Battlestar Galactica 3.0

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
User avatar
Reynard
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3496
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Battlestar Galactica 3.0

Postby Reynard » Fri Apr 25, 2014 8:38 pm

Wow, even a Viper is not easy to translate especially if keeping any of the original features. It's fast, carries two energy weapons and can optionally mount a seeker weapon but has one pilot. It's half the length of an F-22 Raptor so not big.

One crew means under 60 tons. Three weapons (2 pulse lasers or one particle gun plus a torpedo) needs a 70 ton craft while two needs 40 tons. The two energy weapons call for an L rated power plant which is not a problem with fast small craft. You figure 40 tons will do it except, even with armor, there's a lot of leftover tonnage. Taking it to twenty tons can be more reasonable but it means only one pulse laser and less looking like what we see. I can image a Raider will be comparable. Not as easy as I could wish. I hope the Battlestars and Baystars translate better.
Tom Kalbfus
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 2521
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 8:56 pm

Re: Battlestar Galactica 3.0

Postby Tom Kalbfus » Fri Apr 25, 2014 11:14 pm

Reynard wrote:Wow, even a Viper is not easy to translate especially if keeping any of the original features. It's fast, carries two energy weapons and can optionally mount a seeker weapon but has one pilot. It's half the length of an F-22 Raptor so not big.

One crew means under 60 tons. Three weapons (2 pulse lasers or one particle gun plus a torpedo) needs a 70 ton craft while two needs 40 tons. The two energy weapons call for an L rated power plant which is not a problem with fast small craft. You figure 40 tons will do it except, even with armor, there's a lot of leftover tonnage. Taking it to twenty tons can be more reasonable but it means only one pulse laser and less looking like what we see. I can image a Raider will be comparable. Not as easy as I could wish. I hope the Battlestars and Baystars translate better.
I'd say keep the capabilities and the traveller rules, if vipers have to be bigger, then the vipers will be bigger, the Battlestar is huge, so it could easily hold larger fighters. I'd say 2 pulse lasers plus a torpedo, we need the vipers to have an attack capability, so it can attack the basestars. I believe we are using Scout couriers instead of raptors, and those are substantially larger than those helicopter sized spaceships, as we need that jump capacity for the Raptor mission profile.

Have you done anything with the battlestar yet? Do you think they ought to have shields such as a black globe, or should it just have thick armor so it could withstand a direct hit with a nuclear warhead?. I think a large warship like that calls for a spinal mount. I think the BSG ought to be able to skim gas giants for fuel, though it can't land. I think the regular Cylon raider should have a jump drive and should be allowed to violate the no jump drives for under 100-ton starships rule, this is compensated by the fact that the Raiders are entirely unmanned and don't need life support. A raider looks something like a scout courier if we use the "flying oval wing" variant, I liked those better than the bat-shaped fighters from the new series. As for the basestars which ones do you like, you like the old series double saucers or the new series "starfish" types? I think a standard Passenger Subsidized Liner could serve as "Colonial One", what do you think? At some point we need to build a Cylon Centurian.
Jacqual
Mongoose
Posts: 192
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 12:05 pm

Re: Battlestar Galactica 3.0

Postby Jacqual » Sat Apr 26, 2014 12:51 am

Reynard wrote:Wow, even a Viper is not easy to translate especially if keeping any of the original features. It's fast, carries two energy weapons and can optionally mount a seeker weapon but has one pilot. It's half the length of an F-22 Raptor so not big.

One crew means under 60 tons. Three weapons (2 pulse lasers or one particle gun plus a torpedo) needs a 70 ton craft while two needs 40 tons. The two energy weapons call for an L rated power plant which is not a problem with fast small craft. You figure 40 tons will do it except, even with armor, there's a lot of leftover tonnage. Taking it to twenty tons can be more reasonable but it means only one pulse laser and less looking like what we see. I can image a Raider will be comparable. Not as easy as I could wish. I hope the Battlestars and Baystars translate better.
From the origional series the Viper could hold a second occupant, I am not sure about the new series though.
Jacqual Synn
Merchant Traveller
I was voted Captain of my team in Highschool, shame I was the only member.
User avatar
Reynard
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3496
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Battlestar Galactica 3.0

Postby Reynard » Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:27 am

I thought I read there is a variant two seater. Didn't see mention of its mission but I think its weaponless so it may be a kind of recon and EWAC for the other Vipers. However, if we go triple ship weapon, that means two crew at 70 tons. Might explain those huge landing bays.

Tom, haven't laid the keel for a Battlestar just yet. It seems they are heavily armored without shields while baystars are unarmored. Vipers are also armored. Might explain how the colonials survive waves of Baystars and Raiders.

The shuttles carry a Land-ram plus troops so they are big. Sure, why not a 100 ton version. Could also act as a forward scout searching for the next advantageous system for the fleet.
Wil Mireu
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 463
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:43 am

Re: Battlestar Galactica 3.0

Postby Wil Mireu » Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:12 am

Reynard wrote:Tom, haven't laid the keel for a Battlestar just yet. It seems they are heavily armored without shields while baystars are unarmored.
BASEstars, not Baystars. "Baystars" gives me horrible visions of Michael Bay as the Imperious Leader, cackling maniacally about how AWESOME it is to nuke the Twelve Colonies (also starring Megan Fox as Starbuck!) :P
Tom Kalbfus
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 2521
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 8:56 pm

Re: Battlestar Galactica 3.0

Postby Tom Kalbfus » Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:56 am

Wil Mireu wrote:
Reynard wrote:Tom, haven't laid the keel for a Battlestar just yet. It seems they are heavily armored without shields while baystars are unarmored.
BASEstars, not Baystars. "Baystars" gives me horrible visions of Michael Bay as the Imperious Leader, cackling maniacally about how AWESOME it is to nuke the Twelve Colonies (also starring Megan Fox as Starbuck!) :P
Essential characters would be Commander William Adama, Captain Leland Adama, Lieutenant Kara Thrace, Scout Sharon Valarie (Also Cylon Model Eight), and Scout Karl Agathon, Colonel Tigh, Gaius Baltar, President Laura Rosalin, Tom Zarek, Cylon Model Six, Cylon Model Eight, Cylon Model One, Admiral Helena Cain or perhaps a different Admiral Cain (Commander of the Battlestar Pegasus, whenever it shows up), Galen Tyrol, Dr. Sherman Cottle, Ellen Tigh
AndrewW
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4341
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:57 pm

Re: Battlestar Galactica 3.0

Postby AndrewW » Sat Apr 26, 2014 5:44 am

Reynard wrote:I thought I read there is a variant two seater. Didn't see mention of its mission but I think its weaponless so it may be a kind of recon and EWAC for the other Vipers. However, if we go triple ship weapon, that means two crew at 70 tons. Might explain those huge landing bays.
There was recon viper 1 (original series, Long Patrol), but that was one they modified for the mission though.
User avatar
Reynard
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3496
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Battlestar Galactica 3.0

Postby Reynard » Sat Apr 26, 2014 10:36 am

Sorry about the misspelling. I keep 'slurring the word in my head when I type and it comes out Baystar."

The two seater was a one shot plot creation? That's what I mean about the show, lots of inconsistencies when you try to establish canon. We can now say there is only one type of Viper fighter and the Raptor is a jump shuttle (100ton). I saw the Raptor can carry weapon loadouts so that means we use the Modular Hull option found in High Guard pg. 41?
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8124
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Battlestar Galactica 3.0

Postby Condottiere » Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:07 am

There probably are two seat trainer variants of the Viper; however, the craft looks too small to make it worthwhile to add in a weapons officer and turn it into a fighter bomber.
sideranautae
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1412
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:28 pm

Re: Battlestar Galactica 3.0

Postby sideranautae » Sat Apr 26, 2014 1:54 pm

AndrewW wrote: There was recon viper 1 (original series, Long Patrol), but that was one they modified for the mission though.
I remember that episode. Close to "light speed", no weapons, etc.
Image
Tom Kalbfus
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 2521
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 8:56 pm

Re: Battlestar Galactica 3.0

Postby Tom Kalbfus » Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:28 am

Reynard wrote:Sorry about the misspelling. I keep 'slurring the word in my head when I type and it comes out Baystar."

The two seater was a one shot plot creation? That's what I mean about the show, lots of inconsistencies when you try to establish canon. We can now say there is only one type of Viper fighter and the Raptor is a jump shuttle (100ton). I saw the Raptor can carry weapon loadouts so that means we use the Modular Hull option found in High Guard pg. 41?
A two seat viper would be used for training, it has a dual set of controls. The Air Force also has two seat versions of the F15, the F16 and so on, so that's not that unusual.

Here is the Scout/Courier from my T20 Core rulebook:
SCOUT/COURIER
Class: Starship, type S EP Output: 4 (2 excess)
Tech Level: 11 Agility: 2 (+2 EP)
Size: Medium Initiative: +2 (+2 agility)
Streamlining: Streamlined AC: 12 (+2 agility)
Jump Range: 1 * Jump-2 Repulsors: 0
Acceleration: 2-G Nuclear dampers: 0
Fuel: 24 tons Meson Screens: 0
Duration: 4 weeks Black Globes: 0
Crew: 1 AR: 0
Staterooms: 4 SI: 100
Small Cabins: 0 Main Computer: Model/1 (5 CPU)
Bunks: 0 Sensor Range: Close (Model/1)
Couches: 0 Comm Range: Close (Model/1)
Low Berths: 0
Cargo Space: 20 tons Cost: MCr 42.258 (new)
Atmospheric Speeds: NoE = 275kph
Cruising = 825kph Maximum = 1100kph
Other Equipment: Air/raft, Fuel scoops

TAS Form 3.1 (Condensed)

Design Components
Installed Components Tonnage Cost EP
100-ton Hull +100. 1.20E+07
Bridge -20. 1.00E+05
Computer -0.1 4.00E+06
Flight Avionics -0.4 9.00E+05
Sensors -0.3 6.00E+05
Communications +0.2 5.00E+05
Jump Drive 2 -3. 1.20E+07 -2
Jump Fuel -20.
Maneuver Drive -5. 3.50E+06 -2
TL9 Power Plant -6. 1.80E+07 4
Power Plant Fuel -4.
Fuel Scoops 1.00E+05
1 Hard Point 1.00E+05
Double Turret 7.50E+05
Air/Raft -5. 2.73E+05
Staterooms (4) -16. 2.00E+06
Cargo -20.
Totals +0.4 5.28E+07 4.23E+07 with 20% standard design discount

Its maneuver drive would allow it to reach these following standard distances at maneuver-2 at the listed times.

Distance 20 m/s^2 seconds velocity km/sec distance
0 16.667 minute 1000.02 20000.4 20.00 10,000 km
1 52.7045 minute 3162.27 63245.4 63.25 100,000 km
2 1.75682 hours 6324.552 126491.04 126.49 400,000 km
3 3.000 hours 10800 216000 216.00 0.01 au
4 11.00 hours 39600 792000 792.00 0.10 au
5 17.00 hours 61200 1224000 1,224.00 0.25 au
6 24.00 hours 86400 1728000 1,728.00 0.50 au
7 29.50 hours 106200 2124000 2,124.00 0.75 au
8 34.00 hours 122400 2448000 2,448.00 1.00 au
9 1.735 days_ 149904 2998080 2,998.08 1.50 au
A 2.005 days_ 173232 3464640 3,464.64 2.00 au
B 2.240 days_ 193536 3870720 3,870.72 2.50 au
C 2.455 days_ 212112 4242240 4,242.24 3.00 au
D 2.653 days_ 229219.2 4584384 4,584.38 3.50 au
E 2.835 days_ 244944 4898880 4,898.88 4.00 au
F 3.006 days_ 259718.4 5194368 5,194.37 4.50 au
G 3.170 days_ 273888 5477760 5,477.76 5.00 au
H 3.473 days_ 300067.2 6001344 6,001.34 6.00 au
J 3.750 days_ 324000 6480000 6,480.00 7.00 au
K 4.010 days_ 346464 6929280 6,929.28 8.00 au
L 4.253 days_ 367459.2 7349184 7,349.18 9.00 au
M 4.483 days_ 387331.2 7746624 7,746.62 10.00 au
N 5.012 days_ 433036.8 8660736 8,660.74 12.50 au
P 5.490 days_ 474336 9486720 9,486.72 15.00 au
Q 5.930 days_ 512352 10247040 10,247.04 17.50 au
R 6.340 days_ 547776 10955520 10,955.52 20.00 au
S 7.087 days_ 612316.8 12246336 12,246.34 25.00 au
T 7.764 days_ 670809.6 13416192 13,416.19 30.00 au
U 8.386 days_ 724550.4 14491008 14,491.01 35.00 au
V 8.965 days_ 774576 15491520 15,491.52 40.00 au
W 10.023 days_ 865987.2 17319744 17,319.74 50.00 au
X 10.98 days_ 948672 18973440 18,973.44 60.00 au
Y 11.86 days_ 1024704 20494080 20,494.08 70.00 au
As you can see, for distances greater than S, it makes sense to use the Jump Drive.

