Gazelle Class Close Escort

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
EwanS
Shrew
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 6:32 pm

Gazelle Class Close Escort

Postby EwanS » Sun Oct 14, 2018 11:14 am

Hi
Is the Gazelle Class Close Escort detailed anywhere in MGT2. Thanks
Pyromancer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 257
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 6:12 pm

Re: Gazelle Class Close Escort

Postby Pyromancer » Sun Oct 14, 2018 11:47 am

I have seen it somewhere, probably in High Guard. It's now J-5 with drop tanks and has two particle barbettes.
Annatar Giftbringer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 615
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:35 am
Location: Uddevalla, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Gazelle Class Close Escort

Postby Annatar Giftbringer » Sun Oct 14, 2018 11:50 am

Yeah, it’s in High Guard. P. 130-131
EwanS
Shrew
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 6:32 pm

Re: Gazelle Class Close Escort

Postby EwanS » Sun Oct 14, 2018 12:37 pm

Excellent, thanks.
Old School
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:41 pm

Re: Gazelle Class Close Escort

Postby Old School » Sun Oct 14, 2018 1:14 pm

And it needs its armor doubled :)
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3066
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Gazelle Class Close Escort

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:39 pm

I would agree that it need more armour, but it is closely based on the Gazelle in CT Fighting Ships with the same drive performance and armour.
Old School
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:41 pm

Re: Gazelle Class Close Escort

Postby Old School » Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:48 pm

Yup, its been flawed for 40 years now. :D
Linwood
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:41 am

Re: Gazelle Class Close Escort

Postby Linwood » Mon Oct 15, 2018 1:03 am

How much armor could be added while keeping its performance the same?
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 684
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Gazelle Class Close Escort

Postby baithammer » Mon Oct 15, 2018 3:39 am

Considering it mainly escorts vessels with thrust 1-3 and Jump 1-3, its kinda overboard on the jump situation.

Drop the drop tank and setup for at least jump 4 and you have more to play with.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3066
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Gazelle Class Close Escort

Postby AnotherDilbert » Mon Oct 15, 2018 9:17 am

The Gazelle is supposed to be a fleet escort, not a convoy escort. The J-4 performance it has while retaining the drop tanks (as is standard procedure) is appropriate.

JTAS4 wrote: Naval tactics in the Imperial Navy call for large ships to be accompanied by well-armed, small fighting craft capable of engaging the enemy at long range, before they approach the principle ships in a task force or convoy. These small ships may be fighter craft carried by the larger ships, or they may be independent close escort vessels.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3066
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Gazelle Class Close Escort

Postby AnotherDilbert » Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:24 am

Linwood wrote: How much armor could be added while keeping its performance the same?
A lot?

How about this:
300 Dt + external gig + drop tank.
J-4, M-4, Armour 15, MCr 290
J-2, M-5 without the tank, J-5 when dropping the tank.
Image
paltrysum
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 480
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Gazelle Class Close Escort

Postby paltrysum » Mon Oct 15, 2018 5:27 pm

Not to mention, the Gazelle is supposed to have the long legs to get to other locations quickly once its job is done. Sure it might dawdle along next to a J-1 or J-2 freighter for a period of time, but then it needs to haul ass back home or to another naval base with great haste for the next assignment. Furthermore, let's say they are attacked and the freighter is damaged. Depending on the circumstances, the Gazelle could be called upon to get somewhere quickly for replacement parts or to communicate what happened, leaving other elements to keep the ship secure at a downport or secure location.

I think disassembling critiques are great, but instead of always assuming the designers somehow got it wrong, we should also try to extrapolate from the info we have to imagine the full range of missions the ship is designed for.
"Spacers lead a sedentary life. They live at home, and their home is always with them—their starship, and so is their country—the depths of space."
Linwood
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:41 am

Re: Gazelle Class Close Escort

Postby Linwood » Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:35 am

Wow - that makes a Gazelle kind of scary! Thanks AnotherDilbert!!!
Old School
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:41 pm

Re: Gazelle Class Close Escort

Postby Old School » Tue Oct 16, 2018 12:20 pm

Power gaming with all that high technology in the design, Dilbert. Personally I wouldnt allow the TL12+3 (high technology) fusion drives. There is already a TL15 fusion drive in the book, so I’d make you use it. That’s just me. I also think high technolgy should be MUCH more expensive than the RAW.

But if you’re going that route, you can save more space by changing your advanced tech advantage on the jump drive from size reduction to decreased fuel. 5% less fuel saves more space than 10% less drive.

And the triple turret is a head-scratcher. You can only use one of those weapons at a time. The sandcaster is a waste when you already have Armor 15, and your missle barbette is already firing 5 missiles. A triple pulse laser seems a better bet, or even a triple beam laser if you’re worried sbout incoming missles or fighters.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 684
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Gazelle Class Close Escort

Postby baithammer » Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:51 pm

The setup doesn't work from a fleet perspective, where naval ships have a thrust 6 and Jump 4.

The Gazelle at most has thrust 5 if the tanks are dropped at a Jump 4, which leaves a Jump 2 which doesn't give much compared to tanker refueling or skimming.

The drop tank setup works much better in low dt scout or raider, with thrust 6 / Jump 3 with Jump 3 internal and Jump 3 in drop tanks.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3066
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Gazelle Class Close Escort

Postby AnotherDilbert » Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:11 pm

Old School wrote: Power gaming with all that high technology in the design, Dilbert.
Call it what you like, that is the system.

A team of professional naval architects are supposed to have spent quite some time and effort to make this an effective warship. I would consider it bad roleplaying to make a deliberately ineffective ship.

Old School wrote: But if you’re going that route, you can save more space by changing your advanced tech advantage on the jump drive from size reduction to decreased fuel. 5% less fuel saves more space than 10% less drive.
Yes, but at a steep cost. In this case we could save ~0.6 Dt at a cost of about MCr 5. It would be cheaper to make the ship slightly larger to gain a little extra space (& Hull points).

Old School wrote: And the triple turret is a head-scratcher.
I was trying to follow the Gazelle, so two Particle barbettes, leaving one hardpoint. A single Sandcaster is useful as a Chaff dispenser, a single missile rack is useful to launch missile drones, and a laser can always be useful.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3066
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Gazelle Class Close Escort

Postby AnotherDilbert » Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:34 pm

baithammer wrote: The setup doesn't work from a fleet perspective, where naval ships have a thrust 6 and Jump 4.
Canon seems to disagree with you. Some warships have J-4/M-6 but far from all, since it was impossible to build effective warships with that performance at TL15 using LBB5.


I would consider it more important to keep the fleet at a minimum jump rating, e.g. J-4. The acceleration is more interesting in combat than in moving the fleet.

The Gazelle has J-4/M-4 (while keeping the tanks) which is enough to keep up with fleet strategic movement.
Old School
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:41 pm

Re: Gazelle Class Close Escort

Postby Old School » Tue Oct 16, 2018 5:34 pm

You‘ve definitely designed a beast of a 300 ton ship. I’d take it for my traveller crew anyday. The power gaming comment is an observation, not a criticism. I consider it almost a crime not to upgrade the range on pulse lasers.

Weapons, sorry, misread your sheet. Thought you had a missle barbette.

Jump drives: You've already spent the money on the advanced tech jump drive. So switching from size reduction to reduced fuel costs you nothing, and frees a little bit of space. Not a huge amount, but you look to be maximizing the design. If you’re using tech to free space, fuel reduction before jump drive size reduction, always. I’d actually do very advanced with two size reductions to free room for more M-Drive if money is no object. And throw some stealth on there too.

