Normandy Class Stealth Recon Scout

[DickNervous]

For a contest over in /r/Traveller on reddit I designed a ship that would be used by the Emperor's most trusted Agents or "Hands" for infiltration, extraction, and recon: The Type SRS (Stealth Recon Scout). Sure it is a bit over the top, but it fits the use case. However, since this is the first time I am designing a ship from scratch I would like to have others check it out and make sure I didn't mess up.

I am using the Mongoose Traveller rules from both the Core book and High Guard. It is a TL 16 design using an optional Anti Matter power plant. So here is the description of the ship, specs will be in next post and deck plans are in the works.

Don't be shy and feel free to offer any constructive criticism and point out any flaws in my design.

 

[DickNervous]

Type SRS Specifications sheet

 

[wbyrd]

That would be a useful little ship to have around

I didn't spot any glaring mistakes. not sure who swapping anti-matter for fusion works..haven't really looked at that..but in theory it works.

expensive, but very useful. with a little work you could even design a version for covert insertion. free up some room for barracks, and an armory and you could drop a commando team into a system fairly well.

If you drop the lab, library, and probe drones you can squeeze in enough barracks space for a 5 man commando team.

I'd look at making the labs, library and drone racks modular, that way you could swap out gear as needed

 

[Lycanorukke]

Don't be shy and feel free to offer any constructive criticism and point out any flaws in my design.

Not knowing the MgT rules, but knowing the Normandy...

Intellect 0? Definetly the SR-1 then. No EDI.

Maybe add some more lasers for point defence (GARDIAN), if your cover is blown you want to hold off missiles long enough to jump out.

Agree with throwing out the library, and putting in a small area for a STG/Marine squad for covert drops. Perhaps even a small vehicle. At 96 tons it is way too small for frivolities like a lab & library despite their potenital use..

 

[DickNervous]

That would be a useful little ship to have around

I didn't spot any glaring mistakes. not sure who swapping anti-matter for fusion works..haven't really looked at that..but in theory it works.

expensive, but very useful. with a little work you could even design a version for covert insertion. free up some room for barracks, and an armory and you could drop a commando team into a system fairly well.

If you drop the lab, library, and probe drones you can squeeze in enough barracks space for a 5 man commando team.

I'd look at making the labs, library and drone racks modular, that way you could swap out gear as needed

Using Anti-Matter removes the requirements for normal fuel so you have much more space. It also enables multiple jumps without refueling. I thought about making stuff modular as well, but was unsure if that changes the tonnage requirements for those rooms. Of course I would have to deviate from the typical Type S style deckplans to do that, but that isn't such a bad thing.

Not knowing the MgT rules, but knowing the Normandy...

Intellect 0? Definetly the SR-1 then. No EDI.

Maybe add some more lasers for point defence (GARDIAN), if your cover is blown you want to hold off missiles long enough to jump out.

Agree with throwing out the library, and putting in a small area for a STG/Marine squad for covert drops. Perhaps even a small vehicle. At 96 tons it is way too small for frivolities like a lab & library despite their potenital use..

Ship is too small for EDI, though I guess a Model/7 computer should be powerful enough for her.

 

[wbyrd]

Modular hulls do not affect tonnage. Only cost. I make a lot of use of that option. It allows one hull to fill many roles.

 

[DickNervous]

Modular hulls do not affect tonnage. Only cost. I make a lot of use of that option. It allows one hull to fill many roles.

So I could make the lower deck of your typical Type S modular and have a variety of modules of about 10-12 tons that can be switched out. Hmmm.... I will have to look into that.

 

[DickNervous]

So if I remove the Library, Lab, and drones that is 10t. Take away 2t of cargo to make a 12t modular section that is basically the lover deck. I assume that the 12% additional cost would be added to the overall cost of the hull including all the modifications which is 31.4MCr raising it to 35.168. Of course removing the Lab, Library, and the drones drops the cost by 10MCr so the overall price change (not counting the module) would be -6.232MCr.

Then it would allow for the following types of modules, which would increase the price accordingly:

Stealth Recon: Laboratory (4t), Library (4t), Probe Drones x20 (4t) (Standard Module)
Insertion/Extraction:: 5 Man Barracks (10t), Armory (2t)
Multipurpose: Workshop (4t), Probe Drones X10 (2t), Cargo (4t)
Secure Delivery: Vault (12t)
Cargo: Cargo Hold (12t)

That would most definitely increase the versatility of the ship without much change in the cost!

