Wiki Discussion Any questions, comments, suggestions, or other discussion of the Traveller Wiki should go here. |

April 18th, 2017, 04:22 PM
|
 |
Noble
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 15,073
Gallery :
0
|
|
At TL15 under HG 81 edition 100,000t is a BB.
I would use every trick in the book to make it the most capable 100.000t BB TL15 can achieve - it relies on the naval base supply network and very large jump tenders.
J6 engine for strategic mobility - but rely on drop tanks until you get to tactical.
Maximum agility, screens and armour.
bridge 2%
j drive 7%
m-d 17%
pp 10%
fuel 30%
AV 15%
mg T 7%
It adds up...
__________________
The beauty of CT LBB1-3 is that the ref is free to make such decisions for themselves.
|

April 18th, 2017, 04:31 PM
|
Citizen: SOC-14
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,437
Gallery :
0
|
|
I'll bite.
What's the projected maximum jump?
|

April 18th, 2017, 04:57 PM
|
 |
Noble
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 15,073
Gallery :
0
|
|
Jump 6 with drop tanks dropped.
Enough fuel reserve for a further two jump 1s or one jump 2.
These things are not cruisers, they are battleships. They rely on naval bases and tenders for strategic mobility.
__________________
The beauty of CT LBB1-3 is that the ref is free to make such decisions for themselves.
|

April 18th, 2017, 05:03 PM
|
Citizen: SOC-13
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Stockholm 🇸🇪
Posts: 894
Gallery :
0
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike wightman
bridge 2%
j drive 7%
m-d 17%
pp 10%
fuel 30%
AV 15%
mg T 7%
|
If you intend to jump with the tanks the jump drive will be a lot bigger... Otherwise it will be a logistical nightmare to provide new tanks every jump.
|

April 18th, 2017, 05:09 PM
|
 |
Noble
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 15,073
Gallery :
0
|
|
That's why the Imperium has naval bases and tenders - to support battleships.
__________________
The beauty of CT LBB1-3 is that the ref is free to make such decisions for themselves.
|

April 18th, 2017, 05:09 PM
|
 |
Knight
|
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike wightman
If it was meant to be the mainstay of the Imperial Navy don't you think it would have got a write up in S:9?
|
If it wasn't, then don't you think it would not have been show in S8? I think I've said all I had to on the topic. YTU and all that.
|

April 18th, 2017, 05:34 PM
|
Citizen: SOC-13
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Stockholm 🇸🇪
Posts: 894
Gallery :
0
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike wightman
That's why the Imperium has naval bases and tenders - to support battleships.
|
If it needs massive tenders to move, why not just use battle riders?
|

April 18th, 2017, 06:41 PM
|
 |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Ghost
If it wasn't, then don't you think it would not have been show in S8? I think I've said all I had to on the topic. YTU and all that.
|
There's 10 years setting difference between S08/S09 and TD9.
Supp 8 is most recent date 1107; TD issue 9 is 144-1116. The Sylea may be constructed post 1107.
__________________
~ Aramis
 | aramis.hostman.us /trav
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!
| Archduke of Sylea (CORE 2118)
Duke of the Third Imperium (SPIN 0534)
Count Terra (SOLO 1827)
Count Gorod (REFT 1302)
Count of the Third Imperium (SPIN 2232)
Viscount of Adabicci (SPIN 1824)
Marquis of the Solomani Rim (SOLO 0606)
Marquis of the Third Imperium (SPIN 2410)
| Baron of the Third Imperium (SPIN 2231)
Knight of the Iridium Throne (CORE 1434)
Sir William Hostman (OLDE 0512)
Sir William Hostman (DAGU 0622)
Knight of Deneb (REFT 2239)
SEH w/Diamonds for Extreme Heroism - Battle of Boughene
MCG - Battle of Boughene
TAS: William Hostman (CORR 2506)
TAS: Bearer (DAIB 1326) | IMTU ct+ tm++ tne tg-- tt+ tmo+ t4- t20+ to ru+ ge+ 3i+ c+ jt au ls pi+ ta he+ st+
Wil Hostman 0602 C539857-9 S A724
OTU: 95% 3i an+ au+ br- cpu± dt± f+ fs++ ge± ih- inf± j± jf+ jm+ jt+ ls- n= nc+ pi+ pp-- tp+ tr+ tv- vi-- xb+- | Unless there is bold red text, presume my posts to be my personal material only. |
|

April 18th, 2017, 07:03 PM
|
Citizen: SOC-13
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 742
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike wightman
If it was meant to be the mainstay of the Imperial Navy don't you think it would have got a write up in S:9?
|
I don't know . . . S:9 seems to be very Spinward Marches focused. I think it's representative only of that sector, and even then I don't think it's intended to be a comprehensive catalog of designs within the Marches. The Domain of Ilelish might have very different assets.
I could easily see two, maybe three dozen different capital ships designs active across the entire Imperium. That would include first, second, and third rate designs, the oldest of which stretch back to the Rim War.
|

April 18th, 2017, 07:49 PM
|
Citizen: SOC-13
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 742
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike wightman
At TL15 under HG 81 edition 100,000t is a BB.
I would use every trick in the book to make it the most capable 100.000t BB TL15 can achieve - it relies on the naval base supply network and very large jump tenders.
|
I am intrigued . . . there are a couple of 100kt battleship classes described in Keith Brothers materials: the Inkaalur ( Far Traveller 2) and Uzhsu ( High Passage 5). I figured they were too small to even be considered light battleships.
When you say "these things are not cruisers, they are battleships," you mean they possess spinal weapons and enough defences to stand in the line of battle?
So is your proposed 100kt battleship viable in the OTU because the S9 design are so inefficient or because you are sacrificing on-board fuel, ammo, and other reserve systems in lieu of using a network of tenders and bases?
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|