HGS & GDW ships

[Hal]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone bothered to use HGS (High Guard Shipyard) to stat out the GDW ships at all?

I started to use the HGS with both Traders and Gunboats, only to run into the issue that many of the ships are/were built using Book 2, but were statted out for HG's format. As a result, the files I'm compiling for my own hard drive will be built as best as possible to match the Supplement 9: Fighting Ships or Traders and Gunboats book, yet not be an absolute match for it. At one point in time, I noted that the X-boat tender of 1,000 dtons, had it been built using the High Guard system from the start, could have been built smaller and still be able to house 4 X-boats.

I just now attempted to utilze HGS to build the Donosev class ship, but found I needed to look at World Builder's Handbook for Megatraveller just to find out how many staterooms the thing had.

In any event, it is my hope to build up a library of GDW based ships taken from various sources in the various GDW books, and build them strictly according to the HGS program. I'm already finding it interesting in the sense of how one lists a Modular cutter that is 20 dtons in size, carries a single 30 dton module, and carries an extra Module of 30 dtons in the bay when the first module isn't being used. I finally hit upon the expediency of just listing it as a 80 dton craft requiring a crew of 2. (20 for the cutter itself, plus 2 x 30 for the modules.)

I'm sure I will hit other issues as time goes on. In any event, I just wondered if anyone else had done this or would be interested in the files when done. Of course, I will have to check with Marc about allowing the work to be distributed. On the other hand, considering that anyone can produce virtually the same files by doing the work themselves based on the CD's or the books themselves, I suspect that Marc might be tickled pink to have it available. I just dread having to try and create the files for those ships used in THE SPINWARD MARCHES CAMPAIGN, as I KNOW those stats are flat out badly done.

 

[The Oz]

I've done just about every GDW ship (both Bk2 and HG) in HGS and none of them match their GDW-published stats. So I've made versions that come as close as possible. I've also made versions that corrected for the many flaws in the GDW versions, such as the Plankwell-class battleship only having a f-3 meson screen.

 

[Hal]

I've done just about every GDW ship (both Bk2 and HG) in HGS and none of them match their GDW-published stats. So I've made versions that come as close as possible. I've also made versions that corrected for the many flaws in the GDW versions, such as the Plankwell-class battleship only having a f-3 meson screen.

Funny how that works out. Some of the "comments" I'm including in the HGS files mention where the differences are regards to published material and HGS versions of the same ship. In your opinion, was it worth the effort to create those files, or did you do it as an exercise in seeing what could be done and then never used the files again?

What started me off on this little quest if you will, is when I looked at the Azhanti High Lightning class cruiser book that came with the maps (boxed set) and compared it against the material in Supplement 9. I found that the stats weren't exactly right in the sense that the material in Supplement 9 is pre-conversion Fleet Intruder, and that the Azhanti High Lightning book material indicates that the Supplement 9 information should have included a Meson Spinal Mount for the Frontier cruiser info instead of what it does show.

Then I got to thinking that maybe it would be a good idea to actually create files for each and every ship ever listed in any of the CT supplements/adventures - even if such ships were originally described as Book 2 designs. Looking at what is in Supplement 9 and in Traders and Gunboats tells me that they merely created the craft in Book 2 format, and then listed what the book two information would look like as a translation - NOT as a ship designed solely with HG

Ah well. I guess I'll just keep plugging away at it as it keeps me off the streets so to speak.

 

[Whipsnade]

Hal,

If you think the designs in S:9 and AHL gave you fits, just wait to you tackle the tender and rider designs in SMC.

Surprising isn't it? So much of Traveller is about building warships, but most of the warship designs in both CT or MT were broken.

I went looking for canonical warships for my HG2 battle example and was continually thwarted by broken designs. I eventually had to use a broken 50dTon fighter and a broken 2,000dTon strike cruiser design because they met my example's needs and not because they were legal builds. Both of the broken designs I used can be found in Broadsword and Expedition to Zhodane.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Hal]

Hal,

If you think the designs in S:9 and AHL gave you fits, just wait to you tackle the tender and rider designs in SMC.

Surprising isn't it? So much of Traveller is about building warships, but most of the warship designs in both CT or MT were broken.

I went looking for canonical warships for my HG2 battle example and was continually thwarted by broken designs. I eventually had to use a broken 50dTon fighter and a broken 2,000dTon strike cruiser design because they met my example's needs and not because they were legal builds. Both of the broken designs I used can be found in Broadsword and Expedition to Zhodane.


Regards,
Bill

Oh I already knew about those issues - as I had tried to build those ships for a different project I was working upon in the past. Ironically? The 10 billion Credit squadron I was working on for Jeffr0's campaign set up, I did the exact same thing. I created a Carrier design, then discovered that I had forgotten to give the ship jump fuel. Consequently, I built the remainder of the ship thinking I had a viable fighter design. After Jeffr0 found that errror during the Fuel hit controversy (THANK GOD!), I had to redesign my fleet and give up the Carrier idea I had.

Truth is, I don't feel TOO badly about the GDW designs not being 100% correct, as it gives us all something to play with as we build our own analogs for the ships. After all, how difficult can it be to build analogs of a given ship design based on the generalized stats given (ie Jump drive values, manuever drive values, weapon types, etc). The only real pain that comes into play is when you try to build a BatRon based on that given in THE SPINWARD MARCHES CAMPAIGN, then try to make that design fit the info given in THE FIFTH FRONTIER WAR campaign, and then wonder why the pieces don't fit together like a swiss watch. <g>

To this day, I still remember being unhappy that I couldn't build the ships given in IMPERIUM the board game after thinking "How hard can it be? Got screens, Missiles, Beams, and even speeds. Surely they designed it (HG) so it would produce the same ships in IMPERIUM and later on, that other boxed game (You know, I still have that game in a box with the counters unpunched lying about somewhere?). Ah yes, Dark Nebula...

In any event - I'm noticing that people are discussing ideas on how to build "better ships" or better tanks (As was found in the Megatraveller section on the Intrepida Tank design for MT). Now if we could only find a purpose to put those designs to in an operational level game.

 

[Whipsnade]

Hal,

Imperium is an odd case. It's design actually pre-dates Traveller and, while that original design contained several ideas later used in Traveller, every jot and tittle in Imperium most definitely cannot be canon despite what FFE claims or what people believe.

GDW did perform a few "retrofits" of Imperium to make it more Traveller-like, but many parts of the game were never touched up and still remain un-Traveller in origin and effect. At it's heart, Imperium is not Traveller no matter how many layers of paint you slap on it. Imperium's jump lines, originally meant to model something akin to the Alderson Drive from The Mote in God's Eye, are an example of this.

Also, being a wargame also meant Imperium's designers and retro-fitters needed to meet game requirements first and canonical needs a distant second. In a wargame, canon must bow to the needs of play. Imperium's ship designs and FFW's seeming lack of fuel regulators are an example of this.

Because they didn't understand that wargames occupy a special place in canon, the authors of GT:ISW actually tried explain the jump lines on Imperium's map and completely ⌧ed up the idea of deep space jumps.

I'd ignore the warship designs in both Imperium and Dark Nebula just as we should ignore the jump lines on both games' maps. First, the ships are too simple to derive any actual design details. Second, the ships never existed as detailed designs which were subsequently simplified for the needs of the wargame. Third, the ship designs do not jibe well with what we know of canonical Ziru Sirka and Terran Confederation warship designs especially with regards to armament choices.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Jeffr0]

Hal,

If you think the designs in S:9 and AHL gave you fits, just wait to you tackle the tender and rider designs in SMC.

Surprising isn't it? So much of Traveller is about building warships, but most of the warship designs in both CT or MT were broken.

I went looking for canonical warships for my HG2 battle example and was continually thwarted by broken designs. I eventually had to use a broken 50dTon fighter and a broken 2,000dTon strike cruiser design because they met my example's needs and not because they were legal builds. Both of the broken designs I used can be found in Broadsword and Expedition to Zhodane.


Regards,
Bill

Loren Wiseman addressed this issue in (I think) a JTAS article at SJGames. He said he was shocked (shocked, I say!) to find out that the first thing a lot of people did when they got a ruleset was to try to design the example ships/vehicles and then write GDW a nasty letter when things didn't come out right. Admittedly, many people were going to 10 significant digits or something... but Loren didn't seem (to me anyway) to understand why this was such an issue.

FWIW, CAR WARS has similar problems. Many of the "official" designs have errors... and some published in ADQ were atrocious. However, errata was published in ADQ for stuff like the Vehicle Guide I and the Combat Showcase. BUT the game had evolved to a point where most active players were using a whole different set of equipment, so the errata was practically all for nought. CAR WARS referees pretty much have to design their own stock vehicle lists for whatever mileau they're doing....

 

[tbeard1999]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone bothered to use HGS (High Guard Shipyard) to stat out the GDW ships at all?(

I did all the CT standard designs here:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=18000

 

[Hal]

I did all the CT standard designs here:

By Chance Tbeard1999 - do you still have the HGS files for those? For what it is worth, I'm going ship by ship in Traders and Gunboats, Supplement 9 Fighting Ships, and intend to grab just about every GDW listed ship in any of the sources - regardless of whether the ships were designed using Book 2: Starships or High Guard. What I'm doing too is listing the pages I find those designs on when it comes time to save the HGS file for each class. Eventually, I intend to organize the files in folders by TL and see how well it works out.

 

[Hal]

In building a Nolikean class Battle Rider, I found myself scratching my head in mild puzzlement. The class utilizes double turrets?!!!

I created an upgraded version of the Battle Rider class while attempting to keep to the spirit of the design.

The upgraded design utilizes a hull that is 100 dtons smaller so as to gain a +1 defensive bonus (ie, hull classification of K size instead of L size. This negates the +1 bonus to hit the Nolikean class ships by weapons).

I then downgraded the ship's defensive array by 1 sandcaster battery, but upgraded it from a dual turret to a triple turret.

Net result was a craft that was a little more difficult to hit, had a better sandcaster battery even if it lost a single sand caster battery due to modifications.

In addition to the dual turrets issue, which had me slightly puzzled, I also wondered how in God's name did the Nolikean carry 4 gunboats at 50 dtons per gunboat? The reason I asked is because the Nolikean in its original configuration of 20,000 dtons, sans the four gunboats, the Nolikean class craft only has 100 dtons of cargo space left over. I didn't include a frozen watch, which means that the Nolikean class ship isn't as "accurate" per High Guard rules as it should be. The only way to design the Nolikean class battle rider such that it could carry the low watch and gunboats if is I lowered the armor rating from B to A.

 

[Hal]

This is the upgraded version of the Nolikean Class Battle Rider. I noted initially that there were some problems trying to fit in all the components originally included in the design specs listed in THE SPINWARD MARCHES CAMPAIGN. What I discovered was, that the ship doesn't need a powerplant 25 (Q) as given in TSMC, but only needs a powerplant 15. That ALONE saves a lot of volume within the ship. I suspect that the Nolikean class Battle Rider has a minor "error" as far as the power plant size was concerned. In any event, this is the upgraded Nolikean II class making corrections for power plant size plus the trimming of 100 dtons from the hull size to gain the benefit of losing the +1 hull size penalty. Oh, almost forgot. I upgraded the Armor to 15, and also included a backup model 9 computer. One could remove that backup computer I think...


Ship: Nolikean II
Class: Nolikean II Battle Rider
Type: BR
Architect: Hal
Tech Level: 15

USP
         BR-K106FJ3-F49909-399N9-0 MCr 20,486.920 19.9 KTons
Bat Bear             7   1 C121C   Crew: 288
Bat                  7   1 C121C   TL: 15

Cargo: 2,551.000 Frozen Watch Fuel: 2,985.000 EP: 2,985.000 Agility: 6 Marines: 81 Pulse Lasers
Craft: 4 x 50T Gunboat
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops and On Board Fuel Purification
Backups: 1 x Model/9fib Computer 1 x Bridge
Substitutions: X = 120 Y = 200 Z = 30

Architects Fee: MCr 204.869 Cost in Quantity: MCr 16,389.536


Detailed Description

HULL
19,900.000 tons standard, 278,600.000 cubic meters, Needle/Wedge Configuration

CREW
27 Officers, 180 Ratings, 81 Marines

ENGINEERING
Jump-0, 6G Manuever, Power plant-15, 2,985.000 EP, Agility 6

AVIONICS
Bridge, Model/9fib Computer
1 Backup Bridge, 1 Model/9fib Backup Computer

HARDPOINTS
Spinal Mount, 3 100-ton bays, 12 50-ton bays, 29 Hardpoints

ARMAMENT
Meson Gun Spinal Mount (Factor-N), 2 100-ton Particle Accelerator Bays (Factor-9), 12 50-ton Missile Bays (Factor-9), 12 Triple Pulse Laser Turrets organised into 12 Batteries (Factor-3), 10 Dual Fusion Gun Turrets organised into 1 Battery (Factor-9)

DEFENCES
1 100-ton Repulsor Bay (Factor-9), 7 Triple Sandcaster Turrets organised into 7 Batteries (Factor-4), Nuclear Damper (Factor-9), Meson Screen (Factor-9), Armoured Hull (Factor-15)

CRAFT
4 50.000 ton Gunboats (Crew of 2, Cost of MCr 0.000)

FUEL
2,985.000 Tons Fuel (0 parsecs jump and 28 days endurance)
On Board Fuel Scoops, On Board Fuel Purification Plant

MISCELLANEOUS
147.0 Staterooms, 144 Low Berths, 2,551.000 Tons Cargo

USER DEFINED COMPONENTS
None

One final thought before I post this...

I wonder if I could shave off the need to carry 200 Lurenti class fighters if I could include the ability for the Nolikean II class ships to carry 20 fighters each. Hmmm. As it turns out, I can include a launch tube, plus 20 additional 20 dton fighters if I lower the Armor from 15 to 14. Nice tight little ship actually.

 

[tbeard1999]

By Chance Tbeard1999 - do you still have the HGS files for those? For what it is worth, I'm going ship by ship in Traders and Gunboats, Supplement 9 Fighting Ships, and intend to grab just about every GDW listed ship in any of the sources - regardless of whether the ships were designed using Book 2: Starships or High Guard. What I'm doing too is listing the pages I find those designs on when it comes time to save the HGS file for each class. Eventually, I intend to organize the files in folders by TL and see how well it works out.

Unfortunately, I did not keep the HGS files. I'll keep looking though, and if I find them, I'll let you know.

 

[Hal]

Unfortunately, I did not keep the HGS files. I'll keep looking though, and if I find them, I'll let you know.

Thanks tbeard1999.

Ultimately? I can just look at the data you provided with the text export you quoted in your posts. Lazy sod that I am, I was hoping to be able to skip having to do it by hand But, I can do it by hand - especially since you've taken the time and effort to do the same and I can just follow in your footsteps

 

[far-trader]

...why not, part 2.

For what it's worth I figured I'd spec up the Nolikian too after the mental self flagellation went so well on the Lurenti

Ship: Nolikian
Class: Nolikian
Type: Battle Rider
Architect: Dan "far-trader" Burns
Tech Level: 15

USP
         BR-L106QJ3-B39905-299N9-0 MCr 23,376.708 20 KTons
Bat Bear             8   1 B121B   Crew: 314
Bat                  8   1 C121C   TL: 15

Cargo: 0.000 Frozen Watch Fuel: 4,800.000 EP: 4,800.000 Agility: 6 Marines: 81
Craft: 4 x 20T Gunboat
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops
Backups: 1 x Bridge
Substitutions: Y = 33 Z = 32

Architects Fee: MCr 233.767   Cost in Quantity: MCr 18,701.366


Detailed Description

HULL
20,000.000 tons standard, 280,000.000 cubic meters, Needle/Wedge Configuration

CREW
29 Officers, 204 Ratings, 81 Marines

ENGINEERING
Jump-0, 6G Manuever, Power plant-24, 4,800.000 EP, Agility 6

AVIONICS
Bridge, Model/9fib Computer
1 Backup Bridge

HARDPOINTS
Spinal Mount, 2 100-ton bays, 13 50-ton bays, 30 Hardpoints

ARMAMENT
Meson Gun Spinal Mount (Factor-N), 2 100-ton Particle Accelerator Bays (Factor-9), 12 50-ton Missile Bays (Factor-9), 12 Single Beam Laser Turrets organised into 12 Batteries (Factor-2), 10 Dual Fusion Gun Turrets organised into 1 Battery (Factor-9)

DEFENCES
1 50-ton Repulsor Bay (Factor-5), 8 Single Sandcaster Turrets organised into 8 Batteries (Factor-3), Nuclear Damper (Factor-9), Meson Screen (Factor-9), Armoured Hull (Factor-11)

CRAFT
4 20.000 ton Gunboats (Crew of 3, Cost of MCr 0.000)

FUEL
4,800.000 Tons Fuel (0 parsecs jump and 28 days endurance)
On Board Fuel Scoops, No Fuel Purification Plant

MISCELLANEOUS
160.0 Staterooms, 160 Low Berths, 0.000 Ton Cargo

USER DEFINED COMPONENTS
None

COST
MCr 23,610.475 Singly (incl. Architects fees of MCr 233.767), MCr 18,701.366 in Quantity

CONSTRUCTION TIME
172 Weeks Singly, 138 Weeks in Quantity

COMMENTS

I added 3 extra lowberths (for casualties) just to use up the 1.5tons left over to make the book 0tons cargo match. The other option I toyed with was increasing the crew, but that put me 1 or 2 tons over.

I changed the powerplant from 25 to 24 so the USP matches (the original didn't skip the "I" in counting), which dropped the fuel, which allowed room for the 4 Gunboats.

I just guessed the Gunboats would be 20ton armed/armored Gigs with a crew of 2 each. Anything bigger won't fit.

This one looks very familiar so I'm sure I did work it up sometime in the past. Of course it might not have been for HG. I was in the habit of attempting to recreate some ships in each version of the rules as they came out. Mental masochist that I am

Much of the differences between the SMC ships (maybe a lot of the HG ships) and what HGS outputs may be down to the originals being done with HG1. I know some of them are. But I always aim for as close as possible in numbers, then in spirit, limiting the changes as much as possible to areas that won't have impacted past usage.

 

[Hal]

The problem with the Nolikean battle rider is its Q power plant <evil grin>

If you take the time to see what power plant level is required to get the Agility 6 value, you'll find that Q powerplant is WAY too high to achieve that modest goal...



Compare the Q powerplant value with the F powerplant in the Nolikean II build. BIG difference there.

 

[far-trader]

The problem with the Nolikean battle rider is its Q power plant <evil grin>

Oh, I quite agree, in a couple ways

But it could be for damage soak. Why else? I had to cheat as it was by reducing it to 24 (coincidentally the same letter code, corrected so I don't feel too badly going that far) to squeeze in just 20ton gunboats.

Not faulting your N-II at all, and redesigning it from scratch I'd do it differently too, much probably. But that's not my point in this, nor do I think it is the right tack to take in doing the HGS versions of old designs. Best to stick to the hard numbers as closely as possible, accounting for design system changes of course, and not take a boarding axe to the spirit of the design. Case in point, the CT type S with 3tons of cargo space, compared to everyone's "cheats" with the later (post book 2) design systems and chunking in 20tons+ cargo "because you can"...

...and numerous similar such "updates" :nonono:

For our own TUs, nobody can argue "fixing" any design

 

[Hal]

My General "design philosophy" when trying to redo the entire listed Traveller Universe ships from Book 2 designs and broken High Guard designs, is attempt to keep to the spirit of the design while trying to insure that the design is a legal High Guard design.

While I may be giving away too much of my Trillion Credit Squadron design rules, I'm also attempting to design ships that carry Marines for assault purposes - the ability to carry around 5 dtons of capacity per Marine for cargo space. Thus, if I place 200 marines aboard a Troop Transport, I'm also attempting to include 1,000 dtons of cargo space (A hold over from GURPS GROUND FORCES).

