MT ship design question

[Carlobrand]

I'm working on a MegaTrav shipbuilder in Excel - and having problems. The numbers aren't adding up.

I'm using the scout/courier per MT, TL 15, as a test:
Hull: Disp=100, Config=1 SL, Armor=40G: 184Kl?
Power: 316, Fusion = 864Mw. 48Kl
Maneuver=2, 67.5Kl
Jump=2, 40.5Kl
NOE= 190kph, 0.01Kl
Commo: Radio=System 0.02Kl
Sensors: PassiveEMS = Interstellar, 0.04Kl
ActiveEMS = FarOrbit, 0.06Kl
Densitometer=HighPen/1 km, Neutrino= 10kw 7Kl
Off/Def: Hardpoints = 1, 13.5Kl
Control: Computer = 1 bis x 3, 6Kl
Panel = holodynamic link x 181, 3.62Kl
Special = headsup, 0.5Kl
Environ = basic env, 6.75Kl
basic LS, 6.75Kl
extend LS, 4.05Kl
grav plates, 13.50Kl
inertial comp 13.50Kl
Staterooms = 4, 216Kl
Subcraft= air/raft 54+ 27Kl
Cargo = 40.5kl
Fuel = 515kl
Purification Plant, Scoops, 51.5Kl
total: 1320.19Kl

I'm 30Kl under target. I missed something, or made a mistake somewhere, or there's supposed to be 30 Kl more cargo than they show. They don't mention airlocks but (curiously enough) the scout does not have air locks. I'm not at all sure of the hull value; game rules mention armor mass but not volume, but if I don't compute a volume then I've got way too much unused space. I figured it at 1 kl/ton.

What am I missing?

 

[jshiggin]

The MT designs are notorious for being incorrect. If you're showing a disagrement, it's just as likely to be their problem as your problem.

 

[McPerth]

Could you please tell me why do you assign 184 kl to the hull? In MT the hull, no matter how armored, didn't take volume, while it might be most of the ship mass (I see you didn't compute mass in your design).

Aside form that, after a first glance, I don't see anythig wrong in your calculations (maybe there is in the design, never reviewed it in deep).

 

[Carlobrand]

In Striker, armor volume was subtracted from the vehicle volume. MegaTrav borrows from Striker, but Megatrav hull rules made no provision for subtracting armor volume from the ship's base volume. However, the scout example had way, way more volume than it should have.

I therefore reasoned that the omission might have been a MegaTrav rule erratum rather than intentional. I experimentally assigned a volume of 1 kl per ton of armor (therefore 184 kl) and subtracted that, and it brought me to within spitting distance of my target volume. I tried applying the density values out of Striker (which would have given me 1 kl for every 15 tons of armor), but it got me absolutely nowhere near target.

I don't know if it's right or wrong. It seems to be working for the Scout, but it's playing holy heck with the MegaTrav "Fighting Ships" designs when I try to plug them into the spreadsheet - they end up way over target volume. I'm still playing around with it. One way or another, either the "Fighting Ships" designs (at least the ones I've tried) are hopelessly compromised, or the "Encyclopedia" designs are hopelessly compromised. I'm just not sure which.

 

[mike wightman]

MegaTraveller ship construction is the most broken design system to ever see print in the corpus of Traveller.

Shattered Ships of the Fighting Imperium (to give it it's true title) is a book of completely broken designs.

Stick to High Guard

 

[McPerth]

One way or another, either the "Fighting Ships" designs (at least the ones I've tried) are hopelessly compromised, or the "Encyclopedia" designs are hopelessly compromised. I'm just not sure which.

Please, don't try to review the designs in FSSI if you value your sanity.

As Mike says, the are totally broken, and they seem not to have been reviewed before publishing. As extreme examples, some 30 kdton BRs (pages 30, 31, 34, 35) are told as having 300 dton of fule for distribution on other ships, and most ships have armor values quite over the TL x 5 maximum allowed by the rules (too numerous to give you references).

 

[Carlobrand]

Soz ... no armor volume? I was a little concerned that would make for some oddities on the small end. I imagined little low tech geosynch satellites claiming to be 1 meter wide, with 30cm thick armor walls.

 

[Major B]

Carlo, if you PM me an email address I can send you an excel workbook with several scout variants I've been playing with.

Mind you, my spreadsheet isn't very user friendly so don't get the impression I'm pushing it on you. I have a long list of things I want to fix in order to make it a good ship design tool. But, the scout designs inside may help you with your questions in the OP.

 

[christopher.boote]

Hi Carlo
The only way to make the TL15 MT scout match CT is to add two beam lasers and a big enough PP for them (956MW should be enough), plus more fuel, more panels, and a purifier that does the entire load in 3 hours (219kls)

 CraftID:	Sword Worlds, Type S Scout [Scout 122(2b) class], TLF, MCr43.196
    Hull:	900/2,250, Disp=100dtons, Config=1bAF, Armour=40G, Unloaded=1,089tons, Loaded=1,168tons
   Power:	36/72 TLF Fusion=956Mw, Duration=30/90 days
    Loco:	45/90 Manoeuvre-2G Thruster, 27/54 Jump-2, NOE=190km/h, Cruise=1,590km/h, Top=2,120km/h, Agility=0
   Commo:	Radio=System (1,000AU) x2, Laser=System (1,000AU) x1
 Sensors:	ActiveEMS=FarOrbit (500,000km), Active Audio, PassiveEMS=Interstellar (2 Parsecs), NeutrinoSensor=10kw, HiPen Densitometer=1km, LoPen Densitometer=250m, Neural Activity Sensor=VLong
		ActObjScan=Routine, ActObjPin=Routine, PassEnergyScan=Simple, PassEnergyPin=Routine
     Off:	BeamLaser=xx3 (Batt=1)
     Def:	DefDM=+2
Controls:	Computer=1/bis x3, Panel=Holo Linked x219, Special=Heads-up Display x1, Env=Basic Env, Basic LS, Ext LS, Artificial Grav, Inertial Comp, Airlock x1
  Accomm:	Crew=1 (Bridge x1), Accomm=Stateroom x4
SubCraft:	TL15 Enclosed Air/Raft x1
   Other:	Cargo=40.5kls, Fuel=547kls Purifer=3hrs, Scoops=2hrs, ObjSize=Average, EmLevel=Faint

Or you could add EMS jamming and EM Masking (no bad things in a Scout) and make it a 3.5 hour purifier

 CraftID:	Sword Worlds, Type S Scout [Scout 122(2bM) class], TLF, MCr50.985
    Hull:	900/2,250, Disp=100dtons, Config=1bAF, Armour=40G, Unloaded=1,042tons, Loaded=1,121tons
   Power:	36/72 TLF Fusion=957Mw, Duration=30/90 days
    Loco:	45/90 Manoeuvre-2G Thruster, 27/54 Jump-2, NOE=190km/h, Cruise=1,590km/h, Top=2,120km/h, Agility=0
   Commo:	Radio=System (1,000AU) x2, Laser=System (1,000AU) x1
 Sensors:	ActiveEMS=FarOrbit (500,000km), Active Audio, PassiveEMS=Interstellar (2 Parsecs), NeutrinoSensor=10kw, HiPen Densitometer=1km, LoPen Densitometer=250m, Neural Activity Sensor=VLong, EMS Jammer=FarOrbit (500,000km), EMMasking
		ActObjScan=Routine, ActObjPin=Routine, PassEnergyScan=Simple, PassEnergyPin=Routine
     Off:	BeamLaser=xx3 (Batt=1)
     Def:	DefDM=+2
Controls:	Computer=1/bis x3, Panel=Holo Linked x270, Special=Heads-up Display x1, Env=Basic Env, Basic LS, Ext LS, Artificial Grav, Inertial Comp, Airlock x1
  Accomm:	Crew=1 (Bridge x1), Accomm=Stateroom x4
SubCraft:	TL15 Enclosed Air/Raft x1
   Other:	Cargo=40.5kls, Fuel=548kls (Surplus 0.978kls), Purifer=3hrs 30mins, Scoops=2hrs, ObjSize=Average, EmLevel=None

 

[christopher.boote]

Finally, you can pad out space with Meson and/or Maser commos, more laser commos, a couple of air locks, etc.

 

[Carlobrand]

Nice ideas, but this was more about understanding the Megatrav rules. They're pretty convoluted. I'm operating under the hypothesis that if I can learn and apply their rules correctly, I should arrive at the same results that they arrive at in Imperial Encyclopedia, thereby establishing that I have interpreted their rules correctly.

So far, that hypothesis hasn't proven out. So, either I am a complete idiot - which I haven't entirely ruled out - or some other factor is at play.

 

[aramis]

Nice ideas, but this was more about understanding the Megatrav rules. They're pretty convoluted. I'm operating under the hypothesis that if I can learn and apply their rules correctly, I should arrive at the same results that they arrive at in Imperial Encyclopedia, thereby establishing that I have interpreted their rules correctly.

So far, that hypothesis hasn't proven out. So, either I am a complete idiot - which I haven't entirely ruled out - or some other factor is at play.

The factor is several unstated design approaches (like no LS in fuel bays) and other little niggles, coupled to rounding errors.

I suspect as well that the designs were done prior to finalizing the design system.

 

[Carlobrand]

That would explain a lot. If I drop the business about assigning volume to armor, I end up with 15 dTons of cargo space.

Interestingly enough, if I step the scout back to TL 11 - and tweak the control panels a wee bit to adjust for the lower tech - I end up with something very close to the traditional CT scout. It has a bit over 4 dTons of cargo space.

 

[christopher.boote]

Nice ideas, but this was more about understanding the Megatrav rules. They're pretty convoluted. I'm operating under the hypothesis that if I can learn and apply their rules correctly, I should arrive at the same results that they arrive at in Imperial Encyclopedia, thereby establishing that I have interpreted their rules correctly.

So far, that hypothesis hasn't proven out. So, either I am a complete idiot - which I haven't entirely ruled out - or some other factor is at play.

Yah, sorry, don't think that's going to work out for you
The published designs do not match AT ALL with the published design sequences

It's not called MegaErrata for nothing...

 

[E.D.Quibell]

If you run the designes in the Encyclopedia you should be able to duplicate them with the following adjustents:

Page 80, Scout/Courier (correction): Fuel=515 kliters.
Page 81, Seeker (correction): Fuel=504 kliters.
Page 82, Yacht (correction): Maneuver=1, Jump=1.
Page 83, Mercenary Cruiser (correction): Maneuver=3, Jump=3. The pinnaces should be modular cutters.

Best regards,

Ewan

 

[Carlobrand]

A couple more questions:

Megatrav wants to assign my scout a maintenance tech for the air/raft, which just sounds like a union rule to promote employment. I think I'll be fine as long as I take it in for its scheduled mileage checks and oil changes. However, it is the rule in MT. High Guard required a maintenance tech for each subordinate spacecraft but recommended a tech for every three vehicles, which the air/raft (and in MT, anything under 20 dTons) is. Was there ever an errata statement on this? Am I going to offend people if I use that convention?

And, gunners. What the heck? I applied the spreadsheet to a Free Trader. Not too bad, a little off, I'm learning to accept that - the Encyclopedia version, for example, mounts more control panels than its computer can handle. A few odd quirks: the ship's Model-1 computer can't accept enough control panels to handle two triple turret mixed mounts on top of everything else, so the free trader owner's going to have to make some compromises. Is close enough for gub'mint work.

However, the design rules base the number of control points off of the price of an item multiplied by the tech level of the ship, then calculates the number of gunners needed based on the number of control points. The game wants me to have six gunners for a Free Trader!

At a million credits each, for a TL 15 ship with a model-1, you're needing 1 and 1/2 gunners for each beam laser. (15*1,000,000/100,000/10/10)
One triple turret with three missile launchers (Cr750,000 each launcher) is needing at least two gunners on a free trader at TL 15.

Mind you, it doesn't matter if you're firing a TL 7 beam laser using a TL 5 computer and TL 10 control panels (which are actually more cost-effective for the trader), you need more gunners because you're using TL 15 armor and power plant? Huh? Am I not understanding that right? Basing gunnery CP on the TL of the weapon itself might make sense, or even on the TL of the computer or the control panels, but I can't for the life of me fathom why a gun system would need more gunners based on the "Tech Level of the craft" as a whole. Is there an erratum for that?

 

[77topaz]

Mind you, it doesn't matter if you're firing a TL 7 beam laser using a TL 5 computer and TL 10 control panels (which are actually more cost-effective for the trader), you need more gunners because you're using TL 15 armor and power plant? Huh? Am I not understanding that right? Basing gunnery CP on the TL of the weapon itself might make sense, or even on the TL of the computer or the control panels, but I can't for the life of me fathom why a gun system would need more gunners based on the "Tech Level of the craft" as a whole. Is there an erratum for that?

I don't think you have computers at TL5...

Maybe it's because your enemies/targets also have TL15 (or whatever you have).

 

[aramis]

I don't think you have computers at TL5...

Maybe it's because your enemies/targets also have TL15 (or whatever you have).

Given the historical timeframe, yes, computers existed. Large, nasty, clanking mechanical beasts.

 

[steventirey1985]

I don't think you have computers at TL5...

You do have computers at (late) TL 5.

TL 5: (Industrial) TL 5 brings widespread electrification, telecommunications and internal combustion. At the high end of the TL, atomics and primitive computing appear. Roughly on a par with the mid–20th century.

T20, Megatraveller, and Classic Traveller all also have computers at TL 5.

The Model 1 starship computer is TL 5. (Though Mongoose Traveller has it at TL 7. Classic Traveller and T20 have it at TL 5.)

 

[McPerth]

I guess most MT basic designs (those given in IE) are flawed at one degree or another because they mimicked those given in CT, adapting rules to that, instead of designing them with MT rules and accepting the changes needed.

About gunners, I've adopted the HG rules of needing one gunner per battery (one per turret if using mixted weaponry), 2 per bay and one per 13500 kl of main weapon/screen.

See that using pure MT rules, to mann a 1 rated Black Globe, you need 50 crewmemebers (15*400/0.1/10/120).