Ship Design Philosophy

[Sigtrygg]

Since when is TL12 commercial standard? Standard for which setting?

The 3I began its existence at TL12 and spread TL12 fusion+ and maker technology to the worlds that joined up in the early days. Within a couple of centuries T13 was standard as the industrial base of the 3I. Now I accept that civilian tech may lag a bit behind leading edge military stuff in a few critical areas (weaponised electronics being the main one) but there is nothing in the setting to say civilians build at a lower TL.
By 1105 the Third Imperium has been solidly TL15 for over two hundred years, its military had been using experimantal TL15 stuff as far back as 700. We know from MegaTraveller times that many worlds in the Imperial core sectors are TL16 and the IN has TL16 designs being evaluated.

 

[baithammer]

Look at all the commercial designs in mgt 2ed, all of them are TL12. TL13 tends to be used by system defense/ Scout service designs and TL15 tends to be Imperium military designs.

 

[Sigtrygg]

So what do the examples in MgT books have to do with the economics of the setting?

MegaTraveller had all civilian designs as TL15, CT has civilian designs at TL9 for the 1-400t stuff, all the way up to TL15 for the 1000t-5000t megacorp tradeships.

If these discussions are to be setting specific then the details of the setting have to conform to established setting canon and make sense within the setting.

It could be different regions of the Imperium build to a different average TL.

In the core sectors where MT was mostly set TL15 civilian construction is common. Out in the Spinward Marches TL12 is more common.

 

[Condottiere]

Those are the defaults; you have air/rafts at technological level eight (really?).

I don't think the grav modules improve, though the power sources do (or could), the chassis probably not.

 

[baithammer]

So what do the examples in MgT books have to do with the economics of the setting?

MegaTraveller had all civilian designs as TL15, CT has civilian designs at TL9 for the 1-400t stuff, all the way up to TL15 for the 1000t-5000t megacorp tradeships.

If these discussions are to be setting specific then the details of the setting have to conform to established setting canon and make sense within the setting.

It could be different regions of the Imperium build to a different average TL.

In the core sectors where MT was mostly set TL15 civilian construction is common. Out in the Spinward Marches TL12 is more common.

Which by default would be the latest edition of the rules, which has all the commercial ships / boats at TL12.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and Orbital Range

This manoeuvre drive only functions when the ship is within short range (up to twelve hundred twenty five kilometres) of a planetary body. Orbital range requires two disadvantages.

Since grav modules appear to have been introduced at technological level eight instead of two disadvantages, the technological level for a default lifter should just be one less.

That means that the penalties to cost etcetera for a prototype would be eliminated, and the reset would allow a prototype at technological level seven.

 

[baithammer]

MGT 2ed has grav tech at TL9 with jump drives starting to appear at the end and TL10 being when jump drives started to be a common item.

 

[Condottiere]

The Plankwells have crystaliron armour plating.

As I recall, they were supposed to have been built using a modular production method.

 

[baithammer]

I believe it was the first capital ship to use modular construction technique usually reserved at the time for commercial designs.

The armour looks to be an artifact of CT which had a greater variance in armour points and materials.

Not to mention both the plankwell and Kokirrak are both phased out designs ...

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Armaments, Spinal Mounts, and Weapon of Choice

So I took out the clipboard and penned down a series of comparisons of the three different varieties on offer.

Long story short, unless I missed something about armour plating, meson screens and ground bombardment, at least at technological level fourteen and taking into account any number of tweaks and opportunity costs, pretty much the meson gun wins out, certainly as the best overall performance.

Ignoring the slightly larger volume, it costs the same as the particle accelerator though double that of the railgun, requires the same energy input as the railgun, but half that of the particle accelerator, plus it's radioactive and armour isn't an issue.

The only area left is at the lowest tier, thirty five hundred tonnes default, where it's just between the two losing guns.

 

[baithammer]

Spinal Railgun has a single area where it has an advantage, and that is planetary bombardment as both the spinal meson and spinal particle lose there radiation trait and are at 1/2 damage.

 

[Condottiere]

You can scale up the meson gun to make up the difference, and it has an inherently greater range, not that should matter against a sitting duck.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Long story short, unless I missed something about armour plating, meson screens and ground bombardment, at least at technological level fourteen and taking into account any number of tweaks and opportunity costs, pretty much the meson gun wins out, certainly as the best overall performance.

Meson Guns can be entirely negated by Meson Screens, Particle can only be about half negated by armour.
The minimum size of Particle is much smaller, hence much smaller ships can carry a Particle spinal.

In squadron combat several meson guns can fire at the same target ship, but the screens can only be used once; it is not economical to carry enough meson screens to negate several attacks; Hence Meson Gun superior.

In single ship combat the Meson Gun can be negated; Hence Particle can be superior.


I would use Meson Guns (and no screens) on battleships, but consider Particle (and screens) for cruisers, raiders, and other dispersed ships.

 

[baithammer]

Particle Spinals can give good displacement value when used for odd number of damage die, for example at 3DD Particle Spinal would be 8,400t versus 4DD Meson Spinal at 12,000t.

 

[Condottiere]

I think it probably does become a matter of cost benefit in specific circumstances.

Though it's trying to balance an odd tonnage, as I recall you usually have to build the warship around the spinal mounts, with the exception being planetoids,

In my opinion, it's really the thirty five hundred slot that's interesting, if you compare it with it's greater destructive potential of a factor of a thousand, to the bay one of ten.

Cost was a big concern for me leading up to this exercise, but once you look at it in combination to that of other components, less so.

In context of logistics, once you've decided on the type, range and size of your armaments, you stick with it.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Armaments, Spinal Mounts, and Weapon of Choice

So I was trying to rationalize trying to install a factor six railgun spinal mount, for two primary missions, expendable line of battle ship and ground bombardment. Primary competitors were a factor six particle accelerator and a factor three, possibly four, meson gun.

Of course, the first consideration was if you could tweak spinal mounts using primitive and advanced options, because again, it's pretty much dependent on bang for buck, and that however the battle goes, these warships are going to be badly banged up in a relatively short time, meaning at best an expensive repair bill, or even scrapped.

That's one reason the railgun appealed to me, it was, or seemed, cheaper to build and operate than any of it's contenders. amd maxed out at technological level thirteen, allowing a lower specced weapons plant to build them.

Then it became time trying to assemble a weapons platform around it, which would need to be at least hundred kilotonnes to take advantage of the increased hit points. At which point, comparing the cost of the required components necessary to make it a viable fighting ship shook my faith in the concept, and concluded you might as well just stick with the meson gun, considering the other sunk costs.

 

[baithammer]

Bombardment vessels are a support role not a fighting ship like a battleship and given that its the ground effects of the AOE that matters a railgun is a good fit for it. For a ship version of this you'd only need about 30Kdt - 50Kdt to be effective and if you want an orbital overwatch platform use a buffered planetoid with a metal rich content so it can manufacture more ammunition.

 

[Condottiere]

You have a fixed cost with a twenty tonne ball bearing at two hundred thousand schmuckers per shot.

This of course creates the temptation to maximize bang per buck, so the first thought is factor six causes six destructive kilodice.

Yet, wouldn't a factor one be sufficient, and certainly wouldn't require the much larger platform that would seat a factor six?

 

[baithammer]

The 1DD shot also gets the blast trait versus ground targets. (1,000 if scaling is based on destructive trait multiplier of spinals.) So, a low DD railgun would be a good way to provide a orbital bombardment weapon.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Armaments, Spinal Mounts, and Weapon of Choice

If you scale downwards, you have a large bay that with the same ball bearing that is less effective, and requires being a lot more closer to the target.

Speaking of which, one reason to favour weapon tweaks instead of straight forward shrinkage, is that you want that extra distance between you and the target; if the planet is safe enough to bombard at medium and short ranges, you can accomplish your objectives with a lot smaller weapon systems. Arguably, you could make that same argument for the particle accelerator, even at half damage.

Could be more of a psychological effect.