Scoundrel: External cargo?

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
GypsyComet
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2169
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:09 am

Scoundrel: External cargo?

Postby GypsyComet » Tue Apr 07, 2015 5:06 pm

A few questions for Gareth:

Does the external framework take the volume (ie. fill up ship's displacement tonnage) regardless of whether there are modules bolted to it?

Does the hull at the core of such an arrangement need to be a legal starship on its own, or does the framework always count toward that minimum?

Is a Cr1000 per ton cargo box really spaceworthy in the long run?

Are there any examples in SF of what this rule was intended to model?
CTMTTNET4GTT20THMGTT5
It's all Traveller, so it's all Good.
Mytholder
Mongoose
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 6:01 pm
Location: Cork, Ireland
Contact:

Re: Scoundrel: External cargo?

Postby Mytholder » Tue Apr 07, 2015 9:43 pm

GypsyComet wrote:A few questions for Gareth:

Does the external framework take the volume (ie. fill up ship's displacement tonnage) regardless of whether there are modules bolted to it?
Yes. Think of it as a big, empty cage bolted to the core hull.
Does the hull at the core of such an arrangement need to be a legal starship on its own, or does the framework always count toward that minimum?
I'm not following you here - which minimum?
Is a Cr1000 per ton cargo box really spaceworthy in the long run?
You get what you pay for. The cargo's exposed to vacuum, has pretty much no protection against radiation or micrometeoroids or anything else, and your ship is about as elegant and agile as bunch of shopping trolleys welded to a scooter. It's fit for the purpose of collecting cargo from Orbital Station A, hauling it up to the 100D limit, jumping to the next system, and hauling it down to Orbital Station B. Anything beyond that is risky.
Are there any examples in SF of what this rule was intended to model?
I had the Nostromo from Alien in mind. It's not an exact match, as the Nostromo was a tug and could detach from its cargo, but that concept of 'big exposed cargo area/small inhabited ship on top' is what I was going for.

That, and to allow for cheap, easily-raided freighters for pirates to rob.
Reynard
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Scoundrel: External cargo?

Postby Reynard » Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:25 am

"Does the external framework take the volume (ie. fill up ship's displacement tonnage) regardless of whether there are modules bolted to it?"

The external framework AND the modules are a unit and they are part of the total ship. Jettisoning the external cargo is the same as jettisoning a portion of the ship.

"Does the hull at the core of such an arrangement need to be a legal starship on its own, or does the framework always count toward that minimum?"

From the (second) reading of the rule, always count as part of the ship and therefore the minimum for that displacement class.

"Is a Cr1000 per ton cargo box really spaceworthy in the long run?"

Look at the sidebar for the hit location table and there's part of the reason for that price.

"Are there any examples in SF of what this rule was intended to model?"

I just happen to look at the Haynes Millennium Falcon manual and saw the YT-1300 cargo pod option. A very similar feature.
GypsyComet
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2169
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:09 am

Re: Scoundrel: External cargo?

Postby GypsyComet » Wed Apr 08, 2015 1:59 am

Mytholder wrote:
GypsyComet wrote: Does the hull at the core of such an arrangement need to be a legal starship on its own, or does the framework always count toward that minimum?
I'm not following you here - which minimum?
There is another topic currently going that is exploring the variability available to 100 ton ships. External cargo came up as an option, along with the idea of a smaller hull brought up to 100 tons by the external cargo. If, per your first answer, the frame always takes that space full or not, then it is not an issue to jettison cargo boxes. The ship remains jump worthy. The downside is that the ship does not get *more* legs, since its displacement is not changing.
I had the Nostromo from Alien in mind. It's not an exact match, as the Nostromo was a tug and could detach from its cargo, but that concept of 'big exposed cargo area/small inhabited ship on top' is what I was going for.

That, and to allow for cheap, easily-raided freighters for pirates to rob.
Hmm. I would default to High Guard's docking clamps for the Nostromo and refinery.

I totally get the desire for easily raided space trucks, but most of the examples would visibly change displacement if they tossed a cargo box. Space Trucker, Cowboy Bebop, Battlestar Galactica, and Babylon 5 all have examples.
CTMTTNET4GTT20THMGTT5
It's all Traveller, so it's all Good.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7375
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Scoundrel: External cargo?

Postby Condottiere » Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:13 am

Great as a mine layer.
Mytholder
Mongoose
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 6:01 pm
Location: Cork, Ireland
Contact:

Re: Scoundrel: External cargo?

Postby Mytholder » Wed Apr 08, 2015 6:37 pm

Yeah, dumping cargo won't affect Jump. That's deliberate - I wanted to keep calculations simple for players and Referee.

A minelayer? You want to lay mines from a ship that's specifically noted as absurdly vulnerable to external damage? You want to put explosives in a cargo bay that takes damage when you sneeze at it? That's a very brave decision, captain.
F33D
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1645
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 1:13 pm

Re: Scoundrel: External cargo?

Postby F33D » Wed Apr 08, 2015 7:51 pm

Mytholder wrote:You want to put explosives in a cargo bay that takes damage when you sneeze at it? That's a very brave decision, captain.
Not a problem. They won't be TL3 black powder mines. Even low TL (6-8) aren't going to go off in the hold or while deploying.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7375
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Scoundrel: External cargo?

Postby Condottiere » Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:38 pm

And if being chased, the more you dump, the faster you'll go.
GypsyComet
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2169
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:09 am

Re: Scoundrel: External cargo?

Postby GypsyComet » Thu Apr 09, 2015 1:47 am

Condottiere wrote:And if being chased, the more you dump, the faster you'll go.
Only if you use mass, which Mongoose does not.
F33D wrote:Not a problem. They won't be TL3 black powder mines. Even low TL (6-8) aren't going to go off in the hold or while deploying.
Never underestimate the ability of incoming high energy weapons fire to bypass or disable your safety protocols.

That said, high yield space mines (because what other kind is there?) inside your armor are no more conducive to sleeping at night. Designed correctly, a secure hull that carries an external mine rack around is probably an ideal use for this system. It will still suck if one of the mines goes off or malfs in the rack, but the crew might survive to file a QA/QC report...

As such, I think the entry in Scoundrel needs expanding to include more robust "cargo" and more carrier-friendly jettison mechanisms. Just because you can buy boxes for Cr1000 per ton doesn't mean you must.
CTMTTNET4GTT20THMGTT5
It's all Traveller, so it's all Good.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7375
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Scoundrel: External cargo?

Postby Condottiere » Thu Apr 09, 2015 7:25 am

It's volume, which loosing the luggage roof carrier lessens.

Also, in theory, opening up an empty cargo hold.
Reynard
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Scoundrel: External cargo?

Postby Reynard » Thu Apr 09, 2015 10:32 am

If your minelayer is actively being shot at, it had no business laying mines in that location.
F33D
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1645
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 1:13 pm

Re: Scoundrel: External cargo?

Postby F33D » Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:42 pm

GypsyComet wrote:
Never underestimate the ability of incoming high energy weapons fire to bypass or disable your safety protocols. 9/quote]

Irrelevant to what was being suggested.
GypsyComet wrote:That said, high yield space mines (because what other kind is there?) inside your armor are no more conducive to sleeping at night.
Too bad and again, irrelevant. See Boomer crews and sleep.
GypsyComet
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2169
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:09 am

Re: Scoundrel: External cargo?

Postby GypsyComet » Thu Apr 09, 2015 3:52 pm

F33D wrote:
GypsyComet wrote:
Never underestimate the ability of incoming high energy weapons fire to bypass or disable your safety protocols.
Irrelevant to what was being suggested.
It is very relevant, but since you don't ever respond to lengthy discussions, I'll just leave this topic here. I have the answers I needed from the author of the book.
CTMTTNET4GTT20THMGTT5
It's all Traveller, so it's all Good.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7375
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Scoundrel: External cargo?

Postby Condottiere » Thu Apr 09, 2015 6:35 pm

Being chased doesn't mean being in range, though you can assume that they'll eventually catch up.

However, through a minefield.

And if the ship weighs in at sixty tons by the time they dropped the mines, they might be able to outpace everything but fighters.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests