Karagin
04/04/14 11:17 PM
70.118.139.48
|
How small can one make a jump core?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
04/04/14 11:22 PM
76.7.236.208
|
A sub-compact kearney-fuchida drive can be as small as 2,500 tons.
|
Karagin
04/04/14 11:26 PM
70.118.139.48
|
So in theory, it could fit in a dropship...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
04/04/14 11:31 PM
76.7.236.208
|
Theoretically, perhaps. But I don't think the technology was ever rediscovered after the Star League collapsed.
|
Karagin
04/04/14 11:38 PM
70.118.139.48
|
So it would be possible to build smaller jumpships that are similar to their bigger cousin, but could possible land on a planet since you could include the benefits of the dropship as well...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
04/04/14 11:42 PM
76.7.236.208
|
I bet expenses would make it less appealing, if that's factored in.
Rules Level: Experimental
Available To: JS, WS
Tech Base (ratings): Both (F/F-X-F)
Game Rules
The Sub-Compact K-F Drive follows normal K-F drive rules. However, as the use of a sub-compact drive produces an extra-small hyper-space field, a vessel using a Sub-Compact K-F Drive cannot transport DropShips through hyperspace.
A WarShip mounting a Sub-Compact K-F Drive must devote 50 percent of the vessel’s total mass to the drive. A jump-capable vessel with a sub-compact K-F Drive may be built as small as 5,000 tons, but no larger than 25,000 tons. A vessel with a sub-compact core may not mount DropShip docking collars. Full rules on constructing the units that use this item will appear in Strategic Operations.
|
Karagin
04/04/14 11:47 PM
70.118.139.48
|
See that is the issue with parts of BT, cost goes down as things are made more and more, but not in the BT universe...and NOT for the Inner Sphere...
So according your blurb a 5,000 ton space-ship can be built using the SC-KF Drive...which works for what I was asking.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
04/04/14 11:59 PM
76.7.236.208
|
It's difficult to make stuff like the SC-KF drive more and more when it's both a very complex piece of equipment and is technically lost technology.
Glad it works though.
|
Karagin
04/05/14 12:10 AM
70.118.139.48
|
Difficult only until they figure it and get past hurdles. Again things the Inner Sphere seem unable to do on many things. But they can come up with Battlemechs...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
04/05/14 12:11 AM
66.27.181.155
|
the bugeye jumpship (pg 124 of the 2750 tro) would be a good one to look up. claims its 6100 tons for the entire ship.
|
Cray
04/05/14 04:10 PM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
Karagin writes:
How small can one make a jump core?
As stated in the Star League Sourcebook and subsequent publications, the minimum size is 2500 tons. BattleSpace and AT2 / AT2R never supported such small sizes in their construction rules (keeping the TR2750 BugEye illegal), but Tactical Operations introduced the Subcompact Core that allowed construction of jump cores as small as 2500 tons and made the BugEye legal again.
Need the page references, or were you just looking for the minimum tonnage?
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.
|
Karagin
04/05/14 06:59 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Minimum tonnage. It allows me to have a bit of fun with some buddies when a surprise shows up next time we are playing. Fun times ahead.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
04/05/14 07:22 PM
66.27.181.155
|
interesting. One rule book says no, while another says yes.
|
Cray
04/06/14 01:01 AM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
Karagin writes:
So in theory, it could fit in a dropship...
Tonnage-wise, yes. The construction rules specify that Subcompact Cores are only available for WarShips and grant special exemptions to the WarShip minimum tonnage (if you've got the latest TacOps errata).
You'd need some house rules to fit the Subcompact Core in a DropShip if you wanted the subcompact vessel to land, since WarShips cannot land.
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
04/06/14 01:04 AM
66.27.181.155
|
They actually have a rule stating a warship can not land?
and what is the definition of a warship?
|
Retry
04/06/14 01:09 AM
76.7.236.208
|
IIRC, if a warship wants to land it has to go through the atmosphere, which basically rips it apart anyways.
I wish Warship Classes actually meant something as opposed to being a general statement of size...
|
ghostrider
04/06/14 01:13 AM
66.27.181.155
|
They can withstand weapons fire without much of a problem, but can't take entering an atmosphere?
Why does this sound like something is wrong?
|
Cray
04/06/14 01:14 AM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
They actually have a rule stating a warship can not land?
Well, yeah, since BT's WarShips have always been space-only vessels, like JumpShips. This isn't Star Trek where you can see some Republic-era star destroyers landing. The landing and liftoff rules in AT2R, Total Warfare and later Strategic Operations were careful to specify which spacecraft classes were addressed by the landing/liftoff rules (fighters, small craft, DropShips) so 26-year old canon wasn't violated by letting JumpShips, WarShips, and Space Stations land.
Quote:
and what is the definition of a warship?
