The Bridge, Ship Size, and Hull Size

[whartung]

TNE has the bridge based solely on crew requirements (with crew getting workstations). For drop tanks, it says little save that they're hulls for fuel, they need to armored and if you have EMM masking, they need to be designed with that in mind (or you lose EMM benefits while the tanks are in place).

Their effect on the ship is simply implied by adding more tonnage to the ship and the consequences there of (notably jump performance and G rating).

 

[Condottiere]

Since we're discussing drop tanks, was there ever a probibition against equipping jump capable planetoids with them?

 

[Spinward Flow]

Since we're discussing drop tanks, was there ever a probibition against equipping jump capable planetoids with them?

Drop tanks are configuration agnostic in the sense that they can be made for ANY configuration (including planetoid hulls).

According to LBB A5, if drop tanks are constructed for a specific ship, they are constructed to a "conformal" standard for that ship ... meaning you do not lose any streamlining the ship has while the drop tanks are installed. By contrast, external demountable tanks (which are cheaper) are just "boxes" with no streamlining conformity, so ships with external demountable tanks are considered unstreamlined (even if the ship itself is streamlined or partially streamlined).

 

[Condottiere]

I tend to think very few people may have thought it worthwhile.

But I'm working on cheapest possible starship.

 

[mike wightman]

You mean by building a ship with a small hull and carrying all its fuel in drop tanks that it never drops? Thus saving you lots of credits due to the cost disparity between hull and drop tank.

 

[McPerth]

The easiest solution is to give a smaller bridge a minus one disadvantage to bridge activities if way beyond designed limits.

That could be a solution (though I'd made the DM depending on the percentage of bridge lacking. e.g.: -1 per 10% of bridge lacking. So a 1000 dton ship with 20 ston bridge with 1000 dton extra external cargo, as it would need a 40 dton bridge, (so 50% lacking) would suffer a -5 DM pennalty for any bridge activity (including a +5 DM for jumping)

 

[McPerth]

See that making the extrenal load added tonnage to be accounted for bridge needs (so needing a bigger one) is a way to restrict those external loads to ships specifically designed for it (or assuming risks, if the above DMs are used), where the bridges would be larger just for this.

As an aside, about hardpoints:

if we understand (as I have read somewhere) that the one harpoint per 100 dtons is a way to reflect the surface needed for weaponry, then drop tanks (or other external cargo) should reduce the available hardpoints (at least for bearing batteries), as it reduces available hull surface, not increase them as in the Gazelle case...

 

[McPerth]

Towing rules probably apply, whatever they are.

Are those rules written anywhere?

I know it is assumed a ship can be jury ridged to another to allow it to jump, if the need arises, and this has been used in several adventures, and it is assumed the performance is reduced as per total tonnage, as in the case of drop tanks, but are there any hard rules about how to make it?

 

[Condottiere]

1. Towing tends to be an afterthought: in normal space it should make manoeuvring more difficult, while dragging something into another dimensions has complications, some which would depend on how it's done.

2. Cheapest possible starship means that any cost or corner that can be cut, will be; so far, the minimum ten tonne jump drive is the big ticket item, though you can save a lot on hull selection.

 

[mike wightman]

Towing capability and minimum jump drive mass is rules edition specific.

 

[Spinward Flow]

You mean by building a ship with a small hull and carrying all its fuel in drop tanks that it never drops? Thus saving you lots of credits due to the cost disparity between hull and drop tank.

You're only "saving a lot of money" if your ship is never shot at. Remember, a fuel hit will wreck any external tanks completely, rather than being a -1% loss of fuel (minimum 10 tons). Down in the small ship ACS tonnage range, that might not make a tremendous amount of difference, but it is an important distinction that ought to be recognized. Intentional "permanent" towing of external fuel and stores is inherently less safe in a combat situation than internal storage of those same items behind the (relative) protection of the ship's hull.

It's cheaper because it is a weakness in combat conditions ... meaning it is really an option you only want to contemplate if your ship is going to stick to WELL protected and patrolled space lanes where no pirate/hostile vessel ever dares to go.

 

[Condottiere]

And with each new iteration, I have a go at designing the cheapest.

The really cheapest is a ten tonne one shot, at 2'812'500 credits, but that's would be one expensive trip.

 

[kilemall]

I always calculated bridge and jump for the total tonnage. I’m flabbergasted that most apparently haven’t.

If you consistently drop the tanks before jump I can see to maybe maneuver out 100D with the lower vee/agility, but jumping with the tanks at the No tank bridge tonnage is rules lawyering for cheap ships IMO.

 

[Spinward Flow]

jumping with the tanks at the No tank bridge tonnage is rules lawyering for cheap ships IMO.

You must be new here ...
Gamers have been min/max rules lawyering games since tabletop gaming began.
It's not a new phenomenon.

It's part of the reason for the old fill in the blank jokes about types of Players.

Real Men __________.
Roleyplayers __________.
Loonies __________.
Munchkins __________.

In the Traveller context, the joke would be something like this ...

Real Men pilot surplus Scout/Couriers (that should have been scrapped already, decades ago).
Roleplayers research unknown phenomena outside their field of expertise so they can write a paper for a +1 Social award.
Loonies jump around in a salvaged Tigress and claim it is their "personal yacht" ...
Munchkins assassinate the Emperor and promptly subjugate all of Charted Space within the next month.

 

[Condottiere]

Since gold coins don't flow like a fountain from a dragon's hoard, you need cost accountants.

 

[kilemall]

You must be new here ...
Gamers have been min/max rules lawyering games since tabletop gaming began.
It's not a new phenomenon.

It's part of the reason for the old fill in the blank jokes about types of Players.

Real Men __________.
Roleyplayers __________.
Loonies __________.
Munchkins __________.

In the Traveller context, the joke would be something like this ...

Real Men pilot surplus Scout/Couriers (that should have been scrapped already, decades ago).
Roleplayers research unknown phenomena outside their field of expertise so they can write a paper for a +1 Social award.
Loonies jump around in a salvaged Tigress and claim it is their "personal yacht" ...
Munchkins assassinate the Emperor and promptly subjugate all of Charted Space within the next month.

Fine, as long as munchkins understand they are munchkining and not running a fair or rational design process.

 

[robject]

Fine, as long as munchkins understand they are munchkining and not running a fair or rational design process.

I think they don't understand that.

 

[Straybow]

Yes, that is what makes a munchkin.

You're only "saving a lot of money" if your ship is never shot at. Remember, a fuel hit will wreck any external tanks completely, rather than being a -1% loss of fuel (minimum 10 tons).

So, one could attach a number of small external tanks and actually reduce the fuel lost in a hit.
If you have a 200 J2 you need 40 tons, so attach eight 5-ton droptanks. One hit reduces your jump potential to J1, but it takes 5 hits to render J1 impossible.

It's cheaper because it is a weakness in combat conditions ... meaning it is really an option you only want to contemplate if your ship is going to stick to WELL protected and patrolled space lanes where no pirate/hostile vessel ever dares to go.

Yeah, drop tanks are either a civvy thing, or a hold-your-exit-fuel-in-reserve thing. Fuel up the jump drive from the tanks and dump them. Or mount them so they can be automatically (as in, no EVA) pulled into storage just before executing the jump.

 

[Spinward Flow]

So, one could attach a number of small external tanks and actually reduce the fuel lost in a hit.

LBB A5 p14:

Both drop tanks and exterior demountable tanks are very vulnerable to battle damage. Whenever a battle damage die-roll, if unmodified by ship armor, would produce a fuel hit, all exterior or drop tanks are destroyed.

Nice try with the idea of balkanizing external stores ... but fortunately the RAW explicitly prevents that exploit from being a (viable) option.

 

[Condottiere]

I got around to reading the current description of the drop tank in the new edition.

I haven't really compared the entry to the last one, but it seems more fragile, and outside of the mountings, costs a base twenty five thousand credits per tonne, which the base costs of a degravitated hull of standard configuration.

Also, I think the current rule set doesn't care about balkanization of drop tanks, once enough hull points are lost, the drop tanks are at a minimum perforated.

Next issue I think isn't covered is weapon system bearing, since really large tanks are going to block that, though if you have the ship doing a slow motion twist, in six to twenty minutes that may not matter.