Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Could use an adjusted form of cabin crew requirement.
CT Only: Fleet Scout (Type SF) 199.5Td, J4/4G
- Thread starter Grav_Moped
- Start date
Didn't have to be. It's governmental, and they can have motives beyond immediate profits.
Mike Wightman covered that.
The Type S is an interstellar Jeep. The Air/Raft is a flying Deuce-and-a-Half.
From a game standpoint, it's like giving the whole player party TAS memberships, and hotel and car-rental vouchers.
Also, if one's point of reference for cabin space is the Supp 7 version of the Type S and Far Trader, extended double occupancy is far more plausible than if you're using something that only has the mandated 8 deck squares per stateroom, and not all the bonus space from those plans....
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
The 1 medic you are required to have for 200+ ton displacement jump capable starships can handle the first 120 passengers (low/middle/high) aboard. So a Free Trader only needs 1 medic to satisfy the 200+ tons displacement requirement AND the "up to 120 passengers" requirement simultaneously in a single medical crew position.
Now, a Free Trader that was reconfigured to carry 121 low berths for passengers and no staterooms for middle or high passengers ... would require 2 medics.
I agree.
The IISS isn't putting Scout/Couriers into commercial roles as a competitor for low end passenger, mail, cargo services offered by corporations and free traders/tramps. Their direct motive for the design is not immediate profit(eering) after construction.
However, the IISS does have a primary motive in making their Scout/Couriers as flexible and "swing-role" useful as possible when it comes to mission tasking. Why? Because "you never know what's going to come up as a job that needs doing" ... and a lot of the time, the assignment is going to fall onto the crews (and passengers, if any) of the ubiquitous and humble Scout/Couriers to deal with. That means that the Scout/Couriers cannot afford to be specialists, so they need to be generalist/jack of all trades/el cheapo options that allow stuff to happen and get done.
This is VERY true.
A detached duty surplus Scout/Courier is a "group TAS" mustering out benefit, in effect, along with being a "hotel plus rental car" mobile base camp. As a base of operations for an adventuring group of Travellers, it is EXTREMELY effective, useful and well designed (especially since Scout Bases will handle maintenance and fuel for you if you need those services, basically for free).
Just try not to get ambushed by a pirate with a better ship (which is going to be almost anything and everything bigger and better armed than you are).
Which is why (from a game-design perspective) it really shouldn't be "better" than it is. If your players want to make money hauling stuff, give one of them a Merchant character with a Free Trader instead. Crop it down to 199Td so it can be single-handed if there aren't enough players for a full crew....
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
There's a mildly famous quote about "going to war with the forces you (actually) have, not the forces you wish you had or wanted."
And then there's the corollary ... "beggars can't be choosers."
Ok, I see where you got that.
I had the turret and its weapons as separate line items.
This is the sort of thing you work out with the players ahead of time.There's a mildly famous quote about "going to war with the forces you (actually) have, not the forces you wish you had or wanted."
And then there's the corollary ... "beggars can't be choosers."
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
You are wrong, the 1 medic is not included in the 1 per 120 passengers.
Didn't you recently say you have to consider the entire quote?
It says "in addition", so the rule is 1 medic for 200 and greater tonnage plus 1 per 120 passengers, in which case canon ship designs are wrong.
Last edited:
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Ok, I see where you got that.
I had the turret and its weapons as separate line items.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
The computer works just as well as a defensive DM when using Emergency Agility, so can't really be off (even if we have no power for it)...
Yes, just as e.g. crew requirements there are presumably regulations involved.
Since no canon ships meddle with those regs. I would hesitate to override them casually.
It would work fine, just as the Scout in most non-commercial campaigns?
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
{ deep breath }
{ attempting to patiently explain the obvious while offering minimal insult to the person asking the question }
Condition 1:
- 100-199 tons with J1+ = minimum 0 medics required
- 200+ tons with J1+ = minimum 1 medic required
- 0 passengers (low/middle/high) = minimum 0 medics required
- 1-120 passengers (low/middle/high) = minimum 1 medic required
- per additional +1-120 passengers (low/middle/high) = minimum 1 additional medic required
Computation that meets both Conditions 1 and 2 simultaneously:
- 100 ton J1+ starship with 0 passengers = minimum 0 (tonnage) and minimum 0 (passengers) combines to require 0 medics minimum
- 100 ton J1+ starship with 1-120 passengers = minimum 0 (tonnage) and minimum 1 (passengers) combines to require 1 medic minimum
- 200 ton J1+ starship with 0 passengers = minimum 1 (tonnage) and minimum 0 (passengers) combines to require 1 medic minimum
- 200 ton J1+ starship with 1-120 passengers = minimum 1 (tonnage) and minimum 1 (passengers) combines to require 1 medic minimum
- 200 ton J1+ starship with 121-240 passengers = minimum 1 (tonnage) and minimum 2 (passengers) combines to require 2 medics minimum
- 200+ ton J1+ starship with 241-360 passengers = minimum 1 (tonnage) and minimum 3 (passengers) combines to require 3 medics minimum
- 200+ ton J1+ starship with 361-480 passengers = minimum 1 (tonnage) and minimum 3 (passengers) combines to require 3 medics minimum
- etc. ...
Incorrect.
Obvious error ... with respect to correct interpretation as repeatedly demonstrated by multiple canon published designs over several years in multiple CT products ... is obviously your error.
You aren't "adding" the medic requirements for tonnage and passengers together.
You're determining the minimums needed and then using the higher of the two minimums based on tonnage (0 or 1) or passenger accommodations (0+ low/middle/high) ... whichever is the higher minimum required.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
The problem is that the LBB S7 Type-J "doesn't add up" properly when you try to build it using LBB2.
A/A/A drives = 15 tons
1 parsec jump fuel = 10 tons
Required power plant fuel = 20 tons
Bridge = 20 tons
Computer model/1bis = 1 ton
Fire control = 1 ton
4x Staterooms = 16 tons
Prospecting Buggy = 4 tons (MCr0.75 instead of MCr0.6, as per CT Beltstrike, p9)
15+10+20+20+1+1+16+4 = 87 tons
You can't fit 20 tons of ore bays into 13 tons (not "build legally" at any rate).
At BEST, you redefine the Type-J Seeker as having only 2x Staterooms (double occupancy) instead of 4x Staterooms (single occupancy) in order to reclaim 8 tons from the staterooms. At that point, you've got 20 tons that you can devote to cargo bay/ore processing and you MUST devote at least 10 tons (minimum!) of cargo space to ore processing in order to conduct mining/prospecting operations (CT Beltstrike, p3), with additional cargo space needed for storage of consumables supplies (such as life support reserves to extend endurance, deployable sensor drones, etc.).
Alternatively, you could reduce the internal fuel tankage down to just 21 tons (power plant only plus 1 ton) and use collapsible fuel tanks in the cargo hold to extend endurance sufficiently for jumps.
A/A/A drives = 15 tons
0 parsecs jump fuel = 0 tons
Required power plant fuel = 20 tons + 1 ton additional reserve = 21 tons
Bridge = 20 tons
Computer model/1bis = 1 ton
Fire control = 1 ton
4x Staterooms = 16 tons
Prospecting Buggy = 4 tons (MCr0.75 instead of MCr0.6, as per CT Beltstrike, p9)
15+0+21+20+1+1+16+4 = 78 tons
22 tons cargo bay ... containing a 20 ton collapsible fuel tank (0.2 tons deflated) and 1.8 tons of mixed consumables reserves (life support, demolitions charges, sensor drones, etc.), leaving 20 tons available for ore processing in the cargo hold.
THAT would work and be LBB2 design legal.
Don't bother with the demountable tanks, they take too long to install/remove and are annoying to need to warehouse.
The other thing that isn't quite so obvious with long endurance prospecting by Seekers is that they need multiple crews (2 minimum) in order to maintain a 24 hour rotating watch, effectively indefinitely (until their life support reserves run out or they make a strike). The way to achieve this with the lowest manning requirements is to have 2 crews swapping 12 hour long watches (12 hours on/12 hours off), which is a pretty grueling work schedule when you have to keep it up for weeks and months at a stretch. This would be the minimum needed for a 24/7 constant manning enabling continuous prospecting operations.
At a minimum this will tend to mean 2 crews which each have a pilot and probably a gunner each. In a Type-J Seeker, you would thus want to have 4x Staterooms (single occupancy) to accommodate 2 crews of 2 each for the day/night watch cycles every 24 hours, so you really do want to keep the 4x Staterooms in the design so you don't have everyone "living in each others' shorts" all the time during every prospecting voyage (creating all kinds of mental stress issues that will not improve over time with extended exposure).
So in this instance, keeping Scout/Couriers with a 4x Stateroom design spec makes PERFECT sense (albeit in a surplus refit application).
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Not what the rules say. The rules say you need a medic on ships of 200t plus,. In addition - notice this is in addition not an included in - 1 medic per 120 passengers; in addition, that is, supplemental.
The other way to read it is that you only need any medics on ships of 200t and larger which require the basic 1 medic plus 1 per 120 passengers.
So a 100t ship carrying passengers doesn't require any medics at all.
Sloppy copy/paste from the first spreadsheet. Fair catch.
I conceded it doesn't quite line up. But a computer needing a small village's power supply doesn't quite add up either. *shrug*
Fair enough. I view the ~200Td crew size breakpoints as regulatory rather than workload driven, too. Risk tolerance is higher for small ships, even if those risks don't have explicit game mechanics associated with them.
As noted above, it looks a lot more reasonable when you've used artistic license to double your available living space...
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Going all the way back to the OP question of this thread, I really have to question the utility point of reaching for 1J4/4G performance (which is EXPENSIVE) relative to the option of reaching for 2J2/2G performance instead. In terms of "bang for buck" being able to achieve 2J2 for a 4 parsec range is "just about as good" (and WAY CHEAPER on the budget) than angling for 1J4.
I know this thanks to all my "clipper ships" that I've been working on for the past year+ here in The Fleet forum.
And in that respect, if you resign yourself
to accepting that 2J2 is "good enough" for the (government) work the Scout/Courier is intended for and designed to do, then this Fleet Scout concept stops being quite so useful. That's because the only meaningful difference between 1J4 and 2J2 is not one of RANGE but rather one of SPEED (takes fewer jumps to transit long distances). You're still crossing 4 parsecs either way, but the main difference is how quickly you traverse those 4 parsecs.The other side of the equation is that when you put powerful drives into a starship, you REALLY limit the useful payload fraction that starship is going to have ... particularly when dealing with sub-1000 ton hulls mounting LBB2 standard drives. There are ways to "finesse" this issue, but the simple fact of the matter is that high drive performance is going to necessarily limit your transport capacity pretty severely. Sure, you can "get there fast" (to wherever you're going), but if you "can't bring enough stuff with you" to make the trip worthwhile then what's the point?
I'm reminded of the reaction to the evolution of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle in the comedy movie Pentagon Wars, that resulted in:
So @Grav_Moped, I'm thinking that a very important design consideration needs to be decided on before you proceed with your research into this topic any further.
WHAT are you needing to MOVE at 1J4 ... otherwise known as the payload ... so as to define the mission parameters for this design?
WHY do you need to move at 1J4 ... rather than 2J2 ... at incredibly increased expense and presumably reduced payload capacity?
Just about the only excuse that I can come up with for needing a 1J4 rather than 2J2 performance across 4 parsecs is ... so the starship can "go further out" before needing to turn around and come back for annual overhaul maintenance.
But if you're looking at doing 20J4 consecutive outbound so as to spend 4-8 weeks at a destination and then 20J4 consecutive return to base for annual overhaul maintenance (for example) over the course of 44-50 weeks during a single year ... how much demand is there going to be for such a "deep range" capability in IISS mission tasking, and how much "stuff" (materiel, personnel) can you bring along with you to make the journey worthwhile? I mean, up to 80 parsecs out and up to 80 parsecs back is a pretty long haul (2-2.5 sectors worth, depending on coreward/rimward vs spinward/trailing plots) capability when going "beyond the border" outside Imperial controlled space.
By contrast, doing 20J2 consecutive outbound to spend 4-8 weeks at a destination and then 20J2 consecutive return to base will only get half as far (1-1.25 sectors worth) ... but isn't that "enough" for what the IISS might reasonably expect to need for mission tasking beyond the border? Additionally, for the MCr expense of building a single 1J4 capable starship, you could buy (and deploy) multiple 2J2 starships that would presumably combine to deliver more payload to the destination for the same cost (and be able to "convoy" getting there, improving safety into the bargain).
In other words, aside from being able to build a "hot rod scout" ... I'm not seeing a whole lot of demand for the capabilities you're purportedly trying to shoehorn into this undersized sub-200 ton hull. Yes, it can "turn and burn" fuel ... but can it do anything else? Can it do, you know ... USEFUL WORK ... for the IISS that would justify its existence (other than as a vanity exercise)?
Utility? It's right there in the name. This is meant to be attached during wartime to Imperial battle fleets with similar jump ranges.
In peacetime, they can use the flex-passenger capacity to shuttle personnel along the XBoat network (or providide rapid response capability for diplomats and VIPs if they're ok with the austere living arrangements).
The 2G (ST) version is far more common. Having 4G instead is mostly an evasion/survivability thing.
Last edited:
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Okay ... it got even weirder ...Actually, I had the weirdest idea ...
... I mean, more awesome! I think I've figured out a way to fit 2x 12 ton modules inside a 100 ton Scout/Courier and still have enough room for a model/2 computer upgrade (offering a better basic programming package for those who like using LBB2 computer programs!), 4x staterooms, a 20 ton collapsible fuel tank (enabling 2J2 performance with CT Beltstrike fuel consumption rates) and the OPTION to include a Mail Vault for X-Mail courier services in a dedicated mission profile while retaining 2J2 range capability ... while ALSO being able to tow up to 8x 12 ton modules externally @ J1/1G (2 parsec range) when necessary and/or the mission calls for it.
I'll have to do it as a LBB5.80 design with LBB2.81 commercial off the shelf components in the design kind of deal again and the 100% construction cost will be higher than the legacy Scout/Courier design of LBB2/LBB S7 ... but the capability upgrades are going to be so tremendously massive as to be (quite literally) "game changing" for both the IISS and anyone else wanting to buy one of these Type-S2 Scout/Courier on the surplus market when it comes to terms of "capability per credit" this revision offers.
