| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bobmalooga
Commander
Joined: 13 Sep 2010
Posts: 367
Location: The south...
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:03 am Post subject: |
 |
|
LOL...okay Kell, in that case send me some stuff or better yet post it so we can all see it!
Keith
_________________
No matter where you go, there you are... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
IMAGE: http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6133/5956609949_4b30244965_b.jpg
Craft: CAT-5
Type: Stock light freighter
Scale: Starfighter
Length: 54 meters
Skill: Space Transports: CAT-5
Crew: 2
Crew Skill: Varies
Passengers: 14
Cargo Capacity: 150 tons
Consumables: 1 month
Cost: 85,000 New, 25,000 Used
Hyperdrive: x2
Hyperdrive Backup: No
Nav Computer: Yes
Maneuverability: 0D
Space: 5
Atmosphere: 295
Hull: 3D
Shields: 1D
Sensors:
Passive: 10/0D
Scan: 25/1D
Search: 40/2D
Focus: 2/3D
Weapons:
Two Fire-Linked Laser Cannons
Scale: Starfighter
Arc: Front
Fire Control: 1D
Combined Damage: 5D
Range: 1-3/12/25
Originally built in Wildspace, a few CAT-5 transports have made their way into the outer rim and sometimes further. Like most stock light freighters, a CAT-5 is designed to inexpensively carry cargo on short-medium range trips. What sets this ship apart and makes it popular with those who have brought it into the known galaxy is the tremendous amount of extra room aboard. Most of the equipment aboard is accessible, oversized and easily serviceable. There are large pockets of deadspace where upgrades may be easily installed, and countless smaller ones hidden all over the ship that have proven invaluable to smugglers.
Designed to survive the dangers of wildspace, The CAT-5 mounts a pair of laser cannons and a shield system. It is also a little faster than most stock light freighters. Should these defenses fail, the quarters aboard a CAT-5 are vacuum sealed and ejectable, able to function as escape pods in an emergency.
The first drawbacks most captains correct when they purchase a CAT-5 are the lack of a backup hyperdrive and the limited capacity for consumables. Most captains also opt to move the laser cannons to turret mounts. All these changes are easily accomplished without significant changes to the structure of the ship.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow.. 16 people. IIRC even the L19 one of the larger ones does not carry that much people.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2011 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not bad. The overall look is nice. A few questions.
1) So it has two levels. Right?
2) Which cabins belong to the crew? It doesn't look like there is any separation between passenger areas and crew restricted areas. Is that correct?
3) Have you actually compared the area of the cargo bay to the mt or is it just a guesstimate? Not necessarily a criticism, since by eyeballing it, it looks to have as much or more cargo space as a YT-1300, so 150 mt is not too large.
4) Is the Bridge above or between the forward 'arms' of the ship. It might give better visibility if it were raised above or even below the two arms.
Additional comments:
(i) Two crew seems too few for 14 passengers and a ship with 16 separate cabins. Just cleaning up after the passengers and preparing meals for 16+ people sounds like maybe 2 full time jobs while in transit. In addition you have not include gunners to operate the laser cannons. If they actually do much passenger transport, maybe include two gunners who fill the cook and steward positions. Also, given the relatively large number of passengers for a transport, I could see a requirement to have a dedicated engineer to ensure passengers are traveling on a well maintained vessel. But on the other hand, you could up the passenger numbers by making the cabins double berths with fold out bunks.
(ii) If it were my ship given the 2:14 ratio of crew to passengers and the open floor plan with no isolation of the passenger areas from the bridge, crew cabins, and engines I would be concerned about hijacking.
