Fleet class names?
- Thread starter Hal
- Start date
LeperColony
Traveller Card Game Dev Team
Wouldn't capabilities be, at least to some extent, edition dependent?
Not a file, but such a list does exist - Art Gorski's excellent RPGGeek geeklist at https://rpggeek.com/geeklist/108815/ships-third-imperium
Jump-2, Man-2 400 dton would be one "shorthand" way of describing the capabilities. In GURPS, where the mass of a ship does affect its maneuver rating, some ships might have a G rating or Manuever rating of 2.08 G's or what have you. The idea is to get some feel for what is supposed to make the ship what it is. If you have an Armored Assault Shuttle, knowing that it should carry X soldiers and be heavily armored etc - helps those who want to use the class name and function in their own game system as opposed to having to use the original game system is a possible goal.
That's a start, but I'm thinking along the lines of all of the ships ever produced in ANY product as it were.
It started to annoy me that I was trying to read the one PDF predating SECTOR FLEET, which uses class names, but I've no idea what the class was in general. Minor things like that which made me think "too bad there isn't a complete listing of all ship classes for all ships - be they CT, MT, TNE, T4, T5, MgT, GT, HT, T20 or HT. Just a thought...
That's a start, but I'm thinking along the lines of all of the ships ever produced in ANY product as it were.
It started to annoy me that I was trying to read the one PDF predating SECTOR FLEET, which uses class names, but I've no idea what the class was in general. Minor things like that which made me think "too bad there isn't a complete listing of all ship classes for all ships - be they CT, MT, TNE, T4, T5, MgT, GT, HT, T20 or HT. Just a thought...
http://wiki.travellerrpg.com/Category:Ships -> I would suggest you could start here. If you think this list has too many things you don't want, if you can provide a specific set of examples of what to exclude (or include) I can see about generating a smaller list. The joys of having data in a database.
It would be tremendously helpful to be able to filter out non-canonical material, for starters.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Part of the problem is that they're designed using different systems.
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
And different editions of a system. The 1977 edition of Book 2 verses the 1981 edition of Book 2. First edition High Guard verses second Edition.
Why does this matter?
Considering that the ships are more alike than not, why does it matter which system the ship was designed under for 99.999999% of the uses that the ship will be used for in a RPG?
It's not like some balance problem where one system is cheaper than the other or anything like that. In RPG terms it's a hull with rooms and motors and airlocks and whatever.
If the price differential is that much then the owners either got a good deal at Happy Achmeds Used Trader Store or got ripped off and Franks Starship Lot and Payday Loan Center. Big deal.
The difference between Bk 2 and Bk5 IS that big - a Bk2 designed Type A can make a profit on freight at book rates. A Bk 5 TL15 Type A cannot, and is far less unprofitable than a Bk5 TL9 Type A.
The cost of drives is severely different between Bk2 and bk5, and the underlying proportions are different, too.
| System | Bk 2 | Bk 5 |
| Jump Drive tonnage | 5Td +(Jn × 2.5% | (Jn+1) × 1% |
| JD Price per ton | 2 | 4 |
| Maneuver Drive Tonnage | 2% – 1Td | ((Gn × 3)-1)% |
| Maneuver drive price | (Tons+1) × 2 | variable from 1.5 to 0.5 per ton of drive |
| PP tonnage | 1 Td +(Pn × 1.5%) | TL15: Pn × 1% TL13: Pn × 2% TL9: Pn × 3% TL7: Pn × 4% |
| PP Price | (Td-1) × 1.333 | 3 × Td |
Comparing the other editions to CT Bk2 81 and Bk 5 1980.
- CT Bk2 is not design compatible nor USP compatible with Bk5, except for the grandfather clause... Bk2 designs can be used to generate a USP, but Bk5 designs usually can't be used in Bk2 combat without significant house rules, and Bk2 designs require doing USP generation to be used in Bk5 combat
- CT Bk5-79 is Design semi-compatible and USP incompatible with Bk5-80.
- MegaTraveller has different ratios as well, due to increased power needs versus HG. The USP is HG compatible, tho'.
- TNE has additional requirements that don't exist in CT, MT, nor HG. Designs are not very compatible, as the additional requirements make payload space (cargo and or weapons) very different from CT/MT.
- T20 is Bk5 design compatible and Bk 5 USP compatible.
- GT isn't even actually based in Traveller - it's 100% GURPS Vehicles compatible, save for adding the jump drive.
- T4 is design compatible with TNE but USP incompatible with TNE. And with CT/MT/T20
- HT is USP compatible with CT Bk 5. It's a unique design system.
- MGT1 is design semi-compatible with CT Bk2, but has a very different relationship between weapon systems. It's also USP compatible with CT Bk2, but NOT CT Bk 5.
By USP compatible, I mean: You can grab the USP value and use it in the other system without having to convert - you just need to know how to read it.
By "Design compatible" I mean that many legal designs are in fact identical in cost, payload and performance, and only minor differences. By "Semi-compatible" I mean significant features are present in one that are absent or different in the other.
Note that CT Bk 2 designs aren't actually USP compatible with Bk5, because you have to look up the USP values to use them in Bk5.
One way to filter out different ship classes in the data base would be to have a simple "box" (or container) that contains check boxes. Each check box corresponds to specific design rules by which the ship had been designed. If you want more than one type of design system to be visible, check multiple boxes for each system you want to view.
As for system incompatibility *evil grin*
Having class names and capabilities (ie descriptions of the capabilities) be standard, someone who likes the name djöfullinn for a class name, for ships that are 1,000 dton Destroyer escorts - might make note that it was designed with GURPS TRAVELLER, but that its Jump-4, Manuever 2.8 drive with extra heavy armor, two side mounted fighter bays etc. might be worthy of being translated to High Guard 2nd edition, or to Mongoose Traveller stats. While the cost won't be the same, nor will necessarily the "stuff" that went into the GURPS TRAVELLER design be 100% reproducible in someone else's system, it will serve as an inspiration to do so.
More importantly however, now that I know of the wiki being around with ship names and the like, I can maybe start trying to reference those ships in TA007 against something that I can read to make sense of them. I'm half afraid that the ship designs mentioned in TA007 are ships that were built using T20 rules. Then again, those seem to be easily adaptable for High Guard. Can't know until I start looking.
As for system incompatibility *evil grin*
Having class names and capabilities (ie descriptions of the capabilities) be standard, someone who likes the name djöfullinn for a class name, for ships that are 1,000 dton Destroyer escorts - might make note that it was designed with GURPS TRAVELLER, but that its Jump-4, Manuever 2.8 drive with extra heavy armor, two side mounted fighter bays etc. might be worthy of being translated to High Guard 2nd edition, or to Mongoose Traveller stats. While the cost won't be the same, nor will necessarily the "stuff" that went into the GURPS TRAVELLER design be 100% reproducible in someone else's system, it will serve as an inspiration to do so.
More importantly however, now that I know of the wiki being around with ship names and the like, I can maybe start trying to reference those ships in TA007 against something that I can read to make sense of them. I'm half afraid that the ship designs mentioned in TA007 are ships that were built using T20 rules. Then again, those seem to be easily adaptable for High Guard. Can't know until I start looking.
One way to filter out different ship classes in the data base would be to have a simple "box" (or container) that contains check boxes. Each check box corresponds to specific design rules by which the ship had been designed. If you want more than one type of design system to be visible, check multiple boxes for each system you want to view.
Having class names and capabilities (ie descriptions of the capabilities) be standard, someone who likes the name djöfullinn for a class name, for ships that are 1,000 dton Destroyer escorts - might make note that it was designed with GURPS TRAVELLER, but that its Jump-4, Manuever 2.8 drive with extra heavy armor, two side mounted fighter bays etc. might be worthy of being translated to High Guard 2nd edition, or to Mongoose Traveller stats. While the cost won't be the same, nor will necessarily the "stuff" that went into the GURPS TRAVELLER design be 100% reproducible in someone else's system, it will serve as an inspiration to do so.
More importantly however, now that I know of the wiki being around with ship names and the like, I can maybe start trying to reference those ships in TA007 against something that I can read to make sense of them. I'm half afraid that the ship designs mentioned in TA007 are ships that were built using T20 rules. Then again, those seem to be easily adaptable for High Guard. Can't know until I start looking.
While not difficult to do this posting the specific stats pushes the limits of two wiki guidelines. First is the wiki is supposed to be an in-game reference. So the details of the different design systems are not supposed to exist in the consistent Traveller universe.
Second it skirts the no-game-rules line. We try very hard not to have material reproducing specific game rules.
http://wiki.travellerrpg.com/User:Tjoneslo/sandbox5 -> This page has a list of the mostly canon ships we have in the wiki. It is on one of my sandbox pages which means it may disappear at some point but it can be re-produced on need.
I know the wiki doesn't have any of the TA7 ship designs because the T20 books got pulled from sale while the wiki was still on Wikia and we couldn't reproduce the whole book in the wiki. We don't have the GT versions of the standard ships nor the Mongoose version for the same reason. And please don't add the Mongoose ones.
For what it is worth, I'd not place anything on someone else's wiki even if I had permission is because anything I'd design for use in GURPS TRAVELLER is not considered canon in how I'd deal with things. Ever try creating a duty roster for any of the canon ships with the listed crew? When I create ships for my universe, I try for a 24/7 manning of the bridge, sufficient marines to man/Secure all entry points, as well as secure a perimeter around the ship (with naval personnel to help) etc. Many ships will have galleys and work areas in addition to their bunk rooms (usually 4 to a bunk room). Captain's cabin is almost always double stateroom in size, officers usually bunk two per, as do nco's. Then I try to get the other aspects standard to TRAVELLER as best as I can. Jump drive rating gets first dibs, then maneuver drives.
This will NEVER be the same as canon designs. But if the day ever arrives when I use Fantasy Grounds 2 to run a starship naval campaign - then that's the ship "flavor" that I'll impart for the player(s) in the naval campaign. For what it is worth, I started a campaign with two players over the net, but the campaign went on hold when the player running the ship's commander underwent surgery. I'm almost tempted to restart that campaign with two different players. Got too much on my plate just now.
This will NEVER be the same as canon designs. But if the day ever arrives when I use Fantasy Grounds 2 to run a starship naval campaign - then that's the ship "flavor" that I'll impart for the player(s) in the naval campaign. For what it is worth, I started a campaign with two players over the net, but the campaign went on hold when the player running the ship's commander underwent surgery. I'm almost tempted to restart that campaign with two different players. Got too much on my plate just now.
For what it's worth, here's my personal list of ships and sources. It's geared to military ships over 2,000 dt, rimward polities, and two eras: 990 (Rim War) and 1105.
Imperial Ships
Imperial Ships
| Type | Class | Tons | Jump | TL | 990 | 1105 | Source |
| Armored Cruiser | Ghalalk | 50,000 | 4 | 15 | X | CT Fighting Ships 30, MGT Fighting Ships 21 | |
| Armored Cruiser | Resolute Bastion | 40,000 | 3 | 12 | X | T20 Fighting Ships 28 | |
| Assault Carrier | Vrenair | 300,000 | 4 | 14 | X | T20 Fighting Ships 23 | |
| Assault Ship Landing | Outrider | 5,000 | ? | ? | X | X | MGT Sector Fleet 27 |
| Assault Tender | Iridium Titan | 150,000 | ? | ? | X | MGT Sector Fleet 27 | |
| Assault Tender | Mongol | ? | ? | ? | X | MGT Sector Fleet 27 | |
| Assault Transport | Iron Horse | 20,000 | ? | ? | X | MGT Sector Fleet 26 | |
| Attack Cruiser | Tempest | 50,000 | 3 | 15 | X | High Passage 4 (48) | |
| Battle Carrier | Lurenti | 300,000 | 4 | 15 | X | CT Spinward Marches Campaign 35 | |
| Battle Rider | Cleon | ? | - | ? | X | CT Fighting Ships 40 | |
| Battle Rider | Hadrian | 50,000 | - | ? | X | CT Fighting Ships 44 | |
| Battle Rider | Nolikian | 20,000 | - | 15 | X | CT Spinward Marches Campaign 35 | |
| Battle Rider | Quiquilat | ? | - | ? | X | CT Spinward Marches Campaign 32 | |
| Battle Rider | Timarin | 30,000 | - | 13 | X | T20 Fighting Ships 20 | |
| Battle Tender | Saktil | ? | ? | ? | X | MGT Deneb 19 | |
| Battle Tender | World | 300,000 | ? | ? | X | CT Library Data A-M 16 | |
| Battlecruiser | Diaspora | 200,000 | 4 | 14 | X | T20 Fighting Ships 21 | |
| Battlecruiser | Regal | 75,000 | 4 | 14 | X | Traveller's Digest 7 (28) | |
| Battleship | Inkaalur | 100,000 | 3 | 14/15 | X | X | Far Traveller 2 (18) |
| Battleship | Sylea | 200,000 | 3 | 15 | X | CT Library Data A-M 16, TNE Battle Rider, MGT High Guard 101 | |
| Battleship | Tiananmen | 350,000 | 4 | 13 | X | T20 Fighting Ships 19 | |
| Battleship | Uzhsu | 100,000 | 4 | 14 | X | High Passage 5 (53) | |
| Battleship | Voroshilef | 200,000 | 3 | 13 | ? | X | MT Rebellion Sourcebook 82, TNE Battle Rider 12 |
| Bombardment Cruiser | Huron | 50,000 | 4 | 13 | X | T20 Fighting Ships 30 | |
| Bombardment Cruiser | Warspite | 50,000 | ? | ? | X | MGT Sector Fleet 27 | |
| Colonial Light Carrier | Darmine | 35,000 | 3 | 12 | X | T20 Fighting Ships 29 | |
| Destroyer | Agashamm | 3,000 | ? | ? | X | MGT Fighting Ships 14 | |
| Destroyer | Gormandoacy | 3,000 | 4 | 15 | X | High Passage 5 (54) | |
| Destroyer | Midu Agashaam | 3,000 | 4 | 15 | X | CT Fighting Ships 16 | |
| Destroyer | Roivalk | 3,000 | 4 | 14 | X | T20 Fighting Ships 37 | |
| Destroyer | Rubikin | ? | ? | ? | X | GT Behind the Claw 5 | |
| Dreadnought | Kokirrak | 200,000 | 4 | 15 | X | X | CT Fighting Ships 40, MGT Fighting Ships 63 |
| Dreadnought | Plankwell | 200,000 | 4 | 15 | X | CT Fighting Ships 40, MGT Fighting Ships 78 | |
| Dreadnought | Tigress | 500,000 | 4 | 15 | X | CT Fighting Ships 38, MGT Fighting Ships 88 | |
| Escort | P.F. Sloan | 5,000 | 4 | 15 | X | CT Fighting Ships 18, MGT High Guard 136 | |
| Escort | Ritchey | 8,000 | ? | ? | X | MGT Merchants and Cruisers 45 | |
| Fast Dreadnought | Perisher | 400,000 | 4 | 14 | X | T20 Fighting Ships 18 | |
| Fleet Carrier | Antiama | 100,000 | 4 | 15 | X | CT Fighting Ships 35, MGT Fighting Ships 49 | |
| Fleet Carrier | Giishuda | 150,000 | 4 | 13 | X | T20 Fighting Ships 25 | |
| Fleet Destroyer | Saberwolf | 5,000 | 4 | 13/14 | X | T20 Fighting Ships 36 | |
| Frontier Cruiser | Azhanti High Lightning | 60,000 | 5 | 14/15 | X | X | CT Fighting Ships 31, MGT Fighting Ships 27, T20 Fighting Ships 33 |
| Heavy Cruiser | Atlantic | 75,000 | 4 | 14 | X | CT Fighting Ships 32, T20 Fighting Ships 27 | |
| Heavy Cruiser | Effendi | 90,000 | 4 | 14 | X | T20 Fighting Ships 24 | |
| Heavy Cruiser | Planet | 75,000 | ? | ? | X | MGT High Guard 119 | |
| Interdiction Cruiser | Zastreti | 80,000 | 2 | 12 | X | T20 Fighting Ships 31 | |
| Intruder Cruiser | Nemesis | 19,900 | 5 | 15 | X | Traveller's Digest 11 (28) | |
| Light Carrier | Skimkish | 29,000 | 4 | 15 | X | CT Fighting Ships 34 | |
| Light Carrier | 30,000 | ? | ? | X | MGT High Guard 127 | ||
| Light Cruiser | Arandol | 17,500 | 4 | 14 | X | T20 Fighting Ships 34 | |
| Light Cruiser | Gionetti | 30,000 | 5 | 15 | X | CT Fighting Ships 28, MGT Fighting Ships 34 | |
| Light Cruiser | Sarmonocci | 10,000 | 4 | 15 | X | High Passage 5 (53) | |
| Marine Carrier | Tarawa | 40,000 | ? | ? | X | MGT Sector Fleet 27 | |
| Missile Cruiser | Vrysonu | 100,000 | 3 | 12 | X | T20 Fighting Ships 22 | |
| Patrol Cruiser | Barcol | 35,000 | 4 | 14 | X | T20 Fighting Ships 35 | |
| Planetoid Monitor | 30,000 | - | ? | X | MGT High Guard 113 | ||
| Strike Carrier | Lorimar | 80,000 | 4 | 13 | X | T20 Fighting Ships 26 | |
| Strike Carrier | Wind | 75,000 | 3 | 15 | X | CT Fighting Ships 35, MGT Fighting Ships 56 | |
| Strike Cruiser | Arakoine | 50,000 | 3 | 15 | X | CT Fighting Ships 29, MGT Fighting Ships 41 | |
| Strike Cruiser | Ulanii | ? | ? | ? | GT Behind the Claw 20 | ||
| Strike Cruiser | Zahvat | 70,000 | 4 | 14 | X | T20 Fighting Ships 32 | |
| Strike Monitor | Seydlitz | 5,000 | - | 13 | X | T20 Fighting Ships 41 | |
| Troop Transport | Briann | 20,000 | ? | ? | X | MGT Sector Fleet 26 | |
| Troop Transport | Keith | 30,000 | 4 | 15 | X | GT Ground Forces 96 | |
| Battle Rider | Admiral | ? | - | 15 | ? | TNE Battle Rider | |
| Battle Rider | Gallant | ? | - | 15 | ? | TNE Battle Rider | |
| Battle Tender | Triumph | ? | 3 | 15 | ? | TNE Battle Rider | |
| Light Battle Rider | Manticore | ? | - | 12 | ? | TNE Battle Rider | |
| Light Battle Tender | Maggart | ? | 2 | 12 | ? | TNE Battle Rider |
Last edited:
Solomani Ships
| Type | Class | Tons | Jump | TL | 990 | 1105 | Source |
| Battlecruiser | Victory | 130,000 | 3 | 13 | X | T20 Fighting Ships of the Solomani Confederation 16 | |
| Battlecruiser | Zeus | 150,000 | 3 | 13 | X | T20 Fighting Ships of the Solomani Confederation 15 | |
| Deep Strike Cruiser | Beijing | 40,000 | 5 | 14 | X | T20 Fighting Ships of the Solomani Confederation 22 | |
| Deep Strike Destroyer | Dingir | 5,000 | 5 | 14 | X | T20 Fighting Ships of the Solomani Confederation 29 | |
| Destroyer | Striker | 3,000 | 3 | 12 | X | T20 Fighting Ships of the Solomani Confederation 32 | |
| Destroyer | Tau Ceti | 3,000 | 4 | 13 | X | T20 Fighting Ships of the Solomani Confederation 31 | |
| Dreadnought | Planet | ? | ? | ? | X | FASA Adventure Class Ships II 8 | |
| Fast Dreadnought | Prometheus | 250,000 | 4 | 14 | X | T20 Fighting Ships of the Solomani Confederation 13 | |
| Fighter Carrier | Midway | 200,000 | 3 | 13 | X | T20 Fighting Ships of the Solomani Confederation 14 | |
| Fleet Tanker | Washington | 50,000 | 3 | 12 | X | T20 Fighting Ships of the Solomani Confederation 21 | |
| Fleet Tender | Servant | 20,000 | 3 | 12 | X | T20 Fighting Ships of the Solomani Confederation 23 | |
| Heavy Cruiser | Minsk | 60,000 | 3 | 13 | X | T20 Fighting Ships of the Solomani Confederation 19 | |
| Heavy Cruiser | Normandy | 70,000 | 4 | 14 | X | T20 Fighting Ships of the Solomani Confederation 18 | |
| Light Cruiser | Madrid | 10,000 | 4 | 14 | X | T20 Fighting Ships of the Solomani Confederation 24 | |
| Light Cruiser | Texas | 8,000 | 3 | 12 | X | T20 Fighting Ships of the Solomani Confederation 26 | |
| Light Cruiser | Varanzich | ? | ? | ? | X | Shadow of the Storm 4 | |
| Light Cruiser | Yarmouth | 15,000 | 3 | 13 | X | T20 Fighting Ships of the Solomani Confederation 25 | |
| Light Troop Carrier | Hussar | 5,000 | 3 | 13 | X | T20 Fighting Ships of the Solomani Confederation 30 | |
| Monitor | Valient | 3,000 | - | 13 | X | T20 Fighting Ships of the Solomani Confederation 33 | |
| Pocket Carrier | Bremen | 8,000 | 3 | 12 | X | T20 Fighting Ships of the Solomani Confederation 28 | |
| Pocket Carrier | De Gaulle | 10,000 | 3 | 13 | X | T20 Fighting Ships of the Solomani Confederation 27 | |
| Strike Cruiser | Yamamoto | 50,000 | 3 | 13 | X | T20 Fighting Ships of the Solomani Confederation 20 | |
| Troop Carrier | Zhukov | 100,000 | 3 | 13 | X | T20 Fighting Ships of the Solomani Confederation 17 |
Nice List.
I like the idea of the Third Imperium having a history, and being able to refer back to something someone designed for use with say, T20 - and knowing its basic mission parameters, design specs etc - help for when/if I decide to stat it out using GURPS TRAVELLER.
What sort of gets to me is the concept of Individual ship classes for the various sectors throughout the Imperium. I'm guessing that ships meant to go up against Solomani opponents would likely be different than ships intended to go up against the Zhodani, or even the Aslans.
I don't expect that there would ever be a standardization of ship classes for use with the Third Imperium, simply because of the varying game designs utilized to run the various time periods. However, were (for example) T5 to be done such that all time periods were playable via T5, and the rules were cleaned up sufficiently for people to play it in large numbers - it would be really NEAT to see just how many ship designs from ALL of the game systems ever used - could be statted out in T5 format.
Yes, I know they are all different ship design systems (TNE alone is proof of that!), but none the less, it would be interesting to see if T5 could at least get the basic intent of the ship class fleshed out and viable for game play.
Just a thought.
I like the idea of the Third Imperium having a history, and being able to refer back to something someone designed for use with say, T20 - and knowing its basic mission parameters, design specs etc - help for when/if I decide to stat it out using GURPS TRAVELLER.
What sort of gets to me is the concept of Individual ship classes for the various sectors throughout the Imperium. I'm guessing that ships meant to go up against Solomani opponents would likely be different than ships intended to go up against the Zhodani, or even the Aslans.
I don't expect that there would ever be a standardization of ship classes for use with the Third Imperium, simply because of the varying game designs utilized to run the various time periods. However, were (for example) T5 to be done such that all time periods were playable via T5, and the rules were cleaned up sufficiently for people to play it in large numbers - it would be really NEAT to see just how many ship designs from ALL of the game systems ever used - could be statted out in T5 format.
Yes, I know they are all different ship design systems (TNE alone is proof of that!), but none the less, it would be interesting to see if T5 could at least get the basic intent of the ship class fleshed out and viable for game play.
Just a thought.
Similar threads
