Citizens of the Imperium

Citizens of the Imperium (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/index.php)
-   MegaTraveller (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/forumdisplay.php?f=58)
-   -   Fixing Joe Fugate's "MegaTraveller Ship Design Example" (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=11314)

DonM January 12th, 2007 02:23 AM

Yes, it's extremely well written, and yes, it's got severe problems.

I've started in to trying to fix it, preserving as much as possible, by adding in other items Joe Fugate wrote, mostly comments in the Traveller Q&A articles of TD 19 and 21.

However, for the life of me, I'm stumped on one thing: For the frozen watch, he calculates "5", and then multiplies it by 88. Where's the 88 come from? Any ideas? :confused:

DonM January 12th, 2007 02:23 AM

Yes, it's extremely well written, and yes, it's got severe problems.

I've started in to trying to fix it, preserving as much as possible, by adding in other items Joe Fugate wrote, mostly comments in the Traveller Q&A articles of TD 19 and 21.

However, for the life of me, I'm stumped on one thing: For the frozen watch, he calculates "5", and then multiplies it by 88. Where's the 88 come from? Any ideas? :confused:

DonM January 12th, 2007 02:23 AM

Yes, it's extremely well written, and yes, it's got severe problems.

I've started in to trying to fix it, preserving as much as possible, by adding in other items Joe Fugate wrote, mostly comments in the Traveller Q&A articles of TD 19 and 21.

However, for the life of me, I'm stumped on one thing: For the frozen watch, he calculates "5", and then multiplies it by 88. Where's the 88 come from? Any ideas? :confused:

sfchbryan January 14th, 2007 12:03 PM

Yet another error.

The 88 segments should be 75 segments.

The text states that there are 75 crew segments.

Of course, this now throws off the frozen watch calculations.

5 crewmen x 75 segments = 375 frozen watch, not 440.

Which now throws off the medical section.

Medical: (359/120) + (375/20) = 22 not 25.

kaladorn January 14th, 2007 09:17 PM

Since it didn't work, we can expect some changes in a corrected version.

kaladorn January 14th, 2007 09:17 PM

Since it didn't work, we can expect some changes in a corrected version.

kaladorn January 14th, 2007 09:17 PM

Since it didn't work, we can expect some changes in a corrected version.

DonM January 16th, 2007 02:43 PM

Actually, I've got a corrected version... (I think...)

And Harry -- I already caught that error.

I'll see about posting it up after I finish cleaning up the "article".

DonM January 16th, 2007 02:43 PM

Actually, I've got a corrected version... (I think...)

And Harry -- I already caught that error.

I'll see about posting it up after I finish cleaning up the "article".

DonM January 16th, 2007 02:43 PM

Actually, I've got a corrected version... (I think...)

And Harry -- I already caught that error.

I'll see about posting it up after I finish cleaning up the "article".

DonM January 16th, 2007 10:17 PM

OK, now posted to my website, and available at:

http://winterwar.prairienet.org/dmck...ignExample.pdf

A first draft (v1.89) attempt to make this article work... critiques and criticisms welcome.

DonM January 16th, 2007 10:17 PM

OK, now posted to my website, and available at:

http://winterwar.prairienet.org/dmck...ignExample.pdf

A first draft (v1.89) attempt to make this article work... critiques and criticisms welcome.

DonM January 16th, 2007 10:17 PM

OK, now posted to my website, and available at:

http://winterwar.prairienet.org/dmck...ignExample.pdf

A first draft (v1.89) attempt to make this article work... critiques and criticisms welcome.

Swiftbrook January 16th, 2007 10:33 PM

I thought that the contents of the Travellers' Digest magazines was copywritted and that you couldn't post what you've posted. Hope I'm wrong.

-Swiftbrook

Swiftbrook January 16th, 2007 10:33 PM

I thought that the contents of the Travellers' Digest magazines was copywritted and that you couldn't post what you've posted. Hope I'm wrong.

-Swiftbrook

Swiftbrook January 16th, 2007 10:33 PM

I thought that the contents of the Travellers' Digest magazines was copywritted and that you couldn't post what you've posted. Hope I'm wrong.

