Incorrect.Direct-fire weapons technology = the same, but the warship's are bigger. Same cost per ton of gun, since they're the exact same guns.
The smaller weapons are generally more expensive per ton than the big guns for the same complexity issue I mentioned in my ACTUAL analysis above.
Incorrect. Complexity is making the smaller engines increases the cost proportionally.Maneuver engine = the same. The capital ship might have an FTL engine as well, which isn't likely to be cheaper than a maneuver engine. So the same cost per ton. However, the larger ship may require more access space for maintenance on the engines during long-term voyages.
Incorrect. The smaller your reactor is the MORE its going to cost. Not less.Defensive/shielding/power generation and storage technology = all the same. So the same cost per ton, approximately.
Has no noticeable impact on price per ton.Living quarters/life support/sick bay = different. There is more living space on a larger ship because it's meant for long-term action rather than single-combat engagements.
Has no noticeable impact on price per ton.Cargo = different. A larger ship is either required to carry auxiliary supplies, or they need frequent resupply from a logistics task force. Either can work.
Sorry sonny jim. But the Space Shuttle is an EXCELLENT comparison because it completely demonstrates the vast difference in the cost and complexity of making a small ship over a large one.Given that the main differences are in the amount of empty space in the larger ships (crews quarters, access space, etc. is mostly just air and room to breathe, even if they are cramped), I think my estimate that the cost per ton of a large WARSHIP is about half the cost per ton of a small fighter, given that most of the technology is identical, just on a different scale. So if the fighter costs 50 million, the star destroyer costs 25 trillion. If the fighter costs 150 million, the star destroyer costs 75 trillion. A space shuttle is not an accurate comparison, as it doesn't use weapons.
So. Most people are wrong. Except of course for missiles which would be mounted in cells.As for the sphere's design... in order to bring half of its firepower to bear on a single target, the weapons need to be mounted on the surface, rather than internally. Most people think of spaceship weapon as being mounted externally on turrets, or configured along the sides like an old-fashioned broadside...
And you end up with a gun that is is impossible to bring to bear on the enemy because they will ALWAYS be able to see where it is pointed. Your big gun goes down in history as the most inept weapon either.I instead maintain that the best way to mount a weapon for space combat is using a fixed forward-facing spinal mount. Why? Because you can mount MUCH larger guns that way. It's also the way modern fighters mount their machine guns, as well as WW2 fighters. You can mount heavier weapons more efficiently if you point them in one direction and keep most of the volume of the gun INSIDE the ship rather than around the surface.
You have obviously failed to understand, pretty much everything.And this is backed by square-cube mechanics. Heck, a sphere shape actually drastically REDUCES the amount of firepower that can be mounted on surface turrets, due to their proportionally lower surface area for their volume (and proportionally less space for turrets as a result). And then add in that all of your point-defense weaponry HAS to be mounted on surface turrets. You are more or less required to mount the heavy guns inside that massive volume... after all, what else are you going to do with all that space? Empty space is extremely inefficient.
Ship X has 10 Turrets. It can bring 5 to bear on the target at any one time. It can throw fully half the ships capable firepower at the target if using direct fire weapons. It can throw 100% of its firepower at the target if it uses missiles.
Sorry. Your "has to mount the heavy guns inside that massive volume" is failing to actually understand the physics and forces involved. There is absolutely no reason to mount your weapons spinally, your bigger gun won't be any better than the Sphere's 10 guns that fire much faster and have a higher chance of hitting since the enemy can't go "ok, he's aiming at us with the big gun"
You've bolted X weapon to your internal structure.
Oh shit, it got hit and the ammo is going to cook off what are we going to.... BOOM there goes your ship.
I've bolted X weapon to an external turret.
Oh shit, it got hit and the ammo is going to cook off, seal the bulkheads and Jettison the turret. Whew. That was close.
Traveller is also about as hard-science as Doctor Who. (Ok ok. It's not THAT bad.) But traveller is 100% soft scifi.As an aside, I've heard you're a pretty good GM, mister Kadaeux. If nothing else, it's obvious you know what you're talking about, even if we aren't exactly on the same page. Are you familiar with the Traveler RPG, by chance? I don't use it, but I actually read up on it and it uses a lot of the same concepts that I do, but uses a superscience "nuclear dampener" to prevent one-hit kill missiles.