800 ton Merc - Core Rule book

[Jak Nazryth]

On page 127, core rules, under "Extras", it is equipped with 2, 50 ton cutters. each with the notation...."ATV module installed, storage space for one more". In the TON column, it lists (50) for each cutter.
Shouldn't it read (80) for each cutter? 50 ton cutter + space for a 30 ton spare module = 80 tons.
I will point out that on page 128 deck plans "D" through "I" have the extra module space drawn in plan, plus the cross section of the ship clearly shows the extra module space.
All listed component tonnage on page 127 adds up to 796 as printed.
So... where did the extra 60tons go?

Am I missing something? Or is this another Mongoose "oops"?

 

[Jak Nazryth]

Also... I've always wondered...
If an 800 ton merc lands, is it impossible for it to unload the cutters full of marines, armor, gear, etc... since the cutter wells are oriented in the vertical position? Or can it ONLY launch/retrieve cutters in orbit/deep space?

 

[phavoc]

I recall reading somewhere that the cutters could only be launched while the ship was in space.

I checked in my GURPS Traveller core book and the ship listing does have 160 tons for the cutters and the two spare modules. It says that it takes approx 37 minutes (so exact!) for the cutter to leave its well, drop its current module off, then go back into the well and pick up the new module and then exit the well again. I guess the other module gets left in space since time ran out... or maybe the 37 minutes covers a complete exchange. It wasn't really clear on that.

 

[GypsyComet]

The Merc Cruiser is a CT design, so this is not a Mongoose error. The ship was originally designed as a partially streamlined vessel back when that meant it didn't land in atmospheres. The Cutters are intended to be the primary interface with the surface. In the case of airless worlds it could land, but needed to deploy the cutters before doing so if they were going to do anything.

I note that the Mongoose deckplan for the top-most decks includes the channels for the cutters, so having the docks go all the way through is not a difficult mod to make.

 

[Beastttt]

the merc cruiser needs a redraw
having the bays as a tunnel THROUGH the ship with say a hatch cover for the top for streamlining

 

[far-trader]

The Merc Cruiser is a CT design, so this is not a Mongoose error.

I don't know how to take this. Care to clarify?

It's one of my pet peeves, I've seen this statement or similar a few times. How does the excuse " it's CT " clear Mongoose Publishing of simple mathematical and/or proof-reading/editing errors? Even if the error existed previously.

Yes, the CT example is flawed (over by 20tons) but how does that excuse Mongoose from doing it correctly instead of simply copying verbatim previous errors*. Except even that isn't the case since the MGT design system has differences that should require a whole new build. No, any mistakes on this design are squarely the fault of the current publisher. Now I haven't checked the design myself (at least not in a while, I probably did when I first got it, probably spotted the error, and sighed...), I'm just going on the OP's posting, but it wouldn't surprise me.

* or in this case apparently making it even worse (over by 60tons if as noted)

 

[phavoc]

The tonnage for the additional modules would come out of the 77tons of cargo space allocated. I suppose the idea was for the modules to also store cargo. Maybe. There should have been a footnote indicating that the modules ate into the allocated cargo.

I have never liked the Broadsword class ship. It's waaayyy to expensive to haul around a couple of squads of troops. It just makes no sense to me economically. It has a good Jump number and G-rating, which if you are hauling troops is a bad idea. It would be better to say its a fleet support ship, the troops are there for ship-to-ship actions, or maybe boarding a station. THEN, I think, it would make more sense.

But not for ground combat. Not to me.

 

[Jak Nazryth]

So where are the missing 60 tons?
Should we assume the module bays are part of the total 77 tons of cargo space?
I haven't counted the spaces on the deck plan. And I haven't compared it to the earlier versions of the game.

 

[far-trader]

The tonnage for the additional modules would come out of the 77tons of cargo space allocated. I suppose the idea was for the modules to also store cargo. Maybe. There should have been a footnote indicating that the modules ate into the allocated cargo.

Yeah, maybe. Doesn't really work though.

The deckplans don't seem to show any room to store the modules. The plan views and elevation view don't match (the elevation view being a simple copy cutnpaste from CT does show spare module areas adjacent to the cutters, and the cutters are round not squashed like the MGT version).

In my opinion, just strike the text that says anything about "spare modules". There aren't any in the MGT version. Just the two cutters with whatever modules they carry. That fits the deckplans (though as noted not the elevation view, chuck that too) and design worksheet.

 

[Jak Nazryth]

The tonnage for the additional modules would come out of the 77tons of cargo space allocated. I suppose the idea was for the modules to also store cargo. Maybe. There should have been a footnote indicating that the modules ate into the allocated cargo.

I have never liked the Broadsword class ship. It's waaayyy to expensive to haul around a couple of squads of troops. It just makes no sense to me economically. It has a good Jump number and G-rating, which if you are hauling troops is a bad idea. It would be better to say its a fleet support ship, the troops are there for ship-to-ship actions, or maybe boarding a station. THEN, I think, it would make more sense.

But not for ground combat. Not to me.

Looks like you posted you reply between the time I started typing and finally posted!
That's what I get for going to an office meeting before hitting the submit button... 8)

 

[GypsyComet]

To clarify, the design decision to make it a tail-sitter that traps its subcraft when landed is not a Mongoose "error". That is the question by Jak that I was responding to.

A deckplan that is off by less than 10% by volume is close enough for me. I reserve my revision efforts for plans that are off by 50% or more.

 

[far-trader]

To clarify, the design decision to make it a tail-sitter that traps its subcraft when landed is not a Mongoose "error". That is the question by Jak that I was responding to.

Ah, got it, thanks for the clarification. Not what I'd call an error though, more a design "feature" (or as you say a design decision). Yeah, MGT could have changed that as well when fixing it. As noted it would be as simple as making topside hatches.

And as noted the original wouldn't (at least not often) face that dilemma being it was unstreamlined and would only very rarely land. And it'd be a poor commander who before landing didn't launch the cutters first, possibly even landing or orbiting the extra modules as well.

 

[phavoc]

The MGT deckplans for the Broadsword do have space for two additional cutter modules to be stored internally.

And, by the deckplans, you could make top-mount hatches, or just have the faces of the cutter poking out instead of the engines. I suppose there is something to be said for coming in the back door side.

 

[GypsyComet]

It isn't so much the direction the cutters are facing as the fact that they are pinned into the Cruiser when it is sitting on the ground. Top-side doors solve that problem.

The Broadsword is only one variation on the Type C specification. FASA had their own, as did Judges Guild, though the JG version, like the one I did some years ago, is based on the original 1977 version and carries Pinnaces instead of Cutters.

Time for a deckplan design derby? Type C spec, either -77 (two Pinnaces) or -81 (two Cutters) Revision. Any hull configuration allowed, and paramilitary usage (ala the Broadsword) is not assumed.

GO.

 

[Jak Nazryth]

Already working on it! :wink:

 

[GypsyComet]

Starting a new topic for it...

 

[far-trader]

It isn't so much the direction the cutters are facing...

Though that does present it's own (clumsy) problem

Just how does one transfer personnel and gear between the cutters and ship? The gravity planes are 90deg/perpendicular to each other. No problem in zero-g of course but... I'm sure it's been mentioned before or would have been noticed soon

Time for a deckplan design derby? Type C spec, either -77 (two Pinnaces) or -81 (two Cutters) Revision. Any hull configuration allowed, and paramilitary usage (ala the Broadsword) is not assumed.

GO.

Tempting I've got a half finished variant (cutter version, different hull) kicking about that could do with an excuse to polish off, after converting it to MGT... IF i could carve out some time and interest...

 

[far-trader]

I recall reading somewhere that the cutters could only be launched while the ship was in space.

I checked in my GURPS Traveller core book and... It says that it takes approx 37 minutes (so exact!) for the cutter to leave its well, drop its current module off, then go back into the well and pick up the new module and then exit the well again. I guess the other module gets left in space since time ran out... or maybe the 37 minutes covers a complete exchange. It wasn't really clear on that.

FWIW, I was looking at the CT module and it notes the following for module handling:

From "Adventure 7: Broadsword" Copyright 1982 by GDW:

Enter cutter well- five minutes.
Leave cutter well- five minutes.
Detach module in free space- two minutes.
Attach module in free space- five minutes.
Detach module in cutter well- two minutes.
Attach module in cutter well- two minutes.
Move cutter from orbit to world surface- twenty minutes.
Move cutter from world surface to orbit- twenty minutes.

And both cutters may be active simultaneous it notes.

 

[far-trader]

The MGT deckplans for the Broadsword do have space for two additional cutter modules to be stored internally.

Nope, it doesn't. Not my copy anyway. It doesn't even list module storage in the key. It just isn't there. Not in the tonnage designed, not in the deckplans, not in the deckplan key. It is only there in fact in the directly copied original CT elevation view and description. Ergo, ditch the copied CT material, it does not apply, the MGT version does not support extra modules.

 

[Mithras]

The MGT deckplans for the Broadsword do have space for two additional cutter modules to be stored internally.

Nope, it doesn't. Not my copy anyway. It doesn't even list module storage in the key. It just isn't there. Not in the tonnage designed, not in the deckplans, not in the deckplan key. It is only there in fact in the directly copied original CT elevation view and description. Ergo, ditch the copied CT material, it does not apply, the MGT version does not support extra modules.

Eminently sensible idea.