Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through January 02, 2005	25		01/02 02:32pm
	Archive through January 05, 2005	25		01/05 08:29pm
	Archive through January 08, 2005	25		01/08 11:47pm

Mike West:

The Type C was a standard design in the basic game set. It was more than just a troop ship (even a poor one) in that it could carry paying passengers, cargo (not very much) or perform research missions(hence the option of carrying researchers/scientists.

The Judges Guild Version was (IIRC) built on a "BOX" pattern with 2 or 3 decks and looked like the trailer part of a semi tractor trailer rig for Over the Road high wahy use on the US interstate system.

I guess the point is, the Type C could be used in GURPS PD to provide an adventurer group some added muscle in that the ground combat contingent adds up to 15 to 17 soldiers over and above the command crew/adventurer party.

If you read the posts above, I think you might see where the disadvantages and differences between Traveler/GURPS/PD and SFB had be discussed in some detail.

For the record, I am not suggesting using Traveler ships... only that some types were designed with different missions than the ships currently available in SFB.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 11:08 am: Edit

Civilianized Police Cutter Designs:

After the general War, the venerable POL design was arguably obsolete, and no longer capable of fulfilling all of its missions in the face of the new standards of warships and pirate ships operating in the quadrant.

As a result, Solar Turbomecha, the producers of the POL, saw orders for new ships decline...and faced the real possibility of bankruptcy in the not too distant future.

The only alternative potential buyers of the POL hulls were the civilian market. So just like after major wars in history, surplus warships were offered to the general economy at little more than scrap prices. Just like after WW2, in the real world, where corporations purchased Bombers, PT boats, and ships of all manner of types and sizes.

Two ready made configurations of the POL existed, and after a "treatment" by the press office (soon changed to the marketing offices of "Solar Turbomecha Inc.") they "rolled out the models "Type A Merchant Cruiser" and the "Type B Merchant Cruiser".

The Type A was a civilianized POL that traded its photon for a type A drone rack. the presence of 2 cargo boxes being the basis of the claim that the hull consittuted a "merchant cruiser design".

The Type B was a civilian version of the POL CVE design printed in Captains Log #30. The difference being that instead of 10 shuttle boxes, 8 of them are configured as cargo holds, and 2 are retained as the shuttle bay. the photon was replaced by a type 'B' drone rack.

Along with the Type "C" merchant cruiser, Solar Turbomecha was well placed to provide high performance starships for the high end civilian starship market for companies wanting starships capable of more than the existing Free Trader, APT and the small and large freighters already available.

The only other source of such designs available were the less then totally legitimate Orion Pirate types... and many people were less than happy at having to conduct buisness with the less savory aspects of the criminal classes.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 06:29 pm: Edit

The crew seems excessively low for the "C" class. Since the ship has the same number of weapons as the POL+, the crew should be about the same size.

I need to look a bit more carefully, but at a first glance, I'm having a hard time seeing a major difference between this ship and a large drone armed freighter with military (aux) grade drives in partial ballast (modulo a skid and/or ducktail). So I think this ship is already in the game (albeit a bit of an unusual configuration. And the armed freighter has the major advantage (from a sales POV) that it can transport 2 pods if desired/available.

Note that the freighter has 12 crew units (although 3 are BP), also pointing towards your verison not having enough crew.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 10:30 am: Edit

The original reason for choosing the POL as the base hull of the Type C cruiser was its similarity to the Traveler version (which includes a crew roster.)

Also, the large Freighter (IIRC) has 2 pods for a total of 50 cargo boxes.

In that sense, comparing the large drone armed frighter with military (aux) engines and with skid and or duck bill is an apples and orange kind of comparison.

I was not aware that the large freighter components could function with only one cargo pod... was there a SSD for that combination?

The Type C merchant cruiser is not "modular" in the same sense that small and large freighters are. the cargo section does not "swap out" with other cargo pods.

That said, I am forced to admit that when the third warp engine was added to the MC-C proposal, there was not an increase in hull boxes or added personel to operate the increased warp drives.

with 12 crew units, we would need to add 2 hull boxes, if we used the original cargo bay of 2 cargo boxes, we could accomdate 12 crew units ... but I dont understand why a 50% increase in warp power requires a 100% increase in total crew?

I could see needing 1 additional crew unit... but surely 1 additional hull box would be sufficient for that...

part of the intent for the Type C is to fit in between the operating costs of the small and large freighters... and the example you cite would offer the same general costs that the large freighters are...so that would provide no comparitive advantage between them.

Also, another question that would need to be answered, is if the Large drone armed freighter, (in partial ballast) with a skid and or duck bill has the same movement cost as it would with 2 cargo pods. if it is the same, then it also would be restricted to merchant ships accel limits of 5 hexes per turn or double current speed. the Type C would have military accelleration.

if the large drone armed freighter (in partial ballast) with a skid and or duck bill actually improves its movement cost (for being in partial ballast) then it would be actually superior to the Type C and exactly the kind of unit I would like to see added to the game (assuming the crew size could be trimmed down some what... the traveler type C had 70 to 80 crew on board).

Are you making a formal proposal that large frieghters can operate in partial ballast?

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 04:07 pm: Edit

Jeff, a standard SFB small freighter consists of three pieces: the control section, the drive section, and the cargo pod. The large freighter is the same except that it has two cargo pods.

The drive and control sections attach mechanically to the front and rear of the pod; this takes maybe an hour, so SFB treats this action as "not during a scenario" and otherwise ignores it. A comparison to an 18-wheel semi is VERY valid, except that the control and drive sections are combined and attach to the front of the cargo pod.

All the pieces are interchangable. There are cargo pods, starliner pods, carrier pods, and another dozen or so. Similarily there is your basic control/drive sections, phaser-armed c/d sections, disruptor-armed c/d sections, and all of those variants. While there are no SSDs for some of the stranger combinations, in GPD you can mix and match any combination of pod, ducktail, skid, and control/drive sections you want. The only rule you cannot break is that you cannot mix-and-match control and drive sections -- they go as a pair, together, always.

You are probably unaware that a complete set of deck plans for a standard small freighter were published about 10 years ago; the deck plans also included the extra deck plan section for a Tramp Steamer (which has an SSD) which is a small freighter variant that has 15 or 20 cargo and 5 hull (IIRC) and can carry passengers in cabins (which are shown on the deckplans).

This set of deckplans, along with an adventure to use them, were published back in the PD1 days in PRIME ADVENTURES #1. I do not know if that book is still on the shopping cart here, but the deck plans are still valid (and will probably get reprinted in a GPD books someday).

You might want to track down a copy.

One warning: it has a 11x17 inch pull-out section which is loose; the bulk of the deckplans are on it. If you end up buying it off eBay or whoever, make sure that insert is included!

(One other unpublished set of deck plans are for a Commercial Platform (COMPLAT) with variants for a System Activity Maintenance Station (SAMS) both of which have SSDs. That never got printed, and as far as I know SVC and I have the only copies, but it too is still valid. Who knows, maybe both will find their way into GFed?)

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 04:45 pm: Edit

Gary,

Thank you.

I was aware of many of the things you posted, (not all, by any means!) and I do appreciate the time you are taking in helping me ( and I assume, others who are just reading.)

The point I raised with my response to David, would seem to be correct then?

That you may not use a large Freighter control and drive section along with the drive unit and one cargo pod?

If davids suggestion of a Drone armed large freighter (in partial ballast) is not an option, then the CM-C would still fit in the middle ground between the large and small frieghters.

The Tramp steamer is interesting, but still as only the small freighter drive section, and would have merchant performance....(I would think...)

Now as to the question of if such a unit would be "fun to play" I would think that it would have more interesting options than the other cargo carriers would.

It would fit in SFB.

the intent was to offer a compatible design to that found in Traveler.

Is there a reason why such a ship type would not function in GURPS PD?

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 04:59 pm: Edit

The Captain's Log that introduced ducktails and skids also discusses "short" cargo pods, with ten (or fifteen) cargo boxes.

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 05:12 pm: Edit

On their SSDs, the number and types of boxes are different for a FS and a FL, so -- no, they are definitely different. The FS c/d sections can only mount one pod (plus ducktail and skid per the rules that were published for those bits). To mount two pods, you need a FL c/d section. So it is two pods on a FL or none.

I don't see any reason that such a thing as a "ballast pod" could not exist. It would be the same size as a regular pod but have one hull box.

Of course, the realistic question would be why you're doing this? You're not making any profit travelling in ballast. FLs are mostly used for bulk cargo on a very regular basis -- compare to a railroad train that goes from the mine to a power station every day 24/7/365 with 100 cars of coal.

By extension, the F-OL is also unique, although I suppose you can get by with two pods instead of 4.

As to the other part of your question:

I've got absolutely no reason why you can't play a TRAVELLER C hull in GPD. Or a Millenium Falcon, or a SPACE 1999 Eagle, or anything else from another genre.

The problem is that (if I understand the licensing correctly) we can never make such a thing OFFICIAL, either in GPD or SFB. nor can we print it; the skiffs and modular cutter are probably a one-time thing that happened once. It is not our game system, and someone else holds the rights to that design -- ALL of those designs. This is the same type of headache that prevents ADB from publishing SSDs for the ship designs we have seen on TNG/DS9/VOY and the movies.

The main problem is that the ship design system used by TRAVELLER (and SPACE3, for that matter) are mostly incompatible with SFB ship designs. You may have noticed this.

So the bottom line is that while you can create and use any conversion you like, no one named Steve is gonna bless it, but it should function just fine anyhow. Whatever works!

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 09:59 pm: Edit

Jeff,

In the CL23 article, it explicitly states that a freighter can travel in ballast, in ballast with a skid and/or ducktail, or in ballast with up to four skids. Also, it explicitly states that there are 10 box and 15 box cargo pods. It also states that more than just the two types of skids are possible; the two published are just the most common.

So, for a minimal, but more capable ship, take a normal small command module, a short (15 box) cargo pod, a general skid, a ducktail, and a military small engine module. Put it together, and you have a ship that has 1 P-2, 1 P-3, reasonable systems (for such a small ship) and can travel at speed 30. If you use a military command module, you get 2 P-2 and one of drone, disruptor, or phaser.

And, just to be fun, you could replace the 15 box cargo pod with a "short" tramp pod, and have passengers, too.

Is that what you are looking for? I can whip up an SSD for that in no time. (I have a special "freighter construction" file that lets me make any freighter I want.)

Just remember that SFB freighters are *very* flexible. There are many things you can do with them that there are no SSDs for, but are well within the rules.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 10:09 pm: Edit

Gary,

The SFT freighter article online mentions the option of a small freighter carrying two pods, and a large freighter carrying one or three pods. The overloaded configuration only works for very short trips, but can be done. The underload is possible, just not done because of the inefficiency.

I haven't seen that reprinted in all of the various freighter articles and additions since, but I wouldn't rule it out, either.

A F-OL with only two pods is a F-L. Or, more properly, a F-L with military engines and a standard control module. So a "two-pod F-OL" is already in the game.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 09:23 am: Edit

Mike, thank you.

I was pretty sure that I had not seen a SSD for the combination of things that was suggested for the Type C merchant cruiser.

Your suggestion for a "a normal small command module, a short (15 box) cargo pod, a general skid, a ducktail, and a military small engine module. Put it together, and you have a ship that has 1 P-2, 1 P-3, reasonable systems (for such a small ship) and can travel at speed 30. If you use a military command module, you get 2 P-2 and one of drone, disruptor, or phaser..." suggestion comes close (far closer than some of the other suggestions made on this thread) by coming within 12 cargo boxes of the MC-C (you suggest 15 cargo box vs 27 on the original proposal, 25 or 26 depending on the fate of the original cargo boxes of the POL+ base hull design)

I guess there is no point in pursuing this thread any more... but it was a fun exercise.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 02:03 pm: Edit

I had suggested the large armed freighter since it started with 3 P2, 1 P3 and 2 drone racks. The military drive was to give it the necessary speed (it still has acceleration limits IIRC). I suppose I could have gone with 2 short cargo pods (30 boxes) instead of the single standard pod (25 boxes).

Jeff, I see now where my confusion came from. I had assumed you had re-read the freighter articles and knew that it was possible to build ships like this. Sorry for not realizing the disconnect earlier.

---

Quote:

The only rule you cannot break is that you cannot mix-and-match control and drive sections -- they go as a pair, together, always.

---

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 03:34 pm: Edit

David, no biggie.

I did not take your comments as offensive or personally hostile.

When I started this (way back when) I was looking at it from a RPG'ers POV that a semi legal ship (say a surplus POL or civilian model (like the Jeeps or Hummers sold to the general population in the USA in the real world)) would be more desireable (read as 'sexier') than any large or small freighter combination.

In that limited sense, such a ship would fill a role in the GURPS PD line like the millinium Falcon or any other "name" ship that has some characteristic superior to those normally encountered.

Thank you for sharing your opinions.

Jeff Wile

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 03:54 pm: Edit

Well, I'd say that if you just break the association between SSD and picture-created-in-MacDraw, then you'll do fine. An SSD could just as easily be represented by a stat line.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, July 23, 2019 - 04:14 pm: Edit

SVC,

You can probably delete this topic.

WRONG, I CANNOT, IT NEEDS REVIEW.