat - but at the expense of the compensators - so +1 G means +2 G inside effect - or a lot of jerking around. :D

In atmo, things are a lot different. Missiles and esp. nuks are a lot more effective, lasers could be visible, sounds would come into play, and ranges and differences in aerodynamics and Gs would be important factors. Given the low G drives and limited 1-6 range, most starship combat is gonna happen in battle arenas near planets and in and out of atmo if it exists... outer space battles would be pretty rare.
 
Last edited:
I like that.

On a side note, a B-17 like Ball Turret was how I originally envisioned turrets back in the day, though after awhile I realized that this type of mount wouldn't really work based on the Traveller ship design rules. Now I tend to envision something more like an external bolt on system.

I originally had the ball turret thing too (Millennium Falcon influence). TNE gave me an interchangeable can idea that works very well.
 
...Now, about G-compensators. They have their limits, and that is the limits of the M drive. Kinetic Energy from missiles can impart G to the ship that can overwhelm the G-compensators. It really isn't that hard when the ship only has 1 or 2 g g comps. We are talking about 20 m/s^2 change. This includes the sudden, sharp breaking that can be caused by a series of explosions in direct opposition to the movement vector.

But we are going to physics arguments, and you guys tell me over and over again that they make no sense in this game. Please point me to a canon source that declares DEFINITIVELY AND NOT INTERPRETIVELY whether passengers inside a ship are affected by combat maneuvers or not, and that ship vectors are or are not affected by nearby explosion.

Again, if it is not declared in clear text, I do not consider it a definitive statement.

Megatrav Referee's Manual: "Inertial compensators, when installed, allow high-G maneuvers while interior G-fields remain normal. Inertial compensators negate the effects of inertia, so the occupants of a moving craft have no sensation of motion."

Note that in Megatrav, these are distinct from the grav plates, which provide the ship's internal gravity but do not compensate for thrust or maneuver.

As to ship vectors, I can't find anything in MegaTrav, CT book 2, or Mayday that suggests a ship's vector is affected by a nearby explosion. No rule says the vector is changed at all. However, a ship's vector in those games represents at minimum 20 to 100 minutes under 1g acceleration; a vector change from a missile explosion may simply be too small to be represented on that scale while still being very, very noticeable to the occupants. Doesn't take much to send you into a bulkhead.

This of course depends on how quickly the gamemaster decides those compensators can compensate. If they're quick enough, you may only have a tiny fraction of a second before the compensator kicks in and matches you to the ship's new vector; end result is you just feel a slight lurch and maybe lose you balance if you overreact to that. Maybe lose your lunch if you have to put up with a lot of that. If they're not quick enough, your head's impacting the bulkhead - and your brain impacting the inside of your skull shortly after that - before the field can grab you.

A kilo of TNT puts out around 4 million joules, dynamite around 6, I think. Given that only part of that energy's going to be applied to the ship, I'm thinking a 1000 metric ton (100 dT) ship, for example, is getting no more than about a couple meters per second velocity vector out of it, enough to have you falling against bulkheads and maybe cause a concussion, not much more than that. Typical missile probably has several kilos of something powerful in that warhead, so it's likely to be quite uncomfortable on your typical free trader or smaller, but of course the larger the ship, the less it will react.

However, my physics days are about 3 decades behind me, so I'm not entirely sure I figured that right.

It would exist, especially if a pilot red lines a ship's drive in an accelerated manoeuvre on a radically different vector to evade during combat.

OK, if you have a M1 drive providing a maximum inertial compensation field of 1G, then rapid manoeuvres to avoid an incoming high velocity object (read: missile) would impart stresses during that instant of that manoeuvre. That would be no different than a person on ground within a 1G environment feeling some stress when they make a rapid change of direction or influenced by an outside force, such as a jolt or shake.

So additional stresses are momentary but there as the inertial field would take a moment to adjust, particularly as the field is constantly maintaining power allocation to the gravity plates built into the ships decks. Why else would Starships still need acceleration couches? If the ship had a 100% perfect inertial compensation field where they would feel no movement at all, then the need for acceleration couches would not be needed.
...

One G is one G. A 1 G drive produces 1 G. Doesn't matter how hard you jab the button. The maximum stress on the ship is 1 G from the drive. Inescapable physics.

What HG said. Moreover, a competent engineer is going to design the ship so that the compensators are timed to the ship's maneuvers. You jab the button, a signal goes to the compensators and to the drives, timed so that the drives trigger in precisely the same instant that the compensators kick in. (Which leaves open some interesting possibilities to throw at those who fail to keep up with scheduled maintenance.) Your only problem is going to come from forces which can't be anticipated - turbulence in atmospheres, missiles exploding against the hull - and then it depends on the specifics of the compensator and how quickly it reacts (for which there is absolutely no guidance in the game that I know of, so I'd say go with whatever makes things most dramatic without killing your party.)
 
For the definition of acceleration compensators and what they do in CT look in the right place and you find them.

Hint - supplement 7.
 
Civilian ships have civilian grade compensators. Fine for standard movement, manoeuvres and acceleration/deceleration but not for rapid evasive combat related manoeuvres and associated stresses. So there certainly would be some affect to the ship's crew and internal fittings.

