High Guard Update 2022 - Now on PDF and Pre-Order!

Condottiere

Cosmic Mongoose
Point defence interceptors should base pilot endurance on the cockpit, which is twenty four hours, though in reality you'd want to keep patrols to eight hours, and more likely, launch on warning.

So, diaper.
 

Arkathan

Cosmic Mongoose
Point defence interceptors should base pilot endurance on the cockpit, which is twenty four hours, though in reality you'd want to keep patrols to eight hours, and more likely, launch on warning.

So, diaper.
Vacc suits have semi-invasive waste processing...
 

Arkathan

Cosmic Mongoose
I realize that. The fighter in question is only 10 tons and has no such facilities. (Only a cockpit). Also remember, A fighter is not really an "Adventuring" vessel nor is it designed for such. A fighter has one mission: To pursue, overtake and destroy enemy craft! In the case of a light Interceptor, this is primarily enemy smallcraft and perhaps some smaller starships. The TL-15 heavy fighter is more designed along the lines you're talking about and is intended as a Strike fighter. Meaning, it will be used against larger vessels and ground targets.
10 tons? It was probably designed when 10 tons was the lower limit, instead of five tons, and just converted over to HG-U2022 for consistency.
With the lower limits for hull size, it would make sense to chop it to 8 tons.
 

Radwraith

Mongoose
10 tons? It was probably designed when 10 tons was the lower limit, instead of five tons, and just converted over to HG-U2022 for consistency.
With the lower limits for hull size, it would make sense to chop it to 8 tons.
It was. The design goes all the way back to first ed. traveller in the early eighties. But it was never the Lightest fighter! Just prior to the light fighter in HG2022 is the "ultra light fighter" at six tons! That fighter came from the original Broadsword class mercenary cruiser from the same period. (Which is also currently listed!) It's not about being bigger or smaller! It's about designing your ship for it's intended mission and maximizing it's efficiency when performing it! 10 tons is quite small considering a G-carrier is 15 tons! Modern fighters like the F-16 or F-35 are quite a bit bigger than an APC!
 

Arkathan

Cosmic Mongoose
It was. The design goes all the way back to first ed. traveller in the early eighties. But it was never the Lightest fighter! Just prior to the light fighter in HG2022 is the "ultra light fighter" at six tons! That fighter came from the original Broadsword class mercenary cruiser from the same period. (Which is also currently listed!) It's not about being bigger or smaller! It's about designing your ship for it's intended mission and maximizing it's efficiency when performing it! 10 tons is quite small considering a G-carrier is 15 tons! Modern fighters like the F-16 or F-35 are quite a bit bigger than an APC!
With the original high guard in the 80's I had four and five ton fighters with three lasers or two lasers and a missile, because I could.
And I was just going by the recent/recently removed limit that had small hulls capped at 10, instead of 5.
And those tiny fighters I made had .25 ton externally accessed cargo bays for emergency gear/planetside supplies, because characters did man them. That's 16% for the 4 tonner.
 

Radwraith

Mongoose
.25 tons is about the size of a car trunk. (1 vehicle space) I'm not arguing that characters can't or won't man fighters. They obviously can and do! This is a discussion of how military craft are designed and how this applies to traveller ship design!

A custom built spacecraft can be designed any way you want but military craft are typically designed for government bid specs. Any "gear" included would probably be survival equipment attached to the ejection system and not a trunk full of "stuff".

In any case, that wasn't the purpose of my comment
My intent was to point out that many of the military designs could be much better if the designers had utilized the options available to them rather than straight conversions from old 1E source material.
 

Arkathan

Cosmic Mongoose
I'm not arguing that characters can't or won't man fighters.
I'm not arguing at all at this point. Just giving an example of different rule set construction capabilities.
Yep on the survival gear... Back then, the sci meme was fighters landing and the character switching to land based gear, as Luke did in ESB from an X-Wing's externally accessed trunk.
 
Last edited:

AndrewW

Cosmic Mongoose
My intent was to point out that many of the military designs could be much better if the designers had utilized the options available to them rather than straight conversions from old 1E source material.
Actually, a lot added into the 2nd edition High Guard was from Classic Traveller source material.
 

Radwraith

Mongoose
Actually, a lot added into the 2nd edition High Guard was from Classic Traveller source material.
I know that. That's my point! With the rules having "evolved" as they have, mant of the design choices from Classic Traveller high guard don't make as much sense now. Hell, I don't even think torpedoes existed in classic traveller! Along with many other systems in place today. I think the community today would be well served by going through the classic designs and Respecking them to current standards and what we know of Naval warship design.

I've heard rumors that RPGsuite is getting ready to release a starship designer software package. If they do, I may undertake a project to go through and redesign Various ships to showcase what's possible and how, IMO, the Imperial navy would design their vessels given current Parameters.
 

AndrewW

Cosmic Mongoose
I know that. That's my point! With the rules having "evolved" as they have, mant of the design choices from Classic Traveller high guard don't make as much sense now.
You specified 1st edition, which is usually a reference to 1st edition of Mongoose Traveller.

Yes things could have been done differently, but the intent was more a replication of existing designs rather then redesigning them.
 

Arkathan

Cosmic Mongoose
I think the community today would be well served by going through the classic designs and Respecking them to current standards and what we know of Naval warship design.
On the other hand, the first thing my group did when we were starting a new campaign was complain that the new floor plan for the Gazelle didn't match the one from the original JTAS #4 from 1980.
When presented with design options for ships, they designed the smallish one they could afford the mortgage on and said they wanted to build up to FASA's 800 ton Chameleon Commerce Raider in Adventure Class Ships Volume 1 from 1981.

Some people like the old designs, while not minding new designs that do similar things differently, but AREN'T the old designs and don't pretend to be.
 

Condottiere

Cosmic Mongoose
The problems with spacecraft weapon platforms was, and is, in theory, you could stuff a hull full of them, as long as there was volume, and fire off as many as there was energy, and ammunition, for.

Speaking of which, apparently virtual weapons on fixed mounts hasn't been corrected, which does have more of an effect in smaller hulls.
 

AndrewW

Cosmic Mongoose
The problems with spacecraft weapon platforms was, and is, in theory, you could stuff a hull full of them, as long as there was volume, and fire off as many as there was energy, and ammunition, for.
Also need hardpoints or firmpoints.
 
Last edited:

Sigtrygg

Emperor Mongoose
It was 1977, and there have been rules that base number of weapons on surface area rather than an arbitrary 1 per 100 dt.
 

phavoc

Cosmic Mongoose
Also need hardpoints or firmpoints.
Yeah, that's the problem with designing ships. People tend to min-max the hell out of them with zero regard to anything else. There are many possible clever ways to arm a ship (though I'd have to say that making a fighter-sized weapon equivalent to a starship-powered one seems a bit much. There needs to be consequences for sizes) - especially if you are talking about missiles. A player-designed one is going to be festooned with missile hardpoints because there is a square inch of hull space that doesn't have a missile mounted on it. People don't consider that there are other things that need to be taken into account. And because the rules don't specifically state that they are gonna do it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Condottiere

Cosmic Mongoose
Why not give spacecraft wings, and attach missiles externally to pylons? Or instead of missiles, gun packs?

Space can always be found.

Speaking of gunpacks, the most obvious loophole is to just place a weapon system in the smallest hull, attach it to a larger hull, and either place a ball gunner in it or control it remotely, as many as can be fit on the surface.
 
Top