Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Gaps, glaring or otherwise.
OTU Only: What Kind of Ships Does Traveller Need More of?
- Thread starter dmccoy1693
- Start date
Barsanuphius
SOC-12
What about a jump capable fighter, or fighter/scout? Like a Trav version of an X-wing? 
My thinking is off each PC with own vessel. Yet as much as I see the value, I can see the the issues like PC #3 gets angery with PC/Players #s 1, 4 1nd 5 then gets into his/her/its ship and blasts off to somewhere no one else was going off too. also control of so many ships...yet i've done this in Star Wars RPG and other systems. D and D with horses/mounts...
My thinking is off each PC with own vessel. Yet as much as I see the value, I can see the the issues like PC #3 gets angery with PC/Players #s 1, 4 1nd 5 then gets into his/her/its ship and blasts off to somewhere no one else was going off too. also control of so many ships...yet i've done this in Star Wars RPG and other systems. D and D with horses/mounts...
What about a jump capable fighter, or fighter/scout? Like a Trav version of an X-wing?
My thinking is off each PC with own vessel. Yet as much as I see the value, I can see the the issues like PC #3 gets angery with PC/Players #s 1, 4 1nd 5 then gets into his/her/its ship and blasts off to somewhere no one else was going off too. also control of so many ships...yet i've done this in Star Wars RPG and other systems. D and D with horses/mounts...
Go with riders on a jump frame, instead...
That way, they have to leave together...
khadaji2002
SOC-12
I would like to see more smaller ships (100-400dT) aimed at players and at GMs looking to fill their starport with crews. I'd really like to see innovative designs, as there *has* to be some design improvements made over the last 400+ years. Asymmetrical designs, etc.
Dual-statting is typically doable with the same deckplans.
I suppose they're going to have to be done at some point for the Players' Handbook. Would basic stats be in there, or would they be left out and done in their own book, with deckplans included? That could be a cool book. I remember when I first got Fighting Ships thinking it was great, but that the plans for at least some of the vessels would have been great (I know, I know, that wasn't the purpose of the book)
navywarlord
SOC-9
I choose other
Needs more cargo ships... From large haulers to the single-man free traders...
Deck plans would help too.. Characters are always exploring wrecks, boarding derelicts or otherwise rummaging around these vessels. Trade is life blood of interstellar society... Cargo and Trade ships should be most common
Needs more cargo ships... From large haulers to the single-man free traders...
Deck plans would help too.. Characters are always exploring wrecks, boarding derelicts or otherwise rummaging around these vessels. Trade is life blood of interstellar society... Cargo and Trade ships should be most common
It annoys the gearheads, tho', if the slop factor of 10% is exceeded, as different systems have different design rates and features, which sometimes result in significant discrepancies.
The most obvious cases involve bridges... on a 100 or 200 ton ship, the bridge tonnage difference falls into 4 categories - CT/T20, MT, TNE/T4, and MGT.
- CT/T20, it's 20 Td to 1000 Td then 2%.
- In MT, it's non-extant - it's taken from control panels and stateroom tonnage.
- TNE/T4, it's 2 Td x the number of bridge officers.
- In MGT, it's 10 for up to 200 Td, and 20 above that. With a larger one for capital ships
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
Hmm, after doing more thinking about it and designing, a larger subsidized merchant capable of Jump-3 would be nice. I have designed a 600 dTon one for the novel that I am working on. There does appear to be a niche for such a vessel.
dmccoy1693
SOC-13
Incase you haven't seen it yet, I announced that later this month, we will be releasing Foreven Worlds: Ships of the Borderworlds. The ships inside I designed with your feedback.
[m;]Moved a few off-topic posts to:[/m;] My Little Pony RPG really exists.
I guess my only wonder regarding starships is why there aren't more "solo" vessels that a crew of three or less could jump with. Stuff that's till 100 tons as per the rules, but doesn't have a lot of cargo or carbins.
I bring this up because most of my gaming groups have been between 3 to 4 players. Only rarely could I ever muster an 8 player game for a proper session.
I bring this up because most of my gaming groups have been between 3 to 4 players. Only rarely could I ever muster an 8 player game for a proper session.
Really simple:
Bk 2 designs lack sufficient design options below about 400 tons to be interesting.
The other design systems don't produce financially viable designs at that size.
The most common thematic small ships are 1–2 man traders and 1-2 man combattants.
In CT, there's no room for those mechanically.
The closest to a 100 ton dedicated combattant is:
100
020 bridge
004 PP A
001 MD A
010 JD A
008 2xSR
040 Fuel
013 1x10 Td fighters
001 Turret.
Crew P, G, E, Fighter Pilot - all double occupancy.
In MGT, we can do far better.
010 Bridge
004 PP A
002 MD A
010 JD A
022 Fuel
033 3x 10 Td fighters, docked
001 Turret
016 4x staterooms
Crew P, G, E, 3x Fighter Pilots.
I'm a little confused though, why are you including a fighter in your first design? Couldn't you just allocate that to fuel? Or does the added firepower make the tradeoff worth while?
The reason I bring it up is because it just struck me that if you're a bunch of "trouble shooters", then you're probably not hauling freight most of the time. Ergo, to me at least, you'd have ships like the Huntress, or a compressed or stripped down type-S that had few amenities.
*EDIT*
I remember there being a rift between CT and MGT design systems, but wow ... 3 x Figs slung under the hull for an MGT type-S? Is that right? Amazing.
The reason I bring it up is because it just struck me that if you're a bunch of "trouble shooters", then you're probably not hauling freight most of the time. Ergo, to me at least, you'd have ships like the Huntress, or a compressed or stripped down type-S that had few amenities.
*EDIT*
I remember there being a rift between CT and MGT design systems, but wow ... 3 x Figs slung under the hull for an MGT type-S? Is that right? Amazing.
I see your point totally, I have spent a lot of time recently trying to beat some more room into the 200 dTon and below range of ships. Currently 150 dTons range is my pet.
Though I must say though I start with Book 2 I am adopting a lot of other bits from Book 5, MGT and T5.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
A LBB2 design doesn't allocate 130% of smallcraft size - that's a HG rule. Under LBB2 rules as written a 10t fighter only costs 10t of hull space.
The correct design is:
100
020 bridge
004 PP A
001 MD A
010 JD A
012 3xSR (pilot, gunner, fighter pilot)
040 Fuel
010 1x10 Td fighters
001 Turret.
A computer is probably useful too
002 computer 2 or 2bis
lose a stateroom and you could have a better computer.
The correct design is:
100
020 bridge
004 PP A
001 MD A
010 JD A
012 3xSR (pilot, gunner, fighter pilot)
040 Fuel
010 1x10 Td fighters
001 Turret.
A computer is probably useful too
002 computer 2 or 2bis
lose a stateroom and you could have a better computer.
Fighters are the only way to "up-arm" CT ships.
I can see that. I guess my feeling is if you're part of a small strike team or team of investigators, then it seems like you'd want a ship that caters to that. That's all. Anyway, thanks for the replies.
Similar threads