The real weakness is the enormous cost. I think that is where where your Gazelle becomes less realistic. Even the imperial navy has a budget. I think its unlikely to spend that much money for a Gazelle, which is already a premium design over the 400 ton corvette. I don’t think any small combat ship designs include Radiation shielding, as they are designed to counter and hunt pirates, not engage warships. If I’m a player designing a ship for my travellers, its going to have radiation shielding every time. But navies, local up to imperial, dont put it on small ships. Same thing wth all the high tech. It makes the design fit, but at a huge cost.

Funny gazelle observation: the POD Treasure Ship adventure makes mention of the gazelle doing serius damage with nuclear missles. They dont have missles. :D

Ive got a reworked gazelle and corvette on my computer. I’ll try to post them tonight so you can pick at my designs too. :D
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3066
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Gazelle Class Close Escort

Postby AnotherDilbert » Tue Oct 16, 2018 6:21 pm

Old School wrote: Jump drives: You've already spent the money on the advanced tech jump drive. So switching from size reduction to reduced fuel costs you nothing, and frees a little bit of space. Not a huge amount, but you look to be maximizing the design. If you’re using tech to free space, fuel reduction before jump drive size reduction, always.
Jump drive cost is per Dton. If you reduce the size of the drive, you also reduce the cost of the drive.
viewtopic.php?p=916516#p916516

I get (Reduced Size) (free space is the green number, ship's cost is the bold number in the top row):
Image

and (Decreased Fuel):
Image

and for the same cost with Reduced Size:
Image
Note 310 Dt ship with more Hull and more free space.

Old School wrote: I’d actually do very advanced with two size reductions to free room for more M-Drive if money is no object.
The Gazelle is supposed to be able to do J-5 when dropping the tanks, so must have a TL-14 J-drive, hence only only one advantage at TL-15.

Old School wrote: And throw some stealth on there too.
That might be a "nice-to-have", but I was trying to make a Gazelle and I was not completely unconcerned with budget...

Old School wrote: The real weakness is the enormous cost. I think that is where where your Gazelle becomes less realistic. Even the imperial navy has a budget.
Agreed, it is very expensive for what you get. The Gazelle in HG costs MCr 250, so it's not completely unreasonable. Three of my Gazelles (~GCr 0.9) would easily defeat four HG Gazelles (~GCr 1), so I would call it less bad bang-for-the-buck.

The original was even more expensive at MCr 350.

Old School wrote: I don’t think any small combat ship designs include Radiation shielding, as they are designed to counter and hunt pirates, not engage warships.
The Gazelle is supposed to be a fleet escort, not a convoy escort. It is very definitely expected to engage light warships.

(But the real answer is that my spreadsheet defaults Rad Shielding for combat ships, and I didn't bother consider if it should be there...)

Old School wrote: Funny gazelle observation: the POD Treasure Ship adventure makes mention of the gazelle doing serius damage with nuclear missles. They dont have missles. :D
Barbettes are standard (large) turrets. Missile barbettes can easily be fitted by any shipyard...

There is also a civilian version with only turrets, laser and missile.

Old School wrote: Ive got a reworked gazelle and corvette on my computer. I’ll try to post them tonight so you can pick at my designs too. :D
Please do!
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3066
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Gazelle Class Close Escort

Postby AnotherDilbert » Tue Oct 16, 2018 7:09 pm

Old School wrote: The real weakness is the enormous cost. I think that is where where your Gazelle becomes less realistic. Even the imperial navy has a budget. I think its unlikely to spend that much money for a Gazelle, which is already a premium design over the 400 ton corvette.
I agree that the Gazelle (and most small combat ships) are very expensive for what you get, especially as they are not really combat-worthy.

I tried to make a usable small warship here:
viewtopic.php?p=916516#p916516

I ended up with something larger, even more expensive, but at least marginally combat capable, giving up jump range for combat power.

I would probably make the weapons and defences modular, to be able to adjust the deployment to current threats.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Klooth Quethos, Old School, Welf and 25 guests