(iii) Space 5 seems fast for what is a pretty large starfighter scale space transport. I would have guessed more like 3 or 4. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I could see a 2 to 8 or 2 to 10 ratio..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Wow.. 16 people. IIRC even the L19 one of the larger ones does not carry that much people. |
That's true. An L19 is 4 meters shorter, but probably has a little more overall volume, due to the slenderness and catamaran style of the CAT-5. The L19 carries 10, but it's also cheaper new and carries more consumables, so I'd just say it was designed to fill a different role. I just wanted a multi-role ship, and thought it could use a lot of passenger cabins. I could see many captains replacing the lower deck of cabins with secondary cargo space.
| Bren wrote: | Not bad. The overall look is nice. A few questions.
1) So it has two levels. Right?
2) Which cabins belong to the crew? It doesn't look like there is any separation between passenger areas and crew restricted areas. Is that correct?
3) Have you actually compared the area of the cargo bay to the mt or is it just a guesstimate? Not necessarily a criticism, since by eyeballing it, it looks to have as much or more cargo space as a YT-1300, so 150 mt is not too large.
4) Is the Bridge above or between the forward 'arms' of the ship. It might give better visibility if it were raised above or even below the two arms.
Additional comments:
(i) Two crew seems too few for 14 passengers and a ship with 16 separate cabins. Just cleaning up after the passengers and preparing meals for 16+ people sounds like maybe 2 full time jobs while in transit. In addition you have not include gunners to operate the laser cannons. If they actually do much passenger transport, maybe include two gunners who fill the cook and steward positions. Also, given the relatively large number of passengers for a transport, I could see a requirement to have a dedicated engineer to ensure passengers are traveling on a well maintained vessel. But on the other hand, you could up the passenger numbers by making the cabins double berths with fold out bunks.
(ii) If it were my ship given the 2:14 ratio of crew to passengers and the open floor plan with no isolation of the passenger areas from the bridge, crew cabins, and engines I would be concerned about hijacking.
(iii) Space 5 seems fast for what is a pretty large starfighter scale space transport. I would have guessed more like 3 or 4. |
1) Yes. Two levels, with no deck between levels of the cargo bay. The bridge is on the upper deck, and raised above the catamaran hulls for visibility.
2) There's no seperation between quarters in the stock form of the ship, except the upper and lower decks. I forgot to draw in some doors and hatches, but we'll say the A model looks exactly like this. Who belongs in what quaters is up to the captain.
3) An educated guesstimate. Considering the varying in density of various cargoes, I didn't bother to try and match up maximum weight with cargo bay size, but I did try and make it bigger than a YT-1300's.
4) The ship features a raised bridge for visibility's sake.
i) It takes two to keep the ship flying, one of whom is an engineer. The pilot can fire the laser cannons, or weapons control can be transferred to other bridge stations. I counted cooks and janitors and such as passengers. If the ship were a dedicated cargo hauler, it could have one pilot, one engineer and 16 men to load and unload, and the 16 men would be the "passengers".
ii) That's where the benefit of being easy to modify comes in. Adding a bulkhead or a locking hatch wouldn't be very hard or expensive, and some of the passenger space could also be occupied by extra crew. A barabel "public relations" specialist named Jh'Ayn Khabb, for example? 
iii) The CAT-5 was built to travel the pirate-infested space lanes of wildspace. I wanted it to be unusually fast, hopefully giving it the chance to outrun some of the danger.
Thanks for the critiques! I appreciate them.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System
Last edited by Fallon Kell on Tue Aug 23, 2011 6:32 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's the thing though, you seem to be making it too good from the get go. Fast, good space, great passenger accomodation..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | 1) Yes. Two levels, with no deck between levels of the cargo bay. The bridge is on the upper deck, and raised above the catamaran hulls for visibility. |
Raised bridge is cool. It doesn't look raised in the floorplan. You might want to add a lift shaft, ladder, or some kind of stairs in the passages up to the bridge from the upper passenger cabins and engineering. Looks like there is space for it, so it shouldn't be a problem to fit it.
| Quote: | | I forgot to draw in some doors and hatches, but we'll say the A model looks exactly like this. Who belongs in what quaters is up to the captain. |
OK. That makes sense. No different than a number of published deck plans really.
| Quote: | | An educated guesstimate. |
I always hope someone (else) will run the numbers for computing cargo area/volume. Traveller ships seemed to (sort-of) include that. But for Star Wars eyeballing it vs. the YT-1300 works for me.
| Quote: | | i) It takes two to keep the ship flying, one of whom is an engineer. The pilot can fire the laser cannons, or weapons control can be transferred to other bridge stations. I counted cooks and janitors and such as passengers. If the ship were a dedicated cargo hauler, it could have one pilot, one engineer and 16 men to load and unload, and the 16 men would be the "passengers". |
Again comparing to the YT-1300, crew 2 just seems too little - but it seems you are really calling that a bare minimum and upping the crew for other tasks. Which makes sense. 16 loaders though seems way too many. I would think a couple of loaders and a binary load lifter droid would be all you would really need. Though extra "loaders" is a nice description for people who are actually muscle for smugglers or boarders for pirates and privateers. And I like the public relations crew position. You could also call that the purser or steward. I am definitely getting a Firefly feel from this ship.
| Quote: | | iii) The CAT-5 was built to travel the pirate-infested space lanes of wildspace. I wanted it to be unusually fast, hopefully giving it the chance to outrun some of the danger. |
Fare enough. And in relooking I noticed the maneuver is +0D so it is not like the ship is too uber.
Well done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | That's the thing though, you seem to be making it too good from the get go. Fast, good space, great passenger accomodation.. |
Well, I left the consumable at half of what you would normally find on a ship like this, and left out the backup hyperdrive as well. I figured those drawbacks would make a reasonable balance to the selling points. Are they insufficient? If so, do you have any suggestions?
| Bren wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | 1) Yes. Two levels, with no deck between levels of the cargo bay. The bridge is on the upper deck, and raised above the catamaran hulls for visibility. |
Raised bridge is cool. It doesn't look raised in the floorplan. You might want to add a lift shaft, ladder, or some kind of stairs in the passages up to the bridge from the upper passenger cabins and engineering. Looks like there is space for it, so it shouldn't be a problem to fit it.
| Quote: | | I forgot to draw in some doors and hatches, but we'll say the A model looks exactly like this. Who belongs in what quaters is up to the captain. |
OK. That makes sense. No different than a number of published deck plans really.
| Quote: | | An educated guesstimate. |
I always hope someone (else) will run the numbers for computing cargo area/volume. Traveller ships seemed to (sort-of) include that. But for Star Wars eyeballing it vs. the YT-1300 works for me.
| Quote: | | i) It takes two to keep the ship flying, one of whom is an engineer. The pilot can fire the laser cannons, or weapons control can be transferred to other bridge stations. I counted cooks and janitors and such as passengers. If the ship were a dedicated cargo hauler, it could have one pilot, one engineer and 16 men to load and unload, and the 16 men would be the "passengers". |
Again comparing to the YT-1300, crew 2 just seems too little - but it seems you are really calling that a bare minimum and upping the crew for other tasks. Which makes sense. 16 loaders though seems way too many. I would think a couple of loaders and a binary load lifter droid would be all you would really need. Though extra "loaders" is a nice description for people who are actually muscle for smugglers or boarders for pirates and privateers. And I like the public relations crew position. You could also call that the purser or steward. I am definitely getting a Firefly feel from this ship.
| Quote: | | iii) The CAT-5 was built to travel the pirate-infested space lanes of wildspace. I wanted it to be unusually fast, hopefully giving it the chance to outrun some of the danger. |
Fare enough. And in relooking I noticed the maneuver is +0D so it is not like the ship is too uber.
Well done. |
Thanks, Bren. I appreciate it. The raised bridge is another thing I forgot to indicate on the deckplan. It's raised half a deck, and there is a large deadspace pocket beneath it.
The low crew was one of the things I was least certain about, too. But I decided to make it the absolute minimum to fly the ship, and the crew, gunner, and passenger places would vary in accordance with what the ship was being used for. (Mostly because I wanted small parties of PCs to be at least remotely able to use it.) Also, I use the Starships Pricing system by Krapou, and didn't want the price to fall too low. Automation systems can boost the price of a ship nicely without adding too much capability.
