Updated High Guard Ships

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
AndrewW
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4332
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:57 pm

Re: Updated High Guard Ships

Postby AndrewW » Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:11 pm

Baldo wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 5:33 pm
Hmm, I suck at math, and if the Maintenance Costs of the Pebble, the Serpent Class Scout and the Empress Marava Trader are 0.000562875, 0.0034684 and 0.0045111 for real, my head will explode very soon :wink: ...
Guess I had better call the bomb squad.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4140
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Updated High Guard Ships

Postby AnotherDilbert » Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:04 pm

Baldo wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 5:33 pm
Hmm, I suck at math, and if the Maintenance Costs of the Pebble, the Serpent Class Scout and the Empress Marava Trader are 0.000562875, 0.0034684 and 0.0045111 for real, my head will explode very soon :wink: ...
Serpent:

Total Cost: MCr 41.62

Maintenance Cost, Annual: MCr 41.62 × 0.1% = MCr 0.04162

Maintenance Cost, Monthly: MCr 0.04162 / 12 = MCr 0.00346833 = Cr 3468.33

Seems correct to me?
Baldo
Mongoose
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2018 12:31 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Updated High Guard Ships

Postby Baldo » Fri Feb 28, 2020 11:21 am

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:04 pm

Serpent:

Total Cost: MCr 41.62

Maintenance Cost, Annual: MCr 41.62 × 0.1% = MCr 0.04162

Maintenance Cost, Monthly: MCr 0.04162 / 12 = MCr 0.00346833 = Cr 3468.33

Seems correct to me?
Who said it's wrong? It's only I can intuitively grasp "(Cr)3468.33" MUCH better than "(MCr)0.00346833", the zeros are just a nuisance here, im my opinion.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4896
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Updated High Guard Ships

Postby phavoc » Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:51 pm

Baldo wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2020 11:21 am
Who said it's wrong? It's only I can intuitively grasp "(Cr)3468.33" MUCH better than "(MCr)0.00346833", the zeros are just a nuisance here, im my opinion.
+1 for simplicity and common sense
locarno24
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3159
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:46 pm
Location: Wildly Variable

Re: Updated High Guard Ships

Postby locarno24 » Fri Mar 06, 2020 8:37 am

Old School wrote:
Sat Feb 22, 2020 9:01 pm
That argument applies to most of the MgT2 Core and High Guard ships, if not all of them. They are not anything close to optimized for the MgT2 ruleset. They are attempts at faithful re-creations of the CT ships.
Indeed. Even leaving aside some mistakes, there are some really weird decisions in some of the designs. It might be interesting to see what they - or an 'improved' equivalent - would look like if modified to fit the current rules better.


The Gazelle is a good case in point, and an obvious one since it's an iconic Traveller ship that's small enough not to be out of place showing up occasionally in non-military campaigns, and for that matter is even the cover star of High Guard.

The weird semi-permanent-fixed-drop-tanks design is....okay, I guess. Drop tanks have always been an element of the design and there's nothing really 'wrong' with them. But there is a slight issue with its performance. Jump 3 with internal tanks, Jump 4 with tanks retained and Jump 5 blowing them off is all well and good - because sustainable jump-4 is 'navy standard' and anything else just represents options.

Its sublight performance is a bit more of an issue because 'navy standard' is thrust 6, which it can do....but only if it jettisons the tanks first. It also has the unpleasant penalty (which is historically correct) of a compact bridge, giving it DM-1 on operations carried out there (one assumes piloting and sensors operations). It also has a few low-tech design choices - Crystaliron armour and a TL12 fusion plant and sensor suite, despite being a nominally TL15 design.

I get that - probably for simplicity - few 'book' designs use stuff like the Primitive and Advanced Spacecraft section, but it feels like you could make the Gazelle a lot more capable for not a huge increase in cost or changing the feel of the ship, and it might be interesting to see an 'improved' version.
Understand that I'm not advocating violence.
I'm just saying that it's highly effective and I strongly recommend using it.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4140
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Updated High Guard Ships

Postby AnotherDilbert » Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:35 am

locarno24 wrote: The weird semi-permanent-fixed-drop-tanks design is....okay, I guess. Drop tanks have always been an element of the design and there's nothing really 'wrong' with them. But there is a slight issue with its performance. Jump 3 with internal tanks, Jump 4 with tanks retained and Jump 5 blowing them off is all well and good - because sustainable jump-4 is 'navy standard' and anything else just represents options.

Its sublight performance is a bit more of an issue because 'navy standard' is thrust 6, which it can do....but only if it jettisons the tanks first.
...
The Gazelle isn't a fleet escort, hence fleet performance isn't very important.

The LBB5'81 version, that it appears to be based on, notes:
CT Fighting Ships wrote: Hundreds of Gazelle class close escorts have been built
and many remain in service in the Imperial Navy, despite the fact that in a combat situation, they are nearly worthless. The close escort, even when new, was not intended to stand up to combat vessels; rather it was envisioned as an anti-piracy and revenue patrol ship.

The Gazelle is a slightly better Patrol Corvette/Cruiser that patrols civilians and hunts small civilian-grade pirates, like the "Corsair" types.
locarno24
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3159
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:46 pm
Location: Wildly Variable

Re: Updated High Guard Ships

Postby locarno24 » Fri Mar 06, 2020 12:20 pm

Indeed. Though it's not a direct model even then - the original Gazelle wasn't capable of 6g thrust, even 'clean'.

And - as noted, taking off the drop tanks means it only has jump-3 (more than enough to keep up with a merchant formation) and thrust-6 (which matches pretty much any pirate vessel, like - for a completely random example - a Drinaxian-built Harrier-class commerce raider....). But on the odd occasion it is to operate with other navy warships (which it does, for example, in the 198th alongside the Eurisko) it seems like an odd choice not to give it comparable performance; such that it can manage jump-4 and thrust-6 when carrying tanks, and can be shorter-ranged but faster if it drops them.

Plus, it's more the other choices which feel a bit strange. I get the limitations of the Type T. That's very much a 'Sector Fleet' design, built at TL12 so there's no problem building, maintaining and modifying them. But designing a ship whose engineering deck needs to be built at TL15 and then not taking advantage of TL15 power generation, for example, seems a wierd decision. The quantity of power produced seems odd, too; not enough to run everything simultaneously (note the High Guard entry doesn't mention the 56 odd power needed for the guns) , so it can't jump out whilst shooting, but if you're not running everything simultaneously the amount of power generated feels like massive overkill.

If you did nothing else, fitting a TL15 reactor alongside the TL15 jump engine would allow you to produce the power you needed in 29 dTons, letting you accelerate and shoot whilst charging your jump drive and still saving 7 dTons - going a decent way towards allowing a 'proper' sized bridge and eliminating your sensor and handling penalties, and MCr7.5 is a pretty minimal cost increase on a 400 dTon warship.

Equally, given that it "as designed at a time when mutinies were a major threat to security", having the processing power to run at least a minimal Anti-Hijack software makes sense - it's small enough to be at realistic risk of being boarded by pirates, after all.
Understand that I'm not advocating violence.
I'm just saying that it's highly effective and I strongly recommend using it.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4140
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Updated High Guard Ships

Postby AnotherDilbert » Fri Mar 06, 2020 12:37 pm

locarno24 wrote: It might be interesting to see what they - or an 'improved' equivalent - would look like if modified to fit the current rules better.
How about something like this:

MCr 355, 400 Dt with a 100 Dt drop tank. J-4 & 7 G with tank, J-2 & 9 G without tank, J-5 dropping tank.

Modular armament can mount up to four of any barbette or turret, here with two Accurate Particle barbettes and two Long Range Pulse Laser turrets (and some storage space).

Small Bridge with separate sensor operator cubby (to cheat the DM-1 for the sensor operators).

10 Dt module for e.g. a Sub-Command Centre, Sensor Array, or screen.

Image
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4140
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Updated High Guard Ships

Postby AnotherDilbert » Fri Mar 06, 2020 12:50 pm

locarno24 wrote: If you did nothing else, fitting a TL15 reactor alongside the TL15 jump engine would allow you to produce the power you needed in 29 dTons, letting you accelerate and shoot whilst charging your jump drive and still saving 7 dTons - going a decent way towards allowing a 'proper' sized bridge and eliminating your sensor and handling penalties, and MCr7.5 is a pretty minimal cost increase on a 400 dTon warship.
A TL12 Size Reduced power plant is smaller and cheaper than a TL15 plant. The TL15 plant comes into play at TL16+.

If you want power enough to manoeuvre, shoot, and jump at the same time it is more efficient to power the jump drive from a High Capacity Battery that you charge before combat, instead of an oversized power plant.
Old School
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 952
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:41 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Updated High Guard Ships

Postby Old School » Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:32 pm

locarno24 wrote:
Fri Mar 06, 2020 8:37 am


I get that - probably for simplicity - few 'book' designs use stuff like the Primitive and Advanced Spacecraft section, but it feels like you could make the Gazelle a lot more capable for not a huge increase in cost or changing the feel of the ship, and it might be interesting to see an 'improved' version.
The Gazelle has always been a bit of an oddball with its drop tanks, but it’s a cool concept. But some of the primitive and advanced stuff is game changing, if not game breaking, when you apply it. Take pulse lasers, for example. Increasing one range band from long to very long for a 10% cost increase greatly enhances this weapon, to the point that no one with a choice would use the standard version. I had to remove these from my campaign, because player ships with them could manhandle military standard designs without them. Just didn’t make sense.

Anything that reduces its tonnage requirement is also a big deal, especially the systems that do so relatively cheaply, such as bay weapons. A jump 4 ship struggles to use all its hardpoints (unless sticking to turrets only), and also struggles with armor. Freeing up tonnage for bays and armor massively enhances the combat capability, especially for “medium” ships in the 1,000 to 10,000 ton range. Once you get to spinal mounts, other weapons take a backseat, but are still relevant. Any TL15 J-4 warship should have reduced fuel x 2. Its expensive, but the ship is so much more capable with it, your effectiveness / Credit is enhanced even if you’re building less ships.

And if you actually take bigger ships into combat, the design oddities really come into play. These big ships don’t use all their hardpoints, so missile bays, and any large or medium bay, which should be the domain of capital ships, really don’t make any sense. For Firepower / tonnage requirements, no one would use medium or large bays, or missile bays at all. Their only advantage over smaller weapons systems are their firepower / hardpoint ratio, which is irrelevant on J-4 ships, as over 60% of your tonnage is drives, power, and fuel.

And then of course, there is MJD (who’s work I love, don’t get me wrong), adding highguard options in every supplement. Many are very cool. The “chart room” introduced in the Great Rift set should be standard on every capital ship. +2 astrogation check for only 16 tons is a no brainer on BCr50 warship.

Its hard to keep up. In reality the capital ships are mostly background fodder in campaigns, although Mongoose is trying to change that, but if you’re going to use those ships, you’d probably redesign all of them.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4140
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Updated High Guard Ships

Postby AnotherDilbert » Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:38 pm

AnotherDilbert wrote:
locarno24 wrote: If you did nothing else, fitting a TL15 reactor alongside the TL15 jump engine would allow you to produce the power you needed in 29 dTons, letting you accelerate and shoot whilst charging your jump drive and still saving 7 dTons - going a decent way towards allowing a 'proper' sized bridge and eliminating your sensor and handling penalties, and MCr7.5 is a pretty minimal cost increase on a 400 dTon warship.
A TL12 Size Reduced power plant is smaller and cheaper than a TL15 plant. The TL15 plant comes into play at TL16+.
Note that even without high tech options, a lower tech power plant can be better since it is cheaper.

Take this very basic warship for example:
Image


Switch to a cheaper TL12 power plant, and make the ship slightly bigger, but the same cost:
Image

We get the same cost, about the same free space, and more Hull points. Better?
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4140
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Updated High Guard Ships

Postby AnotherDilbert » Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:50 pm

Old School wrote: I had to remove these from my campaign, because player ships with them could manhandle military standard designs without them. Just didn’t make sense.
More or less anything you build yourself will crush the horribly non-optimised standard designs, whether you use high tech or not; just as it was in CT where the designs come from.
Geir
Mongoose
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Updated High Guard Ships

Postby Geir » Fri Mar 06, 2020 4:50 pm

Old School wrote:
Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:32 pm
Take pulse lasers, for example. Increasing one range band from long to very long for a 10% cost increase greatly enhances this weapon, to the point that no one with a choice would use the standard version. I had to remove these from my campaign, because player ships with them could manhandle military standard designs without them. Just didn’t make sense.
To be fair, it takes two advantages, so it costs 20% more, but I get your point.
What gets me is that spinal weapons, even the particle accelerator, which is very long range in all smaller versions, are only long range and it's a little fuzzy whether you can add "normal" advantages to them.
Geir Lanesskog
www.geir.org
Geir
Mongoose
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Updated High Guard Ships

Postby Geir » Fri Mar 06, 2020 4:54 pm

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Mar 06, 2020 12:50 pm
A TL12 Size Reduced power plant is smaller and cheaper than a TL15 plant. The TL15 plant comes into play at TL16+.
I think that's a game design flaw someone didn't do the math on (Actually it is a bit subtle; other than cost, I couldn't see your point for some time, since I was increasing power and not decreasing size... but, math). maybe next version they'll make it 25 power points at TL 15 and the anomaly will go away.
Geir Lanesskog
www.geir.org
AndrewW
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4332
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:57 pm

Re: Updated High Guard Ships

Postby AndrewW » Fri Mar 06, 2020 7:11 pm

Geir wrote:
Fri Mar 06, 2020 4:50 pm
To be fair, it takes two advantages, so it costs 20% more, but I get your point.
What gets me is that spinal weapons, even the particle accelerator, which is very long range in all smaller versions, are only long range and it's a little fuzzy whether you can add "normal" advantages to them.
Nope, those don't apply to spinal mounts.
Jeraa
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:01 pm

Re: Updated High Guard Ships

Postby Jeraa » Fri Mar 06, 2020 7:16 pm

AndrewW wrote:
Fri Mar 06, 2020 7:11 pm
Geir wrote:
Fri Mar 06, 2020 4:50 pm
To be fair, it takes two advantages, so it costs 20% more, but I get your point.
What gets me is that spinal weapons, even the particle accelerator, which is very long range in all smaller versions, are only long range and it's a little fuzzy whether you can add "normal" advantages to them.
Nope, those don't apply to spinal mounts.
They can. Unless there was an update, the book (At least my copy) says the referee might want to restrict those upgrades with spinal mounts. It doesn't outright forbid using those upgrades with spinals.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4140
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Updated High Guard Ships

Postby AnotherDilbert » Fri Mar 06, 2020 7:18 pm

Geir wrote:
Fri Mar 06, 2020 4:50 pm
To be fair, it takes two advantages, so it costs 20% more, but I get your point.
It costs 25% of the weapon, but that is completely insignificant compared to the cost of the ship, for a significant combat advantage.

Old School is completely correct, it is basically mandatory (if you use tech advantages)...
Geir
Mongoose
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Updated High Guard Ships

Postby Geir » Fri Mar 06, 2020 7:59 pm

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Mar 06, 2020 7:18 pm
It costs 25% of the weapon, but that is completely insignificant compared to the cost of the ship, for a significant combat advantage.

Old School is completely correct, it is basically mandatory (if you use tech advantages)...
Oh crap, I have a bad formula in my spreadsheet (or brain). 25% it is.
Geir Lanesskog
www.geir.org
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 7962
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Updated High Guard Ships

Postby Condottiere » Fri Mar 06, 2020 8:07 pm

Component tweaks should reflect the priorities of the current design philosophy in fad.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4140
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Updated High Guard Ships

Postby AnotherDilbert » Wed Mar 25, 2020 5:46 pm

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:12 pm
AndrewW wrote:
AnotherDilbert wrote: Kokirrak:

Cost of 5800 Dt modular space is not the same as tonnage, should be MCr 852.6
Nope it isn't, it was calculating based on hull size instead of cost for some reason, but I'm getting MCr 435.
Agreed, MCr 435.

For some reason my spreadsheet based modular cost on both hull and armour cost. I have no idea if that is something that was discussed during beta, or just my own house rule... I might have considered the armour part of the hull?
I finally realised why I added cost of armour to the modular cost. Modular increases the cost of the hull, armour cost is based on hull cost, so armour cost increases proportionally.

So, the Kokirrak hull should cost:
200000 × MCr 0.05 × 150%[reinforced] × 205800/200000[modular] = MCr 15 435
Armour cost:
MCr 15 435 × 12 × 8% = MCr 14 817.6
Total cost:
MCr 15 435 + MCr 14 817.6 = MCr 30 252.6


Or as my spreadsheet presents it:
Hull Cost: 200000 × MCr 0.05 × 150%[reinforced] = MCr 15 000
Armour cost: MCr 15 000 × 12 × 8% = MCr 14 400
Modular Cost: ( MCr 15000 + MCr 18000 ) × 5800/200000 = MCr 852.6
Total Cost: MCr 15 000 + MCr 14 400 + MCr 852.6 = MCr 30 252.6

Mathematically it is the same. I just wanted to present the full extra cost of the module separately.


So, the armour cost of the Kokirrak is wrong, should be MCr 14 817.6, based on the total hull cost of MCr 15 435.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AnotherDilbert and 6 guests