• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

[Proto-Traveller] Book 2 Plus (includes smallcraft)

Timerover, I am trying to figure out what you are talking about. Robject's small craft are a tad bit cheaper than the canon small craft in LBB2.

Robject's costs:
Launch-9 MCr 13
Ship's Boat-13 MCr 15
Slow Boat-10 MCr 13
Pinnace-12 MCr 19
Slow Pinnace-9 MCr 15
Modular Cutter-11 MCr 28 +module [I assume that this means the module is additional
Shuttle-10 (95 dTon) MCr 32
Light Shuttle-12 (35 dTon) MCr 18
Gig-15 MCr 18
Fighter-15 MCr 16.5

Starter Traveller costs:
Launch MCr 14
Ship's Boat MCr 16
Slow Boat MCr 15
Pinnace MCr 20
Slow Pinnace MCr 18
Modular Cutter MCr 28 without module
Shuttle (95 dTon) MCr 33
Fighter MCr 18

The prices are the same or a Million Credits or so difference. That is not what I would call a tad cheaper. I am using Starter Traveller as I have that on my computer. The Traveller Book costs are the same.
 
Whether 5% to 14% is a "tad", Robect's prices are lower across the board than Start Traveller except for the Modular Cutter. I still don't see an issue here.

And, really, I would praise Robject for posting his extensions in a cogent and quite readable format. I may not necessarily agree with all of his extensions, but they are nicely laid-out.
 
Here's the point that Timerover misses: with my rules, you can build the small craft shown in Book 2 -- close enough to make no difference -- and you can also build variations of them as well. And it's the same system as ship design. The price is not the issue, because you can design cheap small craft.

Timerover, despite his on-again, off-again grumpy nature, is actually just complaining about Classic Traveller's pricing scheme. His argument is not really with me; my goal was to get quite close to LBB1-2-3.

But anyway, what he should have done was built a Shuttle and a Free Trader with my rules, and showed everyone where the costs are, and how to build small craft on the cheap. Luckily for all of us, Book-2-like rules tend to be simple enough to just sit down and play with.

Type A Free Trader.
200 ton streamlined hull, MCr 14.
Model/1, MCr 1.5
Two single turret ... ah... let's say heterogenous Laser-Missile-Sand. MCr 2.4.
Jump, Maneuver, and Power-A: MCr 18.
Scoops. KCr 100.

Crew: let's make room for 4.
Passengers: let's make room for 6.
So, staterooms and common areas: MCr 5.

Standard life support. MCr 1.

12 ton bridge. MCr 1.2.

I suppose we have an Air/Raft. KCr 100.

Look, already found a typo. Two. And no 'niche' rule mentioned.

Holy crap, are we done already? Have I told you I LOVE Book 2?

Code:
Ton Component                MCr  Notes
--- ------------------------ ---- -------------------
200 Streamlined hull         14
--- ------------------------ ---- -------------------
  1 Model/1                   1.5
  2 Two single turrets LMS    2.4  Laser-Missile-Sand
 16 J- M- and PP-A           18    J1 M1 P1
 22 Fuel                      -    1 pc, 1 month ops
  1 Scoops                    0.1  100t/h
 20 Crew space                2    4 crew
 30 Pasenger space            3    6 pax
  4 Low Berths (8)            0.8  8 low
  1 Standard LS               1    40 people-weeks
 12 Bridge, spacious          1.2  6 workstations
  4 Air/Raft                  0.1
  2 Niche for Air/Raft        1.5
  1 Airlocks (2)              0.2
  2 Cargo Lock                0.4
 82 Cargo                     -

    TOTAL ================>  46.2
So NOW we compare apples to apples. A 95 ton shuttle is not much cheaper than a 200 ton starship.

To which I answer: so what? Look at the difference between an insystem craft and an interstellar craft. It's the jump drive and jump fuel, and for smaller craft anyway, size.

Here's a version of the shuttle:

Code:
Ton Component                MCr  Notes
--- ------------------------ ---- -------------------
 95 Streamlined hull          8   (100 ton hull)
--- ------------------------ ---- -------------------
  3 Model/3                  10.5
  7 P-plant B                 7    P3
  3 P-plant fuel              -    29 days
  3 M-drive B                 6    3G
  3 Bridge, standard          0.6  3 workstations
  2 Long-term LS              2    120 people-weeks
  1 Airlocks (2)              0.2
  2 Cargo Lock                0.4
 71 Free Space                -

    TOTAL ================>  34.7
You want cheap, then strip out the computer, downgrade the drives and LS, and use a 90 ton hull:

Code:
Ton Component                MCr  Notes
--- ------------------------ ---- -------------------
 90 Streamlined hull          3.2 (90 ton pod)
--- ------------------------ ---- -------------------
  1 Model/1                   1.5
  4 P-plant A                 4    P2
  2 P-plant fuel              -    31 days
  2 M-drive B                 4    2G
  3 Bridge, standard          0.6  3 workstations
  1 Standard LS               1    40 people-weeks
  1 Airlocks (2)              0.2
  2 Cargo Lock                0.4
 74 Free Space                -

    TOTAL ================>  14.9
 
Last edited:
Your 200 dTon Free Trader should be more expensive than a 95 dTon in-system shuttle, as it is twice the size.

Run your comparison with the Shuttle verses a 100 dTon Scout.

I think that is about it here for me, as I am thinking that I am turning into a target.

As I keep stating, it is whatever the sort of Traveller Universe a Game Master or player wishes to make of it.
 
I think that is about it here for me, as I am thinking that I am turning into a target.

Welcome to my world. If you really want to be a target, post some rules. I swear, people will call your stuff a tad ridiculous, perpetuating mindless rules (e.g. cost increases), bizarre, and worse than the original.

Hardly constructive criticism, and more like target practice, wouldn't you agree?
 
I like the collection of new features added; pods, fuel pump for servicing ships, extended life-support, etc. When I get the chance, I'll add these to the list of payloads in my project.

Key differences appear to be the bridge (interesting idea) scaling to suit the needs of the ship. Stateroom that are 25% larger than normal with no double occupancy. The addition of Life Support and their control stations and fuel consumption standardized on Bk5 calcs.

I see a logical disconnect between the separation of life support from staterooms and staterooms restricting occupancy based on life support they no longer offer.

The only other thing that looked odd is the 'easy' access to cheap Black Globes at TL16. My take is that they are being developed by and likely retained for military use through most/all of TL16. At TL15 the indicative price for a low end BG is 400Mcr.

Consider your pdf 'stolen' and added to my collection :-)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with Timerover51's observation that Ship pricing for small craft vs 100-200 dTon vs over 200 dTon is less than ideal.
If robject's goal had been to create a unified pricing system for all CT spacecraft, then I might have similar criticisms ...

But that was not robjects stated goal.
Since the stated goal is to expand the LBB2 design rules to allow the creation and modification of the classic published Small Craft (as well as new small craft), then I would have to agree with those who cheer the effort as a success. Book 2 Plus achieves its goal in a clear, compatible and easy to use format.

Since the pricing can of worms :CoW: has been opened, I would offer the personal observation that it is the price of the 100 and 200 dTon ships that are most off compared to the rest of the published designs and rules. Constructing a price vs dTon graph and attempting to fit a curve suggests that the 100 and 200 dT price points were deliberately adjusted to create 'affordable adventure' for the game. This is not a bad thing, it just makes comparisons between a 100 dTon Scout and Small Craft hazardous for drawing conclusions ... Scout ships appear to have a large 'economy' that larger and smaller ships do not enjoy.

[IIRC ... I performed the actual analysis quite some time ago.]
 
No worries AT. I propose that rather than one or the other, consistent, simple rules, based mainly on Book 2, can yield a healthy variation in small craft designs (and prices) creates "local color".

Check out my post where I designed two versions of the Shuttle -- the first matches the price and design parameters in Book 2, the second goes for cheap. I'm happy with the results.

Bottom line, it's possible to build a 95 ton shuttle for MCr 35, but also a 90 ton one for MCr 15.

The MCr 35 one seems to be a luxury, the product of a bloated governmental budget, which does happen, sometimes.
 
robject:
A question straight at your PDF ...

