Art: New project Heavy Cargo Ship WIP

[wbnc]

Use of this sort of ship would change the dynamics of shipping no doubt, and would require a fairly substantial bit of infrastructure. But the added profitability is definitely a strong incentive.

the best solution would be to build a high port and a switching yard...
The Highport could act as a central hub, handling smaller vessels, civilian, and passenger traffic.it would also handle cargo distribution and assembly of cargo stacks. Tugs/shuttles haul the assembled and sorted stacks and handle orbit to surface delivery. A switching yard could be built further out to handle the stacks of cargo, transfer stacks between vessels and refuel the ships for fast turn around. this also has the added benefit of separating the heavy commercial traffic from smaller civil vessels and passenger transports. A Noble out for a cruise in his yacht won't be delaying a cargo ship carrying heavy cargo.

Since these ships can spare more interior space without losing an unacceptable amount of cargo volume. they could have crew quarters that are more suitable for long-term stays. Instead of laying over at the highport for rest and recreation the crews spend most of their time on the ship itself and only rotate out for vacations or at the end of their assignment.

I was thinking about working on stations for supporting these sorts of vessels someone beat me to the punch with "Jump Station Echo" a station along the lines of the jump station and container ships would be a good combo . Especially since a ship taking advantage of a Jumpstation could leave its drop tanks behind when it jumps freeing up tons of cargo volume.

As I have them laid out at full load the ships have 1 gee thrust. although they can generate higher thrust when running light. if they wanted to jog in system to dock with a highport nd then back out to the switching yard it wouldn't be a problem at all.

The model works for the right set of planetary pairs, where costs justifications and shipping volumes can accommodate this. Other systems, that are busy by themselves might have such a thing as well, though it's really going to be system-dependent. And it depends on the infrastructure and breakdown of the system, too. For those systems that have planetary pairs, or are perhaps spread out like in an asteroid belt it may not make as much sense. Stuff like this is great for background creation, but trying to model it would be a big pain in the butt. It's better to leave up to ref's, or as background suggestions for people to insert in their own campaigns.

I don't see the primary station going away. Smaller tramp freighters are still going to ply the high ports / downports to delivery their cargo's. This sort of model works for the high-tempo big boys. The old Mora spacelines had 5,000 ton freighters running up and down the Marches. That might be the lower end of where this makes economic sense. But without better data models it's anyone's guess.

I don't think ships of this type would have that much different interiors. Maybe a few more common areas, but then again, you might be swapping out crews too. Since you mentioned switching yards (i.e. railroads), rail crews operate in their work zones. When they hit the outer edges they hop off the train and another crew takes it. Ships might work the same, with the crew being swapped out at the destination and picking up the next ship coming along in a day or three.

I'm not a big fan of the droptanks and lots of external cargo mounts. Ship designs should mirror the adage form follows function. In the BOOKS you see these things, but what people model in their sci-fi games doesn't always translate well into trying to model what makes practical sense. But everyone needs to determine what 'sense' makes the most for their own gaming universes. I for one have no issue with drop tanks, however I don't see them as being everywhere all the time. They are used when needed to bridge a gap. Beyond that they should be discouraged. The old rule of the possibility of them being destroyed made them ok for naval adventures, but discourages them for merchants. I prefer that mindset.

It is a bit tricky to figure out the underlying economics of a setting. Unless you are well versed in such things. the rest of us have to make due with best guesses and hope no one comes along who can run the numbers and shoot holes in our setting.

I lie to supply suggestions for several ways to use a ship. In this case you could use it as a set piece, or location for adventures. So if you want a few of them running along set routes, or as a major ship type yu can flavor your setting to taste.

I tend to use a lot of drop tank equipped ships In my settings where Jump Drive is used. Mostly to allow a ship to span gaps that would normally force a longer route for J-1, or J-2 ships. I haven't worked in ships that require drop tanks to function since most of my plaers tend to like small vessel and dont make thri credits running cargo...

 

[steve98052]

It is a bit tricky to figure out the underlying economics of a setting. Unless you are well versed in such things. the rest of us have to make due with best guesses and hope no one comes along who can run the numbers and shoot holes in our setting.

For this reason, I would say that GURPS Traveller Far Trader is essential reading for trade economics in a setting where trade is based on jump drive. At least one of the three authors is an economist, and GURPS people in general tend to be hardcore simulationists, so the playtesting caught a lot that the authors didn't quite get right on the first public drafts.

One catch about it is that GURPS Traveller ships don't have the same cost and volume as Mongoose ships. For one thing, power plants are pre-fueled with 200 years worth of fuel -- which is reasonable, if you work out the energy density of fusion. For another, its maneuver drives are big while jump drives are small, which is the opposite of Mongoose. For a third, it makes a distinction between dtons (a volume of about 14 cubic meters) and tons (a mass of about 907 kg), and bases acceleration on the latter. Those differences can change the balance of where LASH, tugs and inert modules, and internal container holds are most economical

Another catch is that the level of detail that appeals to an economist and simulationists may make others' eyes glaze over.

One point not to worry about is the game system. It's perfectly reasonable to mix systems; I am using GURPS Traveller shipbuilding rules, Mongoose character generation, and converting characters to Risus for actual play.

Also, elsewhere in this topic you mentioned greater attention to magazines for expendables. Note that Mongoose bases missile and sandcaster canisters solely on mass. For example, I think Mongoose says 12 standard missiles are 1 tonne, but you can easily fit 50 into one dton of volume.

 

[Jeraa]

Also, elsewhere in this topic you mentioned greater attention to magazines for expendables. Note that Mongoose bases missile and sandcaster canisters solely on mass. For example, I think Mongoose says 12 standard missiles are 1 tonne, but you can easily fit 50 into one dton of volume.

No. Everywhere it says "tons" in the Mongoose starship design sequence, it is always displacement tons. So where it says 12 missiles take 1 ton, it means 12 missiles take 1 displacement ton. Likewise with the 20 sandcaster barrels. IF you need example, look at any ship with missiles (like the troop transport on HG page 104 - 24 missiles in 2 tons of space and 40 sandcaster barrels in 2 tons of space.)