A new ship design paradigm

[dalthor]

Here is the final build I just completed. Took about 45 minutes total. This does NOT include the cost of the ships boat or G-carrier. Note my math may be wrong in spots - did this by hand.

=====

TL-12 Patrol Curiser (Type-T)

(400)    Hull, plate armor         26.0      AV 12
  -      Skids                      -        Flat landing only
  24     Power plant               24.0      Power-4
  16      - plant fuel              -        30 days
  16     Maneuver drive            32.0      M-4
  30     Jump drive                30.0      J-3
 120      - jump fuel                        Up to jump-3
   -     Sensors                    -        Standard surface-mounted arrary
   2     Fuel scoop                 0.2      400 tons/hr
   2     Fuel intake                0.2      80 tons/hr
   2     Fuel bin                   0.2      40 tons/hr
   4     Fuel purifier              4.0      16 tons/hr purified
   3     Model/3 ships computer    10.5
   4     Basic bridge               0.8      4 typical control consoles
   2     Life support               4.0      20 crew, 30 days
  60     Hangar                     -        10t Gcarrier, 30t ships boat
  12     6 x single stateroom       0.6      Pilot, Nav, 3 Eng, Medic
  12     6 x double stateroom       0.6      4 gunners, 8 troops
   1     2 x shared fresher         1.0      Officers
   1     3 x shared fresher         1.5      Enlised
   0.5   Medical console            0.5      Required
   2     Medical clinic             1.0
   2     4 x low berths             0.4
  30     Crew common area           -        Includes wardroom
  50     Cargo bay                  -       
   4     4 x Hybrid triple turret   8.0      Hybrid S/L/M
------                            -----
 399.5                            145.5

 

[dalthor]

Robject,

Thanks for the info on the G-carrier. It was on page 23 of CT book 2; missed it the first time.

That'll change my numbers by 2 tons on the design above - extra space for something else, lol. Note that my design did include wilderness refueling, which isn't specified in the original. I think I did pretty well...that'll be up to the jury to decide.

Having crew size known in advance did help a lot during the design process; I didn't have to figure it out on the fly.

 

[flykiller]

I'm going to create the basics first, and only then will I install the actual drives.

"payload up" is easy to do using an excel spreadsheet.

one of the reasons the "hull down" method is/was used is because of the size B and size M threshholds of hg2, and also because of the "one turret per one hundred dtons" rule. I suppose t5 dispenses with these threshholds somehow.

 

[robject]

...one of the reasons the "hull down" method is/was used is [...] because of the "one turret per one hundred dtons" rule. I suppose t5 dispenses with these threshholds somehow.

No, it certainly doesn't. If you're going to design payload first, you had better already know how many hardpoints you're going to have.

This is not a problem with ships with no weapons, internal defenses, and only surface sensors.

This is also not much of a problem when you've only got turrets: if you have too many turrets, you only have to sacrifice the extras and shunt the volume to cargo.

It's a huge problem if you're out to design something bristling with bay weaponry and overestimate your final tonnage. For example, you assume the ship's going to be 2,000 tons, so you build out 20 weapon, sensor, and defensive emplacements. Then you find out the ship is 1,000 tons: you can only have 10 hardpoints. A redesign may be called for.

But there is wiggle room: assuming you design a ship around an assumed, reasonable payload, then generate the drives according to the formulas in the T5 Book -- which do require rounding up, by the way -- then your design will probably be undertonnage. This undertonnage can be retained, for an agility bonus, or you can add an extra weapon, if you have a spare hardpoint that is. And so on.

Hybrid Design

A hybrid approach, therefore, would be to estimate your total payload in tons, then apply the drive formula to fit performance and payload to a hull tonnage. THEN decide exactly how to allocate the payload tonnage.

 

[dalthor]

But there is wiggle room: assuming you design a ship around an assumed, reasonable payload, then generate the drives according to the formulas in the T5 Book -- which do require rounding up, by the way -- then your design will probably be undertonnage. This undertonnage can be retained, for an agility bonus, or you can add an extra weapon, if you have a spare hardpoint that is. And so on.

Agreed. There are benefits and problems with both hull-down and payload-up designs. I've built both ways, and have had to tweak because I forgot to include space for weapons or bays, or because I started with an oversized hull and could safely reduce.

Gain some building experience with one, and the other becomes easier. I like the payload-up myself, and usually remember to add in a bit for hardpoints and a bit of padding for the things I forget, like lifepods.

Another adjustment comes as the result of stage effects, regardless of design method. Usually gives more cargo space, but I've also been able to reduce hull size after effects. Jump fuel on high jump numbers can be a significant savings.

By the way, it has been my experience that converting existing designs is easiest hull down. You already know what is needed, and adjustments tend to be minor.

A new, custom design has been easiest from payload up when I've been playing with this. You figure the mission, the payload, and work up from there. You may still need to make adjustments, but it gets you close.

As always, YMMV and personal preference, and all that.

 

[robject]

I like the payload-up myself, and usually remember to add in a bit for hardpoints and a bit of padding for the things I forget, like lifepods.

I agree that this flexibility is an effective strategy for payload-first design.

Another adjustment comes as the result of stage effects, regardless of design method. Usually gives more cargo space, but I've also been able to reduce hull size after effects. Jump fuel on high jump numbers can be a significant savings.

I'm going to start a new thread on that, because of all the Efficiency bonuses that go hand-in-hand with Stage Effects.

By the way, it has been my experience that converting existing designs is easiest hull down. You already know what is needed, and adjustments tend to be minor.

You're right, and that is worth writing down.

Cheers Dalthor for your work here.

 

[dalthor]

Robject,

For the rounding thing, it is simple enough to adjust this method to use the proper formula, including rounding, once you know the basic hull size. I think it mainly affects odd-numbered hulls; need more testing on my side.

Hadn't really contemplated what effect rounding or lack thereof would have; IMTU for practical purposes, I used general ship info. I haven't gotten into the true nitty-gritty details, or the combat portion. I was happy with "A 300-ton hull, J-4, M-4, 77 tons cargo" general description. Now, however, I'm setting up a new campaign, and the detail will matter.

My example Beowulf in this thread was pretty simplistic. I used it to get an idea across, especially since people were clamoring for a walk-thru. If it inspires people, all the better. In any case, hopefully this will add to the knowledge base. Personally, I'd love to see other designs from other members on the list. I know there is some good stuff out there!

Side note: back in October I'd posted a bit about efficiency...it didn't get much response. I took that as a sign that people agreed, and left it at that.

Today I saw your post about efficiency, agree with your thinking, and hope more people take it to heart. There is a LOT that can be done. The "Bad-o-wulf" thing I mentioned a few replies back is a dirty trick I will be pulling in an upcoming game session. Maybe it will inspire somebody else...

Comments and ideas are welcome - I know the whole shipbuilding process can be tamed, and a lot of great designs posted!

In any case, thank you ALL for your time and attention on this thread.

Let's build some ships!

 

[pendragonman]

Here is the final build I just completed. Took about 45 minutes total. This does NOT include the cost of the ships boat or G-carrier. Note my math may be wrong in spots - did this by hand.

=====

TL-12 Patrol Curiser (Type-T)

(400)    Hull, plate armor         26.0      AV 12
  -      Skids                      -        Flat landing only
  24     Power plant               24.0      Power-4
  16      - plant fuel              -        30 days
  16     Maneuver drive            32.0      M-4
  30     Jump drive                30.0      J-3
 120      - jump fuel                        Up to jump-3
   -     Sensors                    -        Standard surface-mounted arrary
   2     Fuel scoop                 0.2      400 tons/hr
   2     Fuel intake                0.2      80 tons/hr
   2     Fuel bin                   0.2      40 tons/hr
   4     Fuel purifier              4.0      16 tons/hr purified
   3     Model/3 ships computer    10.5
   4     Basic bridge               0.8      4 typical control consoles
   2     Life support               4.0      20 crew, 30 days
  60     Hangar                     -        10t Gcarrier, 30t ships boat
  12     6 x single stateroom       0.6      Pilot, Nav, 3 Eng, Medic
  12     6 x double stateroom       0.6      4 gunners, 8 troops
   1     2 x shared fresher         1.0      Officers
   1     3 x shared fresher         1.5      Enlised
   0.5   Medical console            0.5      Required
   2     Medical clinic             1.0
   2     4 x low berths             0.4
  30     Crew common area           -        Includes wardroom
  50     Cargo bay                  -       
   4     4 x Hybrid triple turret   8.0      Hybrid S/L/M
------                            -----
 499.5                            145.5

If I am not mistaken, tonnage total should be 399.5. Otherwise, looks like it works.

Now, a summary pdf of this design method perhaps?

 

[dalthor]

Now, a summary pdf of this design method perhaps?

See this thread:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=32304

I posted it to the files section, under Miscellanous.

It is essentially the initial portion of the thread, cleaned up and slightly reformatted.

 

[pendragonman]

See this thread:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=32304

I posted it to the files section, under Miscellanous.

It is essentially the initial portion of the thread, cleaned up and slightly reformatted.

Sadly, we still have to have the Grand Holy Tome available to work with this design method. Greedy me was hoping you would have centralized all the ship-building tables and component info.

I shall attempt to use this paradigm to work a Gazelle/Fiery this weekend. Should I not fumble too badly, I will post it for critique by you and Master Shipbuilder Rob.

If it works and doesn't push me closer to institutionalized madness, something with bays should be next.

 

[robject]

Heck, if you want cannon fodder, I suspect I built a number of ships incorrectly.

In detail, I probably have ship designs which have drives using Stage Effects incorrectly.

Those ships will require a redesign.

I'll run a script over my designs to find them.

Some cases may not matter (e.g. Improved drives probably won't bump up performance to the next digit).

Sure enough. So if you're looking for a design to test out, feel free to pick one. I've got to re-do these anyway:

------------------------------------------------------------
Aslan-ACS-J-BS22-Kteiroa.yml:
  - Mod Maneuver Drive-2 (B)

------------------------------------------------------------
Aslan-ACS-S-BL43-Ktiyhui Courier.yml:
  - Gen PowerPlant-4 (D)
  - Mod Maneuver Drive-4 (D)

------------------------------------------------------------
Carrillian-ACS-F-TS13-Dakaar.yml:
  - Mod PowerPlant-3 (P2)
  - Mod Maneuver Drive-1 (J)

------------------------------------------------------------
Carrillian-ACS-G-HB53-Avenger.yml:
  - Mod Maneuver Drive-5 (V)

------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial-ACS-CF-MA44-Kinunir.yml:
  - Mod Maneuver Drive-4 (Z)

------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial-ACS-EB-EA53-Lurushaar Kilaalum-alpha.yml:
  - Adv Maneuver Drive-5 (N)

------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial-ACS-EB-EA53-Lurushaar Kilaalum.yml:
  - Adv Maneuver Drive-5 (N)

------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial-ACS-EB-KS64-Chrysanthemum.yml:
  - Mod PowerPlant-6 (Q2)

------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial-ACS-EB-KS64-Fer-de-lance.yml:
  - Mod PowerPlant-6 (Q2)

------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial-ACS-EP-DS43-Patrol Corvette.yml:
  - Mod Maneuver Drive-4 (H)

------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial-ACS-M-FU13-Subsidized Liner.yml:
  - Mod PowerPlant-3 (J)

------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial-ACS-U-CA33-Armed Packet.yml:
  - Gen PowerPlant-3 (E)
  - Gen Maneuver Drive-3 (E)

------------------------------------------------------------
Oberlindes-ACS-F-KS13-Susa.yml:
  - Mod PowerPlant-3 (Q)
  - Mod Maneuver Drive-1 (E)

------------------------------------------------------------
Tukera-ACS-M2-KU14-Tukera RT.yml:
  - Mod Maneuver Drive-1 (E)
  - Mod PowerPlant-4 (V)

------------------------------------------------------------
Vargr-ACS-G-HS44-Se Koez.yml:
  - Mod PowerPlant-4 (R)
  - Mod Maneuver Drive-4 (R)

------------------------------------------------------------
Vargr-ACS-P-DA42-Rrazaghz.yml:
  - Mod Jump Drive-2 (D)
  - Mod PowerPlant-4 (H)
  - Mod Maneuver Drive-4 (H)

------------------------------------------------------------
Vargr-ACS-P-DA62-Az Alrrak-class Corsair.yml:
  - Pro PowerPlant-6 (M)
  - Ear Maneuver Drive-6 (M)

------------------------------------------------------------
Vargr-ACS-S2-BA33-Tathoe.yml:
  - Mod PowerPlant-3 (C)

 

[robject]

To be clear: I didn't take the Usable Drive Rating into account when designing these. Fuel usage is correct.

Let's see which ones are still okay.

"Improved" doesn't change usable rating at all. So I can ignore those.

"Advanced" changes usable rating at R-5 and up.
"Ultimate" changes usable rating at R-4 and up.

Exp, Pro, Ear, and Mod all affect the drive rating.

 

[dalthor]

Looking back at the multiple hardpoints portion in Rob's earlier post jiggled a neuron...I was struck by something I'd read a while back.

Found the reference on page 358 of the BBB, in the description of the A2-BS12 Far Trader. 200-ton TL 10, and this sentence in the description:

There are six hardpoints, but no weapons are mounted.

Verrrrrrry interesting, as Artie Johnson would have said. I want that model.

 

[pendragonman]

Looking back at the multiple hardpoints portion in Rob's earlier post jiggled a neuron...I was struck by something I'd read a while back.

Found the reference on page 358 of the BBB, in the description of the A2-BS12 Far Trader. 200-ton TL 10, and this sentence in the description:

There are six hardpoints, but no weapons are mounted.

Verrrrrrry interesting, as Artie Johnson would have said. I want that model.

My bet is four of those hardpoints are of the squad support type weaponry, like Mong does.

Which kicks another question: Why aren't there secondary weapon hardpoints?

 

[whulorigan]

Found the reference on page 358 of the BBB, in the description of the A2-BS12 Far Trader. 200-ton TL 10, and this sentence in the description:

There are six hardpoints, but no weapons are mounted.

Verrrrrrry interesting, as Artie Johnson would have said. I want that model.

My bet is four of those hardpoints are of the squad support type weaponry, like Mong does.

Which kicks another question: Why aren't there secondary weapon hardpoints?

That is an official ERRATA item. There are only supposed to be two hardpoints. It is apparently a legacy text from when consideration was being given to retconning the Far Trader up to a 600dton vessel.

 

[robject]

Which kicks another question: Why aren't there secondary weapon hardpoints?

If you mean "smaller than turrets", Traveller5 calls them "firmpoints". The concept was borrowed from two sources: Mongoose Traveller, and CT's fixed mount found typically on Solomani ships. A firmpoint accepts weapons displacing half a ton (when using ACS). A hardpoint can be traded off for three firmpoints. I *think*, but am not sure, that a firmpoint could also accept a weapon created by GunMaker, when it masses no more than 500 kg.

For example:

Code  : HOsFGT-14
Name  : Heavy Os Fusion Gun Turret-14
Range : 6
Mass  : 210
Burden: 2
Damage: (22D) Pen-14 Burn-8    <== 2 hits in space combat
MgT   : 6D + 2
Cost  : KCr 120

Damage is one-tenth that of personal combat, so the above Fusion gun does 2 hits.

In small craft, you may have one firmpoint per 35 tons of volume, assuming first that the small craft is designed from a pod hull on p.333. Small craft do not have hardpoints. So an 80t small craft may have up to 3 firmpoints, but it cannot trade those for a hardpoint.

Firmpoints can also be used to attach a bomb/missile displacing up to one ton. Or, it can be used to discharge internally carried ordnance at the rate of up to 1 ton per turn without agility penalty.

ref p.316, 317

 

[pendragonman]

If you mean "smaller than turrets", Traveller5 calls them "firmpoints". The concept was borrowed from two sources: Mongoose Traveller, and CT's fixed mount found typically on Solomani ships. A firmpoint accepts weapons massing up to something like 330 kg. A hardpoint can be traded off for three firmpoints.

In small craft, you may have one firmpoint per 35 tons of volume. Small craft do not have hardpoints.

Excellent. Now to make that Marine dropship...