 

[wbyrd]

So if I remove the Library, Lab, and drones that is 10t. Take away 2t of cargo to make a 12t modular section that is basically the lover deck. I assume that the 12% additional cost would be added to the overall cost of the hull including all the modifications which is 31.4MCr raising it to 35.168. Of course removing the Lab, Library, and the drones drops the cost by 10MCr so the overall price change (not counting the module) would be -6.232MCr.

Then it would allow for the following types of modules, which would increase the price accordingly:

Stealth Recon: Laboratory (4t), Library (4t), Probe Drones x20 (4t) (Standard Module)
Insertion/Extraction:: 5 Man Barracks (10t), Armory (2t)
Multipurpose: Workshop (4t), Probe Drones X10 (2t), Cargo (4t)
Secure Delivery: Vault (12t)
Cargo: Cargo Hold (12t)

That would most definitely increase the versatility of the ship without much change in the cost!

It does definitely improve the usefulness of a scout. Which has a way of making the money spent on the base hull a much better investment.

 

[hellblock]

Unfortunately, I can see a problem with this design if using the high guard book. Page 47 of LBB2 has changes to the core rule book on weapons, the last bullet point is "Only one particle beam can be fitted to a turret, but this must be a triple turret."
This is something that has slipped past the mongoose proofreading on several occasions, as designs in the capital ship supplement have this error (despite being designed from the high guard rulebook).
I don't know if there is any errata that specifies the only thing that can go in the turret is the one particle beam, but I think that is what the rule intended (even if it isn't the rule as written).

 

[DickNervous]

Okay, so I picked up Campaign Cartographer 3 with Cosmographer last weekend and have been furiously hacking at it to try and figure out making deck plans. I've made about 4-5 attempts at it and each one gets better as I figure out how to use the app. Tonight, while the winds whipped the 2 feet of snow around the neighborhood and the kids were sound asleep I sat down for another attempt, implementing the modular idea.

I must say, I think I have a pretty decent grip on the app at this point.... though I really want to make it look much more like the ones that Moon Toad Publishing includes in their ship books, but I haven't had the time to try and create symbols of that level of quality. But I will.... eventually.

 

[wbyrd]

Okay, so I picked up Campaign Cartographer 3 with Cosmographer last weekend and have been furiously hacking at it to try and figure out making deck plans. I've made about 4-5 attempts at it and each one gets better as I figure out how to use the app. Tonight, while the winds whipped the 2 feet of snow around the neighborhood and the kids were sound asleep I sat down for another attempt, implementing the modular idea.

I must say, I think I have a pretty decent grip on the app at this point.... though I really want to make it look much more like the ones that Moon Toad Publishing includes in their ship books, but I haven't had the time to try and create symbols of that level of quality. But I will.... eventually.

yeah got a bit of snow here in Virginia too.

not a bad set of deck-plans. Better than my hand drawn Mspaint deckplans

one thing I did notice was that you described the ship as having equipment mounted on wings outside the hull itself. perhaps a rough plan of those would help.

 

[DickNervous]

yeah got a bit of snow here in Virginia too.

not a bad set of deck-plans. Better than my hand drawn Mspaint deckplans

one thing I did notice was that you described the ship as having equipment mounted on wings outside the hull itself. perhaps a rough plan of those would help.

Not "on" the wings, but "in" them. Since there is no need for fuel my original description stated that some of the electronics for the sensors would be in the space in the "wings" of the craft (ie: the space to small for anything else).

 

[Meeko100]

Unfortunately, I can see a problem with this design if using the high guard book. Page 47 of LBB2 has changes to the core rule book on weapons, the last bullet point is "Only one particle beam can be fitted to a turret, but this must be a triple turret."
This is something that has slipped past the mongoose proofreading on several occasions, as designs in the capital ship supplement have this error (despite being designed from the high guard rulebook).
I don't know if there is any errata that specifies the only thing that can go in the turret is the one particle beam, but I think that is what the rule intended (even if it isn't the rule as written).

I see it now. I remembered it a while ago, but I couldn't find it in my PDF of HG. Its in the Errata.