With that in mind, manually handling a missile reload whilst in combat would be a tad tough.

Military grade compensators would be stronger and designed for combat stresses. But even those would have limitations as well.
Where are the rules for these civilian and military systems?

The rules as written do not differentiate between the acceleration compensation in a military ship and a civilian ship. See S:7.
 
Your only problem is going to come from forces which can't be anticipated - turbulence in atmospheres, missiles exploding against the hull - and then it depends on the specifics of the compensator and how quickly it reacts (for which there is absolutely no guidance in the game that I know of, so I'd say go with whatever makes things most dramatic without killing your party.)

That is what I am talking about. I would seriously doubt that the reaction ability of an inertial compensation system is going to adjust the instant exterior force is applied to the ships course or normal operations.

I doubt also that there would only be one type of compensator for both military and civilian construction either. Mil grade compensators have to be tougher. Period.

Like you say, it adds to the game's drama.
 
Carlobrand said:
A kilo of TNT puts out around 4 million joules, dynamite around 6, I think. Given that only part of that energy's going to be applied to the ship, I'm thinking a 1000 metric ton (100 dT) ship, for example, is getting no more than about a couple meters per second velocity vector out of it, enough to have you falling against bulkheads and maybe cause a concussion, not much more than that. ...
Factoring in the extremely brief duration of the acceleration from an explosion or an elastic (large KE imparting) impact, even for a very conservative 100,000 kg estimation of a 100 dTon ship and assuming 10G/1000s derived delta V, that probably (?) equates to a hand full of centimeters of actual movement at best.

Nothing that directly needs to be compensated for - as you said, mostly just disconcerting and possibly unbalancing for unprepared folk. You could spill your coffee, get a nasty bruise or piss off the nearby crewmate...

The real problem comes from the ship's own maneuvers - and there the 'compensators' come in. (So I like to have exceptions to that myself - but the rules don't really cover this as far as I know...)

madmike said:
I doubt also that there would only be one type of compensator for both military and civilian construction either. Mil grade compensators have to be tougher. Period.
IMTU, non-military compensators can only deal with +1G over M-Drive rating - to accommodate for operating in typical gravity wells.

Military are +3 over rating for operating in more extreme environs and for accommodating exceeding rating.
 
On a side note, a B-17 like Ball Turret was how I originally envisioned turrets back in the day, though after awhile I realized that this type of mount wouldn't really work based on the Traveller ship design rules. Now I tend to envision something more like an external bolt on system.
How ironic, back in the day I always imagined bolt on B-17 upper turrets and my most recent design (TL 9-10) has a 'Millennium Falcon"-esque ball turret. :)
 
Load twang?

(Not sure the analogy is correct - but, does a tank generally move if a missile strikes without penetrating the armor?)

Depends on the missile. Knew a guy from Desert Swarm, a TC, who had two heavy AT missiles impact the glacis of the turret of his M1A1 HA; no penetration, but the rocking of the tank threw him into the .50 cal in his hatch, and messed up his face. That's a lotta force!
 
Depends on the missile. Knew a guy from Desert Swarm, a TC, who had two heavy AT missiles impact the glacis of the turret of his M1A1 HA; no penetration, but the rocking of the tank threw him into the .50 cal in his hatch, and messed up his face. That's a lotta force!


Right, the AT missiles mass ratio with the tank AND the fact of blast effect of being in an atmosphere can really add up.

Now compare a trav missile mass with a 200 ton Free trader with the blast happening in vacuum. The acceleration effect will be many times less than your tank example.
 
Yes, the mass ratio of the maverick to the M-1 is considerably less than the trav missile-Free Trader ratio, but the coefficient of friction is considerably higher. Further, the g affects of the planet are on the tank to assist with the friction

There is neither a coefficient of friction nor much of a planetary gravity affect on the Free Trader.
 
Right, the AT missiles mass ratio with the tank AND the fact of blast effect of being in an atmosphere can really add up.

Now compare a trav missile mass with a 200 ton Free trader with the blast happening in vacuum. The acceleration effect will be many times less than your tank example.

Ahhh, but kinetic energy of that missile hitting the free trader would still exist and have the same effect.
 
Last edited:
Correct. So, based on the mass of a trav missile, and the mass/inertia of the free trader, it doesn't move perceptibly.

This is a situation that is easily modeled in a computer. Compare the energies involved, easiest if the missile direct impacts (even from different angles, its just vector sums after all). How much to deduct from the missile's energies for a non-surface explosion, I am not sure.
 
This is a situation that is easily modeled in a computer. Compare the energies involved, easiest if the missile direct impacts (even from different angles, its just vector sums after all). How much to deduct from the missile's energies for a non-surface explosion, I am not sure.

I would imagine so.

Missile size, warhead type, terminal velocity etc.
 
I knew my physics was weak. A percentage of that energy release is radiant energy, isn't it? Light and IR? And a percentage of the kinetic energy is going to convert to heat on impacting the hull, and to distortion of the hullmetal (blasting a hole in it) rather than being picked up as a propulsive force. I haven't the foggiest how much of that energy translates to "push".

Somewhere, a physicist is having a hearty laugh.:o
 
Back
Top