What is a Safari Ship?

[Condottiere]

Another way of looking at this, is why do the rules require a bridge to be that size.

If, for example, it's that you need that size to shove that amount of tonnage down a tight rabbit hole, then yes, anything that goes along, connected or not, has to be accounted for in bridge volume.

And if bridge tonnage is mostly irrelevant, as currently in Mongoose, then all that matters is jump drive size.

 

[mike wightman]

The rules as written say fuel tankage comes before bridge, and then in the body of the text:

"L-Hyd tanks are installed outside the hull and increase the total tonnage of the ship; drives are reduced in their efficiency based on the total tonnage of the ship. With tanks retained, efficiency is decreased, and jump capability is reduced; when the tanks drop away, tonnage is reduced, and the drive efficiency is increased."
so your total tonnage is now ship + drop tanks.
Then we have to calculate bridge size in the next step:
"a bridge (designated as the main bridge or prime bridge) requires 2% of the ship's tonnage"

 

[Condottiere]

I was trying to remember which Classical canonical starships could qualify, and it would be the jump shuttle, Gazelle class, jump ship and the Azhantis.

Gazelles would be tied to a twenty tonne default bridge.

The Azhantis would need to deal with exterior attached craft.

Jump ship doesn't mention, nor it seems any of the other entries, bridge size.

And I can't recall where the jump shuttle showed up, but probably it too had the default twenty tonne bridge.

Lightning class supplement doesn't seem to mention fuel tonnage, but Fighting Ships says thirty three kilotonnes, so hard to say if sixty kilotonnes is minus exterior craft. Also, the Azhantis have three differing bridges.

 

[Spinward Flow]

"a bridge (designated as the main bridge or prime bridge) requires 2% of the ship's tonnage"

Conspicuous by its absence is the following verbiage:
"a bridge (designated as the main bridge or prime bridge) requires 2% of the ship's tonnage including any and all external loads (drop tanks, cargo pods, etc.)."

"Ship's tonnage" does not ipso facto mean "ship + external loads" because the term means the SHIP'S HULL ITSELF rather than referring to anything bolted externally onto it temporarily (such as drop tanks).

 

[mike wightman]

It doesn't have to say that because the preceding steps are clear.

The rules as written do not allow a ship to carry tonnage in excess of its hull size, which increases if you bolt on drop tanks as per the quote I gave (there are no bolt on cargo pods as much as you would like there to be).

The fuel tankage step is before the bridge allocation, the ship's tonnage increases due to added drop tanks, the words are there for you to read.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It doesn't have to say that because the preceding steps are clear.

The rules as written do not allow a ship to carry tonnage in excess of its hull size, which increases if you bolt on drop tanks as per the quote I gave (there are no bolt on cargo pods as much as you would like there to be).

The fuel tankage step is before the bridge allocation, the ship's tonnage increases due to added drop tanks, the words are there for you to read.

Drop tanks does not increase hull size, they are outside the ship.

The rules as written say fuel tankage comes before bridge, and then in the body of the text:

"L-Hyd tanks are installed outside the hull and increase the total tonnage of the ship; drives are reduced in their efficiency based on the total tonnage of the ship. With tanks retained, efficiency is decreased, and jump capability is reduced; when the tanks drop away, tonnage is reduced, and the drive efficiency is increased."
so your total tonnage is now ship + drop tanks.
Then we have to calculate bridge size in the next step:
"a bridge (designated as the main bridge or prime bridge) requires 2% of the ship's tonnage"

total tonnage = ship's tonnage + tanks.
Ship's tonnage = hull.

Bridge is 2% of ship's tonnage = hull size.

Total tonnage only affects drive ratings, as described in your quote.

Again, from the design sequence:

19. Insure that tonnage does not exceed hull, and that cost does not exceed budget.

Tonnage (installed components) must fit in the hull, tonnage cannot be hull + tanks.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Another way of looking at this, is why do the rules require a bridge to be that size.

It has nothing to do with jump, non-jump ships require the exact same bridge.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The rules as written do not allow a ship to carry tonnage in excess of its hull size, which increases if you bolt on drop tanks as per the quote I gave (there are no bolt on cargo pods as much as you would like there to be).

The rules allows carrying drop tanks (but only drop tanks) outside the hull.

If hull size is increased by adding drop tanks, then armour and hardpoints are also calculated on size including drop tanks. I hope you are not suggesting that?

 

[mike wightman]

And carrying drop tanks increases the hull size which requires a bigger bridge.

The clarification in TCS is that hardpoints are determined based on the hull size with no tanks. It doesn't say anything about the reduced hull size being used for armour.

So going by the check list and the step-by-step rules as written then yes, the full hull + drop tanks = total tonnage should be used for armour required.

There are other things to ponder - I think we have had the discussion before about if an armour factor of 0 still requires hull tonnage, and then there is the interpretation of how many turret hardpoints you can have after allocating tonnage to spinals and bays...

 

[Condottiere]

It can also depend on how much each tonne of drop tanks cost.

I've never seen a reason drop tanks couldn't be armoured.

Or even have their hardpoints with attached weapon systems.

But setting that aside, was it MegaTraveller that had a more detailed list of requisite workstations each bridge needed?

 

[mike wightman]

Yes, it was MegaTraveller that introduced control panels etc.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The clarification in TCS is that hardpoints are determined based on the hull size with no tanks. It doesn't say anything about the reduced hull size being used for armour.

It's a clarification, not a rule change. They are saying that is what LBB5 meant.

LBB5'80, p30: 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.

means

TCS, p14: When a ship is produced with drop tanks, the total tonnage of the ship without drop tanks determines the number of weapons allowed.

Hence, "ship without drop tanks" is the same as "hull".

So going by the check list and the step-by-step rules as written then yes, the full hull + drop tanks = total tonnage should be used for armour required.

Hull size and cost is specified in step 3, it's not changed in step 5. As both LBB5 and TCS describes drop tanks change drive rating, nothing else.

Drop tanks can be added to existing ships, without refitting the entire ship. Nothing else changes, number of hardpoints does not change, power plant output in EPs does not change (but rating may). Drive ratings are recalculated for the current load of external tanks.

There are other things to ponder - I think we have had the discussion before about if an armour factor of 0 still requires hull tonnage, and then there is the interpretation of how many turret hardpoints you can have after allocating tonnage to spinals and bays...

That is another discussion for another time (ignoratio elenchi).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

A bridge can control more than the rated tonnage, even through jump:

TCS, p35:
Jump Failure: Ships unable to jump because of critical hits on their power plant, jump drive, computer, or bridge present a special problem. If the bridge or computer is out, another ship may be linked to it for jump; the linking ship must have a computer and bridge as least as large as that of the damaged ship, and linking takes one week. Both move at the jump rate of the slowest ship and maneuver is impossible while linked. ...

 

[mike wightman]

That is a very good point.

So why can't you halve the size of your bridge? If a bridge can control twice its rated tonnage why not fit a half sized bridge?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

So why can't you halve the size of your bridge? If a bridge can control twice its rated tonnage why not fit a half sized bridge?

The rules say 2%, the rules does not say it can't control any more.

Cf. you must have four weeks of power plant fuel, even if you only ever use two weeks worth. The rules do not say the rest can't be used for anything else.

It's an arbitrary limit to get a simple design process.

 

[Condottiere]

Classical mandated two percent bridge by hull volume, which by the time you get to the Tigress, was obviously too large.

Like a lot of things, it's an artifact of it's time (or edition).

I think there probably is some tolerance for the actual hull size in question that a bridge could handle.

In regard to smaller bridges, that did eventually evolve, though at the cost of minus one disadvantage to any bridge activity.

 

[aramis]

And I can't recall where the jump shuttle showed up, but probably it too had the default twenty tonne bridge.

Sup 7, pp.37-38.

 

[robject]

In other words, rendering the earliest ship designs obsolete is not a bug, it's a feature.
For one thing, it's an OPPORTUNITY to redesign those ships using a new paradigm that more deeply understands and integrates those ships into the Traveller Universe(s) that have grown up and expanded since 1977.

The original designs might be "doomed" as you say, but there's no reason that a "refresh" of those designs for a modern rewrite must also similarly be "doomed" by default as well.

Redo the Yacht.
Redo the Safari Ship.
Redo the Free Trader.
Redo the Scout/Courier.
Redo the XBoat.
Redo the Express Tender.

I think you can see where I'm going with this line of thinking ...

You are essentially suggesting LBB2'2022 (CT 3rd edition?).

He is. And as you noted, we've already got that in T5. And all the other design systems to suit everyone else.


Hey, Spinward, have you seen my "ACS Zero" draft? 'Cause that is exactly the new paradigm that more deeply understands and integrates those LBB2 ships into the Traveller Universe that grew up and expended since 1977. It's Traveller5's ship design system, with options removed and the essence poured into "Book 2"'s format and wording. And the LBB2 ship designs can be more closely followed than other Traveller ship design systems.

But yeah, it does ditch some of the Book 2 archaisms. I suppose there are some things that just can't be saved.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Hey, Spinward, have you seen my "ACS Zero" draft?

Cannot say that I have (or if I have, I do not remember reading it).
Would you like to post a public link to the document ... or would you prefer to send me a link via PM to keep it out of public circulation?

I suppose there are some things that just can't be saved.

Correction ... there are some things that shouldn't be perpetuated.

In a "blank canvas" Traveller universe (with no pre-defined setting), LBB2.77 and LBB2.81 function passably well on a minimal competency basis. There is design space available to build starships and have fun with the process.

However, you need to recognize that LBB2 was merely a "first draft" of how to organize all that stuff, present it and let Referees and Players mess about with it.

Vector combat makes sense for wargaming tabletops with miniatures ... but without a table to work with it is an unholy mess.
Computer programming rules were relatively innovative for their time (the late 70s!), but they introduced another layer of "clunk" into the ship combat resolution process (which LBB5 promptly defenestrated and never looked back). Ditching those computer programming rules streamlined and simplified A LOT of ship combat using the abstract system of LBB5.

Because of how games "worked" in the publishing space back in the day (some 45 years ago now!), there wasn't a whole lot you could do in the way of "patching" previous publications (although LBB5.80 and LBB2.81 certainly tried to!). Some of what got published is best viewed as "first draft work" rather than upholding it as fundamentalist gospel (although we certainly do the latter often enough) meant to endure for eternity.

As a starting point for a conversation ... LBB2.77 did its job.
As an ending point for any and all discussion on the topic ... LBB2.81 is sorely lacking and can definitely be improved upon.

'Cause that is exactly the new paradigm that more deeply understands and integrates those LBB2 ships into the Traveller Universe that grew up and expended since 1977.

Which is exactly the kind of endeavor we want to see so that Traveller can continue to live, grow and evolve over time ... rather than remain "fixed" in the past, unchanging and fossilized.

It's Traveller5's ship design system, with options removed and the essence poured into "Book 2"'s format and wording.

My familiarization with T5 is ... poor ... so I may not recognize everything going on inside of what you've done with your ACS Zero work at the most profound levels.

And the LBB2 ship designs can be more closely followed than other Traveller ship design systems.

I'm thinking it is a better thing to approach the point from the view that LBB2 is "where it all started" and letting things grow outwards from there ... rather than taking the stance that LBB2 is "where it all ended" and rejecting everything that came afterwards out of hand, just because it wasn't a part of the "divine hand me down" of LBB2 (pick your version).

It's the difference between an Open System of rules and a Closed System of rules.
Do the rules define the boundaries and limits ... or do the rules define (enough of) the building blocks to make MORE ...?

Given that LBB1-3 did not define an explicit OTU within their pages, I would prefer to think that they were written with the intent to be expanded upon, rather than to circumscribe the limits of what everything had to fit inside of. Arguably, every book published after LBB1-3 can be taken as proof that the latter more expansive view is the one that GDW (back in the day) wanted to foster, and the survivors of those days who are still with us are continuing to support.

It's a big TU out there ... and that's what makes it fun to play in (and around!) that sandbox.

 

[kilemall]

The distinction between hull and tank for performance and bridge eludes me.

The whole point of drop tanks is to enhance the maneuver and jump values once they are dropped.

But if you maneuver or jump while retaining them, you are at the full tonnage and therefore should be required to have the appropriate bridge and computer.

So if one sizes for drop tanks jettisoned for bridge/computer, the ship should only jump as such.