The Close Escort: not viable?

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby baithammer » Thu Jun 29, 2017 1:11 am

Something a bit bigger and more aggressive.

Image
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5182
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby Condottiere » Thu Jun 29, 2017 1:21 am

Using spinal mounts as a reference point, I'll speculate that destroyers don't exceed ten thousand tonnes, and fleet frigates are between two to five kay tonnes.

"Modern" frigates probably default to five gees and have a range of three to four parsecs; they either specialize in one role or are general purpose.
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby baithammer » Thu Jun 29, 2017 1:33 am

Next iteration of the Close Escort.

Image
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby baithammer » Thu Jun 29, 2017 1:40 am

Condottiere wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 1:21 am
Using spinal mounts as a reference point, I'll speculate that destroyers don't exceed ten thousand tonnes, and fleet frigates are between two to five kay tonnes.

"Modern" frigates probably default to five gees and have a range of three to four parsecs; they either specialize in one role or are general purpose.
The key is capital ships in MGT 2ed are 5,000t which are the cruisers/carriers/battleships. ( Keeping Destroyers under 5,000t also makes them difficult to hit with spinal weapons.)

Modern Destroyers are all over the map for real world displacement, with the Zumwalt at around 15,000t and 5,000 to 6,000t on average.

The reason for the Destroyer's thrust 9 is to allow for interception and hunting down targets, which is a contrast to the Close Escort Frigate which is supposed to stay with the fleet.

Going back over the gazelle, its setup more as a 400t scout with the drop tank to get jump 5 and the heavy fuel processor.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2320
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby AnotherDilbert » Thu Jun 29, 2017 7:35 pm

baithammer wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 1:40 am
The key is capital ships in MGT 2ed are 5,000t which are the cruisers/carriers/battleships. ( Keeping Destroyers under 5,000t also makes them difficult to hit with spinal weapons.)
By tradition from CT cruisers start at about 25 kDt and use spinals, that is still very reasonable in MgT2. 5 kDt is destroyer territory.

Over 5 kDt you get a great rebate on crews, significantly increasing payload. You are still very difficult to hit for spinals (as long as you can dodge).
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby baithammer » Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:22 pm

Mgt 2ed changed the definition of capital ship to anything over 5k.

Destroyers by definition are non-captial ships and going any higher in tonnage defeats its purpose.

A better term would be light cruiser with tonnage between 5k-12k, basically a cost effective capital ship.
steve98052
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 6:13 am
Location: near Seattle

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby steve98052 » Fri Jun 30, 2017 8:59 pm

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:19 pm
The augmentations would cost peanuts compared to the equipment operated.
I agree with this to an extent, but I think it would only apply to the targeting gunners on capital ships' spinal mounts, and maybe some bays on flagships. Turret gunners? No. (And player character gunners probably want to be turret gunners, because adventurers don't typically travel in ships with spinal weapons.)
phavoc wrote:
Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:14 pm
Who's to say that people will want to be augmented? Not everyone is interested in having tech grafted, sometimes permanently, on to their bodies. Even if it does provide an advantage.

Players might, but that's why their are disadvantages socially to body augments on some worlds.
I think this would be a significant limiting factor on the use of augmentations. Although people in active military service would have access to specialized medical facilities that could work around augmentations, that's no longer true after they muster out. Do they come with permanent access to military hospitals?

Additionally, how long a commitment to serve does one need to make if they get an augmentation? How many gunners want to sign up for a bunch of extra years?
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby baithammer » Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:24 pm

The augmentations is question as a package exceed a gunners projected salary by around 353 mos of pay, not really a good investment for the navy in bulk.
h1ro
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:06 pm
Location: Co Front Range

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby h1ro » Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:12 pm

Don't forget the crew's skill increases the salary. I doubt that will make a huge difference but it's there in the rules.

There's also the question of the base salary being the same since who knows which version of Traveller while other things have been introduced and costs changed.
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby baithammer » Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:05 am

The aug package is 1.07 Mcr per gunner.

The Augs make them around skill 6 so 5,000 per Mos, so 214 mos or 17-18 years worth.
h1ro
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:06 pm
Location: Co Front Range

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby h1ro » Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:52 am

Or maybe the augmentation prices haven't been thought thru with any detail?

You can buy nearly 4 air rafts for the price of the augs. Is that a fair exchange?
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby baithammer » Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:11 am

Considering you go from skill 1 to skill 6 with a few weeks of recovery.

Anyways here's a revised Gazelle design.

Image
h1ro
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:06 pm
Location: Co Front Range

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby h1ro » Sat Jul 01, 2017 4:16 am

baithammer wrote:
Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:24 pm
The augmentations is question as a package exceed a gunners projected salary by around 353 mos of pay, not really a good investment for the navy in bulk.
An alternate way of looking at this, if a gunner is allowed to keep his/her augments on mustering out, what fee can s/he command when out of the service and on the open market? Granted, you might argue the same as any other gunner with the same skill but how many would there be of that ability? As a PC, I can see some haggling going on, likewise for any former naval crew. Few if any free trader captains will pay for the augments but would be happy to take the benefits.

This is still secondary to my earlier post that the salaries need reviewing.
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby baithammer » Sat Jul 01, 2017 5:29 am

The problem would be the military not wanting to release the gunner for at least 20-30 years in order to justify the cost if it was given to a line crewman. ( That 20-30 year investment would make a buyout far more than the cost of the aug package.)
Sigtrygg
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 678
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby Sigtrygg » Sat Jul 01, 2017 7:38 am

In the 3I you would install a wafer jack and hand them a gunnery wafer...
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby baithammer » Sat Jul 01, 2017 9:02 am

Which only work for Ortillery and Bays/Spinal weapons as wafer jacks only grant Int/Edu skills, screens and turrets are dex based tasks.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2320
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sat Jul 01, 2017 9:33 am

Let's see how expensive it might be:

Let's assume that crew signs up for 4 year terms and serve on average 8 years (on board ship, training excluded). That means we have to replace each crew member every 8 years. Presumably we have more people than the absolute minimum, let's say we have two full crews for each ship. So, for every crew position we need to replace 2 people every 8 years or about 1/4 people every year.

Take a ship like this (from this thread): viewtopic.php?p=919571#p919571
It costs MCr ~4000 and has a crew of ~100 (including marines). By my assumptions we need to recruit and augment 100 / 4 ≈ 25 people every year.

A basic augmentation package (skill augmentation, a wafer jack, and some software) costs about MCr 0.065. Augmenting 25 people every year would cost 25 × 0.065 ≈ MCr 1.6 per year.

Operating a warship costs about 10% of the price per annum according to TCS. The ships also needs replacing occasionally. TCO would be about 15% of new price, or for my assumed ship MCr 4000 × 15% ≈ MCr 600 per year.

The basic augmentation package (for everyone including the assistant cook) would add MCr 1.6 to a budget of MCr 600 and add a +2 DM on most ship tasks. That is a complete no-brainer. I would charge you with dereliction of duty if you did not do it.


Characteristic augmentation is much more expensive. The TL12 characteristic +2 augmentation costs MCr 1. To augment the entire crew would cost 100 / 4 × 1 ≈ MCr 25 per year. To augment only the most critical roles (officers, bridge crew and gunners) would cost ~60 / 4 × 1 ≈ MCr 15 per year compared to a total budget of MCr 600 per year or about 2.5% more for an almost DM +1 on most tasks. Still worth it.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2320
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sat Jul 01, 2017 9:43 am

baithammer wrote:
Sat Jul 01, 2017 9:02 am
Which only work for Ortillery and Bays/Spinal weapons as wafer jacks only grant Int/Edu skills, screens and turrets are dex based tasks.
I thought so too, but was proven wrong...

A Traveller using an Expert package may make a skill check as if he had the skill at the software’s Bandwidth -1. Only INT and EDU-based checks can be attempted, however. If a Traveller already has the skill, then an Expert package will grant DM+1 to his check.
Yet also:
• A ship running an Intellect program and Expert Pilot can act as the pilot.
Core, p155. Piloting a ship is DEX based.

So it would seem that a person without skill can only attempt INT/EDU tasks, but Expert software can be used with all tasks for other purposes.
baithammer
Mongoose
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby baithammer » Sat Jul 01, 2017 9:53 am

The consideration to take into account is the cost per person compared to the pay for each, with the basic package your stuffing 60,000 cr worth of gear into someone who is only paid 3,000 /mos.

To make matters worse, capital ships have 100s of gunners alone which aggravates the issue.

On the other hand, you can invest in a smaller pool of special operations naval section which would be more viable for augmentation as a whole and would require a lower duration to make cost effective. ( Also easier to justify release after service.)
A ship running an Intellect program and Expert Pilot can act as the pilot.
The Key is the intellect program which is a form of AI and would require access to the ships computer.
Sigtrygg
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 678
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: The Close Escort: not viable?

Postby Sigtrygg » Sat Jul 01, 2017 9:57 am

baithammer wrote:
Sat Jul 01, 2017 9:02 am
Which only work for Ortillery and Bays/Spinal weapons as wafer jacks only grant Int/Edu skills, screens and turrets are dex based tasks.
Nope - I said in the 3I, not MgT2e rules.

Wafer technology in T5, MWM's novel and therefore the 3I setting can be used for any skill. MgT2e has the rules for wafer jacks, but it doesn't have quite the same rules as T5 or the setting examples as per the novel.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests