I was looking at the scout ship. I don't understand. Why put missiles on a triple turret without any extra missiles on a scout ship? If this ship is scouting ahead for a fleet, wouldn't it make more sense to put some other energy weapon on it instead of a three shot weapon? At least pulse lasers would help improve it's survivability. IMO anyway.
Alien Module 3: Darrians Preview
- Thread starter DeadMike
- Start date
One thing I can think of is that missiles provide flexibility, especially with the options out of High Guard. However, you are spot on regarding lack of missile magazine space.
However, I note that they've allocated 4 tons to drop tanks, which would allow 100 tons of them. Given that it only takes 60 tons for the ship to make a J-3, this should be reduced to 3 tons to allow up to 75 tons of drop tank. Note that with the tanks *attached* the C drive can only manage J-2, which uses 60 tons of fuel. There is no obvious reason for 76-100 tons of drop tankage.
In fact, the best option I can see is for 60 tons of drop tankage, using 2.4 tons on the ship and costing MCr1.2, with tanks themselves costing MCr.012. Frees up 1.6 dtons for a missile magazine holding up to 19 missiles.
The 3 tons of fuel processing plant can also be reduced - on a ship where space is a premium, it seems an odd luxury.
Reducing either by 1 ton will provide magazine space for 12 missiles.
However, I note that they've allocated 4 tons to drop tanks, which would allow 100 tons of them. Given that it only takes 60 tons for the ship to make a J-3, this should be reduced to 3 tons to allow up to 75 tons of drop tank. Note that with the tanks *attached* the C drive can only manage J-2, which uses 60 tons of fuel. There is no obvious reason for 76-100 tons of drop tankage.
In fact, the best option I can see is for 60 tons of drop tankage, using 2.4 tons on the ship and costing MCr1.2, with tanks themselves costing MCr.012. Frees up 1.6 dtons for a missile magazine holding up to 19 missiles.
The 3 tons of fuel processing plant can also be reduced - on a ship where space is a premium, it seems an odd luxury.
Reducing either by 1 ton will provide magazine space for 12 missiles.
Rikki Tikki Traveller
Cosmic Mongoose
The extra fuel tonnage gives you another jump (to get OUT) without having to refuel; a very important feature for a scout.
BUT, I agree that a small missile magazine (even just 1 ton) would be important.
BUT, I agree that a small missile magazine (even just 1 ton) would be important.
Something worth pointing out (and this goes for any CTA players reading as well).
We often do 'standard' ships with intentional weak points and/or inefficiencies. The idea is that, even with Billions of Pounds or Dollars, real world vehicles and equipment, military and otherwise, get produced with flaws. Sometimes they are fixed, sometimes they are not.
Think of the Prius, a hybrid that has no better fuel econony than a better put together diesel.
The Space Shuttle, a reuseable orbiter that was supposed to be going into space every other week for way less cost than it ended up with.
The Comet, a jet airliner with a fatal flaw in its windows.
The Apache, which was supposed to withstand Russian AA fire and yet, by many accounts, seems to be brought down by small arms fire.
Then there is the original SA-80.
I could go on... Feel free to add your own
Anyway, the point is that not everything in sci-fi should be perfect, even when talking about big spaceships. Real world designers find these flaws creep in (pretty sure no one sets about designing a flawed project), but with our simplified construction systems, we have to occasionally build them in.
We often do 'standard' ships with intentional weak points and/or inefficiencies. The idea is that, even with Billions of Pounds or Dollars, real world vehicles and equipment, military and otherwise, get produced with flaws. Sometimes they are fixed, sometimes they are not.
Think of the Prius, a hybrid that has no better fuel econony than a better put together diesel.
The Space Shuttle, a reuseable orbiter that was supposed to be going into space every other week for way less cost than it ended up with.
The Comet, a jet airliner with a fatal flaw in its windows.
The Apache, which was supposed to withstand Russian AA fire and yet, by many accounts, seems to be brought down by small arms fire.
Then there is the original SA-80.
I could go on... Feel free to add your own
Anyway, the point is that not everything in sci-fi should be perfect, even when talking about big spaceships. Real world designers find these flaws creep in (pretty sure no one sets about designing a flawed project), but with our simplified construction systems, we have to occasionally build them in.
It might be fun and in keeping with Traveller's "you don't always get what you want" philosophy to take a cue from the Heavy Gear construction system - after you finish a new design (or even a new ship) roll to see what defects show up on the shakedown cruise. Some things you will be able to live with, some that are critical to fix (and so your ship costs more) and some that you would like to fix, but are design flaws.
I would give "standard" designs some DM on the roll that would prevent the "you can't fix it'" problems, and the better shipyards won't build in obvious problems (that is, you get another DM based on shipyard skill).
For custom designs, the Effect of the Architect's " will go in to the roll. (Don't let the players know the effect - if they are suspicious or overly cautious, they can hire another architect to double-check the work, but at an additional cost of course.)
The sorts of problems I have in mind, in order of increasing seriousness
Design Flaws (require a major refit to correct)
Cramped hallway(s) (RP possibilities)
Bad lighting or security camera coverage in certain areas
Hard to reach maintenance panels
Inefficient Fuel Scooping in a Gas Giant due to poor scoop aerodynamics
Turret arcs obstructed by the hull
Poor Aerodynamics or Cargo Hatch design
Drives can't operate at full efficiency
Construction Flaws (come from bad shipyards and can usually be repaired with the right parts and money)
Strange noises
"Bad Wiring" for internal sensors (false warning lights, etc.)
Cheap bridge control interfaces that require upkeep
Faulty systems (enviro, floor grav, etc.)
Airlocks take too long to cycle or don't form a solid seal when docking
...
Drives that won't respond under certain circumstances
Very slow leak in the hull that doesn't become obvious for a few days (usually by the time you're in J-Space, hehe)
Just some ideas. A more clever person than me could no doubt come up with a fantastic table or three for this sort of thing. (John Brazer, are you listening? )
I would give "standard" designs some DM on the roll that would prevent the "you can't fix it'" problems, and the better shipyards won't build in obvious problems (that is, you get another DM based on shipyard skill).
For custom designs, the Effect of the Architect's " will go in to the roll. (Don't let the players know the effect - if they are suspicious or overly cautious, they can hire another architect to double-check the work, but at an additional cost of course.)
The sorts of problems I have in mind, in order of increasing seriousness
Design Flaws (require a major refit to correct)
Cramped hallway(s) (RP possibilities)
Bad lighting or security camera coverage in certain areas
Hard to reach maintenance panels
Inefficient Fuel Scooping in a Gas Giant due to poor scoop aerodynamics
Turret arcs obstructed by the hull
Poor Aerodynamics or Cargo Hatch design
Drives can't operate at full efficiency
Construction Flaws (come from bad shipyards and can usually be repaired with the right parts and money)
Strange noises
"Bad Wiring" for internal sensors (false warning lights, etc.)
Cheap bridge control interfaces that require upkeep
Faulty systems (enviro, floor grav, etc.)
Airlocks take too long to cycle or don't form a solid seal when docking
...
Drives that won't respond under certain circumstances
Very slow leak in the hull that doesn't become obvious for a few days (usually by the time you're in J-Space, hehe)
Just some ideas. A more clever person than me could no doubt come up with a fantastic table or three for this sort of thing. (John Brazer, are you listening?
)Nice idea hdan!
Hmmm... I have a list somewhere of things that could go wrong for older ships, that could apply. Things like:
Waste disposal units that empty into the ship
Fuel leaking into conduits
Poor insulation causing iris doors to freeze shut based on fuel levels
Reversed grav plate fields
Spontaneously launching escape pods
Need to find it anyway (got a game coming up :twisted: )
Hmmm... I have a list somewhere of things that could go wrong for older ships, that could apply. Things like:
Waste disposal units that empty into the ship
Fuel leaking into conduits
Poor insulation causing iris doors to freeze shut based on fuel levels
Reversed grav plate fields
Spontaneously launching escape pods
Need to find it anyway (got a game coming up :twisted: )
Rikki Tikki Traveller said:
But it only needs 60 dtons to jump. Drop tanks larger than 60 dtons give it no real advantage. If it jumps with them still attached (limiting it to J-2) it could make a further J-1... exactly the same as if it dropped the tanks in the first place and jumped J-3, saving a week.
Given that *this* design is using the High Guard tech rules to the max, including small bridge (not listed, but you can tell by the tonnage), it just seemed odd.
Also, as far as I can tell missile turrets have no "ready use" storage at all, though it used to be one missile per launcher. (Feel free to point me at the rule if I'm wrong). So *some* magazine is required to use the weapon at all. I guess you could fill the 0.5 dTon cargo space with 6 missiles...
@msprange: All due respect, but there's a difference between the kind of flaws you're talking about and the ability to fix 'em. This ship is listed as the standard Darrian scout ship, which means they will have produced them in quantity. At some point (likely to be early on in trials or simulations) the limits of a missile turret with no magazine are going to become obvious, at which point they might either add one or produce the B refit where the missiles are replaced by other weapons systems. Taking a cue from CT, later ships the Gazelle class often had its particle barbettes replaced with missile turrets in service (though in this case the rationale would have been to replace an expensive and overpowered weapon with a cheaper one just as good for the ship's role).
Having said that, the Darrian powers that be may also say that 6 missiles are enough
LOL, only having room for three missiles and the ability to immediatly jump out makes this scout Ideal for use as a launch platform for the star trigger, which according to the original Darrians module, only required a "three missile" system to effect. :twisted:
Not sure how the new Darrian book is going to cover the Darrian Special Arm yet, but this seems to be an ideal design for their use according to what has come before.
I dont see it as so much a design flaw, but more as a mobile launch platform for a space superiority system.
Not sure how the new Darrian book is going to cover the Darrian Special Arm yet, but this seems to be an ideal design for their use according to what has come before.
I dont see it as so much a design flaw, but more as a mobile launch platform for a space superiority system.
Keep in mind that sometimes those "deficiencies" are the result of design compromises that have to be made.
FREX, I was on the project team that designed an automatic car wash teller. The sales team gave us a list of features the product absolutely HAD to have. There were several items they absolutely wouldn't budge on, which resulted several undesirable design compromises that had to be made. One of these was a coin box receptacle that was much smaller than the designers would have liked. We couldn't get sales to budge on several other features that resulted in the compromise.
But according to the sales team it was ok, "because we don't use a lot of coins in the US these days anyway." Fast forward two years, when the product gets introduced to Canada, and this deficiency suddenly becomes a major problem because Canada does use a lot of coins. So of course, the sales team comes at us designers full force screaming about it - at which point we had to none too gently remind them of the features requirements they forced upon is in the first place that caused that particular deficiency to be designed in.
So I can definitely follow Mongoose's logic in creating these things on purpose.
FREX, I was on the project team that designed an automatic car wash teller. The sales team gave us a list of features the product absolutely HAD to have. There were several items they absolutely wouldn't budge on, which resulted several undesirable design compromises that had to be made. One of these was a coin box receptacle that was much smaller than the designers would have liked. We couldn't get sales to budge on several other features that resulted in the compromise.
But according to the sales team it was ok, "because we don't use a lot of coins in the US these days anyway." Fast forward two years, when the product gets introduced to Canada, and this deficiency suddenly becomes a major problem because Canada does use a lot of coins. So of course, the sales team comes at us designers full force screaming about it - at which point we had to none too gently remind them of the features requirements they forced upon is in the first place that caused that particular deficiency to be designed in.
So I can definitely follow Mongoose's logic in creating these things on purpose.
msprange said:Something worth pointing out (and this goes for any CTA players reading as well).
We often do 'standard' ships with intentional weak points and/or inefficiencies. The idea is that, even with Billions of Pounds or Dollars, real world vehicles and equipment, military and otherwise, get produced with flaws. Sometimes they are fixed, sometimes they are not.
Think of the Prius, a hybrid that has no better fuel econony than a better put together diesel.
The Space Shuttle, a reuseable orbiter that was supposed to be going into space every other week for way less cost than it ended up with.
The Comet, a jet airliner with a fatal flaw in its windows.
The Apache, which was supposed to withstand Russian AA fire and yet, by many accounts, seems to be brought down by small arms fire.
Then there is the original SA-80.
I could go on... Feel free to add your own
Anyway, the point is that not everything in sci-fi should be perfect, even when talking about big spaceships. Real world designers find these flaws creep in (pretty sure no one sets about designing a flawed project), but with our simplified construction systems, we have to occasionally build them in.
OK. So this is an untested/new ship then??
These flaws are put in on purpose then?