Why did you choose not to include the 1/2A Drive (MD/JD/PP) to allow the logical 100 dT Jump 1 starship?

I know that it is a common/popular house rule, and was curious your thinking when you chose to allow 10 dton bridges, but omit 100 dT Jump 1 ships.
 
No worries AT. I propose that rather than one or the other, consistent, simple rules, based mainly on Book 2, can yield a healthy variation in small craft designs (and prices) creates "local color".
Check out my post where I designed two versions of the Shuttle -- the first matches the price and design parameters in Book 2, the second goes for cheap. I'm happy with the results.
Bottom line, it's possible to build a 95 ton shuttle for MCr 35, but also a 90 ton one for MCr 15.
The MCr 35 one seems to be a luxury, the product of a bloated governmental budget, which does happen, sometimes.
I saw the two shuttles and was quite impressed ... a nice addition to the LBB2 toolbox.

It also occurs to me that there is an element of 'apples and oranges' to the Scout vs Small Craft comparisons. To use Timerover51's WW2 analogies, a PT Boat may be smaller than a Fishing Boat, but that will not necessarily make it cheaper ... and comparing Day-Cruiser sailboats to containerized cargo ships on a cost per displacement ton basis would probably yield irregular results as well.

Spoiler:
I hadn't really gotten into the nuts and bolts of your PDF too deeply,

[I confess to being more Book 5/Formula oriented]

but a 50 dT starship seems plausible under your Book 2 Plus (excluding the 100 dt hull LBB2 'fiat') ... and LBB2 Plus may have challenged the 20 dT Bridge 'fiat' already, so give me an inch and I'll take a mile. ;)
 
robject:
A question straight at your PDF ...

Why did you choose not to include the 1/2A Drive (MD/JD/PP) to allow the logical 100 dT Jump 1 starship?

I know that it is a common/popular house rule, and was curious your thinking when you chose to allow 10 dton bridges, but omit 100 dT Jump 1 ships.

I like the idea of the 1/2A, but I think I may not need it.


BUY TWO, GET ONE FREE

In solving two of my pet peeves about Book 2, I inadvertently had a solution to the problem you mention above.

In this context, pet peeve #1 is the lack of smallcraft design rules, and pet peeve #2 is that Technological Level is completely absent from Book 2 ship design.

Astonishing to me was that smallcraft don't need smaller drives; they need Tech Levels. I was floored by how elegantly it (plus the obvious conclusion that they used High Guard's power plant fuel rule) caused the small craft designs to just fall into place.

So if the small craft didn't need smaller drives, perhaps the 100t Jump-1 ship didn't, either. The conclusion is that the 100t Jump-1 ship is TL 9. The drives are bulky, but then, it's a TL9 design.


PLUS A FREEBIE

Using Tech Levels also answered a question that I and Timerover and many others have asked: why are smallcraft so dang expensive? A possible answer easily presents itself when using TL: they don't have to be, but these smallcraft in Book 2 are clearly decked out with lots of gear. This is not unreasonable: they're owned and operated by a starport, not a rag-tag tramp trader. But, there's no reason not to have cheap smallcraft, as well, and happily I can now design them.


UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

There are still unanswered questions. WHY design smallcraft at lower tech levels? I don't know that one. They're not any cheaper than higher tech versions. They do use less fuel, and that IS important for smaller small craft, but once you're up in the 90 ton range, it seems less of a problem. So what's the deal? I don't know. But at least there are no "technical" problems now.
 
Last edited:
It also occurs to me that there is an element of 'apples and oranges' to the Scout vs Small Craft comparisons. To use Timerover51's WW2 analogies, a PT Boat may be smaller than a Fishing Boat, but that will not necessarily make it cheaper ... and comparing Day-Cruiser sailboats to containerized cargo ships on a cost per displacement ton basis would probably yield irregular results as well.
If anyone cares, here's my thoughts on a "PT Boat".

First off, the "torpedo" is not a Traveller missile but a custom smallcraft, say in the 5 to 10 ton range. No sentient pilot, but a computer, say a Model 1bis running Target, Launch, Auto/Evade, and a new custom program I call "Intercept" that attempts to intercept the ship being targeted. Normal warhead would be 6 to 9 missiles that can be MIRV'ed at a launch-time designated range. Other warheads could be available, such as a laser-head.

The "boat" itself can then be a 100 to 200 ton starship with 4 or more tubes loaded with these torpedoes. I don't recall the exact numbers I came up with before, but 120 tons sticks in my mind as the minimum for a 4-tube boat. Now, a 200-tonner, with 10 tubes would be one dangerous Mo-Fo.
 
In this context, pet peeve #1 is the lack of smallcraft design rules, and pet peeve #2 is that Technological Level is completely absent from Book 2 ship design.

#2 is based upon wrong information. It's not directly mentioned in Book 2, but in book 3, the required TL for drives of specific sizes is mentioned on the TL table...
A-D = TL9
E-H = TL10
J-K = TL 11
L-N = TL 12
P-Q = TL 13
R-U = TL 14
V-Z = TL 15

Plus, computers TL's are explicitly mentioned in Bk 2.
 
#2 is based upon wrong information. It's not directly mentioned in Book 2, but in book 3, the required TL for drives of specific sizes is mentioned on the TL table...
A-D = TL9
E-H = TL10
J-K = TL 11
L-N = TL 12
P-Q = TL 13
R-U = TL 14
V-Z = TL 15

Plus, computers TL's are explicitly mentioned in Bk 2.
Were you ever happy with the implications of that?

There was a complex patchwork of 'limitations' that would allow a TL 9 world to import a TL C Model/6 computer, build a TL 9 JD-C, install it in a 100 dT hull and have a J6 ship?

That was one of the LBB2 quirks that led me to embrace Book 5 so quickly.
 
Were you ever happy with the implications of that?

There was a complex patchwork of 'limitations' that would allow a TL 9 world to import a TL C Model/6 computer, build a TL 9 JD-C, install it in a 100 dT hull and have a J6 ship?

It always seemed a reasonable situation to me; I can see no need for all tech to be completely homogenous and as high as possible.

Otherwise, TL-based Jump performance might tend to drive an Arms Race that the historically-slow advance of TLs shows little evidence of.
 
It always seemed a reasonable situation to me; I can see no need for all tech to be completely homogenous and as high as possible.

Otherwise, TL-based Jump performance might tend to drive an Arms Race that the historically-slow advance of TLs shows little evidence of.
It has significant setting implications as well.
Your largest warships (at any TL) are also your slowest ... but all ships, military and civilian, have the same basic weaponry.

It also lowers the 'entry point' for a Jump 6 warship to TL 12 (low by most later Traveller standards).

I don't have a giant problem with it, but I care about the OTU a lot less than most people do and the LBB2-3 TL progression rewrites vast swaths of the OTU background and setting flavor ... any TL 12 (Average Imperial) world can build a corvette or blockade runner faster than most front-line TL 14 battleships (any ship larger than 600 dT).
 
Were you ever happy with the implications of that?

There was a complex patchwork of 'limitations' that would allow a TL 9 world to import a TL C Model/6 computer, build a TL 9 JD-C, install it in a 100 dT hull and have a J6 ship?

That was one of the LBB2 quirks that led me to embrace Book 5 so quickly.

Actually, yes, I was... until I realized what it meant for hull sizes. Then it bugged me.

Now, I find I don't mind it nearly so much... but would rather it have been fuel by drive letter and the same number of steps per TL...

And, as you pointed out, it buggers the OTU. IMNearlyOTU games, I use only HG drives, and jump prices varying by distance such that minimum TL drives can just barely make a profit.

In the stock OTU with flat-per-jump shipping rates, there really cannot be J3+ shipping*, and the TL15 PP is a near absolute requirement for J2.

*Noting that shipping ≠ trade flows; shipping is the cargo owner paying someone else to move the goods to/from a third party.
 
In the stock OTU with flat-per-jump shipping rates, there really cannot be J3+ shipping*, and the TL15 PP is a near absolute requirement for J2.

*Noting that shipping ≠ trade flows; shipping is the cargo owner paying someone else to move the goods to/from a third party.

Hi Aramis,

Could you break the logic for the above out for me? Thanks!
 
Back
Top