A WarShip is spacecraft built per BattleSpace, AT2, AT2R, or Strategic Operations rules for WarShips. I don't mean to be asininely circular about that, but that's what it boils down to.
WarShips are spacecraft with WarShip structural weights, WarShip bridge weights, WarShip engine weights, WarShip armor types, a compact or subcompact KF core, and access to the full range of capital weapons.
There's no mixing and matching: no other spacecraft class (JumpShip, DropShip, space station, small craft, or fighter) will have a compact core; no other spacecraft class with have the full range of capital weapons; no other vessel will have WarShip structural, bridge, and armor weights.
WarShip is WarShip, just like BattleMech is BattleMech - a standalone vehicle class with unique construction and operational rules.
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.
|
Cray
04/06/14 01:16 AM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
the bugeye jumpship (pg 124 of the 2750 tro) would be a good one to look up. claims its 6100 tons for the entire ship.
The BugEye was republished with complete stats conforming to TacOps/StratOps construction rules in...TRO:3085?...recently, anyway. TR:2750's WarShips were not built to any construction rules as TR:2750 predated even BattleSpace.
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.
|
Retry
04/06/14 01:16 AM
76.7.236.208
|
It doesn't. You're entering a bloody atmosphere(if the ship is manned, anyways) with a million-ton warship, which are frequently hardly more aerodynamic than a meteorite, and we all know who wins that one between it and the atmosphere.
|
Karagin
04/06/14 01:16 AM
70.118.139.48
|
Uhmm..Star Wars had ACCLAMTOR class ships that landed. Not Star destroyers and Star Trek allowed Voyager to land.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
04/06/14 01:18 AM
66.27.181.155
|
I guess I need to reread the little bit I have on warships from the old books. I don't remember reading they were space only. Granted I didn't see anything about them landing, but did get the impression some were built on planetside.
|
Retry
04/06/14 01:19 AM
76.7.236.208
|
I should probably stop posting here, because I know absolutely nothing about warships anyways. :P
|
Karagin
04/06/14 01:20 AM
70.118.139.48
|
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Acclamator_I-class_assault_ship
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Acclamator_II-class_assault_ship
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
04/06/14 01:25 AM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
They can withstand weapons fire without much of a problem, but can't take entering an atmosphere?
Why does this sound like something is wrong?
Since BattleSpace (pub. 1990, by FASA), WarShips and JumpShips have always suffered massive damage when entering an atmosphere. They're creatures of vacuum only, a point established in the earliest BT books to mention them (Mechwarrior 1st edition and BT 2nd edition, I think.)
As for weapons fire versus atmosphere entry, the loading profiles are very different. The shuttle's heat shield could safely shield a 100-ton vehicle shedding megajoules of energy during re-entry, but could be perforated by a child's finger or a piece of nerf foam peeling off a fuel tank. The Abrams' armor can stop hypervelocity kinetic penetrators and shaped charges, but is a total waste as a re-entry heat shield. Ye olde aquatic battleships had two entirely different types of armor to handle above water threats (gunfire, bombs) and underwater explosions (torpedoes, mines). The thick armor plate of the main belt was useless against torpedoes, while the thin, elastic steel barriers of underwater protection systems were useless against cannon shells.
Different problems, different solutions. I have no trouble believing that the foil-thick armors of BT WarShips can handle intense point loads but not large-area aerodynamic forces. Such dichotomies happen all the time in engineering.
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.
|
Cray
04/06/14 01:27 AM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
Karagin writes:
Uhmm..Star Wars had ACCLAMTOR class ships that landed. Not Star destroyers and Star Trek allowed Voyager to land.
Yep, that's the one I was thinking of.
BT's continuity is that no KF drive vessel lands (WarShip or JumpShips), but that's an easy one to wave off. Just put your subcompact core in a DropShip, or give a WarShip landing gear, and you're golden to make your home game fun.
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
04/06/14 01:30 AM
66.27.181.155
|
I believe the drop shuttle is a combo classed ship. They said it is a shuttle that has a docking collar on it.
and star trek does not use republic era ships. That is star wars.
Star trek does have some of it's ships designed to land, such as the Nova class starship. But that is besides the point.
Now that I see they have infact stated warships require x components, they have a basis of what is a warship.
Though I thought they had a dropship that mounted warship weapons.
|
Retry
04/06/14 01:31 AM
76.7.236.208
|
Are you referring to Sub-Capital Weapons, Ghostrider?
|
ghostrider
04/06/14 01:32 AM
66.27.181.155
|
have to look it up. I believe one uses naval laser 45's.
|
Cray
04/06/14 01:35 AM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Though I thought they had a dropship that mounted warship weapons.
Yes, but only capital missile launchers. No naval autocannons, naval lasers, no naval PPCs, and no naval gauss rifles.
Though, wait. I was wrong in my last post: space stations and JumpShips may also mount the full range of capital weapons.
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.
|