An Alphabet of Ships

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
Old School
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 415
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:41 pm
Location: Florida

Re: An Alphabet of Ships

Postby Old School » Fri Nov 16, 2018 8:04 pm

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 5:18 pm
Old School wrote: You show the Meson Cannon as an internal system. Is that how you justify having essentially three bay weapons on a 200 ton design? How are these stats (60 tons, MCr20.1, 0 power) derived? How does the meson beam fire without putting a hole in it's own ship?
Smaller Weapons (HG, p32).
Meson Accelerator (CSC, p131).
It is similar in operation to starship-grade meson guns in that the particles it accelerates do not interact with matter until they decay, allowing the weapon to effectively shoot through any obstruction so long as the target’s location is known.
Well, at least I learned something about theoretical Meson technology today. So we're adding a 60 ton (mass, not displacement, I'm guessing it's displacement would actually be less - and the ship could use a little extra room :)) ground based weapon using the "smaller weapons" rule. Got it.

The smaller weapons rule in High Guard is clear that ground based weapons under 250kg do not require a hardpoint, and are mounted on fixed points or small turrets. Weapons of 250kg to 1 ton go in turrets, larger weapons on or fixed mounts. The "no hardpoint" feature is not mentioned for these "larger smaller weapons". The fixed mount for that meson accelerator requires a hardpoint the ship doesn't have. I like the very evil concept, but this design is clearly not within the RAW.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3389
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: An Alphabet of Ships

Postby AnotherDilbert » Fri Nov 16, 2018 8:53 pm

Old School wrote: The smaller weapons rule in High Guard is clear that ground based weapons under 250kg do not require a hardpoint, and are mounted on fixed points or small turrets. Weapons of 250kg to 1 ton go in turrets, larger weapons on or fixed mounts. The "no hardpoint" feature is not mentioned for these "larger smaller weapons". The fixed mount for that meson accelerator requires a hardpoint the ship doesn't have. I like the very evil concept, but this design is clearly not within the RAW.
I believe the last paragraph just list the difference between light Smaller Weapons and heavy Smaller Weapons. I do not see hardpoints required for any ground scale weapon. The turrets for heavy Smaller Weapons is probably more like the turrets for light Smaller Weapons, than turrets for spacecraft weapons.

Higher powers say:
Nerhesi wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2016 9:12 pm
I'm saying that a "smaller weapon", the fusion gun from Vehicle Weapons, which has Short range and Weighs 4 tons, is now the biggest and best weapon for small-craft - it does NOT take a firm point slots, ...
Last edited by AnotherDilbert on Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3389
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: An Alphabet of Ships

Postby AnotherDilbert » Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:08 pm

WingedCat wrote: Yinoti-class blockade runner, TL 15

Missile barbette (3*size reduced)_____________2_____6______0

Computer/20/bis_______________________________0_____7.5____0
Software: evade/3_____________________________0_____3______0
Barbette: 3.5 Dt = 5 Dt × 70%.

Computer can't run Evade/3 (bandwidth 25).
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3389
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: An Alphabet of Ships

Postby AnotherDilbert » Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:20 pm

WingedCat wrote: Zip class courier drone, TL 12
Streamlined hull (5 Hull)__________-10___0.6___2

Computer/5_________________________0_____0.05__0
4 Hull.

Computer: kCr 30.
Old School
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 415
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:41 pm
Location: Florida

Re: An Alphabet of Ships

Postby Old School » Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:04 pm

So putting aside for a moment that my interpretation is the one that actually makes sense. . .
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 8:53 pm
I believe the last paragraph just list the difference between light Smaller Weapons and heavy Smaller Weapons. I do not see hardpoints required for any ground scale weapon. The turrets for heavy Smaller Weapons is probably more like the turrets for light Smaller Weapons, than turrets for spacecraft weapons.

Higher powers say:
Nerhesi wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2016 9:12 pm
I'm saying that a "smaller weapon", the fusion gun from Vehicle Weapons, which has Short range and Weighs 4 tons, is now the biggest and best weapon for small-craft - it does NOT take a firm point slots, ...
You can believe that if you want, but you can't in good faith quote an author pointing out the issue to the publisher pre-publication, and then use that quote to as if it defends your point. What comes after the "..." in your quote from Nerhesi?
I'm saying that a "smaller weapon", the fusion gun from Vehicle Weapons, which has Short range and Weighs 4 tons, is now the biggest and best weapon for small-craft - it does NOT take a firm point slots, has longer ranger than any other weapon (on small craft), and out damages a pulse laser

I think the simplest way here is universally limiting the range of any "smaller weapon" to Close, and forcing them to take up a firm point slot in addition to the internal space. This applies to any weapon that is >1 ton
And in his very next post:
To be accurate though:

a) We know from last conversations that AP from Traveller Scale will not scale upwards. So the Fusion Cannons are just 3D. (unless Matt weighs in on otherwise , regardless, they will at least be divided by 10, so at most AP 3)
b) Weapons over 250kg (any of the crazy ones), take up space equal to their tonnage. Flat out equal. So 4 tons = 4dtons. So that is a good inefficiency.
c) Weapons over 250kg need to be mounted in turrets or fixed mounts. Which means, they will take up hardpoints - which don't exist on small craft. Even if you were to interpret they take up firmpoints, you'd have to apply firmpoint rules so they lose range and so on.

Still needs clarity though
And two posts later. . .
Actually you still do need hardpoints, I've bolded the other part of the sentence... Turrets and Fixed mounts, are by definition, Hard Points.
One more time for good measure:
Yeah covered that above in the previous reply Basically, your >250kg weapons just aren't "free"
I assume that you stopped reading once you found one sentence that appeared to back up your strange interpretation. Because otherwise your agument is disingenuous.

I still like WingCat's concept of the ship, but the design is illegal.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3389
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: An Alphabet of Ships

Postby AnotherDilbert » Mon Nov 19, 2018 2:41 pm

Old School wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:04 pm
You can believe that if you want, but you can't in good faith quote an author pointing out the issue to the publisher pre-publication, and then use that quote to as if it defends your point.
I admit I didn't read the entire thread before posting the quote. But since the proposed change was rejected I rather think it supports my interpretation.

As far as I can see Nerhesi argued that Smaller Weapons did not require a Hardpoint, but they should, since they were invincible über-weapons.
Nerhesi wrote:
Tue Dec 08, 2015 7:42 pm
This area needs a couple of minor additions Matt to avoid abuses:
...
b) For weapons greater than 250kg, in addition to consuming their weight in tonnage they will each require 1 Firmpoint on smallcraft. Larger craft exchange 1 Hardpoint for 3 Firmpoints (alignment)

I was thinking of this because of those potential abuses (read: me) who would want to put 4 sets of quad linked FGMPs on a smallcraft, then perhaps add a Fusion Gun-Z or a Meson Accelerator or something nutty like that. You want to stop those silly guys ;)

This allows the customization, without the pitfall of having space dominated by vehicle-weapon using craft.
Matt left it at:
msprange wrote:
Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:32 pm
I think I will let these pass, actually...
Later Nerhesi explained (in another thread where I was very confused):
Nerhesi wrote:
Tue Jan 05, 2016 8:29 am
3) Nope - as above. Keep in mind I have concerns about abuses here (because small weapons dont take up firmpoints or hardpoints slots. Matt said he prefers not to insert mechanics for this. I had recommended that we can simply state each small weapon (or group of them taking up to 1 ton) takes up a firmpoint (or hardpoint) slot; but he said he would put in some Refree-warning textbox about abuses.

The "Smaller Weapon" text box was not changed, so I assume the rule was not changed and no hard-/firmpoint is required.

Instead ground scale weapons were nerfed by removing the AP trait and Effect from damage. Ground Scale weapons are nearly useless in space combat (except with Nuclear Ammo).

If you want to add an Autocannon to your ship to discourage the riff-raff at the seedier starports, I see no problem with that and no need for it to cost a hardpoint.

Neither do I see much problem with adding a 60 Dt weapon that does 4D damage (without added Effect) at dogfighting range only. It's much too big to be an effective abuse.
WingedCat
Stoat
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:17 am

