baithammer
Mongoose
Its not hanging on the outside, it takes up space in the hull and is covered by any armor on the hull. What your thinking of are external cargo mounts, those are fully exposed.
Modular Fighter
- Thread starter AnotherDilbert
- Start date
Its not hanging on the outside, it takes up space in the hull and is covered by any armor on the hull. What your thinking of are external cargo mounts, those are fully exposed.
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
There is a lot of iteration, but I start with the ship.
For the Modular fighter the 5 Dt module was obvious for the required barbette. The 7 Dt module was basically the biggest I could possibly squeeze in, after essential systems, that fortuitously could fit a reduced size Nuclear Damper.
For ships I generally use modules for defensive system and possibly tertiary armaments. As such they are squeezed in in whatever nooks and crannies remains after armour, drives, and primary armaments. But trial-and-error is the basic design principle.
For the Modular fighter the 5 Dt module was obvious for the required barbette. The 7 Dt module was basically the biggest I could possibly squeeze in, after essential systems, that fortuitously could fit a reduced size Nuclear Damper.
For ships I generally use modules for defensive system and possibly tertiary armaments. As such they are squeezed in in whatever nooks and crannies remains after armour, drives, and primary armaments. But trial-and-error is the basic design principle.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
I believe this is the generally accepted form of the modular cutter.
I don't believe that the modular option mentions armoured bays, not to say that it couldn't be included for an additional percentage.
baithammer
Mongoose
Not the one list in the MGT 2ed Core book.
Has clam shell doors which puts the module under ships hull/armor.
As I mentioned earlier, there is an option under High Guard for "External Cargo Mount", this isn't under hull/armor. ( Useful for an open container ship type design.)
Has clam shell doors which puts the module under ships hull/armor.
As I mentioned earlier, there is an option under High Guard for "External Cargo Mount", this isn't under hull/armor. ( Useful for an open container ship type design.)
baithammer
Mongoose
AnotherDilbert, noticed that the fighter has a 6t collar for the drop tank. Isn't that for a 1,500t fuel capacity? ( 0.4% of 1,500 is 6t)
baithammer
Mongoose
Here's a different take on the modular fighter.
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
It is 4 collars for 5.7 dT tanks consuming of 0,09 dT. There is some rounding in the spreadsheet.baithammer said:
5.7 dT is 10 turns worth of reaction fuel.
baithammer
Mongoose
I think you missed a decimal place, 0.4% = 0.004, just like the armor calculation.
If the each tank is at 5.7t then each mount should take 0.0057. Rounding up to 0.01 a piece.
Which gives you about 3.6ts more to play with.
Just need to be cautious about the drop tanks as soon as the fighter losses 10% of its hull points the tanks are lost.
Could use some of the 3.6ts to give the fighter an on board reserve.
If the each tank is at 5.7t then each mount should take 0.0057. Rounding up to 0.01 a piece.
Which gives you about 3.6ts more to play with.
Just need to be cautious about the drop tanks as soon as the fighter losses 10% of its hull points the tanks are lost.
Could use some of the 3.6ts to give the fighter an on board reserve.
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
I think it is correct.
Drop tank collars for 4 tanks à 5.7 Dt:
4 × 5.7 × 0.004 = 0.0912 Dt
I can't save 3.6 Dt from an allocated 0.09 Dt?
Drop tank collars for 4 tanks à 5.7 Dt:
4 × 5.7 × 0.004 = 0.0912 Dt
I can't save 3.6 Dt from an allocated 0.09 Dt?
Re armouring modules or rather, not armouring modules and how a module fits the ship and is then protected. Mongoose are being consistent in that their rules are open and we each get to interpret how it works in our TU. It could be said it's not great for consistency between products that are the result of differing interpretations of the same rule in the same 3I universe but it is what it is...
baithammer
Mongoose
AnotherDilbert said:
I misread the design sheet, oops.
Considering you have options for both written in the rules.
Modular Hull means the module is under the hull with access to the exterior via mounts on the bay(For turrets,ect.), while the External Cargo Mount has the modules attached to the exterior of the hull so no armor/hull protection.
Consistency is tricky to maintain with the amount of editions plus rules visions that come along, High Guard itself is a very big leap in rules/design changes.
If you stick with the current rule set as the baseline and use other sources as secondary it makes things a bit easier.
baithammer said:Not the one list in the MGT 2ed Core book.
Has clam shell doors which puts the module under ships hull/armor.
As I mentioned earlier, there is an option under High Guard for "External Cargo Mount", this isn't under hull/armor. ( Useful for an open container ship type design.)
Huh. Well that's a change in 30+ years of canon materials...
baithammer
Mongoose
MGT 1st ed also depicted the modular cutter that way.
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
Sorry if I sound overly critical.baithammer said:
There is little reason for the fighter to be 50 Dt. It just makes them more expensive, and requiring more expensive carriers. Both means that you get a lot less fighters for your budget, and hence less combat power. If you want a barbette (which you really need) you want a 35 Dt or so fighter.
You could save money, and get more Hull, by choosing Close configuration.
EM masking is good, but needs to be combined with Stealth to be effective. Unfortunately that is too expensive for general issue.
You only have a single laser turret which will rarely be able to penetrate the fighter's own armour. You really want a barbette.
I like the escape pod, but with a turret you need a gunner and hence at least two pods.
You have a very good computer, but a poor selection of software. If no-one is launching missiles the computer is idle. Broadspectrum EW is overkill in every fighter, you might include it in a few ECM modules instead to much greater effect.
More cheaper fighters very often defeat fewer slightly better fighters. For maximum effectiveness you need to trim the cost of the fighter. Even cheap fighters will hit warships due to the dogfighting advantage.
baithammer said:MGT 1st ed also depicted the modular cutter that way.
This illustration is different in concepts. In this one the pod could still be detachable. The image just shows doors opening to port and starboard. The v2 has the pod carried like a container, or more akin to having a sleeve over an object.
The original idea was that the pod itself was the hull and the forward and aft ends of the ship were connected by a single connector.
baithammer
Mongoose
Not at all, its not good to keep ideas in a thought bubble.
Was aiming for streamlined to make this an aerospace fighter, so has an easier time with atmospheric operations.
As it imposes a penalty to locks, its price isn't that bad.
More a problem with the 2 firm point limit and the pulse laser is more for point defense, hunting low armor vessels and air to ground.
Honestly, under 35t should have 2 firm points, 35t-70t 3 firm points and 70-99 should have 4 firm points. Seems like a relic other the 2k limit.
Its a fixed mount and the reason for not using a dual cockpit.
Broadspectrum EW gives a big bang for its cost, as it automatically engages salvos every turn.
Considering the High Guard tl 15 heavy fighter has a sticker price of 42.73 Mcr, the 90 Mcr reconfigurable design is rather worth it.
Of course this is just the first iteration.
baithammer
Mongoose
The V2 depicts the pods space within the opened bay.
And as I've mentioned before there is a separate option to achieve what your thinking of.
And as I've mentioned before there is a separate option to achieve what your thinking of.
baithammer said:
The problem is that the cylinder design of the cutter won't support that idea, or at least not easily. It shows the pod coming out the side. So unless you don't mind rolling the pod out...
Now if they dropped it out the bottom that could work. But you also now have to have an empty shell and another shell around the pod itself. The previous versions of Traveller design would consume less hull. Plus dual hulls would mean less space (if you wanted to nitpick).GURPS put out an entire booklet on the Modular cutter that gives a breakdown of the modular cutter (and many variants as well).
baithammer
Mongoose
Or you get a clamp lift like those used for timber.
