One hardpoint per 75 dT

[Easterner9504]

Indeed JTAS does say 400t.

Your argument is keep it simple. In fact the streamlined version has to be 400t as tanks not droppable.

However Rancke refuses KISS and insists on CANON and he hates inconsistencies to such. So my solution was alternate to yours. Neither of us are right or wrong so we shouldn't be arguing. As i'm sure neither of us cared before Rancke brought it up.

 

[rancke]

Indeed JTAS does say 400t.

As I pointed out in the original post. There's no question about how the discrepancy came about. Nor is there any question that there is a discrepancy between all subsequent ship design rules and all subsequent versions of the Gazelle class. They all say that it's a 300 T hull with four turrets/barbettes. Simple enough for you?

Your argument is keep it simple. In fact the streamlined version has to be 400t as tanks not droppable.

Which makes the streamlined version a 400 T hull, not a 300 T hull with two 50 T drop tanks. And an altogether different class of ship, a Fiery class rather than a Gazelle/A or whatever.

However Rancke refuses KISS and insists on CANON and he hates inconsistencies to such.

Wrong on both counts. I prefer keeping it simple, and what I like (I don't insist on anything since I don't have the authority to do so) is self-consistency. Which is why the first part of my 'canon credo' is "If it works, don't change it". But if canon doesn't work, I don't "insist" on it; on the contrary, I "insist" on changing it. "If it doesn't work, fix it. If you can't fix it, then and only then change it."

Is that clear or would you like me to explain it some more?

So my solution was alternate to yours. Neither of us are right or wrong so we shouldn't be arguing. As I'm sure neither of us cared before Rancke brought it up.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if neither of you thought about it until I brought it up. And I'll take your word for it that you don't care about it, the evidence of yuor own posts on the subject to the contrary notwithstanding. But aren't you jumping to conclusions when you think that Dan doesn't care? Why would he post on the subject if he didn't?



Hans

 

[far-trader]

...my solution was alternate to yours. Neither of us are right or wrong so we shouldn't be arguing. As i'm sure neither of us cared before Rancke brought it up.

Partly agreed. I don't see we were arguing, I just wasn't sure you were working with the correct interpretation, that's corrected and as far as I am concerned no harm no foul I actually liked your idea, if only it worked... well, it could maybe be made to work, certainly could be for an atu.

As I pointed out in the original post. There's no question about how the discrepancy came about.

I'm not so certain. I mean, yes it's clear it was a 400ton ship that worked, and then a 300ton ship with 100ton drop tanks that didn't quite work. But just how did that discrepancy come about? What drove the design change? Was the extra turret a simple oversight? Or did the designer decide that drop tanks counted for hardpoints?

HG1 doesn't specify that drop tanks are not counted but then they are pretty specifically a one use dropped before jump deal. So maybe, like many ships this was one built during the transition between HG1 and HG2. Or maybe it was the interpretation of the line that drop tanks "increase the total tonnage of the ship" in HG2? In fact I can't recall now just where it is said that drop tanks don't count for hardpoint calculation, though I think I ran across it recently. In TCS maybe?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if neither of you thought about it until I brought it up. And I'll take your word for it that you don't care about it, the evidence of yuor own posts on the subject to the contrary notwithstanding. But aren't you jumping to conclusions when you think that Dan doesn't care? Why would he post on the subject if he didn't?

I have thought about it long and often over the years (sad ) Each new rule iteration had me seeing if they had fixed the design rules so it could be built. Sadly never so iirc (and I think I'd remember a Eureka moment of that calibre). So it's been fudged each time, because it is such an interesting PC scale ship.

And yes I do care. Well, maybe care is the wrong connotation. I'm interested would be more accurate.

 

[rancke]

I'm not so certain. I mean, yes it's clear it was a 400ton ship that worked, and then a 300ton ship with 100ton drop tanks that didn't quite work. But just how did that discrepancy come about? What drove the design change? Was the extra turret a simple oversight? Or did the designer decide that drop tanks counted for hardpoints?

It was listed as a 400 T hull. I think that means the designer thought of it as a 400 T hull. Thus it had four hardpoints. No problem so far. But someone must have realized that it was a 400 T hull that turned into a 300 T hull when the drop tanks were dropped. And as all four hardpoints was located on the part that wasn't dropped, the end result would be 300 T hull with four turrets. That's the sort of loophole that a certain kind of gamer would seize on like a rabid shark, if it was legitimate, to design ships with as many more hardpoints as they could stuff onto a hull.


Hans

 

[Easterner9504]

If it wasn't for jumping to conclusions, I'd get no exercise at all.

 

[far-trader]

Thanks for the focus Hans Yep, the abuse factor is there, I've never really liked drop tanks for that reason. Personally I think drop tanks (and externally carried ships) should cost hardpoints

 

[far-trader]

If it wasn't for jumping to conclusions, I'd get no exercise at all.

I think I want you for my personal fitness trainer

 

[drnuncheon]

Nor is there any question that there is a discrepancy between all subsequent ship design rules and all subsequent versions of the Gazelle class. They all say that it's a 300 T hull with four turrets/barbettes.

FWIW, MonT goes back to the CT original - 400dton hull, no mention of drop tanks.

 

[rancke]

FWIW, MonT goes back to the CT original - 400dton hull, no mention of drop tanks.

Really? Now, that's the sort of canon retcon I approve of. It eliminates the discrepancy, it allows the retention of the good bits (in this case, the deckplans), and it doesn't introduce new problems. Did they include a small sidebar? you know, something to let the grognard know that this was a deliberate change and prevent him from pointing out that they'd made a mistake[*]?

What about drop tanks in themselves? Are they gone too?


[*] "Hang on, you've forgotten the drop tanks!"




Hans

 

[Swiftbrook]

Nor is there any question that there is a discrepancy between all subsequent ship design rules and all subsequent versions of the Gazelle class. They all say that it's a 300 T hull with four turrets/barbettes. Simple enough for you?
Hans

MegaTraveller Imperial Encyclopedia p. 84: Close Escort is 330t + 100t drop tanks.

So by the MT rules, the Gazzel has 3.3 hardpoints. Looks like they just rounded up to keep with canon.

-Swiftbrook

 

[Hal]

For what it is worth, at the CT Starships mailing list, we got to discussing an "oddity" that I stumbled over (and I probably am not the first to stumble over it in 25+ years!)

What I stumbled over was the fact that in Traders and Gunboats, they list the stats on a 400 dton SDB, called the Defender class SDB. So why was it a "Stumble?".

JTAS #9 (subtitled WAR), had an article on System Defense boats such that it stated in no uncertain terms, that SDB's were generally able to defeat up to twice their tonnage. As a consequence of this, I was intrigued enough to ask people to experiment a little. Design a fleet irrespective of "cost", whose only parameters were to be that the aggregate total hull tonnage had to equal 100,000 dtons, and have it go up against 50,000 dtons worth of SDB's. Said SDB to be used in the experiment was to be the Defender class SDB given in Traders and Gunboats.

Oddly enough, it didn't take much to build at least two classes of ships that could render the SDB's weaponry ineffective, or nearly ineffective. Nearly ineffective by definition in this case, depended upon the fact that the Capital ship (It was a 48,000 dton hull) had sufficient Repulsor bays to handle 10 incoming missiles, and nearly a 2:1 ratio of sandcasters to any remaining missiles that might hit - all this based of course, on the concept that there would be 125 attacks of USL 3 missiles.

In any event, I digress a bit from why I'm mentioning all of this.

If you attempt to build the Defender class ship using High Guard second edition, you will discover that it is impossible to make it match that given in Traders and Gunboats. The price tag of 777 MCr is a bit too high in that High Guard's cost is only 588.13 MCr, and has 44 dtons of cargo capacity instead of what was listed for the Traders and Gunboats version. I subsequently broke out my High Guard first edition book to see if I could build the Defender class ship - only to discover that it was not possible. High Guard First edition does not have the "Agility" rules, nor does it have armor ratings higher than 9. In fact - the armor level for the System Defense boat is illegal in that at TL 12, it can't be 9.

Ultimately, what ever rules set that was used to create the Defender System Defense Boat in Traders and Gunboats - is not either of HG 1st edition, or HG 2nd edition, or even the little black book #2.

It would be interesting to see when precisely the 400 dton close escort design was published, and whether or not it stems from the issue of High Guard's rules being in transition between 1979 and 1980. It would be ironic if that is the ultimate explanation as to why a 300 dton hull could have 4 hard points.

