Craft Hangars

[sabredog]

Oh, don't get me wrong - I like the HG system, too. I kinda like some of the HG 1.0 version, too, and added those pieces back into the 2.0 version for use IMTU.

Plus I try to stick reasonably close to the rules, too, just as far as the LBB's go, I tossed Merchant Prince and Scouts, and use the original ed. LBBs through HG.

And pluck bits from JTAS articles and such to fill in some gaps. But I have my own expanded Scout chargen rules to match my TU, and prefer the more streamlined rules for merchants and mercantilism in the original rules. No wait, I do use the expanded tables in MT for more variety when generating random cargo, but otherwise its CT all the way.

 

[snrdg082102]

Yippee, we are mostly on the same page. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a Traveller group close to me to play so my focus has been on the HG 2e design system. I've put together a couple of spreadsheets that try to follow the rules as written and then mixed rules from MT, TNE, T20, MgT, and GT. Unfortunately, they are all working drafts and aren't up to par for sharing. Someday I might be satisfied with one and share, but don't hold your breath to some one.

Oh, don't get me wrong - I like the HG system, too. I kinda like some of the HG 1.0 version, too, and added those pieces back into the 2.0 version for use IMTU.

Plus I try to stick reasonably close to the rules, too, just as far as the LBB's go, I tossed Merchant Prince and Scouts, and use the original ed. LBBs through HG.

And pluck bits from JTAS articles and such to fill in some gaps. But I have my own expanded Scout chargen rules to match my TU, and prefer the more streamlined rules for merchants and mercantilism in the original rules. No wait, I do use the expanded tables in MT for more variety when generating random cargo, but otherwise its CT all the way.

 

[Icosahedron]

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.

Hear Hear! <engages in mutual backslapping with Sabredog.>

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.

That's probably because the original authors followed Page 48 of their own rulebook. Chances are the designs were tweaked during playtest long before they were included in the final, public, version of the rules. These guys were gamers, and back then, it seems to me, gamers were more experimental.
IMO, the designs were intended as illustrations to give you ideas, not as rigid rule-output templates from which it is forbidden to deviate.

My reaction to finding the illustrations couldn't be reproduced from the rules was a brief shrug followed by my own designs that did follow the rules - after I'd tweaked the rules to allow things I wanted to allow...

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning Icosahedron,

I have been saying that the designe were tweaked using the chan

Hear Hear! <engages in mutual backslapping with Sabredog.>

That's probably because the original authors followed Page 48 of their own rulebook. Chances are the designs were tweaked during playtest long before they were included in the final, public, version of the rules. These guys were gamers, and back then, it seems to me, gamers were more experimental.

I agree that the design rules, actually all rules, started being "tweaked" during playtesting and have continued to be tweaked since they were officially published.

I'm all for experimental, but I dislike not being able to recreate something following the basic process.

IMO, the designs were intended as illustrations to give you ideas, not as rigid rule-output templates from which it is forbidden to deviate.

My reaction to finding the illustrations couldn't be reproduced from the rules was a brief shrug followed by my own designs that did follow the rules - after I'd tweaked the rules to allow things I wanted to allow...

I haven't said, or at least I haven't thought I said, that the illustrations should be rigid-output templates from which it is forbidden to deviate.

I am trying to say at least one illustration should follow the design process showing how all the steps of the system work to create a design that dull-witted people like me can recreate 99.9% of the time. Some-days I can't get anything to match, especially socks. Seems that dryers like to eat one sock occasionally, at least the ones I use.

I'm all for creating items not covered in the design sequence. If the way the item was designed is obvious by de-constructing the design no problem. When an item or rule is tweaked and I can't figure out how to recreate the item or rule, especially ones like what to steal, oops, I mean incorporate, I begin to question my understanding of the process.

Provide me, somewhere, in the design with how something was created and I can get close enough for my standards I'm good to go. My standards would be the design has a 9,000 ton component and my recreations is 8,950 or 9,250 tons I'd say I have a clue. My numbers cameoutt to be 15,000 or 6,000 tons then I need to know where, usually my mathunfortunatelyy, I got of track.

Give me a point of reference that allows me to get close to the tweaked design and I'm a happy camper. When I can't I drive myself nuts and with access to forums like this have people thinking about using a sledge hammer, weight of their choice, to get through my thick skull. My apologies for my less endearingpersonalityy traitoutt traits.

 

[aramis]

All of the Book 2 standard designs in CT-77 could be built in CT-77... but CT-81 changed the design rules.

The two simple changes made profitability very different:
1) requiring PP to match the higher of Jump Drive or Maneuver Drive, instead of just Maneuver Drive
2) requiring computer model to meet or exceed Jump number, rather than just to be able to run the Jump-N program

Without those two changes, the Types A, R, S, T, M, X and C all work nicely. Types K, L, P, J all need some elements not included in the design rules.

Most of which DonM has included in the errata by virtue of myself, DonM, Cryton, Robject, and a couple others reverse engineering them.

The cost of lab space is MCr 0.2 per ton. Correct cost is MCr 128.16 (after discount).
The cost of the capture tanks is MCr 0.1 per ton.
​

Note that the costs of the Type P's variable hull, and the Type J's mining laser are not figured. (Those are in Sup4:COTI anyway)

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy Aramis,

(Heavy sigh) My bad luck of not being able to reverse engineer a design started with the ones in Book 2 Starships 1977 7th printing not to mention Book 5 High Guard 1979 2nd printing. Of course back when I first purchased Traveller the only people I could ask where at the game store, which didn't help much.

Thanks for the information and confirming the design system gremlins like me way too much. Would you like to take them off my hands?

All of the Book 2 standard designs in CT-77 could be built in CT-77... but CT-81 changed the design rules.

The two simple changes made profitability very different:
1) requiring PP to match the higher of Jump Drive or Maneuver Drive, instead of just Maneuver Drive
2) requiring computer model to meet or exceed Jump number, rather than just to be able to run the Jump-N program

Without those two changes, the Types A, R, S, T, M, X and C all work nicely. Types K, L, P, J all need some elements not included in the design rules.

Most of which DonM has included in the errata by virtue of myself, DonM, Cryton, Robject, and a couple others reverse engineering them.

The cost of lab space is MCr 0.2 per ton. Correct cost is MCr 128.16 (after discount).
The cost of the capture tanks is MCr 0.1 per ton.
​

Note that the costs of the Type P's variable hull, and the Type J's mining laser are not figured. (Those are in Sup4:COTI anyway)

 

[aramis]

I'm writing my own version of MGT's design system for my own TU. It's still got gremlins, but of a different kind... It's starting to look like a different game. So, No, Tom, I won't degremlin them any more than I have for the errata.

 

[snrdg082102]

I'm writing my own version of MGT's design system for my own TU. It's still got gremlins, but of a different kind... It's starting to look like a different game. So, No, Tom, I won't degremlin them any more than I have for the errata.

Well at least I tried to get rid the gremlins, anybody you know that would take them off my hands

 

[Hyphen]

No wait, I do use the expanded tables in MT for more variety when generating random cargo, but otherwise its CT all the way.

(FWIW, I have a set of expanded cargo tables on my site. If you're interested, they are under Repair Bays --> House Rules. Initially they were based on the CT tables, but have been hacked. A Lot. ;-)

 

[sabredog]

hmmmm.....I'll go check those out! Thanks!

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening Hyphen,

Thanks for dropping by and I like your site.

(FWIW, I have a set of expanded cargo tables on my site. If you're interested, they are under Repair Bays --> House Rules. Initially they were based on the CT tables, but have been hacked. A Lot. ;-)

 

[dean]

Back to the Original Topic; in Re: differences in size allocations for smaller ships vs larger ones for small craft.

I like to think of it this way: on a smaller vessel, even one of, say a close structure or sphere, any given point inside the ship is relatively close to the surface; a larger vessel has less external suface area accessible from any random point inside the ship (reference the cube/square rule). Thus, small craft in smaller vessels are more easily acessible, for loading, docking, and servicing; indeed,the "underside" of the small craft may serve as part of the vessel's exterior skin in normal operations with in docked and locked.

Just my interpretation of the rules as written.

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening Dean,

Back to the Original Topic; in Re: differences in size allocations for smaller ships vs larger ones for small craft.

I like to think of it this way: on a smaller vessel, even one of, say a close structure or sphere, any given point inside the ship is relatively close to the surface; a larger vessel has less external suface area accessible from any random point inside the ship (reference the cube/square rule). Thus, small craft in smaller vessels are more easily acessible, for loading, docking, and servicing; indeed,the "underside" of the small craft may serve as part of the vessel's exterior skin in normal operations with in docked and locked.

Just my interpretation of the rules as written.

The posts for my topics do seem to wander a bit off course, I knew I should have paid the extra credits for the new computer and not the rebuilt one.:rofl:

Your view is something like mine, perhaps better, on how the carried craft is stowed. The Gazelle's 20-ton gig is, I think, what you describe as being part of the Gazelle's exterior.

Thanks for the insight.

 

[sabredog]

You're right, the Gazelle's gig is partially outside the hull of the ship, but not part of the hull, per se, and so I don't know that it is a structural part of the hull. I think Dean is on to something, though, and it's a more simply put way of saying what I did earlier: that the larger subordinate craft need more room inside for getting things in and out of them.

Also, a modular craft like the cutter would need extra space for the modules, but the rules don't say how much space that should be. What does anyone use for that? I use the same 130% rule to allow for the gear to store, swap, and allow for cargo loading on them. Anyone else have different thoughts?

 

[Carlobrand]

You're right, the Gazelle's gig is partially outside the hull of the ship, but not part of the hull, per se, and so I don't know that it is a structural part of the hull. I think Dean is on to something, though, and it's a more simply put way of saying what I did earlier: that the larger subordinate craft need more room inside for getting things in and out of them.

Also, a modular craft like the cutter would need extra space for the modules, but the rules don't say how much space that should be. What does anyone use for that? I use the same 130% rule to allow for the gear to store, swap, and allow for cargo loading on them. Anyone else have different thoughts?

Cutter modules? Broadsword makes separate provision for them. I'd say if you want them, you need to make separate space for them. That 130% for the cutter doesn't even amount to half the mass of a module, so it isn't even enough to manage a switch-out.

For Navy ships, I figure the multipurpose module out of Traders and Gunboats is adequate to most needs, with a collapsible fuel bladder in the cargo bay. Allows the boat to transport a few people, take on cargo, or serve as a fueler as needed. If there's need for a special-duty module, I figure the naval base keeps specialty modules and does the exchange before the ship heads out on whatever mission requires a special boat.

 

[far-trader]

Cutter modules? Broadsword makes separate provision for them. I'd say if you want them, you need to make separate space for them. That 130% for the cutter doesn't even amount to half the mass of a module, so it isn't even enough to manage a switch-out.

Yep, Broadswords handle that by doing the module shuffle. Cutter flies out, drops module to drift in space, flies back in, grabs module it wants, flies out again, drops that module to drift in space, grabs the other module, flies in again, stores the first module, flies back out last time, grabs drifting desired module, goes on mission... finally

And of course being under 1000tons it only needs 50tons for each module equipped cutter and an extra 60tons for the 2 spare modules So it doesn't answer the question about tonnage for extra modules on ships over 1ktons.

 

[sabredog]

Cutter modules? Broadsword makes separate provision for them. I'd say if you want them, you need to make separate space for them. That 130% for the cutter doesn't even amount to half the mass of a module, so it isn't even enough to manage a switch-out.

.

Yes I know that...I was wondering if, since it isn't considered in the rules, do they have to have space allotted as per small craft, or as per other vehicles, which are stored at their own tonnage?

 

[Icosahedron]

indeed,the "underside" of the small craft may serve as part of the vessel's exterior skin in normal operations with in docked and locked.

I like this.

If there's need for a special-duty module, I figure the naval base keeps specialty modules and does the exchange before the ship heads out on whatever mission requires a special boat.

Thunderbirds are go!

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning Sabredog,

You're right, the Gazelle's gig is partially outside the hull of the ship, but not part of the hull, per se, and so I don't know that it is a structural part of the hull. I think Dean is on to something, though, and it's a more simply put way of saying what I did earlier: that the larger subordinate craft need more room inside for getting things in and out of them.

Also, a modular craft like the cutter would need extra space for the modules, but the rules don't say how much space that should be. What does anyone use for that? I use the same 130% rule to allow for the gear to store, swap, and allow for cargo loading on them. Anyone else have different thoughts?

My take is that the crew, and passenger access points are aligned with matching hatches on the interior bulkheads.

Depends on where the modules are being stored. If the modules are stored in the hangar the minimum on hulls > 1,000 tons is 1.3, if in a cargo hold then at 1 x displacement tons would be minimum. I prefer putting the modules in cargo holds, I designate as module bays, next to the hangar, mainly because I'm cheap.

 

[Carlobrand]

Yes I know that...I was wondering if, since it isn't considered in the rules, do they have to have space allotted as per small craft, or as per other vehicles, which are stored at their own tonnage?

Well, 30 tons is a bit big to equate something with a vehicle and apply vehicle rules. On the other hand, the only thing you're doing with the module is storing it between uses - I don't think it needs the same space a boat needs in a large ship. I'd say if you've got a ship purpose-built to carry the things, treat them as cargo and assign 30 tons each adjacent to the boat bay. Now, if you want to do the exchange aboard ship, you'd need some extra space for it, maybe an additional 30 tons, but you're always free to do a Broadsword.