Anyone ever had, or seen a OTU, Large Frieghter design? Various places throughout all the books always seem to mention that the mega shipping corporations don't generally use the "small" frieghters but use extremely large frieghters and give the impression that they would dwarf a Sub-merchant or anything similar that a PC would ever hope to see. So, has anything like that ever been designed? I thought it might make a good adventure for a group to find a derelict one floating along...
Largest Frieghter?
- Thread starter Greylond
- Start date
The largest canon freighters (ignoring GT as a separate canon) I can think of are in The Traveller Adventure.
None of these have plans.
MGT S2 has a 2000Td Freighter with plans
MGT S10 has a 2000Td Liner with plans
| Class | Tonnage | Drives JMP | Perf | Crew | Fuel | Pass | Cargo |
| Hercules | 5000 | WWW | J1 1G | 15 | 510 | 0 | 2911 |
| Long Liner (RT) | 1000 | VEV | J4 1G | 14 | 440Td | 24HP 12 MP | 130Td |
| Freighter (AT) | 3000 | ZQZ | J4 1G | 15 | 1240 | 8HP 2MP | 1259+70 |
| Frontier Transport TI | 2000 | VVV | J2 2G | 21 | 440 | 0 | 1114+70 |
| Frontier Transport TJ | 2000 | ZZZ | J6 6G | 21 | 1320 | 0 | 194+70 |
MGT S2 has a 2000Td Freighter with plans
MGT S10 has a 2000Td Liner with plans
Yea, that's one of the places I remember seeing something like that.
Thanks!
Yea, I saw those.
Hmm... looks like I'll have to put the MgT design rules to the test and see just how big I can make one...
There's no good reason to ignore GT, though. Unless designed after the change point (and as a direct result of the change) any ship type found in the GTU will also be found in the OTU (and vice versa).
I don't think there are any deck plans for large freighters in any GT book, however.
Hans
So, given all of that, I'll go work on one. 
Mostly cause I'm going to use it in my game, but I'll share what I come up with.
Question though, what do y'all think an optimum Jump Rating for something like that would be. Given that some of the Spinward Main worlds are 2 parsecs away I think it would just about have to be a Jump 2. I don't see why it would need to be a Jump 3 though. What do others think?
Mostly cause I'm going to use it in my game, but I'll share what I come up with. Question though, what do y'all think an optimum Jump Rating for something like that would be. Given that some of the Spinward Main worlds are 2 parsecs away I think it would just about have to be a Jump 2. I don't see why it would need to be a Jump 3 though. What do others think?
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Actually - they do now
Or at least the MgT version of them. if you go to the mongoose site and go to their version of The Traveller Adventure you will find a free pdf of all the ship plans for the MgT version of the ships.
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/r...campaigns/aramis-the-traveller-adventure.html
Last edited:
Something like that will be tailored to one specific run. If it's between Rhylanor and Porozlo, it will have jump-1 drives. If it's between Rhylanor and Zivije, it will be jump-2. If it's between Porozlo and Zivije, it will be jump-3. If it's between worlds on opposite sites of systemless bits of space, it might be jump-4 or even jump-5, although the higher the jump, the less the chance that there will be enough freight to make it worthwhile to employ hyperfreighters at all.
Hans
Actually - they do now
Or at least the MgT version of them. if you go to the mongoose site and go to their version of The Traveller Adventure you will find a free pdf of all the ship plans for the MgT version of the ships.
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/r...campaigns/aramis-the-traveller-adventure.html
Too bad they didn't take the opportunity to fix the Hercules design. (It's pissing away money to use jump-1 ships on the routes Akerut is supposed to employ these on).
Hans
Yes, there is.
GT has very different tech design systems resulting in very different ship design paradigms. It has a very different expected income structure as well, resulting again in different design considerations. Further, perhaps most important, it presumes a significantly different standard for passenger accommodations. GT long ago ceased being even close to what's in the defined canon.
Plus, It was explicitly off limits for considerations of T20 development.
It just had a slightly different palette for rendering the "real" ships of the OTU into game term than Book2, HG, MT, TNE, T4, T20 and MGT. It had its flaws, true, but which of the multiple different Traveller ship design systems hasn't? The GT version of the Stellar Class is different from the Book2 version, the HG version, the MT version, the TNE version, etc., etc., but who cares? It's the same ship class.
If I was to submit an adventure involving a Caen or a Keith Class to Mongoose, I would have to render it in MgT terms, but I'm quite confident that it wouldn't be rejected for being contrary to canon (for other reasons, perhaps, since I'm not very well versed in MgT ship design, but not for non-canonicity).
No it doesn't. 4 DT per stateroom, same as every other Traveller ship design system.
No it didn't. It is and always has been very close to what's in the defined canon (Not surprisingly, since the authors were instructed to base anything they wrote on previously published material unless fixing problems). So close that it has been accepted as authoritative by several MgT authors I know of.
(That's not to say that it doesn't have its share of errors, or that some authors didn't treat previously published material more cavalierly than I care for).
Hans
Last edited:
Actually - they do now
Or at least the MgT version of them. if you go to the mongoose site and go to their version of The Traveller Adventure you will find a free pdf of all the ship plans for the MgT version of the ships.
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/r...campaigns/aramis-the-traveller-adventure.html
Thanks for info!
Excellent points! Thanks!
Actually, was just looking at it. I plan on starting my upcoming campaign at Regina and there's paths with Gas Giants that a Jump-2 could take to most systems within the Imperial borders, you have to ignore the Green xBoat path. Just have my megacorp setup some skimming operations in strategic spots and fuel only costs the skimmer's maintenance, supplies and crew salaries. Plus you can sell any surplus refined fuel to any other ships in those systems. Several of those systems have C lower star ports so setting up Refined Fuels Stations could actually be a good thing to do.
It also has very different costs versus operation expenses. When looking at ships, the game defines the reality - and since the GURPS Trav ships operations cost a different percentage of their initial cost, and their expenses are a different percentage of their income than in other editions.
It's not just the design sequences being different. It's not just that the CrImp is normed very differently from the G$ and that the two operate differently. The universe of GT has legal commercial double occupancy inside the 3I - the universe of the rest do not. (T20 has standard prices for it as an option for non-imperial campaigns.)
The universe of GT has all Imperial Marines being trained and fielded in Battle Dress; the others lack that, and in CT, most marines don't even have vacc suit skills.
It doesn't describe the same universe. It describes one particularly close, but definitely NOT the same.
No, the setting details describe the reality. The rules don't mandate the existence of a Stellar class liner; that's for the setting material to do. And Stellar Class liners exists in the OTU, as we've seen evidence for in various different versions of Traveller. Different rules versions, mind you. In every version it has been rendered differently because the rules weren't up to providing a precise description. 20% jump fuel instead of 30%, HePLaR maneuver drive instead of thrusters, and, yes, different costs. But all that doesn't alter the fact that there is a Stellar class liner in the OTU. And one with pretty much the same deck plans in most of the versions, I believe.
Yes, that certainly is one of the major discrepancies of the GT version. But there's no reason to throw away the baby with the bath water and disallow the ship types introduced in GT setting material.
IIRC that was a deliberate attempt to fix what Jim saw as a flaw in the setting. I think he went about it the wrong way, but it really is a minor mistake[*]. Nothing that would prevent any of the ship types described in GT material from existing. Well... except for the highly implausible maneuverdriveless X-boat, perhaps.
[*] After all, the only incontrovertinble evidence for that regulation is from a TNE source, and TNE is hardly the definitive Traveller version, is it?.
I know from earlier discussions that you are aware that those BD-trained Imperial Marines is from a CT-era JTAS article. And as there are a couple of ways to explain those non-BD skilled marines away, there's not even any discrepancy to cast doubt on the accuracy of the description.
Well, it is a parallel universe, so technically you're right. However it is a different (and occasionally erroneous) description of what is effectively an identical universe up to the change point.
Hans
Last edited:
In MT:Rebellion (page 80) a 20 kdton Imperial Transport is described. It's not clear if it's a military transport or a bulk freighter. Weaponry seems to point to a naval transport, but its defenses are (aside from its lasers that double in anti-missile fire) just an optimized nuclear damper (factor 1) and has a cargo capacity of 145800 kl (10800 dton) and 20 high passengers. Is J3 M1. No plans provided.
And in CT:SMC there is described the Mora class lineers, IIRC it's a 3000 dton lineer (sorry, I cannot find it right now).
And in CT:SMC there is described the Mora class lineers, IIRC it's a 3000 dton lineer (sorry, I cannot find it right now).