-Swiftbrook

kaladorn January 17th, 2007 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Swiftbrook:
I thought that the contents of the Travellers' Digest magazines was copywritted and that you couldn't post what you've posted. Hope I'm wrong.

-Swiftbrook

I wonder how far something like fair use extends here... critical review would seem to be a valid use otherwise you could never publish a critique. Now, is going through and correcting the errors in an original work a critique? I'd say so.

Now, can one publish it as it appears here, more or less as original with different numbers? Or does on just have to do the nearly unintelligible thing and say "on page 3 of the article, line six, where it lists the EMS weight, the figure xxx.xxx needs replaced with yyy.yyy"? I suspect that would be totally free and clear of any issues, but clear as mud. This version of what I would call a critique is a bit more dubious, but to stretch a point, I'd still call it a fair use. (But IANAL at all... nor am I familiar with the pertinent law in the pertinent jurisdictions...)

kaladorn January 17th, 2007 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Swiftbrook:
I thought that the contents of the Travellers' Digest magazines was copywritted and that you couldn't post what you've posted. Hope I'm wrong.

-Swiftbrook

I wonder how far something like fair use extends here... critical review would seem to be a valid use otherwise you could never publish a critique. Now, is going through and correcting the errors in an original work a critique? I'd say so.

Now, can one publish it as it appears here, more or less as original with different numbers? Or does on just have to do the nearly unintelligible thing and say "on page 3 of the article, line six, where it lists the EMS weight, the figure xxx.xxx needs replaced with yyy.yyy"? I suspect that would be totally free and clear of any issues, but clear as mud. This version of what I would call a critique is a bit more dubious, but to stretch a point, I'd still call it a fair use. (But IANAL at all... nor am I familiar with the pertinent law in the pertinent jurisdictions...)

kaladorn January 17th, 2007 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Swiftbrook:
I thought that the contents of the Travellers' Digest magazines was copywritted and that you couldn't post what you've posted. Hope I'm wrong.

-Swiftbrook

I wonder how far something like fair use extends here... critical review would seem to be a valid use otherwise you could never publish a critique. Now, is going through and correcting the errors in an original work a critique? I'd say so.

Now, can one publish it as it appears here, more or less as original with different numbers? Or does on just have to do the nearly unintelligible thing and say "on page 3 of the article, line six, where it lists the EMS weight, the figure xxx.xxx needs replaced with yyy.yyy"? I suspect that would be totally free and clear of any issues, but clear as mud. This version of what I would call a critique is a bit more dubious, but to stretch a point, I'd still call it a fair use. (But IANAL at all... nor am I familiar with the pertinent law in the pertinent jurisdictions...)

DonM January 17th, 2007 01:14 AM

Actually, my intention, once this forum has pointed out any glaring errors, is to ask Mr. Fugate for his formal permission. I have Mr. Sanger's permission. I suppose I should note that in the file [img]smile.gif[/img]

While the copyright is Roger's, the IP (in my mind) remains Mr. Fugate's.

Yes, I get along with Roger Sanger. I may disagree with him from time to time, but I've always been polite about it. And I've never delved into certain events -- it distracts from gaming.

So, here's the purpose -- fix the article so that it works, and get the legitimate permission of all involved.

I'm asking this forum to tweak it. And I'll ignore further postings on copyright (and I'll add something to the file about Roger saying I can... I have that "reference" around here somewhere...).

DonM January 17th, 2007 01:14 AM

Actually, my intention, once this forum has pointed out any glaring errors, is to ask Mr. Fugate for his formal permission. I have Mr. Sanger's permission. I suppose I should note that in the file [img]smile.gif[/img]

While the copyright is Roger's, the IP (in my mind) remains Mr. Fugate's.

Yes, I get along with Roger Sanger. I may disagree with him from time to time, but I've always been polite about it. And I've never delved into certain events -- it distracts from gaming.

So, here's the purpose -- fix the article so that it works, and get the legitimate permission of all involved.

I'm asking this forum to tweak it. And I'll ignore further postings on copyright (and I'll add something to the file about Roger saying I can... I have that "reference" around here somewhere...).

DonM January 17th, 2007 01:14 AM

Actually, my intention, once this forum has pointed out any glaring errors, is to ask Mr. Fugate for his formal permission. I have Mr. Sanger's permission. I suppose I should note that in the file [img]smile.gif[/img]

While the copyright is Roger's, the IP (in my mind) remains Mr. Fugate's.

