CT Ship Errata Discussion : X-Boat Tender

[far-trader]

Part 2 of working out errata fixes for some of the problem ships in CT, the X-Boat Tender. My take to kick things off again follows, weigh in with your own ideas, suggestions, questions and whatever and we'll hammer out a best solution for Don.

The idea is (as I understand it) to seek the lowest possible change with the greatest possible match to the description while ensuring it works with the 1981 set of Book 2 design rules.

EDIT: No totally redesigned "better, faster, stronger..." versions of "the way it should have been done"

So, on to the Express Boat Tender from Supplement 7...

 

[far-trader]

Express Boat Tender (Supplement 7):

+1000tons Hull-Custom                            MCr100.000
            Unstreamlined
  -45tons Jump Drive H1                              80.000   *1
  -15tons Maneuver H1                                32.000   *1
  -25tons Power Plant H1                             64.000   *1
 -100tons Fuel x1parsecs
  -10tons Fuel x4weeks
  -40tons Fuel x 1 X-Boat Refuel                              *2
  -20tons Bridge                                      5.000
   -3tons Computer Model/3                           18.000   *3
   -3tons Hardpoints x3                               0.300
      ??    Popup                                     ??    
      ??    Tracked                                   ??    
      ??    Tracked                                   ??    
  -40tons Staterooms x10                              5.000
  -10tons Lowberths x20                               1.000
  -60tons Cargo/Parts Storage
 -600tons Repair Bay                                          *4

 =971tons Total                                  MCr305.300

Cost with 10% discount is MCr274.77                           *5

*1 Note the overbuilt drives provide redundancy

*2 Envisioning high pressure fueling via probe from this tank

*3 Includes the noted “extensive databanks” in my opinion

*4 Note the way Book 2 design is I don’t see why the note about “can accommodate four express boats or two scout/couriers” shouldn’t be “corrected” to read “can accommodate four express boats and two scout/couriers”. I like the attempt at making a rational choice based on what will actually fit within the shape as shown. And I can see the extra tonnage (50% overage) being useful for repairs, allowing room to open and remove parts. But it makes more sense I think to change that from a design rules perspective.

*5 Matches the cost in the writeup

The only real problem is there are 29tons left over (see suggestions below). Price is correct for unarmed version and presuming no extra cost (but perhaps extra tonnage) for:

Pop-up turret - suggest 1ton extra (per High Guard)

Tracked turrets - suggest 1ton extra each (using above as precedent)

Electronics repair shop - suggest 6tons extra (per T4 for compatibility, ignoring cost)

Machine shop - suggest 10tons extra (per T4 for compatibility, ignoring cost)

Fuel lab - suggest 8tons extra (per T4 for compatibility, ignoring cost)

Note - The fuel lab is not a purifier in the HG sense. Book 2 didn’t require it for safe use of unrefined fuel aboard Naval and Scout ships (for whatever reasoning). Or perhaps the rule was meant to cover a fuel purifier being part of the design (which I generally house rule it as) at no extra cost or tonnage. In which case the fuel lab is still that, not a purifier (that is built in) but for quality control of said fuel to reduce the impact on the X-Boats.

Refuelling probe - suggest 2tons extra (because that’s what was left)

 

[Starviking]

*4 Note the way Book 2 design is I don’t see why the note about “can accommodate four express boats or two scout/couriers” shouldn’t be “corrected” to read “can accommodate four express boats and two scout/couriers”. I like the attempt at making a rational choice based on what will actually fit within the shape as shown. And I can see the extra tonnage (50% overage) being useful for repairs, allowing room to open and remove parts. But it makes more sense I think to change that from a design rules perspective.

I don't know - design rules are all well and good - but it's simple geometry that the number of ships carried are constrained by their dimensions. The T&G accommodation comment adds a nice ring of truth to the setting.

 

[far-trader]

I don't know - design rules are all well and good - but it's simple geometry that the number of ships carried are constrained by their dimensions. The T&G accommodation comment adds a nice ring of truth to the setting.

I do agree, but I'm torn because it isn't the way the design rules are written. I'd probably note that it can accommodate any 600tons of ships but for maintenance and repair be limited to the bay size. Or some such.

 

[far-trader]

I seem to have slipped in some errata of my own in the work above. Somehow the hardpoints didn't get copied in though it looks like they were added into the total. Correcting...

 

[DonM]

It looks like you've got some T4-isms in your CT build there. That's not errata...

What about:

+1000tons Hull-Custom                            MCr100.000
            Unstreamlined
  -45tons Jump Drive H1                              80.000
  -15tons Maneuver H1                                32.000
  -25tons Power Plant H1                             64.000
 -100tons Fuel x1parsecs
  -10tons Fuel x4weeks
  -40tons Fuel x1Xboat Refuel
  -20tons Bridge                                      5.000
   -3tons Computer Model/3                           18.000
   -3tons Hardpoints x3                               0.300
   -1ton  Popup                                       0.000    
   -1ton  Tracked                                     0.000    
   -1ton  Tracked                                     0.000
   -1ton  External Fuel Probe                         0.000    
  -40tons Staterooms x10                              5.000
  -10tons Lowberths x20                               1.000
  -85tons Cargo/Parts Storage
 -600tons Repair Bay
 
 =1000tons Total                                  MCr305.300
 
Cost with 10% discount is MCr274.77

This really means the only errata is changing the cargo from 60 tons to 85 tons, right?

 

[Whipsnade]

Don,

If memory serves, Dan's on a vacation this week to visit relatives, so I don't know how often he'll be checking in.

Seeing as he did most of the heavy lifting in these ship design errata threads, might it be better to either wait for him to get back or contact him directly?


Regards,
Bill

 

[DonM]

I still like to post the errata discussions in public, but certainly we can wait until he's back...

 

[Whipsnade]

Don,

Please be assured, I'm not suggesting these discussions and the consensus they produce be kept private.

What I was doing was pointing out that Dan, the man who began, "stickied", and posted the fist round of solutions in these threads, is not here and that, perhaps, any final decisions should either wait for his return or be run past him in case he was aware of options we'd missed.


Regards,
Bill

 

[DonM]

No problems there, but I finally had some time to come back to this, and I didn't want to not post my thoughts and forget them... or not have time later to come back to them.

 

[DonM]

And I just realized that the fuel for refueling the Xboats is only 40 tons -- they really need 55 tons (or they won't have any fuel to run their power plants with).

 

[rancke]

And I just realized that the fuel for refueling the Xboats is only 40 tons -- they really need 55 tons (or they won't have any fuel to run their power plants with).

The tender's jump fuel is not needed while it's operating, and it's not servicing X-boats while it is relocating, so you can count on the jump fuel tankage as available for the X-boats. You could cut the X-boat fuel by 30T and still have enough to service two X-boats before topping up, or add 25T and have enough for three.


Hans

 

[DonM]

Except that since the tender is a jump-1 ship that cannot refuel itself, you have to be careful operating in low-tech systems without water or gas giants.

Those things can happen.

 

[rancke]

Except that since the tender is a jump-1 ship that cannot refuel itself, you have to be careful operating in low-tech systems without water or gas giants.

If only those tenders were employed by an organization with the experience and resources to make sure that any tender that was stationed in a system without a ready source of fuel was supplied by regular fuelers.

I'm more inclined to wonder why those tenders have jump drives in the first place. They're supposed to be permanent fixtures most of the time, aren't they? Why don't the X-boat service just have an adequate supply of jump shuttles instead of paying for thousands of expensive jump drives that won't actually be used from one decade to the next?


Hans

 

[DonM]

Politics. Someone realized that if you put jump-1s on the tenders, they could also carry messages in some circumstances, which means that in general practice, they cover the jump-1s in the route instead of the Xboats. And some of them are scattered along Way Stations and even some Scout Bases, to support other scout activities.

And (IMTU) a few have been bought by "naval mercenary" (ie, privateering) companies, because they are more useful than the corsair.

And because one big momma (an Xboat Tender), two sisters (two corsairs) and four friends (usually type T patrol cruisers) can do a lot for a subsector fleet that needs to have a scratch group of ships find an alleged pirate (or zho spy, or swordie renegade, etc).

Plenty of fun without any of the ships being bigger than 2K in size. Because a Tigress is NEVER around when you need one.

Hmm... most of this post is completely unrelated to the thread. Sigh...

 

[christopher.boote]

And I just realized that the fuel for refueling the Xboats is only 40 tons -- they really need 55 tons (or they won't have any fuel to run their power plants with).

Not with LBB2 version 1 they didn't
Xboats never had a PP way back then

 

[DonM]

Not with LBB2 version 1 they didn't
Xboats never had a PP way back then

But the errata is for Book 2 '81...