Your Lurenti version

[Hal]

Hello Folks,
I started messing around with HGS and trying to build a Lurenti class Battle Rider carrier from THE SPINWARD MARCHES CAMPAIGN.

As I began to build what I thought was as close an equivalent design to the Lurenti class carrier, I began to realize that I was merely making my own version of something that was hopelessly flawed to begin with. The Lurenti class ship was originally intended to carry 7 Nolikian class Battle Riders of 20,000 dtons displacement. What I found instead, was that using HGS, the most I could carry and still remain true to the originally stated 300,000 dton hull was only 4. This was in addition to the two hundred 50 dton heavy fighters that the craft carried.

What I did to modify the given design parameters was drop the Ship from being a Jump-4 capable ship to a Jump-3 capable ship. I then dropped the requirement for 200 fighters down to 100 fighters. At that point, I then upped the max Nolikian battle riders carried from 4 to 6.

This craft I believe, comes closest to the desired stats of the Lurenti Battle Rider carrier. Has anyone else attempted this task and come up with a close approximation of the stats given in The Spinward Marches Campaign?

 

[Hal]

This is what I got when I used HGS:

         CB-T7425J4-099909-99999-L MCr 138,345.250 300 KTons
Bat Bear             J   6 CC66X   Crew: 2111
Bat                  Z   A LLAAY   TL: 15

Cargo: 3,589.000 Fuel: 135,000.000 EP: 15,000.000 Agility: 1 Marines: 100
Craft: 200 x 50T Sylean Class Hvy Fighters, 4 x 20000T Nolikia Battle Riders
Fuel Treatment: On Board Fuel Purification
Substitutions: X = 120 Y = 200 Z = 30

Architects Fee: MCr 1,383.453 Cost in Quantity: MCr 110,676.200


Detailed Description

HULL
300,000.000 tons standard, 4,200,000.000 cubic meters, Dispersed Structure Configuration

CREW
175 Officers, 1636 Ratings, 200 Pilots, 100 Marines

ENGINEERING
Jump-4, 2G Manuever, Power plant-5, 15,000.000 EP, Agility 1

AVIONICS
Bridge, Model/9fib Computer

HARDPOINTS
30 100-ton bays, 200 50-ton bays, 700 Hardpoints

ARMAMENT
10 100-ton Meson Bays (Factor-9), 10 100-ton Particle Accelerator Bays (Factor-9), 200 50-ton Missile Bays (Factor-9), 200 Triple Beam Laser Turrets organised into 20 Batteries (Factor-9), 200 Dual Fusion Gun Turrets organised into 20 Batteries (Factor-9)

DEFENCES
10 100-ton Repulsor Bays (Factor-9), 300 Triple Sandcaster Turrets organised into 30 Batteries (Factor-9), Nuclear Damper (Factor-9), Meson Screen (Factor-9)

CRAFT
200 50.000 ton Sylean Class Hvy Fighters (Crew of 1, Cost of MCr 0.000), 4 20,000.000 ton Nolikia Battle Riders (Crew of 0, Cost of MCr 0.000)

FUEL
135,000.000 Tons Fuel (4 parsecs jump and 28 days endurance)
No Fuel Scoops, On Board Fuel Purification Plant

MISCELLANEOUS
1,100.0 Staterooms, 3,589.000 Tons Cargo

USER DEFINED COMPONENTS
None

COST
MCr 139,728.703 Singly (incl. Architects fees of MCr 1,383.453), MCr 110,676.200 in Quantity

CONSTRUCTION TIME
219 Weeks Singly, 175 Weeks in Quantity

COMMENTS
The Lurenti Class Battle Carrier from the module THE SPINWARD MARCHES
CAMPAIGN is unfortunately, seriously flawed. It mandated originally, that the
300,000 dton hull be capable of Jump-4, Manuever-2 with the capabilities of
carrying two hundred 50 dton Sylean class Hvy Fighters, as well as Seven
20,000 dton Nolikean class Battle Riders. Unfortunately, this is just not
possible using the rules as written.

The closest I can come to meeting all of the requirements given above is a
Lurenti class ship that carries only four such battle riders instead of 7.

Afterthought: I noted that I had in excess of 3,000 dtons for cargo and the like. I could easily enough add extra fuel for longer duration capabilities, or I can presume that some of the cargo capacity is for missile magazines, or even extra stateroom capabilities. In lieu of the missing Battle Riders, I could even upgrade the fighter complement of the craft or even add extra carried craft such as assault landers for the troops, or perhaps bigger carried craft. Because of the nature of the Dispersed structure hull, I could even add some heavy duty 800 dton SDB type craft to augument the Nolikian class battle riders. Of course, that makes the Lurenti class ship one that is a creation of my own rather than a GDW based design.

 

[rancke]

This craft I believe, comes closest to the desired stats of the Lurenti Battle Rider carrier. Has anyone else attempted this task and come up with a close approximation of the stats given in The Spinward Marches Campaign?

I've never done it, but I did consider trying to see what could be done if the Lurenti was a 300,000 T ship carrying 7 20,000 T riders instead of a 160,000 T ship. That is, if the total tonnage of the carrier plus riders was 420,000 instead of 300,000.


Hans

 

[Hal]

I've never done it, but I did consider trying to see what could be done if the Lurenti was a 300,000 T ship carrying 7 20,000 T riders instead of a 160,000 T ship. That is, if the total tonnage of the carrier plus riders was 420,000 instead of 300,000.


Hans

I'll see what it will take to carry the entire 200 fighters plus 100 marines plus 7 Nolikean class boats and see what I can come up with tonnage wise...

Update: I come up with a 455,000 dton hull with about 242 dtons of cargo capacity left over. The ship's larger size of course, permitted the powerplant to deliver a higher number of power points, upgrading its Agility to 2. Of course, now that I have another 155,000 dtons available, I also have another 155 hardpoints unallocated.

 

[rancke]

I'll see what it will take to carry the entire 200 fighters plus 100 marines plus 7 Nolikean class boats and see what I can come up with tonnage wise...

Update: I come up with a 455,000 dton hull with about 242 dtons of cargo capacity left over. The ship's larger size of course, permitted the powerplant to deliver a higher number of power points, upgrading its Agility to 2. Of course, now that I have another 155,000 dtons available, I also have another 155 hardpoints unallocated.

The Lurenti is a dispersed structure. IMO the Nolikans are, technically speaking, carried externally. That would make the Lurenti's hull a 300,000 T hull. Don't pay for a bigger hull and don't figure on any extra hardpoints. That's the way you'll get closest to the canonical description.

300,000T +7*20,000T comes to 440,000T total. I further suggest you shave another 15,000 T somehow. Smaller fighters, perhaps? Though I know that fighters need to be big to carry a decent computer. Fewer fighters? Change the 100 T bays to 50T bays?

Why upgrade the agility? The canonical description says Agility 2. No reason to make the revision better than announced.

For my own TU, I'd ignore the power plant fuel requirements. After all, we know from subsequent Traveller versions that the CT rules regarding power plant fuel are completely stuffed up. :devil: That would save, what, 15,000 T of fuel tanks?


Hans

 

[Hal]

The Spinward Marches Campaign page 35 indicates an Agility of 1, despite having a manuever-2 drive, presumably because there were not enough energy points to make it to Agility-2 after all the energy weapon energy costs were deducted.

As for dispersed Structure, that is what I utilized as the hull design feature for the Lurenti I posted the stats on.

What I should probably do is create a spreadsheet and double check HGS to see if it calculated the values for the carried craft correctly. I'm betting however, that HGS did the calcs correctly. None the less, it wouldn't hurt to verify

 

[rancke]

The Spinward Marches Campaign page 35 indicates an Agility of 1, despite having a manuever-2 drive, presumably because there were not enough energy points to make it to Agility-2 after all the energy weapon energy costs were deducted.

Just what are you trying to do? I thought you wanted to work out a revised version of the Lurenti+Nolikans that corresponded as closely as possible to the one described in SMC. Well, if a carrier really needs to be 455,000 T to carry seven 20,000T riders, then something has to give, right? ISTM that one reasonable change would be if the carrier is 300,000 exclusive the riders instead of inclusive the riders. The Imperium seems to go for even numbers in their ship sizes, so a 300,000 T carrier sounds more plausible than a 455,000 (or 440,000) T carrier.

As an aside, either no one in Charted Space have figured out the trick of making the hull just a tiny bit smaller in order to come into a lower signature bracket, or that dodge is arulelawyer's trick that doesn't actually work in "reality". I've never heard of it working in a game, either. Have you ever met a TCS referee who allowed their players to make 19,900T ships? The game I was in the ref explicitly disallowed that dodge. I don't think anyone builds 19,900T ships, and if they do, I don't think it has any detectable influence on its signature.

As for dispersed Structure, that is what I utilized as the hull design feature for the Lurenti I posted the stats on.

Yes, the Lurenti is described as a dispersed structure. Which is what makes it possible for it to carry riders externally.


Hans

 

[Hal]

Just what are you trying to do? I thought you wanted to work out a revised version of the Lurenti+Nolikans that corresponded as closely as possible to the one described in SMC. Well, if a carrier really needs to be 455,000 T to carry seven 20,000T riders, then something has to give, right? ISTM that one reasonable change would be if the carrier is 300,000 exclusive the riders instead of inclusive the riders. The Imperium seems to go for even numbers in their ship sizes, so a 300,000 T carrier sounds more plausible than a 455,000 (or 440,000) T carrier.

Hans

For what it is worth, the rules as written as adjucated by a computer program determines at what point the "rules dodge" is written comes into play. If the rules dodge is such that one "rounds up" to the nearest class of size modifier category, then one would build a hull that does not go over THAT "break point". Either way you look at it, the idea is to find the point at which a given "issue" is not an issue (ie when does a hull gain a -2, -1, 0, +1, +2 size modifier.

Had HG simply stated "Range of hulls" for its size modifiers, then ships within a given range match the criteria for that hull size.

*slaps forehead in a "Wow, I could have had a V8" moment*

High Guard actually did that.

Breakpoints:

Under 100 dtons -2
Under 2,000 dtons -1
Under 20,000 dtons +0
Under 75,000 dtons +1
anything over that is +2

Is it any different between that above and rounding to the nearest 1,000 where 1,500 = the same size class as 2,000?

I digress. My real response to your statement above is this:

When you design a jump drive configuration that can jump 1 parsec for a 100 dton hull, your drive has to be 2% of the entire hull volume right? Now, add an external volume that needs to be "towed" by the original ship such that it has 200 dtons of volume being towed. Will the jump drive, originally configured for a 100 dton hull work, or does it need to be configured for 200 dtons total?

If the latter, then, that is why you can't just add 140,000 dtons to a 300,000 dton hull and expect it to be able to jump as if it were only a 300,000 dton hull.

As written, the Lurenti class ship needs to be able to jump 4 parsecs and have a 2 G manuever drive.

I could build a Lurenti Class ship that can jump 2 parsecs but carry 7 Nolikian class Battle Riders - but it would still be a 300,000 dton hull doing all the jumping and all that fun stuff.

 

[Hal]

As an addenda to my above post on rules dodges for hull sizes...

Where HG originally set up its hull size table for which hulls gain "to hit" penalty/bonus, it neglected to do so in a smooth manner.

Substituting the actual letter codes for numbers, the hull size modifiers is written like this:

0 (zero) -2
100 to 1,000 -1
2,000 to 10,000 none
20,000 to 50,000 +1
75,000+ +2

Claiming a rules dodge issue means that in your Traveller Universe, one can't have hulls that are 60,000 dtons because the number does not exist on the table above as it is between 50,000 and 75,000 - this despite the fact that the letter code for 50,000 dtons preceeds the letter for the 75,000 dton code on the alphabet by precisely one position.

In short? Those "gaps" between the numbers and the letter codes used by GDW means what? That any hull utilizing less hull space than precise multiples of 10, 100, 1,000, or 25,000 is somehow a rules dodge or a rules kludge? Somehow, I don't think so. But, that's where people can reasonably agree to disagree and let it go at that.

 

[rancke]

For what it is worth, the rules as written as adjucated by a computer program determines at what point the "rules dodge" is written comes into play. If the rules dodge is such that one "rounds up" to the nearest class of size modifier category, then one would build a hull that does not go over THAT "break point".

In a TCS game you would, provided the referee let you (I can easily imagine a referee simply refusing to accept a 19,900T design). But you're not designing the Nolikan. In-universe some Imperial naval architect did; meta some GDW employee did (and made a pig's breakfast of it). But either way the Nolikan is, according to GDW a 20,000T design, not a 19,900T design. It's the same thing with upgrading the agility. An agility-1 Lurenti may be a sub-optimal design, but so what? Technical designers sometimes produce sub-optimal designs.

When you design a jump drive configuration that can jump 1 parsec for a 100 dton hull, your drive has to be 2% of the entire hull volume right? Now, add an external volume that needs to be "towed" by the original ship such that it has 200 dtons of volume being towed. Will the jump drive, originally configured for a 100 dton hull work, or does it need to be configured for 200 dtons total?

If the latter, then, that is why you can't just add 140,000 dtons to a 300,000 dton hull and expect it to be able to jump as if it were only a 300,000 dton hull.

As written, the Lurenti class ship needs to be able to jump 4 parsecs and have a 2 G manuever drive.

To make a jump-4 with 440,000T of ship you need a jump drive of 22,000T and 176,000T of jump fuel. So you make a 300,000T hull with 22,000T of jump drive (jump-6 drive since the ship is a TL15 design) and 176,000T of fuel. With that, you can jump carrying an extra 140,000T of ship externally. Without carrying anything, the design is able to do jump-5 using 150,000T of fuel. If there's any way to swing it, I'd stuff another 4,000T of fuel into the design (to make it able to perform jump-6 on its own), but I don't know if thast is possible. Or if the 176,000T is possible for that matter. I'm just spitballing here (my High Guard and TCS have temporarily gone missing).



Hans

 

[The Oz]

Going with the idea of building a 300,000t config-7 hull capable of making J-4 once you hang 140,000 tons of riders on the outside, I present the Lurenti-X. Changes from the "book" Lurenti: the laser, fusion gun, and sandcaster batteries are only factor-7 instead of factor-9 because you can't get all the batteries the "book" Lurenti has into a 300,000t hull!

According to SMC, the Lurenti has:

60 batteries of f-9 sand
9 batteries of f-9 repulsor
20 batteries of f-9 laser
20 batteries of f-9 energy
20 batteries of f-9 particle
20 batteries of f-9 meson
200 batteries of f-9 missile

That's 349 batteries, all of f-9 weapons. A ship can't have more f-9 batteries than her hull size in ktons, for a max of 300 f-9 batteries. So by cutting the lasers, energy wpns, and sand to f-7, I can get everything to fit and even add one more repulsor bay.

Here's the stats:
Ship: Lurenti-X
Class: BT15-Lurenti-X
Type: Battle Tender
Architect: Osmanski
Tech Level: 15

USP
         BT-T7627J4-079909-77999-L MCr 194,875.150 300 KTons
Bat Bear             X   6 CCCCW   Crew: 2630
Bat                  Z   A LLLLY   TL: 15

Cargo: 1,349.000 Low: 1100 Fuel: 201,000.000 EP: 21,000.000 Agility: 2 Marines: 100
Craft: 200 x 50T Heavy Fighter
Fuel Treatment: On Board Fuel Purification
Substitutions: W = 120 X = 36 Y = 200 Z = 60

Architects Fee: MCr 1,808.752   Cost in Quantity: MCr 158,700.120

Detailed Description

HULL
300,000.000 tons standard, 4,200,000.000 cubic meters, Dispersed Structure Configuration

CREW
194 Officers, 2136 Ratings, 200 Pilots, 100 Marines

ENGINEERING
Jump-6, 2G Manuever, Power plant-7, 21,000.000 EP, Agility 2

AVIONICS
Bridge, Model/9fib Computer

HARDPOINTS
50 100-ton bays, 200 50-ton bays, 500 Hardpoints

ARMAMENT
20 100-ton Meson Bays (Factor-9), 20 100-ton Particle Accelerator Bays (Factor-9), 200 50-ton Missile Bays (Factor-9), 100 Triple Beam Laser Turrets organised into 20 Batteries (Factor-7), 100 Dual Fusion Gun Turrets organised into 20 Batteries (Factor-7)

DEFENCES
10 100-ton Repulsor Bays (Factor-9), 300 Triple Sandcaster Turrets organised into 60 Batteries (Factor-7), Nuclear Damper (Factor-9), Meson Screen (Factor-9)

CRAFT
200 50.000 ton Heavy Fighters (Crew of 2, Cost of MCr 70.000)

FUEL
201,000.000 Tons Fuel (6 parsecs jump and 28 days endurance)
No Fuel Scoops, On Board Fuel Purification Plant

MISCELLANEOUS
1,350.0 Staterooms, 1100 Low Berths, 1100 Low Passengers, 1,349.000 Tons Cargo

USER DEFINED COMPONENTS
None

COST
MCr 182,683.902 Singly (incl. Architects fees of MCr 1,808.752), MCr 144,700.120 in Quantity, plus MCr 14,000.000 of Carried Craft

CONSTRUCTION TIME
219 Weeks Singly, 175 Weeks in Quantity

COMMENTS

 

[Jeffr0]

In a TCS game you would, provided the referee let you (I can easily imagine a referee simply refusing to accept a 19,900T design). But you're not designing the Nolikan. In-universe some Imperial naval architect did; meta some GDW employee did (and made a pig's breakfast of it). But either way the Nolikan is, according to GDW a 20,000T design, not a 19,900T design. It's the same thing with upgrading the agility. An agility-1 Lurenti may be a sub-optimal design, but so what? Technical designers sometimes produce sub-optimal designs.

Well... it all depends on what things you're comfortable hand waving... and what things you want consistent.

It would be nice to have a set of High Guard 2e designs that are (a) based on the canonical archetypes and that (b) would not be instant dog meat in a TCS game. The idea would be to intentionally use the ship design system *and* the combat rules to drive what populates your TU in the same way that some folks use a trade/economic model to do something similar in a GURPS Far Trader type game.

I personally like having Daggers and Aristinas cruising around in my star systems.... I know what they're capable of... what their weaknesses are... and what their "personalities" are like based on their actions in the various Tournament games. YMMV, of course, but I enjoy that much more than coming up with contorted explanations of what the Kinunir is and what its role is....

To have good designs that make sense in a "real" combat game... *and* that honor the canon that we have (however flawed) would be even better.

Thanks for working on this, Hal.

 

[rancke]

COMMENTS

Looks very good. It's a real pity that the HG/2e rules mandates wasting 7% of the tonnage on something that's completely useless, but that's a flaw in the rules.

How is it you calculate agility? It's been so long since I've designed HG ships, and my books are temporarily AWOL.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Well... it all depends on what things you're comfortable hand waving... and what things you want consistent.

I want the background universe to be consistent. I don't mind the rules simplifying some things for the sake of playability (indeed, I approve of it), but when that leads inconsistencies in the background, I want the rules to be taken for simplifications, not the universe simplified to match the rules.

In the "real" universe there's a Lurenti design, and if the design according to HG differs from the design according to MT differs from the design according to TNE differs from the design according to GT, then I think it's much more likely that they're ALL distortions of the "real" Lurenti -- just slightly different distortions. I most certainly don't want to believe that the "real" design is optimized for the purpose of winning a TCS tournament.


Hans

 

[The Oz]

Looks very good. It's a real pity that the HG/2e rules mandates wasting 7% of the tonnage on something that's completely useless, but that's a flaw in the rules.

How is it you calculate agility? It's been so long since I've designed HG ships, and my books are temporarily AWOL.


Hans

I just let HGS (thanks, Andrew!) do the calculations. But I'm sure Andrew's software does it correctly by calculating how many EPs are left after everything else is powered and doing the old Agility = leftoverEP/0.01 Mass of ship

 

[The Oz]

By the way, did anyone else notice that the Lurenti in SMC has only enough fuel for J-2? A 300,000ton ship with just 75,000 tons of fuel?

 

[Jeffr0]

I want the background universe to be consistent.

(This seems to be the same argument that we have in every thread.)

Right. And I want a universe that is consistent with with a set of more-or-less "official" game rules.... Ships that actually follow the rules of the best-of-breed design system would be a plus-- as would ship designs that are derived from an as-yet-to-be-developed operational level Traveller war game.

In the "real" universe there's a Lurenti design, and if the design according to HG differs from the design according to MT differs from the design according to TNE differs from the design according to GT, then I think it's much more likely that they're ALL distortions of the "real" Lurenti -- just slightly different distortions.

Right. Of course. This is where we always differ. I'd like to take the game as being the premise for whatever "reality" I develop and/or toy with. You work from a completely different starting point. This is some sort of gamist vs. simulationist type thing I guess.

 

[far-trader]

Once more into the breach eh...

Hello Folks,
I started messing around with HGS and trying to build a Lurenti class Battle Rider carrier from THE SPINWARD MARCHES CAMPAIGN...

Again? (see link below) Didn't you learn your lesson last time o:



http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=3637

For what it's worth I still haven't come across my own notes/fixes since the last time. I'm starting to wonder if I never finished them because of the gross errors. It's practically so bad (the original comedy of errors that should be a ship design) that the only way to begin is from scratch. There's no real way to recreate the Lurenti to those messed up stats. Where do you even begin? Try to fit it all into 300Ktons? Try to do it all for the listed price?! Try to parse what's meant by the battery notes... 100% batteries bearing on a hull that size!? K=20, Y=60, and Z=200?! When HG says L=20 (obviously the skip "I" wasn't applied) and W=30?

It'd be nice to see the correct design but as it stands there is almost* no possible way to reverse engineer this one.

* and I only include the "almost" to cover the possible exceptions of creative interpretation, like drop tanks for the jump fuel

 

[far-trader]

...why not?

Apparently in the mood for a little mental self flagellation I figured what the heck, let's try it (again, or whatever)...

This is imo the best approximation of the Lurenti achievable with HGS. One could come closer (to everything except that ridiculous, obvious mistake, price), maybe, doing it by hand. But that's tedious...

Ship: Lurenti
Class: Lurenti
Type: Battle Carrier
Architect: Dan "far-trader" Burns
Tech Level: 15

USP
         CB-T7425J4-099909-99999-0 MCr 139,776.560 300 KTons
Bat Bear             K   5 BBBBL   Crew: 2123
Bat                  Y   9 KKKKZ   TL: 15

Cargo: 500.000 Frozen Watch Fuel: 75,000.000 EP: 15,000.000 Agility: 1 Marines: 76
Craft: 7 x 20000T Nolikian class Battle Rider, 200 x 50T Sylean class Heavy Fighter
Fuel Treatment: On Board Fuel Purification
Backups: 1 x Model/9fib Computer 1 x Bridge
Substitutions: Y = 32 Z = 33

Architects Fee: MCr 1,397.766   Cost in Quantity: MCr 111,821.248


Detailed Description

HULL
300,000.000 tons standard, 4,200,000.000 cubic meters, Dispersed Structure Configuration

CREW
145 Officers, 1902 Ratings, 76 Marines

ENGINEERING
Jump-4, 2G Maneuver, Power plant-5, 15,000.000 EP, Agility 1

AVIONICS
Bridge, Model/9fib Computer
1 Backup Bridge, 1 Model/9fib Backup Computer

HARDPOINTS
47 100-ton bays, 33 50-ton bays, 700 Hardpoints

ARMAMENT
19 100-ton Meson Bays (Factor-9), 19 100-ton Particle Accelerator Bays (Factor-9), 33 50-ton Missile Bays (Factor-9), 190 Triple Beam Laser Turrets organized into 19 Batteries (Factor-9), 190 Dual Fusion Gun Turrets organized into 19 Batteries (Factor-9)

DEFENSES
9 100-ton Repulsor Bays (Factor-9), 320 Triple Sandcaster Turrets organized into 32 Batteries (Factor-9), Nuclear Damper (Factor-9), Meson Screen (Factor-9)

CRAFT
7 20,000.000 ton Nolikian class Battle Riders (Crew of 0, Cost of MCr 0.000), 200 50.000 ton Sylean class Heavy Fighters (Crew of 2, Cost of MCr 0.000)

FUEL
75,000.000 Tons Fuel (2 parsecs jump and 28 days endurance)
No Fuel Scoops, On Board Fuel Purification Plant, 120,000.000 ton drop tanks

MISCELLANEOUS
2,123.0 Staterooms, 1062 Low Berths, 500.000 Tons Cargo

USER DEFINED COMPONENTS
Backup Bridge and Computer routinely serve as Squadron Commodore's CNC elements

COST
MCr 141,174.326 Singly (incl. Architects fees of MCr 1,397.766), MCr 111,821.248 in Quantity

CONSTRUCTION TIME
219 Weeks Singly, 175 Weeks in Quantity

COMMENTS

Single occupancy of all staterooms in normal operations allows additional personnel to be carried without penalty. Such personnel typically include the Squadron Commodore and staff and occassionally the crew of the Nolikian's carried, though they generally remain aboard their own ships.

Fuel aboard is sufficient for 4 weeks and 2 parsecs, the carrier makes use of drop tanks, typically 4 parsecs worth, to achieve the full J4 rating and to allow jumping into battle areas from full range while allowing a jump out option.

Wilderness refueling is done by the pressing the Nolikian's into skimming service and processing aboard, or by fleet tanker elements utilizing reusable drop tanks.



Architects Fee: MCr 1,397.766   Cost in Quantity: MCr 111,821.248

So, what did I do to make it "work", nearly?

I used up a lot excess tonnage by going single stateroom occupancy instead of double. It's a cushy assignment, except when the ship is pressed into nearly doubling the crew carried, which is possible. Sometimes it's by serving as evac for another Lurenti class, sometimes it's by serving as a troop transport in extremis, and sometimes it's by serving as a training ship (which is the worst case scenario ).

I fudged the troops down (originally to about 40, aiming for 50) to get to the right crew number. But then I upped it to use up the last excess tonnage (to get to the 500tons cargo).

The crew total comes out higher but the lowberths comes out lower. It works overall imo.

EDIT ADDENDUM: Also, a small HGS bug, it substituted Y=33 and Z=32 (backwards of the way it should be) which I changed in the posting here.

 

[rancke]

Right. And I want a universe that is consistent with with a set of more-or-less "official" game rules....

So do I. But I don't think that you're going to get a self-consistent universe -- not one that resembles the Real Universe any more than remotely, that is -- if you assume that the universe is as simple as game rules have to be in order to work. Do you believe that a ship consumes a full load of fuel every 28 days regardless of whether it spends some of that time in jump or not, whether it maneuvers at full tilt for the entire period or remains stationary, whether it fires its weapons non-stop or not at all? That's what the game rule says, but I don't believe that this is anywhere close to realistic.

Edit: Other examples of game rules that imply really, really odd and/or inconsistent setting details available upon request.

Ships that actually follow the rules of the best-of-breed design system would be a plus--

And if the best available design system is flawed, what then?

...as would ship designs that are derived from an as-yet-to-be-developed operational level Traveller war game.

I agree completely. But what do you propose we do in the meantime while we wait for one to be developed?

In the "real" universe there's a Lurenti design, and if the design according to HG differs from the design according to MT differs from the design according to TNE differs from the design according to GT, then I think it's much more likely that they're ALL distortions of the "real" Lurenti -- just slightly different distortions.

Right. Of course. This is where we always differ. I'd like to take the game as being the premise for whatever "reality" I develop and/or toy with. You work from a completely different starting point. This is some sort of gamist vs. simulationist type thing I guess.

Which game, Jeff? There are more than one, and I just don't see the upside to ignoring everything that has been written about the OTU since MT.

I also like to take the game as being the foundation. I just think that if you want the game setting to be realistic, you have to assume that game rules bears the same relationship to the setting as the rules of a historical game does to its real life historical setting.

Is there anything inconsistent or unreasonable about such an assumption? I submit that there is not. Is there anything inconsistent and unreasonable about the assumption that the game universe actually is as simple as the rules describe? I submit that there is.


Hans