[Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3229
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sun Nov 25, 2018 12:23 pm

Bardicheart wrote: For the noble passengers and their staff I could see this, for the rest of the crew quarters, no. The captain might have the occasional "guest" but so far as normal ship operations the only resident of the captains cabin should be the captain, same with the rest of the crew.
Quite, but what if we need to carry another scientist or two. Where do we put a few Middies?

We know that a gunner will retire in a month, so we hire a new gunner and carry an extra gunner for a month, where does he bunk?

The subsector navy ask us to let a rating hitch a ride to a posting where we are going.

Crew size is fluid, not quite matching the theoretical org chart.

Hence a stateroom or two and a few extra escape capsules would come in handy.

Bardicheart wrote:
AnotherDilbert wrote: I would not quarter servants in the private Noble section.
The four staterooms in the noble section aren't for servants, they're for staff.
Staff, servants, eh, peasants... Not the kind of people the nobles want to rub shoulders with at the breakfast table. They should be below decks, that's the proper feudal spirit.

I would probably do something like a private Noble deck, middle-class guest quarters (scientists, aides, etc), officer country (all ship's officers), separate tighter quarters for POs, ratings, and servants grouped by department (civilians, line, engineering, gunner, marine) basically as you have done.

Civilians should not have access to sensitive ship's functions like bridge, engineering, or weapons. Perhaps they could have their own deck or elevator shaft?

Bardicheart wrote: They aren't smaller, but they are more flexible. I needed bunks for 7 people and one stateroom for the N/CO.
A "stateroom" is not a single room, it's 4 Dt furnished space with life-support for two (or four in a pinch). The total "stateroom" space can be arranged into rooms as you see fit, and includes basic common areas. If you get half-a-stateroom over, add it to the extra common areas. So four staterooms could become a squad bunk room, a mess, a common fresher, and some corridors for a total of about 16 Dt.

Barracks costs kCr 50 per Dt, "staterooms" costs kCr 125 per Dt. The difference is kCr 150 per trooper, it has to be noticed somewhere... Likewise life-support cost is lower for barracks, so they get worse food?

Bardicheart wrote: It needs 32 passengers (marines) plus six additional passengers (chairs) plus armor and speed and any weapons (still mulling weapons over). Its primary role is putting the marines and any "away team" on the ground which will usually include the XO, scientist, medical and technical personnel as needed (up to 6 total). Boarding is a secondary function, mainly for customs inspections, its not really set up for combat forced boardings but it can do it.

But if you want to stat out a 30 dT marine launch that can do the above, I'd love to see it.
Sure, see later post.

Bardicheart wrote: Change the particle beam barbettes to plasma barbettes due to the "no radiation weapon" restriction for huscarle fleets.
Plasma barbettes are a bit range challenged, consider a Long Range upgrade.

Bardicheart wrote: Now to figure out what to do with that noble launch (20 or 30 dT so I should get back another 11 dT, possibly 22 dT there)
Q: If the noble launch is capable of carrying all passengers on that deck and SOP is to ready it for launch in alert status, do I really need the escape capsules?
No, that might be a bit excessive, even for the noble cargo.

But Count is likely on the bridge in an emergency, and needs a quick escape route?

Bardicheart wrote: Still feel a lil anxious removing the damper screens since that would stop any radiation damage at all. But I guess the radiation shielding will have to be enough.
The Damper does not stop all radiation, it just stops matter from producing new radiation. Any radiation coming from the sun, any gas giant, etc. is unaffected.

And now a single Damper only stops a single attack or instance, not all attacks.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3229
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sun Nov 25, 2018 12:49 pm

Bardicheart wrote: It needs 32 passengers (marines) plus six additional passengers (chairs) plus armor and speed and any weapons (still mulling weapons over). Its primary role is putting the marines and any "away team" on the ground which will usually include the XO, scientist, medical and technical personnel as needed (up to 6 total). Boarding is a secondary function, mainly for customs inspections, its not really set up for combat forced boardings but it can do it.
After working with the 20 Dt limit in the Boarding Craft thread, 30 Dt is huge!

