[Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
Annatar Giftbringer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 753
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:35 am
Location: Uddevalla, Sweden

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby Annatar Giftbringer » Sun Dec 16, 2018 9:27 pm

Regarding the Atlantic class, it’s possible that it could use its sandcasters as missile defense. Chaff canisters give -1 DM to missile attack roles according to high Guard (p.31) but the question is if several canisters stack or not. If they do, then sandcasters could be used the same way as frag missiles, i.e every launches canister effectively removes one missile.



Yeah, you need to get the Element book, lots of fun there :)



As for small craft dimensions, I personally prefer to use flattened cylinders, so each craft is one deck high (two squares). That’s the way they’re depicted in most deck plans after all.

In my mind, launches are 4x10 squares, boats 5x12, cutters 5x20, with modules 5x12.

Looking at the official deck plans, the number of squares don’t add up at all in some cases (like the cutter). And while several craft are shown cylindrical, their hangars are drawn as single deck rather than 2-3 decks high.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3868
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:09 pm

Annatar Giftbringer wrote: Regarding the Atlantic class, it’s possible that it could use its sandcasters as missile defense. Chaff canisters give -1 DM to missile attack roles according to high Guard (p.31) but the question is if several canisters stack or not.
? Chaff only affects Electronics rolls, not attack rolls.

I would not allow Chaff to stack, lest all ships become undetectable.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3868
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:33 pm

Bardicheart wrote: Unfortunately the Atlantic class heavy cruiser has very little in the way of PD.
You can't compare the standard designs with home made effective designs...

At least the Atlantic has some armour.

Turrets and bays are natural modules and easily replaceable. If the energy budget allows you can replace the sandcasters with lasers. And the Particle bays with more Missile bays?

Bardicheart wrote: Funny you should mention wargaming rules, I prefer those. Clear, concise and well thought out, but then I was playing Avalon Hill wargames ...
Agreed, but MgT2 is not like that.

I still have fond memories of SL, 3R, and GoA.

Bardicheart wrote: The problem I'm having with some of this stuff from 2e is apparently nobody actually gamed these ships in simple set piece test battles before going to print.
The ships are more or less straight copies from CT FS, they were not very good in CT either. So, they were most certainly not play-tested for combat effectiveness in MgT2.

Bardicheart wrote: 6m diameter launch happens to be what I have drawn on the deck plan, probably what I'll stick with. I'm also trying to pay attention to the placement of airlocks / hatches and standardize that.
Agreed. I use this standard for most generic small craft, and just let the length vary. That way most craft can use the same docks (even if the large ones might stick out a bit).
Old School
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 789
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:41 pm
Location: Florida

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby Old School » Mon Dec 17, 2018 12:45 am

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:09 pm
? Chaff only affects Electronics rolls, not attack rolls.

I would not allow Chaff to stack, lest all ships become undetectable.
I had actually forgotten chaff existed as an option, but it affects both electronics AND missile attacks.

High Guard, p. 31:
Chaff Canister: Sandcaster chaff disrupts sensors and communications targeted at the ship that creates the cloud. All Electronics (comms), Electronics (sensors), Electronics (remote ops) checks and attack rolls for missiles made within a chaff cloud suffer DM-1. Chaff does not provide protection against laser fire.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3868
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby AnotherDilbert » Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:01 am

Old School wrote: High Guard, p. 31:
Chaff Canister: Sandcaster chaff disrupts sensors and communications targeted at the ship that creates the cloud. All Electronics (comms), Electronics (sensors), Electronics (remote ops) checks and attack rolls for missiles made within a chaff cloud suffer DM-1. Chaff does not provide protection against laser fire.
Thanks, I even checked the text, but still missed the bolded part.
Bardicheart
Mongoose
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:53 pm
Contact:

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby Bardicheart » Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:10 am

I'm not comparing the HG 2e Atlantic to a player designed ship, I'm comparing it to its original self as published in CT 09 Fighting ships p32.
Heavy Cruiser CR-Q4459J3-A66900-909N9-0 MCr47,544.71 75 ktons
batteries bearing Y G51P TL=15.
batteries Z M61W Crew=492.
Cargo=200. Fuel=36,750. EP=6,750. Agility=5. Troops=O. (Y=41. Z=55.)
Tonnage: 75,000 tons (standard). 1,050,000 cubic meters.
Crew: 60 officers, 432 ratings.
Performance: Jump4.5-G. Power plant-9. 6,750 EP. Agility 5.
Electronics: Model/9fib computer.
Hardpoints: One spinal weapons mount. Six 100-ton bays. Thirty
50-ton bays. 375 hardpoints.
Armament: One meson gun spinal mount (factor-N). Six 100-ton
particle accelerator bays. Thirty 50-ton missile bays. 210 triple laser turrets organized into 21 batteries.
Defenses: 165 triple sandcaster turrets organized into 55 batteries.
Nuclear damper (factor*). Meson screen (factor-6). Armored hull (factor-lo).
Craft: Three small craft of assorted tonnages.
Fuel Treatment: Integral fuel scoops and on-boardfuel purification plant.
Cost: MCr59.430.89 standard. MCr47,544.71 in quantity.
Construction Time: 50 months singly; 37 months in quantity.
Bold type added for clarity. The original had plenty of laser turrets for point defense against fighters and missiles, the new version trades the 210 dT of turrets for 80 dT of TL 12 Type II Point Defense (on TL 15 ship design so even THAT doesn't make sense, TL 14 Type 3 for same tonnage would give it 3 extra die of point defense, which still isn't comparable to all those laser turrets but this thing desperately needs all the PD it can muster).

I repeat, the ship designs in HG 2e are mostly BROKEN. Its not a more or less a straight copy, ripping out 210 laser batteries that were key to its defense is a) a pretty significant deviation from the original design and b) NUTS! What's worse is its listed at having 1,174 dT of CARGO on a warship! Its not like they couldn't have added those turrets in. But of course that would have meant 410 gunners with half of em loading imaginary laser ammo, requiring 410 staterooms (unless these sods are forced to double bunk when no one else on the ship does) for 1,640 dT plus another 410 dT common space for a grand total of 2,260 dT which we don't actually have so... yeah. Course if we scrap the silly 2 gunners per turret rule because we don't need one guy standing there pretending to load imaginary laser rounds, we can cut that down to 210 stateroom (820 dT) and 210 dT common space for a total of 1,230 dT (turret included) still more space than we have. But since those turrets were organized into 21 batteries we could cut the gunners down to just 21... or heck, 42... giving us 210 triple laser turrets in 21 batteries of 10, 42 gunners (half of whom I still don't know what they do, but just for the helluvit to point out how silly all this is and how easily it COULD have been fixed), 42 staterooms, 42 additional tons of common space for.... 420 dT leaving us with 754 dT of cargo and a ship that can properly defend itself from missiles and looks much more like the original design (with nearly 4x the cargo space and it still has those Type II PDs for an extra PD boost).

But wait... we don't have rules for guns in batteries anymore. :roll: I'm grandfathering it in, so there. :lol:

And because I know you'll ask, even with those triple laser turrets said ship could still fire all its weapons, operate its shields, and if it slowed to 4 Gs could even still power up its jump drive during combat with all guns blazing with its existing amount of fusion reactors. So the only thing needed to be changed was drop some cargo, add some gunners and turrets in batteries as per the original design and the ship would have been good to go.

Heck if we drop the 2 gunner per turret rule, use batteries as per the original design, we have more than enough crew as is for the 210 turrets and the missing sensor ops and a bunch of guys left over to start a wargaming club because it beats standing around loading imaginary laser rounds (Wargamer 2nd class reporting for gaming duty... SIR! :lol: ), or better still give the ship a platoon of marines for security. All we need to change then is take 210 dT of that cargo and add the turrets back in and done, even simpler to do.

I'd ask why Mongoose didn't do any of that, but... :roll: Point being, that's the CT design, and it could be fixed to be that design with relatively few changes. So, file it away for future reference or something, but yeah, the existing design is not CT and has a big gap in its defenses that will get the ship killed.

Is the horse dead an buried yet? :wink:

(PS: Just wanted to be clear though, no hostility on my part :) I'm enjoying the discussion. I just think what was done with some of the ship designs is silly, needs to be fixed and could have been if anyone had caught it.)

And yeah, Squad Leader, Panzer Leader, Panzer Blitz... good times!
P. Sean ONeal
Writer / Artist / Building Contractor and space junky (or monkey)
Old School
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 789
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:41 pm
Location: Florida

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby Old School » Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:47 am

As mich as I love what Mongoose has done for Traveller, I think its faur to say regarding High Guard Ship Designs:
- forced to model the CT versions despite rules changes
- little effort to optimize them for the new rules
- rushed and full of errors
- questionable design decisions even when all the above is factored in

We could publish our own optimized designs. Does Mongoose have a non commercial fair use policy similar to FFE’s?
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3868
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby AnotherDilbert » Mon Dec 17, 2018 2:07 am

Bardicheart wrote: Bold type added for clarity. The original had plenty of laser turrets for point defense against fighters and missiles, the new version trades the 210 dT of turrets for 80 dT of TL 12 Type II Point Defense (on TL 15 ship design so even THAT doesn't make sense, TL 14 Type 3 for same tonnage would give it 3 extra die of point defense, which still isn't comparable to all those laser turrets but this thing desperately needs all the PD it can muster).
The laser turrets seems to be simply forgotten in the conversion. I hadn't bothered to check, but the MgT2 version leaves a lot of hardpoints unoccupied. The original used too many hardpoints, so it might even out?

Note that the lasers were nearly useless in CT (except to soak weapon hits). They could almost not hit fighters and barely stop missile bay attacks.

If it bothers you, just add up to 400 turrets...

Bardicheart wrote: I repeat, the ship designs in HG 2e are mostly BROKEN.
Well, they are more or less legal, but very bad at their jobs.

So, while I basically agree, I would not say it like that.

Bardicheart wrote: Is the horse dead an buried yet? :wink:
You're not alone in noticing that the ships are, how shall I put it, a bit underwhelming.

But they already were in CT, so we can't really expect much...
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7370
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby Condottiere » Mon Dec 17, 2018 8:09 am

They are legacy designs, and canon, so need to be reimagined; if you recall Mongoose First, a lot of effort was made recreating deck plans.

With all due respect to the actual writers, this time round canonical ship designs appear to be afterthoughts.
steve98052
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 936
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 6:13 am
Location: near Seattle

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby steve98052 » Mon Dec 17, 2018 6:43 pm

On the question of launches -- and really, all small craft -- I'd go for rounded rectangle cross sections in full deck multiples unless there's a good reason not to. Canon says that standard decks are 3 meter spacing, consisting of 2.7 meters of free space and 0.3 meter of utility space for decks and such. Given that, I'd argue that typical design heights would be 3 meters × number of decks + 0.3 meter, since the 0.3 meter of deck space needs to be on top and bottom.

For a hold in a ship, the clear space would be 2.7 meters for a one-deck space, 5.7 meters for a two-deck space, and so forth. Alternatively, it might be a simple 2.7 meters per deck if the utility space needs to be thicker for a larger deck spacing, such as the increase the reach of artificial gravity equipment.

So what happens when you want to fit a 3 m × decks + 0.3 m tall craft into a vehicle deck that's 3 m × decks 0.3 m? (There's also a need for open space, so carried craft don't exchange paint with vehicle hold walls.) One solution is to shrink the dimensions of carried craft to fit inside standard decks, another is to make vehicle decks taller to accommodate craft with standard decks, a third is to do some of each, and a fourth is to ignore the problem. The fourth is not so good for 3D modeling, obviously.

