Got the Patrol Cruiser sorted, in the process figuring out the way I was treating Book 2 custom hulls as HG hulls at the same price point (unstreamlined == cylinder, streamlined == cone) meant the app does not (yet...) recognise Book 2's free fuel scoops.
No doubt someone is going cross-eyed at the cross rules hull matching. In particular that cylinders in HG are partially streamlined. It turns out the unstreamlined Mercenary Cruiser is described in The Traveller Book and Broadsword as capable of GG refueling. Of course this assumes the presence of fuel scoops which the app does not (yet...) recognise. The Mercenary Cruiser is the only Book 2 example of an 'unstreamlined' custom hull ship.
Regards CT Errata, the Mercenary Cruiser matches in price, but only has 60 ton of cargo capacity versus Book 2's 80 ton. So I've attached the output below for review to see if I have lost 20 ton somewhere!
Because the cost calculation is not intuitive (to demonstrate a match with CT Errata), I've attached that as well.
Mercenary Cruiser (type C)
800 ton, TL 12 Civilian Design, 414.90 MCr
42 crew (Command: 1+1, Engineers: 1+3, Marines: 1+34, Medic: 0+1)
no passengers
__Ton._____MCr.____EP.____
| ___.__ | _80.00 | _.__ | Cylinder, partially streamlined, fuel scoops
| _20.00 | __4.00 | _.__ | bridge
| __5.00 | _45.00 | 3.00 | computer model 5
| _65.00 | 120.00 | _.__ | drive jump M #3
| _23.00 | _48.00 | _.__ | drive maneouver M #3
| _37.00 | _96.00 | _.__ | power plant M #3
| _30.00 | ___.__ | _.__ | fuel, PP endurance 4 weeks (12 weeks powered down)
| 240.00 | ___.__ | _.__ | fuel, jump range 3 parsecs
| __8.00 | __8.80 | _.__ | hard points x8 with triple turrets
| _32.00 | __4.00 | _.__ | staterooms x8
| _68.00 | __8.50 | _.__ | cabins x34
| _60.00 | ___.__ | _.__ | 60 tons cargo capacity
| __4.00 | __0.60 | _.__ | 4 ton air/raft
| _48.00 | ___.__ | _.__ | fuel 48 ton
| _60.00 | ___.__ | _.__ | 30 ton cutter module, berth x2
| 100.00 | ___.__ | _.__ | hanger space for 50 ton Cutters x 2
‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒
| 800.00 | 414.90 | 3.00 EP used, PP generates 24.00 EPs
373.41 MCr (10% discount for standard design) built in 112 weeks
331.92 MCr (20% discount in volume, TCS) built in 90 weeks
CT Ship Designer by Matt. Visit https://tca-2014-12.herokuapp.com
Cost match with CT Errata
372.870 MCr (CT Ship Designer; includes 10% discount for standard design; excludes cost of two Cutters, four modules, two ATVs and an Air/raft)
+ 53.640 MCr, cost of 2 Cutters and ATV modules (2 x (28 + 1.8) MCr) after 10% discount
+ 02.700 MCr, open and fuel modules (3 MCr) after 10% discount
+ 00.054 MCr, two ATVs (0.06 MCr) after 10% discount
+ 00.540 MCr, Air/raft (0.6 MCr) after 10% discount
429.804 MCr (CT Errata v1.1; includes 10% discount for standard design; includes cost of two Cutters, four modules, two ATVs and an Air/raft)
Longish post, so just to restate - am looking for reasons why this design cannot fit 80 tons of cargo space. Cheers!
No doubt someone is going cross-eyed at the cross rules hull matching. In particular that cylinders in HG are partially streamlined. It turns out the unstreamlined Mercenary Cruiser is described in The Traveller Book and Broadsword as capable of GG refueling. Of course this assumes the presence of fuel scoops which the app does not (yet...) recognise. The Mercenary Cruiser is the only Book 2 example of an 'unstreamlined' custom hull ship.
Regards CT Errata, the Mercenary Cruiser matches in price, but only has 60 ton of cargo capacity versus Book 2's 80 ton. So I've attached the output below for review to see if I have lost 20 ton somewhere!
Because the cost calculation is not intuitive (to demonstrate a match with CT Errata), I've attached that as well.
Mercenary Cruiser (type C)
800 ton, TL 12 Civilian Design, 414.90 MCr
42 crew (Command: 1+1, Engineers: 1+3, Marines: 1+34, Medic: 0+1)
no passengers
__Ton._____MCr.____EP.____
| ___.__ | _80.00 | _.__ | Cylinder, partially streamlined, fuel scoops
| _20.00 | __4.00 | _.__ | bridge
| __5.00 | _45.00 | 3.00 | computer model 5
| _65.00 | 120.00 | _.__ | drive jump M #3
| _23.00 | _48.00 | _.__ | drive maneouver M #3
| _37.00 | _96.00 | _.__ | power plant M #3
| _30.00 | ___.__ | _.__ | fuel, PP endurance 4 weeks (12 weeks powered down)
| 240.00 | ___.__ | _.__ | fuel, jump range 3 parsecs
| __8.00 | __8.80 | _.__ | hard points x8 with triple turrets
| _32.00 | __4.00 | _.__ | staterooms x8
| _68.00 | __8.50 | _.__ | cabins x34
| _60.00 | ___.__ | _.__ | 60 tons cargo capacity
| __4.00 | __0.60 | _.__ | 4 ton air/raft
| _48.00 | ___.__ | _.__ | fuel 48 ton
| _60.00 | ___.__ | _.__ | 30 ton cutter module, berth x2
| 100.00 | ___.__ | _.__ | hanger space for 50 ton Cutters x 2
‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒
| 800.00 | 414.90 | 3.00 EP used, PP generates 24.00 EPs
373.41 MCr (10% discount for standard design) built in 112 weeks
331.92 MCr (20% discount in volume, TCS) built in 90 weeks
CT Ship Designer by Matt. Visit https://tca-2014-12.herokuapp.com
Cost match with CT Errata
372.870 MCr (CT Ship Designer; includes 10% discount for standard design; excludes cost of two Cutters, four modules, two ATVs and an Air/raft)
+ 53.640 MCr, cost of 2 Cutters and ATV modules (2 x (28 + 1.8) MCr) after 10% discount
+ 02.700 MCr, open and fuel modules (3 MCr) after 10% discount
+ 00.054 MCr, two ATVs (0.06 MCr) after 10% discount
+ 00.540 MCr, Air/raft (0.6 MCr) after 10% discount
429.804 MCr (CT Errata v1.1; includes 10% discount for standard design; includes cost of two Cutters, four modules, two ATVs and an Air/raft)
Longish post, so just to restate - am looking for reasons why this design cannot fit 80 tons of cargo space. Cheers!
Last edited:
