What is a Safari Ship?

[Spinward Flow]

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.

Let me give you a picture to help you understand.

If you unhitch the trailer, does the crew cab/bridge on the tractor get smaller?
Does it need to get smaller?

If you hitch a trailer to the tractor, does the crew cab/bridge on the tractor need to get bigger?
Does it need to get bigger in order to manage/handle the trailer?

Now consider that it is perfectly possible for the Trailer to have both larger dimensions (displacement) and also larger mass (tonnage) than the Tractor does when loaded (just ask any trucker). And yet the Tractor is designed to have the external item ... the Trailer ... attached to it.

Does engine performance degrade/reduce with a Trailer attached?
Of course (especially if the trailer is loaded)!

Does the design of the Tractor "care" what kind of Trailer it is pulling?
Can the Trailer be one of these?

Or one of these?

What difference do those choices/options make to the Tractor pulling them?



The rules ought to reflect the in-game reality ... rather than the in-game reality being circumscribed by the rules to the minutest detail.

Remember @kilemall ... you're basically taking the stance that the "towing capacity" of any spacecraft is effectively ZERO ... because there isn't a rule telling you otherwise ... except for the already existing example of the Gazelle class and the Brown class starships which were built and published under CT. The only thing that was missing was a clear set of rules to handle external towing capacity for starships (starting with F=MA newtonian physics, which were used in LBB2.77 to determine transit times and distances). It is something that needs to be inferred and understood, owing to the fact that the LBBs failed to provide adequate verbiage explaining the procedure.



The way I handle these things is to figure "if this drive was used in a larger ship tonnage class, how much performance could this drive deliver from that larger load?"

So a 10 ton LBB5.80 maneuver drive can deliver 2G in a 200 ton form factor (200*0.05=10) ... or 1G in a 500 ton form factor (500*0.02=10). Same drive tonnage, different "hauling capacities" depending on loading.

Therefore, a 200 ton ship with a 2G drive can maneuver itself at 2G without an external load ... or maneuver at up to 1G with 1-300 tons of external loading (for a total of up to 500 tons).

The same methodology applies to jump drives, using the LBB5.80 formulas.
For LBB2 drives, it's just a matter of using the lookup table to figure out how drive performance "falls off" as external loads get added onto the ship.



The bridge is sized (2%, minimum 20 tons) to the displacement of the ship's PERMANENT HULL ... not including any external loads that can be temporarily added at any time (kind of like how Trailers can be temporarily hitched to Tractor without being a permanent non-removable part of the Tractor). When you add a temporary external load to a starship, that temporary addition is not becoming a permanent part or feature of the hull that can never be removed or jettisoned.

 

[kilemall]

The purported RL examples support my contention.

A truck, a tug, a railroad locomotive, is sized for control of it’s maximum load it pulls/pushes and for the crew it takes to run it.

If there happens to be half a load they can potentially go faster or burn less fuel (depending on specifics like gearing/propulsion and grade), but they don’t run shorter crews or pack less control gear or less power overall from their designed maximum.

 

[Spinward Flow]

The purported RL examples support my contention.

Is the glass half full ... or half empty?
If it's half full, the glass has excess unused capacity.
If it's half empty, the glass has excess unused capacity.

You're trying to argue that if you add a single external ton of displacement to a ship ... it stops working because it doesn't have enough bridge anymore for Hull+1 tons (if combined tonnage is 1000 tons or more). Because there are no detailed "towing rules" for space, whether it be other ships to be salvaged or drop tanks or cargo pods (or whatever) ... it can't be done, because the rules don't (explicitly) say it can be done or make allowances for it to be done.

My view is that bridges are sized relative to the permanent hull of the ship they're installed into ... not relative to whatever might temporarily be bolted onto them at a later date, after construction.

What is your view?

 

[Spinward Flow]

Hmmm ... there is a curious side effect of declaring that bridges need to get bigger if temporary tonnage is externally loaded onto a ship's hull for towing (either through maneuver or through jump).

It means that because of the 20 ton minimum bridge size, only ACS with a maximum load of 1000 combined permanent hull and temporary external loading is permissible before needing to increase the size of the bridge.

