MGT High Guard designs

[Qstor2]

I converted the Droyne Trader using the one in the AM and the GT AR3 as models and the MGT one had radically more cargo space. Like close to 100 tons. Has anyone else seen that conversions are really different ships? I was considering still using the deckplans in the AR3 book and hoping my players don't notice lol

Mike

 

[rust]

Has anyone else seen that conversions are really different ships?

This is a bit difficult to judge for me, because we use hyperdrives instead of
jump drives, but the "traditional" Traveller ships we "retro-engineered" with
the rules of Mongoose Traveller turned out to be quite as we had expected
them to be, there were no surprises of any kind - and something like an addi-
tional 100 dtons of cargo space (beyond the difference caused by the hyper-
drive) would have surprised us.

 

[aramis]

I noticed a jump in cargo space over CT Bk2, but only for ships with smaller drives.

CT fuel was 10 * Pn, while MGT is ~1/2 Tonnage for letter drives.

So for a 100Td & PP-A/2, PP Fuel was 20 vs 2
A 100Td PP-B/4, PPF was 40 vs 4
For a 200Td PP-A/1 PPF was 10 vs 2
For a 200Td PP-B/2 PPF was 20 vs 4
For a 400Td PP-B/1, PPF was 10 vs 4
For a 400Td PP-D/2, PPF was 20 vs 8
For a 1000Td PP-X/6, PPF went from 60 to 44
For a 1000Td PP-E/1, PPF stayed 10

If, however, you compared MT or TNE designs, you'll find very different breakevens. T20 and CT-HG tend to result in sliightly larger cargo due to less PP fuel for smaller ships.

 

[Poppyseed45]

Isn't at least part of that savings that fact that computers are no longer multi-ton monstrocities? I don't have my books handy but I remember that the bigger the type (and size of jump rating) the quicker the progression of tonnage in starship construction. Crazy numbers that many folks made fun of back in the day.

 

[aramis]

You only save Model # tons for computers model 5 or smaller. So for the PC merchant ships, you're saving under 3 tons there. Fuel savings are far larger.