8 dton Zhodani Fighter?

[Hal]

Just out of curiosity, can anyone make an 8 dton Zhodani TL 13 fighter with 6G drives? The stats on a Zhodani fighter seem to imply that they're 8 dtons not only as described in Adventure 06 Expedition to Zhodane for the fighter itself, but is carried over as being 8 dton fighters for use on the Patrol Frigate.

Just curious. I can make a 12 dton version of the fighter, but only if I nerf its Manuever Drive from 6 G's to 3 G's.

 

[far-trader]

Yep it's doable. Are you perhaps putting in a bridge instead of just a couch? It's tight but works:

FM-0106D21-000000-00003-0 MCr15.324 8 tons
One missile battery. Cargo=O. Fuel=1.04. EP=1.04. Agility=6. TL=13. Crew=1.

(actually cargo is 0.02tons )

 

[Hal]

Yep it's doable. Are you perhaps putting in a bridge instead of just a couch? It's tight but works:

FM-0106D21-000000-00003-0 MCr15.324 8 tons
One missile battery. Cargo=O. Fuel=1.04. EP=1.04. Agility=6. TL=13. Crew=1.

(actually cargo is 0.02tons )

This is what I'm getting when I attempt to do it via spreadsheet. In order to have a model 2 computer, it would either require a model 3 computer with no bridge, or you need a small craft bridge and a model 2 computer. Otherwise, the computer gets treated as a model 1.

8 Dton Hull
02 Computer-2
1.36 Manuever-6
2.08 Power-13
1.04 Fuel tank

Remaining: 1.52

Now, if I try to put in a small craft bridge, it will take up 4 dtons, and no go. If I use no bridge, I have to insert a single couch, which takes up .5 dtons, and a single turret takes up 1 dton granting an additional 3dtons worth of weapon carrying space.

1.52 - 1.5 = .02 cargo space.

So yes, we're agreed on that one <g>.

High Guard Shipyard however, doesn't seem to permit it. Something else to mention to Andrew.

 

[far-trader]

I just ran it through HGS and it works for me, I'll email you the file to double check. Interesting, HGS calculated the computer reduction from 2 to 1 for the USP for not having a bridge. Aces!

EDIT: Ah, right, I see now, going by the canon USP it should have a comp m/3 to get the USP 2 for comp without having a bridge that won't fit, which explains the need for so much power plant, needing the 1EP for the compy.

A couple ways to "fix" it:

The USP is wrong, it IS a model/2 and should be treated as a model/1 for a USP1 rating, in which case we don't really need a D power plant and can save a ton by dropping it to a 6 (enough for the agility 6).

The USP is correct, it IS a model/3 dropped to USP2, which would put us a ton over, unless the Zho use fixed mount weapons like the Solomani which take no volume (but should only be a double mount not a triple then).

Ugly both ways

 

[far-trader]

You know, I suspect (all but certain) this is another early design built on HG1 where power plants were essentially TL15 across the board. That would let you have the model/3 computer (USP2 after deducting for no bridge), giving a reason for the USP13 power plant (to power the computer and agility) and still allow everything to fit (since the power plant is half the size of the HG2 TL13 version).

For that reason and to keep it I say the HG2 version should be built at TL15. Ignore the fact that someone says "the Zho's only have TL14 max. That's rather conceited and bogus anyway. They may very well be broadly TL14 the way The Imperium is broadly TL15 but it doesn't and shouldn't preclude designs at lower TL, or even some at higher TL. These fighters would be cutting edge for the Zho, old hat for the Imps. So let it be one of the exceptions to the TL14 rule for Zho ships.

TL should be the most flexible element of any attempts at "fixing" designs, especially those not originally built with HG2.

HG1 designs should largely be looking at increasing TL to 15 if needed, because of the significant power plant change.

B2 designs (while no really suitable for conversion) should be converted such that the basics remain the same, ignoring TL entirely as a criteria (there's no way to build a J4 TL9 in HG but you can in B2).

EDIT: Dang! Nix that idea I guess. I was forgetting the price came out right with a model/2 computer and it won't with a model/3. It's broke. Can't be fixed. Doesn't make sense to me the way it was designed. See the ugly solutions in the post above...

 

[Matt123]

Its doable if you relook at the fuel rules.

HG has two arbitrary limitations imposed into the HG design sequence. The first is that all craft must carry 28 days of fuel, a consideration more poperly intended for jump craft & carried into small craft design, despite that they are often used for short runs and don't support sophonts for a week in jump space.

Quote from pg27 HG rules
"The stated fuel tonnage supports four weeks cruising (including time spent in jump space) before refuelling is necessary."

A bit like designing a car that must carry a months worth of petrol, based on the logic it takes a cargo ship a month to get from England to New Zealand. It doesn't really gel.

The second limitation is the minimum size of fuel capacity. In this case also ensuring the Zhodani Fighter must carry 28 days of fuel, despite it being based on a pocket carrier or ground base which is better suited for carrying long term fuel. F-15's carrying a months worth of fuel?

From HGS
USP
EX-0406D21-000000-00003-0 MCr 27.675 8 Tons
Bat Bear 1 Crew: 1
Bat 1 TL: 13

Cargo: -0.980 Fuel: 1.040 EP: 1.040 Agility: 0
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops
No Bridge, computer-3 downgraded to Computer-2, 1 couch.
Architects Fee: MCr 0.277 Cost in Quantity: MCr 22.140

Run with the assumption the fighter is only intended to carry fuel plus a reserve inended to last as long as the pilot, say a day.

Fuel 1.04tn x 1/28 = .0372tn
Tonnage 8.98tn - 1.04 + .0372 = 7.98tn, leaving cargo .02tn enuff for an overnight bag...

The USP becomes
USP
EX-0406D21-000000-00003-0 MCr 27.675 8 Tons
Bat Bear 1 Crew: 1
Bat 1 TL: 13

Cargo: 0.020 Fuel: .0372 EP: 1.040 Agility: 0
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops
Fuel Endurance: 1 day
Architects Fee: MCr 0.277 Cost in Quantity: MCr 22.140

Obviously all with the IMTU caveat...

 

[Hal]

This "HG" rule is one that many people overlook, and one that I made certain I didn't neglect in the 10 BCS game that looks to be defunct at this point.

Fighters armed with couches only, have a combat endurance of 36 turns, or 72 turns during routine operation. A fighter with access to a stateroom (and presumably 2 pilots?) can last as long as any other craft in the Traveller Universe.

However, I think it would have been more prudent for HG to have included rules for lesser durations of say, 1 week, rather than 4, but, that is water under the bridge.

 

[DonM]

For that reason and to keep it I say the HG2 version should be built at TL15. Ignore the fact that someone says "the Zho's only have TL14 max. That's rather conceited and bogus anyway. They may very well be broadly TL14 the way The Imperium is broadly TL15 but it doesn't and shouldn't preclude designs at lower TL, or even some at higher TL. These fighters would be cutting edge for the Zho, old hat for the Imps. So let it be one of the exceptions to the TL14 rule for Zho ships.

I know it's unnecessary (since it still didn't help), but from a completely unrelated discussion, "official" Zho designs should all be TL 14. So if you were fixing a published design, that wouldn't work. Like, I couldn't include that as a CT errata fix.

 

[aramis]

Realistically, a fighter should be able to get an intermediate time with a bunk instead of a SC stateroom.

 

[boomslang]

HG has two arbitrary limitations imposed into the HG design sequence. The first is that all craft must carry 28 days of fuel, a consideration more poperly intended for jump craft & carried into small craft design, despite that they are often used for short runs and don't support sophonts for a week in jump space.

This rule is not "arbitrary"; it is a consequence of how fuel-inefficient Traveller spacecraft are in comparison to vessels from other sci-fi genres.

Many players often underestimate the mission-required flight durations of even 'short-range' small craft. For example, a not-at-all-unusual scenario might consists of a high-speed pursuit by Fighters (and/or Boats) of a starship attempting to leave downport and make Jump altitude. Assuming combat is non-casualty, for the target, the chase ends when it passes 100 diameters and Jumps away; for the pursuers, the chase is only 1/4th over at that point. Pursuing craft still have to decelerate all the huge vector they have built up during the pursuit, and then run the entire acceleration-deceleration sequence again in order to return to the planet.

Under this profile, depending on the diameter of the planet, pursuit small craft may be routinely pushing, and even exceeding, the 36-turn couch duration -- this is why I prefer to use Boats rather than Fighters as ground-based interceptors IMTU. There is always the problem of stranding to avoid -- most carried small craft can out-accelerate their motherships, and if the little vessels get into fuel and/or life support trouble, depending on the relative vectors, they can find themselves waiting quite a while for retrieval operations.

The other reason to carry more than a bare minimum of fuel is so that your Fighters can have a little extra to share with colleagues or hapless civvies who might be running on fumes and need just a dton or two to make a safe orbit and avoid becoming hazards to navigation.

A reasonable compromise (always appealing to the canonical example of the Type J and anything built with drop tanks, which let powerplant fuel tankage be shorted to meet other operational requirements of the vessel) would be to allow bridgeless and cabinless small craft not otherwise designed for patrolling and picket duties (i.e., "interceptors") to fly with 144 turns (36 * 4) worth of fuel (still with the 1 dton minimum), and issue Fast Drug to their Boat Drivers as a backup safety measure.