Your Lurenti version

[Hal]

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

Hi Dan,
The use of Drop tanks, while not mentioned in the original ship's specs, does seem to make it possible for the Lurenti to manage to carry 7 battle riders and do all the rest that you've set out to do.

The problem is, with a jump-2 configuration without the jump drives, means that the ship is vulnerable to the lack of drop-tank availability. This lack, whether due to the tanks not being available at the starport that the ship is heading out towards, or due to the fact that the enemy star system isn't inclined to help provide drop tanks - is perhaps one of the more glaring problems with the use of drop tanks.

None the less, you have hit upon a solution (or so it seems) that permits ships to carry a larger payload. My one uneasy quibble is - "Why didn't GDW design more craft with drop tanks?" THe only other official design I can recall seeing is the Gazelle class ships. All others make do without drop tanks despite it being introduced in High Guard and JTAS news flashes.

Thank you for showing that possibility. It does work out as "legal" and does work out reasonably well overall

 

[rancke]

The use of Drop tanks, while not mentioned in the original ship's specs, does seem to make it possible for the Lurenti to manage to carry 7 battle riders and do all the rest that you've set out to do.

What was wrong with the one The Oz posted?

None the less, you have hit upon a solution (or so it seems) that permits ships to carry a larger payload. My one uneasy quibble is - "Why didn't GDW design more craft with drop tanks?" THe only other official design I can recall seeing is the Gazelle class ships. All others make do without drop tanks despite it being introduced in High Guard and JTAS news flashes.

That's a very good question, and one that goes directly to the argument I've been having with Jeff. According to the rules, drop tanks should be used more. But that's because the rules simplify ship construction by not including logistical concerns that whould be very much part of the design specifications in the "real" universe. Logistically, it's far easier to achieve decent coverage of the Imperial Navy's area of operation with a handful of 50T drop tanks for Gazelles than it is to achieve coverage of multi-thousand T drop tanks for major vessels.

Also, the rules doesn't take historical factors into account (drop tank capacitors weren't invented until a few decades before the Classic Era begins).

And I'm not sure if this would apply to a drop tank equipped Lurenti, but ISTR that the operational doctrine for Gazelles is that they don't drop their drop tanks during normal routine operation; it's just an extra capability for exceptional circumstances. If a ship needs to drop its drop tanks in order to perform its routine duties, it becomes much more of a logistical problem than a ship that only needs new drop tanks once in a blue moon.

But the rules don't mention that sort of concerns at all. Does that mean that the in-universe naval architect who designs a ship don't need to either?


Hans

 

[rancke]

There's no real way to recreate the Lurenti to those messed up stats. Where do you even begin?

Triage. List the things that a design absolutely must fulfil, the thing it would be nice to keep, the things it wouldn't hurt to lose, and the things it would be a plus to lose. (that would be quadriage, really ).

Partial suggestions:

Musts:

The Lurenti is a carrier that carries seven Nolikans.
The Nolikans are 20,000 T battleriders.
The 154th is either a CruRon with seven cruiser-sized riders or a BatRon with several Lurentis
The Lurenti is capable of jump-4 while carrying all seven riders.
The Lurenti carries some secondary craft suitable for use as ship's boats.

'Would-be-nice's:

The Lurenti is a 300,000T dispersed structure.
The Lurenti is capable of Maneuver 2.
The Lurenti has an agility of 1.
The Lurenti is heavily armed and armored.
The Lurenti is fitted with an extensive electronics and communication suite for the squadron commodore.
Armament as described.

'Who cares'es:

Costs are the same as listed.

'Get rid off's:

All batteries bearing.
Power plant fuel tankage :devil:.


Hans

 

[far-trader]

The problem is, with a jump-2 configuration without the jump drives, means that the ship is vulnerable to the lack of drop-tank availability. This lack, whether due to the tanks not being available at the starport that the ship is heading out towards, or due to the fact that the enemy star system isn't inclined to help provide drop tanks - is perhaps one of the more glaring problems with the use of drop tanks.

Agreed, though I think it a nice bit of colour rather than a problem As in a potentially fatal flaw in the design, required by the compromise of getting 7 Nolikians and 200 Syleans into the fight.

None the less, you have hit upon a solution (or so it seems) that permits ships to carry a larger payload. My one uneasy quibble is - "Why didn't GDW design more craft with drop tanks?"

An excellent question. I seem to recall another ship or couple that don't have enough fuel listed for the full jump rating. Maybe the drop tanks have been there all the time but the notes to that effect got left out of the designs?

(

The only other official design I can recall seeing is the Gazelle class ships.

The only official design at all that comes to mind )

That's a very good question, and one that goes directly to the argument I've been having with Jeff. According to the rules, drop tanks should be used more. But that's because the rules simplify ship construction by not including logistical concerns that would be very much part of the design specifications in the "real" universe. Logistically, it's far easier to achieve decent coverage of the Imperial Navy's area of operation with a handful of 50T drop tanks for Gazelles than it is to achieve coverage of multi-thousand T drop tanks for major vessels.

I dunno, given the scope of the IN it doesn't seem a difficult thing.

Also, the rules doesn't take historical factors into account (drop tank capacitors weren't invented until a few decades before the Classic Era begins).

Though, as I've noted in counter argument to this before, HG1 lists drop tank capacitors as required, not HG2. And HG1 if you want to use the capacitors route only requires TL12 and is not artificially tied some eureka moment in time that only happened recently. And that eureka moment is more (or entirely) tied to the commercial usage not military usage, and it bombs big time, leading to a suspicion that commercial usage is still to unsafe but military usage is common and safe. And finally HG2 does not tie the usage to TL at all, and one can quite leagally design and build drop tank ships at TL9 in that, with no special requirements. And it is the design rule set for ships in Classic Traveller.

And I'm not sure if this would apply to a drop tank equipped Lurenti, but ISTR that the operational doctrine for Gazelles is that they don't drop their drop tanks during normal routine operation; it's just an extra capability for exceptional circumstances. If a ship needs to drop its drop tanks in order to perform its routine duties, it becomes much more of a logistical problem than a ship that only needs new drop tanks once in a blue moon.

But the rules don't mention that sort of concerns at all. Does that mean that the in-universe naval architect who designs a ship don't need to either?

Why not? THe Gazelles operate with one type of logistical mode (carry tanks often, use occassionally) while the Lurenti operate with another. Perhaps they do carry the tanks in routine patrol operations and only drop them when they need the full J4 range?. Let's see, they'd make J2 with the tanks retained (using 84,000tons fuel out of the 180,000 carried) easily allowing two consecutive J2 with the tanks retained. And the maneuver drive would still push it at 1G (perhaps why it has 2G in the first place).

Now, if it were me I'd insist on the bridge component being larger (based on the tonnage with the drop tanks) but that doesn't read clearly in the rules, and isn't applied to the Gazelle (cost) iirc, so we can ignore that. Though there is tonnage to spare (I added a full extra bridge that would more than cover that).

 

[far-trader]

Triage.

Excellent suggestion. I think I did that (pretty much by your list) without really realizing it But having a name and structure for it will make it easier.

Quadriage... Even better

And I see you noticed the "and armored" bit too

That, along with some other colour text (like "hangar bays" for the fighters) leads me to think (unless I misremember how HG1 works) that the original design was not a dispersed structure but somewhere along the way it got changed (which could also explain some of the other issues). I thought about playing with the design as a streamlined version but dispersed makes more sense.

 

[rancke]

...the rules simplify ship construction by not including logistical concerns that would be very much part of the design specifications in the "real" universe. Logistically, it's far easier to achieve decent coverage of the Imperial Navy's area of operation with a handful of 50T drop tanks for Gazelles than it is to achieve coverage of multi-thousand T drop tanks for major vessels.

I dunno, given the scope of the IN it doesn't seem a difficult thing.

I think you're getting 'difficult' and 'achievable' mixed up. Could the IN muster the resources to distribute 50,000T drop tanks all over the place if it wanted to? Absolutely! Would it be a lot more trouble than it was worth? That's the question, isn't it? Moving 50T drop tanks means filling up the hold of existing IN transports every now and then, or possibly buying a few more transports if there's absolutely no room. Moving 50,000 T drop tanks means using carriers and fuel tankers. A ship that can move any 50,000 T unit is a carrier. It's going to be more expensive. Why not just build a bigger carrier? Do you really think it would be cheaper to use drop tanks once you factor in the logistics expenses? I sure don't.

Though, as I've noted in counter argument to this before, HG1 lists drop tank capacitors as required, not HG2.

I'm not relying on HG1 to document the existence of capacitors for drop tanks in the OTU. It's mentioned in a TNS newsbrief.

And HG1 if you want to use the capacitors route only requires TL12 and is not artificially tied some eureka moment in time that only happened recently.

Immaterial. Just because something is possible to do at TL X if you know how doesn't mean that you can do it at TL X if you haven't figured out how yet. Historically, they weren't invented until some decades before 1105. As I said, the rules does not pay attention to historical factors. If you design ships for another setting, mayb someone did invent them the second they hit TL12. The Imperium didn't.

And that eureka moment is more (or entirely) tied to the commercial usage not military usage, and it bombs big time, leading to a suspicion that commercial usage is still to unsafe but military usage is common and safe.

Yes, because we all know that inanimate objects are really gung-ho and will perform wonders in military applications that they wouldn't dream of performing in civilian contexts.

Remind me, where in the rules does it distinguish between military-grade drop tanks and civilian-grade drop tanks? What does the rules specify about the risks of using civilian drop tanks?

And finally HG2 does not tie the usage to TL at all, and one can quite leagally design and build drop tank ships at TL9 in that, with no special requirements. And it is the design rule set for ships in Classic Traveller.

My thesis is that the design rules for Classic Traveller are simplifications of a much more complex "reality" (most of the time quite reasonable simplifications, but in a few cases (like the drop tanks) missing crucial information). The "Appeal to Authority" doesn't refute that any more this time than it did the previous times.


Hans

 

[Jeffr0]

My thesis is that the design rules for Classic Traveller are simplifications of a much more complex "reality" (most of the time quite reasonable simplifications, but in a few cases (like the drop tanks) missing crucial information). The "Appeal to Authority" doesn't refute that any more this time than it did the previous times.

The "good enough" point for a heterogenous group of people playing Traveller war games and naval campaigns is different than it is for people writing GURPS books and JTAS articles.

I'm afraid your thesis makes commiting to rules sets for the purpose of playing games practically impossible. Your thesis is workable only if you (a) only play Traveller by yourself or (b) argue about Traveller instead of playing it.

I simply do not want to expect each person that enters my campaign to have a PHD in "Comparative Traveller". One tested, well-played, understood set of rules is sufficient for that in spite of its flaws. If necessary, the flaws can be addressed as part of scenario groundrules and/or operational game development.

 

[rancke]

The "good enough" point for a heterogenous group of people playing Traveller war games and naval campaigns is different than it is for people writing GURPS books and JTAS articles.

The distinction isn't between people playing Traveller and people writing Traveller material, it's between people who'd like the official game setting to be self-consistent and those who don't care. And there's nothing wrong with not caring. One might not use the OTU at all, except to cannibalize it, one might use it but not care about inconsistencies, one may not feel that there are any inconsistencies, one might feel that the rules (whatever rules one happens to think of as the Real Rules) are more important than the setting. Any number of reasons not to give a damn are good enough reasons.

But none of them are good enough reasons to claim that those of us who do care are wrong for caring. If you don't see the point of such debates, just don't engage in them. If you do engage in them, don't use the argument that they're pointless.

I'm afraid your thesis makes commiting to rules sets for the purpose of playing games practically impossible. Your thesis is workable only if you (a) only play Traveller by yourself or (b) argue about Traveller instead of playing it.

Nonsens.

I simply do not want to expect each person that enters my campaign to have a PHD in "Comparative Traveller". One tested, well-played, understood set of rules is sufficient for that in spite of its flaws. If necessary, the flaws can be addressed as part of scenario groundrules and/or operational game development.

And, assuming for purposes of argument that my approach did require each person that entered my campaign to have a PhD in Comparative Traveller, how would that affect your campaign in the slightest degree?


Hans

 

[robject]

Musts: [...]
'Would-be-nice's: [...]

I like lists like these. They clarify.

My distillation:

The Lurenti:
- is a 300,000T dispersed structure
- carries seven 20,000t battleriders and 200 50t fighters
- is Jump-4, Maneuver-2 with carried craft
- has heavy armor
- has around 200 officers, 2000 ratings, 200 pilots, and 100 marines
- has good* missile defenses
- has good* beam defenses
- has good* fusion, PA, meson, and missile offensive weapons
- has no spinal mount
- has a good* damper and screen
- costs around BCr200 including carried craft

* good is relative to what we know about Traveller capital ships.

My 10,000-meter view of the Lurenti is something like:

Lurenti: Advanced Battle Tender-15, J4 M2, 7 Riders*, 200 Heavy Fighters*.

...With the implications that "Tender" implies a certain volume (or volume range) and capability, "Battle" implies a bigger volume with sufficient and specific defenses/offenses, and "Advanced" implies various specific technological improvements. The Riders and Fighters would be classified separately, as would some of the components.

 

[Hal]

I thought dispersed structure (Hull type 7) were forbidden to armor up?

 

[rancke]

I thought dispersed structure (Hull type 7) were forbidden to armor up?

It is, so you can't have both at the same time. You have to chose which is more important.


Hans

 

[Hal]

The only real advantages that Dispersed hulls grant to the ship in question are:

Lower cost for the hull

Ability to launch all carried hulls quickly

No extra volume required to carry onboard carried craft - otherwise craft of 10,000 dtons would require 11,000 to carry

Extra defensive benefit against Meson weapons.


Balanced against that is the option of being able to enter an atmosphere or being able to armor up.

 

[far-trader]

The only real advantages that Dispersed hulls grant to the ship in question are:

<snip>

And they are all excellent advantages for a carrier

Balanced against that is the option of being able to enter an atmosphere or being able to armor up.

Which are really no disadvantages at all for a carrier

Dispersed structure is tailor made for large carriers.