Looking for Jump 6
- Thread starter parmasson
- Start date
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
Yeah, but you also wouldn't want to have a really spacious stateroom with no head....
Actually, these guys are one of those cults....
These are more like Unitarians.
199-ton Jump-6 in LBB5
Theodolite Class Penetration Scout (Type SL)
199Td, J6/1G, 1.5 staterooms, 1 turret (triple beam laser), 132 tons fuel, with fuel refinery. No cargo. Crew: pilot, gunner. Wedge configuration. TL 15.
MCr165.0735 in serial production, MCr183.415 individually.
The Type SL is designed for rift surveys and long-range reconnaissance, but is often used as a high-speed personnel transport.
In the long-range reconnaissance role, it is often accompanied by a Type R2 Big Far Trader (400 tons, J2/2G) internally carrying a drop tank for the Type SL's use. The SL cannot carry a drop tank through jump (crew rules for ships 200 tons and up would apply), and it cannot maneuver with a drop tank attached (M-drive rating would be below 1G).
The R2 support ship carries a 120-ton drop tank and a 132-ton collapsible tank (normally empty and collapsed). The scout and support ship rendezvous at a world 6 parsecs from a target, outside the 100 diameter Jump Limit. The drop tank is transferred and attached to the SL, which then drops the tank while jumping to the target. The R2 then refuels itself and fills the collapsible tank to service the scout when it returns. After refueling the scout, the collapsible tank can be disposed of to provide plausible deniability.
The ship can carry one passenger (with all in double-occupancy), if needed. The half-stateroom can be reconfigured to hold up to 8 passengers using Medical Fast Drug. Typically this is limited to 4 passengers and their luggage/equipment, though.
It's probably not worth doing up deck plans for a ship with just one and a half staterooms...
Notes:
Built under HG '80. All fractional-ton components (drives, fuel) rounded up to next whole ton for size and cost. Crew is indouble 150%-occupancy; full double occupancy allows a third crew member or passenger. Note that as the ship is under 200 tons, it does not require a navigator, engineer, or medic.
It might be worth interpreting its "wedge" configuration as making it look like a Type A Free Trader (so it blends in better). Powered down to Pn-1 for just the maneuver drive, it'd have a similar signature unless its Jump Flash is detected on entry or exit.
Yes, this is a necropost. Figured it'd fit better here than in a new thread, especially since there's no reason to do deck plans.
Theodolite Class Penetration Scout (Type SL)
199Td, J6/1G, 1.5 staterooms, 1 turret (triple beam laser), 132 tons fuel, with fuel refinery. No cargo. Crew: pilot, gunner. Wedge configuration. TL 15.
MCr165.0735 in serial production, MCr183.415 individually.
The Type SL is designed for rift surveys and long-range reconnaissance, but is often used as a high-speed personnel transport.
In the long-range reconnaissance role, it is often accompanied by a Type R2 Big Far Trader (400 tons, J2/2G) internally carrying a drop tank for the Type SL's use. The SL cannot carry a drop tank through jump (crew rules for ships 200 tons and up would apply), and it cannot maneuver with a drop tank attached (M-drive rating would be below 1G).
The R2 support ship carries a 120-ton drop tank and a 132-ton collapsible tank (normally empty and collapsed). The scout and support ship rendezvous at a world 6 parsecs from a target, outside the 100 diameter Jump Limit. The drop tank is transferred and attached to the SL, which then drops the tank while jumping to the target. The R2 then refuels itself and fills the collapsible tank to service the scout when it returns. After refueling the scout, the collapsible tank can be disposed of to provide plausible deniability.
The ship can carry one passenger (with all in double-occupancy), if needed. The half-stateroom can be reconfigured to hold up to 8 passengers using Medical Fast Drug. Typically this is limited to 4 passengers and their luggage/equipment, though.
It's probably not worth doing up deck plans for a ship with just one and a half staterooms...
Notes:
Built under HG '80. All fractional-ton components (drives, fuel) rounded up to next whole ton for size and cost. Crew is in
It might be worth interpreting its "wedge" configuration as making it look like a Type A Free Trader (so it blends in better). Powered down to Pn-1 for just the maneuver drive, it'd have a similar signature unless its Jump Flash is detected on entry or exit.
Yes, this is a necropost. Figured it'd fit better here than in a new thread, especially since there's no reason to do deck plans.
Last edited:
Which lets you do it in High Guard 2nd Edition, as I just did (see preceding post).If you're going to use the hybrid drives fudge why not go for a HG jump 6 drive instead of the LBB2 JD F?
That's a saving of 21t right there...
The fix I use for things like this is to use the LBB2 first edition drive requirements, i.e. the power plant must equal or exceed the maneuver drive, but isn't needed for the jump drive.
And a computer model 4 has the capacity to run a jump 6 program.
Oh, and build it as a 199t ship, then you only need a crew of one
Rules as written, an XBoat (J6 only, no maneuver) is about 150 tons; 199 tons gets you 1G, a fuel processor, and 5 tons payload (that is, tonnage not taken by components or mandatory crew quarters) after accounting for the pilot's half-stateroom.
Of course, there's always drop tanks, which let you build it in 100Td, but it can only do J6 once and then it needs new tanks.
Last edited:
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Retain the drop tank, and dimension the drives for that:
Streamlined, J-6 & M-1 (with tanks), 100 Dt hull + 150 Dt drop tanks.
Streamlined, J-6 & M-1 (with tanks), 100 Dt hull + 150 Dt drop tanks.
Code:
SZ-1662F61-000000-00000-0 MCr 187 100 Dton Ag=2
SZ-2661661-000000-00000-0 MCr 187 250 Dton
bearing Crew=1
batteries TL=15
Cargo=12 Fuel=15 EP=15 Agility=1 DropT=150
Single Occupancy 12,5 186,8
USP # Dton Cost
Hull, Streamlined Custom 1 100
Configuration Flattened Sphe 6 8
Scoops Streamlined 0,1
Drop Tanks 150 Dton 0,2
Total tonnage 250 Dton
Jump Drive 6 1 17,5 70
Manoeuvre D 1 1 5 7,5
Power Plant 6 1 15 45
Fuel, #J, #weeks J-6, 4 weeks 6 15
Purifier 1 3 0,0
Bridge 1 20 0,5
Computer m/6 6 1 7 55
Staterooms 1 4 0,5
Cargo 12,5
Empty hardpoint 1 1
Nominal Cost MCr 186,79 Sum: 12,5 186,8
Class Cost MCr 39,23 Valid ≥0 ≥0
Ship Cost MCr 149,43It needs a navigator, engineer, and medic when carrying the drop tank through jump because the total tonnage is then over 200Td. The design does have space for those three extra staterooms, though.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
No, why would it?
You recalculate drive performance when you add a drop tank, nothing else. Drop tanks can be retrofitted to an existing ship without affecting crew requirements (or hardpoints).
Drop tanks don't enable extra hardpoints because hardpoint allocation assumes hull material solid enough to support a turret, and drop tanks are too flimsy for that.
They do affect drive performance, as you note. A 199 ton ship carrying a 20 ton drop tank performs like a 219 ton ship. Indeed, under the rules the only differences are hardpoint allocation and how much damage is sustained the first time the ship takes a fuel hit. Why would having a fragile fuel tank make the ship any less difficult to fly?
It woudn't. The rules treat ships below 200 tons differently.
Significantly, it's only at the 199-200 ton threshold that adding drop tanks requires additional crew that affect a game mechanic (navigator to enable Jump, engineer to avoid a misjump penalty). Engineering crew is proportional to drive tonnage (and fewer are needed above 1000 tons, under High Guard rules), and while the navigation section (again, High Guard) scales with ship size, there's no penalty in the rules for manning shortfalls as long as you have at least one navigator.
On the other hand...
199Td (TL 15)
20 ton jump drive (J6, but fuel- and power-limited to J5)
10 ton power plant TL 15 (Pn=5)
22 ton maneuver drive (4G)
110 tons fuel (J5 plus 4 weeks Pn=5)
Mod/5 computer
1 stateroom
8 tons cargo
Crew=1 (pilot)...
Oh, and it's 1000Td with its 801Td drop tank (J1/1G).
(Range is 7xJ1, then 1xJ6 and drop the tank, then 1xJ5 on internal fuel. Splitting it up into multiple tanks dropped along the way will increase potential range but I'm not in the mood for more math at this late hour.)
Last edited:
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Why would a 200 Dt ship need more crew than a 199 Dt ship? Why would a 201 Dt ship require more crew than a 200 Dt ship? It's just am arbitrary limit.
No, a Navigator is needed over 200 Dt, not at 200 Dt. In HG the Command Section and Service Crew is proportional to ship size.
But it is not just crew, but also e.g. bridge that is proportional to ship size. If a drop tank adds to ship size, then a bigger bridge would be needed.
It's a requirement, just as the requirements in LBB2. There are no stated penalties in LBB2 either.
In support of my position I will use a published design, the infamous Eurisko from JTAS#10:
Or as close as I can come in a few minutes, yes it's a few Dt and MCr off, but fairly close:
Code:
BA-K932563-J41100-34003-0 MCr 12 923 11 100 Dton Ag=2
BA-K931363-J41100-34003-0 MCr 12 923 16 650 Dton
bearing 1 11 Z Crew=132
batteries 1 11 Z TL=12
Troops=35 Cargo=63 Fuel=555 EP=555 Agility=1 DropT=5550 (Z=54)
Dual Occupancy 63 12 923
USP # Dton Cost
Hull, Unstreamlined Custom K 11 100
Configuration Buffered Plane 9 3 885 8
Armour 18 J 2 886 4 329
Drop Tanks 5 550 Dton 6
Total tonnage 16 650 Dton
Jump Drive 3 1 666 2 664
Manoeuvre D 2 1 555 389
Power Plant 3 1 1 665 4 995
Fuel, #J, #weeks J-3, 4 weeks 3 555
Bridge 1 222 56
Computer m/6 6 1 7 55
Staterooms 5 20 3
Staterooms, Half 162 324 41
Cargo 63
Triple Turret 2/bat Missile 3 54 108 243 108 turrets organised into 54 batteries.
Triple Turret Beam 3 1 1 3
Single Turret Fusion 4 1 2 2
Triple Turret Sand 4 1 1 1
Nuclear Damper 1 1 50 50
Meson Screen 1 1 90 80
Nominal Cost MCr 12 922,64 Sum: 63 12 923
Class Cost MCr 2 713,75 Valid ≥0 ≥0
Ship Cost MCr 10 338,11
Crew & High 0 Crew Bridge 10
Passengers Mid 0 132 Engineers 29
Low 0 Gunners 70
Extra SR 0 Frozen Service 23
# Frozen W 0 0 Flight 0
Marines 35 Marines 35AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Why make it so big and expensive?
If the total size including drop tanks counted as ship size then this would be legal:
70 Dt hull + 105 Dt drop tank = 175 Dt total, J-6 & M-1 @ 175 Dt.
Code:
SZ-0662F61-000000-00000-0 MCr 148 70 Dton Ag=2
SZ-1661661-000000-00000-0 MCr 148 175 Dton
bearing Crew=1
batteries TL=15
Cargo=2 Fuel=10,5 EP=10,5 Agility=1 DropT=105
Single Occupancy 2,3 148,0
USP # Dton Cost
Hull, Streamlined Custom 0 70
Configuration Flattened Sphe 6 5,6
Drop Tanks 105 Dton 0,1
Total tonnage 175 Dton
Jump Drive 6 1 12,3 49
Manoeuvre D 1 1 3,5 5,3
Power Plant 6 1 10,5 31,5
Fuel, #J, #weeks J-6, 4 weeks 6 10,5
Bridge 1 20 1
Computer m/6 6 1 7 55
Staterooms 1 4 0,5
Cargo 2,3
Nominal Cost MCr 147,97 Sum: 2,3 148,0
Class Cost MCr 31,07 Valid ≥0 ≥0
Ship Cost MCr 118,37I obviously don't think that this ship is legal...
Technically not allowed:
HG said:
It's absolutely an arbitrary limit! Traveller does that sometimes
I'd be ok with a house rule that provided some flexibility on that.
Good catch.
Drop tanks are self-contained and require no maintenance once installed. There should be no impact on command section or service crew workloads.
It probably should be. It's not.
That's my point. You can add drop tanks that would impose additional navigation crew requirements without penalty for not having that crew -- except that at least one navigator is required for ships over 200Td.
Which doesn't really speak to the question of the arbitrary additional crew requirement at 200Td.In support of my position I will use a published design, the infamous Eurisko from JTAS#10:
Or as close as I can come in a few minutes, yes it's a few Dt and MCr off, but fairly close:
Note that Bridge size and Service Crew are based on the hull size (11100 Dt), not the total tonnage (16650 Dt). If the Bridge were based on total tonnage (16650 Dt × 2% = 333 Dt), the ship would be over tonnage. The Service Crew is 11100 Dt / 100 × 2 ≈ 23 (presumably the Eurisko rounds down, while my spreadsheet rounds up, explaining the differing crew sizes [131 vs. 132]).Code:BA-K932563-J41100-34003-0 MCr 12 923 11 100 Dton Ag=2 BA-K931363-J41100-34003-0 MCr 12 923 16 650 Dton bearing 1 11 Z Crew=132 batteries 1 11 Z TL=12 Troops=35 Cargo=63 Fuel=555 EP=555 Agility=1 DropT=5550 (Z=54) Dual Occupancy 63 12 923 USP # Dton Cost Hull, Unstreamlined Custom K 11 100 Configuration Buffered Plane 9 3 885 8 Armour 18 J 2 886 4 329 Drop Tanks 5 550 Dton 6 Total tonnage 16 650 Dton Jump Drive 3 1 666 2 664 Manoeuvre D 2 1 555 389 Power Plant 3 1 1 665 4 995 Fuel, #J, #weeks J-3, 4 weeks 3 555 Bridge 1 222 56 Computer m/6 6 1 7 55 Staterooms 5 20 3 Staterooms, Half 162 324 41 Cargo 63 Triple Turret 2/bat Missile 3 54 108 243 108 turrets organised into 54 batteries. Triple Turret Beam 3 1 1 3 Single Turret Fusion 4 1 2 2 Triple Turret Sand 4 1 1 1 Nuclear Damper 1 1 50 50 Meson Screen 1 1 90 80 Nominal Cost MCr 12 922,64 Sum: 63 12 923 Class Cost MCr 2 713,75 Valid ≥0 ≥0 Ship Cost MCr 10 338,11 Crew & High 0 Crew Bridge 10 Passengers Mid 0 132 Engineers 29 Low 0 Gunners 70 Extra SR 0 Frozen Service 23 # Frozen W 0 0 Flight 0 Marines 35 Marines 35
I look at it from the other direction. It's not that ships over 200Td need extra crew, it's that ships under 200Td get an exemption from the crew regulations.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
So you are arguing that crew requirements are sometimes based on total tonnage including drop tanks, and sometimes on just hull size?
It's to push the limit on both the 199-ton crew size exemption and the effect of disregarding drop tanks for ship (and thus crew) size determination.
It's 1000Td of ship + tank, flown by one guy.
Fixable: add 2Td of power plant and 2Td of fuel. Cuts cargo from 8Td to 4Td.
Jump fuel may be in drop tanks, though power plant fuel may not be (TCS, p.13) .
I'm arguing the elements of the crew requirements that matter from a game-mechanic perspective don't change when you add drop tanks if you're starting above 200 tons.
If the tanks bring tonnage from below 200 to above it, that ought to void the small-ship exemption from normal manning rules.
That said, if a group of PCs was trying to use a Type S to carry a second, disabled Type S, I'd probably let them do it without either penalizing them for not having an engineer on board or making bad things happen because they didn't have a medic -- if they could adequately explain how they were going about doing it.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
But you are arguing that is not correct? As a 1000 Dt ship it should have a navigator, engineers, and a medic?
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
So you are arguing that crew requirements are sometimes based on total tonnage including drop tanks, and sometimes on just hull size?
I am indeed arguing that is incorrect. That combination really needs two engineers, a navigator, and likely a medic due to the resulting crew size. 50+ tons of drives aren't going to take care of themselves, and a 1000-ton ship should have a navigator.
It probably doesn't need a command staff, though.
I'm arguing that you can't build a ship designed to operate in a configuration totaling over 200 tons that doesn't have a navigator, medic, and at least one engineer for the same reason you can't build a ship that has only two weeks of power plant fuel even though its mission profile would never call for more than that.
In other words, sure -- it'd work. It's just not allowed by the rules.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Then why would the same 50 Dt drives not require engineers when you remove the drop tank?
Why would 15 Dt of drives in a Scout take care of themselves, but the same 15 Dt drives in a Free Trader require an Engineer?
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
But then you must also argue that e.g. bridge size and service crew must be based on total tonnage including drop tanks? Eurisko says otherwise.
There is no special magic around 200 Dt; crew requirements are either based on total tonnage or hull tonnage, not sometimes one, sometimes the other.
You are saying these tonnages are not the same?
LBB5 said:
LBB5 said:
LBB2 said:
