Maximum Ship Size?

[MasterGwydion]

Has any thought ever been given to maximum possible size for ships by tech level? Published book? JTAS? Older edition? Homebrew?

 

[ross]

Old school High Guard was one million displacement tons.
There weren’t any tech level restrictions that I remember.

 

[Sigtrygg]

LBB:2 '77/'81 drive table limits maximum hull size by the TL of drives, it is late so I will post more details if someone doesn't beat me to it.

TL9 800t
TL10 1000t
TL11 2000t
TL12 2000t
TL13 3000t
TL14 3000t
TL15 5000t

LBB:5 1980 edition limited maximum ship size by computer, again details to follow.

TL7/8, comp 2, max hull C (3,999t)
TL9, comp 3, max hull J (9,999t)
TL10, comp 4, max hull N (49,999t)
TL11, comp 5, max hull Q (99,999t)
TL12, comp 6, max hull X (999,999t)
TL13, comp 7, max hull Y (1,000,000t+)
TL14, comp 8, max hull Z (unlimited)

 

[Condottiere]

Pretty sure there are bottlenecks.

And likely, ways to overcome them.

 

[Morgoth99]

We have that one KKree world ship in a JTAS article with is, I think 90 million tons?

 

[J. L. Brown]

There was a very large (not fully detailed) ship described in the 'SkyRaiders' campaign; it was something of a world-ship, and apparently once housed millions of people.

I love the idea of having a limit on ship size based on technology level; but there are a couple issues that need to be addressed when putting such a limit in place:
1} Existing designs -- things like the icon 'Tigress' should probably still be possible;
2} Large non-ship space installations (like Space Habitats and Rhylanor Highport) need to be possible;
3} The size limits need to affect the way the game is played

Points 1 & 2 basically boil down to 'Do Not Change The Game' and point 3 requires 'Change The Game', so there is some tension between requirements. To my mind it might be possible to satisfy both with 'soft limits' -- where either hull or drives get drastically and increasingly more expensive as the ship goes further beyond the limit. But this takes us into house-rule territory, so it certainly will not be useful to everyone.

 

[MasterGwydion]

There was a very large (not fully detailed) ship described in the 'SkyRaiders' campaign; it was something of a world-ship, and apparently once housed millions of people.

I love the idea of having a limit on ship size based on technology level; but there are a couple issues that need to be addressed when putting such a limit in place:
1} Existing designs -- things like the icon 'Tigress' should probably still be possible;
2} Large non-ship space installations (like Space Habitats and Rhylanor Highport) need to be possible;
3} The size limits need to affect the way the game is played

Points 1 & 2 basically boil down to 'Do Not Change The Game' and point 3 requires 'Change The Game', so there is some tension between requirements. To my mind it might be possible to satisfy both with 'soft limits' -- where either hull or drives get drastically and increasingly more expensive as the ship goes further beyond the limit. But this takes us into house-rule territory, so it certainly will not be useful to everyone.

I like the way you are thinking. Point 1? Obviously, yes. Point 2? This could be handled with TL modified by the sublight drive. The less g forces it must resist, the bigger it could be, allowing for stuff like the Mora Highport. Point 3? Why? Wouldn't it be enough if it affected the way the game was designed in publications as well? Would it affect each group of gamers individual games? No, but it would change the way the world in which everyone is playing in is constructed. So, it both does and doesn't change things at the same time. Kind of counterintuitive, I know.

I am not leaning any particular way on this, so I totally appreciate your thoughts.

 

[Condottiere]

Structural integrity.

Accelerate too fast, and it all falls apart.

 

[J. L. Brown]

I like the way you are thinking. Point 1? Obviously, yes. Point 2? This could be handled with TL modified by the sublight drive. The less g forces it must resist, the bigger it could be, allowing for stuff like the Mora Highport. Point 3? Why? Wouldn't it be enough if it affected the way the game was designed in publications as well? Would it affect each group of gamers individual games? No, but it would change the way the world in which everyone is playing in is constructed. So, it both does and doesn't change things at the same time. Kind of counterintuitive, I know.

I am not leaning any particular way on this, so I totally appreciate your thoughts.

Point 3 was intended to include world-building; basically 'If the change you are making has absolutely no impact on your game, why are you making it?'. It does not seem to be a common occurrence that 'average Traveller character' gets to design & build a mega-ship; but those characters have to live in the game universe alongside the existence or non-existence of mega-ships.

For example, the Tobia Commerce Guild operates 30000 dTon 'Galoof' class freighters and has four more 50000 dTon freighters on order -- so any change which prevents building these types of ships not only runs into points 1 & 2, but also reshapes the in-game universe in ways the characters might notice. If mega-corporations who dominate trade along the rich trade-mains are limited to smaller ships, that may have knock-on effects (higher prices for imports, longer times for big projects which require interstellar logistics, etc.) the referee may want to think about. How does the 5th Frontier War change if the biggest ship possible is 50000 dTons; or with the (TL-14) Zhodani incapable of matching the size of the (TL-15) 3I ships?


Personally, I think the Core Rules and High Guard should both include explicit support for both the 'Small Ship' and 'Large Ship' universes, because the consequences to the flavor of the game can be dramatic. Folks should not only be able to choose what their universe is like, but they also should be made aware that this choice exists; it is unfair to blind-side some newbie referee with things of this nature.

 

[Morgoth99]

There's one simple limite4r-- the bigger the ship, the bigger the cost. The Kkree ship can take decades to build and the world ship of the Skyraiders was also a generational projuct--and put bluntly, they are still vulnerable to attack from smaller ships. so even if you can build a 50 million Dton ship... what does it do better than 100 500,000 ton ships, which can also be in more than one place at a time.

 

[J. L. Brown]

There's one simple limite4r-- the bigger the ship, the bigger the cost. The Kkree ship can take decades to build and the world ship of the Skyraiders was also a generational projuct--and put bluntly, they are still vulnerable to attack from smaller ships. so even if you can build a 50 million Dton ship... what does it do better than 100 500,000 ton ships, which can also be in more than one place at a time.

Ships get more efficient the bigger they get; so increasing the cost linearly is a serious bias towards 'Big'. Build a million dTons of 100 dTon ships, and you are paying 60000 dTons just for 'Bridge', and there is no way to ever mount (just for one example) a Large Bay. Build a million dTon ship, and the bridge only takes up 240 dTons -- plus you can carry Spinal Mount weapons.

 

[Galadrion]

I don't have any problem with unlimited size ships (expense and build times will provide practical limits), but larger ships should also allow larger (and more powerful) weapon systems - among other systems. Right now the only weapon systems we have which allow unlimited scaling are the optional laser spinal mounts in the Exotic Technologies section of High Guard.