Ship Building IYTU

[Timerover51]

Designing ships gives you the opportunity to rethink how people do things.

You have hit the nail on the head. The history of wet ship design since the development of steam power and iron and steel construction is summed up in that one sentence. I see no reason why that would not continue into space and star ship design.

 

[Ulsyus]

I'm certain I'm not the only one who would love to read a bit more about the approaches and functions existing designs don't address too well.

What strikes you from which version?

I particularly liked the crewing mechanisms in CT, HG and MT. I feel that's one area lacking in T5.

 

[Whipsnade]

What strikes you from which version?

Any versions at all.

Different thinking is the only reason I need to want to see different designs.

 

[bromdenlong]

All mine were traders

I've designed loads of traders from 200 to 5000 dtons. Usually they are 6-g, as a merchant operating in a rough area is better off being able to outrun trouble than fight it. Hence, I prefer the LBB build rules to High Guard, as the maneuver drives are much lighter at 6G. They are also generally J2, as I was designing for the Spinward Marches, and that can get you to nearly every system.

I never did draw up deck plans, though.

 

[whartung]

I've designed loads of traders from 200 to 5000 dtons. Usually they are 6-g, as a merchant operating in a rough area is better off being able to outrun trouble than fight it. Hence, I prefer the LBB build rules to High Guard, as the maneuver drives are much lighter at 6G. They are also generally J2, as I was designing for the Spinward Marches, and that can get you to nearly every system.

So, were 6G traders common in YTU? How did the extra size, costs, and fuel requirements affect the bottom line for your traders? Why wasn't "trouble" running at 6G as well?

 

[Winged Cat]

I'm certain I'm not the only one who would love to read a bit more about the approaches and functions existing designs don't address too well.

You needn't post deckplans or full designs, just something along the lines of "This is an X dTons design which does Y because of Z".

Too late. As of today, I have all 26 deckplans. Now I just need to double-check them, then post.

 

[Whipsnade]

Too late. As of today, I have all 26 deckplans. Now I just need to double-check them, then post.

Too late? It sounds as if I asked just late enough! Thanks for sharing your work.

 

[Winged Cat]

Too late? It sounds as if I asked just late enough! Thanks for sharing your work.

I will once I can figure out how to post images. Apparently one is no longer supposed to post deckplans to the File Library, but instead to the Image Gallery - but when I go there, I see no option to post.

Is there someone I should ask for permission?

 

[mike wightman]

Can you see the upload button in the options bar? Under the random thumbnails is a gallery navigation bar - in the middle of the second row is an upload button.

 

[kilemall]

I guess the surprising thing most designs do not have is redundancy- two of every major system, drives and computers and bridges and low berths and boats for starters.



Merchant ships that are financed perhaps cannot afford such luxuries given the 'economic realities' of most Traveller trade versions, but exploration, warships or even yachts carrying precious high-SOC passengers seem to not believe in backup systems.


Even just a minimal computer or whatever gets you M-1/J-1 would be better then none.


The lack is inexcusable in exploration, 'strategic reconnaissance(spy)' or deep range mercantile ships that have mission profiles taking them beyond starport maintenance.

 

[Winged Cat]

Can you see the upload button in the options bar? Under the random thumbnails is a gallery navigation bar - in the middle of the second row is an upload button.

No such button appears to me. There's Home and Search and that's it, if you mean the bar I think you mean.

My hunch is that this is a permissions thing, granted based on SOC, which in turn goes up the more I post. Does anyone have a way to verify this, and see what SOC is needed (and how many posts are needed to get there)? Though I really hope the answer is not, "justified spam posting".

I pinged aramis on this weeks ago (in anticipation of wanting to upload once I had all 26 ships with deckplans), and have yet to receive a response.

Alternately - the File Library has a Deckplans section. http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=13099 says that images are not allowed - but deckplans are images, so how does that work? I notice there have been no posts to the Deckplans section since 2016; is this a new requirement that shut down that section? It doesn't seem like that, though. (Given a literal reading of what's there, I could technically do this but it would be a violation of the posted rules, so I hesitate to use this approach without explicit admin okay.)

 

[Winged Cat]

I guess the surprising thing most designs do not have is redundancy- two of every major system, drives and computers and bridges and low berths and boats for starters.

IMTU, this is an expression that starship maintenance and repair is just that well established, even with low TL equipment, that such redundancy is seen as unnecessary: if you can build two ships instead of one with spares, then build two ships and get twice the work done for the same budget.

Starships are massively expensive, after all. Even scouts and warships. (Even on warships, life is relatively cheap compared to ship systems: the one thing they do sometimes carry redundant spares for is the crew.)

That said, IMTU ships always carry spare parts for emergency repairs (and tend to run out of reactor fuel sooner than said spare parts), so even non-mercantile warships and scouts try to have at least 1% of their tonnage as cargo for this purpose (and to carry food and other consumables, though a month's provisions is usually much less than 1%). This is why even warships have some cargo space (see for instance the Mongoose Second Edition High Guard's Tigress: just shy of four thousand tons cargo, out of 500,000 tons total, and presumably it would almost never be without tenders carrying further parts and supplies).

 

[Condottiere]

Factor one computers are dirt cheap, and at this stage of the game, virtual.

Programmes cost money, but you could have a virtual bridge and crew as backup.

In case the jump drive hiccups, a hundred tonne jump capable shuttle, to either evacuate the crew, or get help.

 

[Timerover51]

The question is why do ship designs not have more redundancy with respect to major components, such as drives, computers, and bridges, amoung other things. While you might design something from scratch with redundancy for a warship, you are not going to get that in a merchant ship. The reason is one word: COST.

Your average merchant ship is struggling to cover expenses with the standard designs given in the various books, without redundancy, and also without a more realistic maintenance set-aside and no mention of insurance. If you added redundant drives or a second computer or bridge, that struggle becomes an impossibility. It might be conceivable with a subsidized merchant, but even that is doubtful as the building government does to get a return on its investment, and redundant systems are going to severely reduce that return.

 

[kilemall]

In case the jump drive hiccups, a hundred tonne jump capable shuttle, to either evacuate the crew, or get help.

Type S with two staterooms converted to low berths perhaps?

 

[Winged Cat]

No such button appears to me. There's Home and Search and that's it, if you mean the bar I think you mean.

My hunch is that this is a permissions thing, granted based on SOC, which in turn goes up the more I post. Does anyone have a way to verify this, and see what SOC is needed (and how many posts are needed to get there)?

Looks like I was right. SOC-5 was the requisite minimum rank, and I was not far away. I now see the Upload button.

 

[aramis]

Looks like I was right. SOC-5 was the requisite minimum rank, and I was not far away. I now see the Upload button.

Yes, attachments are Soc5. I've been running the board for years and still haven't figured out where all the settings panels are, because Hunter (may he rest in peace) customized in some strange ways. In some cases, hacking the core code.

 

[Grav_Moped]

I guess the surprising thing most designs do not have is redundancy- two of every major system, drives and computers and bridges and low berths and boats for starters.



Merchant ships that are financed perhaps cannot afford such luxuries given the 'economic realities' of most Traveller trade versions, but exploration, warships or even yachts carrying precious high-SOC passengers seem to not believe in backup systems.


Even just a minimal computer or whatever gets you M-1/J-1 would be better then none.


The lack is inexcusable in exploration, 'strategic reconnaissance(spy)' or deep range mercantile ships that have mission profiles taking them beyond starport maintenance.

The redundancy is in the form of higher drive and computer ratings. Why carry a separate J1 drive and power plant, when you can just add (for example) one more Jn or Pn to your existing one? It's treated the same in combat, and generally cheaper except for maneuver drives under LBB5.


Backup drives are a good idea for long duration unsupported missions, particularly if used for wear-balancing.



Also, I like the idea of something akin to a Type S (or LBB5 100Td, J1/1G with fuel for 2xJ1) configured as (or configurable to) a jump-capable low-berth-packed lifeboat.

Type S: delete 3 staterooms, air/raft, cargo bay. Replace with 38 low berths -- 40 if you delete the turret (but you'd probably keep it as a triple sandcaster with an AI "gunner" as a precaution).

LBB5: As above, but you have 42Td for low berths instead of 19Td (design includes a turret).

Crew is minimum: Pilot/Navigator, medic to thaw the passengers; double-occupancy in the single stateroom.

Design would probably have the low berths as a module that would normally be stored in the parent vessel so the carried ship could also be used for cargo hauling when not needed as a lifeboat.

 

[Whipsnade]

The redundancy is in the form of higher drive and computer ratings. Why carry a separate J1 drive and power plant, when you can just add (for example) one more Jn or Pn to your existing one? It's treated the same in combat, and generally cheaper except for maneuver drives under LBB5.

Exactly. It works that way in both LBB:2 and HG2. Just as computer tonnage doesn't refer to one mainframe and terminal, those those higher drive ratings don't refer to a single bigger drive but instead refer to more drives.

When ship design became less granular, that "inherent" redundancy was lost.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The redundancy is in the form of higher drive and computer ratings. Why carry a separate J1 drive and power plant, when you can just add (for example) one more Jn or Pn to your existing one? It's treated the same in combat, and generally cheaper except for maneuver drives under LBB5.

Not quite, a critical hit knocks out the entire system, not just a component. Also see Drive Failure, LBB2, p6.


The way I see it is:

A PP-4 might have two reactors but only one power distribution system so they work together.

Real redundancy means not just having an extra reactor, but an entire extra independent power distribution system (meaning it can't work together with the primary system).