So a 400 ton ship with drives that can tow an external load of up to 600 tons (combined total: 1000 tons) can use the default 20 ton bridge size, no problem (because 2% of 1000 tons is still 20 tons).

Conversely, a 1000 ton ship with drives that can tow an external load of up to 1000 tons (combined total: 2000 tons) would need to have a 40 ton bridge, not just a 20 ton bridge, in order to have the capacity to handle the additional exterior loading (and let's not get into the complication of using a Backup Bridge for the purpose, shall we?).

Creates a curious niche market for smaller ACS capable of external loads up to a combined 1000 tons ... wouldn't you say?
And in an LBB2 small ship universe, that "sweet spot" for external towing capacity is going to top out in the TL=10 E-H drives.

Curiouser and curiouser ...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

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

There is no difference except for performance, but the tanks are not a part of the ship, the hull ("These L-Hyd Tanks are fitted to the outside of the ship,..."). Adding external tanks to a ship does not change hardpoints, armour size, or bridge size.

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

Agreed, performance explicitly change with or without external tanks.

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.

The rules do not say a ship can't move without a massive bridge, or four weeks of power plant fuel. The rules say that is the default, that is convenient, that is what you should have for normal operations with reasonable safety margins. There are no hard physical limits, unlike drives.

The rules do suggest that ships can be retrofitted with external tanks, without refitting the entire ship. The rules do say that if you add an external tank, drive rating changes, but anything else mentioned does not change: the number of hardpoints does not change, the power plant output does not change...

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

Bridge-size has nothing special to do with jump, and a ship can jump while controlling another ship in addition to itself with a standard bridge:

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. ...

One standard bridge can control two ships and two jump-drives, at least in an emergency.


All published examples that I know of (all two of them) suggest that the ship, the hull, is unchanged by the addition of drop tanks. Armour is based on hull size (w/o tanks), bridge is based on hull size (w/o tanks), and crew requirements are based on hull size (w/o tanks).

 

[Condottiere]

Outside of specific edition rules/requirements, what does a bridge really do?

Virtual bridges are an option, requiring only the computer.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Outside of specific edition rules/requirements, what does a bridge really do?

It's completely edition specific.
In CT it's all C³I equipment and the workstations to man them:

LBB2'81:
A. The Bridge: All ships must allocate 2% of their tonnage (minimum 20 tons) to basic controls, communications equipment, avionics, scanners, detectors, sensors, and other equipment for proper operation of the ship. ...
The basic controls do not include the ship's computer, which is installed adjacent to the bridge.

LBB5'80:
The Bridge: Every ship requires a bridge for control of the drives and electronics and for navigation. ... The bridge contains all necessary equipment for the control of the ship with the exception of the computer.

It's not just a room, it's also a lot of electronics spread out all over the ship.
It could be several rooms: flag bridge, ship's bridge, ops room, engineering control, &c, ...

Main radar: bridge.
Internal comms & tannoy: bridge.
Wifi network: bridge.
Pilot's workstation, control yoke, control runs to the drives: bridge.
Long-range comms: bridge.
Room and workstations to control it: bridge.
... and so on...

MT has no such "bridge" but specifies sensors, commo, and control separately.

Virtual bridges are an option, requiring only the computer.

In a specific edition (MgT2), precluding manned control. T5 still requires workstations, hence space, that can be automated.

 

[mike wightman]

The bridge is:

basic controls, communications equipment, avionics, scanners, detectors, sensors,
and other equipment for proper operation of the ship.

basic controls - so an interface between the crew and the ship - can it be virtual? yes
commo equipment - transmitters and receivers - can they be virtual ? no, they actually have to have the machinery, you can't just run a simulation
avionics - again actual machinery - can it be virtual? no
scanners, detectors, sensors - not virtual.
other equipment - up to the referee and I don't see the need to open that can of worms again at this point - can this other equipment be virtual - yes and no depending on item.

 

[Condottiere]

So originally the bridge was a catch all for direct control and interface with most of the spacecraft's components and sensors.

As the game evolved, we started to deconstruct it, identifying and giving values to individual components, and realized we could be a bit more sophisticated in putting that aspect together.

You definitely need solid hardware, but maybe not to the extend of a basic two percent across the board.

And you can scale that hardware to how much space or budget or need your spacecraft will need, or would like to have.

In Classic we make the assumption that the minimum you need for a starship is twenty tonnes; with the High Guard addition for larger ships, a blanket two percent was implemented.

If you use Classic rules, let's make the assumption the two percent is sovereign, with maybe a ten percent allowance, because I don't think there is any published canonical design example where you can point to and definitively say that two percent is requisite for all attached tonnage, or not.

If there is, great.

I don't worry too much about Classical, except to maybe clarify something in the current edition, or as inspiration.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

... because I don't think there is any published canonical design example where you can point to and definitively say that two percent is requisite for all attached tonnage, or not.

JTAS#10: Eurisko.

It does not have space for an oversized bridge, so can't have one.

 

[mike wightman]

Eurisko got away with many things, being able to destroy your own ships for example which is not in the rules and therefore is an interesting addition.

I am well aware of how everyone has used drop tanks to get something for nothing over the years (I do it that way myself), but if you follow the rules step by step as written you increase the hull size of the ship by adding drop tanks and then determine bridge size.

 

[robject]

...if you follow the rules step by step as written you increase the hull size of the ship by adding drop tanks and then determine bridge size.

I had never considered that. Maybe because my ships are usually well below the magic 1,000 ton size?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Eurisko got away with many things, being able to destroy your own ships for example which is not in the rules and therefore is an interesting addition.

The combat system is not under discussion, the design system is. Eurisko was ruled a rules compliant design and published.

I am well aware of how everyone has used drop tanks to get something for nothing over the years (I do it that way myself), but if you follow the rules step by step as written you increase the hull size of the ship by adding drop tanks and then determine bridge size.

As the rest of the design sequence shows, a ship's hull does not change if you add a drop tank during or after design. The only thing that changes is drive rating.

 

[robject]

Eurisko got away with many things, being able to destroy your own ships for example which is not in the rules and therefore is an interesting addition.

I am well aware of how everyone has used drop tanks to get something for nothing over the years (I do it that way myself), but if you follow the rules step by step as written you increase the hull size of the ship by adding drop tanks and then determine bridge size.

The combat system is not under discussion, the design system is. Eurisko was ruled a rules compliant design and published.


As the rest of the design sequence shows, a ship's hull does not change if you add a drop tank during or after design. The only thing that changes is drive rating.

I've started a new thread where we can trace these thoughts down directly from various rules systems.

 

[McPerth]

As the rest of the design sequence shows, a ship's hull does not change if you add a drop tank during or after design.

The Gazelle design seems to point otherwise, as without the drop tanks it could not have 4 hardpoints...

 

[Condottiere]

It just occurs to me, in theory, we don't usually take the drop tanks with us.

Sure, there's the Gazelles, but the Gazelles are an oddfish, and are within minimum bridge size.

If bridge cost is calculated per hundred tonnes, three hundred tonne spaceship bridge costs a quarter less than a four hundred tonne spaceship bridge.

 

[McPerth]

Sure, there's the Gazelles, but the Gazelles are an oddfish, and are within minimum bridge size.

Sure, but the hardpoints are another tonnage dependent feature that can illustrate us on this. That's why I put the Gazelles to bear.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The Gazelle design seems to point otherwise, as without the drop tanks it could not have 4 hardpoints...

The rules are clear (at least after the TCS clarification): The Gazelle should have three hardpoints.

Presumably is has four weapons for historical reasons, as the LBB5'79 Gazelle had two turrets and, I believe, a bay reskinned to two barbettes, for a total of four weapons. No, GDW didn't slavishly follow their own rules, or perhaps followed Rule 0.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It just occurs to me, in theory, we don't usually take the drop tanks with us.

We can do it either way:

LBB5'80, p27:
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.

Explicitly discusses jump rating with tanks.

We can jump with the tanks or drop them as we see fit.

 

[Condottiere]

I don't mean that we don't have that option, it's more that we would tend to go for immediate satisfaction, rather than long term reward.

They're too easy to damage in battle, and in theory, you can't arm them.