Thread: Re: Starship design.]

The reason I think we dropped the one HP per 100 tons is to deal with the
modular ships, and the artificial distinction about what was its "true"
displacement. Before you drop the modular piece? After? What if you modify
a ship later? Is it its original displacement, or new displacement?
Basically if you could make it fit within the mass and the new
all-important surface area (which an earlier post touched on the
importance of), have at it.

Unless, as I said, I'm making that up. I think that was the case with the
Victrix ships, which had one more hardpoint than the earlier rules would
have allowed.

The Victrix ships were supposed to look like Lamborghinis, by the way. Got
to have cool rides for the SVs. Not everything they fly has to look like
broken-down recovered antiques.

> Actually, I shouldn't say, "I'm pretty sure," and then turn around and
> say, "am I lying?"
>
> Let's pretend I said, "I THINK we deliberately..."
>
>> I'm pretty sure we deliberately removed the "only one hardpoint per 100
>> displacement tons" rule, as well as the "no jump-capable ships below 100
>> tons," but also did not really trumpet that in the rules. "Hey, rule
>> repealed, woo-hoo!"
>>
>> Can anyone corroborate that? I could be wrong about the hardpoints, but
>> I
>> know I'm not about the 100 ton jump limit.
>>
>> We also established that you could hang other weapon stations on
>> starships
>> as well, not just the classic starship turrets.

And a lot of that stuff was also related to the notion that the jump field
was a re-shapable energy field generated by the J-drive, and not something
generated directly by a grid embedded in the hull that followed the
contours of the hull as in DGP's SOG. Given the number of modular ships
already in Traveller and how cool the idea is, a reconfigurable field just
made more sense than a static grid, and to me was more interesting in
terms of all of the in game pseudo-physics you could play with.

> The reason I think we dropped the one HP per 100 tons is to deal with the
> modular ships, and the artificial distinction about what was its "true"
> displacement. Before you drop the modular piece? After? What if you modify
> a ship later? Is it its original displacement, or new displacement?
> Basically if you could make it fit within the mass and the new
> all-important surface area (which an earlier post touched on the
> importance of), have at it.
>
> Unless, as I said, I'm making that up. I think that was the case with the
> Victrix ships, which had one more hardpoint than the earlier rules would
> have allowed.
>
> The Victrix ships were supposed to look like Lamborghinis, by the way. Got
> to have cool rides for the SVs. Not everything they fly has to look like
> broken-down recovered antiques.
>
>> Actually, I shouldn't say, "I'm pretty sure," and then turn around and
>> say, "am I lying?"
>>
>> Let's pretend I said, "I THINK we deliberately..."
>>
>>> I'm pretty sure we deliberately removed the "only one hardpoint per 100
>>> displacement tons" rule, as well as the "no jump-capable ships below
>>> 100
>>> tons," but also did not really trumpet that in the rules. "Hey, rule
>>> repealed, woo-hoo!"
>>>
>>> Can anyone corroborate that? I could be wrong about the hardpoints, but
>>> I
>>> know I'm not about the 100 ton jump limit.
>>>
>>> We also established that you could hang other weapon stations on
>>> starships
>>> as well, not just the classic starship turrets.
>
>
>
>

Another rationale for the one HP per 100 dT rule is to consider it an IN guideline, perhaps a guideline for whatever they consider 'good practice' in ship design. In real life the RN, USN, etc. have their rules for ship designs -  the IN should be no different.

There's a good examples from real life that could have bearing on the game universe. It concerns a short-lived furore in Parliament concerning privately-designed ships built in the UK for a South American Navy (maybe Venezuela?) in the inter-war period. Ships had double the armament of RN ships of similar size, "this was a disgrace!" the usual voices thundered - but after the RN pointed out that the range given up on these ships to pack in the arms resulted in marginal inter-ocean capability the hue-and-cry died down.

As for the rule-breaking ships - Victrix and the Multi-Mission Scout could break the rule if their carried module was a missile module. I guess the Clippers could break it easily, though I have never done a load-out analysis. The Gazelle, if you consider a barbette two HPs, certainly breaks it - and even with a barbette as one HP breaks the rule with its tanks dropped. The Aslan Patrol Cruiser (Tekkathir?) from RSB breaks the rule too - with two turrets, two barbettes, and one missile farm.

That said, if the design does the job it is meant to do - then that is fine.  In real life there are a whole host of ship types that would be destined for a watery grave if they went up against a well-designed warship, as that their role - so under-armed vessels are not necessarily a bad thing.

>From: "" <>
>Sent: Tuesday, 19 June 2012, 6:41

>The reason I think we dropped the one HP per 100 tons is to deal with the

>modular ships, and the artificial distinction about what was its "true"

>displacement. Before you drop the modular piece? After? What if you modify

>a ship later? Is it its original displacement, or new displacement?

>Basically if you could make it fit within the mass and the new

>all-important surface area (which an earlier post touched on the

>importance of), have at it.

Unless, as I said, I'm making that up. I think that was the case with the
Victrix ships, which had one more hardpoint than the earlier rules would
have allowed.

The Victrix ships were supposed to look like Lamborghinis, by the way. Got
to have cool rides for the SVs. Not everything they fly has to look like
broken-down recovered antiques.