• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

CT Only: Favorite Classic Traveller ship(s)

Very true, but isn't the whole point of hiring a naval architect is so he can take that class hull you want, and then tweak it to what you want? You're right, you can't cram a J2 drive into a J1 space (maybe there's a TL rule in T5 to mitigate that), but you can take a J1 stock plan, and have the plans modified to accommodate a J2 drive.
 
Very true, but isn't the whole point of hiring a naval architect is so he can take that class hull you want, and then tweak it to what you want? You're right, you can't cram a J2 drive into a J1 space (maybe there's a TL rule in T5 to mitigate that), but you can take a J1 stock plan, and have the plans modified to accommodate a J2 drive.

The CT standard hulls are a HUGE cost savings. Especially for 200 and 400 ton hulls.
 
400t standard hull has a 50t drive bay.
Jump 2 - D, 25t
power plant 2 - D, 13t
maneuver drive 2 - D, 7t

It all fits in a 50t drive slot.

You could upgrade the power plant to E to allow double fire, you could drop the jump drive down to a B and have maneuver 3 and still have double fire capability.
 
The massive increase in cost of ship's hull as size increases is always something that has both puzzled and bugged me, as it does not in any way approximate the Real World. To go from a 200 tin hull to an 800 ton hull, a size increase of a factor of 4, means a cost increase of a factor of 1o, from 8 Million Credits to 80 Million Credits. That is just the cost of the ship structure on which everything is mounted, not the overall cost of the ship itself.

An increase in volume of a factor of 4 should equate to roughly an increase in surface area of the hull of about 2.5, using the 2/3 power for similar hulls. Even allowing for somewhat increased hull thickness for a larger diameter cylinder under internal pressure, any increase in the cost of the ship hull should be directly proportional to the increase in size, not significantly greater. Larger ships, at least commercial ships, should cost less per volume ton that smaller ships, that is why there has been a continual increase in size of cargo and passenger ships over the last 100 years.

In Traveller, you have just the reverse, ships massively increasing in cost with an increase in size, and required crew increasing to match the increased size. A minimum drive package for a 200 tons ship runs 15 tons in mass/volume and costs 22 Million Credits. A minimum drive package for an 800 tons ship runs 45 tons in mass/volume, but costs 88 Million Credits, meaning that the cost of the drive increases faster than the size/volume, rather than decreasing in cost per ton as the size increases. In the Real World, crew size is pretty much the same regardless of the size of the ship. The minimum crew for a 1000 ton commercial ship would run about 18 or so, for a 40,000 ton commercial ship, about 36 or so, and that mainly is an increased deck force, and an increase in engineers on duty from 1 to 2, plus an extra watch keeper on the bridge.
 
To go from a 200 tin hull to an 800 ton hull, a size increase of a factor of 4, means a cost increase of a factor of 1o, from 8 Million Credits to 80 Million Credits.

I see it as a discount in standard very small hulls, with all other construction at KCr100 per ton.
 
I see it as a discount in standard very small hulls

most of the A yards are (would be) taken up with imperial naval construction and maintenance. but in the spinward marches, using tcs rules, there's quite a few A yards that have capacities of 1000 to 10,000 dtons (or even 100 dtons!) that might jump at a chance to establish their reputations and bolster their experience by building a handful of custom merchant boats at subsidized prices.
 
I see it as a discount in standard very small hulls, with all other construction at KCr100 per ton.

Big cutoff there between 600 and 800 tons. Have to figure it's some sort of Liberty Ship mass production advantage.

I excuse a lot of the manning differences to the bridge being a minimum 20 tons, costing 5 times as much as standard hull and being such huge chunks of space on the smaller ships.

You don't get 2% of the hull until 1000 tons plus. So I figure the rest of it is a huge amount of automation, in decreasing effectiveness the less percentage of the ship it is.

Put another way, the Type S has 10x the automation of a 1000-ton vessel, Type A/Y 5x, Type R 2.5x, Type M 1.6x, and the Type C 1.25x.

To get the Type A's level of automation, the 1000 ton ship is going to have to spend 100 tons and 50 MCr on the bridge/automation systems, a real hit on both the sunk capital costs AND lost profit capacity.

As more room is available for crewing, the cost of .45 MCr per half-stateroom + wages and coverage starts looking REALLY good.

Of course, the economics of a deep survey or raider ship may favor the smaller crewing/automation even with the greater tonnage.
 
Although the limited payload makes me view the trad Book 2 Type-S as something that nobody would actually bother to make as you can't do much with it. However, this limited payload is largely a function of the Book 2 design system. I think that an actual Type-S-ish ship would be built with a more useful specification - perhaps faster and/or more cargo. Pretty much any other starship design system for Traveller (HG, MT, FFS etc, MgT) would produce a ship that could carry a useful payload.
The Type S itself is absolutely an artifact of the LBB2 design system. It's literally the smallest, and almost the cheapest, starship that can be built under those rules. They'd be built in quantity for that reason alone in a universe where LBB2 is the only system under which starships can be built. It's nice that even while being that small and cheap, it can still do J-2. In a HG universe, much of the role of the Type S would be filled by mass-produced 100 Td ships with J-1/1G and 40-some-odd tons of cargo hold or staterooms.

(As an aside, the power plant fuel rules in LBB2 never made sense to me; why should a Size A powerplant burn 20 tons fuel iper month in a 100 ton hull, but only 10 tons of fuel in a 200 ton hull? Use the latter fuel consumption rate and you only need 10Td fuel for the power plant in a Type S, freeing up 10Td for more cargo hold. Still not much to work with, but it's enough for some light speculation if that's the way your players roll.)

Never really had that problem with the Scout, myself, because of its purported mission: it's mostly meant to move & gather information, not stuff; and as starships go, it's pretty expendable.

And in game terms, it's really ideal. It's a conveyance - don't need to fuss over the details too much. (If your players are beyond the constraints a type S offers, well, so much the better. It's nice to have self-motivated players.)
[Bold added]
This, exactly. Enough staterooms for a small player party, an Air/Raft so they can wander around on-world, just enough cargo space for an expanded Ship's Locker; if in detached service the fuel is free (implicit onboard refining) and so is periodic maintenance at Scout bases.

It's ideal for campaigns where your players want to travel for the sake of the trip (exploration, playing tourist, being interstellar social butterflies, etc.), or where the PCs skills and abilities rather than the ship itself are the revenue source.

It enables wandering around without having to worry about the big expenses of starship operation or the ongoing expense and inconvenience of booking starship tickets.
In game terms, it's functionally similar to awarding each character a TAS membership with hotel and rental-car vouchers at every stop.

If you want a game centered on trade/speculation or interaction with passengers, give the party a Type A or A2. If you specifically don't want it to go that way, putting them into a detached Type S can forestall it.

Its a really difficult question because there were a heck of a lot of great ships in Classic Traveller helped a lot by some great design, ships plans, and illustrations. I love so many of them. But the favourite has to be the Type S Scout for its simplicity and purity of its form. Its a classic indeed.
Agreed. The arrow-head design was easy to sketch out, and then detail as necessity allowed or skill permitted. Lots of good artwork depicting them over the years. And the canon deckplans seemed to be laid out pretty sensibly.
 
I confess a continued fondness for the 100Ton X-boat, the most overlooked and under-developed ship in the ISS fleet.

The maneuver-drive-less X-boat gives me a severe pain in the Suspension of Disbelief. Especially after the rules changed to allow a 100T ship to fit in J4 and M1. (Mind you, Maneuver-0.1 would have been good enough for me).


Hans
Yeah. It was a rules-exploit/corner case of the First Edition LBB2 rules ("Look, you can almost fit J-4 into a 100Td hull if you fudge a bit and squint a little -- let's do this!") that became canon before the rules changed and made it irrelevant. Ideally, the rules should have been tweaked to keep the canon XBoat as the best that could be done with a 100 Td hull at typical Imperial tech levels.

The problem is that HG changed the paradigm of Tech Levels with respect to starship engines. In LBB2 & 3, increasing TL allowed the construction of bigger, but not better, drives*. A Drive Letter B power plant built at TL 15 was identical to a Drive Letter B power plant built at TL 9. Under HG rules, a TL 15 power plant was one-third the size of the equivalent built at TL 9. This meant that if the rules didn't leave enough room for a maneuver drive in a TL 12 Xboat, by TL 13 there would be room for one simply because the power plant was smaller.


* LBB2 had significant variation in power plant efficiencies based on the size of the hull in which they were mounted! (This only loosely correlated with TL.) For example, a Drive Letter A power plant in a 100 Td hull had a PN of 2 and thus required 20 tons of fuel per month. That same power plant in a 200 Td hull had a PN of 1 and therefore only required 10 tons of fuel per month. And a Drive Letter K power plant in a 1000 Td hull had a PN of 2, so only needed 20 tons of fuel per month -- exactly the same fuel requirements as a Drive Letter A power plant in a hull 1/10th the size.
 
...
The problem is that HG changed the paradigm of Tech Levels with respect to starship engines. In LBB2 & 3, increasing TL allowed the construction of bigger, but not better, drives*.
...
* LBB2 had significant variation in power plant efficiencies based on the size of the hull in which they were mounted! (This only loosely correlated with TL.) For example, a Drive Letter A power plant in a 100 Td hull had a PN of 2 and thus required 20 tons of fuel per month. That same power plant in a 200 Td hull had a PN of 1 and therefore only required 10 tons of fuel per month. And a Drive Letter K power plant in a 1000 Td hull had a PN of 2, so only needed 20 tons of fuel per month -- exactly the same fuel requirements as a Drive Letter A power plant in a hull 1/10th the size.

don't take the design system too seriously, a design system that does not make differences between volume and mass (a fully loaded 400 dt trader handle as an empty 400 dt trader) is an allegoric design system (allegory: a story in wich every element is a metaphor)

The "raison d'être" of Traveller's LBB ships is to move PC around and the design system is intended simply as a way to allow some creative freedom while enforcing the old rule "every design is a compromise" without requiring an aerospace degree for ship design. Actually, blissfull ignorance -forgetting science 101: difference between mass and volume- is an asset.

Seeing old quote from Hans surface make me miss him, even if we more often than not disagreed.

have fun

Selandia
 
don't take the design system too seriously, a design system that does not make differences between volume and mass (a fully loaded 400 dt trader handle as an empty 400 dt trader) is an allegoric design system (allegory: a story in wich every element is a metaphor)

The "raison d'être" of Traveller's LBB ships is to move PC around and the design system is intended simply as a way to allow some creative freedom while enforcing the old rule "every design is a compromise" without requiring an aerospace degree for ship design. Actually, blissfull ignorance -forgetting science 101: difference between mass and volume- is an asset.

Seeing old quote from Hans surface make me miss him, even if we more often than not disagreed.

have fun

Selandia
I hadn't quite connected that he was no longer with us, since I only started here recently. In looking back through his posts he seems to have put a lot of thought into what he wrote.

I agree that the design rules are "allegorical" -- they didn't need to be realistic, just plausibile and consistent. Back in the early 1980s, few players would have had the computer spreadsheets needed to track everything "realistically" (and doing it by hand and calculator would have been unplayably burdensome).

That said, though, I love the idea of the XBoat as a just a big jump drive, its fuel tank, and barely enough room left over for the pilot. It creates an interesting element of the game setting -- one worth handwaving the fact that it's straining the LBB2 design rules, and would be an entirely different courier ship if built under HG rules. That comes back to your idea that the design rules are open to a bit of "flexibility" for narrative effect. I'm ok with that as a loophole to justify a background element, but not as something that players can exploit.

The theory presented elsewhere that the XBoat's lack of maneuver drives was a bureaucratic or political decision rather than one dictated by engineering constraints provides a TL-independent explanation, even if it's not entirely convincing.
 
don't take the design system too seriously, a design system that does not make differences between volume and mass (a fully loaded 400 dt trader handle as an empty 400 dt trader) is an allegoric design system (allegory: a story in wich every element is a metaphor)

Typically the design system, is based on a "standard density" with a "reasonable distribution" of cargo and such within the ship. Yea, it doesn't consider empty, dry weight, and it also assumed you're not stacking pallets up to the rafters of depleted uranium either.

TNE actually considers this, says that if your ship is "denser than X", then use these rules for calculating acceleration and such.

Otherwise, it's a simplification of "stuff that mostly doesn't matter".
 
That said, though, I love the idea of the XBoat as a just a big jump drive, its fuel tank, and barely enough room left over for the pilot. It creates an interesting element of the game setting -- one worth handwaving the fact that it's straining the LBB2 design rules, and would be an entirely different courier ship if built under HG rules. That comes back to your idea that the design rules are open to a bit of "flexibility" for narrative effect. I'm ok with that as a loophole to justify a background element, but not as something that players can exploit. .

Agree The XBoat network was an essential component of the TI background. One could rationalize that the Scout service could optimize a design that players relying on "standard" LBB2 ship design could not.

The theory presented elsewhere that the XBoat's lack of maneuver drives was a bureaucratic or political decision rather than one dictated by engineering constraints provides a TL-independent explanation, even if it's not entirely convincing.

You will see that rationalisation of canon is a constant undertaking here.

have fun

Selandia
 
White Dwarf - Type H Scout Hunter

GMed a good long campaign for Bounty Hunters/Mercs using that ship.
White Dwarf #70
 
I also don't see why the scouts did not have some J-6 messenger ships to back up the clandestine J-6 Noble Network.
 
Back
Top