|
Post by CELS on Jan 6, 2004 14:29:22 GMT -5
LoL! Thanks Minister. I guess that wasn't meant to be taken seriously though... Anyway, I've gone and measured my Retribution Battleship bitz. "length of hull end of drives to tip of prow" - 12,5 cm "with and without ram if possible" - No ram on the retribution "width with "wings" - 5,1 cm "width without "wings" - 1,5 cm on central hull bit, 2 cm around rear hull. "height of central hull bit" - 2,0 cm "overall heigt from lowest to highest" - 6,2 cm
|
|
|
Post by Minister on Jan 6, 2004 17:03:22 GMT -5
Retribution figuring-out (I like to show my working, it means people can tell me when I go wrong):
"length of hull end of drives to tip of prow" - 12,5 cm "with and without ram if possible" - No ram on the retribution "width with "wings" - 5,1 cm "width without "wings" - 1,5 cm on central hull bit, 2 cm around rear hull. "height of central hull bit" - 2,0 cm "overall heigt from lowest to highest" - 6,2 cm
Conversion from cm to m x0.01 Assume hull length is 4.6Km
4600 = A x 0.01 x 12.5 = A x 0.125 A = 4600 x 0.125 = 575
So, multiply all measures given by 575 to get the number of metres for the "real" ship:
"length of hull end of drives to tip of prow" - 4,600m "with and without ram if possible" - No ram on the retribution "width with "wings" - 2930m "width without "wings" - 860m on central hull bit, 1150m around rear hull. "height of central hull bit" - 1150 m "overall heigt from lowest to highest" - 3570m
(Note, I use a . for decimals and a , to denote batches of three digits, as per what is standard notation in the UK. I’m just pointing this out in case any yanks or similar are confused by the notation)
For simplification of the shape, we assume that the central hull (with bridge, prow and engine asemblies) is a rectangle of dimension 4600 x 1150 x 1150. One hell of an over-simplification, but the best I can come up with working from a picture. This gives us 6,083,500,000 m3, or 6.0835 Km3 (!) without the wings. Call the wing assemblies 1000m x 1000m x 750m (x2) for the sake of argument, making them 1.500,000,000m3, or 1.5 Km3. All-in-all, if I've done my sums right (which is not to be an automatic assumpation) the daunting figure of 7583,000,000m3,or 7.583Km3.
Now, what’s the density of this monstrosity?
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 6, 2004 20:04:39 GMT -5
The standard assumption of Traveller would be that 7,583,000,000m 3 would equate to 561,703,704 displacement (LHyd) tons. In GURPS terms that puts it at (about) 267,791,142,610 ft. 3 or about a Size Modifier of +18 (which they say is a cuboid of around 2,000 yards), which would be about consistent with a cube of sides ~2,226m. Given the dimensions of the darned thing this seems reasonable... Obviously. Average density... <phew> I'll have to look for some formulae tomorrow! PS... Anyone care to draw up quick schematics with this information on? Kage
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jan 10, 2004 1:31:27 GMT -5
I could draw some simple schematics. How would you have them done? If you're looking for a front and top view of the ship, you'll need to ask the artists.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 10, 2004 9:45:24 GMT -5
It would be more for fixing the shape in the heads of those involved in this aspect of the project... So, do we have any information on the subassemblies, i.e. turrets etc., for the ship. Remember that this will include both the turrets that are mentioned in the 'fluff' and mechanics of BFG, but also smaller point defence weaponry... Kage
|
|
|
Post by Minister on Jan 10, 2004 15:13:14 GMT -5
Sub-asemblies we're looking primarily at the following:
Lance turrets (dorsal): 4 (i belive, might be five) each consisting of multiple macro-las weapons
Main batteries: 12 as broadsides, asemblies wise we're looking at three groups of four each side. We're probably looking at supercharged plasma weapons here.
Prow: contains six heavy torpedo tubes, not to mention one hell of a lot of re-enforced armour and (often, but not always) a prow ram.
Drive asemblies: blg exhausts to the rear.
Reactor housing: at the rear of the ship, starting where the batteries stop.
Command decks: up at the top rear, with the bridge etc.
Central hul Spar: onto which the lances and batteries are stuck.
