Proposed additions to drop tanks description

[wbnc]

as someone pointed out drop tanks are not covered under combat rules.I propose the following additions

1) drop tanks receive hull points as if they were a non gravity hull.
2) drop tanks are subject to critical hits but all hits are either hull, or fuel hits.
3) Drop tanks are subject hit by incoming attacks directed at the ship with a percentage chance that they are stuck equal to the percentage of the carrying vessels tonnage they take up.
( example) a 200 ton ship carrying 50 ton tanks = 25% chance the tank is hit by any and all attacks directed at the ship.
4) tanks impose a penalty to any pilot check made y the ship carrying it equal to the penalty they impose of jump checks
5) drop tanks can be dropped in one round with penalties for their presence continuing to the end of the round they are dropped on.
6) Jettisoned drop tanks can be reattached in 1d6 hours by crewmen in EVA, or in 1 hour if using manipulator arms/work pods
7) drop tanks are not armored, and can not be reinforced, or armored.
8 ) drop tanks can be streamlined at the same cost as streamlining the hull of a ship. ( but only if the ship itself is streamlined.)


Still considering a few things
1) drop tanks can be targeted specifically withing close range...need ot figure out a penalty for that on the attack.
2) should drop tanks affect initiative.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I would add a note that once the drop tanks are destroyed, they are gone and can no longer be hit. Otherwise you can make a drop tank the same size as your ship and get a permanent 50% damage sink...

 

[wbnc]

I would add a note that once the drop tanks are destroyed, they are gone and can no longer be hit. Otherwise you can make a drop tank the same size as your ship and get a permanent 50% damage sink...

didn't think about that...but ya know someone would have tried it ...

 

[phavoc]

An easy enough rule is - if you are engaged in combat, ANY external tank is considered destroyed, and all fuel lost. Keep in mind drop tanks are designed to simply store fuel in a cheap manor - they aren't designed or armored for combat, hell, the connections and such external to the hull shouldn't be able to take large G-forces either. I'd probably also limit the ship to no evasive maneuvers, and restrict their speed (external tanks aren't hull metal plated, therefore are more vulnerable to penetrations from space debris).

In the game Starfire ships could mount missiles on external racks. But the rule was, the first hit you took meant all external ordnance was destroyed. So people used their external missiles in their first salvo's (plus internal launchers), and then went to internal launchers. It limited external missiles to a one-time use in a battle thing.

The idea of drop tanks is something SMALL starships and such should use. It totally doesn't fit the paradigm of larger ships, except in extreme circumstances. Any navy that went around on a regular basis expecting to use drop tanks is not a realistic navy, at least not in my opinion. This is another example of where good naval design dies an ignoble death when it comes to players looking to min/max their designs from a pure gaming purpose.

So the question becomes, do we allow the rules to accommodate things like this, or do we modify them to make them less palatable?

 

[Chas]

The idea of drop tanks is something SMALL starships and such should use. It totally doesn't fit the paradigm of larger ships, except in extreme circumstances. Any navy that went around on a regular basis expecting to use drop tanks is not a realistic navy, at least not in my opinion. This is another example of where good naval design dies an ignoble death when it comes to players looking to min/max their designs from a pure gaming purpose.

Wouldn't agree with that one phavoc. I've used drop tanks for large ships, for valid reasons, since the original High Guard. They are a useful technology for a jump constrained navy, and especially for the Imperial Navy with its drop tank technology advantage, it would use them to their fullest in anyway possible. And there are lots of ways to use them.

Yes, they should be easily destroyed in combat - that's the risk of using them - but there should be nothing precluding their use by any kind of ship.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Competing prejudices. I would like drop tanks to be available for all, but an extra not something to be relied on. It should go poof the first time you are hit. I see no problem with a fighter using a drop tank for reaction fuel to get through Distant rangeband for example.

I've never seen drop tanks as very recoverable after being dropped. You might recover them, but you cannot rely on it. I've used tankers with extra drop tanks.

But drop tanks are now as expensive as hulls, just without gravity and life-support, so Chas has a point.

In the end I think a basic starship should be a basic starship. Drop tanks should be an optional extra, not a mandatory requirement for a good design (Sorry, Chas).

 

[phavoc]

I agree with what AnotherDilbert is saying. I'm not saying they COULDN'T... but I am arguing that any design that RELIES upon them we should call bullshit on. It's one thing if you need to be able to say cross a gap your jump drives wouldn't normally be able to cover. OR temporarily using them to get yourself into an enemy star system and you are trying to ensure you'd have enough fuel to retreat if things turned against you.

They should be fragile little things. LIke you should be unable to refuel them while they are attached, which puts them into the realm of you need tanker support or fuel shuttles to fill them up. I'm not sure of the efficacy of making it a default equipment piece for EVERY starship.

I hadn't thought about adding them to fighters to include their afterburner fuel. I am still not a huge fan of the widespread addition of these to every size and class of ship (potentially). Just feels wrong for starships to be able to use them.

 

[Chas]

In the end I think a basic starship should be a basic starship. Drop tanks should be an optional extra, not a mandatory requirement for a good design (Sorry, Chas).

Nothing to be sorry about. It's a valid point. The issue is with Traveller is that there are plenty of good designs that the drop tank becomes mandatory for.

Removing drop tanks for large ships, without doing something about the rest of it, is simply counter productive. You're taking interesting options off the table greatly limiting what can be built, without adding anything. And I doubt any major revision to the core rule set is going to happen at this point. So by all means clarify the rule set to use drop tanks, but let's not take them out of the build equation by doing so.

 

[Chas]

I hadn't thought about adding them to fighters to include their afterburner fuel. I am still not a huge fan of the widespread addition of these to every size and class of ship (potentially). Just feels wrong for starships to be able to use them.

Not arguing but just saying I've always seen drop tanks as a fundamental and fun part of the game. And something you need. There are a bunch of builds that just won't work without them.

 

[phavoc]

I hadn't thought about adding them to fighters to include their afterburner fuel. I am still not a huge fan of the widespread addition of these to every size and class of ship (potentially). Just feels wrong for starships to be able to use them.

Not arguing but just saying I've always seen drop tanks as a fundamental and fun part of the game. And something you need. There are a bunch of builds that just won't work without them.

There are definitely some builds that had drop tanks required to use their full jump capabilities, but they weren't required to operate. I don't recall the name of the escort-class vessel (Firefly?) that had that included (didn't it also have a bug in the design as the hull was only 300Dtons, but it had 4 hardpoints and counted on the 100Dton drop tank as part of the tonnage calcs?).

And drop tanks, if you use the aircraft analogy of them, are pre-built items you don't just pull out of your cargo hold and inflate. They have to be built and essentially pre-positioned for fleet usage.

 

[wbnc]

tactical Use:
I am in agreement on the idea that tanks should not be a major factor in a design under normal circumstances. Even in designs where I have them semi permanently attached it's only to increase their ability to make back to back jumps. and are never intended to be carried into a fight...maybe a fast retreat but not a fight.

if used on a fighter or small starship about the only time I could see them being retained after the enemy is spotted and a ship is moving to intercept would be for carrying extra reaction fuel to allow them to chase down the opponent using afterburners and still have reaction fuel in internal tanks for the actual combat. I would imagine they would be dropped the second a ship got within weapons range...or slightly before just to be safe.
question:
Would it be more palatable to add the penalties for carrying a tank through a jump to piloting AND initiative to discourage carrying tanks into a fight. This would almost insure any ship carrying them would drop them long before combat began to avoid losing initiative to the enemy.

Hull points:
About the only reason I thought of giving them hull points to begin with was the fact you are paying as much for the tank as you are for a non gravity hull. if they are tissue paper thin and go up like flash paper when hit that's really expensive flash paper.

recovery:
I added that bit just to answer the question ahead of time. If a private owner dropped his tanks then was able to stick around after the fight a player would obviously ask.."hey can I pick up my tanks"....

military or commercial ships would more than likely just leave them behind if they dropped them. Although I could see a clever salvager following along behind military operations, and scooping up those tanks for resell later Scoop em up, lock them onto external cargo clamps, and drop them off at a naval base for a recovery fee.

 

[phavoc]

tactical Use:
I am in agreement on the idea that tanks should not be a major factor in a design under normal circumstances. Even in designs where I have them semi permanently attached it's only to increase their ability to make back to back jumps. and are never intended to be carried into a fight...maybe a fast retreat but not a fight.

if used on a fighter or small starship about the only time I could see them being retained after the enemy is spotted and a ship is moving to intercept would be for carrying extra reaction fuel to allow them to chase down the opponent using afterburners and still have reaction fuel in internal tanks for the actual combat. I would imagine they would be dropped the second a ship got within weapons range...or slightly before just to be safe.
question:
Would it be more palatable to add the penalties for carrying a tank through a jump to piloting AND initiative to discourage carrying tanks into a fight. This would almost insure any ship carrying them would drop them long before combat began to avoid losing initiative to the enemy.

I wouldn't have issue with them surviving SIGHTING of the enemy, but they should get summarily destroyed/holed/leak if the ships receives damage (attacks are ok, as you gotta hit something, eh). As far as pilot penalties going INTO or OUT of jump... I'd have to say no. You can cut accel and just coast and that would eliminate any control issues.

I still think that running around with full tanks attached to you should incur some penalty to say maneuverability. These things aren't your hull, plus they don't have AG fields protecting them from all the to/fro shaking that you'd get jostling around in evasive.

Come to think of it, drop tanks, especially singularly large ones, may very well block the or minimize the firing arcs of turrets, missile launchers and bays. Should there be any sort of weapons penalty/weapons brought to bear based upon the tonnage of your external tank as it relates to the carrying craft?

Hull points:
About the only reason I thought of giving them hull points to begin with was the fact you are paying as much for the tank as you are for a non gravity hull. if they are tissue paper thin and go up like flash paper when hit that's really expensive flash paper.

I'd have to say nope on this one. They aren't actual hull (though that would mean they shouldn't incur the same charges in my mind... hull costs encompasses all sorts of things). Drop tanks should be somewhat cheap, rigid tanks designed for a specific type/class of vessel. They need enough structure to maintain the integrity and the mass of their tankage. And some pumping gear probably. That's it.

recovery:
I added that bit just to answer the question ahead of time. If a private owner dropped his tanks then was able to stick around after the fight a player would obviously ask.."hey can I pick up my tanks"....

military or commercial ships would more than likely just leave them behind if they dropped them. Although I could see a clever salvager following along behind military operations, and scooping up those tanks for resell later Scoop em up, lock them onto external cargo clamps, and drop them off at a naval base for a recovery fee.

Well, there's some interesting questions here. Assuming you properly drain them and depressurize them, you > in theory < should be able to release the docking collars and use thrusters to move away from them without damaging them. However if you were in a hurry you are going to flip that switch and they are going to be jettisoned quickly and with force. If we move to a cheaper cost, then sure, I could see that they'd become non-reusable. Military would most likely always do so entering into a combat situation. So really the question is one for players looking to save some credits. No ship should be able to land or skim fuel with them on (too much turbulence or gravity that would rip them off). Planets with any sort of orbital traffic aren't going to let you leave orbital debris like that without fining you.. so if you DID want to pick them up again, you'd have to be way away from a planet for safety sake, plus maybe even beyond the 100D limit if they had lots of traffic. They'd technically be a hazard, so I would expect Imperial regs would require to place a beacon on them... which salvors would appreciate for marking free lootz!

So all-in-all, I think the deck seems stacked against that sort of idea.

 

[Nerhesi]

So gents, I've been out of this convo but I feel it's something we need to stress to Matt.

Therefore, how can we sum this up?

Drops tanks considered destroyed after the ship takes 10% hull damage?

I think our best bet would be a VERY simple rule... so thoughts? Ideas?

 

[Chas]

Yes, I'd agree that it needs to be clean and simple and I'd be happy with the 10% auto destroy.

While detail is good it's clearly not going to fly with the rules production.

(I'd like an option to buy more expensive self sealing drop tanks at say triple the price that then are only destroyed at 30% hull damage :wink: )

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Wbnc has a good rule in the OP.

Otherwise I would go with the classic: the tanks are destroyed/holed the first time you are hit.

You don't have to do damage to a heavily armoured hull, to destroy/hole/warp the more delicate drop tanks.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

(I'd like an option to buy more expensive self sealing drop tanks at say triple the price that then are only destroyed at 30% hull damage :wink: )

Take a look at breakaway hulls, they are better than that, but at a 2% fee.

And no one can call them flimsy or not intended for permanent use...

 

[Chas]

(I'd like an option to buy more expensive self sealing drop tanks at say triple the price that then are only destroyed at 30% hull damage :wink: )

Take a look at breakaway hulls, they are better than that, but at a 2% fee.

And no one can call them flimsy or not intended for permanent use...

:!: Hah hah. And double hah. Yes, I'm just kicking that around now for a specific mission critical design, but sidetracked by the riders, which I'll do up first and then see how this pans out vs a special drop tank design I'm comparing it against. :lol:

 

[phavoc]

So gents, I've been out of this convo but I feel it's something we need to stress to Matt.

Therefore, how can we sum this up?

Drops tanks considered destroyed after the ship takes 10% hull damage?

I think our best bet would be a VERY simple rule... so thoughts? Ideas?

I prefer the ANY damage rule destroys your drop tanks. We don't want anyone thinking they can use them for bolt-on armor, and realistically if you are going to hit the hull you gotta go through the tank first. These things aren't even armored as well as a ground vehicle. Anti-starship weapons should tear through them like they were nothing (which they are). Their price should be lowered to reflect their relative fragility.

 

[wbnc]

would say a 10% rule would be the simplest solution. about the only reason I am leery for the automatic destruction if you take any hits, is that you are paying the same price as a full feature hull for something that is so flimsy it cant take a glancing 1 point hit from a beam laser without coming apart.

so if they are extremely fragile the price should be reduced, or they should be more robust.

as for other factors
No entry to an atmosphere without penalties/destruction of tanks : yes
No skimming with tanks: Yep.
Penalties on maneuvering,initiative, and attack:yep

 

[Chas]

would say a 10% rule would be the simplest solution. about the only reason I am leery for the automatic destruction if you take any hits, is that you are paying the same price as a full feature hull for something that is so flimsy it cant take a glancing 1 point hit from a beam laser without coming apart.

so if they are extremely fragile the price should be reduced, or they should be more robust.

as for other factors
No entry to an atmosphere without penalties/destruction of tanks : yes
No skimming with tanks: Yep.
Penalties on maneuvering,initiative, and attack:yep

Why can't you skim with tanks? They're easily made more streamlined than the ship itself. Moreover they're not made of paper. You get penalties already if you fight with them because your M drive goes down. This is all unnecessary complication.

Nehersi's solution is simple and in line I think with the rules as is and traditional OTU and easy to implement.

If you want them more easily destroyed say they are automatically destroyed at 5% of hull damage. This or 10% is logical, we're not playing called hits or whatever, they just get destroyed after the % of hull damage is done. Not that they're destroyed just because the battle wagon took a missile hit on the nose when the tanks are on the rear. They're not any extra armor or anything else, the just are assumed destroyed after the ship takes the % damage. The cost of drop tanks now is not extreme. You take the risk of losing this investment if you go into battle with them on. It's fair as is.