Warship Turret/Optional Crew Quarter Rules

Pages: 1
Akirapryde2006
03/06/16 12:31 PM
71.100.132.249

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Special Rules: Warship Turret
Turret Rules:

  • 1) Crew Requirements for each turret: one officer, one gunner (junior officer), three engineers, six secondary engineers.
  • 2) Turret Tonnage: 20% of the total tonnage of the weapons mounted within the turret.
  • 3) Turret Fire Control: 1% of total weapon tonnage within the turret.
  • 4) 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.
  • 5) 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.
  • 6) Structural Integrity for a Ship Mounting Turrets is a Minimum 50 Structural Integrity plus an additional 10,000 tons worth of Structural Integrity per turret mounted on the ship.
  • 7) Maximum number of turrets on a warship is the weight of the ship divided by 100,000 rounded up.
  • 8) No capital damage from a single turret shall excide 35 points


Special Rules: Optional Crew Quarter Standards
Crew Quarter Standards Rules:

  • 1) Senior Officers Quarters are calculated in terms of single rooms at six tons each
  • 2) Junior Officers Quarters are calculated in terms of double rooms at four tons each
  • 3) Enlisted Crew Quarters are calculated in terms of quad bunks rooms at three tons each


Looking to continue the conversation of these two optional rules.
ghostrider
03/08/16 11:58 AM
98.150.102.177

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The limit on capital damage. Isn't that hard to control as I thought things like a nl55 did 55 points of damage. Or did that change?
It has been a while since I had to deal with that aspect of the game.

Are there any additional weight requirements for ammunition weapons? We touched on this a little in the other thread. I know they have it set up so the munitions don't float around while reloading. Maybe a number of shots before the turret needs to go inactive for a turn to reload a 'magazine' for the weapons?
Or force the turret to carry the ammunition for the weapons it carries?

Armor placement is another question. I know someone brought that up, and haven't seen any suggestions on it yet.
Do you take some of the already placed armor and just make it a part of that location, or separate it, making a location hit tables change as well as needing it's own armor?
The canon source had NOTHING but fluff suggesting they had turrets.

And this might be getting into it too much, but will the turret suffice as a life boat for so long if it gets blown off the ship?
Kind of like the head of a wolfhound mech?
It may be an idea to have it's own life support for short periods of time, as it may become closed off from the rest of the ship. But as I said. This might be getting too involved in it.
Akirapryde2006
03/08/16 03:04 PM
71.100.132.249

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
The limit on capital damage. Isn't that hard to control as I thought things like a nl55 did 55 points of damage. Or did that change?
It has been a while since I had to deal with that aspect of the game.



So I looked at normal weapon mounts with a 70 capital damage cap. I dug through history and found that there were three basic types of turrets (keep in mind I am only being very basic here).

You have your large side turrets as seen here on the USS Texas (as built in 1892). Take careful note of the small turret like bulges that line the side of the ship. This is the best way I can describe the game's current vision of weapon mounts. The weapons are mounted in small limited turrets that allow the weapons to move side to side (and even possibly, up and down to a degree). These weapon mounts are behind the main armor belt of the ship within the main body of the ship its self.

Next you have small turrets, as seen here on the USS Aulick and on the USS Houston. These turrets range in size and can pack a sizable punch by their very nature. These turrets are mounted on the surface of the ship and designed to allow the weapon mount the ability to move from one firing arc to another. Basically you have taken the weapon mount above and moved it in to an armored housing located on the surface of the ship. Which basically is what a turret really is. But these turrets are limited by their very nature.

Then I started to think about how my turrets could be used by power gamers to make small uber powerful warships that are unstoppable. It was actually a comment made by Karagin, that got me thinking about this. I want Warship Turrets to become a reality. But if there is a way to take undo advantage of the turret design by power gamers that rewrites the way the game is played, it won't happen. Yes, Turrets will change the way warships are designed. Yes, this will change a great many things, but care has to be taken to make sure that this change doesn't rewrite the entire game system.

So I decided to divide turrets in to two groups. Normal Turrets as listed above. And Heavy Turrets, which would reflect some of the heaviest ship mounted turrets on warships. As seen in history, these turrets are different from normal turrets in both size and weapons. As you see on both the USS Missouri and the Japanese Battleship Yamato. These two warships mounted some of the largest weapon turrets in our history.

Sadly, the game doesn't reflect weapon damage vs weight very well. A loophole which with this new rule would allow a single small ship to mount as much power to a single firing arc as a battleship with little weight problems. So by dividing turrets in to two groups, it forces designers to really consider what weapons they are placing on their ships.

I am still playing around with my rules on Heavy Turrets. But here is what I have current.

Special Rules: Heavy Warship Turret
Heavy Turret Rules:
  • 1) Crew Requirements for each Heavy Turret: one officer, one gunner (junior officer), three engineers, six secondary engineers.
  • 2) Heavy Turret Tonnage: 40% of the total tonnage of the weapons mounted within the Heavy Turret.
  • 3) Heavy Turret Fire Control: 5% of total weapon tonnage within the Heavy Turret.
  • 4) Locations/Firing Arcs of Heavy 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.
  • 5) Limiting the total weapons due to Heavy Turrets: The maximum weapons per firing arc is reduced by the number of weapons mounted within any Heavy Turrets that can use a given firing arc.
  • 6) Structural Integrity for a warship mounting Heavy Turrets is a minimum 50 Structural Integrity plus an additional 20,000 tons worth of Structural Integrity per turret mounted on the ship.
  • 7) The number of Heavy Turrets on a warship is the weight of the ship divided by 350,000 rounded up.
  • 8) No capital damage from a single Heavy Turret shall not be less than 35 and exceed 120 points
  • 9) Only Ammunition Feed weapons like the Naval Autocannons or Naval Gauss Rifle can be mounted in a Heavy Turret.
  • 10) Only one kind of weapon can be mounted in a Heavy Turret. Example three NAC40's, or three NAC35's. NO MIX MATCHING Weapons types or damage classification of a single weapon type.


I would really like to see more input from the community as to which of these rules are reasonable and which are not. I fear I might be over limiting the turrets.

Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Are there any additional weight requirements for ammunition weapons? We touched on this a little in the other thread. I know they have it set up so the munitions don't float around while reloading. Maybe a number of shots before the turret needs to go inactive for a turn to reload a 'magazine' for the weapons?
Or force the turret to carry the ammunition for the weapons it carries?



That is a very good question. Originally I was completely in favor of this idea. However, I went back to the rules and found that no other unit mounting turrets had this limitation placed upon them. And I really wanted to make sure that this rule could survive most arguments leveled against it. The turrets are already limited more than any other turret in the game. To add additional weight for loading ammunition would be seen as an unfair limit to the ships using turrets.

But at the same time, I still agree with you regarding ammunition feed. So I am really considering what I have done with Heavy Turrets. Where standard Turrets won't be able to mount Ammunition fed Weapons. But at this time, I really don't know. I do know that Heavy Turrets will be specially designed to hold ammo hungry weapons like NACs and Gauss weapons.

Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Armor placement is another question. I know someone brought that up, and haven't seen any suggestions on it yet.
Do you take some of the already placed armor and just make it a part of that location, or separate it, making a location hit tables change as well as needing it's own armor?
The canon source had NOTHING but fluff suggesting they had turrets.



Each turret would have to be protected just like other locations on the ship. This by its self will force designers to step up their protection of their warships. If you have four turrets, like you see on the Viscount Hall, it will take up more armor to protect. The Viscount Hall had to allot 336 points of armor to its turret armor. This forced me to increase my armor tonnage which by nature forced me to increase my internal structure to allow the higher armor.

Quote:
ghostrider writes:
And this might be getting into it too much, but will the turret suffice as a life boat for so long if it gets blown off the ship?
Kind of like the head of a wolfhound mech?
It may be an idea to have it's own life support for short periods of time, as it may become closed off from the rest of the ship. But as I said. This might be getting too involved in it.



Yeah I think you are right. It's getting a bit much in to it. If I had to answer, I would say no. Simply by its design, it would be impossible to turn in to a life boat per say. Now could the crew in an undamaged turret survive should the ship be badly damaged? Sure, but I can't see how a turret would not be targeted during combat. Arrg! This raises questions I really don't want to think about lol.

Now I would really like to see more from Cray.

OH Cray? are you following?

Can we please get your insight in to this?

Akira


Edited by Akirapryde2006 (03/08/16 03:05 PM)
ghostrider
03/09/16 02:04 AM
98.150.102.177

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
It is my understanding the small bulges in the side of the ship are considered blister turrets. The mgs in the old tanks were the same thing.
I would consider the AA mgs on the sides of the world war battleships as small turrets and the main guns as heavy. The smaller 5 in might be considered in between.

Now the idea behind the ammunition idea was the fact there would not be a non moving part of the turret to allow a solid ammunition feed to run into it, as 3 dimensions in space would not allow anything solid except the pivot points of the internal structure. It does not mean there can not be a flexible feed line, but that does present a different problem.
Hehe. Try loading the main canon of a tank when it is upside down. See how well the ammo feeds work.
But it is starting into the realm of too much. It was a thought.

There is a simple thing about someone specifically targeting a turret. You can not specifically target the bay doors for the fighter bays, nor can you specifically target the bridge or any other part of a ship. It is all generic. You can still hit them, but as a location of where damage is applied, not a specific target. This goes to the spot light issue on some mechs.
Akirapryde2006
03/11/16 08:48 PM
71.100.132.249

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So I am thinking of Life Support on Warships.

I know that they have to be there. We pay for them in terms of construction cost (C-Bills), but there is no cost in terms of tonnage.

The argument has been put forward that this tonnage is included in the Crew Quarters Tonnage. I dispute this claim because of how these quarters divided up. Life Support wont made a difference between VIP/Officer or Passenger/Crew member.

It has always been my view that the Crew Quarters are over weighted and overly simplistic to the detriment of the over all design.

In a game where focus is on weapons and armor instead of a more realistic approach, I wanted to create a set of non-standard non-canon rules that allow for more realistic designs.

Don't expect these non-standard rules to allow for ubber powerful ships. But they will allow ships to be able to be designed with more realism.

Things that are often overlooked in ship designs are vital equipment like:

Life support (to include waste management): This is vital for the crew's survival in space. The rules have us spending C-Bills during construction of our ships but there is no weight cost to this. It is only assumed that one is included in the construction of the ship. I have been kicking around a formula for Life Support being Ship tonnage/10,000 + (Total Crew/passenger+ Max number of dropships) = Life Support Tonnage

Mess facilities: While the crew could be served Mechwarrior's version of MRE's a fully equipped dinning room and kitchen could be a massive moral booster. I know the game allows for large heavy grav decks, but what about less expensive lounges? Again I know that the rules assumes that these are included but there are no weights for them.

Medical Facilities: A crew will need at one point in time to be healed after combat. The lack of medical facilities is a direct reflection of how these ships are designed. Players create these ships to maximize fire power and protection for single battles. There is no thought put in to the realistic needs of the ship in between battles.

Ship's Power Plant: In the game, we have two types of engines. Both are heavy and take up tons of space. They are the K-F Drive and the Transit Drive. In novels, there is a power plant aboard all Dropships, Jumpships and Warships that is designed to actually power the ship.

While I don't own it yet (wife is about to have a baby so all money goes to the pregnancy), but the Tach Manual already has rules for most of these items. So why aren't they a requirement to construction.

Thoughts?
ghostrider
03/12/16 01:13 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I would ask why max number of dropships would be a concern for a warship, or even a jump ship? It is assumed the drop ships would keep all their people aboard the drop ships using their life support. Especially if they are a commercial jump ship.
Having crews wondering around that isn't known to the jump ship crew is asking to have the ship taken. Also this can be taken to figuring out the dropships requirements themselves.

I don't know if they did so, but the idea of meals may be part of the weight issues with better crew quarters, as that IS something that will increase in quality and quantity for higher level offices and guests. You can not expect a minor noble to eat an mre while aboard the ship.

Maybe the developers might solve some of these issues by explaining what is covered in the weights they came up with. Stupid things like a personal shower may help cover the weight differences. That water needed for it as well as the cleaners to recycle that water.

The idea of medical facilities is included in the intruder dropship, as that is an infantry ship. It is stated in the fluff, though I am not sure if they have weight dedicated to it. Too lazy to look it up right now.
But this does bring up issues on the planning of invasions. Unless you have mash units, most ships do not say much about medical treatment on the ships. Guess ease of play could be responsible, but that is a cheap way out. I believe some of the better thought out canon units do mention and have ships assigned to this.
CrayModerator
03/13/16 07:43 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:

So I am thinking of Life Support on Warships.

I know that they have to be there. We pay for them in terms of construction cost (C-Bills), but there is no cost in terms of tonnage.

The argument has been put forward that this tonnage is included in the Crew Quarters Tonnage. I dispute this claim because of how these quarters divided up. Life Support wont made a difference between VIP/Officer or Passenger/Crew member.



Yes, it would, since you're covering a quality of life difference. Someone stuck in an infantry bay is inhaling bottled air and water at high rates (see Strategic Operations consumable tonnages), and even worse if they're stuck in a cargo bay. Personnel stuffed in bays probably use the old Apollo-style plastic baggie for zero-G defecation.

Steerage quarters, meanwhile, at least cover a pretty complete recycling life support system. Regular and first class quarters not only address more luxurious facilities (see below), but larger life support budgets - larger water budgets to enjoy frequent "Hollywood showers," larger energy budgets for climate control, and so on.

Quote:
It has always been my view that the Crew Quarters are over weighted and overly simplistic to the detriment of the over all design.



Crew quarters address living quarters for long-term residency in space. They include everything from a room with a bunk to public spaces like cafeterias and rec rooms to fine details like ship's laundry. The 10 tons of an officer's quarters contributes tonnage to things like an officer's mess and zero-G pools, while steerage residents get hot water reheated "space food" and stationary zero-G bikes that have the butt sweat of a hundred noncoms on them. More tonnage = better quality of living + more elbowroom.

Pity the poor bastards in bay quarters.
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.
CrayModerator
03/13/16 07:47 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:

Special Rules: Warship Turret
Turret Rules:

  • 1) Crew Requirements for each turret: one officer, one gunner (junior officer), three engineers, six secondary engineers.
  • 2) Turret Tonnage: 20% of the total tonnage of the weapons mounted within the turret.
  • 3) Turret Fire Control: 1% of total weapon tonnage within the turret.
  • 4) 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.
  • 5) 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.
  • 6) Structural Integrity for a Ship Mounting Turrets is a Minimum 50 Structural Integrity plus an additional 10,000 tons worth of Structural Integrity per turret mounted on the ship.
  • 7) Maximum number of turrets on a warship is the weight of the ship divided by 100,000 rounded up.
  • 8) No capital damage from a single turret shall excide 35 points




Several comments:

1) Crew requirements: why not be based on the weapons contained in the turret, like for regular weapons calculations? A simple multiplier of normal crew requirements seems easier than arbitrary crew-per-turret.

3) Does fire control add to standard fire control for the weapons? If not, why so light?

5) What maximum number of weapons per arc? Is that another custom rule?

8 ) Interesting. Why not limit them to a standard 70-point bay?
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.
Akirapryde2006
03/14/16 09:28 AM
71.100.132.249

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Cray writes:

Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:

Special Rules: Warship Turret
Turret Rules:

  • 1) Crew Requirements for each turret: one officer, one gunner (junior officer), three engineers, six secondary engineers.
  • 2) Turret Tonnage: 20% of the total tonnage of the weapons mounted within the turret.
  • 3) Turret Fire Control: 1% of total weapon tonnage within the turret.
  • 4) 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.
  • 5) 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.
  • 6) Structural Integrity for a Ship Mounting Turrets is a Minimum 50 Structural Integrity plus an additional 10,000 tons worth of Structural Integrity per turret mounted on the ship.
  • 7) Maximum number of turrets on a warship is the weight of the ship divided by 100,000 rounded up.
  • 8) No capital damage from a single turret shall excide 35 points




Several comments:

1) Crew requirements: why not be based on the weapons contained in the turret, like for regular weapons calculations? A simple multiplier of normal crew requirements seems easier than arbitrary crew-per-turret.

3) Does fire control add to standard fire control for the weapons? If not, why so light?

5) What maximum number of weapons per arc? Is that another custom rule?

8 ) Interesting. Why not limit them to a standard 70-point bay?



First let me offer my appreciation in having you take your time to reviewing my rule idea. I know there is strong push back on Warship Mounted Turrets, so to even have a chance to present the idea to you is huge to me.

Allow me to address your comments/concens

1) I created this rule as a benefit for the Turret. Unlike normal mounts where you need a gunner per weapon, the turrets require minimum one gunner per turret not weapon. The logic behind this is the turret targets one unit at a time, only one senior officer (who is basically the turret's senior gunner) and one gunner (who is a junior officer). In times of combat the turret can fire at up to two targets but normally it concentrates fire on one target.

3) This and the Mejo Transport are my first real experience playing with Fire Control and the math around it. Before we go down this conversation please check the Mejo Troop Transport and if you see an error with my understanding of Fire Control and the math around it. Educate me. lol. Truthfully I don't know if I am doing this right or not.

5) No not a custom rule. This is an explanation of how the Turret relates to the current Weapon Mounting rules found on page 154-155 of the Strategic Operations Manual. Take the nose arc and the test turrets mounted on the Vicsount Hall. The turret mounts two Hvy NPPC. Because the turret can move its two weapon in to the Nose Arc, the maximum weapons that can be mounted in this arc without additional fire control is reduced by two.

8) I created this cap for the sole reason to limit the possible abuse of Warship Turrets. I know how much balance is important to the game designer. Instead of treating turrets like normal weapon mounts, I wanted to scale standard turrets and cap them at 35 (half of standard Mounts). This allowed me to create Heavy Turrets, which cap at 70. Heavy Turrets are most often found on larger warships, where standard turrets would be found on all other warships.
ghostrider
04/07/16 11:44 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So a few thoughts came up on the subject of turrets on warships.

The idea of being able to bring more weapons to bear in a firefight on a warship does appeal to me.
To my knowledge, a warship is rarely surrounded when engaging in other warships, but might be with fighter units going. Having the big capital guns from the rear arc firing in the sides or even front arcs does sound like a better use of weapons and sinks.

Have you thought of different classes of turrets?
Like a full turret that moves like a tanks turret? Complete all arcs on that side of the ship.
Partial turrets that cover that arc, and one other. A sponson type turret for warships would be ideal for this one.
Half turrets that cover the main arc and both the arcs next to it?

The light, medium and heavy arcs are a good start.
Akirapryde2006
04/10/16 11:04 PM
108.9.214.19

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Have you thought of different classes of turrets?
Like a full turret that moves like a tanks turret? Complete all arcs on that side of the ship.
Partial turrets that cover that arc, and one other. A sponson type turret for warships would be ideal for this one.
Half turrets that cover the main arc and both the arcs next to it?



I have actually done considerable thinking about this concept.

Considering that this is an innovation, I thought the best approach would be to evolve the turret slowly. Large turrets non-unified style of turrets like those seen on Pre-WWI warships.

But when you speak of sponson turrets. By their very definition, the sponson turret is what is already in use in the game. This gives the current weapons in the game their wide firing angles within a given firing arc.

I thought about the following style of turrets:

Wing Turrets: A wing turret is a gun turret mounted along the side, or the wings, of a warship, off the center line.

The positioning of a wing turret limits the gun's arc of fire, so that it generally can contribute to only the broadside weight of fire on one side of the ship. This is the major weakness of wing turrets as broadsides were the most prevalent type of gunnery duels. Depending on the configurations of ships, such as HMS Dreadnought but not SMS Blucher, the wing turrets could fire fore and aft, so this somewhat reduced the danger of crossing the T.

I like this idea of Wing Turrets and could see them taking root in the game.

I thought about a Superposed turret, which are seen on the USS Georgia (BB-15). Standard turrets with one set of weapons mounted on top of another set. This idea really didn't take hold with me. So I didn't put much thought behind it.

The standard turrets I am thinking of will have a traverse range of one hundred thirty-five degrees off the center line of the warship or a complete two hundred seventy degrees in total movement.

So to answer your question, I have considered two style of turrets in this game. The Wing Turret which would cover half of the ship's total firing arcs. And the standard turrets that would have a full range of motion of two hundred seventy degrees.

Quote:
ghostrider writes:
The light, medium and heavy arcs are a good start.



I have thought of two current weights of turrets. Your Standard turret, which will only mount energy based weapons. And the heavy turret which will mount ballistic style weapons.

Your thoughts?

Akira
ghostrider
04/11/16 12:28 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The standard and heavy names do not represent weight limits, but what is involved in the turret inputs themselves?
IE more equipment required for ammunition feeds then the power feeds of energy.
Just to make sure that is clear.

I mean things like weapons load totals and possibly armor max on the turrets. Even the type of weapons that can be place in them comes to question. Things like Normal naval ppc verse heavy naval ppc.

I hadn't thought about sponsons being used as a pivoting weapons base for firing in the arc as much as being able to do like side weapons being move so they can fire forward/backwards, but I guess that might be a good way to describe how the weapons get their range of motion.

I would consider wing turret name as a thing like the ball guns turrets on the old bombers. Full 360 horizontal spin, with 90 degree vertical. You spin horizontally to get full range out of it, instead of going upside down concept.

I agree with the idea that different weapon systems should have a separate turret, and ranges change their targets, and even aiming issues come about. This is definitely increased with ammunition weapons. Not something the game actually deals with, but something that is more realistic.
Akirapryde2006
04/11/16 12:57 AM
108.9.214.19

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
The standard and heavy names do not represent weight limits, but what is involved in the turret inputs themselves?
IE more equipment required for ammunition feeds then the power feeds of energy.
Just to make sure that is clear.

I mean things like weapons load totals and possibly armor max on the turrets. Even the type of weapons that can be place in them comes to question. Things like Normal naval ppc verse heavy naval ppc.



I know this might sound lame. Because I really haven't seen much support/input from others, I decided to tackle this concept from a more realistic perspective. Ever watch the TV show called Weaponology? (I might have the name wrong). In the show, they talk about how a modern weapon came in to being. All the steps that went in to making this weapon possible. Even steps that were dozens or hundreds of years old. Like the evolution of the Rifle. The path starts back in the dark ages going through centuries.

I am trying to do that here. Not too fast, not prefect.

We know that ammunition feeds would be a problem within the concept. So by dividing the style of turrets between Standard (energy base) and Heavy (ballistic) I can kick that ball down the field and deal with those concepts and rules at a later date.

In terms of armor, I wanted to treat the turret like any other armored section of the warship.

In terms of types of weapons and equipment, I planned on riding the same rules as the standard weapon mounts. With one exception, the turrets are maxed out at 35 (half of standard weapon mounts). This is to reflect the early design and lack of perfection compared to the standard weapon mount. Remember, I am not only looking for a new fancy rule. I want something with character and that makes sense compared to the story arc of the game. Look at the early design mechs. They were flawed. Does this address your thought here?


Quote:
ghostrider writes:
I hadn't thought about sponsons being used as a pivoting weapons base for firing in the arc as much as being able to do like side weapons being move so they can fire forward/backwards, but I guess that might be a good way to describe how the weapons get their range of motion.



Yeah that is what I figured. It just makes sense when you think of standard weapon mounts.

Quote:
ghostrider writes:
I would consider wing turret name as a thing like the ball guns turrets on the old bombers. Full 360 horizontal spin, with 90 degree vertical. You spin horizontally to get full range out of it, instead of going upside down concept.



Yes and no..Hold on to that thought. My last words will help you better understand what I am looking for.

Quote:
ghostrider writes:
I agree with the idea that different weapon systems should have a separate turret, and ranges change their targets, and even aiming issues come about. This is definitely increased with ammunition weapons. Not something the game actually deals with, but something that is more realistic.



It's a shame that all of this creative work is for nothing. Based on what I can assume, nothing of this will ever see print. Regardless of how well the rules are hammered out. It almost is disheartening and drives a person to simply give up showing off their ideas or posting their designs.

Nonetheless, I really want this concept to be seen through. But you need to check something out first. A lot of what I am using and applying to this comes from this link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_turret

Do me a favor, if you haven't read it yet, please check it out.

It will help both of us to get an idea of where the concepts come from.

Akira
ghostrider
04/11/16 01:11 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Don't be discouraged from this. It could well be used in other games as someone here might be involved it that or even help make decisions with the developers here.
I do know the feeling though.

Now a small problem with this is we are dealing with an unknown factor. Zero-g. That is going to cause alot of issues as we do not have facts on how badly something like 1.2 tons of bullet being fired out of a moving ship is going to screw with ship/gun/projectile. Even the flash heat from energy weapons could have consquences that aren't even thought of yet.

The wing turret just sounds like full front to back arcs can be fired in. They could be used on more then just wings, so the name might be the issue, not how it works. Like a nose mounted turret that allows the guns to fire straight out to the sides of the craft. I do understand what you meant with it.
Akirapryde2006
04/11/16 01:24 AM
108.9.214.19

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Don't be discouraged from this. It could well be used in other games as someone here might be involved it that or even help make decisions with the developers here.
I do know the feeling though.



Oh my friend, I am not discouraged. While I felt the feeling and it pains me. That being said, I won't waste my time posting my designs here though. The hostile nature of a minority of the community here has convinced me that my designs are not welcomed.

Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Now a small problem with this is we are dealing with an unknown factor. Zero-g. That is going to cause alot of issues as we do not have facts on how badly something like 1.2 tons of bullet being fired out of a moving ship is going to screw with ship/gun/projectile. Even the flash heat from energy weapons could have consquences that aren't even thought of yet.



You raise a good point. However, one would have to imagine that the standard weapon mounts would have to face the same problem. At one point, you are going to have to take a leap of faith. LOL after all we are not talking about Star Trek where all tech has to be rooted in science possibility.

As for Zero-G, in my revision, I am addressing massive turrets spinning and moving while the ship is moving. Well at least in the fluff I am. lol

Quote:
ghostrider writes:
The wing turret just sounds like full front to back arcs can be fired in. They could be used on more then just wings, so the name might be the issue, not how it works. Like a nose mounted turret that allows the guns to fire straight out to the sides of the craft. I do understand what you meant with it.



The term Wing Turret came to being because these weapons were mounted on the sides of warships. But yeah I could see your idea taking shape there.

Akira
CrayModerator
04/11/16 05:41 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Zero-g. That is going to cause alot of issues as we do not have facts on how badly something like 1.2 tons of bullet being fired out of a moving ship is going to screw with ship/gun/projectile.



