Art:200 Ton Free trader

[Reynard]

I get this feeling T-T's reference to a wider, more educated audience has something to do with all those MENSA snobs that want to play Traveller for the last 40 years but can't because it's so beneath their sense of reality.

 

[fusor]

I get this feeling T-T's reference to a wider, more educated audience has something to do with all those MENSA snobs that want to play Traveller for the last 40 years but can't because it's so beneath their sense of reality.

Honestly? I'm all for realism in sci-fi. I'm just smart enough to realise that if I want that in a game then I can either modify an existing game to be more realistic at my table, or find a game that is realistic enough for my tastes - not rail on about throwing out the whole game that's on the market and replacing it with something totally different. I'm also smart enough to realise that Hard sci-fi is not a "wider audience" either (a more discerning one? Perhaps).

But again, enough of the derailing. Talking about a 200 ton free trader, remember?

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

If you want to add realism to it in your own games, then go nuts and add realism there. If you want to add realistic options to the game for everyone else to use, then that's fine too. But your approach of saying "it's all wrong, throw it all out and start again" is unconstructive and confrontational and really obnoxious - if you want to do that then either do it yourself in your own games, or go play something else more in line with what you want.

Realism isn’t something you can just add. It has to built from the ground up. The fantastic can be added trivially because it’s all made-up nonsense, and you can just make up more nonsense to make it work, and no one will care. But realism has to conform to reality; and, sometimes, preexisting concepts in a game’s design make that impossible.

 

[wbnc]

I get this feeling T-T's reference to a wider, more educated audience has something to do with all those MENSA snobs that want to play Traveller for the last 40 years but can't because it's so beneath their sense of reality.

Honestly? I'm all for realism in sci-fi. I'm just smart enough to realise that if I want that in a game then I can either modify an existing game to be more realistic at my table, or find a game that is realistic enough for my tastes - not rail on about throwing out the whole game that's on the market and replacing it with something totally different. I'm also smart enough to realise that Hard sci-fi is not a "wider audience" either (a more discerning one? Perhaps).

But again, enough of the derailing. Talking about a 200 ton free trader, remember?

T-T keeps me on my toes.... Someone who makes me consider a design choice is a valuable, if sometimes frustrating, asset. I consider all feedback from simple aesthetic advice to questions about the functionality of an aspect of the design.


But yes, lets discuss this wonderful craft and all of it's amazing features

 

[fusor]

T-T keeps me on my toes.... Someone who makes me consider a design choice is a valuable, if sometimes frustrating, asset. I consider all feedback from simple aesthetic advice to questions about the functionality of an aspect of the design.

Yeah but there's not much you can do if he's complaining about how wrong the tech assumptions of the setting are, as opposed to anything specific about your ship. That sort of thing isn't constructive or useful.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

James Rowe’s invalid assumption about the setting was something that needed to be corrected for constructive advice to be issued. My divergence into what the setting itself assumes were purely a function of his responses. Let’s please return this thread to its proper subject.

 

[fusor]

James Rowe’s invalid assumption about the setting was something that needed to be corrected for constructive advice to be issued. My divergence into what the setting itself assumes were purely a function of his responses. Let’s please return this thread to its proper subject.

Throwing blame around doesn't help anyone or anything here, and it doesn't help get the topic back on track.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

I wasn’t blaming anyone. I was explaining the series of events that occurred, since you appeared to not understand how we got here.

 

[wbnc]

guys there is red text already showing up around here.....let's save the Mods a bit of typing....I'd like to keep talking to everyone without The Wrath of the great and mighty, all praise their beneficent wisdom, ma the Hammer of Bahn never be used in anger....

How about On a count of three we let it go

and three shall be the counting, not one, or unless you proceed directly to three.....1....2...4...no no no ..3!!!

Okay back to the ship. I am thinking of using the slimmer version as a fast transport version, smaller less cargo space, higher engine to tonnage ratio...


So it would go like this

Light Trader/Packet Boat : 100 ton "hot shot" cargo, charter,"mail boat", logistics and support, personal transport)
fast trader: 100 ton higher thrust, longer jump ( definitely for "creative" entrepreneurs)
free Trader: As written
Far trader : As written
Frontier Trader: Ruggedized/well armed Far trader.
Fat Trader: Ditto

 

[Jame Rowe]

I'm thinking your Free Trader is cool if not in the original style - but I think style would tend to change over the years anyways. Obviously your version is a variant.
And after all, tech will change and has multiple designs and implementations. (Regardless of what certain individuals think.)

 

[phavoc]

guys there is red text already showing up around here.....let's save the Mods a bit of typing....I'd like to keep talking to everyone without The Wrath of the great and mighty, all praise their beneficent wisdom, ma the Hammer of Bahn never be used in anger....

How about On a count of three we let it go

and three shall be the counting, not one, or unless you proceed directly to three.....1....2...4...no no no ..3!!!

Okay back to the ship. I am thinking of using the slimmer version as a fast transport version, smaller less cargo space, higher engine to tonnage ratio...


So it would go like this

Light Trader/Packet Boat : 100 ton "hot shot" cargo, charter,"mail boat", logistics and support, personal transport)
fast trader: 100 ton higher thrust, longer jump ( definitely for "creative" entrepreneurs)
free Trader: As written
Far trader : As written
Frontier Trader: Ruggedized/well armed Far trader.
Fat Trader: Ditto

The original CT frontier trader was built to a larger scale, which made a lot of sense - operating in the deep is expensive if you have to arm your ship so heavily. A smaller vessel would be able to trade in much smaller sets of goods. Good for smuggling and such, but worlds that have to depend on small armed freighters for commerce might not have the economic capability to trade. There's always going to be something to buy/sell, but it should be iffy at best. If it's that lucrative, then more people are going to come and try to take your biz.

Just tossing that out. It's not like the premise is invalid, and hey, PC's always are going to go for up-gunned ships.

 

[wbnc]

Okay I remember the frontier Trader now. a bigger tougher ship always finds an owner. Trading on the raggedy edge should always be iffy,thats for sure.

 

[Condottiere]

Flat trader

 

[wbnc]

Flat trader

It do have the look.... more like a 20 ton transport drone ...

 

[Condottiere]

More significant as having a single deck, which tends to affect the type of cargo you can load, and their placement.

 

[wbnc]

More significant as having a single deck, which tends to affect the type of cargo you can load, and their placement.

true, very true. However...

Te design is intended to allow cars to pass under the bus while it's moving...but it does create a space to attach external cargo if you wanted to use the shape as a ship

it could extend it's landing gear straddle cargo pods to load/unload

 

[-Daniel-]

...but it does create a space to attach external cargo if you wanted to use the shape as a ship
it could extend it's landing gear straddle cargo pods to load/unload

Wouldn't that impact it's handling while going through the atmosphere? Seems having the cargo hanging outside would be bad.

 

[wbnc]

...but it does create a space to attach external cargo if you wanted to use the shape as a ship
it could extend it's landing gear straddle cargo pods to load/unload

Wouldn't that impact it's handling while going through the atmosphere? Seems having the cargo hanging outside would be bad.

It'snot good for it to say the least.But it would not render the craft unflyable.the Russians have really BIG sky cranes already

Unless a pilot was trying to do something complex the only effect would be on top speed and how it handled crosswinds and sudden gusts. as long as the clamps could handle the force of a 100-200 Mph wind they would be fine. ad since a modern twistlock of a container ship can stand up to a stack of containers six or seven high, in rough seas there are ways to handle the load.

 

[-Daniel-]

It'snot good for it to say the least.But it would not render the craft unflyable.the Russians have really BIG sky cranes already

Unless a pilot was trying to do something complex the only effect would be on top speed and how it handled crosswinds and sudden gusts. as long as the clamps could handle the force of a 100-200 Mph wind they would be fine. ad since a modern twistlock of a container ship can stand up to a stack of containers six or seven high, in rough seas there are ways to handle the load.

To be fair I believe the Helo is moving too slow to break free of the planet, but I get the point you are trying to make.

 

[Condottiere]

Luckily, you have the option to neutralize the gravitational effect a large mass has, and if you have the time, you just float up.

You could replace the blades with a revolving saucer.