"in between" ships

[Jak Nazryth]

Ok... maybe not the best name to use, but has anyone created a ship that doesn't fall into perfect 100 ton increments? If you need just 5 or 10 more tons... what would be the disadvantage of designing say a 110 ton ship, or 240 ton ship, etc...?
The way I interpret the rules, you would use the hard points based on the lowest 100 ton increment, use the 10% rule accurately for jump fuel, but what about drive size? Round appropriately, or use the next higher size category even if you're 1 ton over? So if you end up with a 301 ton ship, would the drive sizes be based on a 400 ton ship?
In some cases it might be cost effective to pay for an "over sized" drive for an extra 10 or 20 tons of space (if there was a need) in stead of paying for 80 or 90 tons of more ship you don't necessarily want.

I know of 1 published example... the 440 ton nishemani class corsair, though I do not know in which Traveller game mechanic it was designed.

Any thoughts or examples?

 

[far-trader]

Figured that was what you meant from the title

Yes there are some iirc though the Nishemani is the only one I can think of off hand as well. And that was originally (in CT) a 400ton design. If I recall correctly it became 440tons in MT due to differences in the rules, both in allowing non-100ton increments and in needing the extra tonnage for some features. CT B5 of course allows building uneven tonnages but I don't recall any being done.

In CT B2 builds, probably like MgT Core (but I'm not sure) your example of a 301ton ship would require the drives based on the next larger full hull size of 400tons. Such is the way of table builds vs formula builds. So nobody built 301ton, or 350ton, etc. ships since they had to put drives for a 400ton hull in anyway. It was actually worse in CT B2 since the hull table went from 200tons to 400tons. If you wanted an even 300ton hull you still had to use the 400ton drives line.

Correct on the hardpoint calculations, it is per full 100tons. I think.

You could think of it (table builds per the Core rules) as using preconfigured modular components. The drives are tuned for round hull sizes. To use them in off sized hulls you sacrifice performance.

I've tried a few "extra tons" hulls in the past in CT B2 and it never paid dividends. It was always better to go the next full hull size and add the extra hardpoint and use the unwanted tonnage for other features.

In CT B5 (High Guard) it is a different story. All you lose is one hardpoint and the savings on the rest make going a few extra tons over a hundred well worth it in the cases I did.

 

[Jak Nazryth]

GURPS was the best rule system in dealing with non-standard sized hulls since it based everything of a true % of hull sizes as apposed to a predetermined drive size table.

I am trying to find a way to add a 4 ton vehicle bay (for air/raft, grav car, grav bikes... or what ever the players want) AND a drop-tank collar for a 60 ton tank. Currently I am sitting at 200 tons prior to these two additions.

Do I simply create a 210-220 ton ship (for the extra drive size) or try to figure out fractional size increments for the size of the drives?
I would really like to keep everything I have now, but it would be nice to have drop tanks and a separate bay for a grav vehicle.

I can always trim down things if the players REALLY want the two items listed above, but this small spill over of tonnage got me to thinking of why force ship designs into perfect 100 ton increments?

 

[GypsyComet]

GURPS was the best rule system in dealing with non-standard sized hulls since it based everything of a true % of hull sizes as apposed to a predetermined drive size table.

CT, T4, and MGT had issues with odd sizes. MT, TNE, and T20 all used a formula for drives and fuel.

TNE dealt with odd sizes quite often due to the Docking Collar and External Grapple. The Type R, Gazelle, and Lab Ship are classic examples, not to mention the RC Clipper.

CT's odd sizes all originated with 3rd parties, and mostly FASA. The 150 ton Zhodani Leader Scout comes to mind.

I have a spreadsheet analysis of drive percentages for MGT non-Capital ships that I can dig up, but the numbers aren't hard to develop. Gradual scale efficiency rules the drive percentages, so if you scale the drive for a 200 ton ship (for example) up by 10%, you won't go wrong. You can also compare what would be the price for such a thing with whatever price the Capital ship system gives per ton, just to make sure that a custom drive is priced right.

 

[AndrewW]

There's the Type SX Frontiersman in Book 3: Scout (150 tons).

 

[Jak Nazryth]

FANTASTIC!
A ship designed by the core mongoose rules falling perfectly into this thread?
Couldn't ask for anything better. Now I can determine how "the mongoose authors" use their own game mechanics for the very issue I was having.
Thanks for pointing it out AW!