Ship Design Philosophy

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5424
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:47 am

Within? Tonnage is based on volume.

It just means you can't transfer hardpoints from the primary hull to modular hulls and vice versa, you need the full requirement in tonnage in order to support a hard point.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2433
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sat Nov 04, 2017 10:38 am

Condottiere wrote: It just means you can't transfer hardpoints from the primary hull to modular hulls and vice versa, you need the full requirement in tonnage in order to support a hard point.
The rules contain no such limitation. A module is not a hull.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5424
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:58 pm

Let's say I have a design for a two hundred tonne system defence boat with a hundred and ten tonne modular hull section, and ten tonne manoeuvre drive.

I place the two hardpoints on the ninety tonne primary hull, and all the comforts of home in the module, including a pool table, and what the hell, also a pool.

I patrol the solar system at five gees acceleration, until I notice a corsair trying to attack a loan freetrader; I drop my hundred and ten tonne module and speed at eleven gees acceleration to the rescue, firing from my two hardpoints attached to the primary hull.

Can I get away with this?

Or let's say I have two twenty percent sized reduced fifty tonne bays in a ninety tone module in one hundred and ten tonne primary hull. Is this allowed, especially when I eject the module and use it a weapon platform by itself?
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2433
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sat Nov 04, 2017 5:15 pm

Condottiere wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:58 pm
Can I get away with this?
No, the ship does not become smaller when you drop the module, the module is internal.

You can probably get away with it with a breakaway hull...
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Sat Nov 04, 2017 10:24 pm

I see we still have the mistake of thinking the modular hull option is about external storage which isn't by both description and mechanic.

Modular hull reserves internal hull space for modules to change function of the parent craft, for a real world example take a look at the danish stanflex system which also covers mounting a weapon system that sits atop the deck but is housed in the stanflex module. ( The hull without module still displaces its design displacement.)
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5424
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Nov 04, 2017 11:19 pm

Image

You mean these guys?

Kindly note that the business ends are external.

Designers will have to declare if modules are external or internal; if internal, then provision has to be made for volume and cost of the bay doors, and if there's a weapon platform embedded, then doors have to open to give that weapon platform access to possibly a rather limited angle of fire.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:49 am

The description and the mechanics in that section state modular hull is internal.

External Cargo Mount and Docking Clamps cover the external systems with breakaway hulls giving another way to handle the situation.
, then provision has to be made for volume and cost of the bay doors, and if there's a weapon platform embedded, then doors have to open to give that weapon platform access to possibly a rather limited angle of fire.
There are no doors required and weapons systems not mounted in pop-up mounts don't require doors. When empty a blank module with matching structure / armour is used to fill in the socket. ( Which is what a blank stanflex slot uses.)

Armour and hull are already accounted from the base design.
Sigtrygg
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 744
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Sigtrygg » Sun Nov 05, 2017 9:28 am

If I were rebuilding the RCES Clipper class using MgT HG2e I would use "External Cargo Mount and Docking Clamps cover the external systems with breakaway hulls giving another way to handle the situation."

So a 600t spine with docking clamps for all of the 'modules' to be fitted. The 'modules' are better designed as breakaway hull...
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2433
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:01 am

Quite, since the Clipper uses the fuel in the fuel shuttle and external tank to jump, they have to be breakaway sections (or drop tank).

Cargo containers can be carried in grapples.

None of these are "modules" under the MgT rules.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5424
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:59 pm

Image

If you stick the modules through the rear, you can minimize the size of the cargo lock, though it's basically the same if you stuck large interconnectable containers into the cargo hold.

For example, a modular ship may have a choice of a module containing a lot of missile bays (making it a missile carrier), laboratories (to act as a research vessel) or hangar space (allowing it to transport smaller ships).

For either a missile bay or a hangar, you're likely to need external access.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:50 am

Don't even need clamps for External Cargo Mounts.
External cargo can be jettisoned remotely. The mount is
equipped with explosive bolts, allowing specific cargo
to be released if necessary.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5424
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Nov 06, 2017 10:09 am

Spaceships: Modular Hull and Firmpoints

You're going to need thirty five tons in order to embed two firmpoints and/or a barbette in a modular hull section, or seventy for three firmpoints.

Going by that logic, you'd assume that you'd need a ten tonne modular hull section for one firmpoint; going by by the book, you don't, since ten tonnes was never defined as a requirement, only that it was the minimum size for a smallcraft.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:39 pm

There is a fundamental misunderstanding to how firmpoints and hull match up.

Modules only contain the system installed and doesn't determine firmpoints as that is determined and supported by the overall hull. ( Prevents cheese maneuvers with designing 10dt modules to support adding more than 1 firmpoint to a 30dt design for example.)
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2433
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby AnotherDilbert » Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:50 am

baithammer wrote: Modules only contain the system installed and doesn't determine firmpoints as that is determined and supported by the overall hull.
Agreed.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:37 am

A little example of a breakaway hull design for a modal 300Kdt Battleship.
300kdt Modal Battleship

Command Section x1 - 200,000 139,459.101 230,000 - Hull Points 160,000
Main Battery Section x1 - 72,000 47,639 29,552 - Hull Points 43,200
Secondary Battery Sections x2 - 14,000 (28,000) 14,554.5 (29,109) 8,400 (16,800) - Hull Points 6,720

M-drive Thrust 9 / 6 @300,000t
J-drive Jump 6 / 4 @ 300,000t

Purchase Command Section 139,459.101 Mcr Maintainence 11.622 Mcr /month
Main Battery x1 47,639 Mcr 3.97 Mcr /month
Secondary Battery x2 14,554.5 (29,109) Mcr 1.213 ( 2.426 ) Mcr /month

216,207.101 Mcr 18.018 Mcr /month

Main Battery Section - 72,000t

Closed / Reinforced 5,040 14,400
Radiation Shielding 1,800
Bonded Superdense Armour 15 8,640 1,152
Spinal Meson 12dd 36,000 15,600 6,000
Large Particle Bays x40 20,000 4,800 8,000
Bridge + Holographic 60 450
Fusion 1,500 3,000 [30,000]
Fuel 20 Weeks 750
Break Away 4,000 8,000
Repair Drones 720 144
Cargo 7,170

400 Virtual Gunners /2 10 54b
Advanced Fire Control /2 15 25b
Auto-Repair/2 10 20b
Core /100 130 [100b]

Purchase 47,639 Mcr

Secondary Battery - 14,000t

Closed / Reinforced 980 2,800
Radiation Shielding 350
Bonded Superdense Armour 15 1,680 1,176
Type 3 Point Defense x100 2,000 2,000 3,000
Triple Pulse Laser Turrets x200 200 800 2,600
Bridge + Holographic 60 87.5
Fusion 420 840 [8,400]
Fuel 20 Weeks 210
Break Away 4,000 8,000
Repair Drones 720 144
Cargo 4,710

200 Virtual Gunners /2 10 34b
Advanced Fire Control /2 15 25b
Point Defence/2 12 15b
Auto-Repair/2 10 20b
Core /100 130 [100b]

Purchase 14,554.5 Mcr ea

Command Section - 200,000t
Closed / Reinforced 14,000 40,000
Radiation Shielding 5,000
Bonded Superdense Armour 15 24,000 16,800
M-drive Thrust 6 @ 300,000t, Reduced Size x3 8,400 24,000 180,000
J-drive Jump 4 @ 300,000t, Fuel Efficient x2 30,005 45,007.5 120,000
Fusion 11,500 23,000 [230,000]
Fuel 20 Weeks 5,750
Jump Fuel Jump 4 @ 300,000t 108,000
Bridge + Holographic 60 1,250
Command Birdge + Holographic 80 1,875
Advanced, Distributed Arrays 15 15.9 12
Enhanced Signal Processing 2.0 8.0 2.0
Shallow Penetration Suite 10 5.0 1.0
Military Countermeasures Suite 15 28 2.0
Break Away 4,000 8,000
Fuel Processor 38,400t /day 1,920 96 1,920
Fuel Scoop 0.1
Unrep 1,200t / hr 60 30 60
Hangar 10x25t 500 100
High Stateroom x1 6.0 0.8
Staterooms x58 232 29
Briefing Rooms x14 56 0.7
Armouries x50 50 12.5
Medical Bays x7 28 14 7.0
Cargo 3,391

Manoeuvre/0
Evade/2 2.0 15b
Jump Control/6 0.6 30b
Anti-Hijack/2 8.0 5b
Security /2 0.001 2b
Battle System /2 24 10b
Broad Spectrum 14 12b
Electronic Warfare/2 18 15b
Core/90 120 [90b]

Purchase 139,459.101 Mcr
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5424
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:14 pm

Image

There's no misunderstanding, it's more that design limitations aren't clearly defined, which is why from what I recall from the beta testing, you suddenly have a minimum ten tonne volume for a smallcraft so that gaming the system for a really tiny fighter doesn't happen.

Modular hulling is a pretty vague concept once you try to figure out how it integrates with hardpoints, why not a modular hull within a modular hull within a modular hull, or something else that can origami more hardpoints?

An interior module can just be a specially designed container to fit within a cargo hold, much like a demountable fuel tank. If you have large enough cargo bay doors, plopping them out is fairly easy.
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2433
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby AnotherDilbert » Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:21 pm

Condottiere wrote: Modular hulling is a pretty vague concept once you try to figure out how it integrates with hardpoints, why not a modular hull within a modular hull within a modular hull, or something else that can origami more hardpoints?
Where is the problem? A module is not a hull.

A 200 Dt ship has two hardpoints, regardless of how many modules or breakaway sections you use.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:13 am

Modular hulling is a pretty vague concept once you try to figure out how it integrates with hardpoints, why not a modular hull within a modular hull within a modular hull, or something else that can origami more hardpoints?
Modules don't add to the hull they are essentially reserved space within the overall hull, more modules doesn't equal more hard points. ( Not to mention you'd end up paying a whole lot more for the same amount of space.)
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5424
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:55 am

Image

The Soviets may disagree.

Hardpoints is an abstract construct in Traveller ship design, which is centered on a specific volume to support it, whereas in reality you'd need to devote volume to support any weapon system on the hull, and free surface area to place it.

Essentially, a carrier multiplies hardpoints, since it carries internally mobile hulls.

Modular hulling specifically mentions missile bays as a possibilities, so you could have hardpointed laser turrets embedded on the cargo bay doors, and have them open to reveal the missile bay embedded in the module underneath.
Sigtrygg
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 744
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Sigtrygg » Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:26 pm

Scrap hardpoint limitations.

Go with FF&S surface area limits instead.

Or take a look at GT:ISW where the hardpoint limits are based on available surface area and hull configuration rather than 1 per 100t of volume.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests