Ship Design Philosophy

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
Sigtrygg
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1079
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Sigtrygg » Sat Dec 16, 2017 8:47 pm

Don't confuse bridge with the CIC - the latter is usually much larger on a warship with the former being relatively small.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6531
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Dec 16, 2017 8:52 pm

In Traveller, there would be no difference, therefore, it weighs the same and costs the same, being a clone of the bridge, not counting if sensor and weapon system workstations are placed adjacent.
Sigtrygg
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1079
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Sigtrygg » Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:18 pm

Of course there will be a difference, it's just that in the past Traveller has always lumped the CIC into the bridge tonnage. A warship will need a much bigger bridge/CIC set up than a civilian ship. You may also want to have a couple of back up bridges in a warship to ensure redundancy.

A bridge is for controlling the maneuvering of the ship - its secondary role is sensor and communication related, although both of those can be allocated elsewhere on the ship.

A CIC is for coordinating the weapons, defences, sensors, comms of the ship and any vessels sub-ordinate to it.

During combat where is the Captain of the ship to be found, the bridge or the CIC?

Now on a submarine the bridge and CIC are one and the same - usually. So if starships are closer to submarines the bridge/CIC will be one and the same and buried as deeply inside the vessel as you can design it to be.

The Star Wars and Star Trek bridge location set ups are just laughable.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6531
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:37 pm

Let's scale down from the Death Star to something more manageable, the Tigress superdreadnought.

It has only one bridge, but with holographic controls.

In which case, you would be correct: warships are designed like submarines.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6531
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Dec 17, 2017 12:22 am

So, out of curiosity, I checked out Space Station construction.

Bridge installation doesn't seem to align with it's spaceship counterpart.

But I didn't go away empty handed.

While space stations might move like lame ducks, nothing says they can't jump like kangaroos down the rabbit hole.

Space Stations: Engineering and Jump Drives
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:19 am

Jump drives and their fuel make for really poor stations.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6531
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:30 pm

I see commercial potential, because freighters don't have to move fast.

Less so militarily, because it's an ordnance magnet, and that expensive jump drive is going to get holed.
AndrewW
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4163
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:57 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby AndrewW » Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:15 pm

Condottiere wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:37 pm
Let's scale down from the Death Star to something more manageable, the Tigress superdreadnought.

It has only one bridge, but with holographic controls.
The Tigress has a bridge plus a separate Command Bridge.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6531
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:05 am

Ahh ... mea culpa.

My suggestion is to move command bridge from accessories to the bridge section.

Also, change the full stop in 3.125 to a comma, and moving the decimal point in 468.75 to the right.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6531
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:38 am

Spaceships: Catwalk Bridges

If you shrink the bridge, you might get a fifty percent discount, but at the cost of a minus one dice modifier to operations, which for jumping, seems like an unnecessary risk.

Your initial reaction has to be that this is due to a more cramped space that the assigned bridge personnel will find themselves in. I think that that could be overcome, if said personnel were also about one third to half in volume of the human adult norm; on other words, hobbits and kids could conceivable operate bridge controls without incurring that minus one penalty.

Considering the fifty percent discount cost, since cost is based on hull size rather than bridge volume, I'm more inclined to think a large part of that penalty is due to lag, so that workstations tend to react more slowly.
AndrewW
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4163
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:57 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby AndrewW » Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:00 am

Condottiere wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:05 am
My suggestion is to move command bridge from accessories to the bridge section
The one under bridge is for the ships bridge, the command bridge (although a command bridge can) doesn't replace that in this case so isn't listed under bridge.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6531
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:24 pm

I disagree, in that ship components should be organized along generalized categories, like Hull, Electronics, Engineering, Weaponry and so on.

It simplifies information gathering.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6531
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:14 am

Space Stations: Hulls and Acceleration

It's sort of implied that space stations are likely to disintegrate if you push them too fast, that's why there's a cap on the type of manoeuvre drive that can be installed on them, which I can imagine with all those external bits dangling about.

Unless the space station was built from the outset to internalize everything.

Next would be the structural strength, or weakness of the hull. If it costs the same as a spaceship, you can conclude the hull is as strong as that of a spaceship's.

Especially if armoured.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:19 am

Its more to do with usage pattern than a hard limit, doesn't make sense to install drives that won't be used.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6531
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Dec 21, 2017 5:45 am

The advantage that space stations have over spaceships is a cheaper bridge and some really discounted computers.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:52 am

The computers have the same costs regardless of ship or station, bridges are a little weird in pricing though.
Jeraa
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:01 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Jeraa » Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:28 am

baithammer wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:52 am
The computers have the same costs regardless of ship or station, bridges are a little weird in pricing though.
It may have been errated or changed in another printing, but the core computers (not the normal ones) in the station chapter are cheaper than the same core computer in the ship chapter. The Core/40 computer in the station chapter is listed at MCr12, but MCr45 in the ship chapter. The savings drops as you go up, until it vanishes at the Core/100 computer (Which costs the same in both places).

I assume the pricing in the ship chapter is correct, as the pricing of the computers in the station chapter doesn't make sense.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:54 pm

Yeah, I have the pdf and the prices for the computers / core are the same.

Bridges are cheaper though. ( 0.1 Mcr per 100t rather than 0.5 per 100t)
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6531
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:42 pm

It's not a hill I'd die on.

If you can't squeeze out some form of advantage over the ship design, I certainly have no interest in it.

That leaves the cheaper bridge.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6531
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:18 am

Spaceships: Armaments and Quad Turrets

The problem with retconning quad turrets, is that it seems amazing that there wouldn't be a sudden upgrade of all appropriate hardpoints to this variant.

Volume remains the same, it only costs an extra power point and an additional megaschmucker, for which you increase your firepower by thirty three percent and adds an additional dice modifier for point defence.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests