Yay, I'm actually playing Traveller! Our group has inherited an Empress Marava-class far trader, and while High Guard lists the design as including a fuel processor (40 tons/day), it doesn't show a fuel scoop. Is this an oversight, or does it mean that the Empress Marava can refuel from water sources but not gas giants?
Is the Empress Marava-class supposed to have a fuel scoop?
- Thread starter Hakkonen
- Start date
Ursus Maior
Banded Mongoose
File it under the big pile of "we need a new (PDF) edition / printing of High Guard. We'll commence playing on Friday, 13th of March and I will not use ships as printed at all. I recalculate each and every ship by hand, even the errors collected here in the forum are not a complete list. I just did the Safari ship and it uses the wrong tonnage (and thus price, too) for the j-drive. And of course almost every ship ist listed at 100% of the calculated price and not at 90% for being a common design.
The good part is: Most ships have more cargo available than printed, so that's a nice bonus for players trying to stay legal.
The good part is: Most ships have more cargo available than printed, so that's a nice bonus for players trying to stay legal.
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
Ursus Maior said:
15 Dt and MCr 22.5 looks correct to me?
200 Dton × 2.5% × 2 + 5 = 15 Dton.
See thread Updated High Guard Ships.
paltrysum said:
To paltysum's point, standardization is key for new players to learn. Not everyone who picks up the game knows the rules from X versions ago. And, since MGT decided to take out the ship building rules from the CRB and place them in HG, they should have realized that by doing so the "it's in the rules" line was going to fall flat on it's face for situations like this. Each book needs to stand or fall on it's own merits unless it is otherwise designed (such as a supplement) to not do so. CRB was designed to be the one book you could get and instantly start playing.
On the other side of the argument, it IS stated as such in the rules... but if you don't have that book then you'd never know that rule.
Ursus Maior
Banded Mongoose
Hmm, as of today, I cannot recreate the error I spotted. I retract my statement. I came up with just 10 dtons the other day. Maybe I forgot the ominous +5 dtons one should add?AnotherDilbert said:
Old School
Mongoose
For any ship for which it matters in my campaign, I do at least a little tweaking. Not only so they fit the rules, but also to attempt correct any obvious design inefficiencies resulting from fitting CT ships into MgT2 design rules.
Reynard
Cosmic Mongoose
Just to make matters worst, remember to find a way to add a couple tons for that first free airlock plus some tonnage if you want a ship's locker. I've made it a point to list those tonnages as I design new ships or making corrections to iconic designs usually swiping some cargo space.
Geir
Emperor Mongoose
Reynard said:
I just assume that first airlock and the ship's locker gets eaten out of the bridge tonnage, just like corridors get eaten out of stateroom size.
As for additional airlocks... I can't even get a good read on whether 1 per 100 tons or 1 per 500 tons is included:
HG p. 22 "A ship may have one airlock for every 100 tons or part of. A standard airlock is capable of cycling two humans per minute between the ship’s interior and exterior, or vice versa. Additional airlocks may be added using the system in the spacecraft options chapter."
CRB p. 143: "A ship has at least one airlock per 500 tons. The average airlock is large enough for three people in vacc suits to pass through."
The rules don't even agree on the size of the airlock (well, "standard" and "average" might not be the same thing.) Plus the use of the word "may" in HG is subject to... subjective interpretation, to say the least.
Geir said:
As a ship gets bigger, and also depending on if it's civilian or military, the primary airlocks will get bigger to accommodate more personnel and/or cargo (larger ships will also be more likely to invest tonnage in cargo airlocks, or at least cargo spaces that open externally).
It's better to look at the mission of the ship rather than try to follow semi-conflicting rules. Does it make sense for a 500 ton military vessel to have 5 airlocks? Or does it only need a port/starboard, and maybe an aft cargo airlock? Follow the common-sense rule and don't worry about the book rule.
Geir
Emperor Mongoose
AndrewW said:
Great!
I'm fine with that answer. The problem I've had recently, with JTAS designs, especially, is the tendency to add "additional airlocks" when they don't even add up to 1 per 100. So I'll gladly take your ruling and run with it. That's what I've been assuming all along. Obviously, if someone wants a giant cargo lock, that's a different issue.
Geir
Emperor Mongoose
phavoc said:
My point isn't that a 2,000 ton ship needs 20 airlocks- it likely doesn't and I don't care. My issue is that in, for example, a 2000 ton ship with fewer than 20 actual airlocks has in its design 3 "additional airlocks" at 2 tons a piece. I don't think that's necessary at all. So I just wanted a clarification. The clearer rule should be: you can add 1 personnel-sized airlock per 100 tons and not have to allocate space or cost for it (or alternatively, you can have 2 tons of every 100 be airlock space and that's included in the hull cost/design- or maybe half that, since most airlocks are shown as 2 squares, which is 1 ton). I wasn't sure if the Highguard statement changed that to 1 per 500 or if it was actually the rule that every airlock past the first needed to be added.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Tonnage for airlocks should be declared for the current edition; if you have one airlock per hundred tonnes, that's two percent from total displacement, that can't be considered part of whatever overhead you want to assign it to.
On the other hand, you could have a free airtight hatch per hundred tonnes, without an airlock: hatches would be considered part of the hull, with or without armour plating.
On the other hand, you could have a free airtight hatch per hundred tonnes, without an airlock: hatches would be considered part of the hull, with or without armour plating.
Reynard
Cosmic Mongoose
Problem with an external airtight hatch is opening it evacuates a portion of the ship stopped only by bulkheads and internal hatches/irises. That's the reason for a purpose built airlock. Only time I see those external hatch design were Star Trek ships for receiving small craft and only open if a craft is attached. That might explain movement between a ship and craft held by docking clamps.
I know I saw that 100/500 tons of ship per airlock somewhere. Can't remember. Personally, I say you put in as many airlocks as needed, and cargo airlocks also count limited by what you're willing to pay in credits and displacement. You NEED at least one to get in and out other than through a docking space or hangar hatch.
I know I saw that 100/500 tons of ship per airlock somewhere. Can't remember. Personally, I say you put in as many airlocks as needed, and cargo airlocks also count limited by what you're willing to pay in credits and displacement. You NEED at least one to get in and out other than through a docking space or hangar hatch.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
The number and size of airlocks is not the issue, accounting in terms of tonnage and cost for them would be.
