Query and speculation on maneuver drive

[rancke]

Not nearly enough as you STILL have allocate separate tonnage for crew work space and even adding the human interface, you are several orders of magnitude over size wise.

I don't have an opinion on how much it helps, but why do you have to allocate separate tonnage for crew work space?


Hans

 

[HG_B]

I don't have an opinion on how much it helps, but why do you have to allocate separate tonnage for crew work space?


Hans

The work pace is already part of the other ship components. Bridge, eng, stateroom portion that goes to common spaces, etc. You have no choice.

 

[mike wightman]

What did you do about the computers?

I have two options:

1 - scrap EPs all together

2 - put a line through 'computer' and scribble in 'active sensor suite'

 

[rancke]

The work pace is already part of the other ship components. Bridge, eng, stateroom portion that goes to common spaces, etc. You have no choice.

Where does it say explicitly that computer access space is part of the bridge, engine room, and/or stateroom portion? I feel perfectly able to choose that it isn't.


Hans

 

[TomW]

I just opted to fix HG2 myself and borrow all the higher tech weapons, screens, armour etc from MT - it ports to HG2 easy enough.

Have you written this up? Sounds ideal (to me.)

 

[Carlobrand]

I have two options:

1 - scrap EPs all together

2 - put a line through 'computer' and scribble in 'active sensor suite'

I like 'em both. Considering the role the computer plays in battle, it's probably easiest to see it as a combination computer/sensor system.

Where does it say explicitly that computer access space is part of the bridge, engine room, and/or stateroom portion? I feel perfectly able to choose that it isn't.

Only relevant in deck-planning, though it might explain why ship size is limited by computer rating: you need more workstations to serve a larger crew. Given the decentralized nature of the computing task, I think we can take a little from column A and a little from column B, assume that the computer melds more or less seamlessly with the bridge, engineering space and such, add on a wee bit to their space to account for that, and assume some of the computer is accounted for by sensors.

 

[McPerth]

I just opted to fix HG2 myself and borrow all the higher tech weapons, screens, armour etc from MT - it ports to HG2 easy enough.

(emphasis is mine)

If you borrow them from MT, they are nearly useless...

Let me quote you my opinion about those higher TL weapons in MT as expressed in the errata (forgive me the long quote):

One thing I never understood in MT is how are supposed disintegrators to work (in game terms). As they are stated, I cannot see any advantage over meson guns.

In this sense the adventure presented on the Rebelion Sourcebook has no sense. Let me analize it in game terms:

Voroshilev ships are upgraded by changing their computers from assumed 7 (they were TL 13 and 7 is the best possible) to 9 (the book says 9, but I'd better use 9(fib) to avoid radiation damage), upgrading the powerplant to TL15 and by changing their R PA spinals to A disitegrator (if you look at the weapons tables, an experimental A disintegrator takes 60000 kl instead of the 55000 of the R PA, so I'd assume for that post that it's an experimental B rated disitegrator, that needs only 55000 kl, and so fits in). For the sake of comparison we will see that it could also be changed by an M meson gun.

Now let's see the combat effects of this upgradings:

Change of computer: a must if you want to upgrade

Change of PP: ditto

Change of weaponry:

- R rated PA: 250000 Mw used. If hit makes 16 rolls on surface explosion table and 16 on radiation. Criticals on ships rated 100000 dton or less (all this modified/reduced by armor)

- B rated disintegrator: 550000 Mw used. If hit (and penetrates dampers) 2 rolls on radiation table and 2 on interior explosion. Criticals on ships rated 2000 dton or less (modified/reduced by armor).

- M rated meson: 250000 Mw used. If hit (and penetates screens/config) 12 rolls on radiation table and 12 on interior explosion. Criticals on ships rated 30000 ton or less (unaffected by armor).

Now let's recreate the final battle (assuming it is against Aek Naz-class battle cruisers, also shown in the book):

- R rated PA: TH: +15 (+11 from table, +4 relative computer size):misses on a 2 (automatic miss). 16 rolls (+3 for armor/A+) in each table (surface explosion&radiation damage). 3 criticals.

- B rated disitegrator: TH +10 (+6 from table, +4 Relative computer size): misses on eyes. 2 rolls (+3 for armor/A+) on each table (radiation damage & internal explosion). No criticals.

- M rated meson: TH +13 (+9 from table, +4 relative computer size): misses on eyes. +10 to penetrate (+6 from table, +4 relative computer size):fails on eyes too. 12 rolls (unmodified) on each table (radiation damage&internal explosion). 1 critical.

That gives (at grosso modo) two kills in three shoots for the PA, one in 18 with disintegrator and 34 on 36 shoots for the meson (assuming the main killer is fuel tanks shattered and PP/MD/ship vaporized criticals).

Now tell me what sense it has to send a team across several sectors to recover the pieces for that disintegrator (aside from giving a good adventure for the players)...

Some posts followed on the issue (that's why I quoted it, to allow any interested reader easy access to the following posts too).

But that would deserve a thread on its own...

 

[McPerth]

The changes birthed a 20dT model/9-equipped fighter that devastates anything with less than 88 ranks of armor; the only real defense is to be small and agile or big and heavily armored, or they mosquito-bite you into impotence in short order. Meanwhile, spinal mesons still pretty much eat up whatever they hit, though the crew survival rate's a bit better, so big is still a bad thing. The result, as near as I can figure, is a universe dominated by fighters and carriers, SDBs in the 1500 dT range, and small meson-spinal battleriders and their tenders.

(emphasis is mine)

Shame maximum armor (planetoids aside) for a TL 15 ship is 75:

MT:RM page 58:

Armor Factor: (...) The added value of armor for a ship may not exceed the ships technological leveltimes five)

 

[Carlobrand]

...Shame maximum armor (planetoids aside) for a TL 15 ship is 75 ...

Oh crud, I forgot that bit, it's not mentioned in the Basic Hull Design table. I've been working up a ship-builder, neglected that rule. Dumbdumbdumb. :nonono:

Rendered more difficult by the fact that base armor is 40 and that armor bonuses are only countered for every 3 layers after that, which means the max added armor at TL15 is only equivalent to about 11 High Guard levels.

Looking over Fighting Ships, they're many of them in the 90-120 range. I'd say they're interpreting "Added" as meaning anything in excess of the 40 base, but those 120s bust that hypothesis, and they've got a TL12 battleship sporting 110. Nothing expressly says "added" means in excess of 40, and since the design table includes vehicles that can start at 0 (at least one of which becomes a 10 dT orbital fighter and can engage in space combat), one can't just assume that's the case.

Be that as it may, unless we decide to errata that 5-per-layers to exclude the minimum base required, anything of 10,000 dTons or over is just waiting to have its nice new toys plucked off by a fighter. Crudcrudcrudcrud!

 

[McPerth]

Rendered more difficult by the fact that base armor is 40 and that armor bonuses are only countered for every 3 layers after that, which means the max added armor at TL15 is only equivalent to about 11 High Guard levels.

True. And the máximum armor for a TL 9 ship is HG equivalent to 1 (against the 9 in HG).

Add to this that few MT large ships have good agility (for the reasons you gave in the OP) and you have that large ships in MT are even more defenseless than in HG.

Looking over Fighting Ships, they're many of them in the 90-120 range. I'd say they're interpreting "Added" as meaning anything in excess of the 40 base, but those 120s bust that hypothesis, and they've got a TL12 battleship sporting 110.

Do you mean the most broken book of all Traveller history?

The one where some 30 kdton BRs carry 300 kdton of fuel for distribution (pages 30, 31, 33, 34 and 35: in fact all BRs), so showing that it was not even proof-read (not to say reviewed the designs)?

I wonder if any design in the whole book is not only correct, but salvageable for fixing...

Nothing expressly says "added" means in excess of 40, and since the design table includes vehicles that can start at 0 (at least one of which becomes a 10 dT orbital fighter and can engage in space combat), one can't just assume that's the case.

But even larger craft may be built not space capable (grav hotels, etc), so minimum armor is 0. I agree the wording added armor is confusing, but my guess is that this is specifically for planetoid (buffered or not).

Be that as it may, unless we decide to errata that 5-per-layers to exclude the minimum base required, anything of 10,000 dTons or over is just waiting to have its nice new toys plucked off by a fighter. Crudcrudcrudcrud!

That's the same conclusión I reached.

 

[HG_B]

Where does it say explicitly that computer access space is part of the bridge,

CREW work space are part of the bridge. Where do you think the helmsmen sit at the controls ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
(see MT ship design rules)

In the head? :rofl:

 

[McPerth]

Where does it say explicitly that computer access space is part of the bridge, engine room, and/or stateroom portion? I feel perfectly able to choose that it isn't.

Computer, controls and electronics needing their own space, what else is the bridge space for, aside workstations for the bridge crew?

 

[rancke]

CREW work space are part of the bridge.

You're not going to claim that the room that is called the bridge is identical to the 20T of space that is called the bridge, I hope. So what's your point? I'm saying the access space to service the computer can perfectly well be accounted as coming out of the computer's tonnage. Come to that, the computer workstation on the physical bridge can easily come out of the computer space and still be on the bridge.

Computer, controls and electronics needing their own space, what else is the bridge space for, aside workstations for the bridge crew?

That's an ecellent question, one that many have asked before you. I don't think there's a single canonical set of deckplans where the bridge takes up 40 squares (20T). In most of them you're lucky if you get 10 spaces used up that way (Though the Kinunir's bridge does use up 32 out of 48 squares). So what is the rest of the bridge tonnage used for? Suggestions have included air locks and the ship's locker.

The Kinunir has a computer room that takes up 12 squares. What part of the various ship components does that space come out of? If I say it comes out of the computer tonnage, can you prove me wrong?


Hans

 

[HG_B]

You're not going to claim that the room that is called the bridge is identical to the 20T of space that is called the bridge, I hope.

No. I'm saying the the bridge crew work space is ALREADY covered within that amount. Pretty damn simple really.

 

[aramis]

No. I'm saying the the bridge crew work space is ALREADY covered within that amount. Pretty damn simple really.

This is in the MegaTraveller area. MT design has no bridge tonnage.

 

[Carlobrand]

This is in the MegaTraveller area. MT design has no bridge tonnage.

No bridge seating either, technically, not unless you're building a small craft or vehicle. And the computers are all computer; sensors and even control panels are purchased and installed separately. We drifted sideways a bit into High Guard territory, sorry. Hadn't realized it was a no-no.

So, let's see, if I recall correctly the original question was whether that bit about pulling agility 6 out of a 1G drive was an accurate interpretation. And then there was the speculation on a way to explain the maneuver drive's odd behavior. We explored the maneuver drive thing a bit, but I'm still wondering about the agility question.

 

[rancke]

No bridge seating either, technically, not unless you're building a small craft or vehicle. And the computers are all computer; sensors and even control panels are purchased and installed separately. We drifted sideways a bit into High Guard territory, sorry. Hadn't realized it was a no-no.

Same here. My apologies.


Hans

 

[aramis]

An MT design SHOULD get a roomy seat for every gunner, engineer, and bridge crewman. MT's biggest design oversight is "how many panels can one man work?"

 

[McPerth]

This is in the MegaTraveller area. MT design has no bridge tonnage.

You're right, as most times. I guess so many diferent design rules lead to those mix-ups...

In any case, IMHO, that hints workstations are included in the control figures.

An MT design SHOULD get a roomy seat for every gunner, engineer, and bridge crewman.

Unless you assume its workstation is included in the volumen, weight and price of the pannels/add-ons themselves...

MT's biggest design oversight is "how many panels can one man work?"

Agreed here.

 

[whulorigan]

Control Panel Operation

MT's biggest design oversight is "how many panels can one man work?"

According to DGP 101 Vehicles, 1st Page, last sentence at bottom of right column:

"In fact, very little of the control panel volume is actually 'panel'. As a rough guide, the maximum number of control panel units that one person can operate and monitor is 12kiloliters".
​