Small Ship fleet sizes

[aramis]

Continuing on PFVA's rather spiff response...

CT Bk 2 is rather unimpressive in its space craft tech array. Small craft take no hangarage per se, but are apparently presumed (as did another fine SF RPG of a few years later) that many sub-craft are simply hung in hull recesses by a few clamps not worth accounting for.

Likewise, Bk2 doesn't specify maximum launch rate nor land rate - which is a major issue - leaving it presumable to be "1/turn", "all" or "GM's choice" depending upon how one interprets the rules.

Further, Bk2 doesn't specify how much warning one has on jump exit. Many people (And T5) presume you know within minutes of entry when you will exit if the jump is normal.

As far as wet naval comparisons, a modern sub's requirements are much the same as a traveller ship's requirements space wise, and unlike surface vessels, the ship's water displacement in short tons is directly convertible to traveller Displacement Tons... at roughly 13.5:1...

 

[pendragonman]

short tons to dtons? or dtons to short tons?

13.5 dtons to 1 short ton?

 

[HG_B]

short tons to dtons? or dtons to short tons?

13.5 dtons to 1 short ton?

13.5 short tons to 1 dton I think

 

[whartung]

In actuality a 5000dton ship isn't really all that small.

In ca Y2K Earth, no, a 5000dT ship is not that small.

In Imperial 1112 Spinward Marches, it's barely a destroyer.

One thing that stands pretty clear in High Guard is "Size is relative". The 5K fleet will not fair well against 200-300K carriers and their 20-40K Battle Riders.

But the point was simply that when the budget is the same, but the ships are limited to the smaller ships -- I was curious how the dynamic of fleet structure and composition changed.

 

[McPerth]

In ca Y2K Earth, no, a 5000dT ship is not that small.

In Imperial 1112 Spinward Marches, it's barely a destroyer.

One thing that stands pretty clear in High Guard is "Size is relative". The 5K fleet will not fair well against 200-300K carriers and their 20-40K Battle Riders.

But the point was simply that when the budget is the same, but the ships are limited to the smaller ships -- I was curious how the dynamic of fleet structure and composition changed.

In ca Y2K Earth a destroyer is a major fleet unit for most fleets.

In Imperial 1112 SM, a destroyer is a minor asset (as was in both WWs)

 

[HG_B]

Here is a list of real world ship types and their Trav tonnage equivalent.

 

[aramis]

short tons to dtons? or dtons to short tons?

13.5 dtons to 1 short ton?

I typoed.

14.5 short tons water displacement to 1 Traveller displacement ton.

US Subs are generally measured in short tons of seawater displaced when fully submerged, as their laden mass is in short tons.

 

[HG_B]

14.5 short tons water displacement to 1 Traveller displacement ton.

US Subs are generally measured in short tons of seawater displaced when fully submerged, as their laden mass is in short tons.

(also displacement ton) a unit of measurement of a ship’s weight representing the weight of water it displaces with the load line just immersed, equal to 2,240 lb or 35 cu. ft (0.99 cubic metres).

A Trav "ton" is either 13.5 M3 or, 14 M3. So, at 0.99 cubic meters it wouldn't be 14.5 would it?

 

[aramis]

(also displacement ton) a unit of measurement of a ship’s weight representing the weight of water it displaces with the load line just immersed, equal to 2,240 lb or 35 cu. ft (0.99 cubic metres).

A Trav "ton" is either 13.5 M3 or, 14 M3. So, at 0.99 cubic meters it wouldn't be 14.5 would it?

No- 14.14. I forgeot that it was redefined to be exactly 35cuft displaced. Older manuals list wet dislacement as short tons displaced (which are really about 14.41:1)

 

[HG_B]

No- 14.14. I forgeot that it was redefined to be exactly 35cuft displaced. Older manuals list wet dislacement as short tons displaced.

Okay. Thanks.

 

[PFVA63]

Here is a list of real world ship types and their Trav tonnage equivalent.

Hi,

Thanks for the link. Along similar lines, here is a chart and some data for a number of ocean going warships that I have collected data on relating hydrostatic displacement in metric tons to internal volume in Traveller dtons.

Name/Class	Natl	Vtot	Disp	__	Year
Hercules	RN	1234	8840	7.16	1865
Fuso	J	526	3778	7.18	1874
CA-2	USN	1274	9145	7.18	1888
New Orleans	USN	566	3830	6.76	1897
BB-26	USN	2630	17883	6.80	1905
CL-53	USN	1416	8576	6.06	1938
CA-68	USN	3034	17090	5.63	1939
Daring	RN	627	3637	5.80	1943
FF1006	USN	404	1907	4.73	1954
FF1033	USN	490	2000	4.08	1959
FF1037	USN	587	2693	4.58	1963
FF1040	USN	824	3455	4.19	1964
FFG1	USN	743	3480	4.68	1966
FF1052	USN	1024	4166	4.07	1969
FFG7	USN	1072	3729	3.48	1973
G.Leygues C70	F	1117	4141	3.71	1974
Type21	RN	913	3250	3.56	1974
Kortenear	N	1060	3600	3.40	1975
Sheffeild Type42	RN	980	4227	4.31	1975
CSGN	USN	4045	17562	4.34	1976
Lupo	I	680	2499	3.68	1977
O.H.Perry FFG7	USN	1076	3597	3.34	1977
DD993	USN	2225	8738	3.93	1977
Bremen F122	G	1067	3445	3.23	1979
Type22	RN	1188	4500	3.79	1979
Maestrale	I	829	2992	3.61	1981
Ticonderoga	USN	2236	8910	3.98	1981
CPF	C	1282	3998	3.12	1992
Krivak	R	833	3599	4.32	1970
Slava	R	2478	12500	5.04	1979

PS. Thanks Aramis - it looks alot better

 

[PFVA63]

Hi,

Hopefully not getting too far off track, I went ahead and looked up the size of some large buidlings on Earth to get a feel for how large Traveller ships would compare to something I could relate to.

From Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_buildings_in_the_world )

The Palace of Caserta in southern Italy has an internal volume of just over 81,400 dtons.

The Willis Tower in Chicago (which used to be known as the Sears Tower) has an internal volume of just under 108,000 dtons.

The Renaissance Center in Detroit has an internal volume of just over 132,000 dtons.

The Romanian Palace of Parliament in Bucharest has an internal volume of over 182,000 dtons.

The NASA Vehicle Assembly Building at the Kennedy space Center in Florida has an internal volume of over 261,400 dtons.

And, the Beoing Everett Factory in Washington state has an internal volume of about 950,000 dtons.

 

[BlackBat242]

Which is why I run a "medium-ship" universe.

The largest practical warship, structurally speaking, in my Traveller universe is ~50,000 dt.

This is for TL 12... which is "state-of-the-art" in my game universe (13 is experimental/classified military, with 14 being at the meeting point of theory and reckless "mad-scientist" stuff).


The largest known merchant ships are a class of bulk carriers of ~60,000 dt... and these are restricted to 1G maneuver systems.
Attempts to create merchant-standard hulls over ~40,000 dt with 2G drives experienced fatigue-based structural issues in less than 10 years.

 

[Brandon C]

I think it's appropriate for High Pop worlds to be mostly eliminated in a small ship universe. Reduce Pop 8-9 to 7 and A+ to 8.

 

[aramis]

I think it's appropriate for High Pop worlds to be mostly eliminated in a small ship universe. Reduce Pop 8-9 to 7 and A+ to 8.

Modern Earth is Pop 9...

 

[DangerousThing]

I think it's appropriate for High Pop worlds to be mostly eliminated in a small ship universe. Reduce Pop 8-9 to 7 and A+ to 8.

I'm curious. Why do you want to reduce the population in a small ship universe?

I'm planning a small ship universe, and I'd like to know your reasoning.

Thanks.

 

[rancke]

I'm curious. Why do you want to reduce the population in a small ship universe?

Because a world that can afford a squadron of 500,000T dreadnaughts can afford 100 squadrons of 5,000T dreadnaughts. And to a PC-sized ship, a 5,000T ship is just as much of a buzzkill as a 500,000T ship.

If you really want a small ship setting, reduce the military budgets of the worlds and allow the central worlds to build big ships to absorb most of those budgets, leaving only a handful of small ships to bob and stomp in the borderlands.


Hans

 

[Brandon C]

I'm curious. Why do you want to reduce the population in a small ship universe?

I'm planning a small ship universe, and I'd like to know your reasoning.

Thanks.

As Hans points out, a lower population reduces military budgets.

Additionally, it helps preserve a 'frontier' feeling which was generally implied by the original ruleset and early adventures but which randomly placed worlds with 9 billion people on them tend to ruin.

 

[Brandon C]

Modern Earth is Pop 9...

Yes, and if it were Pop 7 it would be a more interesting place for adventures

 

[Carlobrand]

Yes, and if it were Pop 7 it would be a more interesting place for adventures

It was, back then. Also rather harsh and occasionally deadly. Adventures: nasty disturbing uncomfortable things. Make you late for dinner.