SHIVVA class Patrol Frigate

[jchurchill]

Excuse my fading memory but aren't the High Guard stats for the Zhodani Shivva class patrol frigate included in one of the adventures? Does anyone recall which one?

 

[mike wightman]

I've found them in A4 Leviathan and A6 Expedition to Zhodane.
FP-67424F2-030000-50003-1 MCr493.87 TL13
3 1 1 crew:18
cargo:24.15 fuel:264 EP:24 agility:2
1 50t launch 10 8t fighters

 

[Ganidirsii O'Flynn]

And the deck plans (which were originally given to us by FASA and also included the HG stats) recently appeared in the G:T Aliens Book 1 (Vargr and Zhodani).

 

[jchurchill]

Thanks. It was Leviathan where i saw the stats. I don't have adventure 6 yet but willl look for it there.

 

[Qstor2]

*bump*

Anyone have the T20 write up for this?

Thanks!

Mike

 

[mike wightman]

You can find my attempt at it on another thread here, about half way down.

 

[Qstor2]

Thanks! I found it going through the old threads last night

Mike

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Qstor2:
Thanks! I found it going through the old threads last night

Mike

Problem with the Shivva under T20 isn't the Shivva it is the fighters. You can't build a T20 fighter at 8 tons with more than 5G acceleration and agility. The stats were also in Adventure 7 Broadsword. (Along with a 2000T "Strike Cruiser") I always thought that one was funny as the 2000T Strike Cruiser showed up at Garda Villis and was only Jump-1 it would have to make 15 jumps from the nearest Zhondani base (2 of them in empty hexes, one of them in the same hex as an Imperial Scout base and 5 of those jumps in Imperial space to get there.Or 4 jumps in Imperial space (one in an empty hex) from the nearest Sword Worlds base.As this is the first shots in the war in an adventure.... Always made me laugh.

 

[mike wightman]

In T20 you can't build a space ship under 10t, depending on how you interpret the computer rule
I wonder if it would be more useful to build it (8t fighter) as a vehicle?
Anyway, here's a version of an 8t fighter:
8t Tl13 fighter
bridge 4t
m-drive5 1.12t, 0.4 EP
TL13 p-p 0.8t, generates 0.8 EP (agility5)
fuel 0.08t, enough for 67 hours operation
computer 1t
fire control 1t, carries 9 nuclear missiles or bomb pumped lasers.

 

[BetterThanLife]

About what I came up with. I think I had a little less endurance and an airframe but I am not sure.

Only problem with building it as a vehicle is that is would have virtually no effect against a starship, not that it has alot as is, and there aren't any drive trains for vehicles that work in deep space. A Grav drive train would be limited to Agility 4.

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
In T20 you can't build a space ship under 10t, depending on how you interpret the computer rule
I wonder if it would be more useful to build it (8t fighter) as a vehicle?
Anyway, here's a version of an 8t fighter:
8t Tl13 fighter
bridge 4t
m-drive5 1.12t, 0.4 EP
TL13 p-p 0.8t, generates 0.8 EP (agility5)
fuel 0.08t, enough for 67 hours operation
computer 1t
fire control 1t, carries 9 nuclear missiles or bomb pumped lasers.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
In T20 you can't build a space ship under 10t, depending on how you interpret the computer rule ...

I got a definitive answer to that from Hunter some time back. You round up the computer model allowed so anything up to 10dT can have a model/1 computer (or model/1bis), iirc, will try to seek out the post later to confirm, if I find a moment.

 

[far-trader]

And for what its worth, from about the time I was playing with the T20 Shivva and Kinunir designs (see old thread) I worked out an 8dT Fighter and then used it in part of a design (hey, and it won ) for the little design contest over on the JTAS boards.

Gnat class Micro-Fighter TL13

+8.0T Hull - Wedge - Fully Streamlined
-0.4T Airframe upgraded (folding wings)

-4.0T Bridge - Standard - 2 Stations

(1.0T) Computer Model/1 bis
(1.0T) 1 Triple Mixed Turret
- F2 Mining Laser Battery x1
- F2 Missile Launcher Battery x2

-1.1T Maneuver Drive - 5G
_ Agility +5

-1.3T Fusion13 Power Plant
-0.1T Fuel - 2 days

-0.8T F4 Armor

-0.3T Missile Magazine - x6 missiles

Final cost before discount Mcr12.996 not including missiles

Discounted cost Mcr10.3968

Edit - Ah, I also used the "bridge" rules loosely to allow up to half the tonnage to be used towards installed components, the computer and turret in this case. Hence the brackets and no minus signs for the tonnage.

Edit - Adjusted costs, bad figures on the armor costs.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by far-trader:
I got a definitive answer to that from Hunter some time back. You round up the computer model allowed so anything up to 10dT can have a model/1 computer (or model/1bis), iirc, will try to seek out the post later to confirm, if I find a moment.

Yep, that's the sensible way to do it
It hasn't made it to the errata file yet though, has it?

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by far-trader: Edit - Ah, I also used the "bridge" rules loosely to allow up to half the tonnage to be used towards installed components, the computer and turret in this case. Hence the brackets and no minus signs for the tonnage.

Oh yes, the "half size bridge" rule. Wouldn't it have been a whole lot simpler if:
this idea had been dropped to avoid confusion;
or,
there was a crystal clear example of what can be included under "bridge tonnage" and what can't;
or,
bridge tonnage was defined as 1% of the hull, with a 10t (or 2t for smallcraft) minimum. Nothing for free. If you want sickbays and airlocks, pay their tonnage cost.

My preference would be the third option above

 

[mike wightman]

And one little nit-pick on your design far trader, if I may
I can accept the liberal interprtation of the aformentioned half sized bridge rule (even though the book does say that the ship's computer, power plant, and drives cann't be included in the bridge, it doesn't say if this means the whole computer system, avionics, communications and sensors or just the core ), but if you include an airframe hull you have to either reduce agility by 1 or increase the size of your computer (model 2 avionics required) by 0.4 tons.
That would put the design 0.42 tons overweight

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
And one little nit-pick on your design far trader, if I may

But of course, that's a big part of the reason I post here, constructive critique and feedback, positive and even negative can be good.

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:

I can accept the liberal interprtation of the aformentioned half sized bridge rule (even though the book does say that the ship's computer, power plant, and drives cann't be included in the bridge, it doesn't say if this means the whole computer system, avionics, communications and sensors or just the core ), but if you include an airframe hull you have to either reduce agility by 1 or increase the size of your computer (model 2 avionics required) by 0.4 tons.
That would put the design 0.42 tons overweight

Yep, that's why its a Model/1bis computer. It says "A bis computer acts as one model higher for determining Jump and Flight Avionics support..." which I take to mean that a Model/1bis Ships Computer (core) with a Model/1 Flight Avionics can support up to Jump 2 and 1,000dT of Ship, or one level of streamlining upgrade in a Ship up to 600dT. Again it may be a liberal interpretation but I think it works and it helps me rationalize it better for MTU to lump Jump support into the Flight Avionics. But then I also have Model/0 systems and Bis versions across the board in MTU

As for the other 0.02dT... somebodies been doing some reverse engineering and checking my math, eh? I recall doing some rounding of the systems (drives and power and fuel iirc) so it all added up about right but each is not quite what its specifed as

I think it is a wee bit under specs, a shade below 5G and if pushing the envelope you may notice a slight delay in charging the laser each cycle, nothing serious

One more note, it seems I have been calculating the cost of armor wrong (at least according to Shane in a recent post which I tend to agree with now) so I've adjusted the cost of the design above, now I just need to hunt up any other posts and check them or... I could just pocket the difference

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by far-trader:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
In T20 you can't build a space ship under 10t, depending on how you interpret the computer rule ...

I got a definitive answer to that from Hunter some time back. You round up the computer model allowed so anything up to 10dT can have a model/1 computer (or model/1bis), iirc, will try to seek out the post later to confirm, if I find a moment. </font>[/QUOTE]Found the post just in case anyone needs the official reply. Check here.

 

[mike wightman]

Hi far trader, I hope you don't think I'm being negatively critical but...
Just kidding

What I'm trying to do is understand some of the vagaries of the T20 ship design system, like the bridge issue .
Now, since you mentioned it, I took the wording of the 1bis computer to mean you could install a model 2 avionics package (required for a 600t or less airframe to maintain full agility), after all it will support jump 2 but you still need a jump 2 engine
Reading it again, your interpretation sound valid. So I wonder which is the correct way to do it ?
Maybe it's an "ask Hunter"???

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Hi far trader, I hope you don't think I'm being negatively critical but...
Just kidding

Not at all... I think

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
What I'm trying to do is understand some of the vagaries of the T20 ship design system, like the bridge issue

You and me and more than a few others I expect...

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Now, since you mentioned it, I took the wording of the 1bis computer to mean you could install a model 2 avionics package (required for a 600t or less airframe to maintain full agility), after all it will support jump 2 but you still need a jump 2 engine
Reading it again, your interpretation sound valid. So I wonder which is the correct way to do it ?
Maybe it's an "ask Hunter"???

I would but answers aren't always forthcoming for various reasons and in this case I have a bad feeling your interpretation is the way Hunter would rule and intended it to be read.

Bis versions are already iffy imo. If I have to further buy a higher model Flight Avionics that pretty much insures I'd just buy a full Model/2 computer (for the same cost and very little extra volume) and as a bonus be able to upgrade the Sensors and Comms and take a computer hit without it dying.

Further IMTU (though not in posted designs unless I goofed) Bis versions are only 1.5 times the cost rather than 2.0 times just to make them a little more economically viable, but they are a more hardwired style system and not upgradeable while the standard models are more software modelled and use simple plug and play systems modules so its easy to upgrade.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader: Edit - Ah, I also used the "bridge" rules loosely to allow up to half the tonnage to be used towards installed components, the computer and turret in this case. Hence the brackets and no minus signs for the tonnage.

Oh yes, the "half size bridge" rule. Wouldn't it have been a whole lot simpler if:
this idea had been dropped to avoid confusion;
or,
there was a crystal clear example of what can be included under "bridge tonnage" and what cann't;
or,
bridge tonnage was defined as 1% of the hull, with a 10t (or 2t for smallcraft) minimum. Nothing for free. If you want sickbays and airlocks, pay their tonnage cost.

My preference would be the third option above </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, I'm pretty much doing it your third option myself. The book does require you pay any costs except for the mandatory airlock iirc (but it does use 3dT of the slush volume). CT assumed the bridge included avionics, comms and sensors, which is now the bulk of the "computer" cost and volume so I have a problem with not allowing T20 designs to incorporate the "computer" in that slush despite the spirit of the rule to stay true to CT's roots of having the "computer" seperate, if you follow.

I think the idea of the slush was to provide for ship support elements without impacting on the design volume. All the allowed components actually listed could be called safety and/or required elements.

The last couple designs I've been working on I've just ignored the slush (as most if not all of the official designs seem to have done), the bridge is only the bridge (and I don't say what it is) and if I want a Sickbay for example I subtract the volume from the design (and not the half bridge volume slush) and pay the price. The slush does help when trying to duplicate old designs with T20 rules though and I'll still do it the way I was for MTU at least. It's easy enough to just take a design that has no slush allocated and pop in what I want or need to fill it up.

If there were to be an official ruling I'd prefer that it be a simple no slush volume and the whole bridge requirement is for control elements only (1/2 for actual systems, 1/4 for the crew workstations at 0.5dT each, and 1/4 for access space, being my preferred breakdown).