Freedonian System Defense Boat

[robject]

I don't think the variant explanation is going to work this time and it will take me a bit to explain why, so grab something to drink and settle in.

Dang nabbit, I already owe you one beer. This one's on you this time. That's two beer.

Mongoose has allowed sub-1000 dTonners to carry bays [...] changing one part has all sorts of follow on effects to the others. And when you change multiple parts, the synergy produces even greater effects. [...]

Let's drop the Broadsword example and use the humble 400 dTon patrol cruiser instead. It's an actual warship with a well defined role, so we can examine whether role variants can plausibly explain the results of the new design system(1).

Semantics. It's a poor excuse for a warship, along the lines of a hobbled Gazelle. But let's proceed. As for role, I suppose its role is "patrol". I.E. it's not a combatant. But of course its real role we both know: civilian patrol and anti-piracy.

Our Mongoose patroller can now mount a bay weapon. As you correctly point out, that will require a certain volume, a volume that needs to be made up elsewhere. What you're assuming is that there aren't other volume savings in the Mongoose design process when compared to the HG2 process.

Ah, well of course you're quite right, but I'd say that the fundamental incompatability is the treatment of energy, like Aramis has been saying. Also note that the power plants and jump drives are larger than in High Guard, which shifts us back towards parity.

Now I already knew that Agility is gone. I note that the power plant may therefore be small. However as I never wargamed with HG, much less MGT, I leave that concern to you and others. And thus I am blissfully stuck in a roleplaying environment.

I agree that power is an unhandled issue, and we don't need EPs to deal with it (though agility probably is needed). But I still think that bay weapons is a red herring.

So, without energy points power plants - and the fuel they require - suddenly got much smaller for any given design. Build the classic 4gee/jump4/agility 4 patrol cruiser and build the Mongoose version and you'll have very different power plant and power plant fuel tonnages.

Frankly, all of this concerns the Patrol Cruiser not a bit, so I remain steadfast in stating, poo. But, I also understand that my head is firmly buried in the sand of Book 2, rather than High Guard, and I understand the problems that MGT is now causing for HG.

We're looking at a change as great as that between LBB:2 and HG2.

Well, there's your problem: you think the Patrol Cruiser is better off as a HG design.

It may be very worth our while to redesign all those pre-MgT vessels. However, that means the work will have to be done and, when the work is over, the pre-MgT will be essentially worthless. They'll be undergunned and will be carrying larger power plants to produce an ability which is no longer used.

I suppose in that case we'd no longer have a need for them, either, much like High Guard players have no need for Book 2 designs. So High Guard has been superseded, much like Book 2 was betrayed by High Guard.

And so the wheel turns.

 

[Whipsnade]

Well, there's your problem: you think the Patrol Cruiser is better off as a HG design.

Robject,

It get's worse than that.

As much as the HG2 design trumps the LBB:2 design, I think the Patrol Cruiser is even better off as a potential meson gun-armed MgT design. So much better off that I can't understand why that design, or one similar to it, is not the standard.

You're see the LBB:2 Patrol Crusier neatly filling it's role as a civilian patrol and anti-piracy vessel? Run it up against the classic Vargr corsair then using LBB:2 ship combat.


Regards,
Bill

 

[aramis]

_Td__ MCr___ Notes TL12
400._ _17.6_ Code 4SL hull, Streamlined
_35._ _60.__ Jump Drive F J3
_15._ _32.__ Maneuver Drive H M4
_31._ _80.__ Powerplant K P5
_20._ __2.__ Bridge
__0._ __3.__ Computer Model 3/fib
__5._ __4.__ Very Advanced Sensors DM+2
_40._ __0.__ PP Fuel, 4Wks
120._ __0.__ 1J3 Fuel
===== ====== ==============================
266._ 198.6_ subtotal 1
===== ====== ==============================
_51._ _50.__ Meson Bay
_51._ _50.__ Meson Bay
__2._ __2.__ 2x Triple Turret
__0._ _12.__ 3x Particle Beam
__0._ __1.5_ 2x Missile Rack
__0._ __0.25 1x Sandcaster
===== ====== ==============================
104._ 115.75 Subtotal 2 (does not include Subtotal 1)
370._ 314.35 subtotal R (=ST1+ST2)
===== ====== ==============================
_28._ __3.5_ 7 staterooms
__2._ __0.__ Cargo: 2Td
===== ====== ==============================
__0._ 317.85 total

Crewilot, Nav, 2 Engr, 4 gunners. Double occ, add CO and 6 troops.[/FONT]

How's that for an ugly Patrol cruiser: dual meson bays, a triple PA turret, and a mixed turret with 2x Missile and 1x Sandcaster.

