Modules for the Modular Cutter

Breakaway hull - fully integrated systems and external.

Pod - surprisingly, full integrated, and seemingly external.

Mod - partially integrated and internal.

Docking clamp - independent and external.

Drop tank - integrated and external.

Mountable tank - integrated and internal.
 
Sure, there is: You designate the ship as Military or Scout! LBB2 isn't all that complicated or detailed...
If this is allowed then why not also allow the declaration of "modular" - can carry 30t modules.
If there is no cost or down-side, why would I ever build a spacecraft that is not modular? A Free Trader with all fuel and payload in five 30 Dt modules, so I can swap between staterooms and cargo in a few minutes? A Scout with two 30 Dt modules for fuel and payload? It would be very convenient, but not how CT spacecraft are generally built...
But something you could do, all you need to say is abracadabra - modular
in the same way you say abracadabra - military drives.

Not the best design system, but hey ho :)
 
Interestingly in this thread: https://forum.mongoosepublishing.co...odules-allow-longer-jumps.124657/#post-974559


You even were referring to the cutter and provided an image of the cutter.
Quite, the CT Cutter had external "modules".
MgT1 and MgT2'16 had rules for internal "modules", and made the Cutter with internal "modules".
MgT2'22 has the same rules for internal "modules" and use them to design a Cutter with external "modules". MgT2'22 is a bit confused...

They are recreating the CT "Modular" Cutter, that had external "modules" using the mechanism of MgT internal "modules".

The result is a bit confused...


The CT Modular Cutter would be better recreated using MgT Breakaway Hull or a streamlined Docking Clamp.
 
If this is allowed then why not also allow the declaration of "modular" - can carry 30t modules.

But something you could do, all you need to say is abracadabra - modular
in the same way you say abracadabra - military drives.
And the referee can easily say no.

If you want a 200 Dt ship to have J-1 with a B-drive, that is what the system says.
If you design a tramp freighter with "scout" drives and sensors, because a Scout reputedly walked past it, the Referee is likely to say no.
If you design a ship with a new miraculous jump drive that does not need jump fuel, the Referee is likely to say no.
If you introduce a modular system, at no cost or disadvantage, that makes all published ships obsolete, the Referee is likely to say no.

I, as a menial player, can't say Abracadabra! and invoke Rule 0, only the Referee can, and we call that a house rule...

Not the best design system, but hey ho :)
It's very simplistic, but popular enough to kick-start the Traveller tradition for design systems (together with the subsector design system). Hard to complain about that.
 
I am speaking from the referee perspective. No player can design a ship in my games using their interpretation of the rules - my game, my rules.
 
I am speaking from the referee perspective. No player can design a ship in my games using their interpretation of the rules - my game, my rules.
Of course, as Referee you can make whatever house rules you want.
And I make mine.

Not a problem, just a house rule.
 
I don't think the Eagle Transporter module was ever totally integrated with the primary hull.

It seems more likely a variant of the docking clamp.

If you add corresponding passenger access, it could be considered external cargo pod.

Except, doesn't require a shipyard to attach and detach it.
 
What is the purpose of the docking clamps in the light fighter module in High Guard? Seems to me that you would be better fitting 4x 6 ton fighters in dedicated docking spaces at 7 (or 6.6 tons as small craft use fractional tons) per bay and ditch the docking clamps. You potentially gain some space and free access to the fighters, they are quicker to launch (1d minutes rather then d3 rounds - assuming these are space rounds).

The only advantage I can see is that this arrangement is 1MCr1 cheaper, which is not so much when compared to the cost of the fighters.

I had assumed that docking clamps held the auxiliary ship on the outside, if so why is 24 tons interior space allocated to the fighters. Is the idea that the module is like a bomb bay with the fighters just hanging off the clamps but inside a big open space (like tie fighter in a star destroyer)? If they are inside why does the module make the cutter un-streamlined? Surely it can benefit from the same clamshell arrangement as any other module
I have been mulling this over and I think I have a solution. With the fighter frame you are paying for 30 tons of dispersed structure. As the fighters are on clamps you are actually only using 6 tons of structure.

If you pay instead for 30 tons of streamlined structure then the fighters will be enclosed within the structure and the ship won't lose streamlining (and you can use the space for 6 tons of cargo for any fighter you leave off).

If you you pay for 6 tons of dispersed structure the fighters hang outside the structure and you have no streamlining but it is cheaper (but probably not cheap enough).

If you pay for 30 tons dispersed structure you are falling for a marketing scam :)

It is still a poor implementation.
 
I have been mulling this over and I think I have a solution. With the fighter frame you are paying for 30 tons of dispersed structure. As the fighters are on clamps you are actually only using 6 tons of structure.
Agreed.

If you pay instead for 30 tons of streamlined structure then the fighters will be enclosed within the structure and the ship won't lose streamlining (and you can use the space for 6 tons of cargo for any fighter you leave off).
Agreed, almost... Docking Space ≠ Cargo. A Docking Space is specifically shaped for the craft it is supposed to contain with an inch or so clearance. It is not shaped for standard containers (whatever that is). So soft cargo, sure, hard boxy cargo is questionable at best.

It is still a poor implementation.
Well, it is just a recreation of a CT module, just like the Cutter itself. Good wasn't part of the requirement specification...
 
It doesn't have to be specifically fighters.

And being external, doesn't necessarily need to hold to a maximum, except in terms if the volume interferes with it's capability to manoeuvre, dock, or land.
 
Agreed.


Agreed, almost... Docking Space ≠ Cargo. A Docking Space is specifically shaped for the craft it is supposed to contain with an inch or so clearance. It is not shaped for standard containers (whatever that is). So soft cargo, sure, hard boxy cargo is questionable at best.
Except this is not docking space. It is empty space with some ships hanging in it. The only space occupied if there are no fighters are the 4 docking clamps. All but 4 DTons are going to be in the exact configuration of the cargo version of the module which we are to presume is capable of handling 30 Dtons of regular cargo containers.

Now do 4 ultralight fighters take up any sort of space that is compatible with the neat cylinder that is the cutter module? Also very questionable unless the fighters are either prisms with quarter circle for ends or fat disks*.

A 6 ton ultralight fighter also has 6 Dtons of internal volume for components. As the hull and structure do not take up internal volume (though armour does), it is also unlikely that the total volume taken up by it is still only 6 DTons.

You can handwave all this for those largely cylindrical boats in custom docking spaces, in ships of non-specified geometry, but to say the same logic works for the depicted light fighter in the wholly specified cutter module stretches credulity.
Well, it is just a recreation of a CT module, just like the Cutter itself. Good wasn't part of the requirement specification...
No, but we can do better :)

EDIT.
* Though other than aesthetics there is no reasons these configurations cannot exist. A fighter shaped like a hocky puck would be fine in space (no worse than the mercenary cruiser which is just a ball) but would probably suffer somewhat in atmosphere. Maybe that's why the 50's were full of flying saucers :)
 
Last edited:
Except this is not docking space. It is empty space with some ships hanging in it. The only space occupied if there are no fighters are the 4 docking clamps. All but 4 DTons are going to be in the exact configuration of the cargo version of the module which we are to presume is capable of handling 30 Dtons of regular cargo containers.
We have to accommodate the fighters somehow. The default choices are externally with docking clamps or internally with docking spaces.
When you said enclosed (i.e. inside the hull = internally) I assumed you meant docking spaces.

Both happen to total 7 Dt for each fighter, but docking spaces are more expensive at MCr 1.75 vs. MCr 0.5 for a clamp


Now do 4 ultralight fighters take up any sort of space that is compatible with the neat cylinder that is the cutter module? Also very questionable unless the fighters are either prisms with quarter circle for ends or fat disks.
No Traveller system goes into that level of detail... You just have to have some extra space to carry spacecraft internally, at least after CT.
 
We have to accommodate the fighters somehow. The default choices are externally with docking clamps or internally with docking spaces.
When you said enclosed (i.e. inside the hull = internally) I assumed you meant docking spaces.
The MGT2 variant seems to be internally with docking clamps. You are paying for the whole 50 ton streamlined hull (similar to a scaled up ships boat). Then you pay another 3/5th of that to make it modular (that pays for the clamshells in my book). You then spend yet more to have a 30 ton dispersed hull on the fighter frame module itself. A dispersed hull is still enclosed.

That is why I assume that the standard MGT2 cutter has clamshells around the whole module (which make it streamlined regardless of the structure of the module). If there was no module all that module space is empty but still enclosed (and still streamlined). It might not have decks which would make taking conventional cargo more challenging, but possibly not if it were all containerised and locked together. We don't know how the standard 30 DTon cargo module is capable of holding 30 DTon but still itself be only 30 DTon!!!. If you have a module that needs some exterior access then those clamshells can always be opened (like a beetle carapace) when needed.
Both happen to total 7 Dt for each fighter, but docking spaces are more expensive at MCr 1.75 vs. MCr 0.5 for a clamp
No Traveller system goes into that level of detail... You just have to have some extra space to carry spacecraft internally, at least after CT.
I think I fixed that with the "hockey puck" fighter :)
 
For the classic Gantry style Cutter we should perhaps have a 20 DTon hull that can just dock around the 30 Dton module. Only when together is it a 50 ton combined hull. The breakaway hull option seems the more logical MGT2 mechanic.

Modular hull maths does not make sense. You end up buying the hull 3 times.

I need to spend more time thinking about what MGT2 rules imply.
 
Shahed%20136%20launcher%20Great%20Prophet%20v2.png
 
The MGT2 variant seems to be internally with docking clamps. You are paying for the whole 50 ton streamlined hull (similar to a scaled up ships boat). Then you pay another 3/5th of that to make it modular (that pays for the clamshells in my book). You then spend yet more to have a 30 ton dispersed hull on the fighter frame module itself. A dispersed hull is still enclosed.
The MgT2'22 version uses liberal amounts of Rule 0.

As the entire Cutter becomes unstreamlined, it has to be external, not covered by a clamshell.
They use Dispersed Hull as it was used in CT:
CT High Guard'80, p32:
Vehicle Launch Facilities: Starships and non-starships carried on a ship must be provided with some form of launch facilities.
_ _ 1. Dispersed Structures: Ships which have a type 7 configuration hull carry craft and ships attached to their exterior. They need no additional fittings. All craft carried by a configuration 7 ship may be launched in one turn.
"Exterior" here means within hull tonnage, but not in a shirt-sleeve hangar. Within formal hull tonnage, but outside the enclosed structure. Dispersed configuration is used e.g. by carriers to avoid having to use launch tubes.

The entire MgT2'22 Cutter says more about CT nostalgia than MgT2'22 rules...
 
For the classic Gantry style Cutter we should perhaps have a 20 DTon hull that can just dock around the 30 Dton module. Only when together is it a 50 ton combined hull. The breakaway hull option seems the more logical MGT2 mechanic.
Agreed.
Modular hull maths does not make sense. You end up buying the hull 3 times.
Agreed, well two times at least. The main hull is more slightly expensive and the module frame/structure is in addition to that.
 
I want a whole evolution of these things. The modular cutter, the heavy cutter, the jump cutter, the heavy jump cutter etc. I think with a few interchangeable front sections (snubby - cockpit rather than a bridge, standard and long nose - with a larger bridge or staterooms) and a few different rear power sets you could get a great deal of flexibility (a sort of modular modular cutter if you will). With two modules side by side you can gain a good deal of real estate to link the front and back sections With three side-by-side the centre "module" could actually be fixed (and more structural) just having the same dimensions and access linkages as a regular module. This could easily fit a jump engine, a beefed up M-drive, fuel tanks or additional staterooms.

You can have a "stretched" design with a second or even third row of modules.

I am less convinced about the "Deneb" configuration or the "revolver" as I'd still like to see the ability to move between modules and it becomes difficult to swap out modules.

Such a configuration would be an ideal starter for a new traveller group. Beginning with a cutter as starting benefit, as well as the usual flexibility of the modules you could expand the capability of the ship as your wealth and influence increased.

Just need to nail down those basic concepts like what exactly the cutter is.
 
Back
Top