What is a Safari Ship?

[AnotherDilbert]

I have no idea when TCS was published, I had naively assumed it was before the tournament. As noted, using drop tanks in tournaments was banned as a result of Eurisko, but is not in the TCS book.

Some of the numbers below are personal opinion (e.g. turret count for fire control equipment), but I think that it’s “in the ballpark” for the interior tonnage allocation of the Eurisko-class ships.

You still don't need both interior jump fuel AND the drop tanks.

I think that there aren’t enough crew when the ships are “laden” (i.e. equipped with drop tanks); rather than 131 crew, I think that 193 crew would be needed. As ever, please point out where mistakes exist.

Troops are not part of the "crew" in the USP, see the Kinunir HG'80, p52.

I don't see how you can get to 193 crew:

Crew          Bridge    10
132        Engineers    29
             Gunners    70
             Service    23
              Flight     0
             Marines    35
             =============
Total                  167

That is calculated for 111 turrets, not just 64.
Service crew for the drop tanks for would just add 11 crew.
(Yes, I use 10 command crew, just because it is a round even number. Feel free to consider my ship 1 rating short.)


It's not a 16 650 Dt ship, it's a 11 100 Dt ship with the bridge and crew for 11 100 Dt.
HG'80, p50:

The HG'80 Gazelle is a 300 Dt ship, potentially with a 100 Dt drop tanks changing drive performance.
It has some interior fuel, so can do J-2 without tanks, but far from the total required fuel load that the drop tanks provide.


You are overcomplicating it by adding and subtracting interior fuel a few times:

Hull, buffered planetoid (armor factor of 6) 11,100 tons
less 35% interior waste space − 3,885 tons
Armour 2,886 tons (forgot? 26% of 11100 Dt)
Jump drive: 3, sized as 5 (6% of hull) 666 tons
Maneuver drive: 1, sized as 2 (5% of hull) 555 tons
Power plant: 3, sized as 5 (15% of hull) 1,665 tons
Fuel for power plant: (1% of hull × power plant 5) 555 tons
Bridge: 3% of hull (2% of laden hull) 333 tons (disagree; 222 Dt = 2% of 11100 Dt)
Fire control equipment for 65 turrets 65 tons (disagree; 111 turrets would need 112 Dt
Computer: model/6 7 tons
Meson screen: 1 90 tons
Nuclear dampers: 1 50 tons
totals 5 + 126 = 131 crew; 68 staterooms 272 tons (disagree; you need space for 131+35=166 people)
Cargo 8 tons
────────────────────────────────────────────── ─────────────
Total free 63 tons

Definitely in the right ballpark.

(The CODE block didn’t work properly—perhaps due to the line-drawing characters?—so I had to resort to ICODE blocks to get a monospace rendering.)

Should work, but you have to use the tool in the toolbar, otherwise the upload will strip whitespace.

Hull, unladen                                          11,100 tons
with H₂(l) drop tanks                                +  5,550 tons
                                                     ─────────────
Hull, laden                                            16,650 tons
                                                     ═════════════

 

[Kakistocrat]

You still don’t need both interior jump fuel AND the drop tanks. […] You are overcomplicating it by adding and subtracting interior fuel a few times:

I’d included interior jump tanks at first to show what the required interior tonnage would be with interior jump tanks; at the end, I subtracted the interior jump tank tonnage to show that with the drop tanks as external jump tonnage, it would fit within the interior hull space of 7,215 tons.

Troops are not part of the “crew” in the USP, see the Kinunir HG’80, p52.

Fair enough—I was breaking out the personnel into sections to determine what the stateroom tonnage would be, and mistakenly included the Eurisko’s marines as part of its 131 crew.

I don’t see how you can get to 193 crew:

Crew          Bridge    10
132        Engineers    29
             Gunners    70
             Service    23
              Flight     0
             Marines    35
             =============
Total                  167

That is calculated for 111 turrets, not just 64.
Service crew for the drop tanks for would just add 11 crew.
(Yes, I use 10 command crew, just because it is a round even number. Feel free to consider my ship 1 rating short.)

Since I came to 193 by including the ship’s troops, and thought that the Eurisko’s 131 crew included its 35 marines (ship’s troops have their own paragraph in the Crew section of 1980 High Guard on p. 23), I’ll follow the Kinunir example by not double-counting the marines, and dividing that into 119 crew and 50 marines:

Command            11 = 7 officers (including one medical officer) + 4 ratings; minimum 11
Engineering        29 = 3 officers (10%) + 6 petty officers (20%) + 20 ratings; 1 per 100 tons of installed drives
Gunnery            45 = 5 officers (10%) + 14 petty officers (30%) + 26 ratings; minimum 40 = 32 (for turret batteries) + 8 (for two screen devices)
Flight              0
Service            34 = 2 per 1,000 tons of ship (ship with drop tanks is 16,650 tons)
Frozen watch        0
─────────────────────
Total crew        119
Ship’s troops      50 = (when present) minimum 3 per 1,000 tons (ship with drop tanks is 16,650 tons)
─────────────────────
Total personnel   169
═════════════════════

EDIT: The CODE block worked for this 12-line snippet. Perhaps my previous comment had too many lines in one CODE block?

I thought that the gunnery officers would be more command-oriented (e.g. independent eyes to advise on directing fire), so I didn’t use them to man the weapons.

It’s not a 16 650 Dt ship, it’s a 11 100 Dt ship with the bridge and crew for 11 100 Dt.

Since the drop-tank variant of the Eurisko-class is entirely dependent on external tankage for jumping, wouldn’t it be a 16,650 ton ship (i.e. 11,100 tons internal displacement + 5,550 tons external displacement) on an 11,100 ton hull? (The service crew requirements are explicitly based on “tons of ship” rather than tons of hull; the ship’s troops requirements, when present, are merely based on “tons”.)

HG’80, p50:
The HG’80 Gazelle is a 300 Dt ship, potentially with a 100 Dt drop tanks changing drive performance.
It has some interior fuel, so can do J-2 without tanks, but far from the total required fuel load that the drop tanks provide.

Did you mean the Unicorn rather than the Gazelle ? I haven’t examined the Unicorn in detail, so I don’t yet know how convincing an example it might be.

[The CODE block] should work, but you have to use the tool in the toolbar, otherwise the upload will strip whitespace.

I did use the tool in the toolbar, but it merely inserted the text “[‪CODE]” before my text and the text “[‪/CODE]” after my text; it didn’t render my comment as monospace, and it didn’t strip any white space. (I’d also tried manually adding “[‪CODE]” and “[‪/CODE]” tags, but that didn’t work either; the inline code tool in the toolbar did work, so that’s what I’d used.)

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Since the drop-tank variant of the Eurisko-class is entirely dependent on external tankage for jumping, wouldn’t it be a 16,650 ton ship (i.e. 11,100 tons internal displacement + 5,550 tons external displacement) on an 11,100 ton hull? (The service crew requirements are explicitly based on “tons of ship” rather than tons of hull; the ship’s troops requirements, when present, are merely based on “tons”.)

No, I don't think so. That was why I dragged Eurisko into this, to demonstrate that the numbers don't work for that in a published and hotly debated design.

Bridge and crew are calculated for the hull, then you can add drop tanks as needed. The only thing that changes is drive performance.

TCS, p13:
Other Types of Fuel Tankage: There are four varieties of fuel tankage which are not integral t o a ship, each with its advantages and disadvantages. These are collapsible tanks, demountable tanks, exterior demountable tanks, and drop tanks. These may be added to any ship at any time, and may be added to any ship for Trillion Credit Squadron provided the cost is paid. Insure that the proper notation is made on the ship statistics if such additional tankage is installed.

TCS, p14:
Drop tanks may be built onto a ship when it is originally produced at a cost of Cr10,000; they may be added to an existing ship at a cost of Cr1000 per ton. In both cases the tanks themselves must also be purchased a t Cr1000 per ton. Building time is 10 weeks; installation time is only a few minutes.

Just add the tanks, no refit of bridge or crew quarters needed.

HG'80, p27:
L-Hyd tanks are installed outside the hull, and increase the total tonnage of the ship; drives are reduced in their efficiency based on the total tonnage of the ship. With tanks retained, efficiency is decreased, and jump capability is reduced; when the tanks drop away, tonnage is reduced, and the drive efficiency is increased.

HG'80, p50:
L-Hyd Tanks: Drop tanks can make radical changes in ship performance. The ship listing should indicate ship performance without drop tanks installed, and without the extra fuel tank capacity available. On an additional listing line, the comment that L-Hyd tanks are fitted should be made, with specification of total drop tank tonnage. The revised performance portion of the USP (the first third) should be stated to show ship tonnage and performance while burdened with the drop tanks. If agility rating changes with the addition or deletion of drop tanks, it should also be noted.

The only thing that changes when drop tanks are added or dropped is drive performance.

Since I came to 193 by including the ship’s troops, and thought that the Eurisko’s 131 crew included its 35 marines (ship’s troops have their own paragraph in the Crew section of 1980 High Guard on p. 23), I’ll follow the Kinunir example by not double-counting the marines, and dividing that into 119 crew and 50 marines:

Command            11 = 7 officers (including one medical officer) + 4 ratings; minimum 11
Engineering        29 = 3 officers (10%) + 6 petty officers (20%) + 20 ratings; 1 per 100 tons of installed drives
Gunnery            45 = 5 officers (10%) + 14 petty officers (30%) + 26 ratings; minimum 40 = 32 (for turret batteries) + 8 (for two screen devices)
Flight              0
Service            34 = 2 per 1,000 tons of ship (ship with drop tanks is 16,650 tons)
Frozen watch        0
─────────────────────
Total crew        119
Ship’s troops      50 = (when present) minimum 3 per 1,000 tons (ship with drop tanks is 16,650 tons)
─────────────────────
Total personnel   169
═════════════════════

We agree on the Engineers, yay!
I believe crew should be calculated on 11100 Dt.
Gunners should have one gunner per battery, one supervisor per weapon type, and one chief gunner.

I believe it should be:

Crew          Bridge    10      (Ok, it should be 11)
132        Engineers    29      = (666 + 555 + 1665) / 100, round up
             Gunners    70      = 57 batteries, 4 types , 1 chief, 8 screen
             Service    23      = 11100 / 2, round up
              Flight     0
             =============
                Crew   132
             Marines    35      ≈ 11100 / 3, round up
             =============
Total                  167

Which is fairly close to the 131+35 in the Eurisko stat block.

I thought that the gunnery officers would be more command-oriented (e.g. independent eyes to advise on directing fire), so I didn’t use them to man the weapons.

You should determine the total number of gunners (incl. supervisors) and then determine number of officers and petty officers.
With 32 batteries of four types and two screens you should have 32 + 4 + 1 + 8 = 45 gunners minimum, officers are not added to this.

Did you mean the Unicorn rather than the Gazelle ? I haven’t examined the Unicornin detail, so I don’t yet know how convincing an example it might be.

The INS Unicorn is the Gazelle class ship described in JTAS. See JTAS#4, p14 & p20.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Since the drop-tank variant of the Eurisko-class is entirely dependent on external tankage for jumping, wouldn’t it be a 16,650 ton ship (i.e. 11,100 tons internal displacement + 5,550 tons external displacement) on an 11,100 ton hull? (The service crew requirements are explicitly based on “tons of ship” rather than tons of hull; the ship’s troops requirements, when present, are merely based on “tons”.)

With your proposed interpretation the Eurisko doesn't quite work:

BA-K9525F3-J41100-34003-0     MCr 12 839      11 100 Dton    Ag=2
BA-K9313F3-J41100-34003-0     MCr 12 839      16 650 Dton
bearing     1     11  V                          Crew=119
batteries   1     11  V                             TL=12
   Troops=50 Cargo=0 Fuel=555 EP=555 Agility=1 DropT=5550

Dual Occupancy                                     -  9    12 839
                                     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                             5    1       666     2 664
Manoeuvre D                            2    1       555       389
Power Plant                            5    1     1 665     4 995
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-5, 4 weeks            5       555         
                                                                
Bridge                                      1       333        56
Computer            m/6fib             F    1        14        83
                                                                
Staterooms                                  5        20         3
Staterooms, Half                          164       328        41
                                                                
Cargo                                                           
                                                                
Triple Turret 2/bat Missile            3   29        58       131    58 turrets organised into 29 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 12 838,64        Sum:      -  9    12 839
Class Cost          MCr  2 696,11       Valid        ≥0        ≥0
Ship Cost           MCr 10 270,91                               
                                                                
                                                                
Crew &               High     0        Crew          Bridge    11
Passengers            Mid     0         119       Engineers    29
                      Low     0                     Gunners    45
                 Extra SR     0      Frozen         Service    34
               # Frozen W     0           0          Flight     0
                  Marines    50                     Marines    50

The crew differs significantly, and the ship is over tonnage by 9 Dt.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

My interpretation seems to work for the Garter class of the same fleet:

TB-K1567F3-B41106-34009-0     MCr 17 511      12 000 Dton    Ag=6
TB-K1344F3-B41106-34009-0     MCr 17 511      18 000 Dton
bearing     C   1 EE  7                          Crew=170
batteries   C   1 EE  7                             TL=12
     Low=85 Cargo=54 Fuel=840 EP=840 Agility=4 DropT=6000

Dual Occupancy                                       54    17 511
                                     USP    #      Dton      Cost
Hull, Streamlined   Custom             K         12 000         
Configuration       Needle/Wedge       1                    1 440
Scoops              Streamlined                                12
Armour              11                 B          2 880     4 032
                                                                
Drop Tanks          6 000 Dton                                  6
Total tonnage       18 000 Dton                                 
                                                                
Jump Drive                             5    1       720     2 880
Manoeuvre D                            6    1     2 040     1 020
Power Plant                            7    1     2 520     7 560
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-5, 4 weeks            5       840         
Purifier                                    1       205         1
                                                                
Bridge                                      1       240        60
Computer            m/6fib             F    1        14        83
                                                                
Staterooms                                  5        20         3
Staterooms, Half                          165       330        41
Low Berths                                 85        43         4
                                                                
Cargo                                                54         
                                                                
Bay                 Repulsor, 100 t    6    1       100        11
Bay                 Missile, 100 t     9    7       700       147
Triple Turret       Beam               3   14        14        42
Single Turret       Fusion             4   14        28        28
Triple Turret       Sand               4   12        12         9
                                                                
Nuclear Damper                         1    1        50        50
Meson Screen                           1    1        90        80
                                                                
Carried Craft       1000 Dton               1     1 100         2
                                                                
Nominal Cost        MCr 17 511,30        Sum:        54    17 511
Class Cost          MCr  3 677,37       Valid        ≥0        ≥0
Ship Cost           MCr 14 009,04                               
                                                                
                                                                
Crew &               High     0        Crew          Bridge    10
Passengers            Mid     0         170       Engineers    53
                      Low     0                     Gunners    70
                 Extra SR     0      Frozen         Service    36
               # Frozen W     0           0          Flight     1
                  Marines     0                     Marines     0

At least it's reasonably close, off by 50 Dt or so.

 

[Kakistocrat]

Since the drop-tank variant of the Eurisko-class is entirely dependent on external tankage for jumping, wouldn’t it be a 16,650 ton ship (i.e. 11,100 tons internal displacement + 5,550 tons external displacement) on an 11,100 ton hull? (The service crew requirements are explicitly based on “tons of ship” rather than tons of hull; the ship’s troops requirements, when present, are merely based on “tons”.)

No, I don’t think so. That was why I dragged Eurisko into this, to demonstrate that the numbers don’t work for that in a published and hotly debated design.

Bridge and crew are calculated for the hull, then you can add drop tanks as needed. The only thing that changes is drive performance.

To counter-quote from 1980 High Guard (my boldface below):

---

L-Hyd tanks are installed outside the hull, and increase the total tonnage of the ship; drives are reduced in their efficiency based on the total tonnage of the ship.​

​

Such a bridge (designated as the main bridge or prime bridge) requires 2% of the ship’s tonnage (minimum: 20 tons) at a cost of Cr5,000 per ton of ship.​

―1980 High Guard, p. 27​

---

Allow two crew per 1000 tons of ship; three per 1000 tons if there are no ship’s troops.​

―1980 High Guard, p. 33​

---

The drop tanks increase the tonnage of the ship, and both the bridge and the service crew are determined according to the ship’s tonnage rather than according to the hull’s tonnage.

In the Starship Design Checklist on p. 26, drop tanks are allocated in step 5. B., before both the bridge allocation in step 7. and the crew quarters allocation in step 14. Since the Eurisko-class ships are all equipped with 5,550 tons of drop tanks, can’t jump at all without them, and the tournament required each squadron to be capable of jump-3, my view is that their drop tanks are a mandatory component of the Eurisko-class design, and therefore, per 1980 High Guard, the bridge and the crew allocation should be based on the 16,650 tons of ship rather than the 11,100 tons of hull. (Since the ship’s troops are determined based on “tons”, it is unclear whether tons of ship or tons of hull were intended. My personal view is that tons of ship were intended; if there was a ship class designed by GDW using 1980 High Guard that had ship’s troops and a large proportion of ship’s tonnage based externally [e.g. significant tonnage in drop tanks], that might help to resolve the ambiguity.)

We agree on the Engineers, yay!

There’s hope for us yet.

Gunners should have one gunner per battery, one supervisor per weapon type, and one chief gunner.

You should determine the total number of gunners (incl. supervisors) and then determine number of officers and petty officers.
With 32 batteries of four types and two screens you should have 32 + 4 + 1 + 8 = 45 gunners minimum, officers are not added to this.

By “officers are not added to this”, do you mean that petty officers should be excluded from both manning weapons and supervising? If so, then a minimum of 45 gunners would be 60% of the gunnery crew, which would make the total gunnery crew 45 ÷ 0.6 ≈ 76 (8 officers + 23 petty officers + 45 ratings, rounding up on both officers and petty officers).

If you’d meant that petty officers should be excluded from manning weapons but could be supervisors, then the total gunnery crew would be 40 ÷ 0.6 ≈ 67 (e.g. 7 officers + 20 petty officers + 40 ratings).

My original allocation of 45 allowed petty officers to man the weapons (since petty officers can attend gunnery school), and left supervisory duties to the five officers—one chief officer and one for each of the four Eurisko-class weapon types.

The INS Unicorn is the Gazelle class ship described in JTAS. See JTAS#4, p14 & p20.

I don’t have all of the JTAS issues, so explicitly identifying the Unicorn as a Gazelle-class ship would have been clearer. (The Unicorn isn’t described as being Gazelle-class in 1980 High Guard.)

 

[Spinward Flow]

my view is that their drop tanks are a mandatory component of the Eurisko-class design, and therefore, per 1980 High Guard, the bridge and the crew allocation should be based on the 16,650 tons of ship rather than the 11,100 tons of hull.

The bridge and crew allocation is based on the "permanent hull" features of a starship (in this example, 11,100 tons) and does not include "temporary features" (such as drop tanks or external demountable tanks). Remember, external fuel tanks (demountable or drop) cost Cr1000 per ton, rather than the baseline Cr100,000 per ton (before configuration modifier to price) of hull metal. That distinction shows up pretty quickly when it's time to take some damage hits.

There's also the "does it make sense" test.
16,650 - 11,110 = 5,540 tons of drop tanks

Even at a minimum of 2 service crew per 1000 tons, that's still an additional 11 service crew who only have to be there because there are drop tanks installed. Where are their duty stations supposed to be? INSIDE the drop tanks? When the drop tanks are jettisoned, do those 11 service crew get "dumped" with the drop tanks?

Since the Eurisko-class ships are all equipped with 5,550 tons of drop tanks, can’t jump at all without them, and the tournament required each squadron to be capable of jump-3, my view is that their drop tanks are a mandatory component of the Eurisko-class design

Honestly, a better way to think about the Eurisko-class in tournament play would be that the J3 capability needs to be "two way" in order to enable a retreat capability from the location where the tournament battle was intended to take place. If the Eurisko-class ships jump into the tournament combat star system @ J3 but then jettison their drop tanks (for better drive performance in combat), those drop tanks ought to not be recoverable ... meaning that the Eurisko-class ships may have just STRANDED themselves in the tournament play theater of operations.

You can check in, but you can't check out.

As a tournament organizer, I would look at any "one way fleet" design as being functionally a Suicide Fleet ... because regardless of whether they win or lose, the crew of that fleet cannot exit the theater @ J3 due to insufficient fuel (because the drop tanks were jettisoned). So even if the Eurisko-class fleet "wins the battle" they're still going to "lose the war" because the fleet cannot J3 back to base after dropping fuel tanks for combat.

So to put a finer point on what I'm saying, J3 capable to get TO the battle is only HALF the requirement.
The other half is a requirement to be J3 capable (still) to get AWAY from the battle after it's all over (so as to return to base).
Drop tanks can only do both if the drop tanks are retained ... AND ... they do not take battle damage (good luck with that one, since external fuel tanks tend to be rather ... squishy/kaboomy under fire).

 

[Condottiere]

You could.

After the battle, you take over or cannibalize your opponents.


Seems something the Vargr might try.

 

[Kakistocrat]

With your proposed interpretation the Eurisko doesn't quite work:
View attachment 4564

BA-K9525F3-J41100-34003-0     MCr 12 839      11 100 Dton    Ag=2
BA-K9313F3-J41100-34003-0     MCr 12 839      16 650 Dton
bearing     1     11  V                          Crew=119
batteries   1     11  V                             TL=12
   Troops=50 Cargo=0 Fuel=555 EP=555 Agility=1 DropT=5550

Dual Occupancy                                     -  9    12 839
                                     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                             5    1       666     2 664
Manoeuvre D                            2    1       555       389
Power Plant                            5    1     1 665     4 995
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-5, 4 weeks            5       555     
                                                            
Bridge                                      1       333        56
Computer            m/6fib             F    1        14        83
                                                            
Staterooms                                  5        20         3
Staterooms, Half                          164       328        41
                                                            
Cargo                                                       
                                                            
Triple Turret 2/bat Missile            3   29        58       131    58 turrets organised into 29 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 12 838,64        Sum:      -  9    12 839
Class Cost          MCr  2 696,11       Valid        ≥0        ≥0
Ship Cost           MCr 10 270,91                           
                                                            
                                                            
Crew &               High     0        Crew          Bridge    11
Passengers            Mid     0         119       Engineers    29
                      Low     0                     Gunners    45
                 Extra SR     0      Frozen         Service    34
               # Frozen W     0           0          Flight     0
                  Marines    50                     Marines    50

The crew differs significantly, and the ship is over tonnage by 9 Dt.

Your configuration based on my interpretation doesn’t completely capture my interpretation:

• I didn’t allocate a model/6fib computer; I kept the model/6 computer (7 tons, MCr55), as originally specified;
• I put the shared staterooms at 83, or 166 “half staterooms”, on the theory that shared staterooms would only be shared by crewmen of the same section:
  
  

  command          5 = ([11 − 2] ÷ 2, rounded up)
  engineering     14 = ([29 − 1] ÷ 2)
  gunnery         22 = ([45 − 1] ÷ 2)
  service         17 = ([34 − 0] ÷ 2)
  ship’s troops   25 = ([50 − 1] ÷ 2, rounded up)

  
  —but if the gunnery crew should be more than 45 (per your previous post), then additional shared staterooms would be needed;
• I kept the 8 tons of cargo space, as originally specified;
• I’d selected two turrets with two plasma guns each (4 tons, MCr6) rather than one turret with one fusion gun;
• I’d selected four turrets with two sandcasters each (4 tons, MCr2) rather than one turret with three sandcasters;
• did you include tonnage for fire control equipment for each turret?

In any case, my argument was just that—the Eurisko-class doesn’t quite work as specified (though some variation is possible due to the particular weapons that I’d selected).

 

[Kakistocrat]

The bridge and crew allocation is based on the “permanent hull” features of a starship (in this example, 11,100 tons) and does not include “temporary features” (such as drop tanks or external demountable tanks).

That’s not what 1980 High Guard states (see the relevant quotes in the post that you’d commented on); they’re both based on tons of ship rather than tons of permanent hull.

There's also the “does it make sense” test.
16,650 − 11,110 = 5,550 tons of drop tanks

Even at a minimum of 2 service crew per 1000 tons, that's still an additional 11 service crew who only have to be there because there are drop tanks installed.

They have to be there because crew allocation is based on tons of ship, not tons of hull. As to why crew allocation is on that particular basis, I don’t know; I didn’t write High Guard.

Where are their duty stations supposed to be? INSIDE the drop tanks?

Frankly, their duty stations are not my concern—I’m trying to argue that the Eurisko-class doesn’t quite work as originally designed.

When the drop tanks are jettisoned, do those 11 service crew get "dumped" with the drop tanks?

Call me crazy, but there could be situations where having extra crew above the bare minimum might be advantageous. Is there a reason why you suggest that the extra crewmen should be jettisoned along with the drop tanks?

Honestly, a better way to think about the Eurisko-class in tournament play would be that the J3 capability needs to be “two way” in order to enable a retreat capability from the location where the tournament battle was intended to take place. If the Eurisko-class ships jump into the tournament combat star system @ J3 but then jettison their drop tanks (for better drive performance in combat), those drop tanks ought to not be recoverable … meaning that the Eurisko-class ships may have just STRANDED themselves in the tournament play theater of operations.

My view of the Eurisko-class in Lenat’s squadron is that they were not quite a suicide fleet, but rather “painted with red and white concentric circles”, to soak up the attacks of the opposing squadron, while the other ships of different classes in his squadron would work on taking out the far-less numerous opponents through minimizing their own exposure. As I see it, Lenat didn’t seek to improve the Eurisko-class performance in combat by jettisoning the drop tanks; he wanted them as a highly visible heavily armored set of targets for his opponents to focus their fire upon.

So even if the Eurisko-class fleet “wins the battle” they’re still going to "lose the war" because the fleet cannot J3 back to base after dropping fuel tanks for combat.

That could well be, but the EURISKO program came up with the several classes in Lenat’s squadron to win the tournament by surviving battles; its goal was not to win a putative war, because the tournament rules didn’t have a victory condition of that sort.

 

[Vargr Breath]

"Hatari"-in space.

Screenplay by-Leigh Brackett.

 

[Condottiere]

1. You identify a system that the enemy is committed to defend, likely at all costs, and you consider worth having.

2. Terra would be one of those, since it's unlikely the Imperium would give that up without a fight.

3. The Confederation Navy starts setting up staging areas within range of Terra, and prepares starwarships with drop tanks.

4. This would be followed up by invading the Vegan Autonomous Region, since you can assume that they would defend most of their planets.

5. As areas of space are secured insystem, freighters carrying the left behind drop tanks are despatched, to allow damaged starwarships to withdraw for rear area maintenance, as well as now empty supply ships.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The drop tanks increase the tonnage of the ship, and both the bridge and the service crew are determined according to the ship’s tonnage rather than according to the hull’s tonnage.

My interpretation is: Total tonnage = tonnage + tanks.

Your interpretation is: Total tonnage = tonnage = hull + tanks?

And that's where examples comes handy. The Eurisko fleet is the only published CT drop tank example of over 1000 Dt I know of, and as far as I can see it supports my interpretation.

By “officers are not added to this”, do you mean that petty officers should be excluded from both manning weapons and supervising? If so, then a minimum of 45 gunners would be 60% of the gunnery crew, which would make the total gunnery crew 45 ÷ 0.6 ≈ 76 (8 officers + 23 petty officers + 45 ratings, rounding up on both officers and petty officers).

No, more formulaic. You need one gunner per battery, one gunner per weapon type, and an extra gunner.

HG'80, p33:
Gunnery Section: The ship should have a chief gunnery officer and at least one petty officer for each type of weapon aboard. The major weapon (spinal mount) should have a crew of one per 100 tons of weapon; bay weapons should have a crew of at least two; turret weapons should have a crew of at least one per battery. Each screen device (force field, damper, meson screen) should have a crew of at least four.

Then you calculate officers from the determined number of gunners:

HG'80, p33:
The gunnery section should have 10% officers, and 30% petty officers.

So, for 32 batteries of four types, you need 32 + 4 + 1 + 8 = 45 gunners.
Of those 45 gunners 10% should be officers (45 × 10% ≈ 5 officers) and 30 POs (45 × 30% ≈ 14 POs).

I don’t have all of the JTAS issues, so explicitly identifying the Unicorn as a Gazelle-class ship would have been clearer. (The Unicorn isn’t described as being Gazelle-class in 1980 High Guard.)

Sorry, I've seen that so often, I'm blind to it. It's hinted in HG:

HG'80, p20:
Ship Classes:
...
Ships of a class are named to show this relationship. For example, the first ship in a series of small, swift escort vessels might be called the Gazelle, prompting the formation of the Gazelle class of close escorts. Other ship names in the class could be Reindeer, Kudie (for Kudebeck's Gazelle), Antelope, Unicorn, Pinto, as well as any of the many other names for swift herbivores.

 

[Spinward Flow]

That’s not what 1980 High Guard states (see the relevant quotes in the post that you’d commented on); they’re both based on tons of ship rather than tons of permanent hull.

I've done a LOT of "pro bono Rules Lawyering™" in my time.
Even *I* wouldn't defend the lengths you're going to in order to cling to your stance on this topic.

To put it politely, you're reaching for "It matters what the definition of 'IS' ... is ..." levels of shaving hairs with your defense.

They have to be there because crew allocation is based on tons of ship, not tons of hull. As to why crew allocation is on that particular basis, I don’t know; I didn’t write High Guard.

Frankly, their duty stations are not my concern

To quote Delenn, when she broke the Shadow Council ... "The problems of others are not our concern."

You do yourself (and your argument) a disservice by not considering the (obvious) consequences for people (obviously fictional, but still) that adopting your stance on the subject matter being debated would have on their (fictional) lives and livelihoods.

As to why crew allocation is on that particular basis, I don’t know; I didn’t write High Guard.

If your argument is going to "live" by appealing to the authority of LBB5.80, then it can also "die" by appealing to that same authority of LBB5.80.

LBB5.80 explicitly staes, in RAW, that drive performance must be recalculated when external loads (such as drop tanks) are added.

LBB5.80 explicitly OMITS ... the exact interpretation that you are making ... that bridge size and crew complement requirements (and batteries bearing fraction, meson shield EP consumption, etc.) must ALSO be adjusted to account for the additional tonnage added by the inclusion of drop tanks. What you are doing is drawing an inference, based on the order of operations when designing a starship, rather than citing an explicit instruction that details what MUST be done.

Call me crazy, but there could be situations where having extra crew above the bare minimum might be advantageous.

Yes, there are situations where having "extra crew" above the minimum is considered advantageous.
However, very nearly ALL of the conditions where that is true use the Frozen Watch allocation for extra crew, rather than just having a surplus of crew around full time REGARDLESS of circumstances (or need).

Is there a reason why you suggest that the extra crewmen should be jettisoned along with the drop tanks?

Yes.
Because it points out the fundamental(ist) flaws in your argument and assertions very obviously.

The fact that you are unwilling to engage or defend your position against the obvious outcomes of what you assert is ... telling.

My view of the Eurisko-class in Lenat’s squadron is that they were not quite a suicide fleet, but rather “painted with red and white concentric circles”

Basically ... cannon fodder ... capable of fulfilling the "tank" role in a Tank 'n' Spank formation.

the EURISKO program came up with the several classes in Lenat’s squadron to win the tournament by surviving battles; its goal was not to win a putative war, because the tournament rules didn’t have a victory condition of that sort.

Then that's a failure in the design of the tournament rules, which Lenat was then able to exploit successfully.

When a tournament only concerns itself with "winning the battle" ... as was the case here ... the results can easily skew in favor of the unsustainable "disposable" fleet composition. You wind up with "one shot" fleets that can win a single battle, but then have no (innate) capacity to regroup and redeploy to the next point of contention.

All the fleet has to do is "get there and win" ... with anything resembling an aftermath being substantially irrelevant to the "scoring" of the tournament. However, as I think we can all agree, a fleet with that kind of performance ... a One And Done fleet ... would be substantially useless to an admiralty in an actual shooting war.

In other words, the tournament rules were too focused upon TACTICS in a single battle, rather than on STRATEGY that would be needed to affect the outcome of a campaign. The tournament rules were more about "sport" than they were about "winning a war" (per se).

That kind of difference in focus for victory conditions then makes it possible for "oddities" such as Lenat's fleets to "run the table" and win every battle they're in ... but in a broader picture, still "lose a war" in which being able to replenish and sustain operations for more than just a single battle with the same forces becomes an important factor.

Lenat's fleets show "what works in theory" somewhat decisively.
Try putting those fleets "into practice" and their shortcomings under "less than ideal conditions" (of sustained operations) become apparent almost immediately ... because of the logistics of how Lenat's fleets were constructed.

Fleets that are unable to retreat (through jump) after a battle, are little more than (one way) jump deployable SDB squadrons ... effectively.

It's possible to develop a naval doctrine that prioritizes "deployable pillbox" SDB type tactics and strategy as a defensive measure to blunt the force of an invader ... where it's mostly a Battle Rider plus Tenders kind of strategy, where the Battle Riders get deployed to star systems to defend them and the Tenders are kept as a "mobile resource" independent of the fighting boats (which do not have jump drives) so as to be able to mobilize Battle Riders when needed/possible. The problem with such a naval doctrine is that it is substantially "reactionary" in a shooting war and lacks the capability to mobilize all forces at the same time. So it's good for defense where jump mobility is less of a priority, so long as you can pre-position yourself properly into a bulwark, but is much less useful on offense. The risk with such a naval doctrine is ... the enemy gets to pick where they want to go, so any "gaps" in your defenses will be exploitable by a more mobile (not dependent on jump tenders!) force. Additionally, if the enemy does not "oblige you" by meeting you where your defenses are strongest, they can simply "bypass" your pre-positioned strongholds and wreak havoc elsewhere, unimpeded by your forces that lack the mobility to meet the enemy where the enemy chooses to go.

It's the difference between having a "defensive line" versus the options of "maneuver warfare" ... which can result in some concentrated breakthroughs at weak points that cause a "defensive line" to fail without needing to defeat it in detail.

In other words, even if you "win every battle" it's still perfectly possible to "lose the war" ...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Your configuration based on my interpretation doesn’t completely capture my interpretation:

Sorry, I can fix...

• I didn’t allocate a model/6fib computer; I kept the model/6 computer (7 tons, MCr55), as originally specified;
• I put the shared staterooms at 83, or 166 “half staterooms”, on the theory that shared staterooms would only be shared by crewmen of the same section:
  
  

  command          5 = ([11 − 2] ÷ 2, rounded up)
  engineering     14 = ([29 − 1] ÷ 2)
  gunnery         22 = ([45 − 1] ÷ 2)
  service         17 = ([34 − 0] ÷ 2)
  ship’s troops   25 = ([50 − 1] ÷ 2, rounded up)

With the full staterooms for section leaders you'd need 88 staterooms?

• I kept the 8 tons of cargo space, as originally specified;
• I’d selected two turrets with two plasma guns each (4 tons, MCr6) rather than one turret with one fusion gun;
• I’d selected four turrets with two sandcasters each (4 tons, MCr2) rather than one turret with three sandcasters;

OK, bigger, more expensive, and uses more power, but OK.

• did you include tonnage for fire control equipment for each turret?

In HG there is no separate fire control, instead the turrets consume tonnage, unspecified how.

BA-K952563-J61100-34003-0     MCr 12 844      11 100 Dton    Ag=2
BA-K931363-J61100-34003-0     MCr 12 844      16 650 Dton
bearing     1     11  V                          Crew=119
batteries   1     11  V                             TL=12
   Troops=50 Cargo=0 Fuel=555 EP=555 Agility=1 DropT=5550

Spoiler

Dual Occupancy                                    -  11    12 844
                                     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                             5    1       666     2 664
Manoeuvre D                            2    1       555       389
Power Plant                            5    1     1 665     4 995
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-5, 4 weeks            5       555         
                                                                
Bridge                                      1       333        83
Computer            m/6                6    1         7        55
                                                                
Staterooms                                 88       352        44
                                                                
Cargo                                                           
                                                                
Triple Turret 2/bat Missile            3   29        58       131    58 turrets organised into 29 batteries.
Triple Turret       Beam               3    1         1         3
Double Turret 2/bat Plasma             4    1         4         6    2 turrets organised into 1 battery.
Double Turret 4/bat Sand               6    1         4         2    4 mounts organised into 1 battery.
                                                                
Nuclear Damper                         1    1        50        50
Meson Screen                           1    1        90        80
                                                                
Nominal Cost        MCr 12 844,14        Sum:     -  11    12 844
Class Cost          MCr  2 697,27       Valid        ≥0        ≥0
Ship Cost           MCr 10 275,31                               
                                                                
                                                                
Crew &               High     0        Crew          Bridge    11
Passengers            Mid     0         119       Engineers    29
                      Low     0                     Gunners    45
                 Extra SR     0      Frozen         Service    34
               # Frozen W     0           0          Flight     0
                  Marines    50                     Marines    50

Still overtonnage, and incompatible crew size.

In any case, my argument was just that—the Eurisko-class doesn’t quite work as specified (though some variation is possible due to the particular weapons that I’d selected).

But the problem is that Eurisko is said to be appealed and confirmed OK...

 

[Kakistocrat]

My interpretation is: Total tonnage = tonnage + tanks.

Your interpretation is: Total tonnage = tonnage = hull + tanks?

My interpretation is that “the ship’s tonnage” is the total tonnage of a ship—all tonnage of a ship, both internal and external.

Your interpretation, if I understand it correctly, is that “the ship’s tonnage” is not the total tonnage of a ship, but only the tonnage within the ship’s hull, excluding the external tonnage of a ship from “the ship’s tonnage”.

And that’s where examples comes handy. The Eurisko fleet is the only published CT drop tank example of over 1000 Dt I know of, and as far as I can see it supports my interpretation.

It’s the only one that I know of as well, but it wasn’t designed by GDW, and I don’t know how much review time was given to ensuring that Lenat’s designs met both 1980 High Guard rules and the additional tournament rules. (Had anyone previously designed a jump-capable ship which had its jump fuel only in external tankage?)

So, for 32 batteries of four types, you need 32 + 4 + 1 + 8 = 45 gunners.
Of those 45 gunners 10% should be officers (45 × 10% ≈ 5 officers) and 30 POs (45 × 30% ≈ 14 POs).

That exact proportion of 45 gunners was what I’d allocated above.

It’s hinted in [HG'80, p20]:

I didn’t consider looking in the Starship Construction section on p. 20, since the Unicorn’s description is on p. 50.

 

[Kakistocrat]

I’ve done a LOT of “pro bono Rules Lawyering™” in my time.
Even *I* wouldn’t defend the lengths you’re going to in order to cling to your stance on this topic.

Do you consider the direct quotation of the relevant source material to be “indefensible lengths” for propounding a point of view?

To put it politely, you’re reaching for “It matters what the definition of ‘IS’ … is …” levels of shaving hairs with your defense.

Thank you for being polite.

You do yourself (and your argument) a disservice by not considering the (obvious) consequences for people (obviously fictional, but still) that adopting your stance on the subject matter being debated would have on their (fictional) lives and livelihoods.

How so? Because a set of game rules specifies that a starship above a certain size needs a minimum number of service crew based on the starship’s tonnage, and because I didn’t allocate particular tasks to those fictional crewmen above that minimum number? You view that as a disservice to my argument, which is not what those fictional crewmen would do, but rather where that minimum number should be? You view that as a disservice to myself? “Fascinating.”

If your argument is going to “live” by appealing to the authority of LBB5.80, then it can also “die” by appealing to that same authority of LBB5.80.

That’s only fair.

LBB5.80 explicitly states, in RAW, that drive performance must be recalculated when external loads (such as drop tanks) are added.

LBB5.80 explicitly OMITS … the exact interpretation that you are making … that bridge size and crew complement requirements (and batteries bearing fraction, meson shield EP consumption, etc.) must ALSO be adjusted to account for the additional tonnage added by the inclusion of drop tanks. What you are doing is drawing an inference, based on the order of operations when designing a starship, rather than citing an explicit instruction that details what MUST be done.

It is certainly true that my point of view is based on an inference. If it had been stated explicitly, then there would be no doubt about its correctness. Similarly, if those quotations from 1980 High Guard had instead stated “the hull’s tonnage” and “tons of hull” rather than “the ship’s tonnage” and “tons of ship”, then there would be no doubt about its incorrectness. But since the text states the latter, inference is used in both points of view to interpret what those two phrases mean.

Yes, there are situations where having “extra crew” above the minimum is considered advantageous.
However, very nearly ALL of the conditions where that is true use the Frozen Watch allocation for extra crew, rather than just having a surplus of crew around full time REGARDLESS of circumstances (or need).

Again, the minimum service crew count in 1980 High Guard is directly proportional to “tons of ship”, regardless of how the ship is laid out, its circumstances, or its need. This ship class was designed for use only in a tournament of tactical battles; it is a class with a very specific design goal.

Because [suggesting that the extra crewmen should be jettisoned along with the drop tanks] points out the fundamental(ist) flaws in your argument and assertions very obviously.

The fact that you are unwilling to engage or defend your position against the obvious outcomes of what you assert is … telling.

Again, how so? Which obvious outcomes? This ship class was not intended for a campaign; it was designed only for a series of tactical battles (probably five, if there were between 17 and 32 competitors in the tournament).

Basically … [the Eurisko-class ships were] cannon fodder … capable of fulfilling the “tank” role in a Tank ’n’ Spank formation.

Then that’s a failure in the design of the tournament rules, which Lenat was then able to exploit successfully.

It was what it was. If the tournament had had different “non-failing” rules, then the EURISKO program would have optimized for a squadron with different characteristics.

However, as I think we can all agree, a fleet with that kind of performance … a One And Done fleet … would be substantially useless to an admiralty in an actual shooting war.

Absolutely. Lenat’s squadron was specifically designed for one purpose—to win a series of tactical battles by being the last squadron standing, rather than to win a war.

 

[Kakistocrat]

With the full staterooms for section leaders you'd need 88 staterooms?

Yes.

In HG there is no separate fire control, instead the turrets consume tonnage, unspecified how.

In 1977 Starships, p. 13, the fire control equipment is adjacent to the bridge, yet on p.14, turrets consume internal tonnage for fire control equipment. (Would that limit the placement of turrets to being bridge-adjacent in ships designed using Starships ?)

In Lightning Class Cruisers, p. 5, the 60,000 ton Azhanti High Lightning-class is described as having “Integral fire control and program storage” in its Electronics section. If that applies to all ships that are designed using 1980 High Guard, then fire control equipment would not be a separate line item in such ship designs.

Still overtonnage, and incompatible crew size.

Yes, those are the consequences of my view of how to define “the ship’s tonnage” (for the bridge), “tons of ship” (for service crew allocation), and “tons” (for ship’s troops allocation).

(In the Consolidated CT Errata document, the minimum ship’s troops allocation per ton has been removed, replaced with “as desired”, which would make that “tons” definition moot now, but not in 1981.)

But the problem is that Eurisko is said to be appealed and confirmed OK…

Who had appealed it, and who had confirmed it?

 

[Grav_Moped]

Weirdness from me from a while back:

<snip>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 ... <snip>

Doesn't affect bridge size (2% of 1000 is 20). But it gets at the "crew size is related to tonnage (drives or hull, depending), except when you're talking about drop tanks" weirdness. That is, it's 1000Td with a 1-man crew because it's "really only 199Td".

Really?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

My interpretation is that “the ship’s tonnage” is the total tonnage of a ship—all tonnage of a ship, both internal and external.

Your interpretation, if I understand it correctly, is that “the ship’s tonnage” is not the total tonnage of a ship, but only the tonnage within the ship’s hull, excluding the external tonnage of a ship from “the ship’s tonnage”.

Yes.

As "external" only applies to external tanks in CT rules, it's basically only about drop tanks.

Also see the Jump Ship (S9, p22), it's a 5000 Dt ship that can jump with up to 5000 Dt external pods somehow. The crew appears dimensioned for 5000 Dt, not 10000 Dt.

It’s the only one that I know of as well, but it wasn’t designed by GDW, and I don’t know how much review time was given to ensuring that Lenat’s designs met both 1980 High Guard rules and the additional tournament rules. (Had anyone previously designed a jump-capable ship which had its jump fuel only in external tankage?)

Previous art: JTAS#4 Gazelle (using HG'79 with some modifications). That is too small to have any bridge or crew issues.

As far as I have read, the Eurisko fleet was appealed after winning the first tournament easily, yet still declared the winner. I have no idea who appealed or judged it correct. It was apparently considered good enough to publish by GDW.