Shipbuilding process flow

[robject]

Warning - this is text you may have seen before, and it may be boring. Read no further. You have been warned.


I am a process junkie: I prefer documents to flow at a high level, where sections are predictably broken down so I can skim over the parts I'm not interested in at the time. Kind of like being able to skip chapters on a DVD, maybe.

When it comes to ship design, I am a complete basket case, because I love building ships, but am not a details-oriented person. This complicated situation is why I love Book 2 -- it doesn't have any distracting details at all. And yet I also dislike Book 2 -- it doesn't have additional features that might be useful for Traveller.

When Marc was developing ACS design, he mentioned that the level of detail would be somewhere between High Guard and MegaTraveller, and I think he's probably correct.

However, I think that ACS design could be nearly as easy as Book 2 design at the same time. What's required is some flow text. How much flow text? Well here are a few examples of what I'm talking about.


Hull. The top of this section might read like this:

Defaults. Ships will tend to use a default hull, given in table H-1 below. Ship architects with non-typical designs may prefer to use the comprehensive table H-2.

Table H-1 would only have default hulls: that is, hulls which can have Plate construction. Table H-2 would have the full table.


Hull Features. The top of this section might read like this:

Default Structure. Ships which use default hulls may elect the default hull structure; if so, note the default structure is "Plate", note the armor value is 2 x TL, and move on.
Default Fittings. All ships may elect to use default hull fittings as follows:
Landing skids (no cost, no volume).
Jump bubble (no cost, no volume).
If these defaults are used, you may skip these pages.

Do you see where I'm going with this? If Book 2 were expanded, it would work much like this, perhaps with appendices for each design step which would cover additional but optional details. Providing depth that is optional and ignorable gives us a rich design system that also pushes the complexity down.

 

[robject]

The Goal

How do I evaluate the ACS process flow? When I can run through the elements, and allow the defaults to work as temporary (at least) decisions for me, then I'm happy.

After all, at the end of the day, a ship can just be

1. A hull
2. With drives
3. Maybe some weapons
4. And a bridge
5. And staterooms
6. And cargo
7. Maybe a vehicle or small craft

If that's a reasonable basic functional ship, then the text of the design system should not get in my way. It should be easy to make this sort of ship, and should let me short-circuit through everything else, and provide reasonable basic defaults:

1. A default hull (Plate, Bubble, Skids)
2. With drives
3. Maybe some weapons (T3 L, T3 M, T3 S)
4. And a bridge (20t spacious = 10 stations)
5. And staterooms (5t per person, incl LS and freshers)
6. And cargo (whatever's left)
7. Maybe a vehicle or small craft (hangar = 10t + volume)

 

[robject]

The Hidden Driver

A guy just emailed me with an important element I had forgotten:

[...] a playable combat system comes first... and that ship design matters only so much as its effectiveness in that environment. I want to see game results feeding the setting background [...]

However, this thread is not about what is in a ship design system; rather it is how that design system is presented to the reader.

 

[cym0k]

1. A default hull (Plate, Bubble, Skids)
2. With drives
3. Maybe some weapons (T3 L, T3 M, T3 S)
4. And a bridge (20t spacious = 10 stations)
5. And staterooms (5t per person, incl LS and freshers)
6. And cargo (whatever's left)
7. Maybe a vehicle or small craft (hangar = 10t + volume)

This. Just create a simple workflow (initially) that gets me a ship that I can fly with the numbers that matter.

Even a damn flow chart diagram. Well actually, maybe not. But that is the kind of way I process things.

 

[robject]

This. Just create a simple workflow (initially) that gets me a ship that I can fly with the numbers that matter.

Exactly.

1. Choosing an "Easy" hull shouldn't be any harder than picking a volume, and choosing between Streamlined and Unstreamlined, perhaps. Cost can be a formula in that case, and just tell me what to jot down for assumed details (structure = Plate, AV = TL x 2, field = bubble).

Hull = 100 thru 2400 tons, in 100t increments.
Cost = MCr 2 + MCr 6 per 100 tons (reduce to MCr 3 per 100 tons if Unstreamlined).

2. Choosing drives is always going to be either a table, or a formula. If we go the Book 2 route, then it's a drive potential table and a volume table -- but no cost table, since the T5 costs are simpler than Book 2 costs.

** note: these numbers are valid thru drive Z.
J = 5 tons + 2.5% hull vol per jump number, MCr 1 per ton.
M = -1 tons + 1% hull vol per maneuver number, 2 tons minimum, MCr 2 per ton.
P = 1 ton + 1.5% hull vol per power plant number, 4 tons? minimum, MCr 1 per ton.

2a. Choosing the ship's computer is simpler than before, since the jump drives don't require any particular computer size, and volume = model number (yes, it looks like "computer" is not just the box it comes in).

Model number = 1 thru 9 (needs TL table to see what's available), [i]bis[/i] allowed.
Volume = model number, in tons
Cost = geometric formula given here

3. The old standby, the 20 ton bridge, is still a capable choice for hulls at least up to 1000 tons, and nowadays even Mongoose has the half-sized bridge and the extended bridge to take care of small and larger hulls. Just tell me what it has (and that they're all "Spacious") and what that costs and I'll be on my merry.

Bridge  Vol  Stations  KCr
Std      20     10     200
Half     10      5     100
Wide     30     15     300

4. While there are lots of weapons available, there are five which are by far the most popular: the laser, the missile launcher, the sandcaster, the hybrid turret containing all three, and the particle accelerator. Give me single (T1), double (T2), and triple (T3) turrets, and single (B1) and dual (B2) barbettes, and the choice mix is actually still easier than Book 2. Throw the rest Below The Fold in the Advanced Options area.

Turrets   Vol MCr      Weapon           MCr
T1         1           (L) Beam Laser
T2         1           (M) Missile
T3         1           (S) Sandcaster
                       (A) Part. Accel.
Barbettes Vol MCr
B1         3
B2         5

5. The default living space is a solved problem. Let me buy them en bloc, and I'll happily note that Living Space Quality is +0. You can make life support its own thing: since LS is not a continuing cost in T5, I have no problem front-loading that decision on the design side of things.

Living space: 5 tons per person, MCr 0.5 per person (I think).
Life support: 1 ton for 10 man-months, MCr1; 2 tons for 40 man-months, MCr2.
Quality=+0.

6. Cargo is still just allocated from whatever space is left over. The Easy Way is to simply state that and let us move on.

7. If we assume that the default vehicle handling is the hangar, then adding a vehicle becomes easy. The "simple" rules can even allow one exception: a niche for the air/raft because that's the most common place for small ships to carry them.


With text that supports defaults, I see that simple ships can be genned up as fast as Book 2.

 

[daltoncalford]

I have always thought that Traveller's ship design system was backwards.

A designer does not design a ship starting with the guestimated final size in mind, but with a list of what the ship is supposed to do. With the mission requirements in hand, the designer works out what components and needed to perform the mission, then what components are needed to support the mission components, then works out what hull to put it all into.

For example, if you are designing a cargo hauler, you figure out how much cargo you need to haul. Then you allocate space for support cranes/lift trucks/cargo doors, cargo handlers, admin staff etc. That gives you the mission volume and mission crew.
When you have that figured out, you work out the support volume and support crew such as the pilot, valets or anyone else who is needed to keep the mission going.
Once you have totalled up all the mission and support requirements, you now know the minimum size ship you need. For commercial ships, they will go with standard hulls which may be larger than their needs, leaving waste space (or hidden cargo for the nefarious minded)

Standard hulls are fixed size increments, fixed operational and engineering displacements and fixed hard point/hull armour designs.

Custom hulls could have more or fewer hard points than the standard. Custom hulls cost more.

If you do a switch in the order of things, the design system makes far more sense and removes alot of back and forth design changes as you try to work out your needs.

From the way I see it, the design process should be

(1) Mission
(2) Mission Support
(3) Hull Choice and Engineering.

Just my 2c

 

[robject]

A designer does not design a ship starting with the guestimated final size in mind, but with a list of what the ship is supposed to do. With the mission requirements in hand, the designer works out what components and needed to perform the mission, then what components are needed to support the mission components, then works out what hull to put it all into.

There's some truth to that. And that solves the High Guard Process Dilemma nicely, which was: pick a hull, put things in, then start over because you don't have enough room.

But there's no reason not to start with the payload, especially since the drives are proportional to the payload.

Consider a ship that's designed to haul 1,000 tons of cargo, has 200 tons of weapons, a 40 ton bridge, and 400 tons worth of crew and passenger space.

Assume the payload is 1000 + 200 + 40 + 400 = 1640 tons.

Now you want to install Jump-4 drives, which comes to 10% of the hull's volume.
Fuel accounts for 40% more space.
Maneuver-1 drives account for 1% of the space.
Power-4 requires 6% hull volume, plus 4% for fuel.

The drives therefore take up 61% of the available space.

The payload, therefore, takes up 39% of the hull.

So 1,640 tons is 39% of the hull's size.

Therefore, the hull is 1640 / 0.39 = 4230 tons, rounding up to 4300 tons.

QED

 

[daltoncalford]

Exactly

That is how I always worked with highguard.

It is a simple and logical method, without needing to redo work.

To keep it simple, mission crew requirements are calculated differently than support crew requirements.

ie. If you have 20 Mission crew, you need X number of stewards
BUT if you have 20 Stewards, you do not need any more stewards ie, the support crew values include their own support needs.

In this way, you do not need to come back and recalculate support staff/materials due to an increase in needed support staff.

As for engines, for those who do not like math, you can list a standard drive with a series of ranges ie

Drive Type	J1	J2	J3
A	200-299	100-199	-

This gives you the simplicity of BK2, the versitility of BK5 and the freedom (insane detail for the gearheads) of FF&S.

I always wondered why no one ever went down this path.

(Edited cause I had the columns wrong in the example)

 

[Vladika]

Exactly

That is how I always worked with highguard.

It is a simple and logical method, without needing to redo work.

To keep it simple, mission crew requirements are calculated differently than support crew requirements.

ie. If you have 20 Mission crew, you need X number of stewards
BUT if you have 20 Stewards, you do not need any more stewards ie, the support crew values include their own support needs.

In this way, you do not need to come back and recalculate support staff/materials due to an increase in needed support staff.

As for engines, for those who do not like math, you can list a standard drive with a series of ranges ie

Drive Type	J1	J2	J3
A	200-299	100-199	-

This gives you the simplicity of BK2, the versitility of BK5 and the freedom (insane detail for the gearheads) of FF&S.

I always wondered why no one ever went down this path.

(Edited cause I had the columns wrong in the example)

I really like this.

Because I'm lazy, would you finish the table and post it?

 

[robject]

I really like this.

Because I'm lazy, would you finish the table and post it?

Perl is my friend.

Drive Rating (R) supported by Drive Letter per Hull Volume

     R1     R2     R3     R4     R5     R6
A   200    100      -      -      -      -
B   400    200    100    100      -      -
C   600    300    200    100    100    100
D   800    400    200    200    100    100
E  1000    500    300    200    200    100
F  1200    600    400    300    200    200
G  1400    700    400    300    200    200
H  1600    800    500    400    300    200
J  1800    900    600    400    300    300
K  2000   1000    600    500    400    300
L  2200   1100    700    500    400    300
M  2400   1200    800    600    400    400
N  2600   1300    800    600    500    400
P  2800   1400    900    700    500    400
Q  3000   1500   1000    700    600    500
R  3200   1600   1000    800    600    500
S  3400   1700   1100    800    600    500
T  3600   1800   1200    900    700    600
U  3800   1900   1200    900    700    600
V  4000   2000   1300   1000    800    600
W  4200   2100   1400   1000    800    700
X  4400   2200   1400   1100    800    700
Y  4600   2300   1500   1100    900    700
Z  4800   2400   1600   1200    900    800

my $ep = 0;

printf "     R1     R2     R3     R4     R5     R6\n";
for ( 'A'..'H', 'J'..'N', 'P'..'Z' )
{
   $ep += 200;
   print uc $_;
   
   for my $rating ( 1..6 )
   {
      my $vol = int( $ep / $rating / 100 ) * 100;
      $vol = '-' if $vol < 100;
      printf " %5s ", $vol;
   }
   
   print "\n";
}