Re: An Alphabet of Ships

Postby WingedCat » Wed Jan 02, 2019 1:58 am

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 10:15 am
WingedCat wrote: Anyway. You've reviewed the list through at least Ghost Galleon, and I thank you for it. Do you see any further corrections needed in the rest?
I can look. I stopped since I only found small inconsequential points.
They were consequential to me. ;) Thank you, and my apologies for taking so long to compile the rest. The holidays threw in one interference after another. I have applied the changes you suggested since my last post except as noted below.
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 10:17 am
WingedCat wrote: Icepick class fuel/ice harvesting drone, TL 12
Fuel (8 weeks' operation & transfer to other ships)____________________2_____0.1_____0
Fuel tankage, no cost.
High Guard page 61 says, "Fuel Tanks: Normal cargo space cannot be used to store processed fuel. Instead, large fuel tanks must be constructed, at a cost of Cr50000 per ton." I read this as storing the immediate results of refinery-processed fuel (as in, being able to separate the processed from the unprocessed, in a means not necessary for the fuel processors listed on page 37), which applies to the Icepick.
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:49 am
WingedCat wrote:
AnotherDilbert wrote: By RAW fuel bladders are only for internal use, not exterior use.

A minimum fuel tank of 1 Dt is not optional, if you use a fusion power plant.
I double-checked, and High Guard only restricts fuel bladders from use for jump drives, not fusion plants.

Or do you mean the placement in the deckplans? That would matter if the ship was intended to be taken aboard another ship, or was able to jump. Neither of these is the case. That said, engine performance does need to be recalculated when the fuel tanks are full; per the notes, a Fuelbag only has Thrust 1/6 when at full capacity.
Collapsible fuel tanks (also called fuel bladders) are large flexible bladders which expand when filled with hydrogen fuel. They take up cargo space in a ship ...
They are for internal, not external use. They need a hull around them to stay intact.
Fair enough. I have added external cargo mounts ("deployable bracing" in the description), so there is structure around them. (External cargo mounts' description says the cargo can only be accessed externally, but in this case it just takes a hose from the fuel tanks to the reactor, which can be assumed as a 0-cost component. Refueling or draining them - other than via that hose to the reactor - is not something a Fuelbag can do on its own, though, needing some other ship - usually an Icepick - to hook up.)
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:49 am
While a petty point, I believe a ship needs a minimum of 1 Dt fixed fuel tanks, which is a separate, albeit no-cost component.
No megacredit cost, but it hits the mass budget. I listed the ships the way that I did because they have mass and power, as well as credit, budgets. Anyway, I checked what you quoted and I don't see them requiring fixed fuel tanks, just fuel tanks of some kind, even though for most ships fixed fuel tanks make the most sense. Fuelbags are very much an edge case.
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:49 am
So, I would call the Hummingbird module a single 100 Dt module with 2 hardpoints.
Works for me: you're arriving at the same mechanical result I intended, just labelled differently. (What is a "module"? I'd say 2 small bays count as 2 modules; you say they count as a single module.)
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 2:04 pm
WingedCat wrote: Refinery/Smelter (1 ton ore / 0.5 tons raw materials per day)__________5_____2.5_____5
Refineries and Smelters are separate components.
Entry updated; it's just a smelter. (I was trying a labeling trick for the deckplan, but I've figured out a way to not need that.) The laser drill already blasts raw ore free of the rock, so the Mint needs no refinery system.
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 2:04 pm
I would also like to see e.g. a Grappling Arm to handle the rocks and raw material output. A tow cable probably uses a fixed or magnetic grip that would not be much use on rocks.
A grappling arm implies far more dexterity than the Mint is capable of. This tow cable has a basic claw, as noted in the description. It shoots out (or is tossed out), latches on, and reels in. It can push ore nuggets into a carefully positioned Fuelbag, but any manipulation more advanced than that is left to Zips and Quarter Hammers.
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 2:04 pm
The drone also needs somewhere to store the raw material. This can of course be external cargo, perhaps an interplanetary "jump" net HG, p40).
It just dumps the raw materials overboard, for Zips and Quarter Hammers to pick up. Organizing the resulting mess (such as if there are any manned cargo ships picking up the raw materials and/or unused ore) is part of the Zips' job.
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 3:31 pm
WingedCat wrote: Nisina-class escort carrier, TL 12
Fuel_______________________________________________119___0______0
(jump-2 + 4 weeks' operation + 10 total extra hours for fighter reaction drive)
Basic fuel load is 114 Dt (600 Dt × 20% × 95%) + 4 Dt, leaving only 1 Dt for the fighters.
1 Dt is indeed 10 total extra hours fighter reaction drive. (Actually, 0.9 Dt is. Fixed.) The fighters don't have that much fuel to begin with; it's basically afterburners, to supplement the m-drives.
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 3:31 pm
Any military ship should probably be able to scoop and refine fuel, reliance on tankers is chancy.
This is meant as a defensive carrier. If it's anywhere it can't be resupplied, it's being used wrong.
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 3:31 pm
With a single laser and the Pilot suffering a negative DM for both flying and shooting (Core, p59) it will only be marginally effective at Point Defence, hardly motivating the cost.
They don't' have to be stellar on their own: there are 10 of them. That said, they can also fly out to intercept missiles before the fleet's own point defense comes in range, and they can chase down unarmed or lightly armed ships trying to flee.
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:15 pm
While M-drives should work that way it probably does not. An M-Drive 0 is half the size of an M-Drive 1, but gives no effective motive power, only station-keeping.
A M-Drive 0 is a distinct thing, not just a linear scale-down of a M-Drive 1. Nowhere in High Guard where it talks about recalculating Thrust and Jump, does it say you can't have fractional Thrust as a result of such recalculation; you just have to have integer Thrust for the ship without external loads. Attempting to land with less than 1 G is usually a bad idea by itself, over and above the problem of landing while carrying external loads, especially in any significant atmosphere. (Fractional Jump is likewise not forbidden but would rarely be useful: if you had a Jump 1.5, say due to carrying a load in a jump net, there are very few occasions where it would function as more than a Jump 1 that takes extra tonnage and costs more.)
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 3:56 pm
WingedCat wrote: Ortillerist-class torpedo ship, TL 12

Software: launch solution/3________________0_____16______0
Software is TL-15, not TL-12.
High Guard page 64? You may have looked up at the Electronic Warfare section. Look down: Launch Solution/3 software is TL 12. (Bandwidth 15, though.)
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:34 pm
WingedCat wrote: Quarter Hammer class construction drone, TL 12
Combining construction decks is questionable. I would like to see it as a Breakaway Hull design?
Huh? The construction deck does not break away from the rest of the Quarter Hammer.
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:34 pm
The construction deck requires crew. The computer can replace brains, but not hands. Perhaps Repair Drones can replace hands?
In this case, hands replace hands. Quarter Hammers come with a grappling arm system (which has "a set of cameras and grippers of varying sizes", only the largest of which need be used to dock securely with its mates), and the dispersed hull is partly there so the arm can reach right inside.
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:47 pm
WingedCat wrote: Runabout-class small transport, TL 9
Love the design, the price is certainly right!
It is now, thanks to your correction. :)
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:47 pm
A small Collapsible Tank and some foldable Acceleration Benches would let us use the cargo space to transport general cargo, fuel, or people as needed.
Aftermarket additions. The runabout is sold bare bones, for straight-up cargo use. Those who plan to transport fuel (or other liquids) can add a collapsable tank; those who transport passengers can add benches. Those that are unlikely to ever do either (say, if they intend to just use it as a personal transport, or are exclusively cargo hauling between highport and downport) can save the mass and credits to carry a bit more cargo a bit more cheaply...and many of the intended market for this design, think that way.
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 6:16 pm
WingedCat wrote: Torch-class system defense boat, TL 15
Note that 5 turns reaction fuel is generally not enough to close into dogfighting range against an uncooperative enemy.
At a total Thrust 20? The m-drive and r-drive are both contributing here. See "High B3rn Thruster", High Guard page 36.
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 6:16 pm
Technically squadrons of ships only allowed in the capital combat system, Referee override of course possible.
Torches are intended to take on capital ships. If they're just swarming a normal ship, though, then use the normal ship combat rules.
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 7:48 pm
WingedCat wrote: Worldbooker-class survey ship, TL 14
4 docking spaces (survey drones)_______________________________115___28.75___0
Docking Space: 26 Dt × 110% = (round up) = 29 Dt.
4 Docking Spaces 29 Dt × 4 = 116 Dt.
I thought the round up might only happen after they were combined, so 114.4 would round up to 115. Fixed.
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 7:48 pm
Extremely tight Power for jump, a small battery might be indicated?
Nothing but basic ship systems is needed when jumping. Jump dimming definitely happens, though.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 7:48 pm
WingedCat wrote: TL 14 survey drone
System_____________________________________________spaces__MCr
heavy submersible hull w/supercavitating drive_____-52_____5.2
supercavitating drive______________________________10______2.6
fuel efficient_____________________________________0_______5.2
auxiliary grav drive_______________________________13______10.4
supercav drive adds kCr 100 per space = MCr 5.2
That's at TL 10-11. At TL 14 it only adds kCr 25 per space. Though that is an error; it should be MCr 1.3. Thus, the cost per space before the %-based options is 6.5, so the fuel efficiency should cost 1.625, and the grav drive another 6.5.
Old School wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:50 pm
I only looked at a few of them, but I'll say I like the Barrister a lot.
Thanks!
Old School wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:50 pm
High Guard doesn't give any limitations on M-Drives other than tech level, but all the designs limit larger ships to 6G.
I take that as, that's the standard most of the big navies stick to, even if they could go faster. This is designed in part reflecting the standards of the ships it is expected to encounter.
Old School wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:50 pm
I see you're holding true to the military crew requirements as well. I'd swap out some gunners for more Marines. I know the written standard is 2 gunners per turret, but it seems excessive. You need 12 to fire all weapons, right? I'd go with 14-15 gunners and add 5-6 more marines. You're going to need them when boarding ships. The Ideal crew would include some marines with gunner-0 or gunner-1 as backup gunners.
The written standards are what I'm going by. I agree that a full 2 gunners per (almost) every gun seems a bit much. Notice that the Dimin uses all-virtual gunners, for this reason. (Even if it is a spinal mount, how many gunners does it take to fire a single gun?)
Old School wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:50 pm
Your 25G Gig is hilarious, brilliant, and awesome. Looks like a legal design, although some may not allow it.
High Burn Thrusters, as above. I'm not even making up the combo, just filling in the maximum numbers provided.
Old School wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:50 pm
I don't think four marines in battle dress or combat armor will fit on one bench, but so what. Could you back off anything to fit 8 marines on board? I guess if you've only got 6, and that includes the pilot and gunner, you don't need to fit more.
4 people is what High Guard says. Doesn't say anything about what they're wearing. That said, if in YTU you want it to be standing room for 4 marines with padding around them to let them take 25 Gs standing up, and maybe dig into the cargo & corridor space a bit, go for it. The 6 marines include the pilot and gunner: it's everyone who's going aboard the gig.
Old School wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:50 pm
If you're budgeting a billion credits for one ship for pirate hunting, the Barrister is that ship. As a practical matter, is it more effective in that role than 6 type-T patrol corvettes at the same price? My answer: who cares? Its awesome.
In fact, it stemmed from an idea for a certain campaign where there might well be a gigacredit or so for a pirate hunting ship. The plan is to use it to capture prize ships from pirates, to pay off its expense.
Old School wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:50 pm
I don't understand the design of the Jewell. You've got three huge weapons. You show the Meson Cannon as an internal system. Is that how you justify having essentially three bay weapons on a 200 ton design? How are these stats (60 tons, MCr20.1, 0 power) derived? How does the meson beam fire without putting a hole in it's own ship?
As noted:
* RAW says smaller weapons don't take hardpoints.
* Meson beams skip past hulls. (And planets. Meson guns can fire from deep underground bunkers, not needing clear line of sight to hit targets in orbit.)
* This is the meson accelerator from CSC. The Jewel Wasp was basically designed around that weapon.
* It's "Jewel Wasp", as in a certain insect that mind controls its prey.
Old School wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:50 pm
Weapon systems aside, the Jewell is going to have to rely on surprise attacks given its 2G acceleration. Its bay weapons are terrifying but also have a tough time hitting a small target. Whether it captures its prey or not, it's jump one range limits its options for jumping out as well as the space it can operate in (restricted to a one jump main). It can escape a SDB, but any jump capable vessel giving pursuit has decent odds of guessing correctly when jumping after the Jewell. I like the concept of a vessel designed with murderous intent that gives even bad pirates a bad name.
Yep. All these limitations are intentional, at least for this version.
Old School wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:50 pm
If you can do it using two weapons systems, it would fit within the rules and also be a more practical ship, as you could increase the capabilities of both drive systems, crew capacity, etc.
In theory, you only need one ion bay - but it felt like a waste to do it that way, because by RAW it'd only use 1 of the 2 hardpoints (and it still needed over 100 tons).

Maybe I can do a variant, though. Besides the points you raise, if you insist that smaller weapons do need hard or firm points, this would also be "the legal version". (Though another solution to that is to just replace the 2 small bays with 1 medium bay.)
Old School wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:50 pm
Look forward to looking at more of the designs.
And I look forward to your reviews of them.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3389
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: An Alphabet of Ships

Postby AnotherDilbert » Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:13 am

WingedCat wrote: (What is a "module"? I'd say 2 small bays count as 2 modules; you say they count as a single module.)
I may be a bit overzealous, but I require a module to be a specific size and shape, to fit into a specific slot, as in the Modular Cutter.

So, the ship can have two slots for 50 Dt modules or one slot for a 100 Dt module, requiring modules of the correct size. If the ship has 2 modules of 50 Dt each, it will be unable to mount a module with a medium bay.

Note that a module can contain several components, e.g. a 100 Dt module with 2 hardpoints could contain a medium bay (size reduced to 90 Dt), a barbette, and some storage space.

WingedCat wrote: A M-Drive 0 is a distinct thing, not just a linear scale-down of a M-Drive 1. Nowhere in High Guard where it talks about recalculating Thrust and Jump, does it say you can't have fractional Thrust as a result of such recalculation; you just have to have integer Thrust for the ship without external loads.
By tradition, due to CT systems, drives are rated in integer values. You can have what ever size drives you want, but it will be rated down to an integer, limited by size and TL.
See the Breakaway Hull example (HG, p12):
"... while the 600 ton section has 66 tons of manoeuvre drive giving it Thrust 9. When combined, this is 86 tons of manoeuvre drive giving the 1,000 ton vessel Thrust 8."

Jump drives are explicitly limited to integer values by the way they work, see JTAS#24.

I will agree that this is not very obvious in MgT2...

WingedCat wrote: Launch Solution/3 software is TL 12. (Bandwidth 15, though.)
You are correct, my spreadsheet was incorrect. Spreadsheet updated, thanks!

WingedCat wrote:
AnotherDilbert wrote: Combining construction decks is questionable. I would like to see it as a Breakaway Hull design?
Huh? The construction deck does not break away from the rest of the Quarter Hammer.
You need a 20 Dt construction deck to make a 10 Dt vessel. If you make a "Full Hammer" that is a breakaway design that splits into four Quarter Hammers, you can have a 20 Dt construction deck.

WingedCat wrote:
AnotherDilbert wrote:
WingedCat wrote: Torch-class system defense boat, TL 15
Note that 5 turns reaction fuel is generally not enough to close into dogfighting range against an uncooperative enemy.
At a total Thrust 20? The m-drive and r-drive are both contributing here.
Agreed, you have 20 g for five turns. If we use the movement system in the Core book and start at Distant, it takes 92 Thrust-turns to get into dogfighting. Presuming the enemy retreats to avoid the disadvantageous dogfight, say at 9 g, you will close in by 11 g every turn for five turns for a total of 55 thrust-turns, placing you at Very Long range when the reaction fuel runs out.

With a slight margin you would need at least 10 rounds of fuel.
WingedCat
Stoat
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:17 am

Re: An Alphabet of Ships

Postby WingedCat » Thu Jan 03, 2019 12:12 am

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:13 am
So, the ship can have two slots for 50 Dt modules or one slot for a 100 Dt module, requiring modules of the correct size. If the ship has 2 modules of 50 Dt each, it will be unable to mount a module with a medium bay.

Note that a module can contain several components, e.g. a 100 Dt module with 2 hardpoints could contain a medium bay (size reduced to 90 Dt), a barbette, and some storage space.
In that case, read the Hummingbird as having space for a 100 Dt module with 2 hardpoints...but that module could itself have 50 Dt of components (using the first hardpoint) and host a 50 Dt module (which has the second hardpoint), which in turn could host 25 Dt of components and a 25 Dt module (only one of which uses the second hardpoint). Or 25+75 -> 25+50 -> 25+25 -> 25, handing down the hardpoints as needed.

I read those as just different-size modules from the start. Simplifies my bookkeeping. But if you believe they have to be tracked like that to fit in the rules, go for it.
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:13 am
WingedCat wrote: A M-Drive 0 is a distinct thing, not just a linear scale-down of a M-Drive 1. Nowhere in High Guard where it talks about recalculating Thrust and Jump, does it say you can't have fractional Thrust as a result of such recalculation; you just have to have integer Thrust for the ship without external loads.
By tradition, due to CT systems, drives are rated in integer values. You can have what ever size drives you want, but it will be rated down to an integer, limited by size and TL.
See the Breakaway Hull example (HG, p12):
"... while the 600 ton section has 66 tons of manoeuvre drive giving it Thrust 9. When combined, this is 86 tons of manoeuvre drive giving the 1,000 ton vessel Thrust 8."

Jump drives are explicitly limited to integer values by the way they work, see JTAS#24.

I will agree that this is not very obvious in MgT2...
Yes, and we're talking MgT2, which does a number of ship construction things differently than other editions, including getting rid of a lot of the step-size limitations. (I've read T5. Quite a few of the things I've done with these ships, I see no way to port over cleanly. One of the most prominent differences is that MgT2 doesn't use hull codes that you are forced to pick from: it would be a lot harder just to lay out the 69,900 ton hull for the Average Cargo Ship.) It's possible this is another such difference.

I agree there's no point to fractional jump (whether it's impossible or not), but fractional Thrust can be useful - and since jump only appears toward the end of TL 9, the Planetoid Hauler would first appear when jump drive is not yet available (early to mid TL 9, whenever Thrust-1 maneuver drives become available).
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:13 am
WingedCat wrote:
AnotherDilbert wrote: Combining construction decks is questionable. I would like to see it as a Breakaway Hull design?
Huh? The construction deck does not break away from the rest of the Quarter Hammer.
You need a 20 Dt construction deck to make a 10 Dt vessel. If you make a "Full Hammer" that is a breakaway design that splits into four Quarter Hammers, you can have a 20 Dt construction deck.
Ah. If you want, consider there to be a virtual "Full Hammer" ship that does this. (Including any necessary structure for there to be a breakaway hull, cobbled together when the four Quarter Hammers hook up, and dismantled when they break apart.)

However, a set of 4 Quarter Hammers can only build 10 ton ships; they can't actually build a Full Hammer in one go. This was part of the dilemma I faced when setting up ships that could manufacture more of themselves: as a single unit, the construction deck can only build things half its tonnage (and the space station shipyard was worse), then there's the tonnage for the power plant and rest of the ship.

Therefore, I believe it to be more honest/realistic to track these as Quarter Hammers. One Quarter Hammer is built at a time, and while four of them (plus any temporary structure) can link up to build things, each one is also its own ship (and can by itself build stuff no more than 2.5 tons, such as individual spare missiles for the System Defense Bricks, or perform depot-level repairs and maintenance when the Mints' repair drones do not suffice).
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:13 am
WingedCat wrote:
AnotherDilbert wrote: Note that 5 turns reaction fuel is generally not enough to close into dogfighting range against an uncooperative enemy.
At a total Thrust 20? The m-drive and r-drive are both contributing here.
Agreed, you have 20 g for five turns. If we use the movement system in the Core book and start at Distant, it takes 92 Thrust-turns to get into dogfighting. Presuming the enemy retreats to avoid the disadvantageous dogfight, say at 9 g, you will close in by 11 g every turn for five turns for a total of 55 thrust-turns, placing you at Very Long range when the reaction fuel runs out.

With a slight margin you would need at least 10 rounds of fuel.
Going by the designs present in High Guard, most warships have no more than Thrust 6, and most non-warships have no more than Thrust 2.

For warships, that's 14 * 5 = 70 Thrust-turns - not enough, granted, but if Torches accelerating toward the enemy is enough to make enemy warships run away at top speed, in many cases that's almost as good a win as destroying said warships.

For non-warships, that's 18 * 5 = 90 Thrust-turns. On turn 6, the m-drive alone gives 5 additional Thrust above the target's, enough to close to dogfighting range.

That said, I suspect in most cases the chase - at least the part where the r-drives get used - will start closer than Distant. Torches want to get through the Very Long and closer range bands down to dogfighting range ASAP; they can afford to take their time at longer range bands because they aren't being fired at yet (save maybe by missiles, but point defense is why they have lasers; any enemy fleet that can spam enough simultaneous missile launches to overwhelm what point defense is available is a fleet large enough that a few Torches shouldn't be taking it on alone in the first place). So they only need their m-drive beyond Long Range, and even 1 more Thrust is enough unless the party being chased is near the 100D limit, a planet with at least a fortified hangar, or reinforcements such as a space station.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yaldabaoth and 27 guests