Deckplan Design Derby - 800 ton "Cruiser"

[far-trader]

Are we to assume the TL is 12 for purposes of hull/structure, type of armor, and cost breaks / upgrades per high guard rules?

My vote would be yes for the part 1 suggestion above, using the base version and doing deckplans with limited changes. If my part 2 suggestion were added then it'd be up to the designer I guess to make it a higher (or possibly lower with less range) TL.

 

[Vile]

I'd say throw it open using just the performance spec (tonnage, Gs, Jump, hard points, troop number and small craft tonnage), that way you will get the maximum number and variety of entries. And that mirrors the sort of brief you'd get in an actual design competition, after all, the customer only cares about what the 'cruiser' can do, not how it does it.

 

[GypsyComet]

:?

Alright, lets take a broad approach to this, then.

Entrants may, for each entry, pick one of the following options:

Type C-09: Use the tonnage breakdown of the MGT Core, including the external Armor (though that doesn't need to be shown), for a completely new configuration and/or deckplan. We will assume, for now, that the drives mixup is compensated by component armor, so the drive tonnage would be the same either way.

Type C-77: Use the tonnage breakdown of the MGT Core as in the C-09 spec, but replace all carried craft except the Air/Raft (ie. the Cutters and Drones) with the carried craft complement of your choice. The one requirement of the carried craft is that they must include general use craft (so not just escape pods) and must be fitted in pairs if equal in size or smaller than the Cutter. Examples would include an even number of fighters, two Ships Boats, two Pinnaces, or one Shuttle (since it is larger than a Cutter).

Type C-12: Use the general Type C spec (800 tons, drive performance 3 in all categories, 40 crew and passengers, Air/Raft and a pair of general purpose landing craft, capable of refueling itself as delivered) and design from scratch. External and drive armor are not assumed for this spec.

You may enter more than once, as long as the Spec is noted on each entry. C-77 and C-12 entries should include a tonnage breakdown. This is first and foremost a deckplan derby, so no entry should be without. If you have an idea but no drafting talent, or if you do not have access to the Mongoose Traveller design rules and wish to use the C-77 or C-12 spec, speak up.

This updated spec will also be posted to the Deckplans Yahoo Group.

 

[FreeTrav]

:?

Alright, lets take a broad approach to this, then.

Entrants may, for each entry, pick one of the following options:

Type C-09: ...

Type C-77: ...

Type C-12: ...

You may enter more than once, as long as the Spec is noted on each entry. C-77 and C-12 entries should include a tonnage breakdown. This is first and foremost a deckplan derby, so no entry should be without. If you have an idea but no drafting talent, or if you do not have access to the Mongoose Traveller design rules and wish to use the C-77 or C-12 spec, speak up.

This updated spec will also be posted to the Deckplans Yahoo Group.

Query: The classical 800t Merc was essentially a Sphere (SL), capable of landing on a planet's surface. Is this to be assumed to be a fundamental requirement, or can redesigns be non-atmospheric (e.g., Slab config)?

 

[GypsyComet]

As both of the early 3rd party variants were non-landers, the ability to land the ship is not a requirement. The ability to land its passengers is a part of all three specs, while the ability to refuel itself is explicit in the C-12 spec and implied but not required in the other two. These requirements will tend to lead to some combinations of streamlining and subcraft not being viable.

 

[FreeTrav]

As both of the early 3rd party variants were non-landers, the ability to land the ship is not a requirement. The ability to land its passengers is a part of all three specs, while the ability to refuel itself is explicit in the C-12 spec and implied but not required in the other two. These requirements will tend to lead to some combinations of streamlining and subcraft not being viable.

OK, very good. One more quick question for clarification:

Type C-12: Use the general Type C spec (800 tons, drive performance 3 in all categories, 40 crew and passengers, Air/Raft and a pair of general purpose landing craft, capable of refueling itself as delivered) and design from scratch. External and drive armor are not assumed for this spec.

The bold text (my bolding) means that it can do wilderness refueling, either skimming or dipping, correct? And that it would be acceptable for a subsidiary craft to do the actual GG-atmo/planetary water entry?

 

[GypsyComet]

Wilderness refueling capability is the intent, yes, and subcraft can be part of that. I'm not sure if MGT has the fuel bladders option, but you can assume it if you want to make your subcraft multi-purpose.

 

[AndrewW]

Wilderness refueling capability is the intent, yes, and subcraft can be part of that. I'm not sure if MGT has the fuel bladders option, but you can assume it if you want to make your subcraft multi-purpose.

There is mention of fuel bladders in Spinward Marches but no details.

 

[GypsyComet]

Close enough. IIRC fuel bladders are cheap enough to get lost in the round-off at small craft volumes. Assume that cargo and short-term passenger space (seats) can be converted to fuel space on an at-need basis. Cutters don't normally do this due to having a large catalog of specialist modules, but other subcraft certainly do, and I have no problem, for this event, assuming that the option can be found in Cutter modules. Multi-purpose as needed.

 

[far-trader]

:?

Alright, lets take a broad approach to this, then.

I sense reluctance, not trying to force anything on you, it's your idea and I'm good with whatever you feel like setting up.

I'm trying to fit something into the derby with what I have available time, material, graphics, and interest wise. I'm thinking it may be your Type C-12, or possibly C-77, though it's not much different from C-09. Confused I am

Basically, the MGT idea, stats, and layout but marginally tweaked closer to more my take on the adaptation of the cutter version from CT to MGT. So, one thing is the spare modules back (mostly from cargo volume), probably loose the drones... though, there is the CT option to use missile launchers for drone activity. Maybe an adaptation of that? And a couple other small bits. A little redesign on the cutters themselves too for the same reason, and so they fit in the closer to actual tonnage hull. Small things... well, imo

If I submit it, will you be able to categorize it? Or does it fall outside your parameters?

 

[GypsyComet]

Don't let me stop you. The C-12 spec handles the non-trivial changes. I added it specifically for the serious tinkerers, while the less tinkerish can make use of the other specs.

I'm not looking to exclude the creative efforts of participants. Derbies like this work better if you limit the potential for analysis paralysis, which is why I picked an existing class for the group re-think.

 

[Dave Chase]

Well after a week of thinking it through, I finally got my basic ship layout design, using MgT stats.

Probably will try for the C-09 type, since I am going MgT.

Might try one of the others if I got time after this one.

Dave Chase

 

[GypsyComet]

Our stated deadline is here. Who is ready to go and who needs more time? I know February kicked MY ass.

 

[far-trader]

Not ready, not at all sure more time would help. Take that as a sorry I won't make this one.

 

[Dave Chase]

Wow, I got lost in work and didn't get it done.

(kicking my self).

Not a typical winter for me, lots of work available and I took it.

Sorry.

Dave Chase

 

[Jak Nazryth]

I thought it was tomorrow.
I lost track myself.
I do have something started and will try and finish tonight.

 

[GypsyComet]

Of course its ... tomorrow.

Sorry guys. A bit brain dead yesterday.

Let's push this one out to the end of March.

 

[far-trader]

Of course its ... tomorrow.

Sorry guys. A bit brain dead yesterday.

Let's push this one out to the end of March.

Oh no. My one weakness as a perfectionist procrastinating deadline whore! An Extension!

Well played sir, I am wholly sucked back in.

So the new deadline is...

...April 1st :twisted:

 

[Captain Jonah]

Of course its ... tomorrow.

Sorry guys. A bit brain dead yesterday.

Let's push this one out to the end of March.

Oh no. My one weakness as a perfectionist procrastinating deadline whore! An Extension!

Well played sir, I am wholly sucked back in.

So the new deadline is...

...April 1st :twisted:

Ah April fools day. Bound to be some highly entertaining entries then :lol:

 

[Dave Chase]

I really hate doing this but

I am going to have to bow out of the design derby.

Real Life has been busy, full bore.

Weather is good, very good for this time of year for us (where I live) and Farming, and Construction work has been busy. Between working jobs and me running for elected office in my city, I just don't have the time to make even the second dead line.

BTW, Thanks for moving it back to 1 April, but I just don't have the time to do a proper deckplan by then.

(sigh)

Dave Chase