• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

Clarification of small craft in larger ships

I'm in the process of finishing off weapons batteries on my forthcoming High Guard design program but need to get views on how craft are accommodated in larger ships as it seems slightly ambiguous.

Issue 1: Tonnage allocated on mother ships less than 1000 tons.

It says that subordinate craft require their own tonnage when the mother ship is less than 1000 tons, and I'm reasoning that this is because the subordinate craft is clipped on the outside. It then says that subordinate craft over 100 tons require 1.1 times their tonnage but says nothing about whether this applies to mother craft over or under 1000 tons.

Issue 2: Do dispersed structure mother ships ignore the 1.3 and 1.1 multipliers regarding accommodating a subordinate craft since it states that they can launch all craft on account of them being bolted to the outside.
 
Originally posted by Thunderbolt:
Issue 1: Tonnage allocated on mother ships less than 1000 tons.

It says that subordinate craft require their own tonnage when the mother ship is less than 1000 tons, and I'm reasoning that this is because the subordinate craft is clipped on the outside.
That has always seemed the most sensible rationalization, but it's not stated and some deckplans show it one way, some the other. For example the Safari Ship has an internal bay while the Subsidized Merchant has an external docking point. And both are streamlined so that doesn't seem to be a sticking point either in HG. Some later editions treated the whole thing differently but we'll stick with HG here.

Originally posted by Thunderbolt:
It then says that subordinate craft over 100 tons require 1.1 times their tonnage but says nothing about whether this applies to mother craft over or under 1000 tons.
Yep, it is applied to both equally for carried ships (greater than 99tons actually). There is no difference what the size of the mother ship is.

Originally posted by Thunderbolt:
Issue 2: Do dispersed structure mother ships ignore the 1.3 and 1.1 multipliers regarding accommodating a subordinate craft since it states that they can launch all craft on account of them being bolted to the outside.
Hmm, made me rethink that
I'd always gone with just that assumption based on the "They need no additional fittings." line. But looking at it in a new light now I wonder. That line is in the Launch Facilities subheading so maybe it only means that. So now I'm not sure. I wonder if anyone has access to MWM's detailed example of the Sloan class from an old JTAS (iirc) to check how he did it, though I'm not sure it was a dispersed structure so it might not answer the question either.

If I had to make a call, I'd see what some other designers have done ;) Put me down as no extra tonnage required for carried craft aboard dispersed structure mother ships.
 
Remember one thing, Dispersed structure does not necessarily mean open framework and exposed girders. Just because it is Dispersed structure does not mean that it doesn't have hangers.

The opposite of Dispersed structure is close structure. (Note that isn't closed structure.) That means the various parts are in close proximity and generally connected directly.

An example of Dispersed structure is the Arakoine class Strike Cruiser from Sup 9. Which clearly has a hanger.
 
I think that the rules as set out in High Guard are reasonably clear cut. Exactly how we interpret the reasons for these however is another matter.

In the first place small craft are assigned tonnage equal to their own size on ships of 1000dTon and under and at 130% of their tonnage on ships of over 1000dTon. Exactly why this is, is open to endless debate. I have always considered it more as a move to retain basic compatibility with the earlier Book 2 design sequence in which all small craft were carried at their own tonnage irrespective of the size of the mother ship rather than for any technical reason. Also, remember that Flight crew are not a regular feature of ships below 1000dTon as the High Guard crew rules don't kick in until over 1000dTon so it could be argued (and this is an interpretation nothing more) that the additional space on ships above 1000dTon is more to do with the presence of a flight control facility or possibly the requirement for military stores of spares etc associated with the maintenance of the small craft.

Large craft are carried at 110% of their tonnage on all mother ships irrespective of the tonnage of the mother ship. Why is this? I can't say, after all I don't design starships for a living. However there is no need for this to be backwardly compatible with the Book 2 sequence since although there is no explicit prohibition there is also no mention of the possibility of carrying larger non-starships or even starships in the Book 2 design sequence.

There is no get out for the use of these displacements other than the sub 1000dTon rule for 1000dTon and under mother ships. The issue of hull configuration does not influence the allocation of tonnage. This in some ways leans towards, but in no means proves correct, my assumption that the additional space is due to a flight deck/control facility or stores and maintenance space.

Launch facilities are a different matter, and High Guard does appear to contradict Supplement 9 in this area. Three launch conditions are specified.

Dispersed Structures (Hull Type 7). High Guard explicitly says that these vessels carry craft and ships attached to their exterior. They need no additional fittings. All craft carried by a Hull Configuration 7 ship may be launched in one turn.
Launch Facility. The de facto standard for most ships where a single craft or ship is launched per turn per 10,000dTon of mother ship. No additional displacement and no additional cost
Launch Tubes. Displacing 25 times the tonnage of the largest vessel to pass through them at kCr2 per dTon of tube capable of launching 40 vessels per turn.

Supplement 9 lists only 2 Dispersed Structures, the 400dTon Survey Scout which would be in the sub 1000dTon classification and carries only one modular cutter with two modules (presumably one is installed and one is ready to be rotated in following some maneuvering). The other is the aforementioned 50,000dTon Arakoine Strike Cruiser. This carries 100 heavy fighters and has 2 launch tubes implying the presence of a hanger deck rather than carrying all the fighters on the outside of the ship as suggested by High Guard. Arguably with the exception of the nose arrangements this vessel could be considered a close structure, whilst the Wind Class 75,000dTon Strike Carrier is possibly more dispersed in some peoples eyes.

I'm not sure that this actually impacts greatly on the design sequence, it is more of an issue for the deck plans. In essence the design decision comes down to whether or not to install launch tubes, and based on Supp 9 a dispersed structure can have these as well as any other configuration, and in this respect this does not actually contradict High Guard.

If no launch tubes are included then the launch rules for standard facilities should apply in combat except that when a dispersed structure is noted to be carrying the ships or craft externally when a rider can be added allowing it to launch and recover all externally carried craft in one turn.

As always others may have a different view.
 
Heh! Actually that's about exactly the size of my garage. However I totally agree with you. I've always hated the way Traveller small craft are packed into a space no bigger than the craft itself. Now this might be okay if it's a launch snuggled into a tube with a double air-tight door allowing access and providing you have no desire to carry out any external maintenance work on the craft whatsoever. However I've seen Air-rafts packed into bays where the walls touch all four sides. How exactly do you get into the thing?

Anyways, The crux of this is that I agree with Andrew, 1.3X is probably nowhere near what you'd need for a small craft. I remember reading an excellent article on deckplan design for the Star Wars RPG which suggested at least three to four times the volume of the craft itself (if not more) in storage space, launch space, maintenance, fuel, workshops, spares, loading/unloading space etc etc. He was basing this on modern day aircraft carriers I think.

Crow
 
FF&S2 has three types:

Docking ring (1.1x) - fits craft exactly; no maintenance allowed

Minimal hanger (2x) - maintenance at one level harder

Spacious hanger (4x) - no penalties
 
Back
Top