Acinonyx Class Fast Courier - The Beginning

[Patron Zero]

A sketch of the initial concept of the 200 Ton Acinonyx Class Fast Courier, essentially the joining of a stock 100 Ton X-boat to a 100 Ton annular wing hull (picture a scaled-down 400 Ton L-type Lab Ship).

This is the bare bones point of development as the ship's design has not acquired a docking slip for a Ship's Boat or other small craft.

The annular wing provides fuel tankage lost in the X-boat hull, from the addition of a dedicated cargo hold, and also houses the ship's m-drives.

There annular wing also is where the ship's hardpoints are located, the Acinonyx Class FC can mount two (2) separate turrets.

 

[rancke]

A sketch of the initial concept of the 200 Ton Acinonyx Class Fast Courier, essentially the joining of a stock 100 Ton X-boat to a 100 Ton annular wing hull (picture a scaled-down 400 Ton L-type Lab Ship).

[...]

There annular wing also is where the ship's hardpoints are located, the Acinonyx Class FC can mount two (2) separate turrets.

So the annular wing on its own is a 100T hull with two hardpoints? That sounds like a contravention of the hardpoint rule.

Not that it's without precedence. GT had a 600T Aslan ship that was a 240T stem with six 60T modules attached. It had six hardpoints, all on the stem, which meant that if you left out the modules, you had a 240T hull with six hardpoints. :nonono:


Hans

 

[Dagrill]

Not that it's without precedence. GT had a 600T Aslan ship that was a 240T stem with six 60T modules attached. It had six hardpoints, all on the stem, which meant that if you left out the modules, you had a 240T hull with six hardpoints. :nonono:
Hans

That's one of the reasons I'm not keen on modular ships, also for Aslan shouldn't it be a 640t hull & 64t modules?

Regards

David

 

[Dagrill]

A sketch of the initial concept of the 200 Ton Acinonyx Class Fast Courier, essentially the joining of a stock 100 Ton X-boat to a 100 Ton annular wing hull (picture a scaled-down 400 Ton L-type Lab Ship).

Hi,

what are the J & M parameters?

Kind Regards

David

 

[opensent]

nihil sub sole novum

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=24049&highlight=Fiery+Class+Deckplans

 

[Patron Zero]

Dagrill - 'what are the J & M parameters?'

I'm working towards Jump-2, possibly Jump-3 and looking at 4G, this little ship (well as little as 200Ton can be considered) is quick and has somewhat long legs.

rancke - 'So the annular wing on its own is a 100T hull with two hardpoints?'

The annular wing is permanently joined by structural pylons at the engineering deck of the X-boat, for reasons of simplifying access between hulls and obvious routing of power, fuel and network conduits. IMTU interpretation of the hardpoint rule, 1 hardpoint per 100Tons, I don't see a conflict as the ship weighs in at a total of 200T.

opensent - I've worked on a project with navonod previously, the 100Ton X-boat Service Hull, he credits me with the original concept in his submission and publication of the design at Freelance Traveller.

http://freelancetraveller.com/features/shipyard/vagrant.html

The Acinonyx Class Fast Courier is a more 'evolved' concept of the annular wing as seen with the Vagrant Class 100Ton Service Hull, while similar in appearance the AC-FC is a stand-alone ship design itself.

 

[rancke]

The annular wing is permanently joined by structural pylons at the engineering deck of the X-boat, for reasons of simplifying access between hulls and obvious routing of power, fuel and network conduits. IMTU interpretation of the hardpoint rule, 1 hardpoint per 100Tons, I don't see a conflict as the ship weighs in at a total of 200T.

We shall have to disagree, then. Unless one of the hardpoints fall off if the wing is detached from the X-boat, I think there is a conflict. Just as I see a conflict with the Aslan ship I mentioned.


Hans

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

Since he states that the wing is permanently attached, that would imply that the only way to detach the x-boat is with a class B starport, or precision weapons fire. Its not two 100 ton spacecraft that join together or seperate at will, it's one 200 ton spacecraft, formed by a 100 ton ship which has had a 100 ton expansion added to it as a permanent element.


While i aggree that logically, one of the hardpoints should be one the X-boat came with, there's no where, that i know of, in the rules that says where a 200 ton ship has to place it's hardpoints.

It'd mean extra work cutting the existing hardpoint out of the X-boat and installing something new it's it's place, but it could be done.

 

[mike wightman]

I made a few frankenships like this for TNE.

I used photocopies of the S:7 deck plans, cut them up, and 'welded' different bits together.

Inspiration came from the covenanter made by welding a 400t subsidised merchant body and type S scout courier.

 

[rancke]

Since he states that the wing is permanently attached, that would imply that the only way to detach the x-boat is with a class B starport, or precision weapons fire.

So? The drawing shows the two components as distinct hulls even if they aren't separate. My point is that they could be separated without affecting the presence or absence of the hardpoints. Just as the aforementioned Aslan craft could be deployed without its modules. And if those modules were welded to the stem, you could STILL remove them at a boatyard and deploy the 240T hull with those six hardpoints.

Its not two 100 ton spacecraft that join together or seperate at will, it's one 200 ton spacecraft, formed by a 100 ton ship which has had a 100 ton expansion added to it as a permanet element.

They don't join together and separate at will, but they can be separated (with some effort). Nor am I aware of anything in the rules that would change the situation if they were able to separate at will.

While i aggree that logically, one of the hardpoints should be one the X-boat came with, there's no where, that I know of, in the rules that says where a 200 ton ship has to place it's hardpoints.

I see it as a bug, not a feature, if a rule allows something that is not logical. In any case, there's nothing in the rules that require a ship designer to take advantage of loopholes. My own personal opinion is that taking advantage of loopholes is detrimental to the verisimilitude of whatever the loophole is used to achieve.

Yours and Patient Zero's milage may vary.


Hans

 

[McPerth]

So the annular wing on its own is a 100T hull with two hardpoints? That sounds like a contravention of the hardpoint rule.

Not that it's without precedence. GT had a 600T Aslan ship that was a 240T stem with six 60T modules attached. It had six hardpoints, all on the stem, which meant that if you left out the modules, you had a 240T hull with six hardpoints. :nonono:

We shall have to disagree, then. Unless one of the hardpoints fall off if the wing is detached from the X-boat, I think there is a conflict. Just as I see a conflict with the Aslan ship I mentioned.

Well, the first ship to use this trick was the Gazelle, that without drop tanks is a 300 dton ship, but has 4 hardpoints :CoW:. And no one can claim it's not a canonical design...

 

[mike wightman]

That's a relic of the HG1 design sequence.

You select hull size, determine hard points, and later on can designate fuel tankage as being drop tanks.

Hence the 400t gazelle hull has 4 hard points. It became a broken design when HG2 came along and clarified drop tanks; but then the x-boat itself was broken by HG1.

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

So? The drawing shows the two components as distinct hulls even if they aren't separate. My point is that they could be separated without affecting the presence or absence of the hardpoints. Just as the aforementioned Aslan craft could be deployed without its modules. And if those modules were welded to the stem, you could STILL remove them at a boatyard and deploy the 240T hull with those six hardpoints.


They don't join together and separate at will, but they can be separated (with some effort). Nor am I aware of anything in the rules that would change the situation if they were able to separate at will.

so, one of the hardpoints should be on the x-boat in case someone comes along with a particle spinal weapon and breaks the ship in two?

If i follow your arguement, what your saying that because someone could physically cut the 100 ton ring away form the x-boat core, that 100 ton ring needs to be built as if it was seperate, 100 ton vessel, and not a part of a 200 ton ship?

I think that's like saying it should like saying you could cut the top deck of a Fat trader off and make a new ship, but that one of the two turrets on that deck would have to be moved. The ring is an intregrated part of a 200 ton ship. cutting it off would leave a 100 ton, ring shaped piece of wreckage.

I see it as a bug, not a feature, if a rule allows something that is not logical. In any case, there's nothing in the rules that require a ship designer to take advantage of loopholes. My own personal opinion is that taking advantage of loopholes is detrimental to the verisimilitude of whatever the loophole is used to achieve.

Yours and Patient Zero's milage may vary.


Hans

If i may ask, how is doing this a loophole? It might be verisimilitude breaking* but it;s not a rules exploit. It's not gaining me any rules advantage, since the traveller rules i am familiar with don't normaly abstract things like weapon arcs (with the exception of captial ships). so how is it min/maxing or rules lawyering?

i'd say it;s logical for a hardpoint to be on the x-boat hull becuase the x-boat hull

*I don't think it is, but you clearly do.

 

[rancke]

so, one of the hardpoints should be on the x-boat in case someone comes along with a particle spinal weapon and breaks the ship in two?

No, the hardpoints should be distributed because the hull is not an integral 200T hull but two 100T hulls welded together.

If i follow your arguement, what your saying that because someone could physically cut the 100 ton ring away form the x-boat core, that 100 ton ring needs to be built as if it was seperate, 100 ton vessel, and not a part of a 200 ton ship?

Yes.

I think that's like saying it should like saying you could cut the top deck of a Fat trader off and make a new ship, but that one of the two turrets on that deck would have to be moved. The ring is an intregrated part of a 200 ton ship. cutting it off would leave a 100 ton, ring shaped piece of wreckage.

