Re: Modular Freighters (was Re: FB - Thrust Ratings for Freighters)

>> Standardized Cargo module:
>>
>> And now the Tugs:
>
>well, i wasn't thinking quite in standardised cargo pod terms, but it
does
>make sense.

Well, How about having several size modules if necessary?

>i envisage long, thin ships, like 2001's 'discovery', with cargo pods
>wrapped around them.

>this is a bit like one of the freighters in the 'tie
>fighter' computer game (the one with three trapezoidal pods around a
>rodlike core),

Ummm, perhaps it's just me, but doesn't that sound like a description of
the
boom of Discovery? in cross section, at least, but the pods are smaller
relative
to the rod, and there are more of them...

>and also like a freighter that's drawn somewhere in the
>back of FT. it's also a little like the ships in "silent running"
(bonus
>points if you've seen that one - extra bonus if you spotted the ship
being
>attacked in an episode of battlestar galactica ...).

Ever seen the Traveller module 'Doom of the Singing Star'?

<Snip>

<serendipity mode on>

>i was thinking that (for offworld shipping at least, maybe not
on-planet
>haulage) you'd use big huge containers. if you stacked regular
containers
>in a cubic lattice, 10 to a side, it'd be 2000 tonnes. that's 20 mass.
>result!

<serendipity mode off>

>of course, heavily industrialised planets would build large-gauge
railways
>to carry entire kilocontainers around, and similarly big cargo lorries.
>perhaps this was the origin of ogre technology :-)

Ummm...is that a good thing ;)

>> So how do they rate?
>
>they look a bit pricey, but that's what you pay for the added
convenience.
>of course, if you just model the kilocontainers as part of the ship,
this
>problem mostly goes away.

On a per freighter basis, yes, but it allows a much greater efficiency
on a
large scale - for example the process of loading/unloading becomes
quicker,
faster in-port turnaround allows more runs in the same amount of time,
etc.
Buying more bulk capacity is cheap.  And you can buy the Tugs separately
from
the pods, so buy only what you need.

Just for kicks, a larger tug

Large Cargo Tug: (can tow up to 8 cargo modules)
Mass 58
Fragile Hull (6 pts)
Thrust 4  (by itself-Th3 with 1 module, Th2 with 3-4, Th1 with 5-8)
FTL with Mass 160 Tug ability
2 PDS
Total cost 176

So how do they rate? (chart corrected for errors in earlier:

Ship		       Cap.  Cost  $/cap  Hits	Thr.  Defense
---------------------  ----  ----  -----  ----	----  -------------
FB1 Free Trader 	 8    47    5.88    4	  4   1xClass-1
FB1 Light Freighter	27    67    2.48    4	  2   1xPDS
FB1 Medium Freighter	55   131    2.40    8	  2   1xPDS
FB1 Heavy Freighter	83   195    2.34   12	  2   1xPDS
Micro Tug w1 module	18    53    2.94    3	  1   1xPDS
Small Tug w1 module	18    72    4.00    4	  2   1xPDS
	   2 modules	36    97    2.69    6	  1   1xPDS
Med Tug w  1 module	18   116    6.44    5	  2   2xPDS
	   2 modules	36   140    3.89    7	  1   2xPDS
	   3 modules	54   164    3.04    9	  1   2xPDS
	   4 modules	72   188    2.61   11	  1   2xPDS
Large Tug w5 modules	90   296    3.29   16	  1   2xPDS
	   6 modules   108   320    2.96   18	  1   2xPDS
	   7 modules   126   344    2.73   20	  1   2xPDS
	   8 modules   146   368    2.52   22	  1   2xPDS
Cargo module		18    24    1.33    2	  -   none

The large tug still isn't as price efficient as a FB1 hvy freighter for
a single
full load - But with FB freighters you also can't have extra cargo pods
stocked
and waiting for you - outside the scope of FT perhaps, but important is
you want
to model 'realistic' options.

The tug version is also more flexible - because without converting
anything else
you can slap on any valid Mass 20 design and change its mission role -
lots of
scenario possibilities.  Civilian auxiliaries perhaps?

How about a Fighter module?

Mass 20 (20 pts)
Fragile hull (mass 2 / 4 pts)
2x fighter bay (mass 18 / 54 pts)
cost w/o fighters 78

Or a PT boat

Mass 20 (20 pts)
Fragile Hull (2 / 4)
1 Armor      (1 / 2)
Thrust 8     (8 / 16)
1 Firecon    (1 / 4)
2xSMR	     (8 / 24) or 8 Subpacks/2 class 1+6 sub packs/etc.
total	     20 / 70

>> The largest difficulty comes from the fact that the damage points are
>> distributed between the Tug and 2 per module.  Maybe an adaptation of
the MT
>> Supership rules could handle this.

>could be below ft's granularity. we don't bother figuring out where
>warships were hit, after all. you could just roll threshold checks for
>each container, or something.

possibly, but then again in an effort to stay legal I built a fragile
hull into
each cargo module, and would like to not only take advantage of those
hull
points, but also retain the flexibility of a ship that may or may not
retain all
of it's cargo modules (and chagning individual damage tracks to somehow
include
the 'totals' doesn't work for me.

>> This also necessitates some sort of hit location, but at least it is
not hit
>> location 'inside' the ship - just which set of damage boxes to mark
to damage
>> to.	How about something like this:
>> - Damage location is determined for each volley.
>>   - Even chances of hitting the Tug or each individual module
>> - If a module takes more damage in a single volley than it has
remaining, the
>> excess damage passes to the Tug damage track.

OK, Keep the above portion (based on your comment below) for allocating
damage

nix the following 2

>> - Tug thresholds roll once for each module attached; if the test
fails, the
>> module is separated and remains behind.
>> - If a module is destroyed, the Tug makes a threshold check at it's
current
>> level

>that might be a bit excessive - it would penalise containerised ships
far
>more than bulkers.

Does that even it out a bit?

Jared