800 ton Merc Cruiser deck plan

[Jak Nazryth]

I've been working in AutoCAD off and on with a redesign of the old 800 ton merc cruiser, in order to create a "stock" model and several variants. I created a grid 1.5m x 1.5m to begin laying in CAD blocks for staterooms, engines, 50 ton cutters, etc.. Now I calculated the tonnage in "squares" in which 2 squares = 1 ton so that I could begin easily layout out the deck plans in CAD. But upon calculation of the volume of a sphere, it appears the 50 ton cutter is almost as long, if not longer than the diameter of the sphere itself, which would cause each cutter to protrude dramatically out of the hull. The Core book deck plans shows enclosed bays for the cutters. Also, there seems to be a big difference between the Mongoose 50 ton cutter and the LBB 50 ton cutter.
It's been ages, and I think on the COTI forums back in early 2000's, but I seem to remember people complaining that the original 800 ton cruiser deck plans were much larger than the actual write up.
Can anyone help confirm?
What is the diameter "in 1.5m squares" of an 800 ton sphere?
Thanks

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Deck plans using artistic licensing, and eyeballing it.

Now the beauty is... you get to do your own corrections of it all. And in 3D!

ADDED:
I'm getting 27.4246 meters as a diameter. Assuming the sphere is solid with the 800 dtons. Roughly 18 squares?

 

[-Daniel-]

I've been working in AutoCAD off and on with a redesign of the old 800 ton merc cruiser, in order to create a "stock" model and several variants.

I would love to see your variants once they are done. 8)

 

[Patron Zero]

Is this a reboot to an earlier Merc Cruiser project I seem to attach your name to or a ground-up new effort ?

 

[GypsyComet]

Also, there seems to be a big difference between the Mongoose 50 ton cutter and the LBB 50 ton cutter.

Artistic license was common. The "10 ton" ATV of CT was drawn closer to 30 dtons, which was why only one fit into the Cutter's ATV cradle.

I think there are five different Cutters, significantly different in dimensions and/or shape, across the editions and the older licensees, but fitting 160 dtons of cylinders (two cutters and two extra modules) into 800 dtons of sphere is an ugly problem.

I'm getting 27.4246 meters as a diameter. Assuming the sphere is solid with the 800 dtons. Roughly 18 squares?

If you consider 10% variance close enough, the legs fit within variance at 18 squares, but take you a bit over if you bump the diameter to 19 squares (which is 880 dtons already). Going to 20 squares across bumps the volume to 1000 dtons plus legs.

 

[phavoc]

As a small-unit transport, the designed ship fails at delivering a unit economically. It would be far better to design a ship without the added cutters and devote more space to troop bays, armored vehicles and cargo (for ammunition, supplies, the stuff a fighter might need yanno).

Plus the added cost of the extra small craft would weigh very heavily on the finances of a private merc outfit. A government or megacorp would have deep enough pockets, but a company purely running off jobs would be hard-pressed to pay for all that with the current rates. Unless hazard pay was involved, which means more risk to damages to your ship and casualties to your troops.

And for small unit insertions, who wouldn't want to actually land on the planet??

Still, would be interesting to see what you have coming.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

As a small-unit transport, the designed ship fails at delivering a unit economically.

The same can be said for all Traveller ships. Traveller is about fiction.

 

[-Daniel-]

As a small-unit transport, the designed ship fails at delivering a unit economically.

The same can be said for all Traveller ships. Traveller is about fiction.

I agree, there are moments when I find some elements are done for the setting or story. Because of my being influenced by the more "modern" Sci-Fi like Star Trek, I keep reminding myself that Traveller is really the age of sail with a sci-fi skin placed on it.

 

[Askold]

There is a use for landing ship that takes troops straight to battle and perhaps has some capability to land troops on hot landing zones.

But if all you need is to move your ground unit from planet to planet (and aren't taking part in space combat) then some modified freighter is the cheaper alternative. One small craft would still be useful for landing the troops or moving them from one place to another on the planet (You don't want to be forced to rely on your employer to get off the planet...) even if you have to make several trips.

The standard Merc cruiser from the core book is a jack of all trades as it can do space combat as well as troop transportation but this comes at the cost of having less space on ship dedicated to any particular task as well as ...higher cost.

 

[Jak Nazryth]

Patron Zero
Yes, this is in fact the same guy. After I posted that original challenge a few years ago, life happened and I stopped running my Traveller game for a while. Now I've rebooted a new game but remembered the challenge a few weeks ago. I finally found my old sketches and began to layout the design. In both cased, Mongoose and LBL, the 50 ton cutters are both 30 meters in length (20 squares) but the Mongoose version is much wider than the LBB version.

I do agree there has always been a fudge factor of around 5% or so when creating deck plans (ok... the common areas and troop staging areas in a Merc Cruiser would take up MUCH more space on the deck plans than what's listed in the write up) and the fudge factor are for those reasons... not many people hold fast to 4 tons per stateroom = 3 tons of room and 1 ton of common area (corridors, lounge, galleys, public freshers, ships lockers, etc...)... but the classic deck plans seems to be drawn to at least a 1000 ton ship, agreeing with GypsyComet, if not more. My variants beside the basic model include a Star Merc cruiser (mostly space base boarding actions) a heavy lifter (no cutters/more cargo), a micro carrier (up to 10 or more small craft) etc... and a couple more... these are all in the concept/idea stage. No write ups, just sketches and balloon diagrams (architectural term) In all cases my deck plans are oriented like a normal ship (not vertical stack like the current plan). I've figure out that all of this will work through many sketches, cross sections, and study details.

 

[Jak Nazryth]

Phavoc,
Echoing what Daniel said...
While I completely agree with the game mechanics and economics etc... to me this is still a science fiction game. Yes there are cheaper ways to deliver troops for hire, but there are always exceptions, and mega corps on distant planets who use cheep labor, no laws, etc.. to exploit worlds outside of the boarders of 3I space (The Trojan Reach comes to mind) may have deep enough pockets because of all the regulatory savings, can employ such a merc units when the need arises.... or what ever makes a great sci-fi/fantasy story.
Your points are very well founded per the economics of the game mechanics, but I lean towards the fun of the game, the adventure seed, and story the players want to create. A very expensive ship can always find uses... if the GM says so!

 

[phavoc]

I'm very well aware of the relationship between gaming, reality and having a fun time. Also have been on the giving and receiving end of the Monty Haul effect. The problem with reward inflation is that it continues to build and build and build until it becomes even more untenable than a reasonable game can take.

A 800 Merc cruiser runs about 445 MCr. Then there's the annual costs of 1 Mcr for maintenance and life support. Minimal crew will run you 53,000Cr/month (636,000Cr Annually), and your ground forces about another 65,000Cr/month (780,000 Annually). So sitting on the ground costs you 2.4Mcr annually (and that's excluding your 927,000 MONTHLY ship payment). Or 1.1Mcr per month.

According to Mercenary book 2, you might expect roughly 100,000Cr/month for an easy job for a ground force of this size. That assume transport costs are paid. But lets bump that to say 700,000Cr a month for a very dangerous job. If you are going to get that sort of money somebody is gonna shoot at you, and that costs money for repairs. You've got ammo expenses, and I'm sure somebody somewhere want to make a profit (not to mention profit shares for the men). Whoever owns the outfit is losing 400,000Cr/month on this, minimum. That's not an insignificant number to be dealing with. Of course it can be fixed by throwing money at it, but then you are breaking other rules/guidelines already established.

If you can see where I'm going, there's a problem with the model. The problem is that nobody likes to pay attention to whether or not what's getting printed out there actually fits the bill being sold. I happen to like things that more or less fit together and that I don't have to continually tweak to make work. If that's the case then why should I spend money on a gaming system I'm just gonna have to rip apart and put back together to make sense of things?

I want it to be FUN too. I just don't wanna have to keep fixing all the inconsistencies.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

The problem is that nobody likes to pay attention to whether or not what's getting printed out there actually fits the bill being sold. I happen to like things that more or less fit together and that I don't have to continually tweak to make work. If that's the case then why should I spend money on a gaming system I'm just gonna have to rip apart and put back together to make sense of things?

I want it to be FUN too. I just don't wanna have to keep fixing all the inconsistencies.

Make up your mind. Fun? Or an accounting job? Or is accounting fun to you? Find one RPG that simulates an economy. Then come back.

 

[phavoc]

The problem is that nobody likes to pay attention to whether or not what's getting printed out there actually fits the bill being sold. I happen to like things that more or less fit together and that I don't have to continually tweak to make work. If that's the case then why should I spend money on a gaming system I'm just gonna have to rip apart and put back together to make sense of things?

I want it to be FUN too. I just don't wanna have to keep fixing all the inconsistencies.

Make up your mind. Fun? Or an accounting job? Or is accounting fun to you? Find one RPG that simulates an economy. Then come back.

Did you not read what I wrote? Do you not comprehend what I wrote??

I did nothing more than illustrate an ongoing problem within the published rules. I hate to go all F33D on you and all that, but c'mon fella. It's not a difficult logical gap to cross.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

I hate to go all F33D on you and all that, but c'mon fella.

Hate is such a strong word. I prefer debate more myself. The two of you guys used to be connected at the hip, until... the accident.

Anyway, the answer is you can't find an RPG that simulates an economy. Especially one that simulates what an economy would be like in the 57th century. Handwavium is free anyway.