The most workable solution in general is probably to make vehicle decks taller than passenger decks, and not try to fit them in between standard decks. Either they're projections from the sides of regular decks, or bulges on top or bottom decks.
Bardicheart wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 9:10 pm
@steve98052
Some ship books is kinda part of what I had in mind. I have notes for a couple right now. A huscarle fleet book with some "flag" ships, cruisers (both at 2kdT), escort destroyers (1kdT), corvettes and gunboats plus some troop transports to round it out. The other idea I started (actually started first and then got distracted with the huscarle thing) is just a variety pack of commercial ships from 200 to 5000 dT, mix of freighters, passenger ships, mining ships, salvage and rescue, science, etc. Only things I got semi done on that were an 800 dT "frontier transport" I named the Turtle-class and the Clarke class 2,000 dT research ship. No promises about when I might have em done cause I want to 3D model everything and that'll take time.
The book idea I had was even more ambitious: not just ship designs that work while paying respects to legacy designs, but rules that try to find a balance between physics and playability, and making the rules as played consistent with the rules as described in narrative text. Does that description make sense?
Bardicheart wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:10 am
I'm not comparing the HG 2e Atlantic to a player designed ship, I'm comparing it to its original self as published in CT 09 Fighting ships p32.
. . .
I repeat, the ship designs in HG 2e are mostly BROKEN.
I can't say that the classic design were paragons of combat effectiveness either. But it's pretty silly to go downhill from an old design that wasn't great even then.
But wait... we don't have rules for guns in batteries anymore. :roll: I'm grandfathering it in, so there. :lol: . . .
Rule Zero!
Bardicheart wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:10 am
I'm not comparing the HG 2e Atlantic to a player designed ship, I'm comparing it to its original self as published in CT 09 Fighting ships p32.
. . .
I repeat, the ship designs in HG 2e are mostly BROKEN.
I can't say that the classic design were paragons of combat effectiveness either. But it's pretty silly to go downhill from an old design that wasn't great even then.
But wait... we don't have rules for guns in batteries anymore. :roll: I'm grandfathering it in, so there. :lol: . . .
Rule Zero!
Bardicheart
Mongoose
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:53 pm
Contact:

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby Bardicheart » Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:59 am

Quick update on the Voshtar.

Mostly happy with the Diplomatic Deck plans at this point, though I'm still pondering maybe tinkering with both the number and placement of the escape pods. But, here's a graphic and some notes in the meantime.

Image

Bow < > Aft (grid is standard 1.5m x 1.5m, assume 3m deck height with actual ceiling height of 2.5m)

Forward we have a large lounge / viewing area with a nice view over the bow of the ship. The "Star Lounge" also includes the 5 dT of biosphere (10dT total for the space) giving is a nice bit of greenery to go with the view.

Just behind the Star Lounge we have the main luxury cabin and four high class cabins. Each cabin has its own fresher, closet space and room for a queen sized bed (high class) and king sized bed (luxury).

The central room is the main hall for dining and so forth. There is a small fresher just off this for washing up before meals, etc.

Just above the main hall is a diplomatic conference room and the library space. Below the main hall, separated by armored glass panels is the training space which includes the armory. This leaves the collection of high end battle dress, pistols, swords, etc. that make up the showy armory on full display while keeping them secured. The training space can function as a small shooting range (for pistols) but is mainly configured for dueling practice.

Just aft of the main hall is the private galley for the noble passengers which includes food lockers and storage. Opposite the galley is a spa which includes a large hot tub, sauna and massage tables.

Further aft is the lift connecting this deck to the Main deck below. Four regular staterooms for personal staff. In between is the docking bay for the 30 dT launch. On either side are the access corridors for the docking bay and the 10 escape capsules.

Assume a 3m deck height and a 2.5m ceiling height in most areas (except the star lounge which has a shallow dome ceiling... I think, I'm tinkering with the idea). If I've done my math right, including all corridors the deck actually comes to 108 dT of space (ship stats allowed 109 dT + 33 dT docking bay), not counting the docking bay and some area either side of the lift which is "docking equipment" for the launch (clamps, supply lines so it can be refueled, and other connections). But I figure the extra 1 dT not shown would be taken up by the slight dome space for the Star Lounge. The 0.5m I shaved off the ceiling height I figured would be used for mechanicals, that is air ducts, conduits, and other equipment and would also allow me some "fudging" on the exterior hull shaping for some areas I want to have some sloping to blend it in with the rest of the ship. Doing my best to stick as close to the actual tonnage as accurately as I can.

This isn't the final draft obviously, I'll need to clean it up a bit, include doors, portals, and furnishings. Plus I'm working on a 3D model of it as well which will much more clearly illustrate what it really looks like. I'm also thinking of adjusting the cost as per the 1e Dilletante book for high end furnishings, say an extra 1,000 Cr per m^2 just to really blow out the decor.

------------------

On the 30 dT launch, the more I tinker with the deck plans the more I'm coming to hate the cylindrical launch design that has been pretty much standard in Traveller for as far back as I can remember. It is seeming increasingly impractical and wastes space and makes designing deck plans more difficult. I may scrap the cylinder and go with more of a boxy shape (ala Star Trek shuttle craft) instead, haven't decided yet.

So that's where I'm at. Still working on the Main deck, its quite a bit larger and more complex since it includes the Crew Section, Science Section, Medical Section and Bridge.
P. Sean ONeal
Writer / Artist / Building Contractor and space junky (or monkey)
Old School
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 789
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:41 pm
Location: Florida

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby Old School » Wed Dec 19, 2018 12:37 pm

Look forward to seeing the final product!

As for the launch, some newer art shows it as less than spherical, so accomodate the fact that the deckplan is only one level. So take the typical tube shape and step on it gently. That fits the written deckplans better than one thot is perfectly round.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4790
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby phavoc » Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:09 pm

Bardicheart wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:59 am
Quick update on the Voshtar.

Mostly happy with the Diplomatic Deck plans at this point, though I'm still pondering maybe tinkering with both the number and placement of the escape pods. But, here's a graphic and some notes in the meantime.

Image

Bow < > Aft (grid is standard 1.5m x 1.5m, assume 3m deck height with actual ceiling height of 2.5m)

Forward we have a large lounge / viewing area with a nice view over the bow of the ship. The "Star Lounge" also includes the 5 dT of biosphere (10dT total for the space) giving is a nice bit of greenery to go with the view.

Just behind the Star Lounge we have the main luxury cabin and four high class cabins. Each cabin has its own fresher, closet space and room for a queen sized bed (high class) and king sized bed (luxury).

The central room is the main hall for dining and so forth. There is a small fresher just off this for washing up before meals, etc.

Just above the main hall is a diplomatic conference room and the library space. Below the main hall, separated by armored glass panels is the training space which includes the armory. This leaves the collection of high end battle dress, pistols, swords, etc. that make up the showy armory on full display while keeping them secured. The training space can function as a small shooting range (for pistols) but is mainly configured for dueling practice.

Just aft of the main hall is the private galley for the noble passengers which includes food lockers and storage. Opposite the galley is a spa which includes a large hot tub, sauna and massage tables.

Further aft is the lift connecting this deck to the Main deck below. Four regular staterooms for personal staff. In between is the docking bay for the 30 dT launch. On either side are the access corridors for the docking bay and the 10 escape capsules.

Assume a 3m deck height and a 2.5m ceiling height in most areas (except the star lounge which has a shallow dome ceiling... I think, I'm tinkering with the idea). If I've done my math right, including all corridors the deck actually comes to 108 dT of space (ship stats allowed 109 dT + 33 dT docking bay), not counting the docking bay and some area either side of the lift which is "docking equipment" for the launch (clamps, supply lines so it can be refueled, and other connections). But I figure the extra 1 dT not shown would be taken up by the slight dome space for the Star Lounge. The 0.5m I shaved off the ceiling height I figured would be used for mechanicals, that is air ducts, conduits, and other equipment and would also allow me some "fudging" on the exterior hull shaping for some areas I want to have some sloping to blend it in with the rest of the ship. Doing my best to stick as close to the actual tonnage as accurately as I can.

This isn't the final draft obviously, I'll need to clean it up a bit, include doors, portals, and furnishings. Plus I'm working on a 3D model of it as well which will much more clearly illustrate what it really looks like. I'm also thinking of adjusting the cost as per the 1e Dilletante book for high end furnishings, say an extra 1,000 Cr per m^2 just to really blow out the decor.

------------------

On the 30 dT launch, the more I tinker with the deck plans the more I'm coming to hate the cylindrical launch design that has been pretty much standard in Traveller for as far back as I can remember. It is seeming increasingly impractical and wastes space and makes designing deck plans more difficult. I may scrap the cylinder and go with more of a boxy shape (ala Star Trek shuttle craft) instead, haven't decided yet.

So that's where I'm at. Still working on the Main deck, its quite a bit larger and more complex since it includes the Crew Section, Science Section, Medical Section and Bridge.
Cool beans! Though something to consider about having the launch on the same deck as the VIP area. You probably would not have that. In keeping with the ideas of your VIP's being nobles, they would not want to mix with crew or others of their ilk. Their deck would be separated from the rest of the ship both mentally and physically. So having the launch on the same deck as them is something that should be left to the little people. You can add a dedicated lift for them, but I would think their mentality is to not have to mix with people coming to load, service, clean, etc a launch.

Escape pods would definitely be located nearby, but artfully designed to hide them behind some sort of snooty facade. Nobility and the nouveau rich are the same type of people who had servants face the wall when they walked by to dissuade either party from talking to one another.

The above fits for a nobility that removes itself from the lower classes. If your nobility is one of dedication and such then there would be less separation. However most nobility of Earth's past did try to keep a dividing line between theirselves and the common man. Since you are trying to design in things of this type it's something to consider.
baithammer
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 912
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby baithammer » Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:23 pm

Bardicheart wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:10 am
I'm not comparing the HG 2e Atlantic to a player designed ship, I'm comparing it to its original self as published in CT 09 Fighting ships p32.
Heavy Cruiser CR-Q4459J3-A66900-909N9-0 MCr47,544.71 75 ktons
batteries bearing Y G51P TL=15.
batteries Z M61W Crew=492.
Cargo=200. Fuel=36,750. EP=6,750. Agility=5. Troops=O. (Y=41. Z=55.)
Tonnage: 75,000 tons (standard). 1,050,000 cubic meters.
Crew: 60 officers, 432 ratings.
Performance: Jump4.5-G. Power plant-9. 6,750 EP. Agility 5.
Electronics: Model/9fib computer.
Hardpoints: One spinal weapons mount. Six 100-ton bays. Thirty
50-ton bays. 375 hardpoints.
Armament: One meson gun spinal mount (factor-N). Six 100-ton
particle accelerator bays. Thirty 50-ton missile bays. 210 triple laser turrets organized into 21 batteries.
Defenses: 165 triple sandcaster turrets organized into 55 batteries.
Nuclear damper (factor*). Meson screen (factor-6). Armored hull (factor-lo).
Craft: Three small craft of assorted tonnages.
Fuel Treatment: Integral fuel scoops and on-boardfuel purification plant.
Cost: MCr59.430.89 standard. MCr47,544.71 in quantity.
Construction Time: 50 months singly; 37 months in quantity.
Bold type added for clarity. The original had plenty of laser turrets for point defense against fighters and missiles, the new version trades the 210 dT of turrets for 80 dT of TL 12 Type II Point Defense (on TL 15 ship design so even THAT doesn't make sense, TL 14 Type 3 for same tonnage would give it 3 extra die of point defense, which still isn't comparable to all those laser turrets but this thing desperately needs all the PD it can muster).

I repeat, the ship designs in HG 2e are mostly BROKEN. Its not a more or less a straight copy, ripping out 210 laser batteries that were key to its defense is a) a pretty significant deviation from the original design and b) NUTS! What's worse is its listed at having 1,174 dT of CARGO on a warship! Its not like they couldn't have added those turrets in. But of course that would have meant 410 gunners with half of em loading imaginary laser ammo, requiring 410 staterooms (unless these sods are forced to double bunk when no one else on the ship does) for 1,640 dT plus another 410 dT common space for a grand total of 2,260 dT which we don't actually have so... yeah. Course if we scrap the silly 2 gunners per turret rule because we don't need one guy standing there pretending to load imaginary laser rounds, we can cut that down to 210 stateroom (820 dT) and 210 dT common space for a total of 1,230 dT (turret included) still more space than we have. But since those turrets were organized into 21 batteries we could cut the gunners down to just 21... or heck, 42... giving us 210 triple laser turrets in 21 batteries of 10, 42 gunners (half of whom I still don't know what they do, but just for the helluvit to point out how silly all this is and how easily it COULD have been fixed), 42 staterooms, 42 additional tons of common space for.... 420 dT leaving us with 754 dT of cargo and a ship that can properly defend itself from missiles and looks much more like the original design (with nearly 4x the cargo space and it still has those Type II PDs for an extra PD boost).

But wait... we don't have rules for guns in batteries anymore. :roll: I'm grandfathering it in, so there. :lol:

And because I know you'll ask, even with those triple laser turrets said ship could still fire all its weapons, operate its shields, and if it slowed to 4 Gs could even still power up its jump drive during combat with all guns blazing with its existing amount of fusion reactors. So the only thing needed to be changed was drop some cargo, add some gunners and turrets in batteries as per the original design and the ship would have been good to go.

Heck if we drop the 2 gunner per turret rule, use batteries as per the original design, we have more than enough crew as is for the 210 turrets and the missing sensor ops and a bunch of guys left over to start a wargaming club because it beats standing around loading imaginary laser rounds (Wargamer 2nd class reporting for gaming duty... SIR! :lol: ), or better still give the ship a platoon of marines for security. All we need to change then is take 210 dT of that cargo and add the turrets back in and done, even simpler to do.

I'd ask why Mongoose didn't do any of that, but... :roll: Point being, that's the CT design, and it could be fixed to be that design with relatively few changes. So, file it away for future reference or something, but yeah, the existing design is not CT and has a big gap in its defenses that will get the ship killed.

Is the horse dead an buried yet? :wink:

(PS: Just wanted to be clear though, no hostility on my part :) I'm enjoying the discussion. I just think what was done with some of the ship designs is silly, needs to be fixed and could have been if anyone had caught it.)

And yeah, Squad Leader, Panzer Leader, Panzer Blitz... good times!
Lasers for Point Defense have a couple of serious disadvantages compared to the Point Defense systems.

1.) Don't get there bonus for being lasers.
2.) Can completely miss as it requires a Gunnery Check. ( Point Defense rolls straight to removing Missiles in the Salvo and don't require crew.)
Bardicheart
Mongoose
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:53 pm
Contact:

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby Bardicheart » Wed Dec 19, 2018 4:05 pm

phavoc wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:09 pm

Cool beans! Though something to consider about having the launch on the same deck as the VIP area. You probably would not have that. In keeping with the ideas of your VIP's being nobles, they would not want to mix with crew or others of their ilk. Their deck would be separated from the rest of the ship both mentally and physically. So having the launch on the same deck as them is something that should be left to the little people. You can add a dedicated lift for them, but I would think their mentality is to not have to mix with people coming to load, service, clean, etc a launch.

Escape pods would definitely be located nearby, but artfully designed to hide them behind some sort of snooty facade. Nobility and the nouveau rich are the same type of people who had servants face the wall when they walked by to dissuade either party from talking to one another.

The above fits for a nobility that removes itself from the lower classes. If your nobility is one of dedication and such then there would be less separation. However most nobility of Earth's past did try to keep a dividing line between theirselves and the common man. Since you are trying to design in things of this type it's something to consider.
The launch here is one of two carried by the craft (the other docks under the bow and is used by the marines), this one was primarily for the noble owner, Count Karl Rheinhardt and his staff. Going back to the back story, the Count was himself an engineer and designed the Voshtar. Not only did he design it, he actually rolled up his sleeves and worked alongside the shipyard crews personally overseeing its construction. So not the snooty type. Watching shows like Below Decks and looking at actual mega yacht plans has also given me some ideas. True, there are the snobs and for some of the other ships I'm working on I'll keep that in mind, others are more military and spartan, different personalities which is another aspect of this project I'm enjoying. But Karl was about as likely to be found down in engineering as in his posh quarters, he was a hands on type, liked to get his hands dirty working.

Anyway, the thinking was that with the launch there then when the Count brought diplomatic visitors onboard for negotiations they had direct access to this deck rather than having to move through the ship... and also had no reason to move through the ship or ever have access to the rest of it (so it was also a security measure).

About the only two things I'm not really quite happy with is the placement of the 10 escape capsules at the back. I'm also thinking of adding 4 more which would give it a total of 2 per stateroom which would be better, its just 2 more dT and I can squeeze that out of the cargo at this point I think. So I may redraw the deck plans with the pods closer to the cabins, just not quite sure how yet. On the other hand the launch doubles as an escape vehicle and is prepped for launch anytime the ship goes to alert status, so having the residents of the deck move back that way for either the pods or the launch kinda makes sense too.

Also the library ended up being a bit small, should be about 6 to 8 squares, so I may put the other "half" of it in the science section of the main deck, or not, still pondering that (thought about moving it there entirely)

Other than that I'm pretty happy with it, I liked how the training area / armory / dueling area worked out with the armored glass allowing viewing from the dining hall. Handy if two nobles decide to have an actual duel, an audience can observe in comfort and safety. Was also pleased I could get pretty much the deck I had envisioned and have the whole thing come in on budget for tonnage, even including the corridors and things that aren't always included. Plus it has a spa, what's not to love about a hot tub and sauna! :lol:

Anyway, will tweak it a bit more and keep working on the Main Deck, once I get the decks done I'll start "wrapping" them in a hull. I've got a general shape in mind, which continues to evolve as I work out the details.
P. Sean ONeal
Writer / Artist / Building Contractor and space junky (or monkey)
Old School
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 789
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:41 pm
Location: Florida

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby Old School » Wed Dec 19, 2018 6:43 pm

I think the launch is fine where is. It allows VIPs to board and disembark without having to walk through other ares of the ship, and as for service, there is a lift for crew members to access the shuttle bay without walking through the rest of the Diplomatic deck.
steve98052
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 936
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 6:13 am
Location: near Seattle

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby steve98052 » Wed Dec 19, 2018 8:42 pm

Bardicheart wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:59 am
. . .
Bow < > Aft (grid is standard 1.5m x 1.5m, assume 3m deck height with actual ceiling height of 2.5m)
. . .
Very nice work so far.

One point that you don't have to worry about in a deck plan buy will have to consider in a 3D render is deck height.

My understanding is that canon said -- darned if I know where -- that deck spacing is 3 meters, as you're assuming, with 2.7 meters of clear space and 0.3 meter of utility space.

I'd rule that the full 0.3 meters is required on top and bottom decks, so that ships of standard deck spacing are 3 meters per deck plus 0.3 meter. That's a meaningful amount of volume if you want to make your designs rigorously on-volume; it's 10% extra volume for a single deck ship. Half-meter utility spaces are an even bigger deal, 16.7% extra for a single deck ship.

With armor, you get a lot more breathing space, because the stuff is bulky. It will probably be fun to evenly spread a 5% (or whatever) volume of armor evenly around a ship.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4790
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby phavoc » Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:55 pm

steve98052 wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 8:42 pm
Very nice work so far.

One point that you don't have to worry about in a deck plan buy will have to consider in a 3D render is deck height.

My understanding is that canon said -- darned if I know where -- that deck spacing is 3 meters, as you're assuming, with 2.7 meters of clear space and 0.3 meter of utility space.

I'd rule that the full 0.3 meters is required on top and bottom decks, so that ships of standard deck spacing are 3 meters per deck plus 0.3 meter. That's a meaningful amount of volume if you want to make your designs rigorously on-volume; it's 10% extra volume for a single deck ship. Half-meter utility spaces are an even bigger deal, 16.7% extra for a single deck ship.

With armor, you get a lot more breathing space, because the stuff is bulky. It will probably be fun to evenly spread a 5% (or whatever) volume of armor evenly around a ship.
With armor you have the underlying structure required to make it work. The heavier the external armor, the more force that would/could be applied, and the more the underlying structure has to be engineered to transfer kinetic energy impacts through the structure to ensure the surface doesn't buckle. Kinetic energy strikes would work the same as shell impacts, thus the structural armor functions remain the same. Newer materials will help, but there's only so much materials can overcome. I suspect the underlying engineering will remain roughly the same even as the scale of application increases.

I think having 1% of tonnage per armor point seems fair rule of thumb. Maybe as the TL increases you might get 1% per two pts armor, but you don't want to be too generous because you want ship designers to have to pay the piper when it comes to maximizing armor. Something has to give.
steve98052
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 936
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 6:13 am
Location: near Seattle

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby steve98052 » Wed Dec 19, 2018 11:03 pm

phavoc wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:55 pm
. . .
I think having 1% of tonnage per armor point seems fair rule of thumb. Maybe as the TL increases you might get 1% per two pts armor, but you don't want to be too generous because you want ship designers to have to pay the piper when it comes to maximizing armor. Something has to give.
Don't the rules have a table for how much volume armor costs? Or am I confusing with Mongoose first, or the SRD rules? I switch between them often enough that I get confused; see my earlier slip-up about hull points and structure points.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3868
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby AnotherDilbert » Thu Dec 20, 2018 12:04 am

steve98052 wrote: Don't the rules have a table for how much volume armor costs?
It's the basically same in MgT1 and MgT2.

12 pts of Bonded Superdense is 12 × 0.8% = 9.6% of the craft.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests