ghostrider
03/05/16 11:21 AM
98.150.102.177
|
The mass claim has some validity. But that has to deal with the size of the turret verse the size of the platform it is on. You can very well change the position of a platform if the turret is large enough. As the turret moves one way, it does generate force to move the other side the opposite ways. Just as firing a weapon that has a kickback can do so. But this is not a big factor in a unit that would be using course correcting thrusters to begin with.
Though mass may be a little more stressful on the structure. Trying to start and stop it may cause more problems in space then on the ground. No real friction to slow it down, so reversing direction would put more strain on the structure and motive system for the turret. But it isn't something that wouldn't be a problem now.
A thought did come up about limits for turrets. Maybe limit a turret to a single weapon, to keep the need for additional fire control systems, ie all weapons in one turret have to be heavy naval ppcs, or all light naval ppcs. If you want a nac40 in one, then you need a second turret if you have a naval gauss in one already.
Also limiting the number of turrets a specific sized ship can carry.
Now why can't a turret be nothing more then say a mechs arm for simplicity? Yes, heavier weapons will be done, but the concept isn't really that much different. And honestly, even the blisters have to have some part of the weapon outside the ship. There is just no real convenient way to target anything except straight out, if you can't point the muzzle as your target. Having it rotate on a pivot inside the ship is not feasible.
|
ghostrider
03/05/16 11:38 AM
98.150.102.177
|
the animation is nice if the turret is not turning while the ammunition is being sent up, nor does it deal with the weapon being in a position that would cause it to have the shells/powder being tossed around, which real ships don't deal with as much as something in space would deal with.
Inertia.
A simple turn while sending ammunition to the turret may in fact send the shell flying out of it's cradle into the side or top of the turret. And yes, battle tech has the shell/powder in one unit. The powder charges were supposed to be varied so you could change the range of the shell. That is if I recall how they did that. That may also be when it first came out and they have changed over to keeping the powder set and changing the elevation of the barrels. Been a while.
Imagine trying to make a 4 g turn while loading the next round into the nac and gauss weapons? Even missile launchers would have issues.
And inertia would create stress on the turrets as well, but then docking collars would create more as a behemoth on the side of a warship should produce more stress then a weapons package should.
And with that, how do you incorporate the damages into the game? Would you change the tables to fit, like turret locks? Would you use the vehicle tables and such for criticals?
And a suggestion is step it up. The end results will be how you want it, but for now, maybe have more weight/issues with it until it is refined. I know you aren't going to like to hear this, but maybe have the turret lock on a roll of 12 when being fired. Have it set up like that for say 5 game years until the bugs are worked out. But that is more fluff unless you really want to play with the restrictions.
|
Akirapryde2006
03/05/16 08:48 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
The mass claim has some validity. But that has to deal with the size of the turret verse the size of the platform it is on. You can very well change the position of a platform if the turret is large enough. As the turret moves one way, it does generate force to move the other side the opposite ways. Just as firing a weapon that has a kickback can do so. But this is not a big factor in a unit that would be using course correcting thrusters to begin with.
Though mass may be a little more stressful on the structure. Trying to start and stop it may cause more problems in space then on the ground. No real friction to slow it down, so reversing direction would put more strain on the structure and motive system for the turret. But it isn't something that wouldn't be a problem now.
Ghost you have a really good point but you are using mass as your measure when in fact it should be inertia. The velocity of the item has no bearing on its mass or weight in a zero "G" environment. Two items of different mass or weight traveling at the same velocity will require the same force to oppose that direction of travel. Also let's remember that Mass or the size of the item has already been made a moot point by the mechanics of Strategic Operations. A choice was made way back when Battlespace was first written.
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
A thought did come up about limits for turrets. Maybe limit a turret to a single weapon, to keep the need for additional fire control systems, ie all weapons in one turret have to be heavy naval ppcs, or all light naval ppcs. If you want a nac40 in one, then you need a second turret if you have a naval gauss in one already.
Taking in to consideration of ammo feed requirements, I can get behind this rule. That a turret must mount only one kind of weapon. Though the argument could be made that energy weapons should be able to be mixed matched. This rule should be made clear that this is a balancing rule and not just a pure
Logical rule.
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Also limiting the number of turrets a specific sized ship can carry.
What did you think of my idea of limiting the number of turrets by the weight of the ship? Divide the ship's tonnage by 100,000 and this gives you the maximum number of turrets a ship could reasonable carry. This should help deal with the issue of stress on the ship's super structure.
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Now why can't a turret be nothing more then say a mechs arm for simplicity? Yes, heavier weapons will be done, but the concept isn't really that much different. And honestly, even the blisters have to have some part of the weapon outside the ship. There is just no real convenient way to target anything except straight out, if you can't point the muzzle as your target. Having it rotate on a pivot inside the ship is not feasible.
I am not sure what you are getting at here. Care to explain more?
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
the animation is nice if the turret is not turning while the ammunition is being sent up, nor does it deal with the weapon being in a position that would cause it to have the shells/powder being tossed around, which real ships don't deal with as much as something in space would deal with.
Inertia.
A simple turn while sending ammunition to the turret may in fact send the shell flying out of it's cradle into the side or top of the turret. And yes, battle tech has the shell/powder in one unit. The powder charges were supposed to be varied so you could change the range of the shell. That is if I recall how they did that. That may also be when it first came out and they have changed over to keeping the powder set and changing the elevation of the barrels. Been a while.
Imagine trying to make a 4 g turn while loading the next round into the nac and gauss weapons? Even missile launchers would have issues.
You raise a very good point. However, the same point could be made for standard mounted NAC and Gauss weapons. I really don't think getting that deep in to the debate will benefit the entire situation unless we are looking at rethinking warship designs overall.
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
And inertia would create stress on the turrets as well, but then docking collars would create more as a behemoth on the side of a warship should produce more stress then a weapons package should.
I see your point in terms of docking collars, but turrets would be completely different than docking collars. Turrets would affect multiple levels of the upper/lower decks of the ship where a docking collar only affects one maybe two decks. This is the reason why I am supportive of the idea that the Structural Integrity of the ship must be reinforced (see my suggested rule above).
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
And with that, how do you incorporate the damages into the game? Would you change the tables to fit, like turret locks? Would you use the vehicle tables and such for criticals?
And a suggestion is step it up. The end results will be how you want it, but for now, maybe have more weight/issues with it until it is refined. I know you aren't going to like to hear this, but maybe have the turret lock on a roll of 12 when being fired. Have it set up like that for say 5 game years until the bugs are worked out. But that is more fluff unless you really want to play with the restrictions.
That is a very good question that I currently don't have an answer to. There would have to be some kind of change or clarification to the combat rules to include turrets.
Akira
|
ghostrider
03/05/16 10:54 PM
98.150.102.177
|
Mass has alot to do with stress on things like turret motors. Inertia does play a large part in it, but something that weighs 5 pounds moving at 10 mph, doesn't have the same force as something weighing 100 pounds moving the same speed. No friction to slow it down. I am not saying it will cause a cascade failure, but it is a factor. Not sure if that is where Donkey was headed with his concept or not.
The weapon type limit was more to avoid needing different fire control systems more then ammunition feeds. Firing off a laser at distances is slightly different from ppcs, and even ranges can affect the system. Might not be a huge difference, but I thought I would mention it.
I was thinking of the riflemans arm to show how a turret could be made that would encompass the entire rotation for a turret, verses the idea that all weapons on the warships are internal. This was more to see if people can see the connection with the blister turret that is implied on the ships as they stand. In the old days, machine guns on a tank were in a ball mount, with part of the barrel outside the tank, but part of it was inside the tank. To move it, you needed the room inside and outside. I just don't see that as feasible for the heavy weapons used in war ships. Having the huge weapons next to each other would mean alot of wasted space to keep 2 weapons from knocking into each other, if they were pointed at different targets.
Since you do not have to physically design the layout of the ship, this is given, but is still an issue. I am hoping this will clear up some issues that may be causing a different outlook one the matter. Probably not.
All of this is suggestion, so take what you want, and leave the rest.
|
ghostrider
03/05/16 11:15 PM
98.150.102.177
|
interesting bit of trivia for this thread.
The most controversial aspect of the Black Lion is its choice of weapons. The vessel does not have a single energy weapon, the Black Lion mounts exclusively cannon and missiles as its primary weapons, four turrets carrying Scarsbrough 30 Series autocannons and two turrets capable of firing White Shark missiles. The battlecruiser also carries four turrets of smaller autocannon and six tubes firing the Barracuda missiles.
Warships DO indeed use turrets in canon form. Interesting that nothing was done to work it into the game building aspect. I will continue looking through the wiki on this forum board for more.
Another entry
While featuring lackluster speed, there were no complaints about the Cameron's weaponry, with four turrets housing the two Maelstrom AR-10 tubes, a capital class launcher that can fire missiles of any size, along with six other turrets carrying two Super Rand Heavy NPPCs, the largest particle projection cannon available.
Guessing turrets don't have any costs, construction issues, or effects in the canon universe.
Edited by ghostrider (03/05/16 11:18 PM)
|
ghostrider
03/08/16 11:48 AM
98.150.102.177
|
I didn't pay attention to it before now, but the rules for warships are, any dropships that are attached, must launch before the warships starts moving. It suggests the docking collars can not stand the stress of having ships docked, though a turret would be structured to hold the turret and not be a concern.
Yes, you have already stated the extra reinforcements, but this is a general statement, not a dig on the concept.
Though the canon statement of turrets being used on warships means something wasn't done about it sooner.
|
ghostrider
03/09/16 02:15 AM
98.150.102.177
|
Damn physics of warships and drop ships came to mind, and it changes how the weapons and turrets interact.
We seem to have forgotten a ship under thrust is not set for the nose to be forward of the people on board, but above their heads.
That means the weapons have a wider up/down movement, then left/right.
Due to thrust, gravity is 90 degrees off from what it would be on a sea ship. So elevation of the weapons is no the issue, but the rotation of their arc would be.
Even a bomber in atmosphere is different from the space craft.
And I guess aerofighters have to deal with different ways then normal air craft. You would not be feeling the seat underneath you are you would feel like you are laying down to fly, not seated.
Guess this might be better for a different thread.
|
ghostrider
06/25/16 12:22 AM
66.74.61.223
|
Thought came up with the cabin idea.
Since the developers have gone xl crazy with things, why not xl cabins for crews?
It would be in line with other advances.
Maybe require extra power to run the rooms as a down side. Like 1 cabin requires a fusion/ice with amps rated engine, so 10 rooms would require a 10 rated engine, or even go as much as per person to reduce the weight needed per person.
Might be low but it's a start for this. I would think fusion would be better as ice would require air.. so adds to issues.
Increased costs for the new cabin designs as well.
I had initially thought about increasing the space required, but warships don't really deal with that.
This may be the wrong thread for this, but quick idea, that I needed to get out.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
0 registered and 26 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: 21578
|
|
|
|
|
|
|