In any event, my idea here is to try and have some High Guard designs that can be utilized by anyone who might want them for their own campaigns. What others do with the files after I make them and perhaps make them available somewhere, is up to them.

As for my own Traveller Universe - I don't use the Drop tank rules simply because the use of such tanks allows for Jump-6 X-boats as a matter of course for around 150 dtons (If I recall correctly). Warships that routinely utilize these drop tanks will find that they can only go "on the road" so to speak with their military units. Put another way?

Wheeled AFV's rarely go off road, and when they do, they're limited to where they can go and how fast. Tracked AFV's on the other hand, aren't as fast on road surfaces, but can go where they are needed and fight practically anywhere.

As has been noted earlier in this thread, there are other issues involved with drop tanks - rules regarding the bridge size and cost when such drop tanks are no longer being carried. Others have noted too, that a 300 dton hull that normally carries another 100 dtons in fuel tankage as drop tanks, can act as a 400 dton hull with 4 hard points, but in all other respects, be treated as a 300 dton hull. Larger drop tanks that require 1,000's of dtons for tankage only make matters worse when it comes to determining just how many dtons of volume any given hull has when it comes to internal weaponry such as Bays or multiple turret hard points. Do the drop tanks have hard points installed upon them?

In all? As a GM, I tend to avoid drop tank issues - which is why I never thought to utilize drop tanks with the Lurenti class design. It is a blind spot if you will

For now, I'm finding myself enjoying the self-imposed task of trying to design ships for use with Traveller and High Guard.

 

[far-trader]

While I may be giving away too much of my Trillion Credit Squadron design rules, I'm also attempting to design ships that carry Marines for assault purposes - the ability to carry around 5 dtons of capacity per Marine for cargo space. Thus, if I place 200 marines aboard a Troop Transport, I'm also attempting to include 1,000 dtons of cargo space (A hold over from GURPS GROUND FORCES).

I applaud that It's been my design philosophy to think about the whole and not just the "perfect" machine, through the whole 1BCS, 10BCS, and coming TCS* fun as well as everyday designing.

I also include marines, and cargo (generally allotting only 1dton/crew or marine for gear and supplies). I'd add to that if the marines were a planetary invasion force, and your 5dton per is reasonable for a fully mechanized force I think.

* yes, I'm still nominally in, plugging away, we'll see if I finish

As for my own Traveller Universe - I don't use the Drop tank rules simply because the use of such tanks allows for Jump-6 X-boats as a matter of course for around 150 dtons (If I recall correctly).

I think I had one down to 100dtons

But I do agree drop tanks are a pain the way they're written. It's a love/hate relationship for me.

I totally get what you're saying about the logistics. I just don't find it a problem for a multi-millennial spanning empire with the kind of credits routinely thrown about for the military. Drop tanks are cheap. Tankers to deliver them are cheap. I can easily see the IN having drop tank points all through charted space by now, specifically set up for needs and closely guarded, both by secrecy and deep stationed forces. Going off-road is doable.

Think more like in flight refueling than ground vehicles with traction issuses.

As has been noted earlier in this thread, there are other issues involved with drop tanks - rules regarding the bridge size and cost when such drop tanks are no longer being carried.

Rather that the bridge size and cost should include the size of the tanks to be able to operate them.

Others have noted too, that a 300 dton hull that normally carries another 100 dtons in fuel tankage as drop tanks, can act as a 400 dton hull with 4 hard points, but in all other respects, be treated as a 300 dton hull. Larger drop tanks that require 1,000's of dtons for tankage only make matters worse when it comes to determining just how many dtons of volume any given hull has when it comes to internal weaponry such as Bays or multiple turret hard points. Do the drop tanks have hard points installed upon them?

Not an issue. The Gazelle is broken. The rules were clarified in TCS that drop tanks do not count for hardpoint calculation. If anything, imo, they should require hardpoints

For now, I'm finding myself enjoying the self-imposed task of trying to design ships for use with Traveller and High Guard.

One of the better "games within the game" imo. Enjoy, and share