Sure doesn't look like that to me. But if that is, indeed, the case, it shouldn't even be able to have one hardpoint, let alone two.

If i may ask, how is doing this a loophole? It might be verisimilitude breaking* but it's not a rules exploit.

Didn't you agree that logically one of the hardpoints ought to be on the X-boat hull?

It's not gaining me any rules advantage, since the traveller rules i am familiar with don't normaly abstract things like weapon arcs (with the exception of captial ships). so how is it min/maxing or rules lawyering?

How is it not rules lawyering to allow two hardpoints on a 100T hull just because the hull is joined to another 100T hull?

I don't agree that you need to derive a specific advantage from exploiting a loophole, but there is an advantage gained here. This is the conversion of a turret-less 100T X-boat to a 200T hybrid with two turrets. In other words, one more turret than such a combo should logically have.

I'd say it's logical for a hardpoint to be on the x-boat hull becuase the x-boat hull

Seems to be something missing here.


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

Weld three 30t ship's boats together - you now have 3 hardpoints in a 100t hull

Or ten 10t fighters, 10 hard points.

There is absolutely no sanity to the hardpoint rule - TNE did the right thing and based it on surface area of hull.

Build it using the TNE paradigm and there is no problem.

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

sorry, posted that in a hurry and forget to finish the last sentence.


I was going to say i said it was logical to have a hardpoint on the X boat because the X-boat, being a self-substianing 100 ton ship, would already have a hardpoint (even if no turret was installed) and that it would be eaiser to use that hardpoint than to cut it out and install other systems into that space, form a in-universe perspective.

But, i don't think it's impossible to have two hardpoints on the ring of a 200 ton ship, if you really wanted to.

How is it not rules lawyering to allow two hardpoints on a 100T hull just because the hull is joined to another 100T hull?

becuase i percieve it as a single, 200 ton starship that happens to consist of two hulls linked together, in the same way a F-82 Twin Mustang was plane that conisted of two P-51 fighters joined together. you could not take a huge pair of sicciors, cut the two hulls apart, and then fly them seperately.

I'm not suggesting the 100 ton ring could be used as a seperate ship, and if it was, then i'd insist and aggree that it could only have one turret on it.

I don't agree that you need to derive a specific advantage from exploiting a loophole

but if i am not getting and an advantage, how am i "exploiting" a loophole?

This is the conversion of a turret-less 100T X-boat to a 200T hybrid with two turrets. In other words, one more turret than such a combo should logically have.

hang on, are you arguing that it should only have one turret? i throught you were saying that one of the hardpoints should be on the central hull?


If it was a ship built form the ground up into this configuration, would you still say it couldn't put two turrets on the ring?

 

[rancke]

I was going to say i said it was logical to have a hardpoint on the X boat because the X-boat, being a self-substianing 100 ton ship, would already have a hardpoint (even if no turret was installed) and that it would be eaiser to use that hardpoint than to cut it out and install other systems into that space, form a in-universe perspective.

I don't think X-boats have any hardpoints. There's no reason why they should and I can't recall ever seeing it mentioned anywhere that they have one.

But, I don't think it's impossible to have two hardpoints on the ring of a 200 ton ship, if you really wanted to.

But in that case why can't you have two hardpoints on a 100T ship that is a clone of the ring part of the hybrid?

Because I percieve it as a single, 200 ton starship that happens to consist of two hulls linked together, in the same way a F-82 Twin Mustang was plane that conisted of two P-51 fighters joined together.

But it's not. It's an X-boat with a separate module welded on.

you could not take a huge pair of sicciors, cut the two hulls apart, and then fly them seperately.

Actually, that's exactly what you can do with this particular combo. The ring has everything it needs to operate independently.

I'm not suggesting the 100 ton ring could be used as a seperate ship, and if it was, then i'd insist and aggree that it could only have one turret on it.

I am suggesting that the 100T ring could be used as a separate ship.

Hang on, are you arguing that it should only have one turret? i throught you were saying that one of the hardpoints should be on the central hull?

Depends on whether my memory is playing me false. If X-boats have hardpoints then you should be able to mount a turret on the X-boat part and another turret on the ring part. If not, you should only be able to mount one turret on the ring and none on the X-boat.

If it was a ship built form the ground up into this configuration, would you still say it couldn't put two turrets on the ring?

Certainly. I see no real difference. The way you would build a ship of this configuration from the ground up would be to build the two hulls separately and then weld them together.


Hans

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

Actually, that's exactly what you can do with this particular combo. The ring has everything it needs to operate independently.


I am suggesting that the 100T ring could be used as a separate ship.

ok, clearly we have different ideas of what the proposed ship idea is.

From what i've read, i interprated that the ring hull was entirely reliant on the X-boat hull for power, and did not include it;s own P-plant or M-drive. I assumed that some changes had been made to the x-boat hull as well (at the very least, power taps ran into the P-plant)


you seem to think that the new hull would have these, and that if seperated, it would be a fully functioning ship on its own, or am i reading you wrong?

But in that case why can't you have two hardpoints on a 100T ship that is a clone of the ring part of the hybrid?

Because that would not be a valid 100 ton ship design? We could dress up the fluff, talk about stess requirements, mass distribution or some such but thieirs no other reason other than the basicaly arbitary OOC restrictions on hardpoints for balance purposes.


If you could find the tonnage, you could stick a 5 ton barbette on, or even a 50-ton bay* on a 100 ton ship, so why can't you mount two turrets instead of that 5 ton barbette? becuase the ship design rules say so. i can't think of a coherent in universe reason for that to be true, so i just accept it and carry one building my pretty little ships within those rules.

I don't think X-boats have any hardpoints. There's no reason why they should and I can't recall ever seeing it mentioned anywhere that they have one.

Depends on whether my memory is playing me false. If X-boats have hardpoints then you should be able to mount a turret on the X-boat part and another turret on the ring part. If not, you should only be able to mount one turret on the ring and none on the X-boat.

The version i have a stat sheet for (MgT Gunboats and Traders, page 40), has a hardpoint listed, but does not have a turret installed, nor has room for one to be added without taking something out.

However, looking at the stats, it seems the Mgt rules produced a different beast to the X-boat i hear the CT players talk about. becuase it's got 2 staterooms, 5 tons of cargo room, and escape pods, which kinda looks like "tonnage filling" stuff to make up for changes in drive sizes compared to the CT version (which i understand was a just J-drive, a plant, a cockpit and fuel).

*say, a SDB consisting of a missle bay, a P-plant and drives, a small amount of ammo and a stateroom bolted on the side. I don't think it would be a practical design, but i could make valid one like that, at least with the MgT rules i have. i make no hard and fast claims about CT or other sets of rules, since i don't have them, but as far as i know the same is true.

 

[rancke]

ok, clearly we have different ideas of what the proposed ship idea is.

From what i've read, i interprated that the ring hull was entirely reliant on the X-boat hull for power, and did not include it;s own P-plant or M-drive. I assumed that some changes had been made to the x-boat hull as well (at the very least, power taps ran into the P-plant)

Sorry, I misspoke. What I meant was that it could be a fully functional ship. You could take the hull of the ring and put a bridge and a power plant in it (it already has an M-drive -- that's more or less the point of adding it). The hardpoint rule really should apply the same either way -- it shouldn't affect the hull whether there's a bridge inside it or not.

you seem to think that the new hull would have these, and that if seperated, it would be a fully functioning ship on its own, or am i reading you wrong?

I'd put it this way: Logically there's a design rule missing, to wit: "In a dispersed structure hardpoints must be calculated for each sub-hull separately."


Hans

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

Ok, I think we're going to have to put this down as a difference of opinion, as it's clear to me now we are both starting form very different viewpoints, and that its unlikey either of us can be talked around on this matter.

If i understand right, you percieve the 1 hardpoint/100 ton rule as a result of in-universe constraints on ship design, and you are arguing form that basis, whereas I see it as a result of out-of-universe contraints, so I am arguing form that basis.


Like I said in my last post, I don't see how a ship could mount a 50 ton bay, but could not mount 2 one ton turrets into that same hullspace. I can't think of an in-universe reason that would make sense for that (if you know one, can you please explain it? I would be happy to hear it). So, I see it as a OOC rule, one imposed for reasons of balance, to prevent ungodly 200 ton, 50-turreted munchkin-mobiles and such.

Sorry, I misspoke. What I meant was that it could be a fully functional ship. You could take the hull of the ring and put a bridge and a power plant in it (it already has an M-drive -- that's more or less the point of adding it). The hardpoint rule really should apply the same either way -- it shouldn't affect the hull whether there's a bridge inside it or.

Do'h! Forgot the x boat has no M-drive, even while talking about that fact a paragraph below. Amazing how compartmentalised the mind is, sometimes.....

Anyway, I don't see that as a problem, because I am starting for a out of universe viewpoint, and so the act of converting the ring into a valid 100 ton ship would involve taking one of those turrets out, along with whatever other changes you made.

I could think of a IC justifcation for it, but it would just be that to me, a "Fluff" fig leaf to explain a change required by the OOC rules, rather than something mandated by IC constirants on ship design and ability.

I understand your viewpoint (or at least I think I do), and, starting form it, your arguement makes sense. I just don't aggree with it and have, and I don't think I will, hence why I suggest we just aggree to disagree.