What real use are escape pods?

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

GM uses for escape pods:

1/ Use up PC money

2/ Reduce PC income by using up tonnage in non income generating ways.

3/ Provide a way for PCs to survive the destruction of their ship in combat without being obvious.

4/ Escape route for prisoners whether it be the PCs, NPCs that they need to encounter or NPCs escaping.

5/ A less obtrusive means of getting someone planet side without taking them in on the ship.

6/ Independent life support for a time if the ship has "issues" with that takes it offline.

 

[AndrewW]

There is one situation where an escape craft might be useful, which is where hostile forces are intent on capture but would not be able to chase escaping objects. There's always the risk that they may shoot them, but if that's the reason you have them you'd probably build in countermeasures to spoof lots of fake signatures as part of the ejection process. THOSE kind of escape pods (and their dummies) would probably want maneuver capacity to get to other ships in the squadron. Ships designed to operate solo wouldn't benefit much from these.

Just use droids, they may not shoot them if there are no life signs.

 

[agentwigggles]

GM uses for escape pods:

1/ Use up PC money

2/ Reduce PC income by using up tonnage in non income generating ways.

3/ Provide a way for PCs to survive the destruction of their ship in combat without being obvious.

4/ Escape route for prisoners whether it be the PCs, NPCs that they need to encounter or NPCs escaping.

5/ A less obtrusive means of getting someone planet side without taking them in on the ship.

6/ Independent life support for a time if the ship has "issues" with that takes it offline.

1) Its baked into the cost already and part of mortgage.
2) I guess. If we're just shoving them ungracefully into adventure ships.
3) Maybe. I guess its a question of when do you abandon and it would require structuring the enemy combatant who was moments ago fine with the murder of everyone then suddenly doesnt want to because they got into even worse spaceships. Capturing is fine. That just mean the PC have a new patron. Just the about face is odd.
4) I guess. Though the first time this happen and results in murder from escape convicts everyone gonna be wondering why they arent transported in cryo. This still lets the PC be placed into weird predicaments. THere a popular starting adventure where that happens.
5) Only on planets without a spaceport. The whole point of an escape pod is to die in, and let folks find your corpse. It let folks find your corpse by shouting where you are. And planets without spaceport, wont notice anything landing on them.
6) Nah. The escape pod has to be as completely separate system as possible. The more integrated they are, the more the ship failing, will impact the escape pod. If you can optional drain its consumable, this implies at least to me you can then refil them from the mothership.

 

[swordtart]

I am still not sure why there is an assumption that a pirate that wants to take the ship or its cargo is necessarily interested in pursuing the original owners unto death. They don't get extra points for murder.

Sensible pirates rely on their reputation to get people to surrender so they can take the ships cargo without shots being fired unless fire upon, in which case they will attack until you cannot resist further. Unless your ship is better than theirs they'll probably let you keep it. Selling cargo is less obvious than selling a ship registered in someone else's name.

If they want to stay under the radar then how will you identify them unless you see them face to face (in which case you will probably end up dead). They are unlikely to broadcast their presence with a transponder and without it you have little chance of even uniquely identifying the ship ("it was a Vargr Corsair officer, a blue one.")

For the merchant it is just a short term business impact rather than career or life ending and they can hit you again next year. This was the model followed by the majority of successful historical pirates. If you leave people alive then there is someone to spread your reputation and re-enforce the fact that early surrender is better for everyone.

Even if they have to destroy your ship, hunting down every escape pod to execute people is not profitable or time efficient and will just make you public enemy number one. Whilst the penalty for piracy might be the same regardless of whether you left survivors or not, you will be a lower priority for retribution if you don't make a point of killing people. A passenger that ended up in a life pod gets an interesting anecdote to tell their friends. If you kill them then a relative might hire some independents to hunt you down.

From a referee perspective allowing the players to live is always better for a campaign.

 

[agentwigggles]

Well the pirate got into a sustain fight and must be damage, nullifying any possible profit from that ship. So the only way left to get any money from this venture is maybe ransom or selling them for slavery or parts. Spaceship repairs are expensive.
But regardless the combat can be with whomever, not with just random pirates. Other folks can be mad at the traveller want to kill them via a spaceship. But only when they're in that spaceship and not when they transition into smaller spaceships.

 

[MarcusIII]

Actually there's a good half-dozen assumptions there that aren't necessarily so. Does the Imperium use Civilian contractors? Do they use a bid process or do they use a fixed cost method? What are their specification documents? How much is managed by the Navy? Ad nauseam. Honestly, your point doesn't stand as the only way or even as the best way.

Having sold to the US Fed gov't (where that meme originated) I can tell you that it is almost NEVER the lowest bid that gets a gov or Mil contract. Otherwise you wouldn't have a single ship or airplane made by US companies for the US mil.

 

[Condottiere]

It tends to be distributed, amongst many congressional districts.

 

[Terry Mixon]

The biggest issue I have with escape pods are the incredibly short life support available. With the power and fuel rules as they are long term survival is all but impossible. In Traveller "escape pods" are good for planetfall, and hope to gods there is an atmosphere.

I have mine (linked to in my signature like all my designs) powered by RTGs and with my version of cold sleep pods and they last a couple of decades. 20 dtons and can support 75 passengers.

Zadkiel-Class 20-Ton Lifeboat

 

[actionman]

Just use droids, they may not shoot them if there are no life signs.

That guy doomed the empire.

 

[actionman]

They don't get extra points for murder.

 

[swordtart]

For small craft a breakaway hull model could be quite efficient. 2% of 50Dton is only 1DTon. If you added a small m-drive and powerplant to a barracks or cabin unit then the whole thing could be ejected. Some seemed to consider the use case for escape pods for in-system craft to be more credible so adding the capability to any accommodation already provided at low cost and space impact seems a logical possibility.

There is nothing stopping you putting barracks (or staterooms if you were feeling generous) in a "lifeboat" and not bother with any on the mother ship. In that way you only pay a 10% space premium for the bay. It also significantly extends duty cycle of the "lifeboat" for other roles and allows long duration in system activity. In the event of incident you have all your personal belongings already on board.

I would expect any common space to be allocated to the mothership both to maximise space in the small craft and to allow the crews accommodated in multiple small craft to socialise together.

 

[mavikfelna]

For small craft a breakaway hull model could be quite efficient. 2% of 50Dton is only 1DTon. If you added a small m-drive and powerplant to a barracks or cabin unit then the whole thing could be ejected. Some seemed to consider the use case for escape pods for in-system craft to be more credible so adding the capability to any accommodation already provided at low cost and space impact seems a logical possibility.

There is nothing stopping you putting barracks (or staterooms if you were feeling generous) in a "lifeboat" and not bother with any on the mother ship. In that way you only pay a 10% space premium for the bay. It also significantly extends duty cycle of the "lifeboat" for other roles and allows long duration in system activity. In the event of incident you have all your personal belongings already on board.

I would expect any common space to be allocated to the mothership both to maximise space in the small craft and to allow the crews accommodated in multiple small craft to socialise together.

So how would you actually do this? I haven't been able to figure out the breakaway rules. You'd need to split the M,-Drive between them? Then put the cockpit and living space in the smaller hull?

 

[Condottiere]

If the spacecraft has everything in it, including the kitchen sink, you won't notice the difference in either cost or volume.

 

[swordtart]

So how would you actually do this? I haven't been able to figure out the breakaway rules. You'd need to split the M,-Drive between them? Then put the cockpit and living space in the smaller hull?

No need to split them-drive, just add a small one to the escape element. The fractional extra thrust it would provide will add hardly anything to the main vessel anyway.

If the small ship and breakaway ship same thrust number then you only need to work it out the drive for the main ship (say 50 Dton) and just say a a percentage of the m-drive is part of the break away bit. When 1 DTon detatches from the combined ship it takes its 2% of the m-drive with it. The 98% of the drive that is left stays with 98% of the ship that is left and it carries on as in the same way (as the thrust requires is dependent on dtonnage). Ditto the power requirement.

Bridge is the more complex bit. You can either add a complete bridge, just a cockpit or like the automated lifeboat simply have an autopilot. For a 1DTon pod you need a ships computer (as that is linked into the small ships systems), but you don't need full Virtual Crew (as you don't need 5 people). They can run conventional expert programs as well so just buy Intelligent Interface and Pilot-1 (you could add Electroniccs-1 if you want to cover comms and sensors etc as well). If you need to call on Engineering or Mechanic in an escape pod you are in over your neck.

If you are abandoning the main ship entirely you could put the main ships computer into the detaching section (it takes up no space) and take it all with you when you go. Not having a computer in a ship that is dead is no hardship.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

For small craft a breakaway hull model could be quite efficient. 2% of 50Dton is only 1DTon. If you added a small m-drive and powerplant to a barracks or cabin unit then the whole thing could be ejected. Some seemed to consider the use case for escape pods for in-system craft to be more credible so adding the capability to any accommodation already provided at low cost and space impact seems a logical possibility.

There is nothing stopping you putting barracks (or staterooms if you were feeling generous) in a "lifeboat" and not bother with any on the mother ship. In that way you only pay a 10% space premium for the bay. It also significantly extends duty cycle of the "lifeboat" for other roles and allows long duration in system activity. In the event of incident you have all your personal belongings already on board.

I would expect any common space to be allocated to the mothership both to maximise space in the small craft and to allow the crews accommodated in multiple small craft to socialise together.

You have to allocate 2% of each hull to the breakaway mechanisms. You also have to allocate that 2% for EACH of the breakaway hulls connected to a specific hull.

Example a 1000 ton ship with 10 life boats of 20 tons each that are breakaway hulls has to allocate 20 tons of the main hull for EACH of the 10 life boats and that builds up to 200 tons on the mother ship. Each lifeboat has to allocate .4 tons to connect to the mother ship.

That is why I house rule it that breakaway hulls have each hull allocate 2% of the tonnage of the smaller hull. In the example above the mother ship would allocate .4 tons for each of the 10 lifeboats for a total of 4 tons. Silly to have a connector that is bigger than what you are connecting to.

 

[Condottiere]

Actually, that was adjudicated some time back.

It's two percent, regardless of the number of breakaway hulls.

 

[swordtart]

You have to allocate 2% of each hull to the breakaway mechanisms. You also have to allocate that 2% for EACH of the breakaway hulls connected to a specific hull.

Example a 1000 ton ship with 10 life boats of 20 tons each that are breakaway hulls has to allocate 20 tons of the main hull for EACH of the 10 life boats and that builds up to 200 tons on the mother ship. Each lifeboat has to allocate .4 tons to connect to the mother ship.

That is why I house rule it that breakaway hulls have each hull allocate 2% of the tonnage of the smaller hull. In the example above the mother ship would allocate .4 tons for each of the 10 lifeboats for a total of 4 tons. Silly to have a connector that is bigger than what you are connecting to.

That is not written.

Breakaway Hulls: A ship can be designed so it can operate as two or more independent vessels, breaking or splitting away from one another. Each section must have an appropriate bridge and power plant to operate it. Manoeuvre drive, jump drive, sensors, weapons, screens and so forth are all options that can (and, under normal circumstances, should) be included in each section. While the sections are together, drives, power plants and weapons can all be combined when calculating performance.
This whole process consumes 2% of the combined hull tonnage for the extra bulkheads and connections needed, and costs MCr2 per ton consumed.

Can you cite clarifying section or an example that shows it to be 2% per breakaway section or that it is more than 2% for even a single breakaway section (by your logic it would need 2% of both the main hull and the breakaway part which would total more than 2% of the combined hull tonnage.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

Just think of real life. You have a mechanism for connecting two things together and then want to connect a third you need another connector between them. Look at the ports on your computer for example, you want to connect 1 item directly you need 1 port on the computer and 1 on the device. You want to connect 2 items directly to the computer you need 2 ports on the computer and 1 on each device.

It makes no sense that in the example in my prior post you could connect an infinite number of lifeboats to one port. Just as it makes no sense that it takes a 20 ton connection on the 1000 ton ship to connect a 5 ton breakaway fighter or a 1000 ton duplicate hull. It is nonsensical. The connection should be per item connected AND custom to that item.

 

[swordtart]

Just think of real life. You have a mechanism for connecting two things together and then want to connect a third you need another connector between them. Look at the ports on your computer for example, you want to connect 1 item directly you need 1 port on the computer and 1 on the device. You want to connect 2 items directly to the computer you need 2 ports on the computer and 1 on each device.

It makes no sense that in the example in my prior post you could connect an infinite number of lifeboats to one port. Just as it makes no sense that it takes a 20 ton connection on the 1000 ton ship to connect a 5 ton breakaway fighter or a 1000 ton duplicate hull. It is nonsensical. The connection should be per item connected AND custom to that item.

I don't disagree that it doesn't make a lot of sense, but that applies to a whole lot of Traveller.

I don't even disagree that your alternative rule has merit.

But it isn't in the rules and we need to be clear when we post if we are discussing an alternative to the RAW or interprting RAW in a particular way.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

It isn't EXPLICITLY in the rules not do the rules EXPLICITLY say it isn't right. The only example is for 2 hulls. If there were an example for 3 hulls then it would be explicit one way or the other. I know of no official examples for more than 2 hulls.