A number of autocannons have been fired in space in real life, like the USSR's Rikhter R-23 on the Almaz space station. The basics aren't that hard: recoil is handled by the law of conversation of momentum as applied to a massive object in zero-G. Even the resulting off-center torque issues should be within the grasp of high school physics students. Frankly, the addition of gravity, friction, and aerodynamic drag were much more annoying for me - space is simpler to model. Issues like muzzle flash, contamination, and barrel cooling aren't even that bad. Space programs have been putting high energy combustion systems in zero-G vacuums for decades.
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.
Akirapryde2006
04/12/16 01:19 AM
108.9.214.19

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Cray writes:

A number of autocannons have been fired in space in real life, like the USSR's Rikhter R-23 on the Almaz space station. The basics aren't that hard: recoil is handled by the law of conversation of momentum as applied to a massive object in zero-G. Even the resulting off-center torque issues should be within the grasp of high school physics students. Frankly, the addition of gravity, friction, and aerodynamic drag were much more annoying for me - space is simpler to model. Issues like muzzle flash, contamination, and barrel cooling aren't even that bad. Space programs have been putting high energy combustion systems in zero-G vacuums for decades.



Yes Cray is right, the Rikhter R-23M did fire in space. I was actually surprised at the reference and had to Google it. (LOL I actually learned something, thanks Cray). Now I didn't look for other examples as I really wanted to look up this one thing. So I am only speaking on the Rikhter R-23M

Don't believe him (like me)? Read it for yourself lol
cited source: http://www.popularmechanics.com/military...t-space-cannon/

Only after the fall of the USSR did Russian sources revealed that the cannon had actually fired in orbit. It happened on Jan. 24, 1975, onboard the Salyut-3 space station. Worried about how firing a giant cannon would impact the outpost itself, Soviet officials scheduled the test firing just hours before the planned de-orbiting of the station, and long after the departure of the crew on July 19, 1974. The outpost ignited its jet thrusters simultaneously with firing the cannon to counteract the weapon's powerful recoil. According to various sources, the cannon fired from one to three blasts, reportedly firing around 20 shells in all. They burned up in the atmosphere, too.

The results of the tests still remain classified. However it appears that the follow-up Almaz station was to be equipped with a pair of interceptor missiles rather than a cannon. It didn't matter: The upgraded Almaz was permanently grounded before its scheduled launch in 1978.


But all of this is not really relevant.

For as long as I have played this game auto-cannons, missiles and other ballistic weapons fired in space. It is irrelevant of what we have today. Clearly, at one point in the future (within cannon) these weapons were made to fire in space. Its a issue that simply doesn't need to be addressed.

Akira
ghostrider
04/12/16 11:32 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
It would be interesting to know if they used the same shells as battletech warships use. But that also has to know where and how they fired the shells. If targeting something on the ground, the shells burning up pretty much says bombardments have issues.
If they fired to skim the atmosphere, then that is safe for now.

The fact they were switching to missiles does suggest the cannon was more powerful then they would like to deal with. And now comes the cursing part.

Stop trying to teach us things damn it!

I wonder if this very report didn't give them the basic information for warship bombardment.
Akirapryde2006
04/12/16 11:42 AM
108.9.214.19

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
To prevent this from going off topic for the OP,

regardless of the article or the sub-subject, the fact remains that Naval (and traditional) Auto-Cannons have been fired in space without ill-effect throughout the history of the game within the canon (and expanded) universe. Because of this, it must be assumed that recoil (and Newton's Laws) has been dealt with a long time ago.


Edited by Akirapryde2006 (04/12/16 11:46 AM)
ghostrider
04/13/16 11:52 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Now with the smaller crew quarters, does that come with a morale penalty, or is this going to be the new standard for you game?

Had some thoughts on it, and most have fled since logging in. Such a pain at times.

As for the turrets, do you think they would be more for side weapons facing other arcs, such a broadside going front/back, or the front/back weapons going to broadsides arcs?
For some reason, I would think it would be front/back broadsides if you don't do a full rotational arc.
With full rotation, I would expect weapons to go to the opposite broadside for extra firepower, and use more sinks.
I just don't think many warships will run in between other ships, but as I have said before, the aerotech/space combats are weak.
Pages: 1
Extra information
0 registered and 52 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: 11555


Contact Admins Sarna.net