Hull Configuration

Thkaal

Mongoose
High Guard does not seem to have clear definitions of the configurations. The pictures and deckplans do not seem to make sense. The Sylea does not appear to be a cylinder. And what is the difference between a wedge/needle and a cone?

Especially interested in the close structure. Every picture I see about those is a hull that is completely layered with armor, but is that artistic license?
 
Thkaal said:
High Guard does not seem to have clear definitions of the configurations. The pictures and deckplans do not seem to make sense. The Sylea does not appear to be a cylinder. And what is the difference between a wedge/needle and a cone?

Especially interested in the close structure. Every picture I see about those is a hull that is completely layered with armor, but is that artistic license?

Check out the main Traveller Rule Book Page 106 for standard hull types, it does not have to be a cylinder...


There is no "facing" so armour is ubiqutious across the hull if it is there at all...
 
Thkaal said:
High Guard does not seem to have clear definitions of the configurations. The pictures and deckplans do not seem to make sense. The Sylea does not appear to be a cylinder. And what is the difference between a wedge/needle and a cone?

Especially interested in the close structure. Every picture I see about those is a hull that is completely layered with armor, but is that artistic license?

Most of the differences in hull type is going to be for flavoring, and can somewhat influence whether or not the ship can enter an atmosphere. For the most part it doesn't have much bearing on the game, as Traveller does not really get into weapon facings for combat.

Wedge/needle ships are more likely to be streamlined, and thus can easily enter and leave an atmosphere. A cone-type ship is going to have a harder time entering an atmosphere, but with gravitics virtually any ship can make a landing... it's just a lot harder for non-streamlined ones.

A close structure is pretty much going to be all about keeping all aspects of the ship tightly clustered and contained. The opposite, a disperse structure, is all about having an open framework of compartments, sub-hulls and components jumbled together with space in between them. Dispersed structures are designed for deep-space only.

Does that help some?
 
Thkaal said:
High Guard does not seem to have clear definitions of the configurations. The pictures and deckplans do not seem to make sense. The Sylea does not appear to be a cylinder. And what is the difference between a wedge/needle and a cone?

Especially interested in the close structure. Every picture I see about those is a hull that is completely layered with armor, but is that artistic license?

In the days of CT, hull configuration also related to High Guard combat, different configurations changed the damage levels of spinal mount hits. IIRC, Open/Dispersed configuration was a defense against meson gun as it was difficult to find a 'focal point' for the meson strike.

Other configurations had other effects. IMTU certian combinations of configurations and other traits are not allowed (i.e. Open/Dispersed cannot have streamlining, Box cannot have Airframe, and certian hull types are not allowed for small craft etc.)
 
Alright, Battlestar Galactica? Configuration? The light carrier in the High Guard book looks vaguely like it (more like a jet airplane), but is close structure. However, if keeping all compartments together, then why not call the cruiser in the High Guard book close as well instead of cone? And really, what is the difference between a cone and a wedge/needle? A wedge is nothing more than a flat cone, isn't it?

There should be something more to the hull configuration other than simple game mechanics.
 
Am I missing something, or is there actually no reason to choose a close structure over a sphere? Both have 70% of weapons bearing, partial streamlining and the same hit table for meson guns, but the sphere is cheaper.
 
darktalon said:
Am I missing something, or is there actually no reason to choose a close structure over a sphere? Both have 70% of weapons bearing, partial streamlining and the same hit table for meson guns, but the sphere is cheaper.

You are totally correct. This may be a mistake - under classic High Guard Close Structure was cheaper than Sphere (-40% vs -30%). However under those rules there was no reason to take a sphere since the cheaper close structure resisted meson guns better (although the numbers were fairly close anyway).

It does make sense that a close structure would be cheaper to construct than a sphere - it's just a collection of boxes welded together, in effect. Even though it would be easier to make a large spherical shell in orbit than on the ground, I seriously doubt that capital ships would be made from one piece hulls... and modular design and construction should be the most efficient option IMHO, whether close or dispersed.

Logic would say the Sphere is more expensive, and it makes some sense that a close structure might have less weapons bearing than a ball (though in fact this would depend on the close structure layout). For game purposes it would be more sensible for the sphere to have more guns bearing, but the close structure to be cheaper.

Maybe reinstate the old high guard costs (all the other configurations are the same) and make Close Structure 60% batteries bearing?

I'm also curious as to why a cone has less batteries bearing than a cylinder... assuming the drives and such are mounted at the rear end, all the batteries on a cone should be able to bear dead ahead (where the spinal mount is pointing), while not as many on a cylinder, and precisely the same percentage as a cylinder should be able to bear broadside as a cone. I'd have to guess that they consider the cone's rear blind spot significant?

Maybe that is the distinction between a needle and a cone? A cone has a big fat blind spot to the rear while a needle or wedge has a narrower one?
 
Hmmm... I would think a Sphere would be cheaper... the least surface area to volume of any shape.

A closed structure of welded boxes would have a huge surface area, and therefore a larger amount of hull material needed to encompass it, and a larger amout of wiring, insulation etc. to cover all the ins, outs and corners of the closed structure.

Wiring for a sphere should be (IMTU) straight from the central PowerPlant out to the concentric decks, with fuel being the outermost shell for convenience and as extra protection.

Plus, tuning the drives would be much easier...
 
Fedmahn Kassad said:
Hmmm... I would think a Sphere would be cheaper... the least surface area to volume of any shape.

That's true for an ideal container, but in practice a ship has internal bulkheads and compartments. It's not just materials cost but the cost of putting everything together. A spherical ship's sections would mostly have to be designed for one size ship only (the curve of an 800 dTon ship's hull being quite different to a 1600 dTon ship's) while a close structure ship could use the same hull sections on different ship sizes.

Cargo also does not efficiently pack into curved volumes and there may be issues with wastage when curved hull meets rectilinear partition.

Having said that, the case for cheaper spheres can be argued. My main issue is that each option in game terms has some reason for existing (otherwise, why bother listing it?).
 
rinku said:
My main issue is that each option in game terms has some reason for existing (otherwise, why bother listing it?).
With the "rich customer segment" of the starship market, the reason can
just be "high fashion", the wish to own something that is obviously diffe-
rent from what other, less wealthy people own - even if this reduces the
ship's functionality somewhat.

This would hardly influence merchant ships or warships, but I could well
imagine that shipyards producing yachts and safari ships would try to co-
me up with a new, differently looking model every few years, and with
thousands of such shipyards in the Third Imperium every possible shape
would probably be built somewhere.

As for other, more "pedestrian" ship types, there will at least be the odd
experimental craft built to find out whether an unusual configuration has
some unexpected advantage, as well as the perhaps not so rare design
mistake by a naval architect who dreamed up "a brilliant new idea" that
finally turned out to be a silly mistake.

You only have to look at the history of sailing ships or early steam ships
to see that people have a tendency to build everything possible at least
once, and with the reduced information flow in an interstellar society it
will happen more often, because it is more difficult to learn from the mis-
takes of others.

So, every configuration could be found "out there" between the worlds of
the Third Imperium, whether it makes sense or not. :wink:
 
rust said:
This would hardly influence merchant ships or warships, but I could well
imagine that shipyards producing yachts and safari ships would try to co-
me up with a new, differently looking model every few years, and with
thousands of such shipyards in the Third Imperium every possible shape
would probably be built somewhere.

I agree, but that end of the market is well catered for by the basic set rules (up to 2000 dTons) where exact configuration is not an issue. It is precisely with the very large merchant ships and warships where efficiency is vital that this discussion is relevant to.

As an aside, the swap in the old configuration costs to the current ones means that all the old navy designs (the overwhelming majority of which were close structure configurations) from Fighting Ships and Fighting Ships of the Shattered Imperium don't make sense anymore. May as well all be a bunch of death stars now... ;)
 
rust said:
...the wish to own something that is obviously diffe-
rent from what other, less wealthy people own - even if this reduces the
ship's functionality somewhat.

This would hardly influence merchant ships or warships...
Well put as usual, rust, though you really don't need that exception - governments and wealthy commercial interests are even more likely to spend coin on frivolous waste to impress others. One only has to look to architecture to see examples all over the world of this practice.

In nature, a great many species sport colorful or exotic shapes to attract mates or 'impress' opponents.

(P.S. - The 'death star' is a great example of 'overkill' meant to be impressive.)
 
I had often thought that there would be "configuration architectural schools" that would espouse the benefits of certain configurations while putting down others... Entire navies devoted to Sphere, or dispersed, or needle...
 
rinku said:
Fedmahn Kassad said:
Hmmm... I would think a Sphere would be cheaper... the least surface area to volume of any shape.

That's true for an ideal container, but in practice a ship has internal bulkheads and compartments. It's not just materials cost but the cost of putting everything together. A spherical ship's sections would mostly have to be designed for one size ship only (the curve of an 800 dTon ship's hull being quite different to a 1600 dTon ship's) while a close structure ship could use the same hull sections on different ship sizes.

Cargo also does not efficiently pack into curved volumes and there may be issues with wastage when curved hull meets rectilinear partition.

Having said that, the case for cheaper spheres can be argued. My main issue is that each option in game terms has some reason for existing (otherwise, why bother listing it?).

In TNE, the close structure is the cheapest hull (presumably because of the efficiency advantage of modular construction) but uses more hull material than the sphere because of its greater surface area, relevant if you want a ship that's well armoured but not too heavy. (Edit: it also, unlike in CT/MT/MGT, can't be streamlined.) That's an advantage the MGT system can't really model.
 
darktalon said:
In TNE, the close structure is the cheapest hull (presumably because of the efficiency advantage of modular construction) but uses more hull material than the sphere because of its greater surface area, relevant if you want a ship that's well armoured but not too heavy. (Edit: it also, unlike in CT/MT/MGT, can't be streamlined.) That's an advantage the MGT system can't really model.

Hmm. Excellent point. It could be modelled if a configuration modifier were applied to the amount of armour required to reach a certain armour value. I certainly don't have any issue with a sphere needing less armour volume than any other configuration.

That might be all the tweak we need to justify all of the configurations?
 
All this is really fascinating, but not a single one of you has answered the questions of this post. So, I'll ask again. This time, please try to answer. If not, ignore the questions and I'll assume Mongoose has no clue what they're writing when it comes to configurations.

Can I have some definitions of the configurations using real world words and not game mechanics?

What is the difference between wedge, needle, cone?

Why are some of the ships shown listed as one configuration when they have nothing to do with the configurations listed?

What is the criteria for stating a hull is one configuration as opposed to another?
 
Well, I can only offer you my take on it ...
Thkaal said:
Can I have some definitions of the configurations using real world words and not game mechanics?
Cone: a three-dimensional geometric shape that tapers smoothly from a flat base to a point

Needle: an elongated cone with a higher ratio of length to diameter

Wedge: a polyhedral solid defined by two triangles and three trapezoid faces
What is the difference between wedge, needle, cone?
see above
Why are some of the ships shown listed as one configuration when they have nothing to do with the configurations listed?
I suspect the artists who created the deckplans were not aware of the
configuration problem.
What is the criteria for stating a hull is one configuration as opposed to another?
In the case of a wedge it is easy, because a wedge has sharp angles, whi-
le a cone and a needle do not, they are round.

In the case of a cone and a needle it is a matter of the ratio between the
length and the diameter of the ship. A cone can be as wide as long, a nee-
dle is always more long than wide. Where exactly one wants to see the
"border" between those two configurations is probably up to discussion.
 
That's a good beginning. Thank you, rust.

Now other questions because dispersed and close seem to be the most problematic for definitions.

NCC-1701: I would assume dispersed.

Battlestar: Dispersed looks most likely made up of a wedge or three

Gunstar: I would say cone at first, however it looks like a close as well, yet some streamlining.

TIE: dispersed?

X-wing: wedge with wings?

Y-wing: dispersed or wedge?

Football: cone? double cone?

catamaran: two cones or needles, but it would also be a dispersed, yes?
 
Thkaal said:
Why are some of the ships shown listed as one configuration when they have nothing to do with the configurations listed?

Please remember that Mongoose Traveller is trying to create a set of rules to a game that has 30 years of background information, some of which is officially canonical, some of which is considered canonical, and some of which is just generally accepted as is.

Why are Scout/Couriers wedge shaped, cuz that’s the way Mr. Keith drew 'em and that’s the way we like 'em!

The configurations are also there to help Referees that have never seen a drawing of a certain class of ship describe that ship to the players...

"You see a Tigress class dreadnaught jump in-system! it looks like a [looks at ship config listing] a giant sphere bristling with turrets!
 
Back
Top