Craft Hangars

[snrdg082102]

I was adding a 20-ton launch to a design and my calculations seem wrong. Reading the requirements in both HG2, page 33 and TCS, page 16 hasn't kick started my memory, probably a result of my other topic posts.


A 20-ton launch requires a 20 ton hangar on ships <= 1,000 tons and
26 tons on hulls > 1,000 tons.

A hangar costs Cr 2,000 per ton.

A hangar on a hull <= 1,000 tons has a cost of 20 x 2,000 = Cr 40,000
or MCr 0.04.

The hangar on hulls > 1,000 tons the cost is 26 x 2,000 = Cr 52,000 or
MCr 0.052.

Are the calculations above correct?

When the 20-ton launch is not tucked away in the hangar you would have 20-tons of space available for storage on both hulls, right?

 

[Orr]

When the 20-ton launch is not tucked away in the hangar you would have 20-tons of space available for storage on both hulls, right?

I believe Trillion Credit Squadron only allows a portion of the 20 ton hangar to be used for stuff other than whatever it was designed to carry.

I don't remember what the discount is though.

 

[sabredog]

I was adding a 20-ton launch to a design and my calculations seem wrong. Reading the requirements in both HG2, page 33 and TCS, page 16
hasn't kick started my memory, probably a result of my other topic posts.


A 20-ton launch requires a 20 ton hangar on ships <= 1,000 tons and
26 tons on hulls > 1,000 tons.

A hangar costs Cr 2,000 per ton.

A hangar on a hull <= 1,000 tons has a cost of 20 x 2,000 = Cr 40,000
or MCr 0.04.

The hangar on hulls > 1,000 tons the cost is 26 x 2,000 = Cr 52,000 or
MCr 0.052.

Are the calculations above correct?

When the 20-ton launch is not tucked away in the hangar you would have
20-tons of space available for storage on both hulls, right?

Yes and no. The rules don't specify why you need to have 130% space on larger ships that carry small craft to carry them (or 110% for craft 99t or >). It wold be logical to assume the "space" that actually exists in the hanger would be taken up by some cradles/braces/support frames for the craft, but the reason why this would be the case in larger starship hulls and not small ones is not explained. And why the smaller craft took up more space than the larger ones still leaves me scratching my head - what, are they on davits or something?

I drove myself nuts about it until I remembered that the bay weapons can be unplugged and swapped out - and the rules say that if you take a bay weapon out you can use the same amount of space the the bay is equal to for storing cargo, or vehicles. That means to me (since this didn't make sense either) that the reason for the extra volume inside large starship hulls for small (or "big") craft is for things like larger hangar doors, access to move around the craft easier for maintenance, and things like that.

So I say that if you ended up with 26 tons space required for a small craft and didn't have the craft on board then you have 26 tons available for cargo or whatever. You could house rule it and say otherwise if you wanted to.

 

[sabredog]

I believe Trillion Credit Squadron only allows a portion of the 20 ton hangar to be used for stuff other than whatever it was designed to carry.

I don't remember what the discount is though.

TCS only reiterates the same rules for subordinate craft as are in HG. It doesn't say anything about how much space is available when the subordinate craft (as they are referred to in TCS) are not on board.

Page 16.

 

[far-trader]

...I drove myself nuts about it until I remembered that the bay weapons can be unplugged and swapped out - and the rules say that if you take a bay weapon out you can use the same amount of space the the bay is equal to for storing cargo, or vehicles.

Half right

It's implied that cargo can be stored with no loss of volume but clearly stated that small craft and vehicles are stored at 50% wasted space. An empty 100ton Bay may hold 100tons of cargo or 50tons of vehicles/craft. Or a mix of those proportions.

Apologies for sending you back over the edge (or maybe it was just a slip of memory forgetting the 50% wasted space bit)

 

[sabredog]

Whoops - my bad.....50% wastage in bay storage. Well, just goes to show what age can do.

Still, no wastage is described for the hangars so I still stand that you can use the full amount allotted. And my confusion as to why "Big Craft" take up less room is now renewed.

 

[sabredog]

Dang it - you got that typed in while I was reviewing the rule book!

 

[far-trader]

Dang it - you got that typed in while I was reviewing the rule book!

Score 1 for my memory and luck in stumbling in here just as you posted

I easily recalled the 50% wasted space because I've made good use of empty bays in many ship designs over the years

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening Orr,

I believe Trillion Credit Squadron only allows a portion of the 20 ton hangar to be used for stuff other than whatever it was designed to carry.

I don't remember what the discount is though.

I've been reading through Adventure 5 TCS without finding any mention of
restricting the use of the empty hanger space. Of course my books tend
to hide the material I'm looking for until after I've asked on one of the
forums. I'll look through TCS again, I'm hoping that the book won't have
the reference since I dislike missing stuff like restricting the use of the
hangar.

HG 2e page 30 is the only place that restricts how much can be carried in
an empty bay.

Thanks for the information,

 

[sabredog]

There are no rules in any of the books - or even in the games, like AHL, that limit the space used for hangars if the subordinate craft normally carried in them are absent.

It might be one of those little bits of gray that exists in an otherwise fairly elegant system. That is why there are so many house rules around and so many lonnnnnng threads that start over the same issues again and again. It all comes down in the end to two kinds of Traveller players:

The ones who think if it isn't written down in canon it can't exist, and those who feel that if the rules don't tell you you can't then you can use your imagination to fill in the blanks. The knives come out sometimes but nobody has yet been burnt at the stake for heresy around here.

I come down in the latter half: if I'm not playing HG as a wargame system (which is why TCS came about - to play HG as a wargame), then I use it for the really big ships. LBB2 is for adventure ships. Some bleed-over is there, but only really for background color and fleshing out my game. And my TU is canon only in that is proto-Traveller Plus. The Plus comes from it having been developed whole cloth long before any canon material came out that nowadays too many (IMHO) people adhere to fanatically instead of risking making things up and claiming the game as their own. Which used to be the only way to play this beast.

So sometimes I admit to blanks in my knowledge of the 3rd Imperium canon - but I stick fairly close to the rules of CT - so close I even use the original, long lost damage tables for the personal weapons and a few other tidbits from my extremely tattered original LBB's scanned into my computer for posterity. Thankfully, I saw that GDW reprinted those, too, so now I have enough sets to keep me happy and grognardy till I die.

Just claim it as your own and do it your way: so long as you don't unbalance any of the core rules this thing will practically play itself and you won't hurt anything. Except some canon-fanatic's sensibilities.

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening Sabrebog,

Yes and no.

I'm guessing that the Yes and no references my question about being able to use the empty hangar for storage.

Apparently my math was correct so I'm happy and can get on with the design.

The rules don't specify why you need to have 130% space on larger ships that carry small craft to carry them (or 110% for craft 99t or >). It wold be logical to assume the "space" that actually exists in the hanger would be taken up by some cradles/braces/support frames for the craft, but the reason why this would be the case in larger starship hulls and not small ones is not explained. And why the smaller craft took up more space than the larger ones still leaves me scratching my head - what, are they on davits or something?

I drove myself nuts about it until I remembered that the bay weapons can be unplugged and swapped out - and the rules say that if you take a bay weapon out you can use the same amount of space the the bay is equal to for storing cargo, or vehicles. That means to me (since this didn't make sense either) that the reason for the extra volume inside large starship hulls for small (or "big") craft is for things like larger hangar doors, access to move around the craft easier for maintenance, and things like that.

My guess is that the small craft (< 100 tons) being carried on hull >1,000 tons are going to be serviced as part of the ships equipment. The big craft (> 99 tons) require a shipyard.

So I say that if you ended up with 26 tons space required for a small craft and didn't have the craft on board then you have 26 tons available for cargo or whatever. You could house rule it and say otherwise if you wanted to.

To me that extra 6 tons represents systems required to store parts, testing equipment, launch, and secure the craft into place. Of if I needed the space I would probably use it, until the GM ruled differently.

Glad to have your point of view.

 

[sabredog]

There you go! You figure it out for yourself logically in the context of your game and how you think it works and if all comes out in the wash.

I agree with your assumptions on the hangarage question, though I houserule it that ALL craft carried inside a hangar take up 130% regardless of their size for the same reasons you give for servicing, parts, etc. I also require more service personnel for combat craft (like fighters) than for just shuttles and pinnaces on non-combat ships.

If the craft are not on board, however, I figure the rest of their gear could be (but not always) stowed with them (like in the cargo area of the craft depending on it's size) so the space on the carrier can be used for some mission-specific purpose.

 

[snrdg082102]

Dang it - you got that typed in while I was reviewing the rule book!

Dan "far trader" Burns is very good at posting I know he's beaten to the posting on many occassions. One of these days I'm going to be faster than he is.

 

[Orr]

Thanks for the information,

No need to thank me because I didn't help you out at all. I got the High Guard empty bay rules somehow mixed up with stuff from Trillion Credit Squadron.

 

[Icosahedron]

The ones who think if it isn't written down in canon it can't exist, and those who feel that if the rules don't tell you you can't then you can use your imagination to fill in the blanks.

...And the ones who feel that if the rules tell you you can't, and you don't agree with them, you change the rules.

My guess is that the small craft (< 100 tons) being carried on hull >1,000 tons are going to be serviced as part of the ships equipment. The big craft (> 99 tons) require a shipyard.

That's got to be the best explanation I've heard. I might adopt that if I need it.

Now you've just got to figure how, on the smallest ships, a 20 ton vessel fits into a 20 ton space and has 20 tons of internal accommodation...

Naturally, as a member of the third group I highlighted above, I just changed the rule IMTU. :

 

[sabredog]

...And the ones who feel that if the rules tell you you can't, and you don't agree with them, you change the rules.

I am a proud member of that group! And of those who feel that if the rules don't tell you you can't then you can use your imagination to fill in the blanks.

In fact, it says on page 48 of LBB3 that both are accepted givens for the game.

 

[snrdg082102]

No need to thank me because I didn't help you out at all. I got the High Guard empty bay rules somehow mixed up with stuff from Trillion Credit Squadron.

In my opinion Orr you helped me remember the empty bay requirements and proved that my books aren't always hiding material on me.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning Icosahedron and Sabredog,

The biggest reason why I purchased Traveller is the starship design system since I'm a gear head.

CT LBB 2 didn't have an example to follow showing how to design a ship so I picked one of the designs, actually I went through them all. Guess what, my recreations didn't match and at the time I couldn't go online and ask for help.

High Guard came out and once again I tried to figure out the system by trying to duplicate a the published designs. I got close on most of them but I never have been able to get an exact match.

In both cases I used paper, pencil, and calculator since computers where only just becoming household items. When I got my first computer and Office Suite, WordPerfect, I used the spreadsheet application to retry using LBB2 anf HG design sequences. I still haven't matched the designs.

I've even downloaded or purchased the various applications and spreadsheets for both design systems. I get closer on more of the published designs in the official books. For designs taken from the various sites if I happen to have the right spreadsheet or application I get matches. Unfortunately most of the time I'm still not getting the same numbers.

My theory for the published designs is a combination of factors which are

(1) They were created using different drafts of the rules and there wasn't time to go back a make changes when the final draft went to printing.
(2) Different application of math rules
(3) Different interpretations of the rules, many of which didn't make the final draft.

For the designs published by members the reason for my failures is more along the lines that I don't have the same design rules since the basic ones were modified to get the results the designer wanted.

Of course one of the reasons I try recreating designs is to see what happens when components are swapped out to mimic the life cycle of individual hull and class.

Modifying the rules to conform to ones ideas is great, problems arise when someone like me tries to recreate them without having the same rules set. I hope that my designs can be recreated by another designer since I'm trying to use the published and modified rules. Unfortunately, I have the feeling they won't since my interpretation is usually different.

Thanks for the comments

 

[sabredog]

If you peruse the threads here in The Fleet section (or maybe even here) you'll find myriad examples of how the official rules designs don't match up with the design rules. Either the published deckplans don't fit, or the descriptions in the books don't match what the rules say they should, and sometimes both.

And the first edition CT rules had different rules for design, and some slightly different pre-built designs, than did the later edition. And not just in the ship rules....weapons and damage, mapping, characters,....oh tons of gray and errata....

All I can say is: Welcome to Classic Traveller!

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello again Sabredog,

If you peruse the threads here in The Fleet section (or maybe even here) you'll find myriad examples of how the official rules designs don't match up with the design rules. Either the published deckplans don't fit, or the descriptions in the books don't match what the rules say they should, and sometimes both.

And the first edition CT rules had different rules for design, and some slightly different pre-built designs, than did the later edition. And not just in the ship rules....weapons and damage, mapping, characters,....oh tons of gray and errata....

All I can say is: Welcome to Classic Traveller!

I at least try to follow the rules as written. When they don't make sense or I can't figure out how something was done I ask questions, often finding out I'm rehashing stuff over again.

Don't get me wrong I think overall the HG design system works the way the designers wanted and I like the system.

Thanks for the discussion.