star ship pricing

barnest2 said:
Jak Nazryth said:
Yes, you can add streamlining to a close structure.
Been doing it for years! 8)

But you just end up with a streamlined structure. They're mutually exclusive, not compatible.

Are you thinking Dispersed structure?
If you look on the high guard chart, under close structure, it clearly says "YES" under the streamlining option.

Sorry, but I don't want to get in a squabble. Just been streamling close structures for years. Old trick, but legal.

And, I want to stick to the original thread. My last comment on the closed structure argument. Like I said... VERY minor cost savings. :P
 
Jak Nazryth said:
OR....
I could ditch the HUGE mark up for financing and let them make payments based on 360 and have the Winters Group finance them, but their ship will act like a scout vessel. I roll randomly at the beginning of each session, and on an 11 or 12, the Winters Group comes-a-calling. "Sorry guys, but you have to do something for us..."

Whatever works for your game. That's ALL that matters.
 
Jak Nazryth said:
Sorry, but I don't want to get in a squabble. Just been streamling close structures for years. Old trick, but legal.

Actually, not "legal" in MGT rules. But you just make House Rule for it.
 
barnest2 said:
If you want to see a trading ship that might be able to make a profit, check out the second traveller play by post. We're trying, and we might just make it. And we didn't cheat the mortgage at all (though we did have 20 ship shares)

WOW! That's a bunch of shares!
I did forget to mention that two of the players ended up getting a yacht and a lab ship on their mustering out. They will trade those for 2 shares each.
Plus...
Speaking of shp shares…
I am starting my players out on a “pre adventure”. This is considered their final act of character generation. This is their last mission of their final term before the “game really begins”. It will help them get used to the game mechanics AND they’re characters will already know each other. They are all crew members on board the Leviathan. Once this small scene is finished the characters finish mustering out, buy equipment, but a ship, and start the “real” game.
The “pre-adventure” begins on a Mega-Corp moon. The moon is covered in deep craters where at the bottom of each, the air is considered “thin”. The Mega-Corp who owns the moon leases one of these craters to the Winters Corp.
The get to rescue a Winters Corp VIP of operations at a manufacturing facility which has been taken over temporarily by a rogue group of Alsan’s. If the team successfully rescues the VP, they will all get awarded 1 share towards a Winters Corp. ship.
So the party might start out with 10 ship shares between them. That will help a lot when it comes to payments
 
DFW said:
Jak Nazryth said:
Sorry, but I don't want to get in a squabble. Just been streamling close structures for years. Old trick, but legal.

Actually, not "legal" in MGT rules. But you just make House Rule for it.

I've seen people use MGT before. I'm assuming this means "Mongoose" and not "Mega" as in mega-traveller?

Fair enough. House rule. :wink:
 
Jak Nazryth said:
DFW said:
Jak Nazryth said:
Sorry, but I don't want to get in a squabble. Just been streamling close structures for years. Old trick, but legal.

Actually, not "legal" in MGT rules. But you just make House Rule for it.

I've seen people use MGT before. I'm assuming this means "Mongoose" and not "Mega" as in mega-traveller?

Fair enough. House rule. :wink:

Right. MGT = Mongoose MT = MegaTrav

Close is partially streamlined in MGT. HOWEVER, the author of the ship hull & landing rules in MGT stated that streamlined and standard hulls can take off and land on vacuum worlds with NO facilities needed. That actually means that you can make close to zero speed descents on planets using Grav M drives. So, landing isn't a problem anyway. Unless a distributed hull.
 
DFW said:
Jak Nazryth said:
Sorry, but I don't want to get in a squabble. Just been streamling close structures for years. Old trick, but legal.

Actually, not "legal" in MGT rules. But you just make House Rule for it.

Hey if streamling a close structure is not legal why is it shown as an option in the high guard rules? Typo or am I misunderstanding the chart?
Or are you referring to the classification of a hull under 3000 tons as not being legal for close structure?
 
Jak Nazryth said:
DFW said:
Jak Nazryth said:
Sorry, but I don't want to get in a squabble. Just been streamling close structures for years. Old trick, but legal.

Actually, not "legal" in MGT rules. But you just make House Rule for it.

Hey if streamling a close structure is not legal why is it shown as an option in the high guard rules? Typo or am I misunderstanding the chart?
Or are you referring to the classification of a hull under 3000 tons as not being legal for close structure?

page 62 HG lists "Close" as being as "partial" under the "Streamlined" column. In the chart.

Maybe there is a chart I'm not seeing. Wouldn't be the 1st time for sure.
 
page 62 HG lists "Close" as being as "partial" under the "Streamlined" column. In the chart.

Maybe there is a chart I'm not seeing. Wouldn't be the 1st time for sure.[/quote]

I know that all closed structures are considered partially streamlined, giving them the ability to enter the upper atmospheres of gas giants for fuel skimming and to land on worlds with thin atmospheres. But you can also fully streamline them for a 10% mark up.

I'll double check when I get home, but that's the way I've done it, even in High School in the 80's under the CT high Guard rules.

But, it is a minor cost savings. Won't matter too much if it turns out it can't be done.

I just want my players to be able to have fun and not have the ENTIRE game revolve around "making the payment". A large portion of the game yes, just 100% of the role-playing focus.

Switching gears in the next post back to cost of maintenance...
 
Jak Nazryth said:
But you can also fully streamline them for a 10% mark up.

Could well be. I just couldn't find the 10% rule in MGT HG

Jak Nazryth said:
I'll double check when I get home, but that's the way I've done it, even in High School in the 80's under the CT high Guard rules.

Jak Nazryth said:
Not realy relevant as you are talking about a different rule set.
 
On the cost of ship maintanence... I know that originally Mark Miller wanted the entire look and feel of Traveller to mimic the late 1800's "pony express days of the Galaxy" where young adventures travel the high seas on coal or oild burning, steam powered tramp freighters.

That being said. I know that old tramp frieghter required a lot of TLC and maintanence costs, but how does that apply to fusion powered drives and gravity thruster plates?
Anybody here serve aboard a nuclear powered sub or ship? Does a nuclear reactor require as much maintanece, replacement spare parts, oil, grease, etc.. as a simi-modern diesel power plant in non-nuclear modern ships?

On a Traveller ship, how many moving parts actually need to be maintained inside an engine compartment? Oiled, greased, replaced, etc...
Isn't it mostly high yield coils, futuristic "contra-grav" power conduits etc...?

Would the cost of engine maintenance be so high as indicated in the rules?
Or are the rules still trying to mimic the cost and upkeep of an old tramp steamer by design?
Just wondering...
 
The rules were not written by a person (Marc) who possessed any meaningful EDU in the area. They were designed from a game balance point of view. Don't try to make sense of them outside that framework as you cannot.
 
Yeah - not to mention a lot is dependent on tech assumptions (esp. with fiction).

There is also the issue of over-generalization - military priorities vs. civilian - i.e. survivability and offensive effectiveness vs. monetary profit. I've never used credits as a primary motivator in my games - rather roleplay elements like survival (maintenance can certainly be a big issue there!), exploration, noble causes, etc. that relate to adventure.

In RL the only problems money really 'solves' is the need for arse-wipe, fire fuel or colorful wallpaper - people solve problems.
 
Ok, I stand corrected!
MT does not include "streamlined" under the HG rules. It only mentions partial. And I cannot fine the description of close structure that I read last night, of course I was reading through all kinds of different variants of Traveller going back to LLB's in the 80's.
I guess I'm merging rules again.
Sorry for the confusion.
I guess I'll just warp the rules to my favor and continue to cheat! :twisted:
 
Jak Nazryth said:
Ok, I stand corrected!
MT does not include "streamlined" under the HG rules. It only mentions partial. And I cannot fine the description of close structure that I read last night, of course I was reading through all kinds of different variants of Traveller going back to LLB's in the 80's.
I guess I'm merging rules again.
Sorry for the confusion.
I guess I'll just warp the rules to my favor and continue to cheat! :twisted:

If you find that description of "close" in ANY Trav rule set, clue me in. I've always wondered what it was exactly.
 
As far as I have gathered from various sources (mainly the net) it's like a very closely gather distributed structure. Like... 4 cylinders joined at the edges...
 
barnest2 said:
As far as I have gathered from various sources (mainly the net) it's like a very closely gather distributed structure. Like... 4 cylinders joined at the edges...

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks.
 
If you find that description of "close" in ANY Trav rule set, clue me in. I've always wondered what it was exactly.[/quote]

Out of T20 word for word...

...A close structure is only partially streamlined. The term is used for vessels that consist of a number of similarly or differently-shaped structures joined without significant projections. Close structured configurations reduce the cost of the hull by 40% (this is already factored into the costs listed in the Manufactured Hulls Table) USP code 4. Cost listed is in Megacredits (MCr)...

There was at least one more description similar to this in one of the other rule books. Not sure which though...

So as in a previous example, I would classify the traditional 600 ton liner as a closed structure. It has a round-flat head, kinda skinny neck, and a big shoe box shape back with a couple of boxy engine projections jutting up at the back.

Unlike Mongoose, T-20 does not designate hull classifications between capital and non-capital ships, which is where I got the closed structure from for my adventure class ships.
 
Jak Nazryth said:
There was at least one more description similar to this in one of the other rule books. Not sure which though...
Both the Fire, Fusion & Steel supplement for Traveller New Era and the
Vehicle Design System in the Central Supply Catalog of T4 have the
Close Structure configuration.
 
Back
Top