How about something like this:
Image

M-9, Armour 15+reflec. Laser turret plus a few FGMPs to clear a landing site.
Full bridge, auto-doc, 6 comfy seats, 8 Dt flexible seating / cargo / fuel that can seat 32 marines.
A military airlock (Breaching Tube) for practicality and a Forced Linkage so it can attach itself to other craft for boardings or customs inspections, or simply store it while we clean out the docking space.
Somewhat over-provisioned with software, but you did not seem too concerned with budget.


We could easily ditch a few luxuries to get more cargo space to transport more marines or larger vehicles.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3229
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sun Nov 25, 2018 12:57 pm

Sigtrygg wrote: - they are not in T5 because we do not have the BCS ship design rules yet, they will be in there.
Do you have any published basis for this, or is it just an assumption?

Bays are certainly in T5, mesons are certainly in T5, but meson bays are not. In fact mesons are the only weapon in T5 that can't be a bay-sized mount.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3229
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sun Nov 25, 2018 1:19 pm

Bardicheart wrote: what I have always found odd is that there are no "heavy beam laser or heavy pulse laser" barbettes. That seems much more OTU friendly and gives us options for no radiation weapons. But alas...
Agreed. Laser barbettes and even bays are possible in T5.

The basic formula seems to be "add a die of damage and you have a barbette". So a pulse laser barbette would be attack+2, damage 3D. That is almost worse than a triple turret, but it has a higher max damage, so can occasionally penetrate very heavy armour. That is hardly an attractive choice.

Bardicheart wrote: Any OTU issue with the plasma barbettes?
No, they can safely trace their lineage to CT HG.

Otherwise you are down to missiles as main armament.

Plasma torpedoes are certainly effective (1DD, AP10) but easily spoofed by EW if fired in small numbers.
locarno24
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3036
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:46 pm
Location: Wildly Variable

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby locarno24 » Mon Nov 26, 2018 10:44 am

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 1:19 pm
Bardicheart wrote: what I have always found odd is that there are no "heavy beam laser or heavy pulse laser" barbettes. That seems much more OTU friendly and gives us options for no radiation weapons. But alas...
Agreed. Laser barbettes and even bays are possible in T5.

The basic formula seems to be "add a die of damage and you have a barbette". So a pulse laser barbette would be attack+2, damage 3D. That is almost worse than a triple turret, but it has a higher max damage, so can occasionally penetrate very heavy armour. That is hardly an attractive choice.
It's about the same as the Medium and Heavy Laser Cannons, in fact, from the Babylon 5 Traveller rulebook in 1e, which did include barbette and bay-mount lasers.
Understand that I'm not advocating violence.
I'm just saying that it's highly effective and I strongly recommend using it.
Bardicheart
Mongoose
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:53 pm
Contact:

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby Bardicheart » Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:09 pm

@Dilbert:
Nice 30 dT launch design, I'll use it! I'm thinking I can get the noble's launch down to at least 30 dT and maybe 20 dT since it doesn't need much other than cabin space for the passengers and room for luggage ("really dear, did you actually need to bring all those suitcases... 30 suitcases for a 2 day visit seems a bit much. :shock: :lol: ) So thats potentially 33 dT back and that will be quite a bit to play with.
P. Sean ONeal
Writer / Artist / Building Contractor and space junky (or monkey)
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3229
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby AnotherDilbert » Mon Nov 26, 2018 3:21 pm

locarno24 wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 10:44 am
It's about the same as the Medium and Heavy Laser Cannons, in fact, from the Babylon 5 Traveller rulebook in 1e, which did include barbette and bay-mount lasers.
So, a heavy laser would be like a particle weapon, but less damage and less range. I'll pass...

On the other hand it would be lower TL and use less Power, so perhaps in some specific circumstances it might be a good fit...


Hm, if we keep the DM to attack it might make a good crit fisher large bay...
If we assume a large bay becomes:
Pulse Laser ___ Attack+2 ___ Dam: 6D [average 27+effect]
Beam Laser ___ Attack+4 ___ Dam: 4D [average 18+effect]

They wouldn't do much damage, but even the Beam wouldn't have much trouble penetrating armour. They would be very good at achieving crits...
Annatar Giftbringer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:35 am
Location: Uddevalla, Sweden
Contact:

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby Annatar Giftbringer » Mon Nov 26, 2018 3:34 pm

Laser bays are already in High Guard, pp.67-68 in the high technology chapter - as neutron lasers.

“Neutron Laser: An advanced development of the humble beam laser”
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3229
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby AnotherDilbert » Mon Nov 26, 2018 3:42 pm

Bardicheart wrote: I'm thinking I can get the noble's launch down to at least 30 dT and maybe 20 dT since it doesn't need much other than cabin space for the passengers and room for luggage ("really dear, did you actually need to bring all those suitcases... 30 suitcases for a 2 day visit seems a bit much. :shock: :lol: )
20 Dt is difficult, Cabin Space is quite big.

30 Dt is easy, we can even use the same hull and drives as the Marine Boat:
Cabin Space for 6.
Acc Seats for 6 (flunkies).
Airlock, 4 Dt cargo.
Image


20 Dt:
Cabin Space for two.
Acc Seats for 10.
Airlock, 3 Dt cargo.
8 g, Armour 2 (small arm proof)
Image

It might be better to dump the Cabin Spaces and replace with a real Stateroom (and lose 1 Dt cargo). That would be long term life-support for at least two.
Old School
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 296
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:41 pm

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby Old School » Mon Nov 26, 2018 5:09 pm

1.5 tons is a lot of space per person for a short trip. I generally don't use it. For higher class passengers (or those in battle dress) I use acceleration seats instead of benches, and usually add in 1 ton of common space for a small galley, fresher, etc.

1.5 meters square, or 1/2 dton is a good approximation of a first class airline seat plus its portion of the aisle (and a lot more room overhead than you actually get on a plane), so it seems like plenty.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3229
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby AnotherDilbert » Mon Nov 26, 2018 6:43 pm

Old School wrote: 1.5 tons is a lot of space per person for a short trip.
I agree.

Small craft cabins started out as half-staterooms, but morphed through an unclear description in MgT1 into perhaps some sort of first class seat in MgT2, but note that is has a life-support cost so can perhaps be used for long-term accommodation?

The easy solution is to use regular staterooms (dual-occ.) for long-terms, and acceleration seats/benches for short term.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6512
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby Condottiere » Mon Nov 26, 2018 11:08 pm

Life support is really the lynchpin.

Other than that, you can squeeze in as much as the carbon dioxide scrubbers can take.
Old School
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 296
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:41 pm

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby Old School » Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:22 pm

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 6:43 pm
Old School wrote: 1.5 tons is a lot of space per person for a short trip.
I agree.

Small craft cabins started out as half-staterooms, but morphed through an unclear description in MgT1 into perhaps some sort of first class seat in MgT2, but note that is has a life-support cost so can perhaps be used for long-term accommodation?

The easy solution is to use regular staterooms (dual-occ.) for long-terms, and acceleration seats/benches for short term.
I’m glad to see us fianlly agree on something!
Annatar Giftbringer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:35 am
Location: Uddevalla, Sweden
Contact:

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby Annatar Giftbringer » Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:33 pm

I like to view cabin space as one part acceleration seat, two parts user defined space. This can include stuff like lounge/galley space, dining/conference area, office space, bunks or just open space, depending on what the user needs. This does mean that some configurations would allow more than one passenger per cabin space, which would IMHO be fine, for short trips. Longer duration trips, perhaps up to several days, would mean that the people it’s designed for needs all the space.

I like the idea of it basically being half a stateroom, and of course the user defined space could be separate mini-cabins for each passenger or one large open shared area, depending on design.

Hope it makes some sense, I’m way too tired to be typing stuff right now....
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3229
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby AnotherDilbert » Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:41 pm

Old School wrote: I’m glad to see us fianlly agree on something!
I'm glad too.

But I believe we have agreed before? It was just a few specific questions we disagreed about.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6512
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby Condottiere » Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:38 am

You don't really need acceleration couches or benches, unless you don't have inertial compensation.

