Chrysanthemums and Fer-de-Lances

[martletsquire]

Shadowcat20, I think you understand what I'm saying. Just like with our current warships, a basic design is approved, each ship is handbuilt, each is slightly different straight from the builders, and then the great divergence begins... Within 5 years the only true similarities is in the basic hull shape and layout, maybe. Or not. I believe that the Brits took some ships of a whole class of destroyers and lengthened them, so you had some class examples at the original length and some at the lengthened length (I think it was to install a CIWS.)

Ranke, where does it say the DD14 is not a Chrysanthemum? I have searched and searched and cannot find that reference. It might keep me from pulling what little hair is left upstairs (except the stuff sprouting out the ears and we'll stop this right now...)

Since about 6 months after getting HG originally, I have viewed the TL as a base start for a class. I see the TLs in Supp9 to be the relative base across the board for the class, not a hard and fast rule. I feel the Imperium is too vast and varied to maintain perfect TL in a class over a long period of time. HOME may produce a TL14 Gazelle, while DENEB may produce a TL14/TL15 Gazelle. Same layout, same hull, newer weapons, newer electronics and such. Or another Sector may produce a dumbed down TL14 Gazelle, more suited to the overall TL of the yards within.

Look at it this way. Take an F-15. Take one of the first F-15s. Stick it in a bell jar. Pull it out after 30 years (yeah, it has been that long, and longer) and put it next to one in the fleet. Start pulling both apart. There will be a pile of common components that are the same. There will be two piles of parts that reflect the original and the updated components. Then there will be some that don't match up at all. Is it varying Tech Levels? Maybe. Maybe not.

Wow. These discussions have really gotten my brain a-rollin around. So... what does Aramis or someone close to MM (or himself) say in reference to this topic? I'd be interested. Mighty interested.

This reminds me, young-uns, when I argued with the Gygax about weapon values of human bones during a play-test of A4 for AD&D. Even Erroll Otis got involved. Weird experience, but a good sign that the game was evolving and growing. (Femur as a mace was 1-4, if I remember. And it was a very spirited discussion.)

God, I'm OLD!

 

[rancke]

Ranke, where does it say the DD14 is not a Chrysanthemum?

Where is says that the Chrysanthemum is a DD15.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

This is very interesting, but does it have a real impact, or is it simply an arm-chair discussion? I'm not real familiar with FS and it's application to that game system. Is this one of those "Jane's got it wrong," things where the error isn't going to make any "real world" difference, or is this a case where the error in FS ends up meaning the ship plays differently than it should in the game?

 

[rancke]

This is very interesting, but does it have a real impact, or is it simply an arm-chair discussion? I'm not real familiar with FS and it's application to that game system. Is this one of those "Jane's got it wrong," things where the error isn't going to make any "real world" difference, or is this a case where the error in FS ends up meaning the ship plays differently than it should in the game?

I've been attempting to support my claim that the information in TA7 to the effect that Chrysanthemum Class destroyers were originally built as TL14 ships and subsequently upgraded to TL15 is fallacious. A major upgrade of any ship class would, IMO, be a new class.

"A ship class is a group of ships of a similar design.[1] This is distinct from a ship-type,[1] which might reflect a similarity of tonnage or intended use. For example, the USS Carl Vinson is a nuclear aircraft carrier (ship type) of the Nimitz class (ship class).

In the course of building a class of ships, design changes might be implemented. In such a case, the ships of different design might not be considered of the same class; each variation would either be its own class, or a subclass of the original class (see County-class cruiser for an example). If ships are built of a class whose production had been discontinued, a similar distinction might be made." (Emphasis mine) [Wikipedia].
​

Hans

 

[aramis]

I've been attempting to support my claim that the information in TA7 to the effect that Chrysanthemum Class destroyers were originally built as TL14 ships and subsequently upgraded to TL15 is fallacious. A major upgrade of any ship class would, IMO, be a new class.

"A ship class is a group of ships of a similar design.[1] This is distinct from a ship-type,[1] which might reflect a similarity of tonnage or intended use. For example, the USS Carl Vinson is a nuclear aircraft carrier (ship type) of the Nimitz class (ship class).

In the course of building a class of ships, design changes might be implemented. In such a case, the ships of different design might not be considered of the same class; each variation would either be its own class, or a subclass of the original class (see County-class cruiser for an example). If ships are built of a class whose production had been discontinued, a similar distinction might be made." (Emphasis mine) [Wikipedia].
​

Hans

The primary difference across the TL break is a smaller PP and the change from Lasers to Missiles.

The ship's design, however, goes from a J2 to a J4.
Note that this means 2 drives change size...

System	C-14	C-15	Net Change
Jump Drive	30Td	50Td	+20
PP	298Td	90Td	-208
Fuel, Jump	200	400	+200
Fuel, PP	149	90	-59
Missile Turrets	0Td	2Td	+2
Beam Lasers	2Td	0Td	-2
Fusion Turrets	2Td	2Td	+0
PA Turrets x2	10Td	6Td	-4
Net	-	-	-51

[tc=4] [/tc] [tc=4] [/tc]

So overall, cargo space should go up 51 tons...

This is pretty easily doable as a "refit"... you move one or two walls in engineering for the needed extra tankage, swap out the PP and JD as a unit, swap 2 turrets, and pull the 5T barbettes and replace them with 3Td Turrets. One could even "waste" that 4 extra tons of space.

Oh, but wait - I missed something... the TL15 loses the FPP. So EVEN MORE free space.

And note that it drops from 22 crew in 15 SR to 16 crew in 16 SR... one of those barbette mounts becomes a turret and the cabin of the Stateroom. The other becomes a lounge, library, or fresher - or some other "part of stateroom tonnage".

So, it is easily a retrofit.

 

[shadowcat20]

Was thinking about it again.

Every time a new piece of equipment comes off the line the refits begin.

Look at the M4 Sherman tank of WWII.

It went through different engines (size and gas/deisel), Guns (75mm,76mm, 105mm, 17 pounder), had armor upgrades (Sherman Jumbo) ect. We will not even talk about what the IDF did with the Isherman version. That tank jumped tech levels also (6 to 7 I think) but is still a M4 Sherman at heart.

Retrofitting is what the military does as a matter of course. Just look at the variations of the AHL with it's upgrades to spine mounts. Still a AHL at heart reguardless of time and tech level differences.

Or the Iowa class Battleships from WWII. Tech lev 6 then but by the 80's had new radar, CIWS, Harpoons, Cruise missiles, better communications, and all sorts of other refits spanning 40 years. Jumped from tech 6 to tech 8 before being mothballed again. But still an Iowa class BB.

 

[rancke]

Every time a new piece of equipment comes off the line the refits begin.

I think I'm done with this subthread. I've explained why I consider the information about Chrysanthemums in TA7 to be unreliable. Agree or disagree, that's up to you. As far as I'm concerned, none of the counterarguments I've seen have convinced me. So I'll continue to hold that we have a canon conflict and to ignore it until and unless TPTB step up and say, "TA7 is right, Chrysanthemums started out as TL14 and were upgraded to TL15 without being considered a new class. Nyah, nyah. "

EDIT: OK, not quite done.

Retrofitting is what the military does as a matter of course. Just look at the variations of the AHL with it's upgrades to spine mounts. Still a AHL at heart reguardless of time and tech level differences.

And the AHL is still considered a TL14 design regardless of retrofits.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

... So, it is easily a retrofit.

Anything's easy as a retrofit so long as the hull and total tonnage stays the same. Well, anything except a CT standard hull; they've got that defined drive space. I don't think Traveller has a canon "Bible" that it hands out to the writers of these supplements, or I don't see evidence of it, so it's easy for them to inadvertently step on each others' toes and leave us having these kinds of debates. I'm still a wee bit miffed about SMC making the 154th a battlerider squadron after FFW said that squadron was equipped with black globes (like the Kokirraks).

Where are these other design names coming from?

 

[rancke]

I don't think Traveller has a canon "Bible" that it hands out to the writers of these supplements, or I don't see evidence of it, so it's easy for them to inadvertently step on each others' toes and leave us having these kinds of debates.

Oh, it's easy to make mistakes, especially if you don't consider the ramifications of what you come up with. That's doesn't mean they're not mistakes.

I'm still a wee bit miffed about SMC making the 154th a battlerider squadron after FFW said that squadron was equipped with black globes (like the Kokirraks).

I'm most upset about SMC making any BatRon cost no more than a CruRon.

Where are these other design names coming from?

What other design names?


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

...What other design names? ...

Well, these:

... But the Chrysanthemum is a class that was designed after the Imperium started building TL15 ships. The TL14 class that it replaced would have been a Gymnomenia Class or a Shambaugh Class or something. ...

 

[rancke]

Well, these:

Those were randomly chosen suggestions for the name of a class whose existence I deduced (to wit, the TL14 predecessor of the (TL15) Chrysanthemum) but didn't have a name for. They're not canonical. (Though they are canon-compatible ).

And I do mean randomly. I used the random article feature of Wikipedia.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

...And I do mean randomly. I used the random article feature of Wikipedia. ...

I'll keep that one in mind next time I'm wracking my brain for a class name.

 

[rancke]

So to return to my original question, how good are the (TL15) designs for Chrysanthemums and Fer-de-Lances. What's the reason they stuck to the old TL14 Chrysanthemum paradigm when they designed a TL15 replacement for it? Why is the Fer-de-Lance still being built 114 years (or more) after it was first designed?


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

They both appear to be variations on a fleet work horse vessel. They are not much use in the line (you need a factor 9 missile bay for that) but could easily be used for fighter and escort suppression, system scouting missions, civilian escort, anti-piracy that sort of thing.

There is only so much you can do with a 1000t hull, jump 4 and manoeuvre/agility 6. The model 9 computer means they have the best electronics you can get, after that it is what you stick on your 10 hard points.

 

[rancke]

They both appear to be variations on a fleet work horse vessel. They are not much use in the line (you need a factor 9 missile bay for that) but could easily be used for fighter and escort suppression, system scouting missions, civilian escort, anti-piracy that sort of thing.

So that's not a problem. Great.


Hans

 

[Ulsyus]

They both appear to be variations on a fleet work horse vessel. They are not much use in the line (you need a factor 9 missile bay for that) but could easily be used for fighter and escort suppression, system scouting missions, civilian escort, anti-piracy that sort of thing.

But why use them for that when cheaper and more numerous Gazelles and Patrol Corvettes can also do the same job? Or would the Chrysanthemums be more oriented to the convoy escort role?

 

[aramis]

But why use them for that when cheaper and more numerous Gazelles and Patrol Corvettes can also do the same job? Or would the Chrysanthemums be more oriented to the convoy escort role?

In a small ship universe, the type T is a credible 400T destroyer, the Type C a passable Light Cruiser, the Kinunir a heavy Battlecruiser, and the big bads are 5000Td TL15 J1 carriers with 200 fighters... and the Gazelle is really an Escort Cruiser (CE)

In a big ship universe, the Gazelle is a TH or DLE (heavy patrol or escort light destroyer), destroyers running 1KTd to 50KTd, light cruisers 50-75 KTd, heavies 100 to 200 KTd, battlecruisers 200-400 KTd, and battleships 500-1000 Td.

The big ship universe is the same astrography, but not the samek kind of naval presence, as the Small Ship one.

 

[Ulsyus]

So which universe prevails? Was the LBB small-ship OTU officially defunct when HG was released?

 

[aramis]

So which universe prevails? Was the LBB small-ship OTU officially defunct when HG was released?

Not quite... it took a couple years before that was the case, and even then, small-ship products kept being reprinted. Keep in mind that Sup 7 was 1980. Sup 8 was summer of '81... some of the materials, however, are from 1980, and so it bears dual copyrights.

HG was late 1979, and a HG 2e (with a reasonable large ship combat system) was late 1980.

HG 1e (1979) was reasonable to about 10 KTd, above which it became unwieldy. At least, if you remembered to allow one attack per 1000Td per weapon rating (because that's how it worked in rating things). It allowed, however, designs to 1MTd. (Can you imagine having to make 1000 to hit rolls per weapon type?)

HG 2E used a weapon different scaling, and was less "convertible" back to book 2 combats... but it also actually allowed playing with the big 500Ktd ships.

Since the core was never upgraded to HG, and Sup 7 wasn't either, and no "HG versions of Bk2 ships" were published†, Book 2 continued to be used as the default for many players, even tho the new OTU used big ships...

Basically, 5 camps seem to have come about...

• Core Book Only: many players had ONLY the core books, or maybe core +Sup 4 and Bk 4. Small ships, no big weapons. No real sense of the OTU.‡
• Prototraveller: Nothing released after HG 1E is canon In the PTU...
• Mixed Drives OTU: HG combat system, both design systems freely. This was also the apparent default mode for all supplements after 1981.
• HG Only: Some players reworked all the book 2 designs into HG, and declared Bk 2 off limits except for those items needed for use with Bk 5.
• Small Book 2 & Big Book 5: if it was ≤1000Td, use book 2, otherwise, use book 5. They had to do conversions on TTA's ships.

At various points, I have been in each of those views. CBO was only until I got HG... I'm thinking Small Ship, no spinals, MT personal combat, and its related vehicle rules for ship combat.

†well, not in official materials, until T20 was released
‡ Many of the fans of this mode started later than 1981, and used Bk2-81...

 

[pendragonman]

There is a sector that keep all ships 10 ktons and under, regardless of source and limit the OTU to that ship scale.

Not sure what Aramis means by no real sense of the OTU.