Wingish bits: God-Emperor knows what these do. Stuck on the sides towards the rear.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 10, 2004 19:24:04 GMT -5
Lance turrets (dorsal): 4 (i belive, might be five) each consisting of multiple macro-las weapons Are these fixed forward firing? I have a hazy memory that they do... Main batteries: 12 as broadsides, asemblies wise we're looking at three groups of four each side. We're probably looking at supercharged plasma weapons here. Fair enough. One presumes that they are therefore recessed into the body? As to weapons design, that is going to be a separate thing altogether. We'll have to guestimate penetration vs armour protection (and the function of void shields), but perhaps that should be a different thread. Prow: contains six heavy torpedo tubes, not to mention one hell of a lot of re-enforced armour and (often, but not always) a prow ram. These definitely are not a different subassembly... As to the armoured prow, that is your decision as to whether to include it or not. (I'm of the opinion that they are patently ridiculous, but there we go. I only take the Age of Sail imagery so far.) Drive asemblies: blg exhausts to the rear. Hmmn, just trying to figure out whether these would warrant a separate subassembly? Reactor housing: at the rear of the ship, starting where the batteries stop. Well, this will come out in the design sequence (i.e. mass, volume, power output, etc.). Command decks: up at the top rear, with the bridge etc. If it's the ship that I think it is, unlike say the Gothic, there are no separate superstructures. So that makes things easier. Central hul Spar: onto which the lances and batteries are stuck. Erm... Kage
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jan 10, 2004 19:46:25 GMT -5
Are these fixed forward firing? I have a hazy memory that they do... Five dorsal lance turrets, which probably have something like a 270 degree sector, facing forward. At least they do in the game. Fair enough. One presumes that they are therefore recessed into the body? Yes. As to the armoured prow, that is your decision as to whether to include it or not. (I'm of the opinion that they are patently ridiculous, but there we go. I only take the Age of Sail imagery so far.) I say go for it. I see your point, Kage, but there are a lot of things in 40k that seem patently ridiculous, and especially in BFG! Just look at the Nova cannon, and imagine aiming that thing at a moving target that is several hundred kilometers away. "Mr. Doyle, bring us 0,00004 degrees to starboard, if you please."
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 10, 2004 20:03:09 GMT -5
Five dorsal lance turrets, which probably have something like a 270 degree sector, facing forward. At least they do in the game. Hmmn, we'll definitely need more information here. The firing arc could also be generated by the 'game turn' and minor course corrections (i.e. pitch and yaw) rather than having it on a moveable mount. Given what I imagine the size of these things to be, I would imagine that a spinal mount would be more plausible. But then again we're dealing with BFG and GW here... I say go for it. I see your point, Kage, but there are a lot of things in 40k that seem patently ridiculous, and especially in BFG! Which is why I said that I wasn't going to decide! Plus, after posting I remembered that even the Enterprise often resorted to 'ram attacks', successful or not. Kage
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jan 11, 2004 6:13:34 GMT -5
I've only ever seen it do that once, Kage, and that was when everyone was dead and the enemy was about to blow up Earth...
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 11, 2004 8:15:18 GMT -5
That takes the fun out of the analogy, AF-Metallus. Who would have thought it... a closet Trekkie!? Kage
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jan 11, 2004 9:02:14 GMT -5
Hmmn, we'll definitely need more information here. The firing arc could also be generated by the 'game turn' and minor course corrections (i.e. pitch and yaw) rather than having it on a moveable mount. Given what I imagine the size of these things to be, I would imagine that a spinal mount would be more plausible. But then again we're dealing with BFG and GW here... More information!? Heheh... this is a GW game. You won't find any information on the armour thickness of the ship, or the sector range of the dorsal turrets. We're on our own. Perhaps Minister or Rich would have an idea. Has anyone seen Rich btw? He knew a thing or two. Oh, and if anyone mentions S*** Trek again, they will be summarily executed.
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jan 11, 2004 12:29:25 GMT -5
I agree; Nemesis was absolutely dire.
|
|
|
Post by Minister on Jan 11, 2004 14:02:35 GMT -5
"Hmmn, we'll definitely need more information here. The firing arc could also be generated by the 'game turn' and minor course corrections (i.e. pitch and yaw) rather than having it on a moveable mount. Given what I imagine the size of these things to be, I would imagine that a spinal mount would be more plausible. But then again we're dealing with BFG and GW here... " I'm happy to point out that, acording to established fluff, you're completley wrong here. ;D The broadsides, on the other hand, do conform to the model stated. And the armoured prow will be include, and so will the ram spike. I don't care about plausibility, it's cool! By the way, has everyone else seen this; www.merzo.net/ ?
|
|
|
Post by Minister on Jan 15, 2004 11:54:24 GMT -5
Kage lost intrest, has he?
|
|