Colonial One would probably be something like this ship.
SUBSIDIZED LINER
Class: Starship, type M EP Output: 18 (12 excess)
Tech Level: 12 Agility: 2 (+2 EP)
Size: Medium (600 tons) Initiative: +2 (+2 agility)
Streamlining: Streamlined AC: 12 (+2 agility)
Jump Range: 1 * Jump-3 Repulsors: None
Acceleration: 1-G Nuclear Dampers: None
Fuel: 198 tons Meson Screens: None
Duration: 4 weeks Black Globes: None
Crew: 8 AR: 0
Staterooms: 21 SI: 175
Small Cabins: 0 Main Computer: Model/3 (300 CPU)
Bunks: 0 Sensor Range: Medium (Model/3)
Couches: 0 Comm. Range: Medium (Model/3)
Low Berths: 20
Cargo Space: 202.8 tons Cost: MCr 234.674 (new)
Atmospheric Speeds: NoE = 275kph
Cruising = 825kph Maximum = 1100kph
Other Equipment: 20 ton launch.

TAS Form 3.1 (Condensed)

Design Specifications
Installed Components Tonnage Cost EP
600-ton Hull +600. 6.40E+07
Bridge -20. 1.00E+05
Computer -0.3 1.26E+07 -1
Flight Avionics -0.4 9.00E+05
Sensors -0.9 1.80E+06
Communications -0.6 1.50E+06
Jump Drive 3 -24. 9.60E+07 -18
Jump Fuel -180.
Maneuver Drive 1 -12. 1.80E+07 -6
TL9 Power Plant -27. 8.10E+07 18
Power Plant Fuel -18.
3 Hard Points 3.00E+05
Staterooms (21) -84. 1.05E+07
Low Berths (20) -10. 1.00E+06
20-ton Launch -20. 9.84E+06
Cargo -202.8
Totals +0. 2.93E+08 2.35E+08

One plus for a Battlestar Galactica campaign from the player's perspective. If a player is merchant and during previous careers he receives a Free Trader, after the Cylons attack, he no longer has to worry about paying off that starship loan, the bank he borrowed money from got nuked. In fact if he stole a starship to escape Caprica during the Cylon attack, nobody in the fleet is going to question his ownership of it so long as he can fly it. One particular problem is how to maintain each ship. I'd say there are about 30 capital ships and hundreds of ships ranging from 100 to 800 ton class, if the PCs own one of those ships, they are going to how to figure out how to maintain it. Being a Mechant in the BSG fleet is a different kettle of fish than being a merchant in a standard Traveller campaign. Of the other Capital ships of interest would be the Astral Queen - a prison ship taken over by the prisoners. There is the Colonial Movers, the Botany ship with all the domes and plants and the largest Civilian ship would probably be the Cloud Nine, followed by the "Wheel Ship"
sideranautae
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1412
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:28 pm