Its probably so that one PB turret can't mount for pew-pew then the Barbette, or bay weapons (then again, mounting 3 pulse lasers gives 6d6 of effective damage in the one turret; equivalent to a 50 ton particle bay . I suppose the bay only has one damage roll to make though, and is effected by armor less.)

Ah, the errata issues. Haven't seen the 2e yet, but I hope it is better.

 

[DickNervous]

I see it now. I remembered it a while ago, but I couldn't find it in my PDF of HG. Its in the Errata.

Its probably so that one PB turret can't mount for pew-pew then the Barbette, or bay weapons (then again, mounting 3 pulse lasers gives 6d6 of effective damage in the one turret; equivalent to a 50 ton particle bay . I suppose the bay only has one damage roll to make though, and is effected by armor less.)

Ah, the errata issues. Haven't seen the 2e yet, but I hope it is better.

While that does kind suck, it's not that big of a deal, at least for this ship. But I never knew that and it will impact my campaign since.

As for 2e, they don't allow a Particle Beam in a turret at all, it must be in a barrbtte (which requires 5 tons of space compared to the 1 ton of a turret). But they also raise the damage from 3D6 to 4D6.

 

[DickNervous]

Okay, here is the finalized version of the deck plans, worksheet, and back story for the ship. Comments and critiques are welcome!

 

[wbyrd]

Okay, here is the finalized version of the deck plans, worksheet, and back story for the ship. Comments and critiques are welcome!

I like it. And by the way great job on the layout and format.

 

[coliver988]

Very nice indeed.

 

[Brandon C]

What book has the revised rules for antimatter power plants? The core rules don't talk about carrying extra antimatter to fuel the power plant, just the cost to refuel.

 

[DickNervous]

What book has the revised rules for antimatter power plants? The core rules don't talk about carrying extra antimatter to fuel the power plant, just the cost to refuel.

The is the one gray area of the design as the rules do not state how re-fueling of antimatter power plants works, just the cost. The two references to antimatter power plants I found in the rules are in the Core Rulebook pg. 109 in the Alternative Drives section of Spacecraft Design. It states the following:

Antimatter: Antimatter drives work by annihilating small amounts of hydrogen and anti-hydrogen. No tonnage needs to be allocated to
fuel, but the drive must be refuelled once per month, at a cost of 5,000 Cr. per ton of drive.

The second mention is in High Guard on pg. 63 under Capital Ship Design it states:

Antimatter plants are the same size and are only available from
TL 17.

Cost per ton is as follows:
...
Antimatter MCr 2.5

Which I just realized means that my design would have to be TL17, but I am not sure if that is only for Antimatter plants for Capital size ships or Antimatter in general. (Though the 2nd Edition puts Antimatter at TL20!).

So for the ship design I went with the following premise: Antimatter fuel is basically a two-part fuel made of Hydrogen and Anti-Hydrogen that when mixed starts a reaction that lasts for 28 days. Storing Hydrogen is easy (heck we have the technology now to do that!), but storing anti-hydrogen is probably a bit more complicated and that re-fueling is more like replacing the Uranium in a Nuclear Reactor than simply pumping "gas" into a tank. This led me to the concept of an antimatter fuel cell.

I started with the fact that they state that there is no space required for the actual fuel. This means that the amounts of hydrogen and anti-hydrogen would be very small. Storing hydrogen is quite simple, but for the anti-hydrogen I went with the premise that it would need to be stored in a capsule that uses either gravity or magnets to contain it suspended in a vacuum. And of course you would want this container to be nearly indestructible.

So an antimatter fuel cell would be something that is the size of something like a Sub-Zero commercial refrigerator that contains the hydrogen, anti-hydrogen, containment apparatus, power for the containment, and be designed to "plug in" to an antimatter power plant like a giant battery. It would require 1dT of storage space on board the ship (which would include whatever is needed to secure it) and take 1 day to replace (along with some skill checks that the GM might want to toss in there to make things interesting).

Of course, if you want to do strict adherence to the rules then you would remove them from the design. Doing so would limit it's effectiveness a bit as well as where it could refuel, but it would still be able to perform 3 jumps (maybe 4 depending upon how much leeway you want to give players) without having to refuel, which is pretty awesome.