Ship Design Philosophy

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5413
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:55 am

High Guard, let's say, tends to be a bit ambiguous.

Outside of the High Technology chapter, it's hard to say if this was really a deliberate policy.

Stealth is additive, because presumably it's a coating; configuring the hull, and messing around with it's relative density looks very much multiplicative.

As long as they look reasonable, and in proportion with other costs associated with shipbuilding, within the game they don't matter, as long as they are within reach of the player characters.

As regards to militarized vacuumed rocks, their primary appeal was the the addition of their natural armour class to create super armoured protection, above the technological limitations, otherwise you'd rather use that twenty or thirty five percent to pack in more weapon systems.

I fool around with designing these space potatoes to game the best bang for buck, whether commercially or militarily, and by removing the super protection capability, you have to come up with other rational to use them.

That's why I mentioned that when you need five percent to get two armour factors, seven and a half percent per one plus five percent overhead look more attractive.
baithammer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 310
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:02 am

As regards to militarized vacuumed rocks, their primary appeal was the the addition of their natural armour class to create super armoured protection, above the technological limitations,
1st ed Mgt had an errata that stated the natural armour didn't allow going past TL restrictions and is spelled out the same in Mgt 2ed.

The advantage with the natural armour is not having to allocate additional mass / cost.
Sigtrygg
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 740
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Sigtrygg » Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:22 am

If that's the case then the designers have deliberately gone against CT HG, CT TCS, MT, TNE, T4 etc.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5413
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:59 am

Crewing: Astrogator

The astrogator know the relationship of the spaceship to the universe, and the relationship of the universe to the spaceship; not necessarily the same thing.

He is responsible for figuring out the desired departure point of the starship from the warp, and the optimal point of entry and angle to the warp to reach the desired departure point, and the spacetime length of the jump.

Not usually an interstellar travelling crocodile.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5413
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:38 am

Spaceships: Hulls, Grappling Arms and Volume

If you extend two and six tonne arms to two hundred and fifty metres, you'd assume that they occupy far more volume than default.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5413
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:03 am

Spaceships: Hulls and Concrete

In today's dollars, a cubic metre of concrete weighs in at about hundred bucks; my calculation puts that at twenty credit imperiale.

The difference between pouring concrete, and the usual ways of building a hull, is that volume doesn't count except in the sense of ascertaining how much of it will be enclosed; in other words, and in simplified form, two hundred tonnes in volume could be enclosed would be the equivalent of twenty by twenty by twenty deckplan spaces.

Let's say that a tad less than a one and a half metre thick wall of concrete is enough to take the strain of acceleration, so that's twenty times twenty times six, plus twenty times twelve, plus eight, totalling 4808 spaces.

That equals one hundred twenty point two tonnes. or 37.53903810118676% wastage.

Your basic cost is CrImp 16'828, not counting presumably a plastic air tight layer, like what they'd manufacture fuel bladders from.

Of course, this is very dependant on the structural strength of concrete, and if one and half metres is enough, the larger a spaceship gets, the less you'd need in porportion to volume, therefore less wastage.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5413
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:51 pm

Inspiration: Star Wars Battlefront Rivalry

Image

https://youtu.be/yvsP1svZFKg
crazy_cat
Mongoose
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:06 am
Location: Cambridge, UK

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby crazy_cat » Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:17 pm

Dear Santa
For Christmas [s]could I please have[/s] I need a Death Star tree house.
Thank you, that is all
CC :D
"You should never be in the company of anyone with whom you would not want to die"
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5413
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:28 am

Spaceships: Hulls and Armourplating

The hull armour table shows how much of the hull’s tonnage is consumed per point of armour protection added, along with its costs. A minimum technological level is required for each type of armour, and there is a maximum amount that can be attached to a hull – this includes any armour the ship had prior to modification.

This has been discussed before, but let me point out again that the cost of armourplating is based on the base cost of the hull, which means planetoid variants are peanuts comparatively, by as much as a factor of ten, or possibly more with denser hulls, divided by eighty percent.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests