Shae'Ak'krii Class 500 ton corvette

[mike wightman]

The one bay per 1000t confusion in CT HG2as Aramis had pointed out is due to the wording of the text. The example which immediately follows shows how it should be done.

That didn't stop publishers getting it wrong. FASA had at least one 1000t-ish ship with bay and turret weapons in their products, and they were approved for use with Traveller (someone help me with the name please, my FASA stuff is in a box in the loft).

T20 ship design also allows for one bay per 1000t, so ships smaller than 1000t can carry one bay.

One must be very careful when using CT canonical ship designs to prove a setting point. The Gazelle CE is a very common adventure class ship likely to be met by characters, and it is so broken it beggars belief.

Most common PC scale CT ships are actually LBB2 designs, trying to re-build them under HG invokes fudges and errors - and most of them are civilian or paramilitary (patrol cruiser and merc cruiser), there are no purely military LBB2 ship designs.

So we have to go to S:9 and we find the Gazelle (broken) in the sub 1000t category, the Fer de lance and Chrysanthemum at 1000t (neither of which uses bays) and after that we are into the range of ships which do mount bays and turrets.

So canon doesn't actually give us enough military designs in the 100-1000t range from which to make a definitive statement.

Next if we look at the different versions of Traveller ship building and ask the question "can you build this ship (the OPs)?"
LBB2 - no
LBB5 - no
LBB5 Aramis/FASA misinterpratation - yes
MT - no
TNE - yes
T4 - yes
T20 - yes
MgT - yes

 

[rancke]

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 don't see that you have much say in the matter unless you restrict yourself to ships so small that a bay represents a prohibitive percentage of tonnage. I mean, even in a 500T ship you found room for a 50T bay. If you decided to eliminate that, what could you add that would compensate for the loss of the firepower? And if you decide to keep it, what 500T ship without a bay would be a match for it? Well, perhaps the armor that could be added for 10% of tonnage would make it a match -- I don't know the combat system well enough to say. But how would you design, say, a 3000T destroyer that wouldn't make a Chrysanthemum look ridiculously overmatched?

But good luck with it anyway. I do think that undergunning new designs wouldn't be a solution.


Hans

 

[wbyrd]

I don't see that you have much say in the matter unless you restrict yourself to ships so small that a bay represents a prohibitive percentage of tonnage. I mean, even in a 500T ship you found room for a 50T bay. If you decided to eliminate that, what could you add that would compensate for the loss of the firepower? And if you decide to keep it, what 500T ship without a bay would be a match for it? Well, perhaps the armor that could be added for 10% of tonnage would make it a match -- I don't know the combat system well enough to say. But how would you design, say, a 3000T destroyer that wouldn't make a Chrysanthemum look ridiculously overmatched?

But good luck with it anyway. I do think that under gunning new designs wouldn't be a solution.


Hans

well hopefully by the time i get to the capital ships this issue will be addressed or will prove to be a non-issue.


the first series of ships I am working on, with associated adventure seeds, and NPCs are all standard vessels with the bulk being commercial and adventure type ships...with a selection of Warships for those who might like to play a military or mercenary game based around a small crew.

 

[aramis]

The one bay per 1000t confusion in CT HG2as Aramis had pointed out is due to the wording of the text. The example which immediately follows shows how it should be done.

It's worth noting that a number of in-text examples are not a match to the written rule they're associated with. At the time, it was an industry-wide endemic problem. and usually, the example was the one that was wrong when the errata came out.

I found 3 designs in Sup9 that use the larger allowance, so it wasn't even entirely enforced inside GDW. (Checking the whole book took all of 20 minutes and a calculator.)

 

[rancke]

I found 3 designs in Sup9 that use the larger allowance, so it wasn't even entirely enforced inside GDW. (Checking the whole book took all of 20 minutes and a calculator.)

I hope we can agree that the rule has to be either one or the other; it can't be one on some occasions and the other on other occasions. So you either have three out of two dozen designs that are wrong or a score out of two dozens that are wrong. I submit that the interpretation that only makes three of the designs wrong should be considered the right one.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

What exactly are the wings for?

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


Hans

Rules in order of appearance:

"Major Weaponry: A single major weapon may be specified for any ship. This weapon may be either a particle accelerator or a meson gun, and forms the spine, or foundation, of the ship. ..."

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

To which we add errata:
"Page 30, Bay Weapons (clarification): When installing hardpoints and bays, the tonnage requirement per item is the minimum needed to allow its installation. That means, a ship from 100 to 199 tons is allowed one hardpoint and the minimum size ship in which a bay may be found is 1000. ..."

And back to HG-II:
"Turrets: ... One hardpoint is allowed per 100 tons of hull not otherwise allocated to weapons. ..."

Other than the errata limiting bays to ships of 1000 dTons or more, Aramis' interpretation appears correct - until you get to the example:

"... 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. ..."

Here, it wasn't the tonnage of the bays that was deducted. That would have left 430 hardpoints. Instead, they subtracted 1000 dTons per bay from the total available tonnage - which is in accordance with your interpretation.

Unless we're about to errata the example, I would judge that the example determines the applicable interpretation since it was based on what they intended. (But, that's High Guard and not applicable to the design being presented.)

 

[aramis]

I hope we can agree that the rule has to be either one or the other; it can't be one on some occasions and the other on other occasions. So you either have three out of two dozen designs that are wrong or a score out of two dozens that are wrong. I submit that the interpretation that only makes three of the designs wrong should be considered the right one.


Hans

WRONG. MAJOR Logic fail there, Hans.

My interpretation renders ALL the designs valid (except the Gazelle), while yours (and DGP's) fits within it.

Those using your limit aren't invalid by the rules as written; they may be a bit sub-par, but they're perfectly valid. They are a subset of allowed designs under my interpretation

in Sup 9...
Requires my interpretation: 3 designs
doesn't hit the maximum allowed armament of Hans/DGP's interpretation: at least 7 designs
Overarmed by either standard: 1 design.

 

[rancke]

My interpretation renders ALL the designs valid (except the Gazelle), while yours (and DGP's) fits within it.

Those using your limit aren't invalid by the rules as written; they may be a bit sub-par, but they're perfectly valid. They are a subset of allowed designs under my interpretation

'A bit sub-par'?!? :rofl::rofl::rofl:


9 hardpoints less than legally allowed for every bay? That may not be illegal, but it is implausible, and as far as I am concerned, being implausible is as bad or worse than being illegal. After all, Traveller is a role-playing game, not a wargame.


Hans

 

[wbyrd]

What exactly are the wings for?

Ya know I am going to have to put this in the description somewhere

the simple answer is they look good.....

the technical answer is....

the wings are part of the maneuver/drive system, as well as mounts for sensor emitter/receivers and fire control systems. as part of the drive/maneuver system the improve the pitch roll and yaw performance of the ship allowing it to maintain minimal aspect toward an enemy ,and assist the gunners by brings hostile shipping into the firing arc of weapon.

The ship itself maneuvers to bring targets into the cone of fire of the gun batteries which then make the small precise correction required to hit a target at long range..

as part of the sensor system
They provide some clearance away from the hull and the interference from high voltage systems such as drives, gravitics, etc... In addition they allow multiple sensor receivers to gather signals across a large area the computer system then uses the enhanced signals processing suite to form a virtual image of surrounding space.

In addition Electronic warfare systems and countermeasure systems are mounted on the outer ends of the wings to reduce interference with the ships own systems. emitters at the ends of the wings can also change the ships sensor profile by shifting it's thermal electromagnetic and gravitic "center" away from the ships hull.
properly employed the ship can confuse detection and identification systems by making the ship look like a larger vessel to hostile sensors. If the electronics warfare officer is fairly skilled it he might also creating a ghost image as if two ships were flying in close formation by generating a second set of thermal and electromagnetic noise with slightly different patterns.

 

[aramis]

'A bit sub-par'?!? :rofl::rofl::rofl:


9 hardpoints less than legally allowed for every bay? That may not be illegal, but it is implausible, and as far as I am concerned, being implausible is as bad or worse than being illegal. After all, Traveller is a role-playing game, not a wargame.


Hans

TCS says you're wrong again. Traveller is both RPG AND wargame.

 

[rancke]

TCS says you're wrong again. Traveller is both RPG AND wargame.

Not the way I play it and, I suspect, not the way most people play it. The two are fundamentally different and played in two very different ways. In a wargame the rules completely define gameplay; in an RPG the rules helps the referee to shape gameplay.

TCS is a wargame with chrome drawn from Traveller the RPG. Me, I consider the chrome to be the essence of Traveller ship design. It lets me work out stats for the ships I use as background in the setting.

OK, I admit that it is possible to play TCS as a roleplayingish game (I once participated in one run by Steve Higginbotham), but only if you have a referee to make up new rules and change old ones to respond to roleplaying type events. Which at the same time makes it less of a wargame.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

WRONG. MAJOR Logic fail there, Hans.

My interpretation renders ALL the designs valid (except the Gazelle), while yours (and DGP's) fits within it.

...

Except that it's wrong.

We are currently into, what, our 9th incarnation of Consolidated Errata? We have an example occurring in the book, in the same section as the rule it claims to serve as example, probably written by the same fellow who wrote the rule, and serving as a clear explanation of the writer's intentions.

There are two possibilities here:

1) the example is correct and the rules are poorly worded; or
2) the rules as worded - and interpreted by you - are correct and the example is wrong.

However, after 9 iterations of Consolidated Errata, the example has not yet been cited as errata. Ergo the example continues as a legally binding interpretation of the writer's intentions. We are of course free to submit it for discussion as possible errata, but until it is agreed that it is errata, it remains binding.

In point of fact, Supplement 9 is a poor piece of evidence to use in defense of any argument because so many of the designs are in error, not just here but in other areas as well. No less than 19 of the designs are identified in Consolidated Errata as holding some mistake. By your words, 3 designs require your interpretation to be correct but 7 do not. But, "Some do and some don't," is hardly a ringing endorsement of an interpretation that has no other endorsement. And, unstated is whether those 3 designs have actually been declared errata or not; several designs in Errata are specifically identified as carrying incorrect numbers of hardpoints, rendering them ineligible to support your argument. Further, designs including Kokirrak and Tigress also claim jump-4 range while carrying only enough fuel for jump-3. Should we use that as proof that the fuel rules are wrong and that ships can carry less fuel?

Now, if my argument is incorrect, I will be delighted to have you declare for the record that it shall be official policy that, when a rule's wording results in conflicting interpretations, an example included in the same rules book and in the same rules section, an example that has not been formally included in errata, is nonetheless not to be used as the writer's statement of his interpretation of his own rules.

I double-dog dare you. :devil:

 

[aramis]

Except that it's wrong.

We are currently into, what, our 9th incarnation of Consolidated Errata? We have an example occurring in the book, in the same section as the rule it claims to serve as example, probably written by the same fellow who wrote the rule, and serving as a clear explanation of the writer's intentions.

There are two possibilities here:

1) the example is correct and the rules are poorly worded; or
2) the rules as worded - and interpreted by you - are correct and the example is wrong.

However, after 9 iterations of Consolidated Errata, the example has not yet been cited as errata. Ergo the example continues as a legally binding interpretation of the writer's intentions. We are of course free to submit it for discussion as possible errata, but until it is agreed that it is errata, it remains binding.

In point of fact, Supplement 9 is a poor piece of evidence to use in defense of any argument because so many of the designs are in error, not just here but in other areas as well. No less than 19 of the designs are identified in Consolidated Errata as holding some mistake. By your words, 3 designs require your interpretation to be correct but 7 do not. But, "Some do and some don't," is hardly a ringing endorsement of an interpretation that has no other endorsement. And, unstated is whether those 3 designs have actually been declared errata or not; several designs in Errata are specifically identified as carrying incorrect numbers of hardpoints, rendering them ineligible to support your argument. Further, designs including Kokirrak and Tigress also claim jump-4 range while carrying only enough fuel for jump-3. Should we use that as proof that the fuel rules are wrong and that ships can carry less fuel?

Now, if my argument is incorrect, I will be delighted to have you declare for the record that it shall be official policy that, when a rule's wording results in conflicting interpretations, an example included in the same rules book and in the same rules section, an example that has not been formally included in errata, is nonetheless not to be used as the writer's statement of his interpretation of his own rules.

I double-dog dare you. :devil:

None of the designs but the Gazelle are invalid under my interpretation of the rule. The narrower subset being true does not prove the narrower subset as the valid interpretation; evidence of the larger set being valid disproves the subset as the rule.

The example itself is poorly written; it neither explains well nor illuminates the intent clearly.

The only proof that the narrower subset is correct comes from later revisions to the setting - MT and T20. (TNE & T4 don't use the same kinds of limitations on weapons at all.)

 

[rancke]

None of the designs but the Gazelle are invalid under my interpretation of the rule. The narrower subset being true does not prove the narrower subset as the valid interpretation; evidence of the larger set being valid disproves the subset as the rule.

Already refuted.

The example itself is poorly written; it neither explains well nor illuminates the intent clearly.

That is your opinion. I think it's perfectly lucid. It fits one interpretation and does not fit the other interpretation. What more do you want?

The only proof that the narrower subset is correct comes from later revisions to the setting - MT and T20. (TNE & T4 don't use the same kinds of limitations on weapons at all.)

The example is proof in itself. Further proof is not needed. But it's nice to know that it's there.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

None of the designs but the Gazelle are invalid under my interpretation of the rule. The narrower subset being true does not prove the narrower subset as the valid interpretation; evidence of the larger set being valid disproves the subset as the rule.

The example itself is poorly written; it neither explains well nor illuminates the intent clearly.

The only proof that the narrower subset is correct comes from later revisions to the setting - MT and T20. (TNE & T4 don't use the same kinds of limitations on weapons at all.)

The example itself is mathematically straightforward, easily understood and remains canon. Should we continue this High Guard discussion here in the man's thread about a Mongoose design, or shall I conduct a detailed and exhaustive analysis of Supplement 9 and all its myriad faults and why it can't effectively support your argument in a separate post?

 

[wbyrd]

I don't have a problem with people discussing and comparing designs. Part of the reason i posted the ship was to gauge response to my stuff. and I can see that there may be some back and forth about retro-compatibility, and does this fit into canon.

the discussion and back and forth was educational for me. It lets me know that I have to consider how my ships will fit in with the long and impressive string of vessels that already exist. I knew that would be a consideration before I even sent my sample work to Mongoose and have been looking over previous editions to see where I can slip a new design in without clashing with pre-existing vessels.

When I asked what people wanted to see in a new source book I was rather happy that people were interested in the same sort of vessels and add ons I was working on. Just wanted to see if the same held true for the sort of Light warships I had in the works

 

[Carlobrand]

Question: is this warship intended to make landfall? I don't know Mongoose. High Guard has this bit where the hull determines whether the ship can enter atmosphere or not (which properly doesn't make a lot of sense when one has gravitics available, but oh well). Occurs to me that these wings are going to make a landing tricky. Can they be folded up?

 

[wbyrd]

Question: is this warship intended to make landfall? I don't know Mongoose. High Guard has this bit where the hull determines whether the ship can enter atmosphere or not (which properly doesn't make a lot of sense when one has gravitics available, but oh well). Occurs to me that these wings are going to make a landing tricky. Can they be folded up?

I think the penalties for entry and handling in an atmosphere have to do with that nasty wind resistance, cross winds, and aerodynamic drag. without heat shielding being included int he price of the hull they tend to cook if they come into an atmosphere at high speed.

Standard hulls can only make slow entry and handle a bit poorly in atmosphere ( -2 DM) if they loose drives while in a gravity well they turn into a lawn dart. If operating on a world with no atmosphere then they don't have an issue with aerodynamics.

The ShaeAkKrii is a multi role design ( as I envisioned it.) Meaning it has the ability to operate in atmo/gravity. But it is not intended to actually land. As I understand things any ship with a standard or streamlined hull can make Entry and operate in atmo...

The ShaeAkKrii could land if it had a cradle or support frame. Other vessels in it's family that are specifically designed for marine support/insertion, or fire support have folding wings, or discard the wings completely...at a loss of maneuverability. ( in game terms, reduced thrust)

as long as the Vessel is hovering over an area and using grav-belts, gavitic cargo handlers, specialized anchorage towers...etc. It can operate in a gravity well, and atmosphere.

 

[phavoc]

You could state that the 'wings' are on gimbals and fold backwards so that they align with the primary body of the ship. This would allow it to land without any part of the hull fouling the shape.

It would be plausible since swept-wing aircraft today use similar techniques, as well as folding-wings for carrier aircraft. Materials at that tech level should be more than sufficient to provide the necessary structural integrity, not to mention that in-atmo it's not meant to be tooling around at full speed (perhaps they would stay folded back while running at full speed in-atmo, kind of similar to how swept-wing aircraft today keep their wings swept fully back when flying at speed and only bring them forward for low-speed maneuvers such as landing.

 

[wbyrd]

Well your on the same track i was following with late models of similar ships. The Shae'Ak'krii is an older design with several more advanced versions coming online later

I may put up a more advanced descendants of this vessel.