Perhaps the fourth hard point is supposed to be on the drop tank structure, and it gets blown off when the drop tanks are dropped, or it is manned when it isn't dropped?

 

[Theophilus]

Of course, if I worried about all the designs that didn't follow the "rules" I'd pull my hair out.

DGP's 101 vehicles has a TL9 grav tank with armor 55, even thought the armor rule is TLx5 (max 45)

TNE's Fury class assault lander is 7 tons with a 9MW fusion reactor at TL12, even though it's impossible to design a reactor that small at TL12.

FSOSI broke even ship design rule in MT.

You can't desgin a Lurenti class carrier.

etc. etc. etc.

 

[drnuncheon]

Really? Now, that's the sort of canon retcon I approve of.

From what I've seen, where MongT has a choice, it seems to follow CT (which is why I get so puzzled at MongT hate from CT fans).

Did they include a small sidebar? you know, something to let the grognard know that this was a deliberate change and prevent him from pointing out that they'd made a mistake[*]?

Nope, this thread was the first I'd heard of the other versions.

What about drop tanks in themselves? Are they gone too?

There's rules for them in HG.

 

[rancke]

From what I've seen, where MongT has a choice, it seems to follow CT (which is why I get so puzzled at MongT hate from CT fans).

Anything that Mongoose has done in that respect that I dissaprove of[*] is ignoring material that has been produced for later versions. That just seems so wasteful.


[*] 'Hate' is far too strong a word, at least in my case.


Following CT when there's a choice is all very well when CT makes sense. I approve of that, mostly. It's not such a hot idea when CT doesn't make sense.

Also, note that most of what I know about Mongoose is at second hand, and I take such information with a big helping of salt. The one example that I know of is that they seem to have ignored most of the work we put into writing GT:Sword Worlds when they put together MGT: The Spinward Marches. Apart from being wasteful, I have a personal interest in that .

Edit: No, I know of at least one other example: Their writeup of Walston ignored the information in TD15 completely. Which means that Cry "Egherz!" and Let Loose the Humans of War!, an adventure I wrote for JTAS Online and based on the information in TD15, is incompatible with Moongoose's version of Walston.


Hans

 

[Jeffr0]

Nearly ineffective by definition in this case, depended upon the fact that the Capital ship (It was a 48,000 dton hull) had sufficient Repulsor bays to handle 10 incoming missiles, and nearly a 2:1 ratio of sandcasters to any remaining missiles that might hit - all this based of course, on the concept that there would be 125 attacks of USL 3 missiles.

Please clarify this.

I thought all defensive batteries were allocated against hits at the same step and then resolved simultaneously.... It sounds like you're saying that you can allocated and resolve the Repulsors... and THEN allocate and resolve the sandcasters.

Step 5 C in the High Guard sequence of play implies to me that sandasters, beam weapons, and repulsors are allocated all at the same time before you know their individual outcomes. Nuclear Dampers and other passive defenses *are* resolved in a separate step, though.

 

[Easterner9504]

it would be interesting to see when precisely the 400 dton close escort design was published, and whether or not it stems from the issue of high guard's rules being in transition between 1979 and 1980. It would be ironic if that is the ultimate explanation as to why a 300 dton hull could have 4 hard points.

jtas #4 1980.

 

[Gray Lensman]

Ultimately, what ever rules set that was used to create the Defender System Defense Boat in Traders and Gunboats - is not either of HG 1st edition, or HG 2nd edition, or even the little black book #2.

Here is the USP for the SDB from Traders and Gunboats page 47

SB-98076 Guardian System Defense Boat
SB-41069E2-900000-40003-0 MCr777.54 400 tons
Crew=10. TL=12. Passengers=0. Cargo=27. Fuel=36. EP=36. Agility=6.

Here is the USP for the Defender Class SDB I just created using High Guard Shipyard 1.13

Ship: Bruisingthing
Class: Defender
Type: System Defense Boat
Architect: Gray Lensman
Tech Level: 12

USP
SB-41069E2-900000-40003-0 MCr 588.432 400 Tons
Bat Bear 1 1 Crew: 11
Bat 1 1 TL: 12

Cargo: 24.000 Fuel: 36.000 EP: 36.000 Agility: 6
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops and On Board Fuel Purification

Architects Fee: MCr 5.884 Cost in Quantity: MCr 470.746

Came up 3 tons Short On Cargo and Gained 1 Crew Member.
I just hadta do it

Edit: CONSTRUCTION TIME 82 Weeks Singly, 65 Weeks in Quantity
Not that I really want to start another discussion but "Are you Kidding me"?
In a large (major) shipyard under a staggering Naval Contract it would take
over a year to build one?

 

[Hal]

Please clarify this.

I thought all defensive batteries were allocated against hits at the same step and then resolved simultaneously.... It sounds like you're saying that you can allocated and resolve the Repulsors... and THEN allocate and resolve the sandcasters.

Step 5 C in the High Guard sequence of play implies to me that sandasters, beam weapons, and repulsors are allocated all at the same time before you know their individual outcomes. Nuclear Dampers and other passive defenses *are* resolved in a separate step, though.

For what it is worth:
The Dominator Class CZ (cruiser experimental), has 28 Sandcaster batteries at factor 9, 10 factor 6 Repulsor bays, 6 factor 9 missile bays, and 1 factor L Partical Accelerator spinal mount. Its computer is a model 6 fiber optic computer, and has 2 factor 1 nuclear Dampner screens (one is a backup). Craft was built using TL 12 specifications and limits. Agility is 6.

Meanwhile, the Defender class ship has a single factor 3 missile battery and a single factor 4 laser battery. Its computer is a model 5 fiber optic and its agility is also 6. Add to this, the fact that the defender class system defense boat has 9 levels of armor, treating its size 4 hull as though it were a size 8 hull (for purposes of determining how many critical hits are caused by factor 9+ attacks).

To hit computations:
Factor 3 missile at long range: 5+ Short Range: 6+
Long Range: 5 + target agility 6 + computer size difference 1 = 12+
Short Range: 6+ 6+ 1 = 13+ (missiles can't hit at short range)

Factor 4 Laser at Long Range: 7+ Short Range: 6+
Long range: 7+6+1 = 14+ (laser may not hit at long range)
Short range: 6+6+1 = 13+ (laser may not hit at optimal short range either)

Now, 125 missiles fired by 125 SDB's at Long range, hitting on a 12+ only, will hit on average, with only 2.7% of the salvos. Statistically speaking, you can expect about 3.4 hits to occur with rolls of 12+. Lets be particularly nasty here. Lets say that the Dominator class ship gets nailed with 20 actual missile attacks.

Rolls to penetrate a factor 6 repulsor defense requires a roll of 18+. With the target having the bonus of a better computer size - that becomes a 19+. Rolls to penetrate the Nuclear Dampner factor 1 with a factor 3 nuclear missile strike is 8+, modified to 9+ due to computer size modifier. Last but not least, to penetrate a factor 9 sandcaster, one needs to roll a 11+, modified to 12+ due to computer size modifier.

Now, with 8 repulsor bays, 24 sandcaster defenses - allocate your defenses in an optimal manner:

8 repulsor bays against 1 missile each. That leaves you with 12 incoming missiles you've yet to allocate a defense for. With 24 sandcasters that are bearing out of 28, that gives you essentially 2 sandcasters per incoming missile. This means that each of the remaining 12 incoming missiles need to roll to penerate sand twice, at 12+.

Effectively, the Dominator's defense screens, repulsor bays, and factor 9 sandcasters render the missile attacks of the Defender class SDB, virtually ineffective.

 

[drnuncheon]

Edit: No, I know of at least one other example: Their writeup of Walston ignored the information in TD15 completely.

Huh? There's nothing on Walston in the SM book except the UWP…

 

[Antony]

Of course, if I worried about all the designs that didn't follow the "rules" I'd pull my hair out.

....
TNE's Fury class assault lander is 7 tons with a 9MW fusion reactor at TL12, even though it's impossible to design a reactor that small at TL12.

...
etc. etc. etc.

I think that despite what the description of the Fury says its reactor is actually TL13 or higher given the RC has access to Hiver assistance, it certainly won't work with the TL12 model unless it is being run at below its rating, which is 20MW for a TL12 reactor.

In general though if it is brokwn in earler versions a TNE version can be made to work but barbette PAs and plasma/fusion guns are repleaced with varying sizes of lasers. The Gazelle is listed as 280/400 tons and is armed with 2 150Mj laser turrets and 2 300Mj laser barbettes. In this set of rules if you can find room on the hull and can pay for it you can put it on.