MgT Captial Ship Design Example Question 1

[snrdg121408]

Hello all,

Okay, I'm trying to get a handle on the capital ship design sequence and Step 1, p. 69, has got me more dazed and confused than usual. I figured out the base Armor tons fairly easily. Unfortunately, coming up with the cost has me stumped. The cost equation in the example looks like this:

MCr (75,000/2 x 1.1 x 10/6) MCr 6,875

I think that there are 3 parts to the cost equation above which are broken down into the following items:

Base Armor Cost by section: 75,000/2
Base Hull Cost =75,000
Hull Section = 2
Looking at the Hull Sections table, p. 63, a 75,000 dton vessel has a Hull Code of CP, p. 62, has 4 sections. My first point of confusion of why 2 and not 4"

Were did the 1.1 in the equation come from?

Protection by Points: 10/6 = round(10.6,4) = 1.6667

The above equation does not appear to me to match the cost formula listed in the the table on HgT:HG page 63.

Can someone please enlighten an old retired submarine sailor on the cost calculation process in simple terms?

 

[Custodian]

I'm about to rush out to sort out a section in a book shop but I think I can answer one part of your question quickly and maybe set the ball rolling for you in terms of answers.

Thanks for the page number from High Guard, by the way, it made things a lot easier.

If you look at pg 106 of the Core Rules, in the Configuration section, Streamlining adds 10% to the cost of a hull. The capital ship has a cone configuration, which is streamlined, so the 1.1 multiplier is for this.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello Custodian,

Thank you for responding in terms that this old retired and very slow witted submarine sailor could understand.

Looking at the core rulebook Armour table, p. 106, and the expanded HG armour table on p. 63 both under the Cost header state x% of base hull cost. The ship examples in the core rulebook use the base hull cost without the configuration cost modifier. Now I'm just a touch more confused ;-).

I try to provide both the source title and page number in both my questions and replies just to make things easier for everybody.

Again thank you for the reply and hopefully someone will straighten me out of the 7500/2 part.

I'm about to rush out to sort out a section in a book shop but I think I can answer one part of your question quickly and maybe set the ball rolling for you in terms of answers.

Thanks for the page number from High Guard, by the way, it made things a lot easier.

If you look at pg 106 of the Core Rules, in the Configuration section, Streamlining adds 10% to the cost of a hull. The capital ship has a cone configuration, which is streamlined, so the 1.1 multiplier is for this.

 

[Custodian]

A bit more research later and I think I can break down that formula for you, namely MCr (75,000/2 x 1.1 x 10/6) MCr 6,875

To get the cost of armour you work from percentages of the hull cost.

The hull cost is 75,000 x 1.1, which is the base hull cost plus 10% (see the Configuration table on High Guard page 62).

On the next page you'll see that 50% hull of the hull price gets you 6 points of armour but the design calls for 10.

Therefore it costs 50% of the hull cost time 10/6.

So the 2 in 75,000/2 x 1.1 x 10/6 is there to do the 50% calculation. In other words 50% of 100 equals 100/2.

The problem is that the formula for the cost of capital ship's armour shows both the workings for cost of the hull mixed in with the workings for the cost of the armour, which is admittedly quite confusing.

However in the Core Rules page 106 it explicitly states that "streamlining a shop increases the cost of its hull by 10%" (my emphasis) so again I believe that armour cost should work from the total hull cost. I've not checked this out completely but I'm fairly sure I'm correct.

After all if you add armour to streamlined ship you would need to make sure that the armour is streamlined as well.

Rest assured that you gave me enough references to work things out and don't worry about not initially getting the maths. Learning this kind of thing as a child, when I had maths teachers to explain the harder parts when I got really stuck, was probably a lot easier for me.

Just keep looking for how people might have converted percentages into numbers that can divided or multiplied.

Is this getting you any nearer?

 

[AndrewW]

Some ships have their armour cost figured at the base hull value not including streaming or distributed.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello Custodian,

Again thank you for the reply and getting me back on track. I must be getting old and rusty with my math to have overlooked that 7,500/2 was equal to 7,500 * .5.

I have a working Excel spreadsheet draft for the core rulebook design sequence which I entered the data for the most of the ships. All of the ones I entered showed that the armour was associated with the base hull cost not the modified cost for configuration.

Usually I'm fairly good with math, but I seem to be stumbling with the equations in Mongoose. I think I'm going to blame it on web gremlins trying to pay me back for not buying them any pints when I was in Holy Loch, Scotland;-)

Again thanks for the help, as advertised this is probably not the only question that will posted.

A bit more research later and I think I can break down that formula for you, namely MCr (75,000/2 x 1.1 x 10/6) MCr 6,875

To get the cost of armour you work from percentages of the hull cost.

The hull cost is 75,000 x 1.1, which is the base hull cost plus 10% (see the Configuration table on High Guard page 62).

On the next page you'll see that 50% hull of the hull price gets you 6 points of armour but the design calls for 10.

Therefore it costs 50% of the hull cost time 10/6.

So the 2 in 75,000/2 x 1.1 x 10/6 is there to do the 50% calculation. In other words 50% of 100 equals 100/2.

The problem is that the formula for the cost of capital ship's armour shows both the workings for cost of the hull mixed in with the workings for the cost of the armour, which is admittedly quite confusing.

However in the Core Rules page 106 it explicitly states that "streamlining a shop increases the cost of its hull by 10%" (my emphasis) so again I believe that armour cost should work from the total hull cost. I've not checked this out completely but I'm fairly sure I'm correct.

After all if you add armour to streamlined ship you would need to make sure that the armour is streamlined as well.

Rest assured that you gave me enough references to work things out and don't worry about not initially getting the maths. Learning this kind of thing as a child, when I had maths teachers to explain the harder parts when I got really stuck, was probably a lot easier for me.

Just keep looking for how people might have converted percentages into numbers that can divided or multiplied.

Is this getting you any nearer?

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello AndrewW,

Thank you for the reply and information confirming that some of the ships in the core rulebook, at least, use the straight base hull cost. My working copy of a spreadsheet showed that all the ones I entered showed that the armor was calculated using the base hull cost and not the configuration modified hull cost.

Some ships have their armour cost figured at the base hull value not including streaming or distributed.

 

[Custodian]

Hello AndrewW,

Thank you for the reply and information confirming that some of the ships in the core rulebook, at least, use the straight base hull cost. My working copy of a spreadsheet showed that all the ones I entered showed that the armor was calculated using the base hull cost and not the configuration modified hull cost.

Some ships have their armour cost figured at the base hull value not including streaming or distributed.

This where the errata for the Core Rule and books on starship design published after High Guard, of which I currently have none (yet), probably needs to be investigated.

I'll look back at Classic Traveller too, the base system from which Mongoose Traveller was derived to see how they handled it then.

However at the moment I need to get on my bike, cycle a long distance in first gear and see if I can get it fixed.

 

[snrdg121408]

Morning Custodian from the Pacific Northwest,

Any typing errors will be blamed on web germlins and not having a cup of coffee.;-)

I pulled out CT Book 5 HG copyright 1980, 15th printing and checked out the armor text pp. 28-29 and table p. 23.

Armor tons calculations uses a formula that is applied to the designs base hull tons. Armour cost is determined using armour tons times another formula. The formula for armour tons is based on TL. Here is the example from the book on p. 29.

TL 9 100 dton hull designed with an Armour Factor (a) 3.

Armour tons
(4 + (4 x a))% x 100 = (4 + (4 x 3))% x 100 = (4 + 12)% x 100 =
16% x 100 = .16 x 100 = 16 tons

Armor Cost = MCr .3 + (.1 x a) x Armour tons
(.3 + (.1 x 3)) x 16 = (.3 + .3) x 16 = .6 x 16 = MCr.9.6

Which is one of the reasons why I translated the Mongoose text "base hull" cost to mean the unmodified configuration cost of the hull.

Sorry that your mode of transportation has decided to pull out one of Murphy's rules. Which rule or rules is your choice of course.

Again thank you for the reply and assistance.

Hello AndrewW,

Thank you for the reply and information confirming that some of the ships in the core rulebook, at least, use the straight base hull cost. My working copy of a spreadsheet showed that all the ones I entered showed that the armor was calculated using the base hull cost and not the configuration modified hull cost.

Some ships have their armour cost figured at the base hull value not including streaming or distributed.

This where the errata for the Core Rule and books on starship design published after High Guard, of which I currently have none (yet), probably needs to be investigated.

I'll look back at Classic Traveller too, the base system from which Mongoose Traveller was derived to see how they handled it then.

However at the moment I need to get on my bike, cycle a long distance in first gear and see if I can get it fixed.

 

[Custodian]

I could be completely wrong, of course, and I'm scheduling some time to work through the ship design to find if the hull configuration should be a factor by number-crunching the examples in MGT Core Rules & High Guard.

It certainly seems the best explanation for the example calculation but it seems contradicted by my subsequent examination of the Core Rules and even my own copy of CT High Guard.

However being involved a road accident this morning has slowed me down and made a bit indecisive ...

However I'll send myself to bed with some paper, a pencil and some books.

 

[AndrewW]

I could be completely wrong, of course, and I'm scheduling some time to work through the ship design to find if the hull configuration should be a factor by number-crunching the examples in MGT Core Rules & High Guard

Having worked through all the ships in both Aslan and Agent I will say those do not factor the hull configuration cost into the armour calculation.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I don't have a problem with it either way in the calculations, as long as ALL the published designs are the same. It sounds like some of the earlier designs differ in how they calculate this.

If the new standard is to NOT include the hull configuration, then so be it.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello Custodian,

My word Murphy is really working overtime on you. What on earth did you do to tick Murphy off?

I've finally located a copy of CT: Book 2 Starships and have not found any reference to Armor at all. Of course the web germlins may have talked with the book germlins and hidden the information from me.

A quick check in MT, TNE, and T4 is even more involved than either CT or Mongoose.

T20 does not look close to how Mongoose figures armor.

Hopefully your day will be better tomorrow.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Book 2 doesn't address armor. You have to go to Book 5 (High Guard) to get any discussion of armor in CT starships.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello AndrewW,

Well your news has made an improvement on my Monday, now if Murphy will just stay away from me and Custodian I'll have a better endiong than start of the day.

I could be completely wrong, of course, and I'm scheduling some time to work through the ship design to find if the hull configuration should be a factor by number-crunching the examples in MGT Core Rules & High Guard

Having worked through all the ships in both Aslan and Agent I will say those do not factor the hull configuration cost into the armour calculation.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello Rikki Tikki Traveller,

Thank you for the reply to my question. So far my question appears to have determined that armor cost is determined of the base hull cost and not the configuration modified cost. I've worked through the the design in the core rulebook and the small craft in HG and they appear to determine the armor cost on the unmodified base hull cost.

So far the only place I've found that is different is in the HG Capital Ship design example. Of course I haven't tested any of the capital ship designs yet.

I don't have a problem with it either way in the calculations, as long as ALL the published designs are the same. It sounds like some of the earlier designs differ in how they calculate this.

If the new standard is to NOT include the hull configuration, then so be it.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello again Rikki Tikki Traveller,

Thank you very much for confirming that the web and book gremlins did not take the information out of CT Book 2 to mess with what little mind I have left.;-)

Book 2 doesn't address armor. You have to go to Book 5 (High Guard) to get any discussion of armor in CT starships.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

It wouldn't be the first time that the book example was in error but the designs were correct.

 

[snrdg121408]

Afternoon, PDT, Rikki Tikki Traveller,

A true statement that an example was in error, but by the same token I could have screwed up on the math. :lol:

It wouldn't be the first time that the book example was in error but the designs were correct.