Judges Guild Mercenary Cruiser Reimagined

[navanod]

I'll second that. How about the Judge's Guild 800t Type C Cruiser?

I dug out the pic of that thing...my first impression was "meh, pretty square and boring." But I got to thinking about it, and that might be a challenge in itself - to take some of those early simple (and moderately ugly) ships and see if you can make them visually appealing and useful.

The listed size is way wrong (8.2 m x 8.5 m x 66 m = 4600 cu m = 328 dtons), and I haven't checked the validity of the design, but I took a SWAG at a prototype over morning coffee, built out of a box and some pieces I had laying around. Scaled up to get the right volume it comes out to 12 m x 12.2 m x 94 m. You can see a rough render of it here -

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Gallery/index.php?n=1083

 

[HG_B]

I dug out the pic of that thing...my first impression was "meh, pretty square and boring." But I got to thinking about it, and that might be a challenge in itself - to take some of those early simple (and moderately ugly) ships and see if you can make them visually appealing and useful.

The listed size is way wrong (8.2 m x 8.5 m x 66 m = 4600 cu m = 328 dtons), and I haven't checked the validity of the design, but I took a SWAG at a prototype over morning coffee, built out of a box and some pieces I had laying around. Scaled up to get the right volume it comes out to 12 m x 12.2 m x 94 m. You can see a rough render of it here -

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Gallery/index.php?n=1083

I like what you've done with it. Amazing that the original specs were off by >100%

 

[robject]

I think the original JG specs became confused between 1m vs 1.5m grid lines, among other things.

Probably the ugliest thing about it are those sharp edges and corners. If those were a bit beveled they'd not look so offensive.

 

[fredofmars]

JG Mercenary cruiser

I dug out the pic of that thing...my first impression was "meh, pretty square and boring." <snip>

I think you've done a good job of presenting this. It's clear it's a quick first-run for you, but hopefully you'll do a bit more on it.

 

[HG_B]

I think the original JG specs became confused between 1m vs 1.5m grid lines, among other things.

If they intended the grid to be 1.5 rather than 1m it would only be off by 50% not >100%. No, whoever laid it out knew nothing of Trav ship design, math or both.

 

[far-trader]

The listed size is way wrong... Scaled up to get the right volume it comes out to 12 m x 12.2 m x 94 m.

Which is (perhaps not coincidentally) about the size the deckplans show

About 93m long by 12m wide by 9m (3 decks) high. Comes to about 750tons, not including the bits of the pinnaces that stick out of that box (about half for another 40tons) and the turrets (for another 8tons). Close enough to 800tons for me

That said, even a quick glance at the deckplans is enough to know they don't look correct volume wise for actual fittings. I think before doing too much work on the outside you need to square away the interior, at least approximately, so you get the bits in the right places and sized appropriately. You know, if that matters to you

I would take a crack at the deckplans but I'm not sure when it would happen. The actual design is probably close, it looks like the old Merc Cruiser (Pinnaces instead of Cutters) design and I think that did work out correctly. I will probably do a quick run through of sometime today just to satisfy my curiosity.

 

[far-trader]

My quick run of the Cruiser numbers comes up with 70tons left? Has me wondering what I'm forgetting or if I did the basic math badly

Anyway, should I break the Cruiser posts off into its own development thread for you navanod? Or do you want to keep it here?

 

[far-trader]

For what it's worth, part of the missing tons is the adding error in the description, it lists 48tons aux fuel (which at least goes evenly into the 12ton fuel tanks of the pinnaces) but after subtracting jump and power fuel from the listed 288tons there was only 18tons left for aux. So that just leaves 40tons to account for. A pair of lifeboats would fit nicely

 

[far-trader]

Running some numbers my suggestion would be:

Forward section: 3 decks x 7.5m wide x 27.5m long = 137tons + 8tons for turrets

Bridge (20tons), Comp (5tons), Staterooms (100tons), 12tons Stores, + Turrets (8tons) = 145tons

​

Middle section: As per the description leave this an open framework, permitting mounting of and filling in with what the user desires. Cargo modules, fuel modules, small craft, vehicle hangers, etc.

Up to 260tons of gear within 30.0m length

​

Rear section: 4 decks x 13.5m wide x 33.0m long = 395tons

Jump Drive (65tons), Maneuver Thrusters (23tons), Powerplant (37tons), Fuel 270tons = 395tons


​

This is just a suggestion to get about the right tonnage allocated in the spirit of the original shape and description. With those as rough guides one should be able to fit deckplans in at the proper allocation without too much work.

For visual interest options:

Forward section: Pop the bridge out a bit (up or down, and to the sides and front) for "better visibility", suck the hull in a bit in some other areas to make up for it, maybe in the commons area at the rear of the forward section.

Middle section: Harder, some kind of truss arrangement of course, maybe just in the center deck, or with a mid line truss span as well. Filling it in is where you can get more creative with different modules and craft.

Rear section: I'm thinking the drives would be on the center deck (for the most part) with the rest being fuel tankage around it, allowing some breakup of the lines similar to the original with the half-split

That's about it...

...I just have to get off my chest how ugly and out of place that dish looks on the front end (but you know, whatever )

 

[navanod]

The dish...

I agree, it looks completely out of place, but in keeping with the spirit of the original design, I suppose we'll have to keep it. Maybe a better option will present itself whilst I'm working on it.

Your suggestions for layout sound okay to me, but I'll know more once I delve a little deeper into it. I'll have to table it until I get my X-boat project finished, which shouldn't take too terribly long, but I'll probably plink away at it as I'm able.

I'm certainly open to suggestions about what to do about that godawful dish on the front though.

 

[navanod]

An idea

The actual text lists room for 17 additional people...

...plus 17 spaces for research personnel, technicians, or troops

That says to me that possibly the dish is a sensor upgrade for a research variant. So there's a little wriggle room there. Now, just what to do with that blunt square nose....

 

[far-trader]

Looking at it again, it wouldn't be a huge crime to shift some of the fuel from the back to the front (about half deck fuel shielding surround), allowing something more like the original block modular forms...

EDITED:

Running some numbers my suggestion would be:

Forward section: 4 decks x 10.5m wide x 27.5m long = 257tons + 8tons for turrets

Bridge (20tons), Comp (5tons), Staterooms (100tons), 42tons Stores, Fuel (90tons) + Turrets (8tons) = 265tons

​

Middle section: As per the description leave this an open framework, permitting mounting of and filling in with what the user desires. Cargo modules, fuel modules, small craft, vehicle hangers, etc.

Up to 230tons of gear within 30.0m length

​

Rear section: 4 decks x 10.5m wide x 33.0m long = 305tons

Jump Drive (65tons), Maneuver Thrusters (23tons), Powerplant (37tons), Fuel (180tons) = 305tons​

​

Or something like that Glad to hear you're considering doing the deckplans as part of it. IMO the two (plans and views) need to be done in concert to be properly matched. Looking forward to you take when you get the time

 

[far-trader]

The actual text lists room for 17 additional people...

That says to me that possibly the dish is a sensor upgrade for a research variant. So there's a little wriggle room there. Now, just what to do with that blunt square nose....

Fair call on the sensor package being an option Works for me

For the nose, maybe give it a bit of a rake? Slant it back from the top. Or in keeping with the modular squared design form, step it back on each deck?

 

[far-trader]

Just because, not to distract or unduly influence. I was cut-n-paste doodling my ideas for this last week, figured I might as well share the sample for snits-n-giggles

The viewports in the drives section are just an optional idea I was messing with, sort of an emergency backup bridge option.

You'll note I moved the dish (and shrunk it a little) and turrets a bit.

And I implemented the open customizable structure mid section I was thinking made more sense. The tunnel would be used to access any attached bits by installing appropriate hatches.

The forward and aft hulls now have fuel skins of 1.5m all around except the fore and aft faces and where other penetrations require, with more fuel above and below the single deck maneuver thruster section.

I think the tonnage is close to accurate with the measurements listed, and the unshown capacity for modular connections to the middle.

All pretty modular and in the spirit of the original imo.

 

[navanod]

Okay, I started looking at rearranging things some (mostly just tinkering with primitives to get some ideas) and I guess before I go tearing off down the path, I feel like I should ask one thing first...

How much change to the original layout is acceptable? Are we shooting for minimal changes in both spirit and design, a complete rework keeping the original spirit only, or something in between? Does anyone care or have a particular opinion?

The reason I'm asking is that I can see going both ways with it. One idea I had was moving the bridge to a conning tower-like structure on the front; another was making the bridge (and maybe some other bits) wider than body at the front to give it kind of a hammerhead look. I'm also toying with the idea of starting with the open framework in the middle of the ship and rebuilding it from the keel up. But, I can also see a certain appeal to staying as true as possible to the original dimensions while still trying to make it as interesting as possible.

Opinions?

 

[navanod]

Figures - I start asking questions, and while I'm typing it up, people start giving me answers. :rofl:

I like it. Neat, simple, and functional.

 

[far-trader]

Figures - I start asking questions, and while I'm typing it up, people start giving me answers.

heh I'm usually the subject of the mind reading, not the Psi

Ultimately you've got to please yourself cause if you don't find it fun and interesting it won't be your best work. That said...

My preference would be for as close to original as possible while fixing any issues and making it more interesting.

However I like the conning tower and hammerhead bridge ideas too.

The firing arcs of the original look like an issue (hence my movement of the turrets). Speaking of which, I thought the dish where I moved it would be a minor annoyance for the turret there (ventral fore), but looking at it fresh now it may be a bigger issue, and I'm thinking either drop it (just 7 hardpoints) or stick it on the front? Or move it back some? Or move the dish forward a little more? Both? I dunno

The original nose dish is probably not a major problem, I just don't much like it

The biggest issue for me is tonnage and element accuracy. Subject to my own 1/2 Rule of Deckplan Drawing (I've got a pdf kindly prepared by another CotI forumite around here somewhere...

...briefly, each component is 1/2 actual installation and 1/2 access/common. The same as the canon explanation for staterooms where a 4ton stateroom should be 2tons of actual room and 2tons of other space (common and access). I generally break the "other" space down into 1/2s again (1/4s of original) with 1/4 access and 1/4 common features. Apply the same rule/guidline to each other discreet element like Maneuver Thrusters, Jump Drive, etc. You might be able to see that on the plan I posted for the drives, not so much for the staterooms as some of the common space is going to have to be on other decks and the crew quarters are more like barracks with each "room" having 4 beds and locating the freshers elsewhere.

I'd be pleased with one that was close enough looking to the original in basic shape and layout to be recognizable as the original reimagined, with correct tonnage of course

 

[navanod]

Well, it's become apparent to me that the side view from the book that I used is pretty close to worthless, which I suspected anyway so it's no big deal. So, at this point, I think it's going to have to be a rebuild from the keel up. I started with the center section, since that's what everything else is going to be based off of, and started working with the cargo pods and landing pads. I threw together a quickie strut and passage arrangement, which I now see isn't going to work in it's present state...the central passage I made is 1.5 meters high. o: Hope you like to stoop while boarding the pinnaces. Not a huge problem, just the result of working when I'm getting tired. I was going to throw up some pics to illustrate the issues I'm seeing, but it's sleepy time and they'd just be wrong anyway.

Oh, had a thought about that dish as well...what if we took it off that cylinder thingee and integrated it into the nose? Solves two problems at once. Dunno exactly how yet, but I'll look at it with a fresh view in the morning.

 

[Vile]

[...] the central passage I made is 1.5 meters high. o: Hope you like to stoop while boarding the pinnaces./QUOTE]
That's not a problem - change the grav plate orientation and make it a liftshaft ... or a Jefferies tube ...

 

[navanod]

That's not a problem - change the grav plate orientation and make it a liftshaft ... or a Jefferies tube ...

Interesting idea, but with a 90 degree direction change, things get far more complicated than I like. Unless you make it a tail sitter, in which case you'd have 30+ decks...

One other interesting thing I've noticed. In the picture, the pinnaces dock on the top/bottom, but on the deckplans it shows an outline of them on the sides. Mistake, oversight, or some kind of complicated rotating dock that allows one to climb straight up into the pinnace without messing with the grav plates? Basically loading or unloading one by going up into the boat, then the docks rotate around the central strut to bring the bottom one up into the proper orientation. Because let's face it, if the pinnace docking collar is on the bottom, you go down the ladder, but the boat gravity is 180 degrees different. Or do all of those operations simply take place in zero G so it doesn't matter?