Merchant cruisers, the Millenium Falcon, and the profit imperative: a rant of sorts

[Black Globe Generator]

Originally posted by rancke:
I can't spot any ambiguity that would leave any doubt about the exploratory nature of the trip.

I'm deeply disappointed that this thread has gone off on a tangent about Adventure 4. I was hoping for a very different discussion about merchant ship designs. Clearly I have different expectations about what a merchant vessel should be designed to do, and about how exploratory trade missions are conducted. That's cool - difference of opinion is what makes a horse race. However, this is becoming boring and repetitive for me. If anyone would like to return to something resembling the initial topic, PM me or something.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Black Globe Generator:
I was hoping for a very different discussion about merchant ship designs. Clearly I have different expectations about what a merchant vessel should be designed to do, and about how exploratory trade missions are conducted. That's cool - difference of opinion is what makes a horse race. However, this is becoming boring and repetitive for me. If anyone would like to return to something resembling the initial topic, PM me or something.

Well, that's easy:

Pure merchant designs: Maximize cargo space.
Exploration ships: Maximize survivability.
Merchant explorers: Compromise between the two.


Hans

 

[Plankowner]

OK, given what rancke just stated, anyone got a good design for Merchant Explorer?

Other than the Leviathan and the Leviathan revised earlier in this post?

I would expect different Mega Corps to have different design philosophies when it comes to the Survive/Cargo "compromise" there has certainly been enough difference posted here!

I would love to run more of this type of game, but I would also like to cheat and use someone else's design? GOT ONE?

 

[aramis]

I've used uparmed Type R2's (J2 variant Type R). Added a pair of barbettes. That was a LONG time ago; I used mixed HG/Bk2. Lost about half her cargo space.

 

[Black Globe Generator]

Originally posted by rancke:
Well, that's easy:

Pure merchant designs: Maximize cargo space.
Exploration ships: Maximize survivability.
Merchant explorers: Compromise between the two.

Succinct, but the devil is in the details...

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

MErchant Explorer? It seems a little bit costly to me to send a ship loaded with stuff to somewhere that MIGHT have consumers. Most merchants need a stable market to function. It is risky enough without unquantifiables.

Explorin' is Scout Work... Making Cr is Merchant Work.

 

[Pickles]

The trouble with waiting for the ISS report is that every other merchant house will get it at the same time as you. You've got to speculate to accumulate!

All arguments of likelyhood aside, I would prefer an exploratory merchant fleet rather than putting all my eggs in one 1800 dton basket. Just using standard designs, Bromgrev Mercantile opts for exploratory groups of two type A2 Far Traders and one type S Scout/Courier. Larger 'travelling salesman' missions use a type M Subsidised Liner as flagship for one (or, very rarely, two) groups.

 

[mike wightman]

For exploratory trade I'd want at least jump 3 performance.

A refitted fat trader with jump 3 and 3G drives with 100t of cargo, a patrol cruiser without its ship's boat and g-carrier for 88t of cargo, or a purpose built ship of 1000t displacement (LBB2 designs all).

 

[daryen]

Or, how about a modified Type C?

The base ship is 800 dtons, has 3G and J3 performance, fuel for more than two months, and has 80 dton cargo. It also has 25 staterooms, which allows you to carry more than enough crew and extras to do any exploration deemed necessary, yet still have single occupancy.

Drop the fuel down to two full months of cruising. Replace the two cutters and their modules with a refueling pinnace and two launches. This pushes the cargo up to around 120 dtons. Use a custom hull instead of a stock one, and you get 150 dtons cargo.

Either version of the ship (standard, modified stock, modified custom) costs well under 500 MCr.

(Disclaimer: This is all done Bk2. Surprisingly, Bk5 isn't that much different, and you get a fuel purification plant.)

 

[mike wightman]

I've looked at the possibilities of modifying the merc cruiser, or the subsidised liner.

What puts me off is that they are unstreamlined and are therefore reliant on carried smallcraft for refueling.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by daryen:
(Disclaimer: This is all done Bk2. Surprisingly, Bk5 isn't that much different, and you get a fuel purification plant.)

Why surprisingly? Bk5 is merely a refinement of Bk2 (or, as I usually look at it, Bk2 is a more simplified (and thus more inexact) representation of 'reality' than Bk5).

As a aside, I find it difficult to understand why anyone still uses Bk2 designs[*]. Bk5 is not so much more difficult to work with than Bk2 that I can see any real advantage to sticking to Bk2.

[*] Unless they don't have access to Bk5, of course).


Hans

 

[BillDowns]

LBB2 has a quite different concept of "power" for jump drives, maneuver drives, and power plants; or, rather, I should say High Guard (book 5) does. It also has quite different ratios of drive masses; LBB2 maneuver drives are much, much smaller than HG and the reverse for jump drives.

Both systems have their flaws, of course. My biggest complaint is that they really don't use formulae that are compatible with each other and aren't exactly self-consistent, either.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by BillDowns:
LBB2 has a quite different concept of "power" for jump drives, maneuver drives, and power plants; or, rather, I should say High Guard (book 5) does. It also has quite different ratios of drive masses; LBB2 maneuver drives are much, much smaller than HG and the reverse for jump drives.

Both systems have their flaws, of course. My biggest complaint is that they really don't use formulae that are compatible with each other and aren't exactly self-consistent, either.

And that's exactly the same problem I have with them. It boils down to how you look at the Official Traveller Universe. Is it one single universe or is it half a dozen different universes (one for each rules set)?. Or could it even be scores of different universes (one for each Traveller product)?

My attitude is that it is ONE universe (I'm ignoring the complication of the alternate history nature of the GTU for the purposes of this argument). So when Bk2 and Bk5 have quite different concepts, then I can't just dismiss it with a "Well, Bk2 is right for Bk2 designs and Bk5 is right for Bk5 designs". I have to say that either one or the other (or both) are wrong. Actually, I think they're both wrong. Both are abstractions of the underlying 'truth' made for roleplaying purposes. The question then becomes, which one is the most accurate (IMO Bk5), and is the greater ease we gain from using the simpler system worth the greater inaccuracy that comes along with it? And the answer is: that depends. If I want to run a quick one-evening Traveller adventure, then I might easily prefer whipping up a Book 2 design and getting on with the game (Though, as I said above, Book5 is really so easy that I wouldn't gain much by using Book 2). If I'm trying to do some world-building, OTOH, I'd much prefer a little greater 'accuracy'.


Hans

 

[Scott Martin]

Hey Sigg

Why not streamline the Merc Cruiser?

The "Fiery" class is a gazelle class with streamlining. I'd bet that more than a few Merc commanders required that their ship was streamlined, and a "variant" of the Merc cruiser is available with streamlining.

<Rules>
in CT streamlining has no volume and a minor cost, so you can just rip off the design, mangle it a bit (it will still work out to the correct totals) and call it a Merc Cruiser (*cough* corvette) variant.
</Rules>

Scott Martin

 

[mike wightman]

Good idea Scott, it would be a TL12 design, which is about right for the civilian shipyards to build, IMHO.

A streamlined version would be a good idea for another reason - the ship is meant to land in the Broadsword Adventure

 

[Scott Martin]

Hi Sigg

The TL-12 wasn't lost on me (although TNE has it at TL-15 with a mere 1G and Jump-1: *bleah*) I like the idea of new built "obsolete" designs cruising the spaceways

<Thread tangent>

I'm using with TL-12 as the "nominal" TL for the ship design stuff I'm working on: TCS used it for most of the planets in the campaign, and it would be nice if you didn't have to have TL-15 gear to make a ship profitable / combat effective / ... (the MT problem)

I'm also trying to make it possible for "Swarms of barbarians with clubs" to take out "Riflemen" (so with sufficient numbers, you should be able to defeat an opponent with a 5 TL edge, if the opponent is stupid enough to stand there and not call for re-enforcements) (The HG problem)

I like the idea of there being a wide TL range in starships commonly encountered: this mirrors the Mediterranian in the 18th century: Primitive "Dhows", Galleys, and British and French (and American) frigates were commonly docked next to each other.

If this mix of ships can "make ends meet" commercially (this is about a 5 TL spread) then it makes sense that there are niche markets for TL-10 Commercial ships in Traveller.

</Thread tangent>

Scott Martin

 

[Scott Martin]

Hi Sigg

The TL-12 wasn't lost on me (although TNE has it at TL-15 with a mere 1G and Jump-1: *bleah*) I like the idea of new built "obsolete" designs cruising the spaceways

<Thread tangent>

I'm using with TL-12 as the "nominal" TL for the ship design stuff I'm working on: TCS used it for most of the planets in the campaign, and it would be nice if you didn't have to have TL-15 gear to make a ship profitable / combat effective / ... (the MT problem)

I'm also trying to make it possible for "Swarms of barbarians with clubs" to take out "Riflemen" (so with sufficient numbers, you should be able to defeat an opponent with a 5 TL edge, if the opponent is stupid enough to stand there and not call for re-enforcements) (The HG problem)

I like the idea of there being a wide TL range in starships commonly encountered: this mirrors the Mediterranian in the 18th century: Primitive "Dhows", Galleys, and British and French (and American) frigates were commonly docked next to each other.

If this mix of ships can "make ends meet" commercially (this is about a 5 TL spread) then it makes sense that there are niche markets for TL-10 Commercial ships in Traveller.

</Thread tangent>

Scott Martin

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I've looked at the possibilities of modifying the merc cruiser, or the subsidised liner.

What puts me off is that they are unstreamlined and are therefore reliant on carried smallcraft for refueling.

Well, two points.

First, the Broadsword was always treated inconsistently, implying it may have been streamlined after all. At the worst, just say you are using a streamlined variant.

Second, it is (in Bk5 terms) at least partially streamlined. So, while the original Broadsword may not be able to land on planets, it can always refuel at a GG.

 

[daryen]

Originally posted by rancke:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by daryen:
(Disclaimer: This is all done Bk2. Surprisingly, Bk5 isn't that much different, and you get a fuel purification plant.)

Why surprisingly? Bk5 is merely a refinement of Bk2 (or, as I usually look at it, Bk2 is a more simplified (and thus more inexact) representation of 'reality' than Bk5).</font>[/QUOTE]Because the whole engine/fuel sizing is so different between the two. Engines and lower tech (TL12-) power plants are so much more massive in Bk5, and the power plant fuel requirements are so much less in Bk5 that you can get some weird results.

Plus, even TL assumptions are different. In Bk2, the Type T is TL10. In Bk5, the Type T is TL12.

Quite frankly, it has always annoyed me just how different Bk2 and Bk5 really are from each other.

As a aside, I find it difficult to understand why anyone still uses Bk2 designs[*]. Bk5 is not so much more difficult to work with than Bk2 that I can see any real advantage to sticking to Bk2.

I tend to stick with what the ship is made with. So, for example, if I try to make modifications to the Broadsword, I just have to make the variant if I am using Bk2. To use Bk5, I would have to remake the original Broadsword, then make the variant.

The other reason I still use Bk2 is that almost all Bk2 designs actually follow the rules, and therefore are easy to modify. Not always (e.g. Type A2), but usually. Whereas almost every Bk5 design is either broken or ridiculously broken. Either the numbers don't add up (e.g. AHL) or they don't even bother to follow the rules (e.g. Gazelle).

Plus, even GDW was too lazy to get rid of Bk2. All of those base designs (Type A, Type S, Type A2, etc.) were not only not updated for Bk5, they were never even updated for MT. What was up with that?

(My aside: I am still absolutely amazed that I was able to faithfully recreate the Leviathan with Bk5 to within a single dton. I still think I had to have missed something.)

 

[mike wightman]

Hi Scott.

Originally posted by Scott Martin:
I'm using with TL-12 as the "nominal" TL for the ship design stuff I'm working on: TCS used it for most of the planets in the campaign, and it would be nice if you didn't have to have TL-15 gear to make a ship profitable / combat effective / ... (the MT problem)

I'm also trying to make it possible for "Swarms of barbarians with clubs" to take out "Riflemen" (so with sufficient numbers, you should be able to defeat an opponent with a 5 TL edge, if the opponent is stupid enough to stand there and not call for re-enforcements) (The HG problem)

I like the idea of there being a wide TL range in starships commonly encountered: this mirrors the Mediterranian in the 18th century: Primitive "Dhows", Galleys, and British and French (and American) frigates were commonly docked next to each other.

I agree with everything you've written here

If this mix of ships can "make ends meet" commercially (this is about a 5 TL spread) then it makes sense that there are niche markets for TL-10 Commercial ships in Traveller.

Yep, I agree again.

This is easier to do with LBB2 because HG makes power plants so expensive at low TLs. Fortunately the power plant for a merchant doesn't need be very large - but a TL13 ship is going to be cheaper than a lower TL ship, and a TL15 one cheaper again (all other components being equal).

I can't help but wonder if the TL7-8 power plant in HG should be a fission reactor, and should be a bit cheaper if built at TL9-12.

I find it easier to justify a TL spread for merchants and the like, but the military usually goes for the best they can afford.