Re: Battlestar Galactica 3.0

Postby sideranautae » Sun Apr 27, 2014 3:50 pm

Tom Kalbfus wrote: A two seat viper would be used for training, it has a dual set of controls. The Air Force also has two seat versions of the F15, the F16 and so on, so that's not that unusual.
Starting wit the F-117 the AF stopped that practice as simulators are sophisticated enough to obviate the need. Thus the F-22 & F-35 also just have single seaters. I don't think that as TL goes up there will be less capable computer trainers. :wink:
Image
Tom Kalbfus
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 2521
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 8:56 pm

Re: Battlestar Galactica 3.0

Postby Tom Kalbfus » Sun Apr 27, 2014 6:19 pm

sideranautae wrote:
Tom Kalbfus wrote: A two seat viper would be used for training, it has a dual set of controls. The Air Force also has two seat versions of the F15, the F16 and so on, so that's not that unusual.
Starting wit the F-117 the AF stopped that practice as simulators are sophisticated enough to obviate the need. Thus the F-22 & F-35 also just have single seaters. I don't think that as TL goes up there will be less capable computer trainers. :wink:
I think people in BSG tend to be mistrustful of computers and robots after the Cylon Rebellion.
sideranautae
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1412
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:28 pm

Re: Battlestar Galactica 3.0

Postby sideranautae » Sun Apr 27, 2014 7:30 pm

Tom Kalbfus wrote: I think people in BSG tend to be mistrustful of computers and robots after the Cylon Rebellion.

If they are THAT mistrustful of computers (of the needed level for a simulator), they won't be flying any space ships. It would be impossible for anything more complex than a version of 1970's space shuttle. They wouldn't even be able to build space craft.
Image
User avatar
Reynard
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3496
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Battlestar Galactica 3.0

Postby Reynard » Sun Apr 27, 2014 8:50 pm

The Reimagined Battlestar Galactica has a very low use for computer and electronics. The fighters and ships are more like a wet navy in space.
sideranautae
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1412
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:28 pm

Re: Battlestar Galactica 3.0

Postby sideranautae » Sun Apr 27, 2014 9:15 pm

Reynard wrote:The Reimagined Battlestar Galactica has a very low use for computer and electronics.
What are they, steam powered?
Image
Wil Mireu
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 463
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:43 am

Re: Battlestar Galactica 3.0

Postby Wil Mireu » Sun Apr 27, 2014 9:20 pm

Reynard wrote:The Reimagined Battlestar Galactica has a very low use for computer and electronics. The fighters and ships are more like a wet navy in space.
They were still big on computers and electronics, but they weren't networked - that (and being generally out of date software-wise) is what saved Galactica from the 'hack' that allowed the cylons to destroy the rest of the fleet so easily.
User avatar
Reynard
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3496
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Battlestar Galactica 3.0

Postby Reynard » Sun Apr 27, 2014 9:39 pm

"What are they, steam powered?"

From the description, close. No energy weapons just small caliber belt fed autocannons and high caliber ship's guns loaded manually and sighted with help from low level computers more akin to the 1960s. By not networked, I assume it was all this level with each control system minimally assisted with unsophisticated computation devices that are unhackable. Makes me wonder how uncomplex the FTL drive is or are there huge numbers of calculating machines doing very specific tasks towards a single goal? Babbage Machine anyone?
sideranautae
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1412
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:28 pm

Re: Battlestar Galactica 3.0

Postby sideranautae » Sun Apr 27, 2014 9:49 pm

Reynard wrote:"What are they, steam powered?"

From the description, close.

Then they won't be "zipping around space". That's not possible using '60's comp tech. Not even 70's tech. Switch it to a fantasy genre. Or, stick a fork in it and leave everything on the cutting room floor.
Image
Traveller-61
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 714
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Lyonesse, UK

Re: Battlestar Galactica 3.0

Postby Traveller-61 » Sun Apr 27, 2014 10:09 pm

Re simulators - there was mention in the new series that the Pegasus had simulators to train pilots on (as well as could manufacture Vipers) but the Galactica had to train the "nuggets" on the real thing and hope they were up to it!

DW
"You were a great Captain!" - Claudia Christian

Some days are better than others, Section Leader!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Claybor and 53 guests