mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Odd that you didn't think that when I suggested it.
Big Naval Ships in the Traveller Universe
- Thread starter robject
- Start date
Since I am OSR-centric [meaning that "House Rules" are the NORM and RAW are "suggestions"] ... I have a HOUSE RULE that permits 4 hardpoints on a 300 dTon hull, too.
I was inspired by an "Attack Helicopter" with short wiglets to provide greater surface area for mounting Weapon Pods and External Ordinance (missiles and bombs) plus those Shar Pei dogs with the very wrinkly skin.
The number of hardpoints is based on the area of a hull and its internal bracing represented by the HULL SIZE that one purchases, for example, a 400 dTon hull provides enough shell and internal bracing to support 4 hardpoints and enclose up to 400 dTons of volume. Under NORMAL CONDITIONS, a hull is fully "inflated" ... the 400 dTon hull encloses 400 dTons of volume with no extra "wrinkles". However, a 400 dTon HULL could be wrapped around a 300 dTon volume (like the Attack Helicopter or the Shar Pei) to create a 300 dTon ship with the surface area adequate for 4 Hardpoints.
For up-armoring the HULL and for Hardpoints, it would be treated as 400 dTons, however the actual VOLUME of the ship (for MD, JD, PP) is only 300 dTons.
If it BOTHERS you to think about it this way, the here is the exact same concept with a different visualization: Create a 400 dTon ship with 100 dTons of volume located external to the hull (like a bay with the door open). Then permanently remove the door. Now the 400 dTon ship is 300 dTons internal volume and calculate performance based on 300 dTons. The HULL was still designed for 400 dTons with 4 hardpoints, it is just 300 dTons internal and 100 dTon external (which is ignored for MD & JD performance).
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
An unspecified number, that can include one, is still a plural.With this reasoning, your design was illegal as it used exactly one LBB2 drive, and as you say, plural is any number not exactly one
A singular is exactly one.
Agreed, avoid semi-merging separate systems. It caused silly problems in both CT and MgT1.
The Gazelle has a checkered history, but the rules are clear, at least after errata. No extra hardpoints.
The original Gazelle was, I believe, a perfectly legal LBB5'79 ship with a tiny bay and two turrets in a ~240 Dt hull at TL-15, slightly reskinned for LBB2 combat.
Someone made a hack job of re-imagining it for LBB5'80 with four turrets on a 300 Dt hull at TL-14. Call it Rule Zero in action?
Last edited by a moderator:
I developed it when I was attempting to reconcile LBB2 to LBB5. I wanted LBB2 tables that matched LBB5 results for a unified ship creation methodology. What I discovered in practice was the PP cost per dTon in LBB5 was what shattered both compatibility and rendered any ACS below TL 15 bankrupt in LBB5 (forcing the LBB2 ship design).
When you change LBB5 PP to cost per EP, then the difference between a J2/M2/P2 ship in LBB2 and LBB5 becomes less than the savings for mass production. While LBB2 and LBB5 allocate the volume for MD, PP, & JD different ... the total needed for M2/J2/P2 in both books comes out very close. Same for M1/J1/P1 and M3/M3/P3. Create a few and compare the differences in Cost and Volume for Engineering. It allows "Engineering" to be a block on deckplans that will work for either LBB2 or LBB5 with the ships rounding off to about the same price.
I found the original post ... October 3, 2017
Last edited:
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Different discussion, different context.
And I'm allowed to change my mind/be convinced when presented with new perspectives to old problems.
In ISOLATION, the "primitive power plants are ruinously expensive" when custom built makes sense when you're asking LBB5.80 to stand alone. However, as soon as you try to reconcile LBB5.80 and LBB2.81 such that "similar drive performance codes ought to yield similar sizes and prices at equivalent TLs" where the point of the exercise is not an EXACT match, but rather a "close enough" match between the two paradigms ... then at THAT point, where the intent is reconciliation between the paradigms, that's when switching to a MCr per EP formula instead of an MCr per ton formula makes a lot more sense.
And that's why I (and I guess many more) believe systems may not be merged, you either use LBB2 or LBB5 drives, but, As AnotherDilbert says, rules don't specify it...
Last edited:
If the emoji didn't show it clearly I was jocking, but also pointing that what one writes not always represents clearly (or exactly) what one intends to say, too often having more than a single interpretation, or a literal but erroneous one.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that CT wasn't written by Rules Lawyers for Rules Lawyers.
What's written in CT was intentionally meant to be expanded upon, rather than be used to confine everything in ways that are "dogmatically pure."
CT was a framework that was meant to be added to.
Doing so meaningfully in ways that will "stand the test of time" are more dependent upon intellectual consistency/honesty (don't break your own rules as soon as they become "inconvenient" for you) along with what essentially boils down to ... Good Taste™.
But you have to start SOMEWHERE ... and CT did that.
And here we all are, decades later, trying to resist the urge to Rules Lawyer dogmatically in order to attain intellectual consistency/honesty while promoting Good Taste™.
Or to speak the language of the Rules Lawyers ... it's not about the LETTER of the
If you have to "abandon" the Letter(s) of the RAW in order to remain true to its Spirit ... that is no vice, but rather a virtue.
Or ... something something ... words to that effect.
You know the drill.
Oh you probably could, but then you'd have a bunch of parts and no one who knew how to assemble them, so it's probably not a good idea.
So the 1 EP plant costs Cr3 million whether it's 1 dTon or 4 dTons? Other than having to go back and recalculate some things, I like that a lot.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Thank you for tracking it down, I knew it was not my original idea and was searching for where it came from. It makes a lot more sense to me to do it this way.
The beauty is that there are very few LBB5 ships with a PP less than TL 15 due to the Cost Penalty, so there are actually few designs that need to be "recalculated". What it does most is allow a TL 9-14 merchant ship to exist and compete in LBB5 (without a LBB2 letter PP).
Marcatlas
SOC-12
That was my point. You could not accomplish the task and end up with an operational air/raft.
I really like this concept, though I probably won't actually use it. You're buying capability, not hardware.
I almost completely agree.
Almost.
My point of disagreement is that, in a nod to @AnotherDilbert 's perspective, two people might not see the same spirit in the rules. At which point, you call it a house rule, explain and detail it, and see whether or not others agree with your interpretation (or at least agree that it's a reasonable interpretation even if they wouldn't use it themselves).
I have nothing against house rules. I have mine, as I guess everyone, and they use to help adapting the games to the GM and team than plays them.
BUt they only serve for the specific group using them, while RAW are used when talking about the "standard" game and as a reference for everyone, not a specific group.
To give you an example: if you participate in a TCS contest, your ships must conform with RAW, and any house rule is likely (to say the least) to be refused, as it implies many people from many groups, each one with his own house rules.
BUt they only serve for the specific group using them, while RAW are used when talking about the "standard" game and as a reference for everyone, not a specific group.
To give you an example: if you participate in a TCS contest, your ships must conform with RAW, and any house rule is likely (to say the least) to be refused, as it implies many people from many groups, each one with his own house rules.
Last edited:
Well, yes.
They are big....
Ok, some points the "Carriers" of this are the Battlerider tenders.
Consider this in establishing a siege Battleriders are your goto units for establish numbers for control in the target system.
But my my mind wanders to logistics, how many support ships are needed? In general I suspect there is at least a couple of support ships for every combatant, just for fleet operations. Logistical train, that is more civilian ships, but there is the mass of light cruisers and destroyers to provide protection.
So circling back sieges, yes we have a bunch of heavies in that system notably the Battleriders and their cruiser support etc... Around that system you are going to deploy your battleships to engage your enemies reinforcements. Couple that to your commerce/logistics raiders are going to range deeper with the goal of drawing off forces chasing them.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
1. Have large engineering departments.
2. Have large cargo holds to take along spare parts.
3. Redundancy.
4. Robusticity.
5. Workshops.
6. Onboard manufacturing plants.
2. Have large cargo holds to take along spare parts.
3. Redundancy.
4. Robusticity.
5. Workshops.
6. Onboard manufacturing plants.
Ok, I said Siege here.Well, yes.
They are big....
Ok, some points the "Carriers" of this are the Battlerider tenders.
Consider this in establishing a siege Battleriders are your goto units for establish numbers for control in the target system.
What does it take to blockade a system?
I think that depends on how jump mechanics work. If ships coming in from another system always arrive (roughly) in the same area you put patrols where they can easily respond to arriving vessels. Maybe stick a defence platform or ‘mine’field (where the mines are remote targeting platforms) in that area. Obviously if you do this smugglers will try to aim to arrive out system and go through your gaps so you put sensor buoys around the area and try to intercept.
If the arrival location in the system is totally random because of high jump variance then you need to basically “mine” the hell out of the 10D limit and have a large number of ships between the 10D and 100D limits to cover the space.
You know, the more I think about this, the more I think it should be pitched to errata as a rule change. It would go a long way toward supporting the "starports build at the local tech level" premise since the only disadvantage would be a few tons lost in cargo/passenger space.
On the one hand, it would be really cool to have a more Pournellian jump system. On the other, it would pretty much eliminate piracy and smuggling since it creates an easily controlled choke point.
Similar threads
