Ship building: A plethora of rules.

[Scarecrow]

Little Black Book 2, 'Starships' is the only Traveller starship design rule system I've ever gotten on with. It's just the right level of complexity for me. My only real beef with it is that from an aesthetic point of view (ie deckplans) it utilises way too much fuel and not enough engines. Deckplans tend to be around 50% fuel and have interstellar engines that'd fit in your pocket.

Crow

 

[rhoneycutt]

a modular 'pick stuff off the shelf system' is nice ofr quick ships....but have something math-heavy and obscenely detailed for gearheads that allows us to design the modules if we wish.

perhaps such modules can be designed and posted on the web or added as part of a relevant sourcebook, published ship designs showing the modules they use which players can take for their own ships.

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi !

Finally decided what to do during the nasty seasons of the year.
I already started with and will continue now to write just another piece of Traveller software, namely a generic Starship/Vehicle(?) construction software.
Guess it will look a bit like GTS, but offering to choose the underlying construction rules for each major component or even do it "manually".
I mainly intended to do this to simplify the conversion from one ruleset to another.

New information about this will soon be located in the software solutions corner.

Regards,

Mert

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Sounds interesting. Good luck!

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Shere Khan:
a modular 'pick stuff off the shelf system' is nice for quick ships....but have something math-heavy and obscenely detailed for gearheads that allows us to design the modules if we wish.

Is Fire, Fusion, and Steel heavy enough for you?

 

[aramis]

Scott: The designs you cite are NOT specialized, nor are they Jacks of all Trades. The modern Aegis Cruisers are about the most specialized ships afloat atop the waves, and even they have mulltiple roles in mind.

Carriers are in fact, very UNSPECIALIZED in overall design: they are hugely freighters, with a specialized deck, and some specialized hardware (Cats, traps, elevators). They are intentionally designed to function in a multi-role capacity: Airbase, mail & supply distribution center (Not storage, but distribution), hospital ship, and troop transport. Not that the ship can perform all roles simultaneously, as the Hospital and troop roles cut in to maintenance spaces, and require aircraft to be on deck. Moreover, they are capable of primary combattant refit in a matter of hours: fly in different squadrons and their support supplies.

The support ships include Carrier Resupply Vessels, which are simmply cargo ships with some point defense, and specialized holds and transfer gear for aviation fuels and munitions.

The Aegis cruisers, as mentioned before, are AA platforms, and point defense platforms. They also double as back-up ATC, and have generally good sensor kits overall, adding to the ASW and medical roles, too. They have limited but competent independent surface warfare capabilities.

The Frigates and destroyers are priary surface commbattant designs, doing both ASW and Surface warfare roles, plus augmenting the anti-air and point defense capabilities. They also provide a basis for the ship-to-shore combat capabilities with missiles and guns.

The Submarines are ASW, Sub-to-Surface warfare, and scouting roles. With modern weapons kits, they also join in the ship-to-shore bombardment roles.

This group is a collection of hammers... several ball peens, a couple sledges, a few tackhammers, and a couple of jackhammers. Their inherent overlap results in better protection of the one truly specialized part: the Carrier Air Squadrons. Each is a specialized unit; the flavor of the ship's missions is reflected in the assigned air squadrons making the air-wing.

as for multi-tier
I think the FF&S design tier and BL commbat tier is both counterproductive and unneeded.
It will create the same problems and divisions that it did for T4.

A Playable Roleplay friendly tier is essential.
A small fleet scale, preferably fully compatible with the roleplay tier.
A large fleet scale with similar results and direct conversion from the lower tiers designs. Preferably one which still has some hooks for RPG character interaction. (MT does this with conglommeration rules, alebit this is an application thereof that few used.)

 

[rhoneycutt]

FFS1 is pretty good...with homegrown stuff added...

I'm slowly reworking the entire rule book to suit my own ideas of tech in MTU

I use Bruce Macintosh's "Fusion Guard" ship combat rules, again with a couple of home rules. Mainly concerning fuel use from Heplar...and agility. Fuel use plays an important part in MTU in combat.

and yes..my tech levels are much lower than otu, and I handle anti-grav stuff differently.......

 

[robject]

I suspect squadron- to fleet-scale rules could be one and the same, a la Mercenary's mass combat rules or High Guard's, with some few hooks for roleplay.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Welcome, Scott!

For the "near-C rock problem", there is a similar issue. I wouldn't invoke the near-C rock solution for a couple of reasons: there are a limited number of livable rocks in the universe, and you don't want your enemies ganging up on you (though the Cold War thing was more due to Mutually Assured Destruction than the rest of the world ganging up on whoever was left).

However, the problem is still an issue for fleets. How do you protect against somebody popping in way outsystem, accelerating to massive speeds, and popping off purely kinetic missiles that have reached high sub-light velocities when they reach your fleet? So, there has to be something to constrain us. Mostly, it's handwavium, that oh so plentiful Traveller mineral.
(BTW, I'm designing a ship specifically for the above purpose....

)

Ron, I think you still have similar constraints in a submarine. Of course, nuclear power reduces those constraints significantly (things like quantity of hot water).... And, I think we are talking Cessnas when we are talking about players' ships in Travelle.

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
However, the problem is still an issue for fleets. How do you protect against somebody popping in way outsystem, accelerating to massive speeds, and popping off purely kinetic missiles that have reached high sub-light velocities when they reach your fleet?

For fleets, this isn't that much of a problem. Assuming effective sensor ranges of a few light-seconds, any missile at a considerable fraction of the speed of light (say, 0.5c) will not have the time to effectively target a non-stationary enemy. If, OTOH, the velocity of the kinetic kill missile is fairly low, the target vessel will have ample time to first disable the missile's maneuvering ability and then to evade it.
For planets, now, things are different. In a thread about planetary invasions a while ago, I proposed an ISKKM (Interstellar Kinetic Kill Missile), essentially a small, jump-capable ship accelerating to ~0.75c out system, then jumping into the system, making some course adjustments and crashing into the target planet with an energy equivalent to 5,000,000 Megatons of TNT.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[Fritz_Brown]

If your fleet is in a standard orbit anywhere, or you have a known Naval base, you don't have to do much but point the thing - just like a planet. Of course, the pieces of a fleet or a naval base are smaller than a planet, but a nice blanket coverage should do the trick. The key is to use low-tech chemical rockets once they are launched, and keep the sizes really small (.4 m^3 when they start). Enough velocity makes a small rock lethal, and a bunch of small rocks definitely lethal.

Yes, you come in on an oblique angle, so no manuevering is required - jump in, begin accel (I'm assuming you have to jump standing still), fling off the chemical rockets, orient them, fire the rockets, go quietly away. The chemical rockets should be burned out long before they reach their target. The idea is that a bunch of small rocks will probably be ignored by sensors as a micrometeor swarm. Of course, they are moving at a small fraction of C (less than .1C, but still). I'm not sure there's really any defense against this.

 

[archhealer]

Newbie voice pops into the confusion...

Ok, I'll start with my cringe-inducing caveat: I've only designed ships with T20, and am almost totally unfamiliar with other systems of Traveller.

I actually like the T20 ship design, with a few annoyances aside. They include:
Module stuff is great to have; ship computers, jump-drive and maneuver drive sizes listed by accelleration, etc. However, we also need the information on how those modules were built, for those cases where the stock parts just won't do.

Volume, Size, Tonnage, etc.: Starships, vehicles, and all equipment all use different weight/volume measurements, and ones that don't jive well together. There's usually enough wiggle-room to fudge things, but it'd be nice to have at least a little standardization between these systems.

Guidlines for other facilities: General price/size guidlines for making up other types of facilities than those listed would be nice. What's the size/output of a hydroponic garden? A casino? A 0-G scuba diving tank? Troop Barracks? how much living room, EXACTLY, does one human need? How much LS infrastructure is needed per human?

Gravitic Plating: It's assumed to be there. At what TL? What's it cost? Could you save money making a ship without it? How much power does it take? Can it (And only it) Be damaged in combat?
Is it reversible (I.e., having one room be for multiple uses, by having a different set of equipment on the 'cieling' than you do on the 'floor')?

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
If your fleet is in a standard orbit anywhere, or you have a known Naval base, you don't have to do much but point the thing - just like a planet.

I am not a believer in "standard orbits" and "starbases" - this ain't Star Trek.

In any case: Acceleration to a sizeable fraction of c requires days, if not weeks. So you'd need to know the whereabouts of your target several days in advance - rather unfeasible for starships.

Of course, the pieces of a fleet or a naval base are smaller than a planet, but a nice blanket coverage should do the trick. The key is to use low-tech chemical rockets once they are launched, and keep the sizes really small (.4 m^3 when they start). Enough velocity makes a small rock lethal, and a bunch of small rocks definitely lethal.

The only practical way of doing this is to first accelerate a larger thruster-plate-propelled launch vehicle to 0.x lightspeed and then launch the rockets from there. Chemical rockets, Heplar etc. cannot carry enough fuel to accelerate to the required velocities unless you use some kind of Bussard ramscoop.

(I'm assuming you have to jump standing still),

I'm not, because "standing still" is not possible.

The idea is that a bunch of small rocks will probably be ignored by sensors as a micrometeor swarm. Of course, they are moving at a small fraction of C (less than .1C, but still). I'm not sure there's really any defense against this.

"Ignored?" I sure as hell wouldn't tell my sensor ops to ignore meteors with CPA=0. Indeed, they would probably be defended against with anti-meteorite measures. Shot to even smaller pieces and/or evaded. With velocities in the lower c-fraction range, there is enough time for that.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Scarecrow:
Little Black Book 2, 'Starships' is the only Traveller starship design rule system I've ever gotten on with. It's just the right level of complexity for me. My only real beef with it is that from an aesthetic point of view (ie deckplans) it utilises way too much fuel and not enough engines. Deckplans tend to be around 50% fuel and have interstellar engines that'd fit in your pocket.

Crow

Wow, you're building ships that require 50% fuel? Jump-5 critters? Sounds mil-spec...

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by robject:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scarecrow:
Little Black Book 2, 'Starships'... Deckplans tend to be around 50% fuel and have interstellar engines that'd fit in your pocket.

Crow

Wow, you're building ships that require 50% fuel? Jump-5 critters? Sounds mil-spec... </font>[/QUOTE]Or just a little J3 3G 200ton yacht. Pretty darn near 50% fuel for one jump and four weeks (45% fuel) in book two. As for the pocket full of jump drives, well that's just a wee bit of exageration, but I kind of agree

Oh great, now I'm going to have to just whip up a Book 2 J3 3G yacht for fun I have a feeling I already have but hey, the more the merrier!

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Originally posted by Tobias:
I am not a believer in "standard orbits" and "starbases" - this ain't Star Trek.

In any case: Acceleration to a sizeable fraction of c requires days, if not weeks. So you'd need to know the whereabouts of your target several days in advance - rather unfeasible for starships.

Well, your highport has gotta be somewhere predictable. And, yes, the technique is to accelerate quietly for quite some time.

The only practical way of doing this is to first accelerate a larger thruster-plate-propelled launch vehicle to 0.x lightspeed and then launch the rockets from there.

Yup, that's the idea. This is done at low-G so as to minimize any kind of signature for sensors.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />(I'm assuming you have to jump standing still),

I'm not, because "standing still" is not possible.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, IRL physics. Well... I won't get into the "ideal" realm. But, if you can jump in with velocity, then it becomes a matter of jump in at a significant fraction of C, launch the rocks, then jump out.

I sure as hell wouldn't tell my sensor ops to ignore meteors with CPA=0. Indeed, they would probably be defended against with anti-meteorite measures. Shot to even smaller pieces and/or evaded. With velocities in the lower c-fraction range, there is enough time for that.

Well, yes, Tobias, I wouldn't try this with you, because you are much too wily an opponent. It would work the first time with an opposing fleet, though. (IMHO)

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by Archhealer:
Newbie voice pops into the confusion...
I actually like the T20 ship design, with a few annoyances aside. They include:
Module stuff is great to have; ship computers, jump-drive and maneuver drive sizes listed by accelleration, etc. However, we also need the information on how those modules were built, for those cases where the stock parts just won't do.

Hate to break it to you, but there are formulae hidden in there for the few things that are formulaic.

Computers are not one of them. The ship's computers were not derived from formulae; they are "whole cloth designer's whim" adjusted to produce similar results to other systems.

T20 drives are foumlaic. JDrives, PP, and MDrives are all formulaic.

Ship's weapons in T20 are not forumlaic. They are the Bk5 weapons reprinted, and there is little evidence for a design system behind those.

Airframe is adapted from TNE's FF&S (FF&S1)

Fuel Purification plants are formulaic, and are the same formulae as Bk5, but are a different presentation.

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by robject:
If You Lose Power, You're Dead

This was a misunderstanding. What Ron meant by "lose power" was probably "power plant [unfixably] dies". Unless the cavalry come to your rescue, it doesn't matter how much time you have.

In bracketing [unfixably], I understand that referees are sometimes kind to players who become attached to their characters, and provide a possible way to survive.

Hmmm ... I've always thought the designer should think of redundancy in most systems when builidng a ship - at the very least including large batteries along with a powerplant makes sense. BTW, one Firefly episode looked at exactly this occurrence.

Of course you need a design system to be detailed enough to handle this ... or a GM to handwave and say that the normal powerplant volume includes a small backup.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Falkayn:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robject:
[qb]If You Lose Power, You're Dead

[....]

Hmmm ... I've always thought the designer should think of redundancy in most systems when builidng a ship - at the very least including large batteries along with a powerplant makes sense. BTW, one Firefly episode looked at exactly this occurrence.

Of course you need a design system to be detailed enough to handle this ... or a GM to handwave and say that the normal powerplant volume includes a small backup. </font>[/QUOTE]It makes sense that a ship could carry a backup power plant. For example, in Book 2, a builder could add a power plant-1 to keep life support active and run the maneuver drive at reduced power. That'd sure help.

Of course, power plants usually "fail" only when fired upon...

 

[Michael Taylor]

The other thing about the T20 SDS is the formulas behind jump drive size and cost, and maneuver drive size and cost exactly equate to High Guard formulae. Which is good, because it ensures backward compatibility to some extent.

dont we have a plethora of plethoras here?