Modular Fighter

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Modular Fighter

Postby baithammer » Wed Jun 28, 2017 1:23 am

An unarmoured module presents a soft belly, the equivalent of an unshielded thermal exhaust port.
Its not hanging on the outside, it takes up space in the hull and is covered by any armor on the hull. What your thinking of are external cargo mounts, those are fully exposed.
h1ro
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:06 pm
Location: Co Front Range

Re: Modular Fighter

Postby h1ro » Wed Jun 28, 2017 5:04 am

AnotherDilbert

When designing modular ships, I am guessing you go back and forth between the ship and modules, tweaking the design of each to get where you want it to be.

Or do you?

Have you found it better to design the ship or module first?
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2435
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Modular Fighter

Postby AnotherDilbert » Wed Jun 28, 2017 6:45 pm

There is a lot of iteration, but I start with the ship.

For the Modular fighter the 5 Dt module was obvious for the required barbette. The 7 Dt module was basically the biggest I could possibly squeeze in, after essential systems, that fortuitously could fit a reduced size Nuclear Damper.

For ships I generally use modules for defensive system and possibly tertiary armaments. As such they are squeezed in in whatever nooks and crannies remains after armour, drives, and primary armaments. But trial-and-error is the basic design principle.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5430
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Modular Fighter

Postby Condottiere » Thu Jun 29, 2017 1:12 am

Image

I believe this is the generally accepted form of the modular cutter.

I don't believe that the modular option mentions armoured bays, not to say that it couldn't be included for an additional percentage.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Modular Fighter

Postby baithammer » Thu Jun 29, 2017 1:50 am

Not the one list in the MGT 2ed Core book.

Image

Has clam shell doors which puts the module under ships hull/armor.

As I mentioned earlier, there is an option under High Guard for "External Cargo Mount", this isn't under hull/armor. ( Useful for an open container ship type design.)
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Modular Fighter

Postby baithammer » Thu Jun 29, 2017 4:06 am

AnotherDilbert, noticed that the fighter has a 6t collar for the drop tank. Isn't that for a 1,500t fuel capacity? ( 0.4% of 1,500 is 6t)
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Modular Fighter

Postby baithammer » Thu Jun 29, 2017 5:06 am

Here's a different take on the modular fighter.

Image
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2435
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Modular Fighter

Postby AnotherDilbert » Thu Jun 29, 2017 5:28 am

baithammer wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 4:06 am
AnotherDilbert, noticed that the fighter has a 6t collar for the drop tank. Isn't that for a 1,500t fuel capacity? ( 0.4% of 1,500 is 6t)
It is 4 collars for 5.7 dT tanks consuming of 0,09 dT. There is some rounding in the spreadsheet.

5.7 dT is 10 turns worth of reaction fuel.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Modular Fighter

Postby baithammer » Thu Jun 29, 2017 7:09 am

I think you missed a decimal place, 0.4% = 0.004, just like the armor calculation.

If the each tank is at 5.7t then each mount should take 0.0057. Rounding up to 0.01 a piece.

Which gives you about 3.6ts more to play with.

Just need to be cautious about the drop tanks as soon as the fighter losses 10% of its hull points the tanks are lost.

Could use some of the 3.6ts to give the fighter an on board reserve.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2435
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Modular Fighter

Postby AnotherDilbert » Thu Jun 29, 2017 5:52 pm

I think it is correct.

Drop tank collars for 4 tanks à 5.7 Dt:
4 × 5.7 × 0.004 = 0.0912 Dt

I can't save 3.6 Dt from an allocated 0.09 Dt?
h1ro
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:06 pm
Location: Co Front Range

Re: Modular Fighter

Postby h1ro » Thu Jun 29, 2017 5:55 pm

Re armouring modules or rather, not armouring modules and how a module fits the ship and is then protected. Mongoose are being consistent in that their rules are open and we each get to interpret how it works in our TU. It could be said it's not great for consistency between products that are the result of differing interpretations of the same rule in the same 3I universe but it is what it is...
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Modular Fighter

Postby baithammer » Thu Jun 29, 2017 6:35 pm

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 5:52 pm
I think it is correct.

Drop tank collars for 4 tanks à 5.7 Dt:
4 × 5.7 × 0.004 = 0.0912 Dt

I can't save 3.6 Dt from an allocated 0.09 Dt?
I misread the design sheet, oops.
Re armouring modules or rather, not armouring modules and how a module fits the ship and is then protected. Mongoose are being consistent in that their rules are open and we each get to interpret how it works in our TU. It could be said it's not great for consistency between products that are the result of differing interpretations of the same rule in the same 3I universe but it is what it is...
Considering you have options for both written in the rules.

Modular Hull means the module is under the hull with access to the exterior via mounts on the bay(For turrets,ect.), while the External Cargo Mount has the modules attached to the exterior of the hull so no armor/hull protection.

Consistency is tricky to maintain with the amount of editions plus rules visions that come along, High Guard itself is a very big leap in rules/design changes.

If you stick with the current rule set as the baseline and use other sources as secondary it makes things a bit easier.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3987
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Modular Fighter

Postby phavoc » Thu Jun 29, 2017 6:37 pm

baithammer wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 1:50 am
Not the one list in the MGT 2ed Core book.

Image

Has clam shell doors which puts the module under ships hull/armor.

As I mentioned earlier, there is an option under High Guard for "External Cargo Mount", this isn't under hull/armor. ( Useful for an open container ship type design.)
Huh. Well that's a change in 30+ years of canon materials...
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Modular Fighter

Postby baithammer » Thu Jun 29, 2017 6:48 pm

MGT 1st ed also depicted the modular cutter that way.

Image
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2435
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Modular Fighter

Postby AnotherDilbert » Thu Jun 29, 2017 7:08 pm

baithammer wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 5:06 am
Here's a different take on the modular fighter.
Sorry if I sound overly critical.

There is little reason for the fighter to be 50 Dt. It just makes them more expensive, and requiring more expensive carriers. Both means that you get a lot less fighters for your budget, and hence less combat power. If you want a barbette (which you really need) you want a 35 Dt or so fighter.

You could save money, and get more Hull, by choosing Close configuration.

EM masking is good, but needs to be combined with Stealth to be effective. Unfortunately that is too expensive for general issue.

You only have a single laser turret which will rarely be able to penetrate the fighter's own armour. You really want a barbette.

I like the escape pod, but with a turret you need a gunner and hence at least two pods.

You have a very good computer, but a poor selection of software. If no-one is launching missiles the computer is idle. Broadspectrum EW is overkill in every fighter, you might include it in a few ECM modules instead to much greater effect.

More cheaper fighters very often defeat fewer slightly better fighters. For maximum effectiveness you need to trim the cost of the fighter. Even cheap fighters will hit warships due to the dogfighting advantage.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3987
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Modular Fighter

Postby phavoc » Thu Jun 29, 2017 7:41 pm

baithammer wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 6:48 pm
MGT 1st ed also depicted the modular cutter that way.

Image
This illustration is different in concepts. In this one the pod could still be detachable. The image just shows doors opening to port and starboard. The v2 has the pod carried like a container, or more akin to having a sleeve over an object.

The original idea was that the pod itself was the hull and the forward and aft ends of the ship were connected by a single connector.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Modular Fighter

Postby baithammer » Thu Jun 29, 2017 7:59 pm

Sorry if I sound overly critical.
Not at all, its not good to keep ideas in a thought bubble.
You could save money, and get more Hull, by choosing Close configuration.
Was aiming for streamlined to make this an aerospace fighter, so has an easier time with atmospheric operations.
EM masking is good, but needs to be combined with Stealth to be effective.
As it imposes a penalty to locks, its price isn't that bad.
You only have a single laser turret which will rarely be able to penetrate the fighter's own armour. You really want a barbette.
More a problem with the 2 firm point limit and the pulse laser is more for point defense, hunting low armor vessels and air to ground.

Honestly, under 35t should have 2 firm points, 35t-70t 3 firm points and 70-99 should have 4 firm points. Seems like a relic other the 2k limit.
I like the escape pod, but with a turret you need a gunner and hence at least two pods.
Its a fixed mount and the reason for not using a dual cockpit.
Broadspectrum EW is overkill in every fighter

Broadspectrum EW gives a big bang for its cost, as it automatically engages salvos every turn.
For maximum effectiveness you need to trim the cost of the fighter.
Considering the High Guard tl 15 heavy fighter has a sticker price of 42.73 Mcr, the 90 Mcr reconfigurable design is rather worth it.

Of course this is just the first iteration.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Modular Fighter

Postby baithammer » Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:02 pm

The V2 depicts the pods space within the opened bay.

And as I've mentioned before there is a separate option to achieve what your thinking of.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3987
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Modular Fighter

Postby phavoc » Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:09 am

baithammer wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:02 pm
The V2 depicts the pods space within the opened bay.

And as I've mentioned before there is a separate option to achieve what your thinking of.
The problem is that the cylinder design of the cutter won't support that idea, or at least not easily. It shows the pod coming out the side. So unless you don't mind rolling the pod out... :) Now if they dropped it out the bottom that could work. But you also now have to have an empty shell and another shell around the pod itself. The previous versions of Traveller design would consume less hull. Plus dual hulls would mean less space (if you wanted to nitpick).

GURPS put out an entire booklet on the Modular cutter that gives a breakdown of the modular cutter (and many variants as well).
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Modular Fighter

Postby baithammer » Fri Jun 30, 2017 3:17 am

Or you get a clamp lift like those used for timber. :)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests