Fletcher-Class Destroyer

[flykiller]

WOuld be useless? OK if you really want 40 minutes of power flowing back into your minature sun in a typically short discharge cycle of a capacitor when your sun is already at full output capacity, be my guest. The problem with a fusion reactor isn't that it is hard to produce energy with it, the problem is to keep in doing what you want it to be doing and not becoming an uncontrolled fusion reaction. Overloading circuits, blowing breakers and feeding power back into your reactor doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

But you go right ahead.

well I really can't speak to fantasy technology. given that the machinery in question doesn't actually exist you may well be right. but I'm intrigued by the attitude of helplessness in the face of dangerous and uncontrollable electrical machinery. it makes a fusion reactor seem tame.

please show me an electrical circuit that has a capacitor with a "check valve". (a check valve, by the way, just so it has been said, is a valve that allows flow in one direction only.)

 

[Jame]

It strikes me that so much has been made about something I put in to help increase output. Its primary goal is to help it achieve agility-6 for combat; it wouldn't need to use the capacitors for much else.

 

[flykiller]

It strikes me that so much has been made about something I put in to help increase output.

actually nothing's being made, it's just squabbling.

the rules certainly allow it, it's just that this aspect of them has never been officially utilized. if it is utilized then much of the character and assumptions of traveller the rpg and traveller the wargame will have to be reconsidered. at length.

 

[Jame]

Squabbling, eh? He he he he! As for the gaming implications, well, that's why I just used them as a way to increase agility.

And is that the bunch of you volunteering to deckplan this thing?

 

[flykiller]

And is that the bunch of you volunteering to deckplan this thing?

do you want deckplans for it?

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by flykiller:

please show me an electrical circuit that has a capacitor with a "check valve". (a check valve, by the way, just so it has been said, is a valve that allows flow in one direction only.)

Well it has been years, actually closer to a couple of decades, since I took that electrical engineering class. However I seem to remember several logic circuits that we breadboarded that had electricity flowing only one way. The electrical component that allows current flow in only one direction is called a Diode. Now I personally don't recall having diodes and capacitors in the same circuit, but see no reason that you wouldn't, couldn't or shouldn't have them in the same circuit.

 

[Jame]

Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And is that the bunch of you volunteering to deckplan this thing?

do you want deckplans for it? </font>[/QUOTE]Well, since if I didn't, I probably wouldn't have mentioned it...

 

[flykiller]

alright, I'll see what I can do.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by flykiller:
alright, I'll see what I can do.

Good man! To make it a little easier I happened to finally take a look at the design last night... I know, 5 pages, over 60 posts, and I just now actually look at the design

My apologies.

Unfortunately my Naval Architect sense was tingling at first glance. It's kinda like Spidey and other superheros who feel something's off, only mine tells me when things don't look like they add up in a design rather than warn of danger. Well, come to think of it maybe a design flaw is a danger. Anyway sorry to break it to you Jame but it looks like it's back to the drawing board for a little check and/or edit. I may not be able to reverse engineer the design because it just needs some editing or it may be a couple steps in the design are just a bit off. The easiest might be to list my workthrough and you can check what jives and what doesn't. Extra notes in (brackets):

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Fletcher class DD - TL12

+3,000.0T - Hull (6 Ser crew - 2/1000T with troops)

-120.0T - Jump 3
-510.0T - Maneuver 6
-540.0T - Power 6 (+180EP) (12 Eng crew - 1/100T of drives)

-900.0T - Fuel x1J3
-180.0T - Fuel x4wk
-30.0T - Purifier

-60.0T - Bridge (10 Cmd crew - 7 officers and 3 support)
-10.0T - Cmp m/5 fib (-3EP)

-10.0T - 30 Pulse Las (-30EP) (tri turrets)
1 batt F6
-15.0T - 30 Missl Lch (dbl turrets)
1 batt F6
-5.0T - 10 Sand Cast (dbl turrets)
1 batt F7
-50.0T - Nuke Damp F1 (-10EP)
-90.0T - Meson Scn F1 (-6EP) (12 Gun crew - 1 chief, 3 gunners, 8 screen ops)

-104.0T - Pinnace x2
-32.0T - G-Carrier x4 (10 Veh crew - 1 flight off, 2 pilots, 2 crew, 4 drivers, 1 mechanic)

(75 Trp crew)

-260.0T - Staterooms x65 (5 single, 60 double)
-30.0T - Lowberths x60 (frozen watch)

-14.0T - Cargo hold</pre>[/QUOTE]That leaves you with 40.0T left for whatever.

I didn't include the extra capacitors (what the J drive has should be lots for sneaky use) but you can add that as you desire.

There is no room for any armor (F2 being 180.0T and F4 being 300.0T) as designed.

Note there are some differences in your USP and description.

Such as the turrets, I got the "correct" factor for the missile launchers and sand casters by using double turrets instead of triple (though that may be my misunderstanding). Triple won't help them much.

Note the extra size (30% over) for the Pinnace hanger is required due to the mother ship being over 1000T.

I'd probably up the computer to a model/6 fib to max the TL advantage.

As the ship is it has agility 4 but getting the extra 2 points using capacitors would be easy (60EP per turn) once they are charged up.

I get 10 fewer crew than you have listed (50 instead of 60) but reducing the Marines to 75 that works out well for the staterooms (5 single occupancy for the officers, 1 per section, and 60 double occupancy for the regular crew) and the lowberths (if frozen watch, being 50% of the regular crew)

All in all a nice design, just a couple kinks to work out and then Fritz88 can start placing the components

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by Jame:
It strikes me that so much has been made about something I put in to help increase output. Its primary goal is to help it achieve agility-6 for combat; it wouldn't need to use the capacitors for much else.

Well, the thing is, that
a) By the letter of the rules the design doesn't work - capacitors are charged by BGs and by BGs only. (The rules don't care what is technically feasible).
b) But if you - as me - do try to look at the intent of the rules instead of the letter, it is still fairly obvious that this is bug abuse. Since it is even fairly easy to prevent such bug abuse by only a slightly liberal interpretation of the rules, I opted for that. Hence, the design wouldn't work IMTU and as such it is is useless to me.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by flykiller:
my point is it's a capacitor. it is charged by internal or external sources - by the rules, freely - and discharged to power ship's systems - by the rules, freely. you can up and say "no you can't", but there's no reason for it.

It is neither freely chargeable nor freely dischargeable by the rules.
Chargeable - ONLY by a black globe. No other rule even mentions capacitors.
Dischargeable - only at a rate equivalent to the PPs output. Interpret this as the total amount of energy the ship's power system can handle and this rule abuse is solved.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Tobias:
Well, the thing is, that
a) By the letter of the rules the design doesn't work - capacitors are charged by BGs and by BGs only. (The rules don't care what is technically feasible).

I would still argue that the rules for breaking off by jumping imply that the capacitors are initially charged by the power plant.

I agree though that it isn't explicitly stated in the rules - but then there are other holes in the High Guard rules

b) But if you - as me - do try to look at the intent of the rules instead of the letter, it is still fairly obvious that this is bug abuse. Since it is even fairly easy to prevent such bug abuse by only a slightly liberal interpretation of the rules, I opted for that. Hence, the design wouldn't work IMTU and as such it is is useless to me.

It's why I described it as sneaky

While it may not be strictly High Guard canon, the use of the jump capacitors in this way is made more likely under the TNE, T4, and GT rules.

Plus it's an interesting variant for anyone who wants to try it.

YMMV

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Tobias:

Dischargeable - only at a rate equivalent to the PPs output. Interpret this as the total amount of energy the ship's power system can handle and this rule abuse is solved.

This rule is broken as well.
Where does the power plant EP output go while the black globe stored energy is used?
Can a power plant really be turned way down or off for a couple of turns and then instatly turned back up/on?

Those magic heat sinks really have their work cut out for this one

 

[mike wightman]

Consider:
under CT second edition/High Guard second edition a jump drive must have a power plant of the same rating to operate;
all jump drives, no matter what TL, have capacitors, which by the rules can be used to power the ship.
So even if you can't charge them using the power plant, what's to stop you charging them with the jump drive itself and then using the EPs for weapons and agility

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Well, Sigg, the one thing that would be a problem would be those ships that don't have enough fuel for two jumps. If they abort a jump as you describe just to get some extra EPs, they better use those EPs well, because it is all they're getting.

 

[Jame]

Well, I just got around to re-reviewing F-T's design. Looks good, if not what I had in mind (but maybe he's more familiar with High Guard than I). I suspect that the 40 extra tons would be divided between cargo and two to four more combat vehicles.

 

[The Oz]

The Osmanski Starship Design Firm offers the following ship to meet the specifications below:

The Fletcher-class destroyer is designed to be a small commerce escort, light raider or fleet fighter screen. It is still capable of independent action, as expressed in its light raider role. The flattened-sphere hull lets it (potentially) blend in with K'Kree ships, as one of the smallest family merchants. In addition, this class is tasked with destroying ships up to its own weight (though sometimes it can take on a single heavier ship). The meson screen is optional; it is placed in fleet screening elements but not in raiding forces (to allow for a larger cargo for longer operations).

Ship: Fletcher
Class: DD-12
Type: Destroyer
Architect: Osmanski
Tech Level: 12

USP</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> DD-C6368F2-070000-60008-0 MCr 3,311.343 3 KTons
Bat Bear 2 2 1 Crew: 91
Bat 2 2 1 TL: 12</pre>[/QUOTE]Cargo: 21.000 Fuel: 1,140.000 EP: 240.000 Agility: 6 Marines: 40
Craft: 2 x 30T Pinnace, 4 x 8T G-Carrier
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops and On Board Fuel Purification

Architects Fee: MCr 33.113 Cost in Quantity: MCr 2,649.074

Detailed Description

HULL
3,000.000 tons standard, 42,000.000 cubic meters, Flattened Sphere Configuration

CREW
12 Officers, 39 Ratings, 40 Marines

ENGINEERING
Jump-3, 6G Maneuver, Power plant-8, 240.000 EP, Agility 6

AVIONICS
Bridge, Model/6fib Computer

HARDPOINTS
1 50-ton bay, 20 Hardpoints

ARMAMENT
1 50-ton Missile Bay (Factor-8), 10 Triple Beam Laser Turrets organised into 2 Batteries (Factor-6)

DEFENCES
10 Triple Sandcaster Turrets organised into 2 Batteries (Factor-7)

CRAFT
2 30.000 ton Pinnaces (Crew of 2, Cost of MCr 0.000), 4 8.000 ton G-Carriers (Crew of 1, Cost of MCr 0.000)

FUEL
1,140.000 Tons Fuel (3 parsecs jump and 28 days endurance)
On Board Fuel Scoops, On Board Fuel Purification Plant

MISCELLANEOUS
50.0 Staterooms, 21.000 Tons Cargo

USER DEFINED COMPONENTS
None

COST
MCr 3,344.456 Singly (incl. Architects fees of MCr 33.113), MCr 2,649.074 in Quantity

CONSTRUCTION TIME
139 Weeks Singly, 111 Weeks in Quantity

COMMENTS

This ship meets the raiding force specifications without exceeding them, while providing better defenses at TL-12 than competing designs. 80 marines are excessive for a small raiding force; 40 troops (one platoon) is sufficient for most raiding operations, and if more are needed two ships can operate together, giving additional redundancy in operations.

At TL-12 both a nuclear damper and a meson screen are wasteful of space in such a small ship. Meson guns are unlikely to be used on such a small ship, or encountered by this vessel in raiding operations (and if they are encountered, the opposition is likely to be too strong for this ship to deal with on its own, anyway). At TL-12 the factor-1 nuclear damper is not very effective against larger missile salvos, and the proposed point defense batteries (two f-6 laser batteries and two f-7 sand batteries) each have equal or better stopping power against missiles and they may be used in the fleet defense role to protect other ships, while the nuclear damper and meson screen only protect the mounting ship.

Note also that the proposed design has Agility-6 without resorting to any gimmicks or capacitor tricks, and it has a Mod/6fib computer. Together these two changes give this ship much greater fighting power and defensive ability. The factor-8 missile bay provides a solid anti-ship weapons system, especially when used with nuclear or bomb-pumped-laser missile warheads.

 

[Jame]

How 'bout a TL-11 version, since you're so interested in redesigning?

Asks someone who's just generally tired of his vision being changed by anyone, not angry at anyone on this board...

 

[The Oz]

TL-11 is no trouble, since you can only have Jump-2 (in High Guard). That leaves you enough space to put in 80 marines and double the small craft/vehicle allotment as well. You still get Agility-6, too.

 

[Jame]

What I meant was, would you be so kind as to put up a chart for it, like for the TL 12 version?