• 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.

OTU Only: Gypsy Queen Class Fast Merchant, LBB2, 199Td, J26GP7

Grav_Moped

SOC-14 5K
Admin Award 2022
Knight
Nominally this is a fast merchant with minimal crew requirements. Typical use cases are for star systems where the mainworld is deep in the primary's gravity well, or where there's a need for in-system travel between endpoints less than a week apart at 6G. The yacht version -- detailed below -- has a slightly different purpose.

And, of course, I'm playing with house rules as usual. Can you guess which ones?
Taking the 10Pn power plant fuel allocation for Pn-6, using the TCS power-down rule to stretch it to J2 in 200Td (40Td) plus 10Pn (20Td); then adding 10Td. Then, declaring that this 70Td supports 1J2 (40Td) plus 1/2 month of Pn-6 (30Td) if you don't use that Pn-6 for very long -- or even if you do. The rest of this is how I justify it...

Build rules: LBB2'81, with Demountable Tanks and the power-down rules from Trillion Credit Squadron.
[SPOILER="to hide the details"]
179​
20​
Td Cargo. LBB2
20​
1​
Bridge
3​
18​
Comp 3Could be M/2
2​
1​
SR x 2Pilot, Gunner
10​
15​
j2,b
22​
56​
p7,g
11​
24​
m6,f
10​
extra fuel
60​
Power Fuel
0​
48​
hull
1​
3.25​
BBS (3x turret)
0​
0.1​
hardpoint
40​
0.04​
Dem Tks (J2)
MCr Ind/Qty
166.35​
149.715​
[/SPOILER]
Using a custom 199-ton hull, the Gypsy Queen class Fast Merchant is intended for use where maximum acceleration capability in a cargo carrier is a priority. It mounts Jump Drive-B, maneuver drive-F, and power plant-G, giving performance of jump-2 and 6-G acceleration, as well as supporting Double-Fire capability. A 70-ton fuel tank provides for the power plant and 10 extra tons of fuel. 40 tons of internal demountable fuel tanks support Jump-2 when installed. Adjacent to the bridge is a Model/3 computer (which can be optionally be replaced with a Model/2 or even /1bis if desired for reasons of cost or space). There are two staterooms and no low berths. One triple turret is installed on the ship's lone hardpoint, equipped with two beam lasers and a sandcaster. Nominal cargo capacity is 20 tons. No small craft or vehicles are carried. The hull is streamlined. A 2-person crew -- pilot/navigator and gunner -- is required.

The ship costs MCr166.35 individually, 149.715 in serial production.

So, that's nice. What's the point, and exactly how am I going to use house rules to get you folks to yell at me?

Step 1: Turn it into an in-system yacht. Drop the demountable tanks (no jump capability at this point) and use the total 60Td of payload for yacht-type stuff. 9 staterooms; 8 high passengers and a steward, and 24Td cargo. Double-bunk the gunner and steward to save 4Td that goes to carrying an air/raft. Done. Adds about MC5 to the cost. You could add a 20Td launch if you wanted to, but why bother? There's nothing even remotely rule-bending here, but it's weird.

Alternately, just yank the tanks and run with a 60Td cargo hold. Or pretend the tanks are still there, but use them to hide 40Td of cargo space from everyone else. Still legal but weird.

Step 2: As above, but run everything at Pn-2 under the TCS power-down rule. This drops the mandatory 4-week power plant fuel requirement from 60Td (not 70Td because LBB2 fails to recognize Pn ratings beyond 6 -- though it does have 70Td fuel for reasons that will become clear shortly) to 20Td. The remaining 50Td fuel (after the 1 month of Pn-2 fuel) in normal tanks support 1J2 and 2 additional weeks of Pn-2, as long as you don't push it past 2G acceleration. This was a legal build with the demountable tanks; it's entirely functional to operate it as J2/2G/Pn2, though we're getting fuzzy with the jump fuel.

Step 3: Here's where the shouting starts: You've got hostiles closing and you need to firewall the throttle. Ramp the power plant up to Pn-7 so as to be able to do 6G and Double-Fire in the anti-missile fire phase. Your next two weeks of power plant fuel burn will come to 30Td, not 10Td. Fortunately, you will still have 30Td on board after burning the J2 fuel, so you're good there.

Use case: Running away really fast, and executing a J-1 at the 10-diameter line and accepting that you're going to misjump (the odds of rolling "ship destroyed" are pretty low in LBB2). Once you've entered jumpspace, throttle back to Pn-1 (which is all that's needed for a J-1). This extends your fuel reserve long enough to survive the longest misjumps and still have enough left for one more jump and one more week to get to a fuel source. TCS only counts fuel savings by months rather than days/weeks, but it doesn't seem to me like it's stretching things too far.


Actual mission: It's a getaway ship for elites who may need to flee their world. Just don't tell anyone that it still has jump capability left once you go to Pn7/6G. Letting it sit disused and ignored on the far side of the starport helps too


Exploit case: Well, it works for 2 weeks even if you run at full power the whole time, not just when you notice a threat. That's enough to get you there, so it never really needed the demountable tanks in the first place. (Why yes, this is the Yacht Loophole again -- so go ahead and complain if you want to).
 
Last edited:
And, of course, I'm playing with house rules as usual. Can you guess which ones?
That's ... enough of a dodge that ... I'm having difficulty taking this seriously. :cautious:
It mounts Jump Drive-B, maneuver drive-F, and power plant-G
According to LBB2.81, any drives over F are "not allowed" within the 200 ton hull form factor.

I know what you're reaching for, but this really doesn't work (for me). Sorry.



To be honest, I think you would be better off with a J2/2G starship "tender" and a 6G small craft "yacht" type arrangement. Basically the starship is mainly for interstellar jumping, while the small craft is for zooming around and joyriding in. Even if you do C/C drives in a sub-100 tons small craft and then just build a sub-200 tons jump tender to go with it, you're probably going to wind up with a better (and more plausible) mix of capabilities, I reckon.
 
That's ... enough of a dodge that ... I'm having difficulty taking this seriously. :cautious:
Fine. Just pointing out that I expect flames due to house-rule stuff. This is because it is house rule stuff.
According to LBB2.81, any drives over F are "not allowed" within the 200 ton hull form factor.
Disagree. F drives can't have the Factor 7 rating you'd expect them to have in that hull, that's all. They don't need it though, since the only in-game (LBB2) reasons to do that are to enable double-fire (which is why it's used here -- and it's not essential anyhow) and/or act as expensive "armor" for the drive. (Maybe to allow towing external payloads at higher Gs too, but LBB2 didn't cover that.)

Also, if you bring in drop tanks from LBB5 (or use LBB2 drives in LBB5 ships), what happens to a ship that's J4/4G with 200Td drop tanks when it ejects them? Do they have to eject part of the drives, too?

As noted, this is mostly a sideways take on the LBB2 minimum fuel allocation rule. "Must have 10Pn tons fuel", then applying TCS powerdown so that the 10Pn (for Pn=6) in 200Td can be J2 and 10Pn when idled to Pn=2. Then add 10Td fuel, so even after burning the jump fuel for a J-2, there's still 2 weeks of Pn-6 fuel (30Td) left even before idling back to Pn-2 or Pn-1 after initiating the Jump.

The extra 10Td also would cover the powerplant if it really was Pn-7 (which it can't be, due to LBB2 not allowing ratings over 6).
 
Last edited:
Unofficially, this is to get in and out of deep gravity wells quickly.

The real reason for this design is the subtext. It's either a smuggler's hot-rod, or the sort of yacht that a minor noble keeps around if they're afraid of what their subjects would do to them if the tables were turned. (Think Apartheid-era South Africa, for example). Over its service life, it may be converted from one version to the other and back a few times...

The just-under-200Td regulatory arbitrage is to keep the crew size to the minimum possible; the oversized power plant/double-fire capability is to make up for the second turret that's been sacrificed toward this end. If one is willing to run the full crew, drop the power plant one size, then add one ton displacement, a second hard point and turret, a second gunner, and an engineer. Maybe a navigator and medic too...

And, @Spinward Flow , yes, I could add a 5Td Mail Vault for multi-point in-system deliveries. :)
 
And yes, the ship's function is also its theme song:

sin(Gypsy_Queen)
[SPOILER="YouTube"]
[/SPOILER]
 
Last edited:
Don't take this the wrong way, but... why go through this effort, when you can easily build a design to those specs with Book 5 rules; in three minutes or so using HGS?
 
Don't take this the wrong way, but... why go through this effort, when you can easily build a design to those specs with Book 5 rules; in three minutes or so using HGS?
No offense taken.
I like messing around with LBB2'81, and consider it my default ruleset to which I add stuff from later versions. I think the power plant fuel rule is messed-up on purpose*, and enjoy rules-lawyering and house-ruling around it to try to make it make sense.

(Also, it took me only a couple of minutes to stat it out since I've already built the spreadsheet to do so.)

-----------------------
* Changing from 10Pn is "one trip" of power plant fuel in '77, to 10Pn is "one month" in '81 shows they knew it was a messed up rule, but they kept the messed up formula because by then there'd been four years of designs based on the original rule that'd be obsoleted if they re-did it properly (that is, having the required-fuel formula proportional to power plant output rather than rating number).
 
Fine. Just pointing out that I expect flames due to house-rule stuff. This is because it is house rule stuff.
The funny part for me is that the CLASSIC Traveller rules explicitly ENCOURAGE "house-rule stuff", so I only see it as "flame" worthy if one claims it is R.A.W. and other's disagree. If one states up front that they are using "XYZ house-rule" then there is an implied "accept it", "offer a better alternative" or "just reject it and walk away" because nobody is demanding that you use it and there are no "house-rule police".
 
Yup, RAW are for autho...

oh wait,

GDW didn't stick to their own rules, and every Mongoose Traveller author invents new game rules/systems in their works. Often contradicting their own work...
... but THEN they are fair game for "flaming". They invited it when they published OFFICIAL CANON that violated their own OFFICIAL RULES (creating "OFFICIAL" contradictions).

It is like meeting yourself during TIME TRAVEL or "crossing the Particle Streams" ... it is "BAD".

 
Last edited:
GDW didn't stick to their own rules, and every Mongoose Traveller author invents new game rules/systems in their works. Often contradicting their own work...
Why stick to the rules you've established when you can just keep making up your own as you go along?

Note that this phenomenon isn't limited to Traveller (or even gaming in general).
Star Trek: The Next Generation was notorious for inventing "particle of the week" stories relying on Technobabble to shortcut their way out of painting themselves into a corner as writers.

It ultimately comes down to being a question of whether or not the RAW is an open or closed framework.

An open framework is inherently/deliberately "incomplete" such that there's enough for people to get started with and the intention is to build upon and EXPAND the framework as new ideas and concepts "gather" upon and merge into the framework.

A closed frame work is deliberately "complete" with the intention being that there's "nothing new under the sun" to be added to the RAW (because the RAW is "complete" and inviolate). You can use the RAW to make "new stuff" (within what RAW provides), but there is no "adding" to the RAW because the RAW is "complete" (and inviolate). Therefore, anyone who does anything "outside of RAW" is a heretic and must be cast out/excommunicated from the fellowship of True Believers in the fundamentalism of RAW. 😤

History shows us, remarkably convincingly, that the pattern for Traveller has ALWAYS been the open framework model ... that the RAW provided is "enough to get started" but is by no means "complete or all encompassing" such that what was written is inviolate (forever and ever). Even the LBBs printed in 1977 encouraged Players and Referees to "get creative" and adapt (and adopt) "new stuff" to expand the game beyond the confines of what the RAW explicitly defined.

To put it mildly, even the expanded character generation of LBBs 4-7 stand as a testament to the fact that the Traveller RAW is something of an open framework which can be modified and updated at later dates with new product releases (that contradict previous publications). After all, expanded character generation works almost nothing like the simplified basic character generation system of LBB1 and LBB S4.

Drop tanks didn't exist for starships ... until they did ... and became one of the excuses for an entire Frontier War event in the Spinward Marches.



My personal take on the matter is that Traveller RAW is not ... immune ... to/from the Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems insight.
For our purposes, the objective to find a complete and consistent set of RAW for Traveller is impossible ... but that doesn't stop people from trying. :rolleyes:
Sisyphus ... you're stuck between a Rock and a hard Hill Place.
 
Last edited:
Deck plans: it's a Far Trader with afterburners, a smuggler's hot rod. I've adapted it from a well-known SF film, and to Traveller-ize it, the gunner is a Vargr.

You know you've guessed it already:
Spoiler:


latest

 
Back
Top