My first ship, whadda' ya' think?

[Infojunky]

Here is a little hockey puck of a SDB, or 100 tons of hurt.

TL 12 100 Gunboat
Item Rating Tonnage Cost Crew
Hull 100 -- 2.00 MCr --
Streamlined -- -- 0.20 MCr --
Armor 12 15 1.20 MCr --
Self sealing -- -- 1.00 MCr --
Stealth -4 sensor -- 10.00 MCr --
Maneuver 4 3 8.00 MCr 0.09
Power 4 7 16.00 MCr 0.2
Power Fuel 2 weeks 4 -- --
Controls -- 10 0.50 MCr 3
Computer M4fib -- 5.00 MCr --
Software Evade 1&2 -- 3.00 MCr --
FC 1&2 -- 6.00 MCr --
Sensors Adv. Mil 3 2.00 MCr --
Fire Control -- 1 -- --
Weapons Bay Particle 50 20.00 MCr 1
Half Stateroom -- 2 0.25 MCr --
Assault Bay -- 5 0.60 MCr --
Totals -- 100 75.75 MCr 5crew

 

[saundby]

"The Imperial Office of Shipbuilding thanks you for your timely response to our RFP for the Advanced 100 ton class Next Generation Assault Craft (ANGAC) program. While our liasons from the Navy and Marines appear most enthusiastic over the potentials of this design, representatives of the Imperial Exchequer have expressed grave doubts concerning the outlay that would be required, even in a limited development and deployment of this type.

"As a result, the program award has been made to LSP for their proposal to retrofit 500 in-service S-class Scout craft with a second turret, full weapons suite, and updated avionics."

:lol:

 

[Infojunky]

My presentation sucks.

There has to be a better way to post raw construction stats to this forum.

 

[cmdrx]

Cringe, wince, and EEP! :shock:

Nice idea and good design, and please let me state first off that it is not your design I am going to criticise. It's the Core Book design system.

This is the sort of thing I expected people to do with the current design system, well because I would have too! But the thought of a 100dt ship, Jump capable or not, packing a 50dt Particle Bay just makes me shudder. It is in part due to the "1 hardpoint per bay" rule and the lack of a power allocation system. A type A PP would never have enough juice to power that bay, back in the day...

This sort of thing sticks in my craw like "Jump Torpedoes" (Cringe!)

I know, this comming from the guy who invented the TL16 Meson Barbette for Classic High Guard.

I await the release of Mongoose High Guard most attentively for these reasons and others.

Please understand these are just my own personal views. Your universe may indeed be different. But from a OTU standpoint, this shouldn't be!

 

[AKAramis]

My presentation sucks.

There has to be a better way to post raw construction stats to this forum.

use the code button to generate [code][/code] tags.

Once you wrap it in code tags, two things happen: (1) whitespace is preserved and (2) font is switched to monospace.

Also, do not use tabs. Space it out. (tab distance can be set by the end user, and thus is not cosistent.
To see how I did it, hit quote, and examine the code...

TL 12 100 Gunboat                
Item            Rating     Tonnage      Cost         Crew
Hull              100        --        2.00 MCr        --
Streamlined        --        --        0.20 MCr        --
Armor              12        15        1.20 MCr        --
Self sealing       --        --        1.00 MCr        --
Stealth        -4 Sensor     --       10.00 MCr        --
Maneuver            4         3        8.00 MCr        0.09
Power Pant          4         7       16.00 MCr        0.2
Power Fuel     2 weeks        4        --              --
Controls           --        10        0.50 MCr        3
Computer        M4fib        --        5.00 MCr        --
Software
        Evade 1&2            --        3.00 MCr        --
        FC 1&2               --        6.00 MCr        --
Sensors        Adv. Mil       3        2.00 MCr        --
Fire Control        --        1        --              --
Weapons Bay Particle         50       20.00 MCr        1
Half Stateroom      --        2        0.25 MCr        --
Assault Bay         --        5        0.60 MCr        --
Totals              --      100       75.75 MCr        5crew

 

[Golan2072]

One possibility is to display the final result as a CT-style textual paragraph...

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Cringe, wince, and EEP! :shock:

Nice idea and good design, and please let me state first off that it is not your design I am going to criticise. It's the Core Book design system.

This is the sort of thing I expected people to do with the current design system, well because I would have too! But the thought of a 100dt ship, Jump capable or not, packing a 50dt Particle Bay just makes me shudder. It is in part due to the "1 hardpoint per bay" rule and the lack of a power allocation system. A type A PP would never have enough juice to power that bay, back in the day...

This sort of thing sticks in my craw like "Jump Torpedoes" (Cringe!)

I know, this comming from the guy who invented the TL16 Meson Barbette for Classic High Guard.

I await the release of Mongoose High Guard most attentively for these reasons and others.

Please understand these are just my own personal views. Your universe may indeed be different. But from a OTU standpoint, this shouldn't be!

This is NOT a Jump capable ship. This is an SDB. This is a very limited use, very expensive, one-shot ship killer. It has a very specific roll in planetary defense and will not be used for customs inspections...

 

[Infojunky]

use the code button to generate [code][/code] tags.

Once you wrap it in code tags, two things happen: (1) whitespace is preserved and (2) font is switched to monospace.

Also, do not use tabs. Space it out. (tab distance can be set by the end user, and thus is not cosistent.

Cool, thanks I knew there was a way.

 

[Infojunky]

Cringe, wince, and EEP! :shock:

Nice idea and good design, and please let me state first off that it is not your design I am going to criticise. It's the Core Book design system.

Thanks, and I pushed the design limits to see what sorts of monstrosities I could produce, I have a couple of others that aren't quite so bad.

This is the sort of thing I expected people to do with the current design system, well because I would have too! But the thought of a 100dt ship, Jump capable or not, packing a 50dt Particle Bay just makes me shudder. It is in part due to the "1 hardpoint per bay" rule and the lack of a power allocation system. A type A PP would never have enough juice to power that bay, back in the day...

I await the release of Mongoose High Guard most attentively for these reasons and others.

That is what I believe a lot of people are Waiting for. The system present in the main book has a bunch of Issues. But like all things Traveller there is room for improvement, or there are too many unsupported options in the system in the main book, right now tend to spent half of my time trying to figure out how to fix things within the frame of the rules as presented as they reflect past editions.

Please understand these are just my own personal views. Your universe may indeed be different. But from a OTU standpoint, this shouldn't be!

MTU/game are post TNE using the 1248 setting from ComStar/Avenger. So bays in small craft are ok, as it is a small ship game.

 

[captainjack23]

Cringe, wince, and EEP! :shock:

Nice idea and good design, and please let me state first off that it is not your design I am going to criticise. It's the Core Book design system.

Thanks, and I pushed the design limits to see what sorts of monstrosities I could produce, I have a couple of others that aren't quite so bad.

This is the sort of thing I expected people to do with the current design system, well because I would have too! But the thought of a 100dt ship, Jump capable or not, packing a 50dt Particle Bay just makes me shudder. It is in part due to the "1 hardpoint per bay" rule and the lack of a power allocation system. A type A PP would never have enough juice to power that bay, back in the day...

I await the release of Mongoose High Guard most attentively for these reasons and others.

Sir, you have succeeded admirably in your goal - a craft worthy of the final defence of Okinawa !


That said, it really will require some kind of hull based limit in addition to a power system -or accepting that thats just how things work. A bunch of those with any kind of jump capability will mess with just about any campaign...

Here's why some kind of genralized limit is needed: Looking at power as the only problem, and looking at what is in a 50-ton bay, there is ample room for a humungous powerplant dedicated to the weapon....and it's hard to see exacly what else all the space is needed for.

Cost wise, a particle bay seems to be a quadruple size turret particle weapon; and the damage (and penetration) being double seems to model that quite well (increase in firepower = SQRT(increase in power) );The rules allow a turret to have 3x PB weapons, after all - and even if you go for the old style 1/turret maximum, a 50 ton Bay has a way bigger volume than 4 turrets (even if you include the firecontrol tonnage for each one..).

So there is ample room for (to use an extreme example) a 25 ton type H power plant, which could fire as many as 16 turret weapons in addition to running a 1600 ton ship; Cost wise, no way, but consider the extra cost of a Bay over four weapons; 4 Pbeams cost 16 MCr, a bay costs 20; a type A PP costs 8; so it's not very hard to see a cut down small craft size 3-4 dTon powerplant (possibly under efficient for cheapness) being integral to a bay.

So, yes, energy limits perhaps, but as long as the installation is only limited by a scalable linear factor (energy), it'll also allow massive minimaxing; discreet upper and lower limits are good, as most scalable systems get weird at their extremes.....


I'm getting too geeky now, must wander off and think about empty hexes.....

 

[tneva82]

and the lack of a power allocation system. A type A PP would never have enough juice to power that bay, back in the day...

Ah how this makes me laugh when I remember all the PP's are evil complaints back in the playtesting. I tried to tell this is what would happen but oh no! "It wouldn't be realistic if there wouldn't be enough power to fire all the weapons at same time!" etc etc etc.

Well people got what they wanted. No PP's so they could fire all their weapons without any problems and manouver freely as well. Just for laughs I hope there won't be any in high guard. Just to hear big loud THANK YOU directed at them.

 

[captainjack23]

and the lack of a power allocation system. A type A PP would never have enough juice to power that bay, back in the day...

Ah how this makes me laugh when I remember all the PP's are evil complaints back in the playtesting. I tried to tell this is what would happen but oh no! "It wouldn't be realistic if there wouldn't be enough power to fire all the weapons at same time!" etc etc etc.

Well people got what they wanted. No PP's so they could fire all their weapons without any problems and manouver freely as well. Just for laughs I hope there won't be any in high guard. Just to hear big loud THANK YOU directed at them.

Well, if gloating isn't enough fun ( :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: ), try taking a look at my post about one possible and simple workaround. It needs some rules for bays, but it's in development.....

 

[cmdrx]

Please understand these are just my own personal views. Your universe may indeed be different. But from a OTU standpoint, this shouldn't be!

MTU/game are post TNE using the 1248 setting from ComStar/Avenger. So bays in small craft are ok, as it is a small ship game.[/quote]

Yeah, I remember TNE FF&S quite well. The Regency had all sorts of abominations. Remember the Fang and Cuspid class Quarantine Cutters? They had 10dt PAW weapons called "Varmint Guns". Don't get me started on the under 100dt jump capable ships either. FF&S allowed allot of things you would not have seen in CT or MT.

Gah! Merc is out, but I want HG!

 

[tneva82]

Well, if gloating isn't enough fun ( :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: ), try taking a look at my post about one possible and simple workaround. It needs some rules for bays, but it's in development.....

I tried to point out precicely what would happen but did people take notice? Nope! They wanted their particle weapons being fired without problems so that's what they got! Well atleast Mongoose listens to customers. Too bad they did too much of that :?

 

[Infojunky]

Please understand these are just my own personal views. Your universe may indeed be different. But from a OTU standpoint, this shouldn't be!

Your right, the OTU should be consistent, though every edition has changed starships radically, every group writing has different views of how are built and preform. But only MT and TNE got starships internally consistent on the 1st try. T4 went through 4.. 5.. different iterations without ever producing a final usable system with an associated combat system.

Yeah, I remember TNE FF&S quite well. The Regency had all sorts of abominations. Remember the Fang and Cuspid class Quarantine Cutters? They had 10dt PAW weapons called "Varmint Guns". Don't get me started on the under 100dt jump capable ships either. FF&S allowed allot of things you would not have seen in CT or MT.

TNE is a small ship game and setting, the construction rules reflected that with more options available for the sub1000 dton hulls, and there where some beautifully ugly little ships in the setting, but they all were consistent with each other.

As for sub 100 dton jump craft, just thank GW for that Leviathan introduced Jump-torps.

Just for a side point of opinion I would lower the limit of jump craft to 50 dtons as every time I look at the cutter I think it is the ideal size for a scout boat.

 

[captainjack23]

Well, if gloating isn't enough fun ( :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: ), try taking a look at my post about one possible and simple workaround. It needs some rules for bays, but it's in development.....

I tried to point out precicely what would happen but did people take notice? Nope! They wanted their particle weapons being fired without problems so that's what they got! Well atleast Mongoose listens to customers. Too bad they did too much of that :?

Well, since you brought it up, I was in the playtest from start to finish, and I have to say I don't remember much clamor at all for dumping a power point system; in fact, what I do remember is a clamor to have power included; what I also remember is lots of discussion about the power system initially provided, and if and how it worked , but not specifically aimed at free wepons use.

Perhaps I missed that bit.

 

[tneva82]

Well, since you brought it up, I was in the playtest from start to finish, and I have to say I don't remember much clamor at all for dumping a power point system; in fact, what I do remember is a clamor to have power included; what I also remember is lots of discussion about the power system initially provided, and if and how it worked , but not specifically aimed at free wepons use.

You can't remember all those PP's are broken complaints? I know I got tired enough of those near the end of playtesting enough to forget about traveller for a while.

 

[captainjack23]

Well, since you brought it up, I was in the playtest from start to finish, and I have to say I don't remember much clamor at all for dumping a power point system; in fact, what I do remember is a clamor to have power included; what I also remember is lots of discussion about the power system initially provided, and if and how it worked , but not specifically aimed at free wepons use.

You can't remember all those PP's are broken complaints? I know I got tired enough of those near the end of playtesting enough to forget about traveller for a while.

Well, I remember them as "the rules defining the power plant being broken" complaints, not the application of power to weapons, or the need for a power allocation system; but perhaps I was concentrating on trade and planetary stuff.

In any case welcome back ! Did you check out the system I proposed ? Input is greatly appreciated !

 

[simonh]

This is the sort of thing I expected people to do with the current design system, well because I would have too! But the thought of a 100dt ship, Jump capable or not, packing a 50dt Particle Bay just makes me shudder. It is in part due to the "1 hardpoint per bay" rule and the lack of a power allocation system. A type A PP would never have enough juice to power that bay, back in the day...

You see, I have exactly the opposite reaction. I mean other than power requirements, and honestly any reasonable power requirement system will not entirely eliminate such designs (just replace the particle gun with a missile bay for example), what is the actual reason for disallowing such designs? I mean other than the fact that Classic Traveller had an arbitrary rule, what the actual reason?

I don't see any reason whatsoever why ships of a couple of hundred tons shouldn't have bays, or dozens of turrets for that matter. The more the merrier. I'm into Traveller for the roleplaying, not the wargaming, so spinal mount weapons don't do it for me. I'm fed up with looking at warship designs and knowing for a fact that those ships have a dozen spare cabins 'for marines', a hundred tons of cargo space and a ship's boat (with crew - more lovely staterooms) purely because the designer needed to stick something - anything - into the ship to use up the extra space the design system forces the ship to have, because an arbitrary rule says he can't put the same offensive payload into a smaller hull.

To be fair, the fact that in MGT armour takes up displacement helps a bit. Otherwise the Gazelle would have 55 tons of cargo space instead of 15 (plus 20 for a Launch). It also has useful stuff like probes and rescue pods you can put in there to make the cavernous unused space you'd otherwise have a little less glaring. But look at the the Police Launch - a small streamlined 100 ton combat craft that somehow also feels the need to have a launch and 20 tons of spare cargo space. That's 40% of it's volume on space-filler.

In actual fact I'm resigned to the probability that High Guard will tighten things up and make things more classically 'correct' and Travellery. Fine, whatever, it's not really a big deal. I just think it's a bit of a shame.

Simon Hibbs

 

[hdrider67]

and the lack of a power allocation system. A type A PP would never have enough juice to power that bay, back in the day...

Ah how this makes me laugh when I remember all the PP's are evil complaints back in the playtesting...

*raises hand*

I was one of those, though I had a problem with how the PP were implemented, not of the idea of PP. I was dismayed to see they were removed from the system.

I have exactly ONE thread in this forum bookmarked. It's the Captain's energy workaround thread. It fit my needs perfectly and I hope the Mongeese are paying attention to his fix for implementation in HG.