hi yet again,
In article (who really cares), Burton Choinski says:
[stuff 'mentioned above' delete]
>If firing arcs are to be used, I presume some means of abstracting it can be done,
>as you mentioned above.
Isn't that what the batteries bearing is all about? That is what I thought
it ment. The figures from High Guard are a little on the high side (50% of
all batteries bear at least), I don't remember the MT figures off the top
of my head but I am pretty sure that the table was almost the same.
>I want to make a retraction. In my last message I mentioned how a ship could have
>more than 1 hardpoint per 100t? Well, thinking it over and chewing around some
>numbers, the number of hardpoints should be based on surface area instead.
>Base SA equals (displacement/100)^0.666666 times some constant. Open frame ships
>have DOUBLE the figured number, irregular ones have 50% more.
This seems like a plausable idea. The TDR ship people might like to chatter
about this and then place something solid into the new design system. I'll
try to keep my design program up to date (as far as is possible).
>2 fixed missile harpoints, or go for the gusto with 4 missile hardpoints).
Stuff the missile hardpoints, lasers are much more fun: you don't have to
worry about running out of things to throw around. They do consume 'slightly'
more power :-)
>This will SIGNIFICANTLY alter the armaments of large ships (since 2x size is
>not equal to 2x weapons). Spinal mounts have their hardpoint limits checked, but
>only use 1 hardpoint (firing port).
Are you suggesting that if the mount requires 50 hard points it can only be
placed into a ship with 50+ hardpoint and once built in it only uses one
hardpoint? Seems a little silly to specify the minimum sized ship that
can contain the mount especially when the mount already uses a volume.
I also feel that it would be quite difficult to put a decent spinal mount
into a ship that didn't make the necessary hardpoint count --- they have this
annoying property of using a LOT of power and space.
>(btw, is there any reason WHY only one spinal mount is allowed? If the ship is
>large enough, could it not have 2 parrallel, or 3 triaxial mounts?
>Perhaps with the limitation that they all be of the same type and size.)
I've often though about this exact point. A Meson-T can easily be put into
a ship 50000 Ton (I think my meson destroyer was 20kTon, but I'm not sure
since I don't have the file around anymore). A 500000 Ton ship has 10 times the
space to waste, it ought to be able to fit two or three mounts. Another thought
I've had is to mount several different spinals in a disk/spherical hull at
right angles. A PA shouldn't be able to effect a MG thus you ought to be
able to put both onto the one ship. Aiming does become a problem that
would have to be sorted out.
Pauli
Paul Dale | Internet/CSnet: [email removed]
Dept of Computer Science| Bitnet: [email removed]
Uni of Queensland | JANET: [email removed]
Australia, 4072 | EAN: [email removed]
| UUCP: [email removed]
f4e6g4Qh4++ | JUNET: [email removed]