04-25-2018, 06:01 PM | #1 |
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: near Seattle WA USA
|
hardpoints, turrets, etc.
I recall that in classic Traveller, each turret required a hardpoint, each bay reduced the number of possible hardpoints by ten, and a spinal mount also reduced the number of possible hardpoints. A hardpoint didn't need to have a turret installed, but turrets required hardpoints. Ships were limited to one hardpoint per 100 dtons. [Correction in bold.]
Is that the case in GURPS Traveller? I've been puzzling over my copy of Starships for a while, and it looks like hardpoints are surface features unrelated to turrets there. However, the limit of one turret per 100 dtons still applies, and is still reduced by ten per bay, and by one per 100 dtons of spinal mount. Am I reading things correctly? Last edited by SteveS; 04-27-2018 at 09:38 AM. Reason: Left out a word. |
04-26-2018, 12:13 PM | #2 |
Join Date: Oct 2004
|
Re: hardpoints, turrets, etc.
Yes. Page 19.
|
04-26-2018, 08:41 PM | #3 | ||
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Alsea, OR
|
Re: hardpoints, turrets, etc.
Quote:
Quote:
50,000 - 5,000 = 45,000 45,000 - (20x1000)=45,000 - 20,000 = 25,000 25,000/100= 250 |
||
04-27-2018, 01:13 AM | #4 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
|
Re: hardpoints, turrets, etc.
Note that not all Traveller systems use the same rules. Mongoose Traveller's Aslan "HALAHEIKE-CLASS POCKET WARSHIP" is 1200 tons, with 2 small (50 ton) PA bays and 10 turrets.
I understand the reason for the 1/100 rule, and it makes a certain sense below 1000 tons... ....but a 1000 ton ship has to decide if it's going to carry a single bay, or 10 turrets. That makes no sense to me. a 1200 tons ship with one 50 ton bay and 2 turrets or 12 turrets? What do you do with the rest of the displacement? Ships in this range, say 1000 to 10,000 dtons, almost have to become carriers. IMTU despite using GURPS I use the Mongoose rule. |
04-27-2018, 06:19 AM | #5 |
Join Date: Sep 2007
|
Re: hardpoints, turrets, etc.
Ignore it.
You're fretting over a 4% difference when the numbers you're starting with aren't even specified to be closer than 10% accurate to begin with. It's false precision. If you want handwavery, you can remember the space for all those little access tunnels and hatches to get to the extra turrets, machinery to rotate them, their fire control computers, and so on. The design rules don't nickel-and-dime you death on every liter of volume, so all that's normally just swept under that rug covering 10% of your ship. There's also the fact that things like bays on small ships or spinal mounts, both equipment and associated target acquisition and fields of fire, are significant design decisions for the hull. Ships aren't Lego blocks with dton cubes that can be added or subtracted wherever and whenever the owner has a whim to rearrange the armament. Perhaps committing to a bay means the architect had to make some choices that meant they didn't have free space easily adapted for other purposes. For any given design, feel free to invent some reasons and embody those choices into the deck plans. |
04-27-2018, 10:13 AM | #6 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
|
Re: hardpoints, turrets, etc.
Quote:
That ship has 2 bays and 10 turrets instead of the two bays and ONE turret it’s allowed under most other Traveller rule sets. That’s a bit more of a difference than a10% displacement discrepancy. A system defense monitor is even worse. I used to use a 1200 dton hull just so I could put two self defense turrets on it... and had so much left over space because I didn’t need drives or fuel. An 800 dton hull with two bays and 6 turrets just works better. The ability to put bays on ships less that 1000 dton and not have to choose between one bay OR ten turrets makes sense to me. All m saying is I like the idea of being able to fit a bay or tow AND turrets into a 1000 dton cruiser. Last edited by tanksoldier; 04-27-2018 at 10:45 AM. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|