Mike
DeadMike said:
Doesn't have to be new and untested - I am sure there are some military types around here can quote some long-running equipment that is less than perfect. My old business partner was in the Royal Signals and had some choice words to say about some of the comms equipment...
rinku said:Having said that, the Darrian powers that be may also say that 6 missiles are enough
That is, of course, another side of the debate - the powers that be who make procurement decisions are not the same people who actually have to use the equipment. Better decisions may be made if they did...
Captain Jonah
Mongoose
msprange said:rinku said:Having said that, the Darrian powers that be may also say that 6 missiles are enough
That is, of course, another side of the debate - the powers that be who make procurement decisions are not the same people who actually have to use the equipment. Better decisions may be made if they did...
More likely some byte pusher held a meeting where they decided that giving the ship misiles would encourage the crew to get into fights and risk the ship rather than doing their job of scouting. I have seen sillier things said in meetings when the Non user/non techie/non engineers get involved.
Just remeber as you strap in that your vacc suit was made by a tech 11 world to tech 12 standards they don't understand because the sector duke won a deal to bring trade to his worlds.
The ship you are sitting in was made by the people who put in the lowest bid for the deal, with the smallest and cheapest quality control team and the lowest paid workers and cheapest machines.
Your drives and powerplant were assembled by wage slaves and old worn out autofactories to keep the megacorp profit margins high.
Your computer is running Windows 417 because they won the software wars when their remaining rivals dies in an accidental nuke warhead explosion.
Oh and the man who sent you on this mission has never been in a scout ship, or near a scout ship. Has no field experience or combat experience and got promoted to Admiral because he is someone importants cousin and is good at admin.
Welsome to the Fleet :twisted:
msprange said:
It's also worth pointing out that people might think that you're just saying that to cover up the fact that you just didn't think the designs through properly
. Yes, but there's two kinds of "flaw". One is accidental and unforeseen (e.g. a key component fails under a specific set of conditions that weren't considered very likely but happen more than the designers thought), and the other is caused by shortcuts, budget cutbacks, or stupid design (e.g. "what do you mean, the doors to the emergency exits can't open if the power goes out?" or "so this Hull-integrated omnidirectioanl sensor grid is great, apart from the fact that just one part of the ship's hull gets damaged in any way, the entire sensor grid goes down and can't be repaired outside a starport?!").
The former are not uncommon, and likely to be found in ship and vehicle designs. The latter, not really common at all - especially in things that are mass produced - because problems like that tend to get fixed very quickly, especially when lives could be in danger. A good example of this would be the recent car recalls in the US.
The scout ship thing seems to be an example of the second type of "flaw" (which may be more accurately be called an "oversight").
I don't think eeither of these are comparable to the scout ship though. The first is a budget overrun, the second was an unforeseen design flaw.
I think the "Lemon Dice" approach used by Dream Pod 9 (and described by another poster here) would be a much better approach. Then you could add minor flaws, such as faulty air recycling systems (which I believe the normal Suleiman Scout ship is described as having in CT), landing struts that more maintainance than usual or they don't work properly, sensors that glitch in certain circumstances, etc. These cause occasional problems, but aren't worth doing full recalls over.
Deliberately making dumb design decisions just looks like you're simulating people making dumb design decisions (or you're really making dumb decisions and not realising it until people point it out afterwards), not emulating the fact that sometimes things don't quite work the way they're supposed to work. Maybe that's what you're doing in this case, but as I said, it's very likely that the design would be fixed if the people using the ships found it to be a problem.
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
msprange said:rinku said:Having said that, the Darrian powers that be may also say that 6 missiles are enough
That is, of course, another side of the debate - the powers that be who make procurement decisions are not the same people who actually have to use the equipment. Better decisions may be made if they did...
Famous argument in the british army during the changeover from single-shot breech loaders to magazine rifles: If the troops have more bullets, they'll waste them, lose the magazine and then the weapon won't have anything to fire when its important. One shot encourages one good shot.
Bollux, but it was a real professional argument put forth during design and procurement that had a good chance of delaying the multishot rifle.
Perhaps a similar argument for small scout ships occurred ? "We want them to run away and return with the scouting data, maybe fire a special round at most first, but RUN AWAY. No. More shots encourages more fighting, which they will lose. And it takes up space we can use on <fill in pet projects> Three is it. "