Edit:
2x 5d+Crew Meson hits
4x 3d+crew PA Hits
2x Missiles, presume she'll carry 2d6+Crew Nuke Missiles
1x Sand for defense.

 

[Whipsnade]

How's that for an ugly Patrol cruiser: dual meson bays, a triple PA turret, and a mixed turret with 2x Missile and 1x Sandcaster.

Aramis,

WOW... That's even more of a combat monster than the single bay lash-up I scribbled together last night.

Robject, please note how this design has two bays but no launch. You could remove one bay, slap on another triple PA a turret, get the launch back, add staterooms/personnel, get more cargo space, and still have something that would beat the classic Patrol Cruiser like a red headed stepchild. And all for less than 100MCr more too, although CT and MgT prices don't match perfectly(1).

The Classic PC's hull is more expensive but the MgT PC is paying for things like sensors, meson gun bays, and a PA turret that aren't even options for the Classic PC.

When you consider the upgraded punch the MgT PC version has, it's the Classic and the HG2[i/] PCs that become the variants. Front line navies are going to build the MgT version, the other two either belong to lesser powers, small worlds, or are hand-me-downs.

The phrase is overused but it's use is accurate here, this is a paradigm shift Robject. This is akin to what HG2 did do LBB:2 or what TNE's HEPlaR did everything before it. The other changes could be wiggled with, this is just too great.

There's a couple of recent threads here talking about redesigning old warships or fixing broken warship designs. I think we should be looking at redesigning for MgT all the classics from all CT sources including the Alien Modules. Mongoose has already tackled quite a few, but there are many more squirreled away in the most unlikely places such as Expedition to Zhodane or Broadsword.

You know what? Using MgT would finally make that Zhodani strike cruiser from Broadsword work! There's another mark in Mongoose's favor!


Regards,
Bill

1 - As they shouldn't.

 

[robject]

Ye cats.

When you consider the upgraded punch the MgT PC version has, it's the Classic and the HG2[i/] PCs that become the variants. Front line navies are going to build the MgT version, the other two either belong to lesser powers, small worlds, or are hand-me-downs.

I think you're right to use the phrase "paradigm shift". That's a buttload of weapons.

I think we should be looking at redesigning for MgT all the classics from all CT sources including the Alien Modules. Mongoose has already tackled quite a few, but there are many more squirreled away in the most unlikely places such as Expedition to Zhodane or Broadsword.

You know what? Using MgT would finally make that Zhodani strike cruiser from Broadsword work! There's another mark in Mongoose's favor!

That point is sort of outweighed by the gun-heavy nature that MGT ships are likely to be, eh?

How about those bays, then. Are they as powerful as HG bay weapons?

 

[aramis]

How about those bays, then. Are they as powerful as HG bay weapons?

Well, not really.

they do 5D and a crew hit.

Versus the 3D per PA. The PA's do more damage, but the Meson's make them a serious threat; the armor isn't going to stop those meson bays.

Further, the Mesons and PA's all do crew hits. This badboy does a LOT of damage.

Next: A more nasty T-var.

 

[robject]

Well, I can't quite get there with Traveller 5. I throttled back to a smaller power plant (they're greedier than MGT versions). The meson gun is problematic; the only way I can get one of those on a ship of this size is if it's a main gun (sort of a mini-spine for small starships), and the only way to get that main gun on this ship with a bay weapon is if I shorten the main gun's range mightily, and get rid of all the smallcraft and the troops.

The bay weapon may not be worth the concessions: it only does 2x the damage of the best barbette I can muster, although it does get a nice to-hit mod. Even the main gun is only 6x as damaging as the best barbette, and is only effective at fighter range, although it does have the best to-hit mod.

This is no longer a Patrol Cruiser; it's just a small gunship. Perhaps an effective gunship, but still.

_Td__ MCr___ Notes TL12
400    24    Code A hull, Airframe
 35    35    Jump Drive F J3
 15    30    Maneuver Drive H M4
 23    69    Improved Powerplant H P4
 20     1    Bridge
  0     0.6  Adv Model 3/fib
  1     1.5  Adv Surface LR Comms-11
  0     0.5  Adv Surface AR Scope-11
  1     1.5  Std Antenna AR EMS-12
  1     0.5  Imp Surface LR Neutrino Det-12
  1     0.5  Adv Surface LR Jammer-11
 32     0    P-Fuel, 2 weeks
109     0    1J3 Fuel
===== ====== ==============================
238   164.1  Subtotal 1
===== ====== ==============================
 67    15    Imp FR Main Meson Gun-12
 50     7.5  Adv AR Bay Salvo Rack-12
  3     5.5  Std Fo T3 Beam Laser-12
  3     5.5  Std Fo T3 Beam Laser-12
===== ====== ==============================
123    33.5  Subtotal 2
344   197.6  Subtotal R
===== ====== ==============================
 11     0.26 11 x Dense-8 (AV88)
 44     5.5  11 staterooms
  1     0    Cargo
===== ====== ==============================
400   203.36

 

[Whipsnade]

That point is sort of outweighed by the gun-heavy nature that MGT ships are likely to be, eh?

Robject,

You're right when you point out that every ship is going to have the same "opportunity" to carry more weapons. MgT:HG's "tide" is going to "lift" all "boats" as it were. I was referring to the Zhodani Strike Cruiser's badly broken HG2 design however.

It displaces only 2,000 dTons and yet carries five weapon bays. I don't have HG1 so I don't know if it's a leftover from those short-lived rules, a HG1/HG2 hybrid, or just some awful mistake. GDW used the design in both Expedition to Zhodane and Broadsword and I used it in my HG2 combat example because it very neatly fit the example's requirements.


Regards,
Bill

 

[aramis]

_Td__ MCr___ Notes TL12
400._ _17.6_ Code 4SL hull, Streamlined
_35._ _60.__ Jump Drive F J3
_19._ _40.__ Maneuver Drive K M5
_31._ _80.__ Powerplant K P5
_20._ __2.__ Bridge
__0._ __3.__ Computer Model 3/fib
__5._ __4.__ Very Advanced Sensors DM+2
_40._ __0.__ PP Fuel, 4Wks
120._ __0.__ 1J3 Fuel
===== ====== ==============================
270._ 206.6_ subtotal 1
===== ====== ==============================
__4._ __4.__ 4x Triple Turret
__0._ _48.__ 12x Particle Beam
===== ====== ==============================
__4._ _52.__ Subtotal 2 (does not include Subtotal 1)
274._ 256.6_ subtotal R (=ST1+ST2)
===== ====== ==============================
_40._ _10.__ 20 staterooms
__4._ __0.8_ Repair Drones
_40._ __6.4_ 2x TL10 Crystaliron (AV8)
===== ====== ==============================
_84._ _17.2_ Subtotal 3 (does not include Subtotal 1)
358._ 273.8_ subtotal R (=ST1+ST2+ST3)
===== ====== ==============================
_22._ __0.__ cargo
__0._ _40.__ Reflect (+3 AV vs Lasers)
__0._ __4.__ Self Sealing
__0._ _40.__ Stealth
_20._ _14.__ Launch
===== ====== ==============================
_42._ _98.__ Subtotal 4 (does not include Subtotal 1)
358._ 371.8_ subtotal R (=ST1+ST2+ST3+4)


Crew:CO, 2 Pilot, Nav, 2 Engr, 8 DO gunners, Boarding Officer, 18x DO troopers [/FONT]

This thing does up to 12hits of 3d+ a crew hit each. That's 12 crew hits per turn.
AV8 (AV11 vs lasers) means turret lasers pretty much do not matter.

It's got P5, so why not have M5 to match... that was 4 tons and 6MCr.

Furthermore, the cargo can be dropped to 2 tons, and the AV upped by 4 to 12(15L), for MCr3.2

The TL14 version is same tonnages, but is AV 12(15L), and an extra MCr9.6 (MCr381.4); upgrading to heavy armor puts it 18/21, and costs an extra 8MCr (389.4)

If making it a standard design:
Base TL 12: 334.62
Uparmored TL12: 337.5
Base TL14: 343.26
Uparmored TL14: 350.46

Adding the hull treatments costs as much as the two meson bays.

Oh, and I forgot that the Hull provides a base armor value.

These bad boys are all but immune to turret lasers.

 

[aramis]

Since, Hal, Robject, Bill (Whipsnade), and I dragged it way off CT and into comparative editions of ship designs, I've migrated it over to The Fleet.

 

[robject]

The most significant difference I see between MGT and T5 starship design output is in the meson bays: those are expressly forbidden in T5, but allowed in MGT. The remaining ship components can be ported over, in some cases very easily, in some cases sort of messily.

With my broad and highly generalized guesstimating, I think:

Hull, drives, bridge, fuel, screens, smallcraft and general fittings can freely intermix between versions without hurting either ruleset.

Turrets and bays may intermix (it looks like all MGT weapons have a T5 representation), except for: meson bays, T5 barbettes (have to be mapped reasonably), and T5's additional weapon types would need to be given careful MGT damage values.

Computers would be difficult to map fairly, but I'm sure a reasonable way to do it can be found.

MGTs electronics suites easily map to sets of T5 sensors, but the mapping should be noted, and MGT ships coming to T5 should be able to augment their sensor suites if desired.

MGT drones would have to be designed as strangeform (probably missileform) robots in T5.

 

[aramis]

MGTHG has barbettes, too.

Note that, with 22Td of cargo, 4xTripTur could become:

1) 2Td Cargo, and 4xMeson Barbettes. Doing so cuts ship damage by a factor of 12, but gets to ignore armor, and cuts crew hits by a factor of 3.

2) 2Td of Cargo, and 4xPA Barbettes. Doing so cuts damage by a factor of 2.25, but increases penetration against armored craft.

 

[robject]

MGTHG has barbettes, too.

Ah, I'll need to look at MGTHG then.

OK, barbettes work as expected. And the additional weapons should map reasonably close to T5's.

 

[Hal]

Since, Hal, Robject, Bill (Whipsnade), and I dragged it way off CT and into comparative editions of ship designs, I've migrated it over to The Fleet.

Oh sure, blame me <g>

(and yes, I'm chuckling)

 

[Theophilus]

Okay, back to the original question:

500 ton ship
HG2 rules
50ton bay plus 5 HP?

Can we do it? No we can't.

If I recall correctly HG2 had an example of ship design for a 10,000 ton ship.

It clearly states that the tonnage used for the weapon subtracts from the total

ie: a 10kton ship has
1000 ton spinal mount , leaves 9000 tons
five 50ton bays (5000 tons used) leaves 4000 tons
40 turret hp's 100 tons each leaves 0 tons.

this would seen to preclude using the 50tons bay and 5 turret mix.

 

[mike wightman]

It's the wording in the text that causes the confusion though. So much so that FASA produced a canon design that includes a bay weapon in a sub 1000t hull (something that T20 allows as a rules variant).

I designed ships this way for years before being convinced I had it wrong - the text is still vague enough to allow the fudge though.

Something HG2 is very clear on is that an armour value 0 hull costs a certain % of hull volume, and yet people argue black is white to ignore that particular rule.

 

[Theophilus]

"The HG2 rule for armour 0 is clearer than the the rule for bays, and yet most people ignore the fact that to have armour 0 costs you tonnage. ."

I pulled out my copy of HG2 and checked this. It says you produce a basic hull (which has armor 0) and the armor section says you add armor to the basic hull at a set rate. I don't see where armor 0 costs tonnage since you can't add nothing to the basic hull.

I can see where you would add armor-1 at a rate of 4+4a, or 1=1a, etc. and take it from the tonnage, but saying a basic hull at TL-9 uses 4% of the hull, I just don't see it.

 

[Theophilus]

P.S. the weapons rules are on page 30.

The example has a 50kton ship with a 5000 ton spinal mount.
the bay weapon section, (paragraph 2) says 5000ton spinal mount and 45 bays.

Under the turret section it has spinal mount, bays and turrets.

 

[rancke]

P.S. the weapons rules are on page 30.

The example has a 50kton ship with a 5000 ton spinal mount.
the bay weapon section, (paragraph 2) says 5000ton spinal mount and 45 bays.

Under the turret section it has spinal mount, bays and turrets.

Yes. A 50,000 T ship has 500 hardpoints. A 5,000 T spinal mount effectively deducts 50 hardpoints. A bay costs 10 hardpoints. A 50,000 T ship with a 5,000T spinal can have 45 bays, but then it can't have any turrets.

As I understand it (I'm not quite sure about the rules), under MgT a 50,000 T ship can have 500 weapons, regardless of size (provided it has the tonnage for it, that is). So instead of a spinal and 45 bays, the 50,000 T ship can have one spinal and 499 bays, or one spinal, 45 bays, and 454 turrets (tonnage permitting).

A difference so small it would be ridiculous for anyone to care about it.


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

"The HG2 rule for armour 0 is clearer than the the rule for bays, and yet most people ignore the fact that to have armour 0 costs you tonnage. ."

I pulled out my copy of HG2 and checked this. It says you produce a basic hull (which has armor 0) and the armor section says you add armor to the basic hull at a set rate. I don't see where armor 0 costs tonnage since you can't add nothing to the basic hull.

I can see where you would add armor-1 at a rate of 4+4a, or 1=1a, etc. and take it from the tonnage, but saying a basic hull at TL-9 uses 4% of the hull, I just don't see it.

Starship design checklist, page 26:
8. Select hull armor

Page 29 'if no armor is selected the armor factor in the USP is zero.'

page 23 Hull armor table

% of ship required for armor (a is desired armor factor (- and remember 0 is a selection))
4+4a or 3+3a or 2+2a or 1+1a depending on TL

Therefore an armor 0 hull costs either 4, 3, 2 or 1% of the hull volume.

It's there in black and white - the math can't be argued with - and no one does it.