50ton fighter

[BetterThanLife]

You are welcome. Actually Falkyn's Spreadsheet makes this easy to do.

Liam,
I never bought the COACC book. But if I had the MT stats it is easy enough to convert. (A little tougher than the HG stats but easy enough.)

As for the Strella, I did that about a year ago and while I like Michael's work on his EAs, (Actually like is a bit weak.) I thought his Zhodani 8 Ton fighter wasn't quite what I envision fighters as. (I also think his Marine's are a bit under armed and undergunned, but that is another matter.) So I thought I should share.

Now if I could get a 6 ton fighter (Adventure 7 - Broadsword) to work under T20 I would be a happy camper. (It just isn't a viable size for a fighter under T20 rules. No matter what you do with the * ton fighter, it is still going to be a compromise. )

 

[BetterThanLife]

I appologize. Somehow I managed to do the Rampart1F twice but missed the Rampart-2f. Previous duplication has been deleted. Here is the Rampart-2F.

T20 Starship Design Sheet Output

Rampart-2F - Rampart-2F Class Light Fighter
Designed by: GDW (Converted)

Statistics:
15-ton Hull (Needle/Wedge) - Streamlined
AC: 21 (19 vs. Meson Guns) AR: 4 (TL-15) SI: 75 Initiative: 6
Starship Size: Small Cost: 10.56 MCr (13.2 MCr without discount)
Model/1 (PP: 28/11) Computer Avionics: Less than 600-ton Sensors: Close Range Communications: Close Range
Cargo: 0.0-tons Passengers:
Annual Maintenance = 1.056 KCr (.528 KCr if routinely maintained)
Routine Maintenance = .264 KCr/Month (2.64 KCr per year)

Performance:
Acceleration: 6-G Agility: 6
Power Plant: TL-15 Fusion (2 EP output, enough fuel for 2 weeks)
Atmospheric Speeds: NOE = 1,175kph Cruising = 3,525kph Maximum = 4,700kph

Weapons:
Hardpoints: 1
1x Triple Missile Rack Turret TL-15 (2.35 missile magazines)
Missile +3 To Hit, 3d6 (18/x1), Range: 90,000km, Ammo: 23 missiles
Nuclear Missile +3 To Hit, 8d6 + 3d12 Radiation (17/x2), Range: 90,000km, Ammo: 12 missiles
BPL Missile +3 To Hit, 4d6 x 1d10 (19/x1), Range: 90,000km, Ammo: 12 missiles


Accomodations & Fittings:
1x Double Occupancy Small Cabin (2 People)
1x Airlock

Crew Details:
1x Pilot
1x Gunner


Description:
Thte Product Improved Rampart-2, also known as the Rampart-2F, realizes the same endurance, armor increases and manages to squeeze in a small craft cabin for longer deployments. It does lose some of its excessive magazine capacity but still has more missiles than it is expected to use in a typical combat engagement. Still deployed in the same ratios to Rampart-1 fighters.
Noted for its high missile magazine capacity, (for its type) the Rampart-2F still provides long range fire support for the Rampart-I fighters.

 

[Liam Devlin]

Marquis Bhoins, I will see if I can dig up me deadtree copy and get back on this for you! TY for your prompt response, sir.

And once again, great work. Yes, Falkayn's ship proggy is good shtuff, must concur!

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
Now if I could get a 6 ton fighter (Adventure 7 - Broadsword) to work under T20 I would be a happy camper. (It just isn't a viable size for a fighter under T20 rules. No matter what you do with the * ton fighter, it is still going to be a compromise. )

I expect you're right* since T20 requires both a bridge and computer. I think the minimum I worked out a while back for T20 was 8tons. Of course with my house rules it should be possible to go smaller but that's not the point.

* unless, perhaps if you built it as a Vehicle instead?

I don't recall the Adv.7 6ton fighter but a couple days ago I did a 6ton fighter in HG at TL9 for the exercise. Can someone please let me know if the following is close:

+6.0ton Hull-Needle
-1.0ton Maneuver 6G
-1.0ton Fusion PP 6
-1.0ton Fuel x4 wks
-0.5ton Pilots Seat
-1.0ton Model/1 bis
-0.5ton Armored F 1
-1.0ton Missile F 2

Agility 6; Programs: Maneuver/Evade-1, Target, Launch, Select-3; Final cost MCr8.556 after discount (not including Programs).

Edit: As I've been reminded again

the above breaks a HG rule, no bis computers in small craft. It's just that I've never liked the rule or see a good reason for it so I've always ignored it, to the point that I never remember it. It's easy enough to change if you must, just drop the price by MCr1.6 and change the programs.

 

[far-trader]

Well, using the least offensive of my house rules for T20 (half the bridge tonnage is allowed for installation of features, in this case the computer and weapon) and minimal fudging I can make a 6ton fighter work at TL15...

The micro fighter is capable of 6G and agility 6 in a Needle hull with a model/1bis computer and unpowered hardpoint and 4 weeks of powerplant operation. It is available in your choice of Space Superiority (SS) with armor F4 or Interface Interceptor (II) with an airframe upgrade.

Weapons load out varies between a triple missile turret F3 or a double mixed turret missile F2 and sand F3. A courier version is occasionally fitted with a triple sand turret F4 for higher defensive value.

Cost of the base platform is MCr5.12 discounted.

The SS version adds MCr0.4 while the II version adds MCr0.1 to the base cost.

The triple missile package adds MCr2.68 while the double mixed package or triple sand package adds MCr1.48 to the deal.

The fighter is supplied in a standard 2 seat configuration (side by side) but the second seat may be removed to allow user upgrades of up to 0.5tons to be installed. Typical uses are cargo space, missile and/or sand magazine space, or increased electronics. Another option is a larger cockpit that includes ejection capability and armor for a single seat. Some users have been known to install a vehicle grade weapon system in this space for engaging ground and air targets.

 

[BetterThanLife]

The High Guard Stats for the 6 ton Fighter in Adventure 7, Broadsword are as follows.

FF-0106611-000000-00001-0 MCr7.245
No Bridge so Model/1 computer functions as Model/0 1 missile battery. Crew=1 Fuel=1 EP=.36 Agility=6 TL12

When I do the math I come up with a factor 2 Missile battery, .4 tons cargo/misile magazine and a in quantity cost of MCr6.996.

I do believe the only way to do it in T20 is as a vehicle. However Grav Vehicles are limited to an agility of 4 in T20.

 

[JAFARR]

Originally posted by Eagle1:
Can anybody point me to a decent T20 50 ton Imperial Navy fighter, and 50 ton Imperial Navy bomber design to go aboard the IN ships outlined in Fighting Ships Travellers Aid 7?

I find it odd that the larger ship designs in that book have listed aboard 50 ton fighers and bombers, yet the heavy fighter, light fighter and bomber designs later in the book are 80 tons, 20 tons and 80 tons respectively.

I assume use of the 15 ton standard design fighter is the one to use aboard ships equipped with the lighter fighter.

thanks for any help you can give on this vexing question

Can't help on the T20 part, but I have an Excel spreadsheet for HG smallcraft. I think it is in it's final version (for now at least). If you or anyone else wants a copy, just PM me with your e-mail and I'll send it along. (It is done in Excel 97. I think the later versions will all accept it and automatically convert it to whatever version is reading it.)

 

[JAFARR]

Originally posted by far-trader:
... The micro fighter is capable of 6G and agility 6 in a Needle hull with a model/1bis computer ....

Does T20 allow bis models for small craft? I know that HG doesn't. I do not have T20 rules so I was just wondering?

 

[far-trader]

There is no rule in T20 (or the errata as yet) that does not allow bis or fib computers in small craft. Yes it is a change from HG, one I like in fact since I've long ignored that rule in HG (see my first design above

). It always seemed silly to me. T20 does have some other different computer rules from HG as well. Like the maximum model number being limited to hull tons divided by 10.

 

[far-trader]

Thanks for the stats Bhoins

Yeah, not sure how to work around the vehicle limitations. What I've used is the jet propulsion as a guideline for rocket propulsion for low tech space vehicles. That gets you the agility 6 and allows use in space as oppsosed to being limited to a gravity well for grav propulsion operation.

So my little extrapolation of the T20 bridge rules doesn't work for you?

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Thanks for the stats Bhoins

Yeah, not sure how to work around the vehicle limitations. What I've used is the jet propulsion as a guideline for rocket propulsion for low tech space vehicles. That gets you the agility 6 and allows use in space as oppsosed to being limited to a gravity well for grav propulsion operation.

So my little extrapolation of the T20 bridge rules doesn't work for you?

I prefer the lose the bridge and computer functions at level-1 from HG. But with sensors and coms now tied to computer level, and maximum level being 10% of the hull size... Not sure I like the idea of a model 0 computer in the T20 rules.

I still love the fact that the T20 "Standard designs" have both a small craft bridge and additional seats obviously intended for the crew.

I personally was never really interested in the light fighter except in the CAS role at higher tech levels. Back under the HG rules Free and Far Traders, forget about Corsairs, Patrol Corvettes, and Mercenary Cruisers swatted the midget fighters all day long.

As far as likeing your variation or not liking it, I haven't actually, really looked at it yet.

It looks fine on the surface, but I am not sure of the implications yet. (One of those law of unintended consequences, things.

)

 

[Hyphen]

Dear Folks -

Originally posted by Bhoins:
You are welcome. Actually Falkyn's Spreadsheet makes this easy to do.

OK, dumb question: where is Falkyn's spreadsheet available from?

Second question: if T20 is based on HG, why do small craft need a bridge?

 

[far-trader]

First question answered easily Hyphen, and it's not a dumb question

I could link direct for you but the exercise of directing you will open your eyes (and others) to even more wonders. And best of all it's all FREEE! Have a look at the top of the page. You'll see a menu bar. Explore it all later. For now click the fLibrary tab and be amazed!

The section with falkyn's spreadsheet is the Spreadsheets section (go figure ).

As for the second question, this one may sound like a dumb answer, but I don't know. No, I don't mean I don't know if the answer sounds dumb, I know it does

I mean I don't know the why of the question. It could be an editing error. Or a choice to make T20 different (better in Hunter's eyes perhaps, some might agree). I just don't know and I think it's been asked a few times with no official answer that I recall. How about it, any of the playtesters still around who questioned it and got an answer?

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:

So my little extrapolation of the T20 bridge rules doesn't work for you?

As far as likeing your variation or not liking it, I haven't actually, really looked at it yet.

It looks fine on the surface, but I am not sure of the implications yet. (One of those law of unintended consequences, things.

) </font>[/QUOTE]

Quite, and I'd be the last to spot them being the one behind the idea. By all means if you, or anyone, sees something of the sort give a shout but there's no hurry.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by far-trader:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:

So my little extrapolation of the T20 bridge rules doesn't work for you?

As far as likeing your variation or not liking it, I haven't actually, really looked at it yet.

It looks fine on the surface, but I am not sure of the implications yet. (One of those law of unintended consequences, things.

) </font>[/QUOTE]

Quite, and I'd be the last to spot them being the one behind the idea. By all means if you, or anyone, sees something of the sort give a shout but there's no hurry. </font>[/QUOTE]I am still waiting for someone to find the holes in my starship combat changes.

I, of course, already have found the majority of the holes in my charge per parsec freight/passenger rates. I prefer to find the holes before a Player exploits a loophole. So good luck in finding the holes.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by far-trader:
First question answered easily Hyphen, and it's not a dumb question

I could link direct for you but the exercise of directing you will open your eyes (and others) to even more wonders. And best of all it's all FREEE! Have a look at the top of the page. You'll see a menu bar. Explore it all later. For now click the fLibrary tab and be amazed!

The section with falkyn's spreadsheet is the Spreadsheets section (go figure ).

Actually the version in the flibrary is the 1.7 version. Falkyn's homepage has the 1.8 version. I am using version 1.9 (Which he sent me as I was having problems back when I did the FASA ship conversion.)

Though it needs a tweek for missile USP ratings and I prefer the standard hull configuration list. (1=Needle/Wedge, where the spreadsheet has 1=Cylinder.) Formulas for agility didn't work in 1.7 and had a glitch in 1.8 when Maneuver Drive wasn't equal to Jump Drive. These are minor glitches for an overall excellent piece of work but they are corrected in the latest version.

Considering what it does, I can live with the extra Engineer "Requirement" on small ships and hand adjust the batteries in the output for larger ships. (But don't expect me to run through Supp-9 or FSOTSI without getting it to do batteries in the near future.

)

 

[far-trader]

Thanks for the wish, it can't hurt to look it all over again*

I try to make sure any house rules I work out fill holes without making new ones, I'm just never sure until it's player tested I can only go so far with my own perspective and always worry there are unintended consequences that will be obvious to everyone else

Hmm, I'll have to have a look at those combat changes again. I know I at least skimmed them and they seemed ok but I didn't give them the proper in depth look I could.

* Case in point if only slightly related. I was sure I'd read, to the point that I was correcting people on these forums a while back, that the computer rules for T20 require that each subcomponent not exceed the core rating. Like no model/4 Sensors or Communications on a model/2 Computer core. But now for the life of me I don't see the reference in the rules

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Thanks for the wish, it can't hurt to look it all over again*

I try to make sure any house rules I work out fill holes without making new ones, I'm just never sure until it's player tested I can only go so far with my own perspective and always worry there are unintended consequences that will be obvious to everyone else

Hmm, I'll have to have a look at those combat changes again. I know I at least skimmed them and they seemed ok but I didn't give them the proper in depth look I could.

* Case in point if only slightly related. I was sure I'd read, to the point that I was correcting people on these forums a while back, that the computer rules for T20 require that each subcomponent not exceed the core rating. Like no model/4 Sensors or Communications on a model/2 Computer core. But now for the life of me I don't see the reference in the rules

Page 262-263, THB. Implied in the Main Computer first paragraph, but stated expilcitly in the BIS Computer paragraph. (Looks like a partial change in wording in the editing phase to prevent it from being explicitly stated in the first paragraph of the Main Computer section.

)

The big obvious change in my Starship Combat rules is that Marines, and for that matter Mercenaries and Martial Artists, are the best starship gunners in the game. (Though Scouts with the Martial Feat are quite close.) Provided that they have Weapon Prof. Starship Weapons. Most won't as it will cut into the limited number of Feats they already have. Traditionally, on US Ships, WWII era, Marines manned guns as well as Naval Ratings. Matter of fact in general on a Battleship one of the main gun turrets was traditionally a Marine turret and that turret (Usually, if my memory doesn't fail me, Turret #2.) was, as a matter of Marine Pride, generally the one that was the most accurate of the three.

 

[far-trader]

Ah, that's it! Thanks much for the sanity save Bhoins

I'd looked that over a couple times but kept skipping the BIS section

 

[Liam Devlin]

[EDITED]

Vessel design Moved to this location:

http://www.traveller.comstar-games.com/viewtopic.php?t=118