CT/MT/T20 to TNE armor/weapons conversion

[Theophilus]

Hi All,

I'm wondering if anyone has done any house rules, etc for converting Classic Traveller, Mega-T or T20 armor to a TNE system. I know there are various "systems" in use. One is to use the Percentage of Armor from CT and match it in TNE, ie. armor 10 in CT (at TL15) takes 10+1 or 11%, so when designing a TNE version of a CT ship you use 11 percent of the volume. This seems to give rediculously high armor ratings (in my opinion), For instance an AHL with armor-5 uses 6%, That equals armor greater than most TNE dreadnaught carry.

The other method is the direct armor to armor conversion, Striker had rules for converting CT armor to striker armor. CT armor-15 was striker armor 85, (which is MT armor 15). 85/14(toughness)=6 Cm of armor, 6cm of TNE armor is rediculously low in TNE.

The same goes for Spinal mounts, Ton for Ton conversion gives HUGE Paws and small meson guns, But canon TNE has "battleship class meson guns at 200,000 Mj", Which is a huge weapon under TNE design rules.

Any suggestions, ideas etc.????

 

[aramis]

MT and Striker armro values can be converted to TNE/T4 vehicle armors: the thickness can be serived from the striker rules. MT AV's, except for IIRC two at the high end, match striker AV's. This results in a thinkness, which can be taken to FF&S directly....

 

[Theophilus]

MT and Striker armro values can be converted to TNE/T4 vehicle armors: the thickness can be serived from the striker rules. MT AV's, except for IIRC two at the high end, match striker AV's. This results in a thinkness, which can be taken to FF&S directly....

While this is true it doesn't follow the published designs from GDW.

For instance, the Tigress from CT has an armor value of 15, which is striker 85, dividing 85 by the toughness of the armor give a thickness of 6.5 +/- cm. Converted to TNE 6.5 cm of armor is a rating of 147. (IIRC).

Obviously in TNE an armor of 147 is extremely low, when a 4500 ton TL-12 237.5 GJ PAW can do 2400+ damage, a Tigress with armor 147 is doomed.

 

[The Oz]

The way I read STRIKER/HG conversions is like this:

HG armor of 15 = STRIKER armor of 85

STRIKER armor of 85 = 1660cm of hard steel equivalent

1660cm of hard steel = 59.29cm of bonded superdense armor.

Then use this thickness in TNE to find the armor rating.

Is that better?

 

[Theophilus]

No,
How do you come up with the 59cm figure?
1660/14=118
if your doubling for slope, maybe, but how do you slope a "ships" armor, when fire can come from any direction.

 

[The Oz]

I see what I did. I messed up and used the toughness figure from FF&S 2, which is 28, instead of 14, which is the STRIKER figure. So you're right that a Tigress has 118 cm of bonded superdense armor.

That's quite a bit of armor.

 

[Theophilus]

118 cm of Bonded Superdense armor in TNE gives an aromr rating of 3320, quite a bit of armor. Converting other CT/Striker armor ratings to TNE gives these values.

CT /Striker Cm of Armor TNE Armor
0/60 13.571 380
1/64 19.214 538
2/67 24.93 698
3/70 32.86 911
4/72 38.43 1076
5/74 45.714 1280
6/76 54.357 1522
7/77 59.286 1660
8/78 64.64 1810
9/79 70.5 1975
10/80 77.143 2160
11/81 83.57 2340
12/82 91.43 2560
13/83 100 2800
14/84 108.571 3040
15/85 118.571 3320

Using these figures and comparing them to most TNE designs floating around out there Most TNE dreadnaughts have armor in the 7-13 range.

Most Cruisers fall in the 0-5 range.

When you do a CT to TNE conversion for spinal weapons a PAWS will have a damage rating about equal to the armor value for a comparable sized ship. For instance: a TL 12 4500 ton N-Paws, 300m length with a 3m aperature has a DE of 237.5 Mj, and does 2400+/- damages.

 

[TheDS]

The Battle Rider game has some of the capital ships converted into that system. One can LOOSELY convert to regular TNE from that.

Not long ago, I went through the various MT and TNE ship designs, to try and figure out a decent way to do this kind of thing. Because of the ridiculous usage of HEPlaR as a space drive, ships in TNE are notably less powerful when compared to their MT versions. Often, this is manifest in reduced cargo capacity (to the point that the Subsidized Liner nosedives into unprofitability), lesser drive performance (generally less Gs, and of course, always less endurance), and might be manifest in less powerful weapons. However, one must realize that the MT and TNE combat systems are very different.

One must be thoroughly familiar with both before attempting a conversion, to get anything like a meaningful result. For instance, MT ships had a minimum armor value of 40. This rather arbitrary value means that even cargo ships are tough customers. However, I am unfortunately not well versed in MT combat to make bold and sweeping claims, so I'll stop right there.

To do a conversion, one must also have some idea what the ship is supposed to do, and how it compares to other ships. For instance, a cargo ship needs to have as much cargo space as possible. This seems obvious, but there IS more to it. The Free trader has minimal G and Jump. The Far Trader has improved Jump, but still minimal G. The Liner has good performance in both regards, because it is a passenger service craft, and passengers like to get there a little faster than cargo.

These are simple cargo craft that you must figure out. At least they don't require weapons or armor. When you add those needs, things can get complicated.

What, pray-tell, is a destroyer supposed to do? A cruiser? A battleship? You must either understand what the official stance is, or make your own YTU stance. Then, make sure that your designs fulfill those requirements, and are designed such that they resemble to some regard what you're trying to convert.

There is NO formula for doing this; there CAN'T be. Each is a custom job, and the results you get are going to be different from everyone else's, even if we all agree on as much as possible. You must judge for yourself if your conversion has the same feel as the original.

There is one final problem to be overcome. In MT, spinal mounts were of standardized sizes, and in really big ships, they were really small, so the bulk was made up with huge numbers of other weapons, like turrets and bays. A TNE ship, otoh, allows you to give over up to about half your volume to a spinal mount, and have room for only just enough equipmet to support it; no scads of secondaries and tertiaries. That doesn't mean you HAVE TO do it that way, just that you need to be aware that a ship with lots of small weapons is going to be used in a different way from a ship with one big weapon, in the same way that in 1906 (ish) battleship design went from lots of little guns to a few big ones.

You are given the dilemma to design ships "the right way" (using Dreadnought philosphy), or go by the book for a more authentic feel, even though the MT designs are that way due to a deficiency in the design sequence. Everyone's gonna gripe no matter what you do, so do what you feel is best. You wind up needing to find the right balancing point of big and small weapons, and with feel.

 

[Theophilus]

TheDS,

From Hobart,
I'm in Hope, IN.

All your points are valid, I'm just looking for some "standardized" way of converting designs. Everone has there own "Ideas" about what should be standard.
Curiosity, just plain curiosity.

Canon TNE say's a "battlship class meson gun is 200,000 mj DE." and as you point out this is a huge mount.

During the design of a TL12 battleship I acheived an "armor rating" of 7, on the above chart. Oddly, in CT tl12 armor-7 takes (2+2*7=16%) the same amount of armor as a tl15 (1+1*15=16%) armor-15 design. So there is a synergy in the design sequence, even in TNE.

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by Theophilus:
TheDS,

From Hobart,
I'm in Hope, IN.

All your points are valid, I'm just looking for some "standardized" way of converting designs. Everone has there own "Ideas" about what should be standard.
Curiosity, just plain curiosity.

Canon TNE say's a "battlship class meson gun is 200,000 mj DE." and as you point out this is a huge mount.

During the design of a TL12 battleship I acheived an "armor rating" of 7, on the above chart. Oddly, in CT tl12 armor-7 takes (2+2*7=16%) the same amount of armor as a tl15 (1+1*15=16%) armor-15 design. So there is a synergy in the design sequence, even in TNE.

Well, to convert weapons literally: use MT power input to an HPG, designed for one shot per 20 minutes. use the rest of the displacement tonnage (not KL, due to discrepancies in the tons) for the weapon.

Bays use 1 Td missiles.
Turrets & missiles from CT/MT era were posted to the TML many years ago.

 

[Rupert Boleyn]

Originally posted by TheDS:

Not long ago, I went through the various MT and TNE ship designs, to try and figure out a decent way to do this kind of thing. Because of the ridiculous usage of HEPlaR as a space drive, ships in TNE are notably less powerful when compared to their MT versions. Often, this is manifest in reduced cargo capacity (to the point that the Subsidized Liner nosedives into unprofitability), lesser drive performance (generally less Gs, and of course, always less endurance), and might be manifest in less powerful weapons. However, one must realize that the MT and TNE combat systems are very different.

There is one area TNE ships were more powerful - all that HEPlaR fuel means that they can choose to jump a second time before refuelling if they've not manoeuvred too much yet.

One must be thoroughly familiar with both before attempting a conversion, to get anything like a meaningful result. For instance, MT ships had a minimum armor value of 40. This rather arbitrary value means that even cargo ships are tough customers. However, I am unfortunately not well versed in MT combat to make bold and sweeping claims, so I'll stop right there.

AV40 in MT means quite a bit in ground combat, but in space combat it's the equivalent to HG's Armour=0. In terms of game effect (MT's AV-40)/3 is about the equivalent HG armour.