Akirapryde2006
02/29/16 12:44 PM
71.100.132.249
|
(Editor's/Designer's Note: This ship design is only meant to pose the question of could it exist as a possible evolution in warship design. Considering that necessity is the mother of all innovation, I placed the necessity of this ship's design in a major event within my own gaming universe. However, as you read it, feel free to remove New Earth and insert your own faction (be it be the Clans, or Inner Sphere). I am looking from the Community is, could this be the next major evolution to warship design? I am still working on the fluff, so if you have ideas on how to make it more flowing please offer those suggestions as well.)
We are going to change how everyone looks at warship designs. We don't have time to worry about what we don't have or what we can't get. We are going to look at what we have and what we are going to do with what we have! Admiral Safi Larue, March 3060
A product of pure necessity, the Viscount Hall went from concept to design in record time. During the height of the Lyran Invasion of New Earth, the bulk of New Earth's navy was deployed with the Star League Defense Force. Protecting the system were the Enterprise, Maverick and the Bismarck. Of the three, only the Maverick was still combat operational. While the opening shots of the invasion went heavily to the New Earth's navy, the bulk of their warships were badly damaged. This left New Earth's navy incapable of stopping the steady flow of troopships heading towards New Earth.
A push was placed at repairing the Enterprise and Bismarck as well as the captured Lyran warships. Because of the blockade strangling New Earth, there was latterly no guaranty that the two warships could be repaired. New Earth needed a warship that was able to chase down the Lyran supply ships and cripple them. With the Thomas Rein already under construction, the design teams decided to build a warship that would operate close to home and provide system defense against the raiding Lyran assault dropships.
However, the designers didn't have access to New Earth for ideas or the massive stock pile of part at strategic locations around New Earth. But what they did have was the badly damaged remains of the Aegis II Class Prince Victor Steiner-Davion. The Prince Victor Steiner-Davion was being built for the beloved leader of the Federated Commonwealth. Commissioned to be a gift from New Earth to the Federated Commonwealth as a show of their continued loyalty, the ship was badly damaged during the Lyran's opening attack on Harbor Prime. Even if the ship could be repaired, there was little hope of completing the ship as many of the much needed parts were trapped on New Earth behind the Lyran blockade of the world.
With this in mind, the design teams went over to the Prince Victor Steiner-Davion and started to catalog what was still usable aboard the ship. To their surprise the only capital weapons on the ship that had survived were the eight Heavy Naval PPC's. Almost immediately, the design teams started to form their new class ship. They turned their eyes on the Lyran blockade of their world and noted the lack of Lyran warships supporting it. Because of the Lyran threat to the shipyards was still very real, the larger warships couldn't be deployed to break the blockade around New Earth. So the design teams set out to create a small blockade busting warship.
As the ship design started to take ship, the teams wanted to focus all eight of the Naval PPC's in to one firing arc. However, that meant that the other arcs would be under gunned. The answer came from a visiting design team from New Earth Advanced Technology. The NEAT Team had become trapped at Harbor Prime when the Lyran's attacked. Their answer seemed almost like a no brainer when they suggested it. "Why not place the Naval PPC's in turrets like we did at the SDS sites around New Earth?"
Within hours of the suggestion, multiple teams started working on turret designs. As the war on New Earth continued to rage on, the design teams started construction on the new ship. Due to supply shortages, the design team focused on a Corvette design. This would become the third capital ship design that Harbor Prime could produce. Because of its size, Harbor Prime was able to work on two of these new Corvette within one of its massive slipways.
Resources was not the only problem the design teams had to deal with. Because there was limited contact with their research and design teams on New Earth, the teams on Harbor Prime were cut off from their normal resources. However this was not going to stop them from designing or constructing their warship. Instead of relying on the design departments on New Earth, the Harbor Prime teams turned to their computers and set the stage for a remarkable evolution in ship design. The new Corvette design would become the first warship built by Harbor Prime to be completely designed by Computer-aided design or CAD.
The turrets of the new corvette were going to be the main focus of fire power. The teams designed the ship based off the older Star League Sovetskii Soyuz Cruiser. However aside from basic outer appearance, the similarities end there. New Earth's new corvette would be more streamlined with a pair of turrets along the spin of the ship (one facing forward and the other facing rear). Along the belly of the ship were a pair of mirrored turrets. Each turret mounted two Heavy Naval PPC's and this gave the corvette four Naval PPC's in the three forward arcs. However once the ship turned to its broadside, it was able to turn its turrets and bring all eight Naval PPC's to bear on a single target. This gave the small ship an impressive amount of fire power.
Because they lacked other capital weapons, the design teams stuffed the corvette with eighty standard ER PPC's and forty-eight Laser Anti-Missile systems. This mixture of weapons was designed to give the corvette maximum protection against enemy dropships and fighters it would encounter in breaking the Lyran blockade of New Earth. An unforeseen benefit of this weapon's layout meant that the corvette was perfectly suited in protecting the flanks of a New Earth Fleet during a large fleet engagement. The first ship to be commissioned was the Viscount Hall, named after the hero Admiral of the 3060 Battle of Harbor Prime. Where he and his NEWS Enterprise defended Harbor Prime against three Lyran Corvettes.
Unfortunately for the designers, the war on New Earth would come to a conclusion before the Viscount Hall could slip her construction yard. In December 3060, after a number of problems with her power distribution systems linking with the ship's turrets, the Viscount Hall made its first powered flight around the shipyard. Less than a month later, the Viscount Hall was ordered to sail from the shipyards and its protective asteroid belt. The order was in direct response to a rumor of a built up of Lyran forces within a jump of New Earth.
It is rumored through intelligence networks that the day the Viscount Hall powered out of the asteroid belt, it attracted the attention of Lyran naval officers all the way back to Tharkad. While her first space trials were mixed and failed to meet the goals of the design team. However, the concept of the Viscount Hall's turrets impressed officers within the New Earth Navy so much that they ordered the project to be continued as a research project.
If New Earth designers can master the Warship Turret Design, this could give New Earth a massive advantage in the next conflict between New Earth and the Lyran Alliance. A conflict that seems to be right over the horizon!
Viscount Hall Class Corvette
Tech: Inner Sphere/Experimental
Mass: 450,000 Tons
Length: 475 Meters
Safe Thrust: 4 (2G's)
Maximum Thrust: 6 (3G's)
Fuel: 4,000 Tons (10,000 Fuel Points)
Tons/Burn per Day: 39.52
Sail Diameter: 1,050 Meters (Carries Two)
Builder: Harthford Shipyards (New Earth)
Code:
Basic Components
Item: Tonnage:
Drive System: 108,000
Fuel + Fuel Pumps: 4,080
Structural Integrity: 81,000
KF Drive: Integrity: 203,625
Jump Sail:( Carries Two) 105
Bridge: 1,125
Lithium-Fusion Batteries: . 4,500
Total Heat Sinks: 1,300+509(Engine Free) = 3,618 Heat Dissipated 1,300
Armor:IS Ferro-Carbide @ 1,296 Points= 1,620
Experimental Warship Turrets (2 Top, 2 Bottom) ((6,000*20%)+ (6,000*.1)) * 4= 7,200
Sub-Total: 412,555
Equipment and Crew Support
Dropship Capacity: 0 0 * 1,000 0
Gravity Decks: 2 (at 75 Meters Diameter) 2 * 50 100
VIP Quarters: 1 Rooms @ 10 Tons 1 VIP State Rooms 10 10
Senior Officers Quarters: (Singles @ 6 Tons Each) 23 * 4 Tons = 92
Junior Officer Quarters: (Doubles @ 4 Tons Each) (76 / 2) * 4 Tons = 152
Enlisted Crew Quarters: (Quads @ 3 Tons Each) (378 / 4) * 3 Tons = 283.5
Zero "G" Mess Facilities and Crew Lounge (2 * 150 Tons) + (2 * 25 Tons) = 350
Escape Pods: 40 (@ 7 Tons Each, 6 passengers) 50% of Total Crew 280
Life Boats: 40 (@ 7 Tons Each, 6 Passengers) 50% of Total Crew 280
Sub Total: 1,547.5
Basic Components + Equipment Sub-Total: 414,102.5
Weapons & Defenses
08 Heavy Naval PPC (In 4 Turrets) 1,800 Heat Generated 24,000
80 ER PPC 1,200 Heat Generated 560
48 Laser Anti-Missile System 576 Heat Generated 48
Sub-Totals: 3,576 Total Heat Generated 24,608
Basic Components + Equipment + Weapons Sub-Total: 438,710.5
Armor Belt (Total Points 1,296)
Fore 160 + 18 Points
Fore-Sides (R/L) 160 + 18 Points
Aft-Sides (R/L) 160 + 18 Points
Aft 160 + 18 Points
Turrets (4 Each) 84 + 18 Points
Bay/Cargo
Bay 1 Cargo: 11,289.5 Tons (4 Doors)
Bay 2
Bay 3
Special Rules: Warship Turret
Turret Rules: Each turret crew is calculated as one officer, one gunner (junior officer), three engineers, six secondary engineers. Tonnage of the turret is calculated as 20% of the total tonnage of the weapons mounted within it. Also, an additional .1 of tonnage was added to each turret for fire control. The maximum weapons per firing arc is reduced by the number of weapons within the turrets that can target from an arc (example, two turrets with two weapons can fire across the three forward arcs thus reducing their maximum weapons from twenty to sixteen. All four turrets can fire across both broadsides, thus reducing their maximum from twenty to twelve.)
Viscount Hall Personal Break Down: Total Crew 477
Officers and Crew: 352 (22 Senior Officers, 72 Junior Officers, 258 Enlisted Crew)
Bridge Crew: (5 Senior Officers, 6 Engineers, 6 Junior Officers, 6 Pilots/Navigators (Enlisted Crew,) 23
Gun Crews: (Nose: 5, Nose R/L: 5, BS R/L: 4 Aft R/L: 5, Aft: 5, Turrets: 4 = 42 Mounts): 12 Officers, 42 Gun Commanders (Junior Officers), 50 Engineers, 100 Secondary Engineers: Total Gun Crews: 204
Engineering Staff: (K-F Section: 3 Junior Officers, 5 Engineers; Fusion Plant Section: 3 Junior Officers, 3 Engineers; Transit Drive Section: 3 Junior Officers, 10 Engineers; Damage Control Section: 2 Junior Officers, 14 Secondary Engineers, Maintenance Section: 6 Junior Officers, 20 Engineers, 20 Secondary Engineers): 2 Senior Officers, 17 Junior Officers, 38 Engineers, 34 Secondary Engineers: Total Engineering Staff: 91
Medical Staff and other Personal: (Medical Bay: 2 Doctors {Senior Officers}, 4 Nurses {Junior Officers} 5 Medical Assistants {Enlisted Crew}; Administration: 1 Admin Officer {Junior Officer}, 7 Administration Staff {Enlisted Crew}; Quarter Master/Mess Staff: 1 Quarter Master {Senior Officer}, 2 Mess Officers {Junior Officers}, 12 QM/Mess Staff {Enlisted Crew} 3 Senior Officers, 7 Junior Officers, 24 Enlisted Crew: Total Support Staff 34
Marine Detachment: 1 Senior Officer, 4 Junior Officers, 120 Troopers
25 Armored Points of 5 Marines Each. Total of 125 Armored Naval Infantry
Code:
Firing Arc Type Heat Fighter Short Medium Long Extreme
Nose 04 ER PPC 170 Yes 4 4 4 4
Nose 03 ER PPC 96 Yes 3 3 3 3
Nose 03 ER PPC 96 Yes 3 3 3 3
Nose 03 Laser AMS 36 Yes NA NA NA NA
Nose 03 Laser AMS 36 Yes NA NA NA NA
Fore Left 04 ER PPC 170 Yes 4 4 4 4
Fore Left 03 ER PPC 96 Yes 3 3 3 3
Fore Left 03 ER PPC 96 Yes 3 3 3 3
Fore Left 03 Laser AMS 36 Yes NA NA NA NA
Fore Left 03 Laser AMS 36 Yes NA NA NA NA
Fore Right 04 ER PPC 170 Yes 4 4 4 4
Fore Right 03 ER PPC 96 Yes 3 3 3 3
Fore Right 03 ER PPC 96 Yes 3 3 3 3
Fore Right 03 Laser AMS 36 Yes NA NA NA NA
Fore Right 03 Laser AMS 36 Yes NA NA NA NA
Fore Upper Turret 02 HVY NPPC 450 No 30 30 30 30
Fore Lower Turret 02 HVY NPPC 450 No 30 30 30 30
Broadside, Right 03 ER PPC 96 Yes 3 3 3 3
Broadside, Right 03 ER PPC 96 Yes 3 3 3 3
Broadside, Right 03 Laser AMS 36 Yes NA NA NA NA
Broadside, Right 03 Laser AMS 36 Yes NA NA NA NA
Broadside, Left 03 ER PPC 96 Yes 3 3 3 3
Broadside, Left 03 ER PPC 96 Yes 3 3 3 3
Broadside, Left 03 Laser AMS 36 Yes NA NA NA NA
Broadside, Left 03 Laser AMS 36 Yes NA NA NA NA
Aft Upper Turret 02 HVY NPPC 450 No 30 30 30 30
Aft Lower Turret 02 HVY NPPC 450 No 30 30 30 30
Aft Right 04 ER PPC 170 Yes 4 4 4 4
Aft Right 03 ER PPC 96 Yes 3 3 3 3
Aft Right 03 ER PPC 96 Yes 3 3 3 3
Aft Right 03 Laser AMS 36 Yes NA NA NA NA
Aft Right 03 Laser AMS 36 Yes NA NA NA NA
Aft Left 04 ER PPC 170 Yes 4 4 4 4
Aft Left 03 ER PPC 96 Yes 3 3 3 3
Aft Left 03 ER PPC 96 Yes 3 3 3 3
Aft Left 03 Laser AMS 36 Yes NA NA NA NA
Aft Left 03 Laser AMS 36 Yes NA NA NA NA
Aft 04 ER PPC 170 Yes 4 4 4 4
Aft 03 ER PPC 96 Yes 3 3 3 3
Aft 03 ER PPC 96 Yes 3 3 3 3
Aft 03 Laser AMS 36 Yes NA NA NA NA
Aft 03 Laser AMS 36 Yes NA NA NA NA
Edited by Akirapryde2006 (02/29/16 06:18 PM)
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
02/29/16 02:55 PM
70.122.160.150
|
Your design is illegal.
You dont devote enough tonnage to the crew. Officers are required to have ten tons each and the enlisted crew and gunners are to have seven tons each.
Your short 3,062.5 tons on your crew quarters. I don't agree with the construction rules with the high amount of tonnage has to go to each person but them are the rules.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
ghostrider
02/29/16 04:58 PM
98.150.102.177
|
the heat sinks is off. 1200+509 is 1709. doubled is 3418, not 3618.
Now the idea of having turrets on warships came up in the forums, and is beyond something that should have happened in the canon universe before now, so that is something I can get behind.
I like limiting the amount of weapons you an have in the arcs the turrets fire in. It does some balancing of firepower verse the arcs. The turret weights and what can fit in them might need more work, as they should be scaled to the ship size, and not one size fits all. Maybe limit the larger weapons from being used in them. I would also drop the number of non turreted weapons as well. Make them think turrets or fixed. Maybe the turrets themselves take up weapons spaces according to the size and weight, but this is only a suggestion.
Without having the rules or being part of the developers, the weight of the rooms might be in part due to air scrubbers needed to keep the air clean, but this is only a guess. I guess it replaces environment controls as I don't see anything listed in the stats. It sounds like a lot, but you are talking for the entire ship. It may be based on what is needed by space stations we currently have around earth, I don't know.
As an extra suggestion, I would think non energy weapons mounted in a turret need extra strength as you will be putting more strain on them as the weapons fire. It also might be helpful with ammunition feeds as well. Not easy to load ammunition in a moving turret.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
02/29/16 05:32 PM
70.122.160.150
|
As I see it all weapons are already in turrets that is how they can fire in an entire ark and not just in a fixed straight direction.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Karagin
02/29/16 08:05 PM
61.40.222.5
|
Good fluff.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Akirapryde2006
02/29/16 08:12 PM
172.56.27.41
|
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:
Your design is illegal.
You dont devote enough tonnage to the crew. Officers are required to have ten tons each and the enlisted crew and gunners are to have seven tons each.
Your short 3,062.5 tons on your crew quarters. I don't agree with the construction rules with the high amount of tonnage has to go to each person but them are the rules.
I won’t argue the fact of the matter. Truth is, you are correct. That is what the rules say. But I can’t accept that as the rules. You are asking me to buy the fact that a room for one person (an officer) weighs almost as much as a single story, single family (unfurnished) home (counted in terms of raw material to build the home, including the concrete for the slab). I can’t, and I am sorry. I won’t argue you that you are wrong, because you’re not.
If we can set this issue aside, I would personally be grateful. I do value your opinion in other matters regarding this ship design.
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
the heat sinks is off. 1200+509 is 1709. doubled is 3418, not 3618.
Don’t know how I made that mistake. I spent the tonnage for 1,300 heat sinks, but wrote down 1,200. Either way, the error has been correct.
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Now the idea of having turrets on warships came up in the forums, and is beyond something that should have happened in the canon universe before now, so that is something I can get behind.
I like limiting the amount of weapons you an have in the arcs the turrets fire in. It does some balancing of firepower verse the arcs. The turret weights and what can fit in them might need more work, as they should be scaled to the ship size, and not one size fits all. Maybe limit the larger weapons from being used in them. I would also drop the number of non turreted weapons as well. Make them think turrets or fixed. Maybe the turrets themselves take up weapons spaces according to the size and weight, but this is only a suggestion.
A turret’s size/weight should be directly link to the weapons mounted within, not the size of the ship. It just makes more sense that way. Otherwise you would have a massively large turret with just one little weapon in it.
Not sure what you mean by “limit the large weapons from being used in them.”
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Without having the rules or being part of the developers, the weight of the rooms might be in part due to air scrubbers needed to keep the air clean, but this is only a guess. I guess it replaces environment controls as I don't see anything listed in the stats. It sounds like a lot, but you are talking for the entire ship. It may be based on what is needed by space stations we currently have around earth, I don't know.
I don’t mind the idea of there being a separate environmental controls cost in weight. But I could poke so many holes in your idea as to why it cost so much weight. But that is neither here nor there
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
As an extra suggestion, I would think non energy weapons mounted in a turret need extra strength as you will be putting more strain on them as the weapons fire. It also might be helpful with ammunition feeds as well. Not easy to load ammunition in a moving turret.
Now this would be a great idea in dealing with Naval Auto-Canons/Missile Launchers and Turrets. It would clearly, give some players a reason to pause before installing a turret for Auto-Canons.
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:
As I see it all weapons are already in turrets that is how they can fire in an entire ark and not just in a fixed straight direction.
Turrets on warships has always been an issue in my games. However what I am working towards is a turret that can redirect fire from one arc in to another arc.
Quote:
Karagin writes:
Good fluff.
Thanks Karagin!
|
ghostrider
02/29/16 08:41 PM
98.150.102.177
|
I know there is large holes in the weight verse what is really needed for air recyclers. I find it seems overweight for the purpose as well. Given the fact that ships need to have a balance, they might be suggesting the same weight be used elsewhere for it, or maybe they are using cast iron to support the structures verse titanium or other light weight metals. Hell they could be using twist ties as their basis. I don't know. It was an attempt to come up with some sort of justification for it. And this is coming from someone that loves to argue the numbers don't work well.
The idea of limiting the turrets to the weight of the ship as well as the type of weapons that can be fit in them does need a little clarifying. The weight of the turret should fit the weight of the weapons, but there should be a max limit for the size of the turret on the ship. It would be rediculous to put a turreted heavy ppc in a shuttle. Otherwise, why bother with the arc mounted weapon when you can put it all in a turret? Then you don't have to worry about turning the ship or even having extra sinks as all weapons could be fired each round.
This deals with both statements, but probably need more defining.
I would think no more then a certain percentage of the weapons could be in a turret. Even multiple turrets should have a limit to just what it can carry and use. Even a turret jamming can be gotten around by turning the ship. The naval turret thread touched on this slightly.
Maybe something less confusing might be saying a covette could only use light weapons in 2 or so turrets total, while on the largest ships could mount the heavy gauss and such in them. It is a thought. Maybe not a good one.
The current ideas for weapons firing in arcs seems to be based on semi turrets. Kind of like torso mounted weapons on a mech. You can fire something out of the right torso and hit something on the left side of the firing arc, and that is including the changed firing arc from a torso twist. Some how, the ac 20 in an atlas can pop a mech by the left arm of the mech without turning. Maybe they have ducting like the harriers in the navy have for their vertical lifting. Or magic. I don't know.
This is talking a full moving the arc from left to right without moving the entire ship.
And the limit of 45 degrees up comes from using normal propellants to fire shells on sea ships. Anything about 45 degrees doesn't add to range. Just a higher arc, and doesn't really help when firing on ships. Direct fire better then lobbing. Or supposed to be.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/01/16 01:31 AM
172.56.7.158
|
You design is an illegal design and until it is a legal design there is little point on commenting on it.
I was told the same thing when I argued that hover tanks should be allowed to use the same engine ratting no mater what kind of engine was used. I said why is a 200 ICE engine legal but a 200 fusion engine is illegal just because the fusion engine is lighter and does not comply with the 25% weight rule it's still a 200 rated engine like it's ICE counter part. I was told that it's illegal end of story. Because I still disagree I just don't post any of my fusion hover craft designs anymore. Thier argument had some perverted merit in if everyone does not follow the rules to the letter there is no point in having rules at all no matter how stupid they are.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
ghostrider
03/01/16 01:45 AM
98.150.102.177
|
I agree that the difference in weight for ICE to fusion is crap. The stupid thing with that is the fusion engine with the transmission is 75% of the ICE. It is the same stupid argument as not using endo steel for the frame. Or double heat sinks. The power output is what should determine how it operates. Otherwise you can suggest that a fusion engine does not produce the same power as the ICE equal to it, and an xl would produce even less. But I will move this discussion to another thread.
|
Karagin
03/01/16 05:58 AM
61.40.222.5
|
Given that you can modify the weight of a many number of things the offset can be taken into account for other things like storage or cargo.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Akirapryde2006
03/01/16 03:13 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Karagin, you are correct. For me, there are just so many things in ship construction that are glossed over for the sake of ease of play. Too many things are balanced just to make calculations easy.
While this works nicely for Mech/Vehicle/Small Craft design, however for Dropships, Jumpships, and Warships things should be complicated, because of the very nature of what you are designing/building.
But what I really want to talk about is the idea/concept of warship mounted turrets. I came up with a very basic idea that seems to fit with both the mechanics of the game and reality. What do you think?
I am really REALLY hoping that Cray will come over and visit this thread and offer his ideas/opinion on Warship Mounted Turrets.
It would really mean a lot to me to hear what everyone thinks of this concept.
Akira
|
Cray
03/02/16 07:39 PM
72.189.109.30
|
Quote:
The maximum weapons per firing arc is reduced by the number of weapons within the turrets that can target from an arc (example, two turrets with two weapons can fire across the three forward arcs thus reducing their maximum weapons from twenty to sixteen. All four turrets can fire across both broadsides, thus reducing their maximum from twenty to twelve.)
Could you expand on this a bit - like, itemize where turrets can cover? The number of turrets and the arcs they cover sort of pop out of nowhere with no former support in the fluff.
Quote:
Turret Rules: Each turret crew is calculated as one officer, one gunner (junior officer), three engineers, six secondary engineers. Tonnage of the turret is calculated as 20% of the total tonnage of the weapons mounted within it. Also, an additional .1 of tonnage was added to each turret for fire control.
If you're just going to have "upper" and "lower" turrets, rather than multiples like support vehicles, I'd suggest a simplification: just increase the base weight of the turret rather than increasing fire control separately.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
ghostrider
03/02/16 08:54 PM
98.150.102.177
|
I agree with cray. The 20% could include the fire control systems and computers. If you think that is a bit low, I would suggest bumping up the weight a little.
As for the arcs the turrets can cover, I would think the 2 arcs beside the one they are mounted in, ie a nose mounted turret should be able to fire in the left and right arcs (broadsides). The aerodyne arcs so there isn't a confusion of the way now that would fire in the spheroid left front arc and right front arc. Maybe limit them to front/back locations without any broadsides locations for them. Might be too restrictive, but a suggestion.
This might be better continued in the turret thread instead of the ship itself.
Ok. Thought there was a thread dealing with turrets specifically, but I guess not. might want to add one.
Edited by ghostrider (03/02/16 08:58 PM)
|
Akirapryde2006
03/02/16 09:28 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Quote:
Cray writes:
Quote:
The maximum weapons per firing arc is reduced by the number of weapons within the turrets that can target from an arc (example, two turrets with two weapons can fire across the three forward arcs thus reducing their maximum weapons from twenty to sixteen. All four turrets can fire across both broadsides, thus reducing their maximum from twenty to twelve.)
Could you expand on this a bit - like, itemize where turrets can cover? The number of turrets and the arcs they cover sort of pop out of nowhere with no former support in the fluff.
I would be more than happy to explain this. Sorry I missed it in the fluff. I know I am going to take the long road around to your answer. But please bare with me as I really want you to see how I came to this conclusion.
So the combat rules of Battlespace (and those that came afterwards) consider the star-map to be slightly beyond two dimensional. Much like what you see with warships of WWI and before, where large ships lined up and just slugged it out. So I continued this concept in my home grown rule. This is why you will see my turrets are top and bottom.
I looked closely at warships from the Civil War through the WWII. I considered the current warships designs to be more in line with the CSS Virginia. Each ship had eight firing arcs. Three forward, two broadsides, three aft. If you look at the CSS Virginia, you can see the firing arcs well defined by the weapon ports.
I then looked at warships that came after the creation of the CSS Virginia and saw how turrets transverse through different firing arcs. If the turret is mounted on the side, it could fire forward and aft as well as broadside. So I came up with the idea that a turret won't be able to spin completely around. Instead it will only be able to cover three total firing arcs. This would allow a turret with two Hvy Naval PPC's to do the work of six. Sure you loose some in over all fire power but for smaller warships, you can focus your fire power much more for less tonnage.
Now why you see upper and lower turrets is because there is no water under the warship. This location is often over looked by designers. In space, there is no relative up or down. So there is no reason not to use this as a weapon location. However the same rules should apply for both upper and lower turrets.
I know that balance is very important to the creators of the rules of the game. So I wanted to include balance to the rule set for Turrets. If a turret is mounted on a ship, it can only fire across three firing arcs. So a forward mounted turret would be able to fire across the forward firing arcs. All Turrets are to be considered to have the ability to fire across each broadside arc. And because of that, these arcs would have to have their total weapons per arc recalculated so that should the turret fire from that arc, it does not violate the maximum weapons per firing arc. So if you mount a single turret with ten weapons. These weapons will be able to fire across all forward arcs as well as both broadside. These arcs would now be able to only ten weapons instead of the normal twenty.
Does that answer your question?
I will work on updating the fluff to cover this once I have fully explained it, and worked out the bugs here in the forum.
Quote:
Cray writes:
Quote:
Turret Rules: Each turret crew is calculated as one officer, one gunner (junior officer), three engineers, six secondary engineers. Tonnage of the turret is calculated as 20% of the total tonnage of the weapons mounted within it. Also, an additional .1 of tonnage was added to each turret for fire control.
If you're just going to have "upper" and "lower" turrets, rather than multiples like support vehicles, I'd suggest a simplification: just increase the base weight of the turret rather than increasing fire control separately.
The increase in fire control was to include within the rule set another level of balance for much larger ships mounting a vast number of turrets. While not completely damning, the .1 or 10% of the tonnage does add up the more turret mounted weapons you employ.
The fluff behind this fire control addition is that you have multiple turrets locking on to one or more targets for maximum effect. This will demand more fire control between turrets and the location of command and control on the warship.
I hope that this covers your questions
Akira
|
ghostrider
03/02/16 11:58 PM
98.150.102.177
|
So you would limit ships to fire in a top/bottom arc and not do both?
I thought all ships could fire anywhere in 180 degree arc going from top to bottom, but I guess that is an assumption.
But then the game isn't really dealing with 3 dimensions as this issue has come up.
So that leads to a second question.
Would you make a turret that fires in the up/down arcs as well or in lieu of the multiple side arcs?
But this would assume that only a small vertical arc is being used for weapons as opposed to the 90 degree arc used in the weapons now. Ie 45 degrees one way to 45 degrees the other way.
As a side note, the turret should have fire control components in it, as it changes HOW the weapon can fire, meaning the standard firing solutions would not work as the base and aim is different from the spinal mounted weapons. But that is something for another time.
|
Karagin
03/03/16 06:12 AM
61.40.222.5
|
I like the idea of turrets, just not sure how to get the to work in the game. Your ideas are good, I would need to use them with in my group to see what came of it. I know we have used them, but our take was more akin to using the vehicle turret rules grafted to things at one point and then borrowing from other sources like Renegade Legion etc...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/03/16 07:56 AM
70.122.160.150
|
My take is why fix whats not broken. I think that the weapon placement rules are just fine as they are. This entire discussion sounds like something newtype would dream up.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Akirapryde2006
03/03/16 11:01 AM
71.100.132.249
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
So you would limit ships to fire in a top/bottom arc and not do both?
I thought all ships could fire anywhere in 180 degree arc going from top to bottom, but I guess that is an assumption.
But then the game isn't really dealing with 3 dimensions as this issue has come up.
I am not sure I am following your statement here. But I will try to address it. As you see in the Viscount Hall, the ship mounts four turrets. One top forward, one bottom forward, one top aft, and one bottom aft. I actually did my homework on the topic of Warship turrets. Now I didn't bother working/considering wing turrets as I don't see this as a worthy endeavor considering the benefit of standard fore and aft turrets. So this is why I choose the turret layout as I did.
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
So that leads to a second question.
Would you make a turret that fires in the up/down arcs as well or in lieu of the multiple side arcs?
But this would assume that only a small vertical arc is being used for weapons as opposed to the 90-degree arc used in the weapons now. Ie 45 degrees one way to 45 degrees the other way.
I would have to say no, because as you said the game doesn't really deal with a three dimensional map grid. Look in all truthfulness, you are right space battles are three dimensional. However, this would be a push/shove too far in the game mechanics/rules. Even I accept that this won't work. The turrets should be treated in terms of gun elevation as any other weapon.
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
As a side note, the turret should have fire control components in it, as it changes HOW the weapon can fire, meaning the standard firing solutions would not work as the base and aim is different from the spinal mounted weapons. But that is something for another time.
I am glad to hear that I have your support in terms of the fire control components. I do think that the weapons mounted in turrets need to have some sense of balance to them.
Quote:
Karagin writes:
I like the idea of turrets, just not sure how to get the to work in the game. Your ideas are good, I would need to use them with in my group to see what came of it. I know we have used them, but our take was more akin to using the vehicle turret rules grafted to things at one point and then borrowing from other sources like Renegade Legion etc...
Karagin, I would be honored in you could take the Viscount Hall in to combat with your group.
If you provide an email address to my PM, I will give you the actually formulas I used to create the ship. Feel free to check my math and if need be tweak a bit. Please remember that the ship was created out of desperation and used what was available at the time. I am sure that later ships will be better suited to employ turrets. Think of the battle between the Monitor and Virginia.
I know that how I allocate space for crew can be a bit odd and boarder line illegal (depending on how you look at it). But there is more than enough cargo space to make up for a change back to what the rules demand.
As I said, I would be honored if you could command my ship within your group and see how it handles. I have play tested, but I don't have any actually battle space players to compete with  so my tests results can be a bit biased.
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:
My take is why fix whats not broken. I think that the weapon placement rules are just fine as they are. This entire discussion sounds like something newtype would dream up.
So you are saying that my idea here while not required is new and innovating! Thank you.
BTW yes I know that's not what you are saying. But I figure why waste my breath. You really could care less about the dozen or more examples within this game I could show you, as to why despite something which might not be broke, something could still be "improved" upon. But I am not going to let you rain on my idea because you want to be difficult.
I don't mean to sound rude but how else am I to take your statement? The truth of the matter is, if you don't like the idea you don't have to post to the topic.
Akira
Edited by Akirapryde2006 (03/03/16 11:18 AM)
|
ghostrider
03/03/16 11:20 AM
98.150.102.177
|
As I said before, there has only been on real example of ships firing above/below the main warship, and that was in a novel.
Fighters do it all the time, but they don't tend to be in the position like the larger ships.
The topic of turrets on warships deals with water lines, but consider this. On a flying plane, why would you want the anti air defense to fire in say just the bottom right side of a plane? You would want all weapons possible firing in every arc you can, so you have a better chance at removing threats faster. That missile fired on you b51 bomber might come from the front, sides, rear, above, or below. It maybe ground to air or air to air.
As I said the game doesn't deal with 3d. But that does not mean your design can not be set up with it. And to keep it simple, I seriously doubt they will ever incorporate the 3d dimension. Range changes as you move diagnally away from each other using a box patter. The opposite corners are that much further then side to side.
The fact you said top and bottom while making the turrets, tells me you have considered it yourself.
"wing' mounted turrets is just like your front mounted one, but would allow side weapons to fire forward/aft. Wing term was used to promote the idea of broadsides as well as the flank front/back weapons as well. Granted this is probably thinking dropships using the turrets as well as warships, so might be getting ahead of the game.
Also rear turrets would help put more firepower on a side target, as we as side turrets helping defend the aft.
A good example of 2 different turret types would be the old battlestar galactica, the original. One move just side to side, while they other had an up/down range to it as well. Or the top/bottom guns on the milienium falcon from star wars. That had more then just side to side. Not sure if it would point straight out from the side, but it did more then along the ships plane.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/03/16 05:11 PM
70.122.160.150
|
Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:
My take is why fix whats not broken. I think that the weapon placement rules are just fine as they are. This entire discussion sounds like something newtype would dream up.
So you are saying that my idea here while not required is new and innovating! Thank you.
BTW yes I know that's not what you are saying. But I figure why waste my breath. You really could care less about the dozen or more examples within this game I could show you, as to why despite something which might not be broke, something could still be "improved" upon. But I am not going to let you rain on my idea because you want to be difficult.
I don't mean to sound rude but how else am I to take your statement? The truth of the matter is, if you don't like the idea you don't have to post to the topic.
Your right I don't have to respond but I think that your idea is going in the totally wrong direction and I think that disagreeing opinions should be heard. Your adding more complicated rules so the game will become even less realistic than it already is just so your ship can be even more powerful than the game rules allows. I totally agree that there should be lots of corrections to the rules but this is not one of them.
By the way I do like polite way you told me that since I don't like your idea to shut up and go away and to stop raining on your parade.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Akirapryde2006
03/03/16 08:08 PM
71.100.132.249
|
@His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
I had a nice long post in response to your comments, till I realized that I was playing right in to your hand by derailing my own thread. Allow me to defuse your obstruction with simple logic and enlightened conversation.
There are two issues that were raised by this ship design.
One by you, the crew tonnage allotment
Your complaint is that how I have done it, is illegal. Which I have already addressed. I do not deny that the method that I have chosen is illegal. The method that the rules use to set allotment for crew quarters forces the designers to spend tonnage on quarters unrealistic. A room (which is by its nature mostly empty space) doesn't have as much weight as the rules claim.
The rules also overlook crew support systems that should be required (such as life support, which wouldn't be dependent on the rank of the crew person).
If you read the Twilight of the Clans series there are a number of references to support the concept that crew quarters are not heavy as suggested by the rules first created in Battlespace. In the series, you see crew quarters where more than one crew member shares a single room (Something which the rules in their current format deny). Even Morgan Hasek-Davion own quarters (which if memory serves is the Invisible Truth, a Cameron-class battlecruiser) was described as being cramped and only had a few furnishings.
It is of my opinion that if one were to follow the rules they are laid out, than the crew quarters of my warships would be more in line with what is seen in Star Trek crew quarters. These style crew quarters would be vast and filled with numerous luxuries. Which is fine, and would surely award the ship with a crew moral bonus. And if the ship can afford the weight, have at it. However, for my designs, I have leaned hard on more acceleration over luxury crew quarters.
But if you look at modern warships, this concept isn't the norm. Even within US Warships. When I started down this path with the Aegis II, I looked at more realistic references throughout the cannon material provided by authorized authors of the universe and within reality. What I created is only my best opinion of what a real warship quarters would look like within the universe. Beyond the quarters, I have included lounges and Zero "G" Messes as well as more than enough life boats and escape pods for the entire crew. It is of my opinion that these things including with a Grav Deck should offset much of the moral hit I would take from smaller crew quarters.
The other is the concept of Warship mounted Turrets
You claim that this over complicates the rules and is unrealistic.
While I don't deny that any rule change will further complicate an already overly simplistic warship design system. However, I do vigorously deny that this is unrealistic. In fact to ignore innovation in designs (regardless if it is mech, vehicle, fighter, ect designs) is more unrealistic then what I have suggested here.
I fell in to this very trap when I first learned of Sub-Capital weapons. It was my first opinion that Sub-Capital Weapons violated the very intention of the original game designers. However, after deeper reflection I realized I was opposing the very realistic evolution of the game rules/mechanics that I was pressing for. Since I have been forced to admit that my claims about Sub-Capital Weapons were wrong.
Currently you can mount turrets on just about any craft/structure expect warships and jumpships (If you look at the design of the Fortress, the Long Tom is turret mounted but can only be used when the craft is landed. So I would argue that you could mount turret mounted weapons on dropships). If you look at approved art work you see turrets on warships designs. However there is no rules supporting this art work. There is little reason supporting why there is no rules that allow warships to mount turrets, other than its simply not allowed. So I created house rules that would make it allowed and presented them to the powers to be for their consideration.
You state that this new rule is only meant to make my warship more powerful. I do not deny this. But I ask you, please explain to me any reference in history where a ship was designed not to be the very best in its class? It makes no sense not to press the envelope, not to be innovative. Sure we can sit across the table and argue rules and mechanics of the game. However, you can't deny that innovation and history is on my side. All you have for your argument is the current mechanics of the game. But consider this, WWII, the Japanese were bound by the Washington Naval Treaty to maintain a Capital fleet no larger than 315,000 tons. This paper didn't stop them from working around the treaty and later violating it outright. There is no realistic reason why a warship can't mount a turret.
Any warship of this weight can mount eight Hvy Naval PPC's. What I have done is made this craft more combat effective against ships that have a more traditional design. With the ability to put all eight Hvy Naval PPC's on a single target within a single broadside, this craft can outgun other ships of traditional design. Which I argue, is in fact the whole idea for designing new craft. To create a warship that is able to beat other warships in combat.
Look at the evolution of technology within the game. Something wasn't possible until the authors said, okay it is now possible. This is my attempt to sway the authors to a new idea/concept, much like Sub-Capital Weapons brought in to being. And I know that this breaks with tradition of how warships are designed and gives new designs an edge over traditional designs.
Which is your real case, isn't. You don't want to change from the traditional way warships mount their weapons. But in this stance, I claim that it is you, who is being less realistic than my suggestion.
When the Monitor first set sailed, it had its critics also. The ship only mounted two 11" Smoothbores canons compared to the Virginia's six 9" Smoothbores and two 6" and two 7" Rifles. Many critics claimed that the smaller Monitor couldn't possible survive the Battle of Hampton Roads. History would prove these critics wrong. For nearly a hundred years since this historical battle, warships of all classes mounted turrets Only with the advancement of missile technology had Turrets given way on warships. However with the development of rail guns and more advanced lasers, turrets are making a come back.
|
ghostrider
03/03/16 10:21 PM
98.150.102.177
|
Without knowing why the crew quarters weigh so much, it is questionable to say they are over weight. The size difference between things like officers and crew may well be things like back up tanks, and just what is in the rooms as they tend to be larger sizes for officers. If you go by crew quarters of current ships, ie navy ships, aren't the enlisted crews normally in bunk beds, and not single bed for the rooms? It may well be they were basing the weight on very old information for this, ie having the extra tied downs for everything, and such.
But I do agree it sounds heavier then is should be.
Now donkey does have the right to suggest there are things wrong with the design, as it is not canon. Others have suffered from someone being far worse then donkey has been. I, myself have been harsh on a few that were putting up their designs. Those fell within the written rules, but I felt violated the spirit of them. I felt like they exploited a loop hole, but kept is somewhat civil. Donkey has been very civil about it.
And the fluff for drop ships and novels does indeed say the weapons on drop ships are in blisters, with is basically side turrets. Now it gets complicated when they are on the ground. They have 3 firing arcs, not 2 or 4. No where in the rule sets does it say how fast a spheroid drop ship spins, but it must rotate at least once per minute. A little off track, but it does support the turret idea with the blisters.
The problem with turrets being used now, is the game itself. This should have been in the game earlier, as turrets use would NEVER have stopped on direct fire weapons. Missiles still are used in turrets, but not the long range/icbm style ones, as they are fired for such a distance they can track to their target, not point on shoot, such as planes do. Turrets will ALWAYS be on military ships as what good is having a weapon that is fixed in one firing arc?
You need 4 just to cover your firing arcs. Turrets allow minimum number of weapons on a ship lacking space and frankly keeping it lighter in weight, to bring maximum firepower to the enemy. Even in the old sea battles, you really didn't send you ships in between enemy formations and fire in both directions. It happened, but not be choice.
I guess the turrets and blisters are what may be causing the issue with donkey, as a blister is considered a turret, but not like the ones that are being suggested here. I agree there HAS to be weapons turrets in effect as the heavy weapons can fire the full arc of where they are located at, as you will not be turning the ship to fire both broadsides into oncoming ships that lay in the extreme opposites of the firing arcs. It would be assumed you are rotating on the axis to do so now.
If I recall the dead mans slot for attacking enemy flying vehicles is the high 6 oclock position.
But the game doesn't deal with that.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/04/16 09:12 AM
70.122.160.150
|
First war ships already have turrets. If they did not the only direction that a weapon can fire is straight out in a fixed direction and you would have to aim the ship and not the weapon like a real world fighter aircraft has to do with its machine guns.
Now you say that you want to expand the firing ark with your turrets. This cant be done with out putting the weapon system well outside the ships hull. You made a reference to 20th century naval ships. Such ships main guns had at best a what 20 degree firing ark from a flat horizon trajectory to that 20 or so degree up from horizon. I would like you to show me just one example of a real world battleship that could fire its main guns straight up into the air. Yes the guns could be turned around on its track in a what 270 degree ark but they cant fire straight up. This is exactly what your asking for and it just cant be done with out moving said turrets well outside the ships hull.
Now another thing about your reference to real world battleship main guns the turret weighed far more than the weapon that they held before the main guns where installed within the turret do to the reinforcing that was required. Remember when you increase the size of something by double you increase the mass by eight fold and to support it you have to increase the supporting framing even more so. Not only does the turret has to support a larger gun but it has to support its own increased mass. The larger of a firing ark the weapon has the larger the mass of the turret has to be to account for this and this has to be account for. There is a point where the turret has to be so massive to account for such a large firing ark its just becomes to much to be effective.
Now as for your reference to the ships crew quarters. Remember the crew has to be able to move around the ship and corridors take up mass in the ship and so has to be accounted for. The same goes for work stations that also takes up mass and has to be accounted for. Instead of making everyone having to do this separately they just dump it all in as crew quarters.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
ghostrider
03/04/16 12:53 PM
98.150.102.177
|
I believe AA guns have the abilities to fire past the main guns. Turrets would have to evolve to fire in the up/down arcs, otherwise warships would be useless with such a large vulnerable areas.
I want to say some of the missile launchers from sams have a higher firing arcs as well. I don't know if they flip over like a riflemans arms do, though I may be confusing real life with some games. Also, artillery pieces have a wider range of height adjustment. Real time war ships do not need to fire high into the air with their main guns. That is why they do not do it. Anti air/missile weapons are required to fire at a more vertical position.
Another issue with the main guns is loading ammunition. Unless you return to a neutral position, you can not reload the main guns if the barrel is in a near vertical position. So that may be another reason why they don't go that high.
In space, gravity isn't an issue in battles like it is on the planet. You are not worried of shots falling on yourself or allies.
And the problem of having another battleship fly over head or under the ship isn't a reality at this time. Only aircraft, yet the warships we are talking about are aircraft. So this changes alot of concepts that we don't deal with today.
A good example of the turret set up akira may be hinting at is the terrain alliance war ships from babylon 5. Well for horizontal arcs. Star treks phasor banks are the only ones I can think of that have a large vertical firing arc. But I do see most of the fantasy ships tend to have a flat firing arc that the ship has to turn and fact the enemy, which is completely stupid when dealing with the entire 3d arcs around a ship.
I do like the explanation of why crew quarters might be so heavy. I know I didn't think about having to clean the air for more then just the quarters at the time I said something about them. Since they don't have environmental controls based on the size and population of the ships, it would be a smart idea to base it directly on the people on the ship. Easier, as there are larger ships with less people on them, but for a war game, that isn't likely.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/04/16 06:25 PM
70.122.160.150
|
You are right that AA mounts do go at a far greater angel than the main guns but your also talking of something that is tiny compared to a main battleship gun. The 5 inch gun on modern destroyers only go up to a maybe 45 degree off of the horizon and it can engage aircraft at a range from the ship.
As for modern missiles they have there one maneuvering surfaces to direct the missile they don't need to be aimed out of the ship towards the enemy target.
Quote:
ghostrider
But I do see most of the fantasy ships tend to have a flat firing arc that the ship has to turn and fact the enemy, which is completely stupid when dealing with the entire 3d arcs around a ship.
I could not disagree with you any more. Their man weapons cant be turreted because they are just to massive to do so the designers of the SciFi ships actually put some thought into that. But if you look at the ships anti fighter guns they are in turrets. What I find unrealistic is Star Treks phasor banks that they can fire in any direction.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Akirapryde2006
03/04/16 08:13 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:
First war ships already have turrets. If they did not the only direction that a weapon can fire is straight out in a fixed direction and you would have to aim the ship and not the weapon like a real world fighter aircraft has to do with its machine guns.
Yes, I would agree with you. There are already a kind of turret on the current traditional warships that allow the weapons to shift fire in limited directions.
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:
Now you say that you want to expand the firing ark with your turrets. This can’t be done without putting the weapon system well outside the ships hull. You made a reference to 20th century naval ships. Such ships main guns had at best a what 20 degree firing ark from a flat horizon trajectory to that 20 or so degree up from horizon. I would like you to show me just one example of a real world battleship that could fire its main guns straight up into the air. Yes the guns could be turned around on its track in a what 270 degree ark but they cant fire straight up. This is exactly what your asking for and it just cant be done without moving said turrets well outside the ships hull.
Do you know what I love about this discussion? The fact that you don’t bother reading the supporting links I put forward in this conversation.
So you are asking me to show you “just one example of a modern battleship that can could fire its main guns straight up into the air.” You know that this is a fool’s tasks that reflects your lack of knowledge of the subject. First off, there are no current battleships in service with any navy. Second large caliber weapons that you see for main guns on battleships are designed for range. These ranges are achieved by a mixture of thrust of the projectile and the elevation that that projectile is fired at. There is a direct relation between range and elevation in modern guns. Gravity has a massive effect on this relationship.
To fire straight up in to the air would defeat the effort to achieve maximum range. Something you have failed to consider in your argument. So I am calling you out for your fool’s task.
But you want to talk elevation, let’s talk elevation. But first let us put your challenge in to easier to manage terms. To clarify what straight up into the air is for this conversation, we can assume that straight up in to the air is an elevation of 90 degrees.
The Mark 7, 16”/50 Caliber naval gun can be elevated from -5 degrees to +45 degrees, moving at up to 12 degrees per second. The turrets could rotate about 300 degrees at about 4 degrees per second and could even be fired back beyond the beam, which is sometimes called "over the shoulder". Within each turret, a red stripe on the wall of the turret, just inches from the railing, marked the boundary of the gun's recoil, providing the crew of each gun turret with a visual reference for the minimum safe distance range.
[url=url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16"/50_caliber_Mark_7_gun#Description]Cited Source: Wiki - 16"/50 Caliber Mark 7[/url]
A total change in elevation of 50 degrees!
However, I will also show you what modern main guns on current warships can do. The 5”/54 Caliber Mark 45 Gun has an Elevation change of -15 degrees to +65 degrees. That’s a combined change of elevation of 80 degrees. Ten degrees off what you are looking for.
[url=url=http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-54_mk45.htm]Cited Source: Wiki 5"/54 Caliber Mark 45 Naval Gun[/url]
But it doesn’t end there. Thanks to modern technology (Since WWI) ships have large ballast tanks that help stabilize the ship. During the Invasion of Normandy (WWII) the Captain of the Battleship Texas had the starboard ballast tanks flooded and gave the ship a 5 to 10 degree list. This increased the elevation of the main guns up to 10 degrees, thus increasing the range of the main battery.
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:
Now another thing about your reference to real world battleship main guns the turret weighed far more than the weapon that they held before the main guns where installed within the turret do to the reinforcing that was required. Remember when you increase the size of something by double you increase the mass by eight fold and to support it you have to increase the supporting framing even more so. Not only does the turret has to support a larger gun but it has to support its own increased mass. The larger of a firing ark the weapon has the larger the mass of the turret has to be to account for this and this has to be account for. There is a point where the turret has to be so massive to account for such a large firing ark its just becomes to much to be effective.
While you are wrong in your general understanding of modern turret design, I understand what you are getting at. And to a degree, I agree with you. This is the reason why I gave the Viscount Hall 180 points of structural integrity (81,000 tons worth of structural integrity), nearly double of the Nightlord class battleship. I did this to harden the ship’s mass to the stress of its spinning moving turrets.
Where you are wrong, is that the movement of the turret has no relation to its mass/weight. The relationship of its mass would be in direct relation to the weapons mounted within it. The physics of this within the game universe and mechanics has already been set when you look at turret rules for other craft. There is no explanation as to why these mechanics would differ greatly. I choose in the Viscount Hall to double the ‘physics’ of the mechanics to give myself an end run around this argument.
You also fail to understand that mass is not as critical in space where gravity doesn’t play nearly as a major role as it would on a planet. So no, you are again wrong in your understanding of this subject. If you would like a chance to better understand this. Watch any NASA video of spacewalks where Astronauts move massive large items with little effort. While this is not the case for all craft, for warships/Jumpships that do not move in to planetary atmospheres, this is true all the time. Thus making the concept of turrets on these units more likely, not less likely.
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:
Now as for your reference to the ships crew quarters. Remember the crew has to be able to move around the ship and corridors take up mass in the ship and so has to be accounted for. The same goes for work stations that also takes up mass and has to be accounted for. Instead of making everyone having to do this separately they just dump it all in as crew quarters.
If what you say is true, (which we both know it’s not), then why have a different weight for officers and crew? A corridor to an officer’s cabin would have the same weight as one leading to a crew cabin. Officers would not have a ‘work station’ as they would be over seeing the work done by the crew. So the current weights would be reversed.
The truth is, the current rules, which were adopted from Battlespace, are a gross generalization and over simplistic method to make the math of creating warships easier. The end result created a unrealistic methodology of dealing with crew requirements.
Now I would not be opposed to an idea of a crew multiplier. The crew would be based on the weight of the ship, engine, KF Drive, weapons, ect, ect. And then a base multiplier used to create the bare basic crew support systems. This would include escape pods, life boats, grav decks, mess halls, lounges, life support ect, ect. Any weight above this base amount would award the ship with a moral bonus and even a possible combat bonus. And any weight less than that would panelize the ship with a moral penalty.
Akira
PS Ghost, I will reply to your posts when I get a chance. I didn't miss what you said. I am just running out of time for posting tonight.
Edited by Akirapryde2006 (03/04/16 08:19 PM)
|
Akirapryde2006
03/04/16 10:04 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Ghost, you raised the question about Naval Autocanons and how the ammo feed would work.
While energy based weapons would benefit greatly from Warship mounted Turrets, another form of balance that could be used would be ammo feeds for Naval Autcanons. Maybe include an addition weight cost for ammo feed mechanisms for Ammo hungry weapons like Autocanons, missile launchers, and so on.
Here take a look at how real turrets work in terms of ammo. This should shed some light on to this idea for balance.
So if the link doesn't work....
here....
Copy and paste
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_artillery#/media/File:Animated_gun_turret_with_labels.gif
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/04/16 10:39 PM
208.54.86.191
|
Don't have time for long responce.
Mass does matter a LOT it's weight that is not relevant in micro gravity.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
ghostrider
03/05/16 04:13 AM
98.150.102.177
|
I could not disagree with you any more. Their man weapons cant be turreted because they are just to massive to do so the designers of the SciFi ships actually put some thought into that.
That statement counters your own ideas that the weapons in a battletech warship are already in turrets. This would mean there is no real concept of firing arcs, as the ship needs to be turned to aim weapons at the enemy. This also counters the real life warships of the navy right now. Thinking about it the star destroyers from star wars do have their main turbo lasers in turrets as they did fire down from the ship in a few scenes instead of pointing the nose towards the falcon. Only the death stars main weapon was point the station towards the target. In the latest movie, they split the main weapons fire and hit multiple targets. Sorry if that spoils some peoples not seeing the movie yet.
Now another issue seems to be not realizing there is no reason for the 16 inch guns on a current battleship to fire above the 45 degree angle. They are not shooting over mountains like normal artillery as their primary function. And 45 degrees is about max to gain any range so anything above that doesn't work. So there is no reason to have it do so.
Now if a real world battleship had to deal with another battleship being able to fly directly above if, you can bet they would fire straight up. One on one is not the problem, but in large scale battles, it would be. The game does not deal with this, which honestly, they should have optional rules for allowing players to use zenith differences to gain advantages over their opponents, but that is another topic.
And dealing with different weights of the crew quarters, there are alot of things that can be said as to why it might be more for officers. First one is the size of the room. I don't see where the officers quarters is the same size or even smaller/larger then the enlisted shared quarters. Another possible issue is if they are using paper still. Filing cabinets get heavy quickly as they are filled with papers. Also little luxury items such as refridgorators, wine coolers, and things like that add up quickly when used and filled.
|
Akirapryde2006
03/05/16 10:24 AM
71.100.132.249
|
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:
Don't have time for long responce.
Mass does matter a LOT it's weight that is not relevant in micro gravity.
I am glad you didn't have time for a long response to your above statement. Donkey, listen, I don't mind having a conversation with you on this topic. I don't mind hearing what you got to say. What I do mind is obstruction for the sake of obstruction.
Again you are showing your lack of knowledge of the subject. In this case mass in space.
Here let me give you the definition of Mass so you better understand.
Mass (noun)
1: a body of coherent matter, usually of indefinite shape and often of considerable size
2: a collection of incoherent particles, parts, or objects regarded as forming one body
You claim that mass has a lot to do with how it will function. First off, regardless of size, without any opposing force (like gravity or friction) the turret will move with ease. Second, in dealing with Warship designs, the mechanics of the game has already started that mass (or size) has no baring. There are no crit locations that need to be allocated like there are in battlemechs. Now if we were talking about battlemechs you would have a viable argument with mass.
Now weight on the other hand does have a factor. First the mechanics have demanded so. And in this I agree because you are talking about acceleration in direct relation to the weight of the ship. This effects the ships ability to change velocity and direction. They also use weight as the standard bench mark for balance and limitations. Take your K-F drive (which you would have a better argument for in relation to mass, as logically, the size (or mass) of the ship should be directly linked to the weight of the K-F Drive. But I accept the rules here as a benchmark), the weight of the ship determent the weight of the K-F Drive. Now Secondly, when you are talking about weight in space with no friction, you have to deal with Newtons three laws.
Now you have stated multiple times that the turret would have to be "well outside the haul". Well I am not sure what you are talking about in terms of well outside. When I created this ship, I wanted to have something like what is seen in the picture above (only using a Hvy Naval PPC instead of a Naval Canon as shown).
The turret would be mounted in to sockets kind of like they are in modern battleships. It would be a heavily armored rectangular room with a pair of Hvy Naval PPC's side by side. The top of the turret would raise above the ship as you see in any picture of a modern naval battleship. The core of the turret would dive in to the ship. Within this core is where the gears and mechanics of the turret will be located. Also the gun crews' quarters would be located there as well. Each turret would have its own armor plating that would be separate from the ship's main armor belt. Which is the same as in vehicles.
I am all for balancing this new rule. However because there are turrets on Vehicles, Naval Vessels, Battlemechs, and installations, whatever rules that are adopted for warships has to at the very least be close to these rules. While they don't have to be a prefect match, they should be at least close.
So far I have already hammered out a few reasonable rules.
Crew Requirements a single turret: one officer, one gunner (junior officer), three engineers, six secondary engineers.
Turret Tonnage: 20% of the total tonnage of the weapons mounted within the turret.
Turret Fire Control: 1% of total weapon tonnage in turrets.
A requirement that the ship's total armor points must be divided up to include protecting the turret(s).
Locations/Firing Arcs of Turrets:
Forward Top/Bottom: Firing Arcs are Forward, Forward Left/Right, Broadside left/right
Aft Top/Bottom: Firing Arcs are Aft, Aft Left/Right, Broadside left/right
Limiting the total weapons due to turrets: The maximum weapons per firing arc is reduced by the number of weapons mounted within any turrets that can use a given firing arc (example, The Viscount Hall has two turrets with two weapons in each turret. This changes the weapons allowed without a firing control system from twenty twelve for each broadside and from twenty to sixteen for all others.
I am not opposed to talking about other possible rule ideas for Warship mounted turrets.
I am not opposed to a Structural Integrity Minimum for turrets. Something like a minimum 50 Structural Integrity plus 10,000 tons per turret mounted on the ship. This would force designers to really think twice before slamming a bunch of turrets on their ships.
I am also not opposed to limiting turrets on a ship based on the ship's weight. Like the ship's weight divided by 100,000 (rounded up) would give the maximum number of turrets allowed on a ship.
Nor am I opposed to treating a turret just like a single weapon bay and use the same limitation for damage (a cap at 70).
Look, the idea of warships mounting turrets has been long in coming. Even before FASA gave up the copyright, this was a conversation among the player base. It all started with a image that showed a warship mounting a small but noticeable turret. Sure sure, later it was explained away, but the debate still raged.
Warships rules need to evolve! Truth be told, I challenge anyone to compare what I have created here to any other new rule in design. I dare you to tell me that my research, my approach, and logic and my methodology isn't at least close to what the authors have come up with in tradition with the game universe. All I am asking for is a fair and honest discussion about this idea.
Now what I am opposed to, as stated above, is obstruction only for the sake of obstruction. And that is what you are doing in this thread. You have, as of yet, failed to show any solid knowledge of the subject. Unwilling to even give credit when you are proven wrong (which you have been time and time again). Nor have you been able to put forward any sign of a reasonable argument as to why this evolution in design shouldn't happen in our game. Well other than simply saying it wont work without providing any solid proof or supporting reference.
Akira
|
|
|
Extra information
|
0 registered and 44 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie
Print Topic
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 21512
|
|
|
|
|
|
|