Shae'Ak'krii Class 500 ton corvette

[wbyrd]

this is a sample of a project I am working on to be published. It's one of my older designs intended for a small crew, and frontier operation. I got the okay to talk about the project I decided to sort of let you guys see what I am doing..and get feedback....nitpicking, flamed, etc....

one word of warning this is one of my older designs which I haven't gone over recently so some math errors may still be hiding in the corners.

Detailed write up here http://sta.sh/02543oj9ojwi
thisis only a partial write up.. the write up includes a sample vessel it's crew, and a multi part series of adventure idea..but to avoid making Mongoose shake their finger at me I am saving that...
Hull 10 Hull /10 Structure
Armor 8
performance
Thrust 4
Jump 3
Endurance 1 month
Crew 18
Attack DM +2
Sensors DM +4
ECM DM -4 Dm to hostile sensors
Marines 6 marines
Turrets
3 triple Turrets Beam Laser, Pulse laser, Sandcaster
1 particle beam barbette
1 rail gun barbette
50 ton missile bay

Type H Jump Drive
Type K Maneuver drive
Type K Power plant

Options
options
self Sealing hull 4
Modular Hull 85 tons
Enhanced Signal Processing +4 Dm, range bands decreased by 2 steps
Fast cycle Hyperdrive
countermeasures - 4 DM to Hostile Sensors
repair drones
escape pods
Ships locker
Armory
Brig 4 prisoners


Staterooms
9 Double
1 Single
Barracks for six marines

 

[steventirey1985]

Unless I am missing something, this design doesn't work, specifically the weapons.

As a 500 ton ship, it has 5 hardpoints. THis writeup has 3 turrets (3 hardpoints), 2 barbettes (2 hardpoints) and 1 bay (1 hardpoint). That is 6 hardpoints on a 5 hardpoint ship.

The full writeup has an additional turret, for 7 hardpoints on a 5 hardpoint ship.

 

[flykiller]

... but who's counting.

visually it's very dramatic. I like it. I can just see it in a movie, pulling hard g's in front of the audience and flashing its wings. like to see some 30 and 60 views.

 

[aramis]

Unless I am missing something, this design doesn't work, specifically the weapons.

As a 500 ton ship, it has 5 hardpoints. THis writeup has 3 turrets (3 hardpoints), 2 barbettes (2 hardpoints) and 1 bay (1 hardpoint). That is 6 hardpoints on a 5 hardpoint ship.

The full writeup has an additional turret, for 7 hardpoints on a 5 hardpoint ship.

Depending upon edition and exact wording, that may be legit. Seriously.

The wording of CT Bk5 means it could have a 50T bay still mount 4.5 hardpoints (round up to 5).

 

[wbyrd]

Unless I am missing something, this design doesn't work, specifically the weapons.

As a 500 ton ship, it has 5 hardpoints. THis writeup has 3 turrets (3 hardpoints), 2 barbettes (2 hardpoints) and 1 bay (1 hardpoint). That is 6 hardpoints on a 5 hardpoint ship.

The full writeup has an additional turret, for 7 hardpoints on a 5 hardpoint ship.

Yes indeed you are correct ....I loaded the wrong file.....again...that file is like a frakkig bad penny...

the corrected version...and the one I should have loaded was 2 turrets, 2 barbettes, and a bay... I'll go trash the erroneous file.....

part of the problem is that I altered the weapons load after play testing an all railgun and laser version which was highly unsatisfactory. I added the missile bay and added a particle beam barbette in place of a second rail gun barbette.

take a good look at that file while you can in twenty minutes it's on it's way to the big bit bucket in the sky....

correct file.... http://sta.sh/02543oj9ojwi

 

[wbyrd]

... but who's counting.

visually it's very dramatic. I like it. I can just see it in a movie, pulling hard g's in front of the audience and flashing its wings. like to see some 30 and 60 views.

You will hopefully get to see those when this is published...my skills as an artist are meager.... someone is going to do renders based on this design.

the wings were originally just for looks, but after some discussion they became part of the maneuver systems... emitters, and sensor nodes are placed on the wings to increase it's ability to very quickly pitch, yaw, and rotate, to bring targets into the firing arc of the main weapons and evade incoming fire.

they also give you a great special effect for drive hits, as the ship takes damage the wings take damage or are shot away reducing it's agility and raw speed...since the embitters are designed to work in concert loosing a wing causes an imbalance in the gravitic envelope of the ship. that limits the ships ability to use the remaining gravitcs at full power...without dangerous structural loads tearing off bits of the ship...

 

[Ulsyus]

You may need to work on the proportions a bit. From the front aspect the cockpit/bridge (I think...) area in french-ish blue is wider than it appears from the top aspect.

 

[wbyrd]

You may need to work on the proportions a bit. From the front aspect the cockpit/bridge (I think...) area in french-ish blue is wider than it appears from the top aspect.

Alright i'll look at that... that's the sort of stuff I was hoping to get...when you look at your own work sometimes you miss little things.

 

[rancke]

Depending upon edition and exact wording, that may be legit. Seriously.

The wording of CT Bk5 means it could have a 50T bay still mount 4.5 hardpoints (round up to 5).

You mean High Guard? AFAICR HG requires 10 hardpoints per bay.


Hans

 

[wbyrd]

You mean High Guard? AFAICR HG requires 10 hardpoints per bay.


Hans

I designed these using mongoose rules limit bays by tonnage... small craft, standard star ships are limited to 1 per thousand tons multiplied by rating of it's power plant. ( I am assuming a minimum of one bay if it can fit into the ship.) a bay uses one hard point and requires one ton of fire control.

 

[rancke]

I designed these using mongoose rules limit bays by tonnage... small craft, standard star ships are limited to 1 per thousand tons multiplied by rating of it's power plant. ( I am assuming a minimum of one bay if it can fit into the ship.) a bay uses one hard point and requires one ton of fire control.

Ah. I didn't realize that Mongoose had retconned Traveller ships that drastically. It used to be one bay per full 1000T not used for anything else. Or in other words, 10 hardpoints per bay. Well, as long as one doesn't mind that it makes a lot of previous designs ridiculously undergunned, I suppose there's no reason why not.


Hans

 

[wbyrd]

Ah. I didn't realize that Mongoose had retconned Traveller ships that drastically. It used to be one bay per full 1000T not used for anything else. Or in other words, 10 hardpoints per bay. Well, as long as one doesn't mind that it makes a lot of previous designs ridiculously undergunned, I suppose there's no reason why not.


Hans

Very few small star ships ( under 3000 tons) carry a large number of bays... this appears to be part of the design of the game. Since usually only a warship would carry a bay since 50 or 100 tons of space is a serious loss of space.

At 1000 tons having 3 or 4 bays eats up the available tonnage fast...so if yo built a ship with 4 50 ton bays you burn 200 tons. and even worse if your packing in a heavy 100 ton bay. If you using weapon that require ammo popping off 12 or 24 missiles a round can require a lot of tonnage for ammo.

There is a different set of rules for capital ships ( 3000 tons and larger) the rule is that a ship can only have a total number of turrets and bays equal to it's tonnage/100 also bays were limited by the power rating of the ships power plant.

Max number of bays = (tonnage/1000 ) x power rating

 

[rancke]

Very few small star ships ( under 3000 tons) carry a large number of bays... this appears to be part of the design of the game. Since usually only a warship would carry a bay since 50 or 100 tons of space is a serious loss of space.

I was referring to warship designs. Even for small designs there's a big difference in firepower between, say, two bays and ten turrets and two bays and 28 turrets. A difference quite out of proportion to the difference in tonnage (200 vs. 228). The difference becomes bigger if you have more bays. Ten bays and 20 turrets, for example. Though that does have a much greater tonnage difference, to be sure.

At 1000 tons having 3 or 4 bays eats up the available tonnage fast...so if you built a ship with 4 50 ton bays you burn 200 tons.

A 1000T ship used to have to choose between one bay and 10 turrets. That would make it quite undergunned compared to a 1000T ship with four bays an six turrets, even if it would have 200T to spend on armor and cargo space.

And even worse if your packing in a heavy 100 ton bay. If you using weapon that require ammo popping off 12 or 24 missiles a round can require a lot of tonnage for ammo.

The Mongoose ship design and ship combat systems enforce paying attention to ammunition storage and expenditure? That's a positive change from HG.

There is a different set of rules for capital ships ( 3000 tons and larger) the rule is that a ship can only have a total number of turrets and bays equal to it's tonnage/100...

What's the difference between that and one per hardpoint?

... also bays were limited by the power rating of the ships power plant.

Max number of bays = (tonnage/1000 ) x power rating

I don't see the logic in that. Requiring power enough to fire the bay weapons, yes, I can see that. But what's the connection between power plants and holes in the hull?

What are usual power ratings, btw.?


Hans

 

[aramis]

You mean High Guard? AFAICR HG requires 10 hardpoints per bay.


Hans

You misremember. Its no more than 1 bay per 1000 tons, excluding tonnage occupied by spinals, and 1 hardpoint per 100 tons not allocated to other weapons.

Major weapons are listed first.
Then Bays:

One bay (regardless of size) may be installed per 1,000 tons of hull available. Tonnage not otherwise allocated to weaponry is considered available.​

then turrets:

Weapons may be mounted in turrets emplaced on the hull. Turrets require only that a hardpoint be designated and created during construction. One hardpoint is allowed per 100 tons of hull not otherwise allocated to weapons​

The requirement for hardpoints for bays and spinals was introduced in MT.

Note that the intent for Bk5 was to block 10 hardpoints per bay, based upon the example, but the wording was a failed skill roll... because it doesn't actually require that.

 

[rancke]

Note that the intent for Bk5 was to block 10 hardpoints per bay, based upon the example, but the wording was a failed skill roll... because it doesn't actually require that.

Unless you count tonnage used to support a hardpoint as being allocated to weaponry. Which I've always done. It may not be the only possible way to read the text; it may not even be the most likely way to read the text; but it is a possible way to read the text, and since (I believe) all examples seem to conform to that interpretation, that's the way I think it should be read.


Hans

 

[pendragonman]

You misremember. Its no more than 1 bay per 1000 tons, excluding tonnage occupied by spinals, and 1 hardpoint per 100 tons not allocated to other weapons.

Major weapons are listed first.
Then Bays:

One bay (regardless of size) may be installed per 1,000 tons of hull available. Tonnage not otherwise allocated to weaponry is considered available.​

then turrets:

Weapons may be mounted in turrets emplaced on the hull. Turrets require only that a hardpoint be designated and created during construction. One hardpoint is allowed per 100 tons of hull not otherwise allocated to weapons​

The requirement for hardpoints for bays and spinals was introduced in MT.

Note that the intent for Bk5 was to block 10 hardpoints per bay, based upon the example, but the wording was a failed skill roll... because it doesn't actually require that.

Aramis, you are the mistaken one. On the same page as your quote a couple paragraphs down is an example of a 50 KTon ship:

"Turrets: Weapons may be mounted in turrets emplaced on the hull. Turrets require only that a hardpoint be designated and created during construction. One hardpoint is allowed per 100 tons of hull not otherwise allocated to weapons. For example, a 50,000-ton ship carrying a 5,000-ton type A meson gun and twenty 100-ton bays may designate 250 hardpoints for turrets. Hardpoints require no tonnage; but turrets themselves (when installed) do require tonnage. Hardpoints
a..."

A 50 Kton boat can have 500 turrets. 5000 tons for a spine- 50 turrets for 450. 20 bays for another minus 200 leaves the 250---the implication is clear, or exactly what Hans was saying. This situation is exactly as I have always heard it interpreted.

And clearly not MT but CT-book 5

 

[wbyrd]

I was referring to warship designs. Even for small designs there's a big difference in firepower between, say, two bays and ten turrets and two bays and 28 turrets. A difference quite out of proportion to the difference in tonnage (200 vs. 228). The difference becomes bigger if you have more bays. Ten bays and 20 turrets, for example. Though that does have a much greater tonnage difference, to be sure.

I really cant speak accurately on earlier versions. I know that the basic design methods have varied a bit. So I don't want to go off on a subject i don't fully understand.

however the number of bays, and weapons carried appears to be close tot eh number carried in the limited stock of classic traveler sources i can get my hands on.... If there is a notable difference between other versions I cant be certain since it's been a decade or so since i last had a look at them.

based on what your saying the changes appear to be set so that ships are more heavily armed, and can mount heavier firepower in limited space.

I cant really speak on the exact reasoning which led to the adoption of the Mongoose rules concerning the number of hard points the bay takes up...I am not on a first name set and chew the fat basis with the Guys who did the earlier work...I'm sort of the new kid/newbie they hired to do some work for them....I know the rules i am working with...but i don't consider myself an expert on any of te other rules sets..and no where near an expert on anything...In my opinion at least..

A 1000T ship used to have to choose between one bay and 10 turrets. That would make it quite undergunned compared to a 1000T ship with four bays an six turrets, even if it would have 200T to spend on armor and cargo space.

true, but since the vessels should be using the same set of rules the difference is nt one that should cause problems. Other versions may be undergunned compared to the Current Mongoose rules. But as long as you aren't mixing vessels from differnt versions without adjusting to them to be built along the same lines it should't cause a problem.

The Mongoose ship design and ship combat systems enforce paying attention to ammunition storage and expenditure? That's a positive change from HG.

Yeah, you have to carry reloads as cargo, and no launchers come with free ammunition... so when you pop off 24 missiles that's a ton and change of space, as well as 15,000 credits for a basic missile..lord help ya if yer firing anything more advanced.

What's the difference between that and one per hard point?

None really, I was just stating the rules for capital ships.

I don't see the logic in that. Requiring power enough to fire the bay weapons, yes, I can see that. But what's the connection between power plants and holes in the hull?

I think this rule mostly concerns energy weapon based bays... missile and torpedoes aren't specifically addressed but I can't see why they woud be limited.

What are usual power ratings, btw.?

well as for the vessels I can find and reference ....after one in the morning here... they seem to range between power rating 4 and 6


As far as I can tell the changes are there...but the playing field is level between ships built under the Mongoose rules...comparing the rules between systems will always result in some differences between vessels.

 

[aramis]

Unless you count tonnage used to support a hardpoint as being allocated to weaponry. Which I've always done. It may not be the only possible way to read the text; it may not even be the most likely way to read the text; but it is a possible way to read the text, and since and since (I believe) all examples seem to conform to that interpretation, that's the way I think it should be read.


Hans

Several 3rd party published designs didn't. It wasn't until MT that the 10HP blocked by a bay became provably correct... because it became explicit in MT's rules.

Oh, and there's at least one in Sup 9 that runs over by your method. (It's a badly flawed entry - more later - but see p. 31)

Hans'​	Mine​	Item​
3,000​	3,000​	Spinal PA N​
24,000​	1,200​	24 50T Bays​
36,000​	36,000​	360 T (190 TrLas, 40 DuFu, 130 TrSand)​
​	​	​
63,000​	40,200​	of a 60,000Td hull​

Note: The entry lists 350 HP, but has 360 turrets... there are other issues as well.

But this was the design I had first encountered (in the boardgame) - and it's thus the one that I broke apart to understand Bk5...

The heavy cruiser on the p 32 also runs over... by 5 turrets. The Striker Carrier on 35 also runs over...by the spinal's tonnage.

Also note: about 7 designs don't actually use all their potential hardpoints under your interpretation, so there's plenty of evidence of not filling them all.

 

[rancke]

However the number of bays, and weapons carried appears to be close to the number carried in the limited stock of Classic Traveler sources I can get my hands on...

I don't think that can be the case. If it was there wouldn't be a problem.

I can't really speak on the exact reasoning which led to the adoption of the Mongoose rules concerning the number of hard points the bay takes up...I am not on a first name set and chew the fat basis with the Guys who did the earlier work...I'm sort of the new kid/newbie they hired to do some work for them....I know the rules i am working with...but i don't consider myself an expert on any of te other rules sets..and no where near an expert on anything...In my opinion at least..

Sure, it's their choice and not yours. I'm not trying to blame you or to make you act in defiance of the Mongoose Powers That Be. Theoretically I might be trying to convince them to change things back, but since I don't really believe that there's a candle's chance in an avalanche that that will happen, I'm really just grousing.

True, but since the vessels should be using the same set of rules the difference is not one that should cause problems. Other versions may be undergunned compared to the Current Mongoose rules. But as long as you aren't mixing vessels from differnt versions without adjusting to them to be built along the same lines it should't cause a problem.

But I consider one of the strengths of having an official setting to be that the parts that were written 35 years ago can still be used. The rules may differ but the setting shouldn't (although I admit that in some cases it does -- I'm looking at you, TNE -- much to the detriment of that aforementioned strength).

Once you change the ship design rules to allow a huge improvement in combat strength for relatively little cost, you effectively make ships designed under previous rules implausible and a burden on willing suspension of disbelief. Why in the universe would any sane warship procurer buy inferior ships in such massive numbers? Answer is, they wouldn't. It creates something awfully close to a discrepancy.

These new rules really require a complete retcon with all the old ship types redesigned to carry a lot more weapons and officially replaced. Not only does the Example class warship have twice as many turrets as before, it always did.

As far as I can tell the changes are there...but the playing field is level between ships built under the Mongoose rules...comparing the rules between systems will always result in some differences between vessels.

But there's quite a difference between small differences and big differences in terms of willing suspension of disbelief.


Hans

 

[wbyrd]

I don't think that can be the case. If it was there wouldn't be a problem.

Hmmmm let me do some checking and make sure I am on the same page as you are... what I have looked at so far are the standard vessels. I try to steer clear of the capital ships. not my strong suit.

Sure, it's their choice and not yours. I'm not trying to blame you or to make you act in defiance of the Mongoose Powers That Be. Theoretically I might be trying to convince them to change things back, but since I don't really believe that there's a candle's chance in an avalanche that that will happen, I'm really just grousing.

Grousing is fine, and every conversation I have I pick up new info...so grouse on. I'd love to see a unified method, with every version fitting together into a seamless whole....(minus that one or two that really would require some form of magic to make fit.)

Unfortunately I don't think that would be possible without some form of divine intervention... you have multiple companies, writers, and designers that would have to agree to a common system.

But I consider one of the strengths of having an official setting to be that the parts that were written 35 years ago can still be used. The rules may differ but the setting shouldn't (although I admit that in some cases it does -- I'm looking at you, TNE -- much to the detriment of that aforementioned strength).

Oh I have to agree, which makes my job a bit tricky...to come up with new material that doesn't clash, or render older designs obsolete/unplayable/implausible. I am trying to avoid duplicating older vessels, or building competition for them. what I am hoping is that my ships will fill gaps I see, or friends point out to me.
I try to build role oriented vessels. Not perfectly optimized, or built to exploit any one mechanic. So I hope nothing I do conflicts to terribly with pre-existing material...I respect the older material too much to try and "fix it" or one up it.

Once you change the ship design rules to allow a huge improvement in combat strength for relatively little cost, you effectively make ships designed under previous rules implausible and a burden on willing suspension of disbelief. Why in the universe would any sane warship procurer buy inferior ships in such massive numbers? Answer is, they wouldn't. It creates something awfully close to a discrepancy.

These new rules really require a complete retcon with all the old ship types redesigned to carry a lot more weapons and officially replaced. Not only does the Example class warship have twice as many turrets as before, it always did.

If this is the case I hope in the future such conflicts could be addressed, and minimized. The greater strength of Traveller has to be the fact that it attracts a fairly savvy group of players, and referees. Lets face it...no one active in the community is exactly shy with their opinions and no one wants to get a rep for ignoring the fan base.

But there's quite a difference between small differences and big differences in terms of willing suspension of disbelief.

I will have to do some more work to see if I have to tweak things a bit within the rules of the system to try and minimize any issues...But I can assure you I don't want to make things as easy, and fun as possible for players and Refs.