Belly packs for APTs and FTs?

Several issues, I should think. One being the danger of fire or explosions. A second being the question of just how much extra capacity does a belly pack add. If it is equal to a cargo box, that works out to be (1/6) of the available capacity of a vanilla APT or about 18% or so. So it is a material change. Is that enough?

If the belly pack adds three or six cargo boxes, that equates to 50% or 100% of the original capacity which might make it an attractive option.

The third issue is does every starship class have to have a belly pack or a deck house or some other appendage?

In this case, it might be warranted.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Saturday, January 28, 2017 - 10:39 pm: Edit

How would an FT land with a belly pack??

I had thought the APT could land, until Petrick pointed out it can't, because of the feet molding into the mini. Perhaps those are actually docking links to attach said belly pod.


Garth L. Getgen

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, January 29, 2017 - 08:48 am: Edit

A back Pack?

By Dal Downing (Rambler) on Sunday, January 29, 2017 - 01:30 pm: Edit

Perhaps it time to put out a landing capable APT for Prime Directive groups.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, January 29, 2017 - 03:30 pm: Edit

The Free Trader's weapons are on the top so a back pack would block them.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, January 29, 2017 - 08:48 pm: Edit

a variant Free Trader might work.

Replace phasers with a type E drone rack and a type A... or a pair of type G drone racks? You lose the phaser but would retain anti drone ability and 360 degree offense ability in drones?

That way a back pack doesn't block weapons.

Can't think of any other option that might work.

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Monday, January 30, 2017 - 09:17 am: Edit

Belly packs for free traders or apt s would be like skids, something for special mission s . In that case, loss of something like landing capabilities may be acceptable.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, March 24, 2017 - 09:52 pm: Edit

another thought concerning the carrier version of the type, namely the APV.

Should it be a hybrid carrier?

With only four fighters, we are really talking about a third of a normal squadron. Unless these things operate like Romulan carriers built on the battle hawk hulls, you would need four APVs to field a full squadron.

If it was considered a hybrid type, then the fighters could be chosen the same way other hybrid carriers do.

Might be a helpful reinforcement to other carriers that do not have full fighter squadrons, for CVE or certain CVL groups.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, April 02, 2017 - 02:45 pm: Edit

Taking a moment to consider SVC's belly pack suggestion... imo a "Fanny Pack" cargo unit for a APT would be a huge improvement.

Some assumptions:

Such a fanny pack attaché ment would attach to the top of the APT so as to not prevent planetary landings.

Let's set the capacity as equal to six cargo boxes. General cargo, ores, crated items only, no passengers, livestock or perishable items like food, produce etc.

Not convertible to anything, so couldn't carry shuttles or troops or ship systems like phasers, transporters or tractor beams.

would the fanny pack block the ships phaser 3?

Would it affect the ships movement cost? (I hope not, it would destroy a big part of the value to the owner).

At a guess, there are a number of issues that would need to be clarified.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Sunday, April 02, 2017 - 04:08 pm: Edit

Doubling the cargo volume would have to increase movement cost.

Not sure a fanny pack could work since the impulse engines and warp drive units would be blocked. Side mounting of extra cargo might be possible based on the miniature.

Not sure I like it, having an APT with 12 cargo seems redundant with the FT also having 12 cargo.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, April 02, 2017 - 05:03 pm: Edit

Richard Wells,

Ordinarily I think you would be correct. doubling a cargo ships capacity normally would be 50% or more of the total SSD boxes of the original design. But in this case 6 boxes are less than 50%... Id have to pull the SSD to verify to determine what the exact percentage works out to be.

if it were plus 50% of the total SSD boxes, at a guess it would increase the movement cost by a like percentage.

if the increase were 20%, then doubling the movement cost would be too much. same if the increase in SSD boxes were on the order of 10%.

perhaps I should be calling it a back pack or a deck house.

plus, would having such a cargo addon make the ship incapable of atmospheric flight?

perhaps side mounting of the cargo addons is indeed the way to go... but if so, it might block the ship from docking with most bases.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, April 02, 2017 - 08:40 pm: Edit

I cannot see adding six cargo boxes without movement cost going up. And if you're adding only cargo it's just a target who who cares?

I also cannot see how to mount the pack on top without blocking the phasers.

Mounting it on the belly isn't a landing problem. You either use a pack that is strong enough to hold the ship or you gently land, detach the pack, then move the ship up a bit, over, down a bit, and land separately.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, April 02, 2017 - 09:59 pm: Edit

What is the movement cost of the APT? Isn't it MCR=1/5?

Without the cargo pack, the APT needs all 6 warp power points the engines provide to hit speed 30, using one point of impulse engine power gets the APT to speed 31 hexes per SFBs turn.

Let's just say adding two three box cargo sets underneath the APT increases the movement cost to MCR=1/4 or 0.25... that slows the APT down to speed 24 hexes per turn using only warp power...25 when impulse power added in.

That gives a slower APT variant in one way... but increasing the number of cargo boxes that could be converted into some other variant? Going from 6 cargo boxes to 12 would change some of the variants that SVC and SPP had discussed earlier.

Just the four fighter APT carrier variant would change if all 6 of the new cargo boxes could be converted into Shuttle/fighter boxes. Instead of a four fighter carrier, now were looking at a ten fighter group and that's not counting the Admin Shuttle the APT started with.

Same with the troop carrier. With the same number of cargo boxes the free trader has, the APT with plus 6 more cargo boxes becomes just as capable of carrying tanks or troops as the free trooper or the free tanker.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, April 03, 2017 - 01:02 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile:

Suggestion: Check the characteristics of the vehicle before posting concepts.

Armed Priority Transports (and all variants thereof) are not, I say again not, able to land on planets other than by a crash landing resulting in the destruction of the ship (and incidentally any cargo it is carrying for scenario purposes . . . the crew might survive).

As such, there is no reason a pack (if one is approved and added to the game) has to be mounted above the hull to facilitate such an activity.

This was actually mentioned previously in this topic (see my posts on 13 Jan and 14 Jan).

As has been previously mentioned, the lack of an ability to land on planets means the ship, without a major and significant modification, cannot function as a tank transport for purposes of landing tanks, whether under fire or not. The modification would be doubling the size of the shuttle bay so that it could operate a Heavy Transport Shuttle, and thus be able to slowly land tanks (one at a time going through the complete landing and take off sequence for each tank, at least until the Heavy Transport Shuttle is destroyed in any case). With only one transporter, it cannot effectively even land Ground Combat Vehicles (requires three transporters working together).

With only one shuttle and one transporter, the ship would be a very poor "Free Trooper" supplement in any case.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, April 03, 2017 - 01:10 pm: Edit

DUPLICATE POST DELETED

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, April 03, 2017 - 06:12 pm: Edit

Let me add this.

While an APT could not really land tanks by itself effectively. An APT could carry a cargo of tanks (six of them would constitute the APT's full cargo capacity since each tank is 50 cargo points in and of itself). It could dock to a commercial platform of a relatively prosperous colony and off load the tanks [nominally taking five turns under (G25.23)], load a new cargo (another five turns) and be off. The Commercial Platform would have to have the empty cargo volume to accept the tanks, plus cargo to transfer to the APT in exchange (or do some finagling to make it all work). But once the cargo is transferred, the heavy transport shuttles of the colony could come up to the station and land the tanks.

But an APT is not going to be landing tanks by itself unless it is modified, and I do not think it can be modified to land on planets, but might be modified to enlarge its shuttle bay for a heavy transport shuttle. Even so, such an APT would be not be an effective tank assault unit.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Monday, April 03, 2017 - 11:45 pm: Edit

Personally, I'm bummed out that the APT can't land / take off under its own power.


Garth L. Getgen

By Michael Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, April 04, 2017 - 02:36 am: Edit

I think that is the whole reason behind the darn Free Trader/ Tanker/ Trooper.

(note below is written off the top of my head and may run afoul of some rule I forgot)

Note that SPP left out an option. You transport the tanks (whatever) to the planet with the APT (whatever). DOCK to it with your Cargo pf/ skiff. Use the PF/ Skiff to land the tanks.

All this depends on the relative availability of cargo PFs of course.

NOTE: This gives your commando ship an extra reason to choose to tote a cargo PF instead of a commando PF.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, April 04, 2017 - 06:37 am: Edit

Still. In a home run campaign, particularly if in SFBs or FC, production of tanks, APC's, trucks in fact any specific commanders options produced at specific Major or Minor world would require delivery at the battle sector.

Players could of course use a small freighter...APTs offer speed of delivery.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Tuesday, April 04, 2017 - 08:00 am: Edit

removed by me.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, April 04, 2017 - 12:57 pm: Edit

Michael Grafton:

Well . . . a cargo PF is technically a "cargo ship," as is the armed priority transport. So in theory you could move a tank from an armed priority transport to a cargo PF. Your problem is that transferring cargo to a cargo PF docked to a cargo ship is done at the rate of two points of cargo a turn (TURN) (G25.23), meaning it will take you 25 turns (after the cargo PF has docked) to transfer a tank to a cargo PF (or seeker skiff, or modular courier).

Again, this does not seem practical to do under fire during a planetary assault (since the cargo PF and the armed priority transport have to dock together and will pretty much be stationary sitting ducks during the transfer).

Sure, you could land tanks by this method before the battle starts (when you have the time to build and reinforce your planetary defenses), but it is probably not a good idea to do it when the shooting is going on. And if things are so secure you can do it (spend 25 turns stationary transferring a tank to a cargo PF or seeker skiff/modular courier), you probably did not need tanks to win the battle anyway.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 04, 2017 - 01:11 pm: Edit

I don't see anything useful to do with an APT without making it a bigger hull and then why not just use the Free Trader.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, April 04, 2017 - 05:42 pm: Edit

Going back to SVC's list of possible variants of the APT and revising it for Free Traders

AC: Armed cutter, already published

NOTE: The above would obviously be considered already published as the "Prime Corvette" (R1.85)

APA: SFG version isn't going to happen.

NOTE: Status Unchanged, there is no point to a Stasis Field Generator on a ship this small.

APB: dunno

NOTE: With nothing to compare to, there is nothing to suggest.

APC: commando version, plausible, have we done it?

NOTE: This is the Free Trooper (R1.43).

APD: drone version, seems subsumed into AC.

NOTE: As with the APT to APD, this seems covered by the Prime Corvette.

APE: escort, plausible, have we done it?

NOTE: Possible variant of the Prime Corvette?

APF: fast carrier resupply, plausible, have we done it?

NOTE:The Basic Free Trader lacks weapons, probably not worth installing limited aegis. But put a ready rack in the shuttle bay, convert some of the cargo to quarters and use the rest to deliver supplies. Basically the basic Free Trader is already a sort of fast carrier resupply ship, even if it lacks the ready rack. Not sure converting it further for the mission would be worthwhile.

APG: guided weapon version, AC covers it.

NOTE: As with APT variant, the Prime Corvette covers this.

APH: Silo type-H drone, might do this if silos are ever approved, which isn't likely.

NOTE: No change.

API: Investivative ship for police, sort of a CSI team? Plausible.

NOTE: Probably a job the Prime Trader (R1.67) performs.

APJ: Penal variant, plausible, have we done it?

NOTE: Not sure the Klingons would build a penal Prime Corvette.

APK: killer combat variant, unlikely, AC is it.

NOTE: No change.

APL: Leader variant, why?

NOTE: No change.

APM: minefield maintenance proposal by Petrick, plausible but little more than a target.

NOTE: As noted elsewhere, the Free Trader variant was proposed by someone else, and at the time I did not think much of it, because I missed the fact that minelaying freighters show up almost 20 years after minelaying and minesweeping shuttles. So I have (also as noted) accepted that minelaying variants of Free Trades might have been the first minelayers used.

APN: diplomatic version, plausible but little more than a target.

NOTE: See this as just a use of the Luxury Fast Transport (R1.65).

APO: No idea what this would be.

NOTE: As with the "Fleet Oilers," I said I could see an APT variant, an I can also see a Free Trader variant. But such are just targets as part of special convoys and just not of interest in themselves.

APP: PFT version with two PFs, not sure what it would be used for, would NOT be used in teams of three for a regular flotilla.

NOTE: Not sure I want to go here. Free Traders strike me as too small to operate PFs.

APQ: survey ship, too small to go very far but perhaps usable in "next star system" missions, plausible, but only a target.

NOTE: This has appeared as a suggestion in fiction, and we could develop an SSD, but otherwise it would be rather small and not much more than a target.

APR: repair ship? Seems unlikely to have enough systems to matter, but maybe a patch and pray concept?

NOTE: Probably something could be done. Convert 33% of cargo to repair, convert 33% of cargo to hull (repair crews), and retain 33% to carry the spare parts and etc.?

APS: Scout, too small for much use, perhaps colony defense support unit?

NOTE: Could be done as a variant of the Prime Corvette.

APT: Traffic Control, plausible but only a target.

NOTE: No change.

APU: Theater transport to move pods around? Plausible but only a target.

NOTE: Not sure I want mini-tugs to keep proliferating.

APV: carrier with four fighters? Plausible but of any real use?

NOTE: Already done as the FEV (R1.84).

APW: Wartime version, not sure where to go.

NOTE: This is pretty much the Prime Corvette.

APX: X-tech? Really?

NOTE: Already exists (R1.205).

APY: Early Years variant? Have we really never done this?

NOTE: Already exists (YR1.11).

APZ: Not sure what Z stands for, weapons test platform?

NOTE: As with the APZ, a variant like this would be too small to test some weapons (plasma-S and larger, PPDs).

APT Tank/vehicle landing ship: Probably exists but the game has the Free Tanker which does the job better, nobody would pay for us and it would cost us time (which is money) to do one.

NOTE: Already exists as the Free Tanker (R1.42)/

APT fuel tanker: Probably exists for local use but it's just a target, nobody would pay for it, and there is no functional difference between it and a regular APT.

NOTE: Commented on above.

Unarmed priority transport: The stock APT barely has weapons as it is. Would enough space be freed to create another cargo box? Would anyone care?

NOTE: Doubtful anyone would be interested.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, April 04, 2017 - 07:04 pm: Edit

Just out of curiosity... would there be interest in GURPs PD for a "Prime" refit of the APT similar in nature to what the Prime Trader got?

Without looking at the SSDs the free trader lost half of its cargo 6 boxes, and gained four systems boxes (I forget what they were... two battery, two tractor?) it also traded in its two four warp box engine necelles for two five box warp drive necelles... and I think those were military grade engines with military acceleration.

I don't remember if the shields or crew got changed...

Would be nice if the phaser 3 on the APT got upgraded to a phaser 2 or phaser 1... be even nicer if it got a plus refit of a drone G rack and two point defense phaser 3s.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, April 04, 2017 - 07:17 pm: Edit

A Prime Trader (R1.67) trades six cargo boxes for two labs, two battery, and two center hull.

In addition to the above, it gains one additional optional weapon box (and the right to install up to phaser-1, the Free Trader cannot go above phaser-2), one additional admin shuttle, and improves the six box engines on the Free Trader to eight boxes.

Shields, sensors, scanners, damage control, and excess damage are not improved.

The crew is doubled (from three to six), but boarding parties remain one crew unit's worth (two).

The Prime Trader did NOT gain "military acceleration" over the Free Trader, Free Traders have never had restrictions on their acceleration, but have a maximum speed of 25 (if using a point of impulse power) and have always been able to disengage by acceleration (which has always been the main problem for pirates attacking them, i.e., they can disengage by acceleration and do it quickly, a large or small freighter cannot disengage by acceleration at all).

A Free Trader starting from Speed Zero can accelerate to Speed 10 on Turn #1. To Speed 20 on Turn #2. And can announce disengagement on the start of Turn #3.

A Free Trader starting from Speed 12 can announce disengagement at the start of Turn #1 (Double Speed is 24, spending 1 point of Impulse for fire control, one point of impulse for shields, and a half point of warp for life support leaves 11.5 warp so maximum speed for the turn is 23 and thus disengagement unless the Orion manages to do a lot of damage to the engines during the turn.)

A Prime Trader starting from Speed Zero has the same three turns to disengagement as a Free Trader, but must start at Speed 15 to be able to disengage on Turn #1 (one point of impulse for shields, one point of warp for fire control, one half point of warp for life support, leaves 14.5 warp and one point of impulse for Speed 30). If he is plugging along at Speed 14 down to Speed 11, he needs two turns to disengage by acceleration.

Either might escape a Light Raider, but a Raider Cruiser may be able to do enough damage through the shields to cripple the engines and prevent an escape.