BCS or ACS universe

[Selandia]

Issue extracted from the TL expansion post to Streamline that discussion

The general idea that one gets from CT is that it is a small ship universe.

Does that mean that there is no Big Ship Economic at play?

The T5 master text p 490, Under Passengers and Freight
...
These tables reflect available levels
of goods and passengers appropriate
for Player-Characters. They do not reflect
overall economic demand.

It implies two things: PC adventure in an Adventure Class Economic subset of the overall economic demand, the Merchant Prince Class Economic.

Does the OTU MPCE offers the opportunity of merchant BCS, HG style or otherwise designed.

On a world like Rethe (Regina 2408. E430AA8-8) with 33 billions peoples, even if you consider only 1% of "filthy rich" and 4% of "Wanabe", you talk of 1.6 billions persons. If each import 1 kilo of seafood a month ( 9 quarterpounders in a month of 90 meals) from the closest Waterworlds (Roup J-4 and Moughas J-2 both Regina subs), they will generate 1.6 millions tons a month of trade.

As stowage equiv. for cased canned goods is 1T for 60 cubic feet and 1dT is 500 feet, You generate 192,000 dT of trade a month, that is 6,400 dTons a day. ( RW equiv, would be 32,000 dt cargo)

Focaline (an pre-rich agricultural world J-2 away, ) would offer the same dynamic.

Of course, Both Moughas and Focaline are world with pop 5, Focaline is a non industrial world. Both import much of their manufactured goods because their internal market could not justified diversified mass production. Given their size, that might be made by ACS. However, Trade volume imbalance, means that huge amount of shipping space is available for goods from Rethe. To allow for PC's ACS to survive there is nonetheless a ACE table. That is fine, but by no mean forbid/prevent MPCE.

Moughas(Regina)-Haguz(Aramis) is one of the half dozen routes about the area that may be serviced by ACS Subsidized merchant and Free Traders.

I says, both MPCE and ACE exist.

Have fun

Selandia

 

[Condottiere]

Containers shipped back to China from America tended to be empty.

One solution was recyclable material like paper and cardboard, at probably vastly reduced shipping rates.

 

[Selandia]

Cast Caribou (and sisters) was an unusual Container Bulker based on such trade imbalance.

It picked in Montréal empty containers returning to Europe, pilling them around the Bulker Hatches, stopped to load at Sept-Isles (ore) or Baie Comeau (grain) then went to Europe where it would unload the bulk and would drop empty containers to pick some full ones (well, t'was the plan anyway).

In Traveller terms, any freight fowarder with a load from Paya or Dhian to Moughas will drop the goods at Rethe for fowarding aboard one of the many ships scheduled to get to Moughas. Of course, trade imbalances are great source of ACE for they create one way oportunities.

Have fun

Selandia

 

[pendragonman]

It is both a BCS and an ACS universe. Always has been.

Look at the library data from CT. Megacorps are listed. There are references to Tukera liners in the massive tonnage ranges.

The difference is in what you want your TU to be. If you want your players to play at the macro level, well, then they deal with warehousing and deadheading cargo containers, and mega tons of bulk cargo. Not a very personal TU, everything is at arms length, and at worst the get sent to jail for insider trading. The Rockafeller/Vanderbuilt/Carnegie level of things.

At the micro scale we have the small ship universe, where cargo is bought in individual dtons. Everyone's hands get dirty and calloused from shifting cargo, or small merc unit activities, or pirate activity. The Han Solo/Mal/and even up to Adama level.

Both the BCS and ACS universes run in parallel, and the BCS universe affects the random loose extra cargo available for the small ship universe. Once in a while, some whack job of an ACS captain does something to mess up the BCS side of things.

 

[Brian Smaller]

Just a quick question - what do the acronyms ACS and BCS mean?

 

[whulorigan]

ACS/BCS

Just a quick question - what do the acronyms ACS and BCS mean?

They are acronyms from T5:

ACS = Adventure Class Ships (up to 2500 dton) = Small Ships
BCS = Battle Class Ships (ships over 2500 ton) = Big Ships

 

[Brian Smaller]

Cheers. The large corporation I work for has an acronym manager. Sometimes I think Traveller does too

 

[pendragonman]

Just a quick question - what do the acronyms ACS and BCS mean?

ACS=Adventure Class Ship, normally less than 2400 dtons, rarely as high as 5000 or 10 000 dtons

BCS=Battle Class Ships. The Big Boys. Much much larger than ACS ships.

 

[Condottiere]

Cost accountants will identify where corporations can save money, and it's usually a reduction of the overheads.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

But...

It is both a BCS and an ACS universe. Always has been.

Look at the library data from CT. Megacorps are listed. There are references to Tukera liners in the massive tonnage ranges.

The difference is in what you want your TU to be. If you want your players to play at the macro level, well, then they deal with warehousing and deadheading cargo containers, and mega tons of bulk cargo. Not a very personal TU, everything is at arms length, and at worst the get sent to jail for insider trading. The Rockafeller/Vanderbuilt/Carnegie level of things.

At the micro scale we have the small ship universe, where cargo is bought in individual dtons. Everyone's hands get dirty and calloused from shifting cargo, or small merc unit activities, or pirate activity. The Han Solo/Mal/and even up to Adama level.

Both the BCS and ACS universes run in parallel, and the BCS universe affects the random loose extra cargo available for the small ship universe. Once in a while, some whack job of an ACS captain does something to mess up the BCS side of things.

Note for the bold text, it depends how you define personal and some us of love that type of operational game. Not everyone wants to be scruffy and tired and broke and basically doing what we do in the real world. Me, I play games to be something I am not and what I am not is a dude with power and money so for me an operational TU is my ideal of a both personal and awesome TU. Sadly the last Traveller that game that option was T4 and Pocket Empires.

 

[pendragonman]

Note for the bold text, it depends how you define personal and some us of love that type of operational game. Not everyone wants to be scruffy and tired and broke and basically doing what we do in the real world. Me, I play games to be something I am not and what I am not is a dude with power and money so for me an operational TU is my ideal of a both personal and awesome TU. Sadly the last Traveller that game that option was T4 and Pocket Empires.

Recall, Mags, that I was in a game you ran.

In your game, even as the rich, powerful types we had to go get our hands dirty in the overthrow of a local government. We even toyed with some assassination operations. That kind of thing is very personal.

OTOH, if what you really want to play is JP Morgan's "Stockbrokers and Bankers", that is what I was talking about. As personal as that kind of game gets is outcompeting the other trillionaire for some megacorp purchase, or mineral rights purchase. No one is going to die except by heart attack.

 

[rancke]

They are acronyms from T5:

ACS = Adventure Class Ships (up to 2500 dton) = Small Ships
BCS = Battle Class Ships (ships over 2500 ton) = Big Ships

Sounds like misnomers to me. I find it difficult to consider anything much bigger thanb 600T as suitable for adventurers (the Leviathan to the contrary notwithstanding) and big ships are not always battle type ships (e.g. the 5000T Hercules class).

Though come to think of it, I once ran an adventure where a noble had a converted 1000T Tukera Longliner for a yacht. But an awful lot of 2500T ships would not be suitable for most adventurers.


Hans

 

[pendragonman]

Sounds like misnomers to me. I find it difficult to consider anything much bigger thanb 600T as suitable for adventurers (the Leviathan to the contrary notwithstanding) and big ships are not always battle type ships (e.g. the 5000T Hercules class).

Though come to think of it, I once ran an adventure where a noble had a converted 1000T Tukera Longliner for a yacht. But an awful lot of 2500T ships would not be suitable for most adventurers.


Hans

The definitions are directly from T5, and are used as separators between design paradigms. Thus far the only design algorithm put out is for ACS ships.

 

[robject]

A 2400 ton players' ship is certainly an outlier. So the definition is reasonably safe.

BCS refers more to the intent of a big-ship design system.

 

[Selandia]

The definitions are directly from T5, and are used as separators between design paradigms. Thus far the only design algorithm put out is for ACS ships.

agreed.

Note however that the cargos and passengers tables are designed to match the lesser sized ACS designs. The crew requirements are also manageable with a small group of PC. As such, ACS are a cornerstone of the Adventure class Economic that allow PC to adventure across the stars and the stage of much of the actions. ACS is the name of a set of design paragigms, but not just that and sometime a misnomer because of that.

Note again , that the size of the ship (a lot of cargo hold is not a problem, unless you try to fill it with current cargo tables) is not really the issue IMO. It is the size of the crowdd you must control. I tried to run the Leviathan adventure... NPC horror show. I can't even think of an Leviathan evening where you start by missing the Mishap roll and end up checking each of the cohort of consoles.

That is why Hans is probably right and most PC's ships are 600 t or less: size of crew and economic. I kind of remember a tread: your favourite adventuring ship ? I cant remember somebody saying 50,000 t super tanker

Furthermore, PC can adventure on a BCS class ship, so referencing smaller design as Adventure class is also a form of misnoming. Nobody will says that PC should adventure in Adventure Class City and that New-York is not an Adventure Class City because it is too large.

ACS and BCS are official T5 terminology and are most likely there to stay. We must just avoid to be to literal in figuring their meaning.

Have fun

Selandia

 

[Quint]

I think they can certainly run parallel, though I do question the disparity in size between ACS and BCS. Currently I'm experimenting with the idea of mixing the extrapolated CT charts (brings the max ship to 10K dtons) with ganging engines together and the MgT partitioning rules for oversize ships - which gives me a 60K dton maximum size ship.

This actually works well in my brain - still very large compared to ACS ships (so much better at cargo transport and weapon mounting), but far less than the 500k dton battleships of HG and the like.

D.

 

[Jame]

I think they can certainly run parallel, though I do question the disparity in size between ACS and BCS. Currently I'm experimenting with the idea of mixing the extrapolated CT charts (brings the max ship to 10K dtons) with ganging engines together and the MgT partitioning rules for oversize ships - which gives me a 60K dton maximum size ship.

This actually works well in my brain - still very large compared to ACS ships (so much better at cargo transport and weapon mounting), but far less than the 500k dton battleships of HG and the like.

D.

I'd be interested in this. If you make a document of it I'd be happy to try to design a few ships.

 

[Reban]

Sounds like misnomers to me. I find it difficult to consider anything much bigger thanb 600T as suitable for adventurers (the Leviathan to the contrary notwithstanding) and big ships are not always battle type ships (e.g. the 5000T Hercules class).

Though come to think of it, I once ran an adventure where a noble had a converted 1000T Tukera Longliner for a yacht. But an awful lot of 2500T ships would not be suitable for most adventurers.

ACS as Adventure Class Ships are less Adventurer's ships and more Ships Adventurers encounter and interact with.

And the idea behind BCS ships is that they are formed into Squadrons and Flotillas not generally the independent action roles of smaller ships. Large merchants of course fall outside the "Battle" idea, but of course BCS is not just a design system but also a Fleet/Squadron level Combat System.

 

[kilemall]

I think they can certainly run parallel, though I do question the disparity in size between ACS and BCS. Currently I'm experimenting with the idea of mixing the extrapolated CT charts (brings the max ship to 10K dtons) with ganging engines together and the MgT partitioning rules for oversize ships - which gives me a 60K dton maximum size ship.

This actually works well in my brain - still very large compared to ACS ships (so much better at cargo transport and weapon mounting), but far less than the 500k dton battleships of HG and the like.

D.

I don't see how that's difficult at all.

We live in a world with 100,000 ton plus carriers and supertankers/container ships coexisting with dhows, fishing boats, intercoastal tugs, ferrys and Laker freighters, and that's just on the water with our TL.

Oh, and may I point out the modern day pirate threat which would be something like a 100,000 ton HG freighter being hijacked by a brace of ship's boats and boarding guns?

 

[rancke]

Oh, and may I point out the modern day pirate threat which would be something like a 100,000 ton HG freighter being hijacked by a brace of ship's boats and boarding guns?

An unarmed 100,000T freighter. Since the Imperium (unlike modern governments) don't mind civilian ships mounting laser turrets, the analogy is unlikely to apply.


Hans