Ok... I've got a new version of this project posted, version 1.99. Please review and comment.
Fixing Joe Fugate's "MegaTraveller Ship Design Example"
- Thread starter DonM
- Start date
Ok... I've got a new version of this project posted, version 1.99. Please review and comment.
Ok... I've got a new version of this project posted, version 1.99. Please review and comment.
I like it. It walks anyone through the entire process from soup to nuts.
There is only one glaring error.
The Regal isn't a battlecruiser anymore.
It has battleship armament, but doesn't have the speed of a cruiser, nor does it have any extended endurance.
This ship can not chase down enemy cruisers, nor can it even keep up with the battleline. The only ships it can keep up with are the logistics ships, the carriers, and the BM-15, which can protect itself, even if it would never get to the battle.
This shows the two biggest problems with the large ships in MT.
1. None of them appear to have been designed for a purpose. I think writer of FSOTSI just sat down, arbitrarily picked tonnages, and stuck all the weapons on that they could.
2. None of the large CT ships could make the conversion without major surgery. Which probably explains why none of the supplement 9 ships showed up in FSOTSI.
I would recommend that one first look at the capabilities we want, then start to make changes. Do we care if the Tigress is 500k or do we want a large DN that has the same capabilities as a Tigress.
On to our example.
Historically, The battlecruiser was a ship with battleship armament, cruiser speed and armor. Which would cause major issues when an admiral would put them in the battle line; or to quote one admiral about battlecruisers:
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today." - ADM Beatty - after his 3rd BC blew up at Jutland.
Would it not make more sense to start with the following capabilities and build around them:
J4
4G - or possibly 5G
Agility 0 or 1
S meson spinal mount
This ship will keep up with the fleet both strategically (J4) and tactically (4G). It has the capability to be the "eyes" of the fleet. With the S meson spinal mount, it can make life very unpleasant for any cruisers that show up. (Or can it? A CA 14 also has J4, M4, a type S PA, which doesnt have the range modifier that the meson gun does and has almost twice the armor. And with the Regal only having an Armor Value of 43, she could do a Hood imitation.)
Well, what should be dumped to make room for the drives?
Let's start with the secondary armament. What is the purpose? It isn't just to fill up hardpoints.
I would significantly reduce the secondary armament. Dropping the 100 ton PA will get 150K back in power and 13.5K in volume. I would also drop the repulsors (12.5K power, 6.75K in volume) I would keep the fusion guns to deal with small fry and all three types of turrets. They can deal with both fighters and missiles that are thrown their way.
If we go for 24 hours of magazine space, why not go for 24 hours of power for all weapons? This would reduce the power consumption for the spinal mount from 300K to 10K. Actually, if you do this for all energy weapons, power consumption is reduced to 18,786K. On the other hand, I still want 4G for maneuver and J4, so I would be reducing the secondary armament.
The same can be done for the screens, or we could also look into the power optimized nuclear dampers.
If one figures on weapon and screen power per day, the design possibilities really open up.
Other power and space saving ideas:
If this ship is part of the fleet, do we really need a frozen watch when one can be put on the logistic ships, i.e. the TM series, the TV series and the TT series? If the ship is moves with the fleet, do you really need a fuel purifier? If we do, what is the purpose of the entire fleet tanker series?
On the other hand, it simply may not be possible to build a ship like this on 75K tons. If so, let's just adjust the size to fit the armament and speeds listed for the Regal. This would probably mean that it would grow to almost the size of a battleship. Hmm...that would be just like every BC from the Invincible and the Von Der Tann to the Hood.
Or on the third hand how about adjusting the BL series of ships? The seem to be designed to be a "Fast Wing" for fleets and fewer things would need to be changed (and the extra 125k tons of space wouldn't hurt.)
Options, Options......
This is starting to look like that design philosophy article that Mr. Fugate promised us for a later edition of Traveller's Digest.
There is only one glaring error.
The Regal isn't a battlecruiser anymore.
It has battleship armament, but doesn't have the speed of a cruiser, nor does it have any extended endurance.
This ship can not chase down enemy cruisers, nor can it even keep up with the battleline. The only ships it can keep up with are the logistics ships, the carriers, and the BM-15, which can protect itself, even if it would never get to the battle.
This shows the two biggest problems with the large ships in MT.
1. None of them appear to have been designed for a purpose. I think writer of FSOTSI just sat down, arbitrarily picked tonnages, and stuck all the weapons on that they could.
2. None of the large CT ships could make the conversion without major surgery. Which probably explains why none of the supplement 9 ships showed up in FSOTSI.
I would recommend that one first look at the capabilities we want, then start to make changes. Do we care if the Tigress is 500k or do we want a large DN that has the same capabilities as a Tigress.
On to our example.
Historically, The battlecruiser was a ship with battleship armament, cruiser speed and armor. Which would cause major issues when an admiral would put them in the battle line; or to quote one admiral about battlecruisers:
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today." - ADM Beatty - after his 3rd BC blew up at Jutland.
Would it not make more sense to start with the following capabilities and build around them:
J4
4G - or possibly 5G
Agility 0 or 1
S meson spinal mount
This ship will keep up with the fleet both strategically (J4) and tactically (4G). It has the capability to be the "eyes" of the fleet. With the S meson spinal mount, it can make life very unpleasant for any cruisers that show up. (Or can it? A CA 14 also has J4, M4, a type S PA, which doesnt have the range modifier that the meson gun does and has almost twice the armor. And with the Regal only having an Armor Value of 43, she could do a Hood imitation.)
Well, what should be dumped to make room for the drives?
Let's start with the secondary armament. What is the purpose? It isn't just to fill up hardpoints.
I would significantly reduce the secondary armament. Dropping the 100 ton PA will get 150K back in power and 13.5K in volume. I would also drop the repulsors (12.5K power, 6.75K in volume) I would keep the fusion guns to deal with small fry and all three types of turrets. They can deal with both fighters and missiles that are thrown their way.
If we go for 24 hours of magazine space, why not go for 24 hours of power for all weapons? This would reduce the power consumption for the spinal mount from 300K to 10K. Actually, if you do this for all energy weapons, power consumption is reduced to 18,786K. On the other hand, I still want 4G for maneuver and J4, so I would be reducing the secondary armament.
The same can be done for the screens, or we could also look into the power optimized nuclear dampers.
If one figures on weapon and screen power per day, the design possibilities really open up.
Other power and space saving ideas:
If this ship is part of the fleet, do we really need a frozen watch when one can be put on the logistic ships, i.e. the TM series, the TV series and the TT series? If the ship is moves with the fleet, do you really need a fuel purifier? If we do, what is the purpose of the entire fleet tanker series?
On the other hand, it simply may not be possible to build a ship like this on 75K tons. If so, let's just adjust the size to fit the armament and speeds listed for the Regal. This would probably mean that it would grow to almost the size of a battleship. Hmm...that would be just like every BC from the Invincible and the Von Der Tann to the Hood.
Or on the third hand how about adjusting the BL series of ships? The seem to be designed to be a "Fast Wing" for fleets and fewer things would need to be changed (and the extra 125k tons of space wouldn't hurt.)
Options, Options......
This is starting to look like that design philosophy article that Mr. Fugate promised us for a later edition of Traveller's Digest.
All I committed to was fixing the errors in the article; I would argue that the original HG design of the Regal was odd, but that's neither here nor there.
I've tried to remain true to the article as printed, and how the original author described and walked through each step.
What you describe is actually a true rewrite of FSotSI; if we want to discuss that, let's move topics, as I'd prefer to keep this focused on the original article.
I've tried to remain true to the article as printed, and how the original author described and walked through each step.
What you describe is actually a true rewrite of FSotSI; if we want to discuss that, let's move topics, as I'd prefer to keep this focused on the original article.
All I committed to was fixing the errors in the article; I would argue that the original HG design of the Regal was odd, but that's neither here nor there.
I've tried to remain true to the article as printed, and how the original author described and walked through each step.
What you describe is actually a true rewrite of FSotSI; if we want to discuss that, let's move topics, as I'd prefer to keep this focused on the original article.
I've tried to remain true to the article as printed, and how the original author described and walked through each step.
What you describe is actually a true rewrite of FSotSI; if we want to discuss that, let's move topics, as I'd prefer to keep this focused on the original article.
All I committed to was fixing the errors in the article; I would argue that the original HG design of the Regal was odd, but that's neither here nor there.
I've tried to remain true to the article as printed, and how the original author described and walked through each step.
What you describe is actually a true rewrite of FSotSI; if we want to discuss that, let's move topics, as I'd prefer to keep this focused on the original article.
I've tried to remain true to the article as printed, and how the original author described and walked through each step.
What you describe is actually a true rewrite of FSotSI; if we want to discuss that, let's move topics, as I'd prefer to keep this focused on the original article.
Many thanks for the work you've done on this, it's been very useful to have this example. I hadn't seen this article before until I came across this thread.
I do have a couple of queries though..
The weapons section on page 8 shows the total volume for 100 triple turrets to be 4050kl, or 13.5kl per weapon. On the next page, the total volume is shown as 1350kl, or 13.5kl per turret. Which is correct ? I had always interpreted the rules to mean that the second is correct, i.e. that turret volume is constant, but I'm open to being corrected.
Secondly, where does the x75 at the end of the Frozen Watch calculation come from ? I can't find any reference to it in the rules or the errata.
On a minor note, I think that the crew section might benefit from a little clarification. It's not instantly obvious that the (75/6) > 6 element in the Maintenance crew line refers to the reduction for Ship's Troops. It's also a little odd-looking to see the total crew listed as 287 when the Frozen Watch alone is 300. I could see where it all came from once I looked at it carefully, but it wasn't immediately clear.
I do have a couple of queries though..
The weapons section on page 8 shows the total volume for 100 triple turrets to be 4050kl, or 13.5kl per weapon. On the next page, the total volume is shown as 1350kl, or 13.5kl per turret. Which is correct ? I had always interpreted the rules to mean that the second is correct, i.e. that turret volume is constant, but I'm open to being corrected.
Secondly, where does the x75 at the end of the Frozen Watch calculation come from ? I can't find any reference to it in the rules or the errata.
On a minor note, I think that the crew section might benefit from a little clarification. It's not instantly obvious that the (75/6) > 6 element in the Maintenance crew line refers to the reduction for Ship's Troops. It's also a little odd-looking to see the total crew listed as 287 when the Frozen Watch alone is 300. I could see where it all came from once I looked at it carefully, but it wasn't immediately clear.
Many thanks for the work you've done on this, it's been very useful to have this example. I hadn't seen this article before until I came across this thread.
I do have a couple of queries though..
The weapons section on page 8 shows the total volume for 100 triple turrets to be 4050kl, or 13.5kl per weapon. On the next page, the total volume is shown as 1350kl, or 13.5kl per turret. Which is correct ? I had always interpreted the rules to mean that the second is correct, i.e. that turret volume is constant, but I'm open to being corrected.
Secondly, where does the x75 at the end of the Frozen Watch calculation come from ? I can't find any reference to it in the rules or the errata.
On a minor note, I think that the crew section might benefit from a little clarification. It's not instantly obvious that the (75/6) > 6 element in the Maintenance crew line refers to the reduction for Ship's Troops. It's also a little odd-looking to see the total crew listed as 287 when the Frozen Watch alone is 300. I could see where it all came from once I looked at it carefully, but it wasn't immediately clear.
I do have a couple of queries though..
The weapons section on page 8 shows the total volume for 100 triple turrets to be 4050kl, or 13.5kl per weapon. On the next page, the total volume is shown as 1350kl, or 13.5kl per turret. Which is correct ? I had always interpreted the rules to mean that the second is correct, i.e. that turret volume is constant, but I'm open to being corrected.
Secondly, where does the x75 at the end of the Frozen Watch calculation come from ? I can't find any reference to it in the rules or the errata.
On a minor note, I think that the crew section might benefit from a little clarification. It's not instantly obvious that the (75/6) > 6 element in the Maintenance crew line refers to the reduction for Ship's Troops. It's also a little odd-looking to see the total crew listed as 287 when the Frozen Watch alone is 300. I could see where it all came from once I looked at it carefully, but it wasn't immediately clear.
Many thanks for the work you've done on this, it's been very useful to have this example. I hadn't seen this article before until I came across this thread.
I do have a couple of queries though..
The weapons section on page 8 shows the total volume for 100 triple turrets to be 4050kl, or 13.5kl per weapon. On the next page, the total volume is shown as 1350kl, or 13.5kl per turret. Which is correct ? I had always interpreted the rules to mean that the second is correct, i.e. that turret volume is constant, but I'm open to being corrected.
Secondly, where does the x75 at the end of the Frozen Watch calculation come from ? I can't find any reference to it in the rules or the errata.
On a minor note, I think that the crew section might benefit from a little clarification. It's not instantly obvious that the (75/6) > 6 element in the Maintenance crew line refers to the reduction for Ship's Troops. It's also a little odd-looking to see the total crew listed as 287 when the Frozen Watch alone is 300. I could see where it all came from once I looked at it carefully, but it wasn't immediately clear.
I do have a couple of queries though..
The weapons section on page 8 shows the total volume for 100 triple turrets to be 4050kl, or 13.5kl per weapon. On the next page, the total volume is shown as 1350kl, or 13.5kl per turret. Which is correct ? I had always interpreted the rules to mean that the second is correct, i.e. that turret volume is constant, but I'm open to being corrected.
Secondly, where does the x75 at the end of the Frozen Watch calculation come from ? I can't find any reference to it in the rules or the errata.
On a minor note, I think that the crew section might benefit from a little clarification. It's not instantly obvious that the (75/6) > 6 element in the Maintenance crew line refers to the reduction for Ship's Troops. It's also a little odd-looking to see the total crew listed as 287 when the Frozen Watch alone is 300. I could see where it all came from once I looked at it carefully, but it wasn't immediately clear.
The second volume is correct, I thought I'd fixed that. Sigh...
The frozen watch is broken into the same crew sections as the crew is, hence 75x4. A standard frozen watch would be one crew section (75); however, the original Regal design from TCS has a complete replacement crew, so in reality, there are four crew sections waiting to be unthawed.
And the total crew is really 313; I've made a few slight changes here and there (and replaced the small staterooms with real staterooms since there is room).
So, let me see if I can post version 2.01 tonight...
The frozen watch is broken into the same crew sections as the crew is, hence 75x4. A standard frozen watch would be one crew section (75); however, the original Regal design from TCS has a complete replacement crew, so in reality, there are four crew sections waiting to be unthawed.
And the total crew is really 313; I've made a few slight changes here and there (and replaced the small staterooms with real staterooms since there is room).
So, let me see if I can post version 2.01 tonight...
The second volume is correct, I thought I'd fixed that. Sigh...
The frozen watch is broken into the same crew sections as the crew is, hence 75x4. A standard frozen watch would be one crew section (75); however, the original Regal design from TCS has a complete replacement crew, so in reality, there are four crew sections waiting to be unthawed.
And the total crew is really 313; I've made a few slight changes here and there (and replaced the small staterooms with real staterooms since there is room).
So, let me see if I can post version 2.01 tonight...
The frozen watch is broken into the same crew sections as the crew is, hence 75x4. A standard frozen watch would be one crew section (75); however, the original Regal design from TCS has a complete replacement crew, so in reality, there are four crew sections waiting to be unthawed.
And the total crew is really 313; I've made a few slight changes here and there (and replaced the small staterooms with real staterooms since there is room).
So, let me see if I can post version 2.01 tonight...