 

[DickTurpin]

I want it to be FUN too. I just don't wanna have to keep fixing all the inconsistencies.

Make up your mind. Fun? Or an accounting job? Or is accounting fun to you? Find one RPG that simulates an economy. Then come back.

This forum is filled with posts from people complaining about equipment violating the laws of physics which ruins their immersion in the game. Is it so hard to understand that there are some of us who have the same problem with blatant violations of the laws of economics?

A smart missile accelerating at 10 Gs for 30 seconds is one direction and then reversing direction instantly if it misses is no worse than a ship that guarantees massive monetary losses being touted as useful for profit making ventures. Yes, it is possible to ignore all of the logic flaws in the game system and just play the game, but some people just cannot enjoy playing with errors like these constantly irritating them.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

This forum is filled with posts from people complaining about equipment violating the laws of physics which ruins their immersion in the game. Is it so hard to understand that there are some of us who have the same problem with blatant violations of the laws of economics?

A smart missile accelerating at 10 Gs for 30 seconds is one direction and then reversing direction instantly if it misses is no worse than a ship that guarantees massive monetary losses being touted as useful for profit making ventures. Yes, it is possible to ignore all of the logic flaws in the game system and just play the game, but some people just cannot enjoy playing with errors like these constantly irritating them.

True. Some people do worry about the economics and physics of things that don't exist. Artistic license works for me.

 

[phavoc]

This forum is filled with posts from people complaining about equipment violating the laws of physics which ruins their immersion in the game. Is it so hard to understand that there are some of us who have the same problem with blatant violations of the laws of economics?

...Yes, it is possible to ignore all of the logic flaws in the game system and just play the game, but some people just cannot enjoy playing with errors like these constantly irritating them.

Never once talked about the tech. Talked about pay and how a mercenary cruiser can't support itself based upon the rules provided for costs and expenses for small unilts. To make it more clear, if you have players running around in a 800ton merc cruiser wanting to earn a living, pay their ships mortgage and maintenance bills, they cannot based upon the listed amount a small unit of their type can conceivably make. Which means as the referee you have to tweak something else. Isn't the point of buying a set of rules so you don't have to customize everything? And that your players can also have the same set of rules to plan things from? I don't know about you but making a house rule adjustment constantly gets a bit tiring, not to mention it really clutters up my books with notes to keep track of all the changes.

It's sci-fi, I've already accepted jump drives, lasers, fusion, et. al. The forum is also filled with posts from people like you who just dismiss people who point out inconsistencies in the rules. So, touche?

Hate is such a strong word. I prefer debate more myself. The two of you guys used to be connected at the hip, until... the accident.

Anyway, the answer is you can't find an RPG that simulates an economy. Especially one that simulates what an economy would be like in the 57th century. Handwavium is free anyway.

Probably not worth my time to respond to you, but here goes.... again you are not paying attention to what I posted. The stated rules (you know,those words in the books?) tell players and refs how to calculate things like how much a small mercenary unit might expect to get paid for a job, how much it costs to run a small unit, how much it costs to operate a starship.

Yes, you could simply wave your hand and say "all your expenses are paid for, lets just roll dice and blow shit up". Most players I've met over the decades I have played traveller don't play that way. Making money, saving and spending it is an integral part of many adventures.

So if I was mentioning Merchant Prince and the cargo costs, THAT would be simulating an economy and a valid counter-statement by yourself. But since I did not do that, your statement isn't applicable. You don't want to debate, you want to troll-snipe at others. If you wanted to discuss it you would have. But you didn't.

As annoying as F33D could be, at least he wasn't passive-aggressive about his sniping. And accident? Really? THAT was the best you could do? F33D woulda eaten you for lunch.

@Jak Nazryth - Still looking forward to seeing your redesign.

 

[Condottiere]

If I'm not mistaken, the jack of all trades aspect was emphasized originally, though in this particular case, I think that an optimized design would have halved the the tonnage, reconfigured it as aerodynamic and made the Broadsword itself modular.

 

[DickTurpin]

This forum is filled with posts from people complaining about equipment violating the laws of physics which ruins their immersion in the game. Is it so hard to understand that there are some of us who have the same problem with blatant violations of the laws of economics?

...Yes, it is possible to ignore all of the logic flaws in the game system and just play the game, but some people just cannot enjoy playing with errors like these constantly irritating them.

Never once talked about the tech.

Very true, so maybe that comment was not directed at you?

The forum is also filled with posts from people like you who just dismiss people who point out inconsistencies in the rules. So, touche?

No, actually. It was a complete miss. Go back and actually read the comment including the quoted material for context. I was saying that for those who care about the financial aspects of the game money-pit ships like the merc cruiser are every bit as annoying as things that violate real world physics. So I was in fact chiding someone for "dismiss(ing) people who point out inconsistencies in the rules".