Mercenary Cruiser- Question

[Mithras]

I'm thinking about using the TYpe C as a naval patrol cruiser for my new military game, with PCs running the bridge crew.

The deckplans kind of suck. How different is the old Type C Broadsword from Classic Traveller? Could I use the deckplans there, with the Mongoose stats? Would my players notice???

(I wanted to use the Type T classic patrol cruiser, but since I intend to make a promo 'trailer', I need a ship that's been used in video; and the type C was rendered in several great scenes by Andrew Boulton for his Ace of Spades video...I'll have to ask him nicely).

 

[rust]

The deckplans kind of suck. How different is the old Type C Broadsword from Classic Traveller? Could I use the deckplans there, with the Mongoose stats? Would my players notice???

It depends on what you mean with "kind of suck".

If the problem is the size and clarity of the deck plans, Broadsword would
be a real improvement. However, if the problem is some specific feature,
I am not so sure whether it would be different in Broadsword.

In my view you could use the Broadsword deckplans. Any minor differen-
ces caused by the different starship design systems should be easy to
correct with Paint or a better program before printing the plans (which is
why I prefer PDFs).

 

[Mithras]

Yes it's purely a "I can't see what's going on in this deckplan issue"! The CT plans are crisp and detailed and a much larger scale.

 

[Cleon the Mad]

Compare the two, but (I assume) Mongoose at least tried to get fairly close, the basics of each ship just going by memory are the same.

Anyway, I'd go ahead and use them. I kind of always liked the Broadsword class also. That and the Gazelle class for small military/paramilitary craft from CT.

 

[Mithras]

I've had a look, and apart from interior walls moving around a little, they are for most intents and purposes just the same. The Broadsword CT supplement has lots of extra info plus stats for all the crew and troops, so I will use that one.

I'm using it for a naval cruiser game (PCs running the bridge crew) and want to ditch the ground assault aspect. THe Broadsword supplement (actually Adventure 7; GDW 1982) provides different module configs and suggests that owners often reconfigure the mercenary cruiser for different types of missions entirely. One suggestion was using the 2 extra module spaces for fuel, and then adding 60tons of armour to the hull. For a patrol cruiser, that sounds good.

Next I'll slim the ships troops down to 23 (3 HQ and 2x squads of 10). THe extra staterooms will be filled with naval cutter pilots and gunners as well as gunners for the cruisers 8 turrets.

Since I don't want ground assaults I need to change the cutters. One can be turned into a troop/cargo transport, carrying 18 tons of cargo and all the troops to carry out customs inspections, boarding actions, etc.

No idea about the other cutter. Fuel cutter? Gunship with triple turret weapons module? Cargo module? Not sure.

 

[rust]

No idea about the other cutter. Fuel cutter? Gunship with triple turret weapons module? Cargo module? Not sure.

A fighter module could also be an option, on patrol it could be nice to have
a small, fast and therefore difficult to hit craft available for purposes like
recon.

 

[Captain Jonah]

For the cutter modules you have a total of four. Two internal to the cutters and two which use the ships listed cargo space. How fast do you want to refuel, operating in a single system is low fuel use and a single refueling pod will do the job, if you plan on doing a lot of fast jumps then use two.

A custom boarding pod, airlock, armoury, breaching tube etc used for customs checks and also hostile boarding missions against ships.

Fighter pod as rust said, a pair of light fighters are always usefull for many security operations

If you are looking at more long term operations in system and only need a single refueler consider a long endurance pod built for local traffic control or ambushed, triple turret, a few staterooms, very good sensors and airlock and docking clamp so the fighter pilots can stage off. This sort of thing allows you to operate a reasonable force in two areas, leave a mini base in orbit while the main ship is away etc.

 

[Sturn]

Classic Mercenary Cruiser deckplans:
http://www.sff.net/people/kitsune/traveller/bsimages/index.html

$3 PDF of a Broadsword supplement at RPG Now:
http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=80164

$6 PDF of a variant Mercenary Cruiser at RPG Now:
http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=59782&filters=0_0_0_10134_0

Since you originally expressed interest in the Patrol Cruiser, here is a link you might be interested in also:

http://homepage.mac.com/vutpakdi/Traveller_Deck_Plans/PhotoAlbum17.html

 

[Mithras]

Ah interesting variations...thanks! I'll be using up the spare module space, I don't like the idea of swapping out modules anyway. So the cutters will come fitted out ready to go.

I like the customs module, I think there was one of those in my copy of GURPS Modular Cutter....

 

[Mithras]

Great links all, Sturn! I had the patrol cruiser deckplans in mind when I conceived my campaign. But I love Andrew's video so much, I'm going to have to use the Broadsword! Andrew's movie is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wbk-K-CLUQ

Since you originally expressed interest in the Patrol Cruiser, here is a link you might be interested in also:

http://homepage.mac.com/vutpakdi/Traveller_Deck_Plans/PhotoAlbum17.html

 

[rinku]

The major difference is that (for some reason) MGT changed the cutters' cross section from circular to oval. This messes with the module wells; on their revised plans there's not enough room for the spare modules carried.

Stick with the classic in this instance.

 

[Captain Jonah]

The major difference is that (for some reason) MGT changed the cutters' cross section from circular to oval. This messes with the module wells; on their revised plans there's not enough room for the spare modules carried.

Stick with the classic in this instance.

Which is not what is shown on the cut through floor plan which clearly shows the cutter pod stores being the same size as the cutters. Just go with them being round and treat that it all fits, the floor plan is too small scale to use properly anyway so use the ones from broadsword.

Did I just say that. Oh no, I'm sorry, I'm very sorry. Not the dungeon, please not the dungeon :shock:

 

[andrew boulton]

Be aware that the CT plans (and the MGT ones AFAICT), which I used for my model, are wrong; they work out to ~1200dt.

 

[rinku]

The correct diameter for the plans should be about 18 squares; MGT ones are about 16 squares. I'll check the original Broadsword when I get home tonight.

 

[AndrewW]

Some stuff doesn't get shown on the deckplans such as armour.

 

[rinku]

Most of the "missing" stuff is simply fuel (278 tons in OT, 312 in MGT).

The sphere should be about 27 metres in diameter, or 9 decks. In Broadsword there are 10 decks, with A deck being a little lower than standard (appears to be about 2.7m at apex based on the cross-section view), and J deck being double height. MGT seems to have shrunk the decks a little, but have left 11 decks in place and copied the cross-section straight out of Broadsword.

It's possible to reconcile the apparent diameter of 32-33m with the required diameter of 27m if you use smaller than standard deck heights of aproximately 2.5m. Alternately, you could have the central column extend beyond the main sphere (probably aft). Or, you could make the ship an egg shape instead of a true sphere.

 

[andrew boulton]

More like 8 decks - don't forget to add the legs and the cutters.

 

[rinku]

The bulk of the cutters are part of the main volume; the volume of the legs and the bits of the cutters that stick out won't take the total ouside the 20% wiggle room normally allowed for deckplans. Based on the dimensions in Broadsword I make the volume of each leg that is outside the sphere about 14 dtons - only 56 dtons in total. And that was assuming 3m per deck; if you go with reduced deck heights to preserve the existing deckplans it would be about 46 dtons.

Ultimately, new deck plans are needed to account for some of the changes from the MGT design sequence and the original sizing error (this wasn't the only one - the original Traders and Gunboats also has some clangers, such as the Far Trader).

Edit: Allowing 50 dtons for the legs etc, the radius of the ramining 750 dtons comes out almost exactly to 13.5m, or spot on 9 decks diameter. I also worked out the thickness of the 37.5 ton (adjusted down from the overall 40 tons in proportion) armour for a 750 dton sphere - comes to 15cm. However, this will not affect the central deck column or cutter bays and can be effectively ignored on the deckplans.

Edit2: The cutters are oversize, too. With a 6m diameter as shown, a 50 ton cylindrical craft should be approximately 25m in length. The one shown is about 30m and would displace about 57 dtons.

 

[FreeTrav]

FWIW, I remember working out some numbers on a trip to the new Hayden Planetarium in NYC. The building, the Rose Center for Earth and Space, is a glass cube; the Planetarium itself is a sphere inside it - see this Google search - and when I was there on one of the two TML NYC realspaces, we got some figures on the size, and some math made it come out that the planetarium itself - the sphere that you can see in the pics - is pretty close to spot-on for a merc cruiser .

. o O ( Hmmm... I wonder what someone with a good Photoshop or GIMP hand, and some knowledge of Traveller, can do with some of those pics... :twisted: )