Yes, I get along with Roger Sanger. I may disagree with him from time to time, but I've always been polite about it. And I've never delved into certain events -- it distracts from gaming.

So, here's the purpose -- fix the article so that it works, and get the legitimate permission of all involved.

I'm asking this forum to tweak it. And I'll ignore further postings on copyright (and I'll add something to the file about Roger saying I can... I have that "reference" around here somewhere...).

DonM January 17th, 2007 12:16 PM

Wow... that was quick. Joe Fugate has reviewed the work and given his permission as well, and I found the "joint copyright" statement I worked out with Roger.

So... what's wrong with the redone article?

DonM January 17th, 2007 12:16 PM

Wow... that was quick. Joe Fugate has reviewed the work and given his permission as well, and I found the "joint copyright" statement I worked out with Roger.

So... what's wrong with the redone article?

DonM January 17th, 2007 12:16 PM

Wow... that was quick. Joe Fugate has reviewed the work and given his permission as well, and I found the "joint copyright" statement I worked out with Roger.

So... what's wrong with the redone article?

DonM January 19th, 2007 11:55 AM

I've found one problem: Meson Screens. I was drawn to this issue by reviewing notes from the TML in 1990, and sure enough, it's huge.

Any other issues?

DonM January 19th, 2007 11:55 AM

I've found one problem: Meson Screens. I was drawn to this issue by reviewing notes from the TML in 1990, and sure enough, it's huge.

Any other issues?

DonM January 19th, 2007 11:55 AM

I've found one problem: Meson Screens. I was drawn to this issue by reviewing notes from the TML in 1990, and sure enough, it's huge.

Any other issues?

Renard Ruche January 24th, 2007 11:15 AM

Hello All:

I was using the downloaded article last night while designing a ship (just to see what I had been doing wrong!), and I think I came across an error in the Weapons example.

The article states that the 'Regal' has 100 missle turrets, each with three launchers, giving us 300 launchers total. Now, in the calculations example, the Volume is calculated by multiplying 300x13.5. This didn't seem right, so I went to the rules...on page 73 of the Ref's Manual, it pretty clearly states that each Missle Turret is 13.5 kl, and can hold up to 3 launchers. So...shouldn't the calculation example have used 100x13.5 for Volume calcs? Did I miss something?

Also, the same section refers to the Missle UCP table on page 75. However, the table is at the top of page 73.

Renard Ruche January 24th, 2007 11:15 AM

Hello All:

I was using the downloaded article last night while designing a ship (just to see what I had been doing wrong!), and I think I came across an error in the Weapons example.

The article states that the 'Regal' has 100 missle turrets, each with three launchers, giving us 300 launchers total. Now, in the calculations example, the Volume is calculated by multiplying 300x13.5. This didn't seem right, so I went to the rules...on page 73 of the Ref's Manual, it pretty clearly states that each Missle Turret is 13.5 kl, and can hold up to 3 launchers. So...shouldn't the calculation example have used 100x13.5 for Volume calcs? Did I miss something?

Also, the same section refers to the Missle UCP table on page 75. However, the table is at the top of page 73.

Renard Ruche January 24th, 2007 11:15 AM

Hello All:

I was using the downloaded article last night while designing a ship (just to see what I had been doing wrong!), and I think I came across an error in the Weapons example.

The article states that the 'Regal' has 100 missle turrets, each with three launchers, giving us 300 launchers total. Now, in the calculations example, the Volume is calculated by multiplying 300x13.5. This didn't seem right, so I went to the rules...on page 73 of the Ref's Manual, it pretty clearly states that each Missle Turret is 13.5 kl, and can hold up to 3 launchers. So...shouldn't the calculation example have used 100x13.5 for Volume calcs? Did I miss something?

Also, the same section refers to the Missle UCP table on page 75. However, the table is at the top of page 73.

kaladorn January 24th, 2007 01:06 PM

I believe you have the right of it, regarding single, double or triple turrets. Typically 1 dTon is set aside for the turret, regardless of weapons fit. So 300 launchers arrayed into 100 turrets is 100 dTons.

kaladorn January 24th, 2007 01:06 PM

I believe you have the right of it, regarding single, double or triple turrets. Typically 1 dTon is set aside for the turret, regardless of weapons fit. So 300 launchers arrayed into 100 turrets is 100 dTons.

kaladorn January 24th, 2007 01:06 PM

I believe you have the right of it, regarding single, double or triple turrets. Typically 1 dTon is set aside for the turret, regardless of weapons fit. So 300 launchers arrayed into 100 turrets is 100 dTons.

DonM January 24th, 2007 10:24 PM

I found the turret problem earlier. I had not even thought of verifying the page numbers. I figured that at least the page numbers would be right... :(

I'm planning on posting a fixed version shortly; it's planning time for Winter War, and that's taking up my free moments [img]tongue.gif[/img]

DonM January 24th, 2007 10:24 PM

I found the turret problem earlier. I had not even thought of verifying the page numbers. I figured that at least the page numbers would be right... :(

I'm planning on posting a fixed version shortly; it's planning time for Winter War, and that's taking up my free moments [img]tongue.gif[/img]

DonM January 24th, 2007 10:24 PM

I found the turret problem earlier. I had not even thought of verifying the page numbers. I figured that at least the page numbers would be right... :(

I'm planning on posting a fixed version shortly; it's planning time for Winter War, and that's taking up my free moments [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Renard Ruche January 25th, 2007 08:07 PM

And anonther thing... [img]smile.gif[/img]

Upon further reading, it seems that I have been computing Power Plant volume incorrectly. I have always divided the Power needed by the Size Multi., then the Output Power to get a number of 'units. Apparently, I should have stopped there, but instead, went ahead and multplied the units by the Minimum Size (i.e. TL 12 Min Size is .25) to get my final power plant size. Gonna have to go back and review some past designs...

Renard Ruche January 25th, 2007 08:07 PM

And anonther thing... [img]smile.gif[/img]

Upon further reading, it seems that I have been computing Power Plant volume incorrectly. I have always divided the Power needed by the Size Multi., then the Output Power to get a number of 'units. Apparently, I should have stopped there, but instead, went ahead and multplied the units by the Minimum Size (i.e. TL 12 Min Size is .25) to get my final power plant size. Gonna have to go back and review some past designs...

Renard Ruche January 25th, 2007 08:07 PM

And anonther thing... [img]smile.gif[/img]

Upon further reading, it seems that I have been computing Power Plant volume incorrectly. I have always divided the Power needed by the Size Multi., then the Output Power to get a number of 'units. Apparently, I should have stopped there, but instead, went ahead and multplied the units by the Minimum Size (i.e. TL 12 Min Size is .25) to get my final power plant size. Gonna have to go back and review some past designs...

DonM February 3rd, 2007 12:44 AM

Ok... I've got a new version of this project posted, version 1.99. Please review and comment.

DonM February 3rd, 2007 12:44 AM

Ok... I've got a new version of this project posted, version 1.99. Please review and comment.

DonM February 3rd, 2007 12:44 AM

Ok... I've got a new version of this project posted, version 1.99. Please review and comment.

sfchbryan February 6th, 2007 01:38 AM

I like it. It walks anyone through the entire process from soup to nuts.

There is only one glaring error.

The Regal isn't a battlecruiser anymore.

It has battleship armament, but doesn't have the speed of a cruiser, nor does it have any extended endurance.

This ship can not chase down enemy cruisers, nor can it even keep up with the battleline. The only ships it can keep up with are the logistics ships, the carriers, and the BM-15, which can protect itself, even if it would never get to the battle.

This shows the two biggest problems with the large ships in MT.

1. None of them appear to have been designed for a purpose. I think writer of FSOTSI just sat down, arbitrarily picked tonnages, and stuck all the weapons on that they could.

2. None of the large CT ships could make the conversion without major surgery. Which probably explains why none of the supplement 9 ships showed up in FSOTSI.

I would recommend that one first look at the capabilities we want, then start to make changes. Do we care if the Tigress is 500k or do we want a large DN that has the same capabilities as a Tigress.

On to our example.

Historically, The battlecruiser was a ship with battleship armament, cruiser speed and armor. Which would cause major issues when an admiral would put them in the battle line; or to quote one admiral about battlecruisers:

"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today." - ADM Beatty - after his 3rd BC blew up at Jutland.

Would it not make more sense to start with the following capabilities and build around them:

J4
4G - or possibly 5G
Agility 0 or 1
S meson spinal mount

This ship will keep up with the fleet both strategically (J4) and tactically (4G). It has the capability to be the "eyes" of the fleet. With the S meson spinal mount, it can make life very unpleasant for any cruisers that show up. (Or can it? A CA 14 also has J4, M4, a type S PA, which doesnt have the range modifier that the meson gun does and has almost twice the armor. And with the Regal only having an Armor Value of 43, she could do a Hood imitation.)

Well, what should be dumped to make room for the drives?

Let's start with the secondary armament. What is the purpose? It isn't just to fill up hardpoints.

I would significantly reduce the secondary armament. Dropping the 100 ton PA will get 150K back in power and 13.5K in volume. I would also drop the repulsors (12.5K power, 6.75K in volume) I would keep the fusion guns to deal with small fry and all three types of turrets. They can deal with both fighters and missiles that are thrown their way.

If we go for 24 hours of magazine space, why not go for 24 hours of power for all weapons? This would reduce the power consumption for the spinal mount from 300K to 10K. Actually, if you do this for all energy weapons, power consumption is reduced to 18,786K. On the other hand, I still want 4G for maneuver and J4, so I would be reducing the secondary armament.

The same can be done for the screens, or we could also look into the power optimized nuclear dampers.

If one figures on weapon and screen power per day, the design possibilities really open up.

Other power and space saving ideas:
If this ship is part of the fleet, do we really need a frozen watch when one can be put on the logistic ships, i.e. the TM series, the TV series and the TT series? If the ship is moves with the fleet, do you really need a fuel purifier? If we do, what is the purpose of the entire fleet tanker series?

On the other hand, it simply may not be possible to build a ship like this on 75K tons. If so, let's just adjust the size to fit the armament and speeds listed for the Regal. This would probably mean that it would grow to almost the size of a battleship. Hmm...that would be just like every BC from the Invincible and the Von Der Tann to the Hood.

Or on the third hand how about adjusting the BL series of ships? The seem to be designed to be a "Fast Wing" for fleets and fewer things would need to be changed (and the extra 125k tons of space wouldn't hurt.)

Options, Options......

This is starting to look like that design philosophy article that Mr. Fugate promised us for a later edition of Traveller's Digest.

DonM February 6th, 2007 03:31 PM

All I committed to was fixing the errors in the article; I would argue that the original HG design of the Regal was odd, but that's neither here nor there.

I've tried to remain true to the article as printed, and how the original author described and walked through each step.

What you describe is actually a true rewrite of FSotSI; if we want to discuss that, let's move topics, as I'd prefer to keep this focused on the original article.

DonM February 6th, 2007 03:31 PM

All I committed to was fixing the errors in the article; I would argue that the original HG design of the Regal was odd, but that's neither here nor there.

I've tried to remain true to the article as printed, and how the original author described and walked through each step.

What you describe is actually a true rewrite of FSotSI; if we want to discuss that, let's move topics, as I'd prefer to keep this focused on the original article.

DonM February 6th, 2007 03:31 PM

All I committed to was fixing the errors in the article; I would argue that the original HG design of the Regal was odd, but that's neither here nor there.

I've tried to remain true to the article as printed, and how the original author described and walked through each step.

What you describe is actually a true rewrite of FSotSI; if we want to discuss that, let's move topics, as I'd prefer to keep this focused on the original article.

sfchbryan February 6th, 2007 07:04 PM

I agree whole heartedly. My ramblings are what happens when I type late at night without caffine.

DonM February 6th, 2007 09:37 PM

Harry - I half expected to see a new topic out here on FSoSI fixes ;)

Anyway, I've noted a couple of formatting issues, and am wondering if anyone else has seen a goof or something with the current pdf?

DonM February 6th, 2007 09:37 PM

Harry - I half expected to see a new topic out here on FSoSI fixes ;)

Anyway, I've noted a couple of formatting issues, and am wondering if anyone else has seen a goof or something with the current pdf?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.