Image

Looks more comfortable.
Bardicheart
Mongoose
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:53 pm
Contact:

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby Bardicheart » Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:20 am

My take on the "cabin space"

Air Emirates 1st class cabin
https://youtu.be/iPu7hANAqCQ

I couldn't get the noble boat down to 20 dT either, but they're now both 30 dT, but that's still an extra 22 dT back to play with. Haven't had time to figure out what I intend to do with the space yet though, got some more tinkering to do, then should be able to post final stats and start on the deck plans.
P. Sean ONeal
Writer / Artist / Building Contractor and space junky (or monkey)
Old School
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 296
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:41 pm

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby Old School » Wed Nov 28, 2018 6:01 pm

Love the design concept. I also like the idea of a highly advanced multi purpose ship. I’ve played around with a couple of designs that build in 50 ton modules, so the ship can be customized for an individual mission, be it troop transport combat, diplomatic, scientific, etc. if I can finish the deck plan I’ll post it. Jump 3 ships are so versatile compared to jump-4.

A couple of thoughts regarding space: you can free up a couple of tons by going high tech on the barbettes. Especially with missiles, it makes sense that such a low tech weapon could be minimized at higher tech levels. Its a lot of credits for an extra dton, but it is an option.

I stick to 6Gs for larger ships for consistency with prior editions, but that’s just me.

Also, assuming the med bay and the science section are located nearby, the idea of a seperate medical lab when you already have a life sciences lab seems redundant. Combine those to save four dtons. Surely the science staff can be co-opted to run a blood test when needed.

One idea that is my home rule: lose the seperate sensors stations. What do you get for a 60 dton bridge vs a 10 dton bridge on a smaller vessel? In my game, you get extra operator stations, primarily for either sensop or remote weapons. So you’d have plenty of seats for sensor operators. I realize that's not in the rules, but I can’t wrap my head around a bridge that is six times the size having the same number of seats.

I agree that particle barbettes should not be allowed. I consider radiation weapons to be strictly the province of the military, i.e. not available to a non-military shipyard or purchaser. I can see an exception for nobles, but given that the imperium has already slapped on restrictions, I would consider particle weapons a no-no.

Weapons: considering lasers as fighter and missile defense, swap out a couple of pulse lasers for beam lasers. You don’t need the extra damage, and the extra accuracy goes a long ways against the those little targets. Missiles and fighters are really the only reason for beam lasers. On smaller ships I go all pulse.

Do you need two workshops? Thats four mechanics. You have four maintenance, but they’ll be working around the ship often. Wouldnt one workshop would suffice?

While I agree thst the “feudal” spirit involves servants downstairs, I wouldn’t translate that to a starship. My designs always have the servants close to their nobles. Anything else is a waste of space, which is no big deal on one’s estate, but criminal in starship design. One deck down with a lift between the noble section and the servant section could work, but seems overly complicated.
Old School
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 296
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:41 pm

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby Old School » Wed Nov 28, 2018 6:49 pm

Also, really like the story that goes with the design.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3229
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: [Deneb Sector] 2000 dT Huscarle Cruisers

Postby AnotherDilbert » Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:20 pm

Old School wrote: One idea that is my home rule: lose the seperate sensors stations. What do you get for a 60 dton bridge vs a 10 dton bridge on a smaller vessel?
Agreed. The different sizes of bridges have undefined numbers of workstations. It is reasonable to fit quite a few workstations in 40 Dt.

Sensor stations might be required on very large or very small ships.

Old School wrote: Weapons: considering lasers as fighter and missile defense, swap out a couple of pulse lasers for beam lasers.
Disagreed.

The attack DM for lasers are technically only on attacks, the Point Defence action is not an attack so beam lasers have no advantage against missiles.

Against unarmoured fighters beam lasers might be effective, but they have short range. The most effective way to kill fighters is at long range where they can't shoot back. Pulse lasers have better range, and with a Long Range advantage they have excellent range. Military fighters have no business being unarmoured.

Given the weakness of the other options the laser turrets are almost the main armament. Plasma barbettes have only slightly better damage than pulse lasers (and worse range), and the missiles will generally be neutralised by EW&PD.

Pulse lasers are nearly always effective: they do surprising damage, they have good range, and they are dirt cheap. Their only weakness is Reflec.

Old School wrote: While I agree thst the “feudal” spirit involves servants downstairs, I wouldn’t translate that to a starship. My designs always have the servants close to their nobles.
Ok, that was an exaggerated wording by me, but the servants (and other flunkies) should have separate mess and lounge spaces, and they should be physically separated from the main areas so they do not disturb the principals.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests