Bridge tonnage discrepancy

[Condottiere]

Basic sensors are essentially virtual, and free.

One issue with a virtual bridge, is, that it would appear that quite a lot of bridge systems take up no discernible volume.

 

[swordtart]

So back in the day it was 20 DTons minimum leaving the scout only 80 tons for actual useful components. 2% sounds reasonable if you ignore the 20 ton minimum. I'd even happily add on 1DTon per multifunction crew station. If you only put one station on the scout ship then only one crewmember can use the ships systems. It doesn't stop crew heading into engineering and walloping things with hammers, but it would stop them operating the jump initiator circuits.

 

[Sigtrygg]

basic controls - 1%, 1 ton min
avionics -1%, 1 ton min
guidance radar, scanners, detectors, sensors -1%, 1 ton min
drive controls (for each type of drive) - 1-3%, 1 ton min
comms - 1%, 1 ton min
other equipment for proper operation of the ship - 1%, 1 ton min

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

So back in the day it was 20 DTons minimum leaving the scout only 80 tons for actual useful components. 2% sounds reasonable if you ignore the 20 ton minimum.

I was looking at some of those early scouts today. 40 tons of jump fuel (for 1 jump 2 including 4 weeks power plant). So bridge + fuel 60% of the ship.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Yup, and ever since it has been a race to give something for nothing.

By removing the mandatory 20t bridge and reducing the power plant fuel you grant the 100t scout more room for speculative trade, you may as well scrap the 20% jump fuel requirement too.

Munchkin scout/courier 2 ton bridge, 3 ton drives, 12 ton staterooms, 4 ton air/raft, 1 ton harpoint, 78 tons cargo.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

Using current rules I have a 1 man 100 ton ship with a J-2 drive and M-1. It carries enough fuel for J-1 in its onboard tank and the final 10 tons in a mountable tank. It has 54 tons of cargo (64 if you remove the mountable tank and do J-1). 17.838 MCr as a standard design. Wouldn't be able to fight or outrun a pirate, no good for a team of PCs (only 1 stateroom) but as a solo trader cheap with lots of cargo ability for the size, very low overhead.

Personally though I prefer my TL 11 180 ton Explorer craft J-2, M-3 extra sensor equipment and a 100 ton module for customization (jump fuel in the module, optionally in mountable tanks) 12 weeks fuel on the ship. 55.8846 MCr as a standard design. Dual turret with pulse lasers, 2 sand casters on firm points and a laser drill on a firm point. Much more flexible and PC friendly though when sold surplus the Basic Stealth is disabled (though it can be restored unofficially). Variants sold as a "slim trader", survey craft, courier etc.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Using current rules I have a 1 man 100 ton ship with a J-2 drive and M-1. It carries enough fuel for J-1 in its onboard tank and the final 10 tons in a mountable tank. It has 54 tons of cargo (64 if you remove the mountable tank and do J-1). 17.838 MCr as a standard design. Wouldn't be able to fight or outrun a pirate, no good for a team of PCs (only 1 stateroom) but as a solo trader cheap with lots of cargo ability for the size, very low overhead.

Personally though I prefer my TL 11 180 ton Explorer craft J-2, M-3 extra sensor equipment and a 100 ton module for customization (jump fuel in the module, optionally in mountable tanks) 12 weeks fuel on the ship. 55.8846 MCr as a standard design. Dual turret with pulse lasers, 2 sand casters on firm points and a laser drill on a firm point. Much more flexible and PC friendly though when sold surplus the Basic Stealth is disabled (though it can be restored unofficially). Variants sold as a "slim trader", survey craft, courier etc.

Here is my Kinhome 100-ton merchant. J2, but half the fuel in a 10-ton cargo/fuel tank to allow more cargo on a J1. 59.55 tons with a J1 and 49.55 tons with J2.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

Very similar design. Key differences are TL 12 vs TL 11, 2 crew vs 1 and collapsible fuel tank vs mountable. (Yours listed first mine 2nd). Mine also has a .5 ton biosphere.

One thing I assume with mountables is that they are CHEAP. The cost of a month removing them is more than the value of the tank so it would often be torn apart and removed in minimal time. You have to buy a new one and install it but you had most of that month to make money when you tore it out. This 100 ton ship would be sold with it as an option, so you could buy your ship as an effective J-1 or for a slight extra charge as J-2. You might need J-2 to get to your trading area then benefit by becoming J-1.

I am considering a variant with two 30 ton modules. It has the advantage of being able to use/deliver standard 30 ton modules where needed but breaks up the cargo hold into 3 sections (though the non modular section could have that mountable fuel tank with 4 tons of fuel and the balance of your jump fuel in a module). Advantage is changing the module makes you J-1 or J-2 in hours not a month. I might put ALL the jump fuel in mountables allowing the ship to be converted to interplanetary with 74 tons of cargo by removing both tanks.

I have a similar TL 9 400 ton 1 man ship that could be used as a cheaper (49.977 MCr as standard) subsidized merchant as long as you don't want it to carry passengers. If I made it with modules (at least 1x 100 ton) it could leave a passenger module on the subsidizing planet for no cost and only pick it up when they need to bring in/send out people. A minor adjustment could bring it up to 300 tons of cargo capacity with or without the modules. Advantage of course is that modules can function as prefab (but durable) facilities. You could bring in a small hospital or power plant. Even small space stations.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Very similar design. Key differences are TL 12 vs TL 11, 2 crew vs 1 and collapsible fuel tank vs mountable. (Yours listed first mine 2nd). Mine also has a .5 ton biosphere.

One thing I assume with mountables is that they are CHEAP. The cost of a month removing them is more than the value of the tank so it would often be torn apart and removed in minimal time. You have to buy a new one and install it but you had most of that month to make money when you tore it out. This 100 ton ship would be sold with it as an option, so you could buy your ship as an effective J-1 or for a slight extra charge as J-2. You might need J-2 to get to your trading area then benefit by becoming J-1.

I am considering a variant with two 30 ton modules. It has the advantage of being able to use/deliver standard 30 ton modules where needed but breaks up the cargo hold into 3 sections (though the non modular section could have that mountable fuel tank with 4 tons of fuel and the balance of your jump fuel in a module). Advantage is changing the module makes you J-1 or J-2 in hours not a month. I might put ALL the jump fuel in mountables allowing the ship to be converted to interplanetary with 74 tons of cargo by removing both tanks.

I have a similar TL 9 400 ton 1 man ship that could be used as a cheaper (49.977 MCr as standard) subsidized merchant as long as you don't want it to carry passengers. If I made it with modules (at least 1x 100 ton) it could leave a passenger module on the subsidizing planet for no cost and only pick it up when they need to bring in/send out people. A minor adjustment could bring it up to 300 tons of cargo capacity with or without the modules. Advantage of course is that modules can function as prefab (but durable) facilities. You could bring in a small hospital or power plant. Even small space stations.

Mine is a mixed use internal compartment that can be either fuel or cargo. It’s not collapsible. It can use collapsible fuel bladders (internal) to get across up to a 4-parsec rift.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Mine is a mixed use internal compartment that can be either fuel or cargo. It’s not collapsible. It can use collapsible fuel bladders (internal) to get across up to a 4-parsec rift.

Just a random thought... Can you use the mixed-use internal storage for liquid cargo, without modification, when it is not being used as a fuel tank?

 

[Terry Mixon]

Just a random thought... Can you use the mixed-use internal storage for liquid cargo, without modification, when it is not being used as a fuel tank?

Yes. If it can handle fuel, it can handle liquids.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Yes. If it can handle fuel, it can handle liquids.

Only at cold temperatures or at middling and high temperatures as well?

 

[Terry Mixon]

Only at cold temperatures or at middling and high temperatures as well?

I’d imagine a range, not just cold.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Only at cold temperatures or at middling and high temperatures as well?

Wait… Are you wanting to transport 10 tons of… brewed coffee?

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

Wait… Are you wanting to transport 10 tons of… brewed coffee?

Not in my ship. First I don't allow that option as I've seen real world issues with tankers switching between materials and there being missed contamination in the clean out/purging. Second I can't stand the smell/taste of coffee. Third I have unusual reactions to caffeine that I don't want to go back to experiencing.

 

[rinku]

The edition history of Bridges:

Book 2 1977: (ships up to 5000 tons) 20 tons, Cr500,000 per 100 tons of mass displacement
High Guard 1979: (naval ships up to 1,000,000 tons) any ship of 100 tons or more requires a bridge of 20 tons per 1000 tons of ship, Cr500,000 per 100 tons of ship.
High Guard 1980: (naval ships up to 1,000,000 tons) 2% of total hull, minimum 20 tons, Cr5000 per ton of ship
Book 2 1981: (ships up to 5000 tons) 2% of total hull, minimum 20 tons, MCr0.5 for 100 tons of hull (which has been expressed the same in all later editions).

So while CT evolved between original release and the 1981 revision, in ALL cases ALL 1000 ton or smaller starships have a 20 ton bridge, and the cost is the same. All the standard designs are fine in all four publications. HG79 and HG80 only differ for ships over 1000 tons that do not have hulls that are in 1000 ton values. Kinunir would be such a ship - 20 ton bridge in Book 2 77, 40 ton bridge in HG77, 24 ton bridge in HG80 or Book 2 81. (Kinunir is an edge case. Colour me surprised...)

Megatraveller... conflates bridge stuff with hull stuff and it all gets a bit messy. You calculate the control points and all of the actual sensors and life support and grav plates and airlocks and the actual size of the bridge could be anything. Some people like this approach, it's not my cup of tea. Suffice it to say it's probably best to put MegaTraveller aside for the most part when assessing Mongoose ship design things.

TNE Does define a bridge, as a collection of 1 ton workstations, but a ship only requires one if there are two or more command crew required. So in TNE, ships with smaller control requirements (generally smaller and civilian ones)will have work stations and a flight deck, but not bridges as such. Somewhat the same as MegaTraveller, but much better laid out.

MGT1e Core: (ships up to 2000 tons) 200 tons or less = 10 tons; 300 to 1000 tons = 20 tons; 1100 to 2000 tons = 40 tons; more than 2000 tons = 60 tons.
This seems to be the first time it was put into table form, and is basically a fail unless tonnages between 100 ton units aren't allowed. The text mentions using the next highest hull for performance if not listed, but there are missing columns above 1000 tons, so that may just be referring to those.

MGT2e16 HG: 1-50 tons = 3 tons; 51-99 tons = 6 tons; 100-200 tons = 10 tons; 201-1000 tons = 20 tons; 1001-2000 tons = 40 tons; 2000 tons or more = 60 tons.
Smaller and Command bridges can be taken as options. Command Bridges need a 5000+ ton ship and are 80 tons.
Better than 1e, but a clear error at 2000 tons. Annoying, but clearly that should still be 2001 tons or more.

MGT2e22 HG: 1-50 tons = 3 tons; 51-99 tons = 6 tons; 100-200 tons = 10 tons; 201-1000 tons = 20 tons; 1001-2000 tons = 40 tons; 2001-100,000 tons = 60 tons; 100,001 tons = +20 tons for every additional 100,000 tons of ship.
Smaller and Command bridges can be taken as options. Command bridges need a 5000+ ton ship and add 40 tons to the existing required bridge.
A cleaned up and extended version of 1e.

MGT2e CRB: 1-50 tons = 3 tons; 51-100 tons = 6 tons; 101-200 tons = 10 tons; 201-1000 tons = 20 tons; 1001-2000 tons = 40 tons; 2001+ tons = 60 tons.
And here we have it. The problem.

So what to draw from all that? Honestly, I dunno. ALL Mongoose era 100 and 200 ton ships have smaller bridges than classic era ones. Every CT and MGT ship in the 300-1000 ton range has a 20 ton bridge requirement. MegaT and TNE aren't a lot of help, but do allow for a smaller ship to have smaller flight decks, so there is some justification for a 6 ton bridge there.

I think I'll just stick with a 10 ton bridge on 100 ton ships, to be honest. Or maybe rule that a STARSHIP bridge has a 10 ton minimum size. So throw a 6 ton bridge on any 100 ton non-starship hull, sure.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

Better than 1e, but a clear error at 2000 tons. Annoying, but clearly that should still be 2001 tons or more.

Why is that a clear error?

 

[Terry Mixon]

Not in my ship. First I don't allow that option as I've seen real world issues with tankers switching between materials and there being missed contamination in the clean out/purging. Second I can't stand the smell/taste of coffee. Third I have unusual reactions to caffeine that I don't want to go back to experiencing.

I was looking at @MasterGwydion.

 

[mavikfelna]

The edition history of Bridges:

Book 2 1977: (ships up to 5000 tons) 20 tons, Cr500,000 per 100 tons of mass displacement
High Guard 1979: (naval ships up to 1,000,000 tons) any ship of 100 tons or more requires a bridge of 20 tons per 1000 tons of ship, Cr500,000 per 100 tons of ship.
High Guard 1980: (naval ships up to 1,000,000 tons) 2% of total hull, minimum 20 tons, Cr5000 per ton of ship
Book 2 1981: (ships up to 5000 tons) 2% of total hull, minimum 20 tons, MCr0.5 for 100 tons of hull (which has been expressed the same in all later editions).

So while CT evolved between original release and the 1981 revision, in ALL cases ALL 1000 ton or smaller starships have a 20 ton bridge, and the cost is the same. All the standard designs are fine in all four publications. HG79 and HG80 only differ for ships over 1000 tons that do not have hulls that are in 1000 ton values. Kinunir would be such a ship - 20 ton bridge in Book 2 77, 40 ton bridge in HG77, 24 ton bridge in HG80 or Book 2 81. (Kinunir is an edge case. Colour me surprised...)

Megatraveller... conflates bridge stuff with hull stuff and it all gets a bit messy. You calculate the control points and all of the actual sensors and life support and grav plates and airlocks and the actual size of the bridge could be anything. Some people like this approach, it's not my cup of tea. Suffice it to say it's probably best to put MegaTraveller aside for the most part when assessing Mongoose ship design things.

TNE Does define a bridge, as a collection of 1 ton workstations, but a ship only requires one if there are two or more command crew required. So in TNE, ships with smaller control requirements (generally smaller and civilian ones)will have work stations and a flight deck, but not bridges as such. Somewhat the same as MegaTraveller, but much better laid out.

MGT1e Core: (ships up to 2000 tons) 200 tons or less = 10 tons; 300 to 1000 tons = 20 tons; 1100 to 2000 tons = 40 tons; more than 2000 tons = 60 tons.
This seems to be the first time it was put into table form, and is basically a fail unless tonnages between 100 ton units aren't allowed. The text mentions using the next highest hull for performance if not listed, but there are missing columns above 1000 tons, so that may just be referring to those.

MGT2e16 HG: 1-50 tons = 3 tons; 51-99 tons = 6 tons; 100-200 tons = 10 tons; 201-1000 tons = 20 tons; 1001-2000 tons = 40 tons; 2000 tons or more = 60 tons.
Smaller and Command bridges can be taken as options. Command Bridges need a 5000+ ton ship and are 80 tons.
Better than 1e, but a clear error at 2000 tons. Annoying, but clearly that should still be 2001 tons or more.

MGT2e22 HG: 1-50 tons = 3 tons; 51-99 tons = 6 tons; 100-200 tons = 10 tons; 201-1000 tons = 20 tons; 1001-2000 tons = 40 tons; 2001-100,000 tons = 60 tons; 100,001 tons = +20 tons for every additional 100,000 tons of ship.
Smaller and Command bridges can be taken as options. Command bridges need a 5000+ ton ship and add 40 tons to the existing required bridge.
A cleaned up and extended version of 1e.

MGT2e CRB: 1-50 tons = 3 tons; 51-100 tons = 6 tons; 101-200 tons = 10 tons; 201-1000 tons = 20 tons; 1001-2000 tons = 40 tons; 2001+ tons = 60 tons.
And here we have it. The problem.

So what to draw from all that? Honestly, I dunno. ALL Mongoose era 100 and 200 ton ships have smaller bridges than classic era ones. Every CT and MGT ship in the 300-1000 ton range has a 20 ton bridge requirement. MegaT and TNE aren't a lot of help, but do allow for a smaller ship to have smaller flight decks, so there is some justification for a 6 ton bridge there.

I think I'll just stick with a 10 ton bridge on 100 ton ships, to be honest. Or maybe rule that a STARSHIP bridge has a 10 ton minimum size. So throw a 6 ton bridge on any 100 ton non-starship hull, sure.

If Starship bridge min limit is 10, that breaks all the 100 tonners using small bridges.

 

[MyndkryM]

T5 uses a similar method as the above mentioned TNE; which forgoes allocating for a bridge. Instead, Consoles (tonnage can vary) are purchased and allocated to interface with a number of Control Panels. This then can be used to calculate a Ship Ergonomics score. It's a neat game mechanic, but maybe a little "getting into the weeds" way of building ships.

I should note that a T5 Scout/Courier has 16 tons worth of Consoles and the Beowulf has 20 tons worth.