It was heavily Firefly-influenced especially in the bridge, the quartes, and the cargo bay. Also a little Deadliest Catch in it too. I wanted a slightly more nautical-feeling spaceship than you usually come across, and Serenity fit that bill. I thought it would be a good place to start.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
I remember the old space transport computer game Sundog, and I always thought it would be neat to see a crossover of that, with a ship that can haul a container in place of a cargo bay, or (as in the case of Sundog) a repulsortruck that doubled as a cargo bay, so that you could land the ship at the spaceport, the detach the repulsortruck and drive your cargo directly to its location.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | I remember the old space transport computer game Sundog, and I always thought it would be neat to see a crossover of that, with a ship that can haul a container in place of a cargo bay, or (as in the case of Sundog) a repulsortruck that doubled as a cargo bay, so that you could land the ship at the spaceport, the detach the repulsortruck and drive your cargo directly to its location. |
I'm actually working on something very much like that in the bulk freighter category. I was thinking of maybe a rotating rack such as one would find in a B-1's bomb bay, mounting six roughly triangular cargo containers. The rack would drop a container, rotate as it's taken away and drop another. The idea of fitting them with repulsor sleds never occured to me, though. Pure genius!
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | I was thinking of maybe a rotating rack such as one would find in a B-1's bomb bay, mounting six roughly triangular cargo containers. The rack would drop a container, rotate as it's taken away and drop another. The idea of fitting them with repulsor sleds never occured to me, though. Pure genius! |
If you look at what happens on earth with sea transport. Large bulk ships carry loads of rectangular cargo containers that fit on a flat bed rail or a tractor trailer for transport to and from a sea port. But if you visit a large cargo sea port you see huge stacks of cargo containers waiting to load, for customs inspection and clearance, or to be taken away. Sometimes the wait can be mutiple weeks at a time. If you add a repulsor drive to what is essentially an empty box for holding cargo, you greatly increase the cost of the box and the repulsor drive is idle during bulk transit and waiting times. On the plus side you may somewhat decrease the delay on planet at the destination once the container clears customs. But I expect it isn't worth the cost of paying for an engine that sits idle the rest of the time. Rather than including the expense of the repulsorlift drive with the cargo container, make the containers in a standard size that can easily be loaded onto a standard flat bed cargo hauling repulsor truck. Just my two credits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | If you look at what happens on earth with sea transport. Large bulk ships carry loads of rectangular cargo containers that fit on a flat bed rail or a tractor trailer for transport to and from a sea port. But if you visit a large cargo sea port you see huge stacks of cargo containers waiting to load, for customs inspection and clearance, or to be taken away. Sometimes the wait can be mutiple weeks at a time. |
True. However, customs in the SWU does seem to move more quickly for smaller ships (even if only to speed up story progression). That's why I liked the idea of a ship similar to the one from the Sundog game hauling a single container that also happened to be a repulsortruck. An alternate version would be something along the lines of an HT-2200 where the cargo bays are replaced with a framework designed to hold standard sized shipping containers. Another possibility would be the Nyubba-Class Cargo Barge Driver featured in the Bungo n' Rusti comic in Adventure Journal #11, then brought to life in amazing detail by the guys at the Star Wars Deckplans Alliance.
| Quote: | | If you add a repulsor drive to what is essentially an empty box for holding cargo, you greatly increase the cost of the box and the repulsor drive is idle during bulk transit and waiting times. On the plus side you may somewhat decrease the delay on planet at the destination once the container clears customs. But I expect it isn't worth the cost of paying for an engine that sits idle the rest of the time. Rather than including the expense of the repulsorlift drive with the cargo container, make the containers in a standard size that can easily be loaded onto a standard flat bed cargo hauling repulsor truck. Just my two credits. |
A definite point. In Sundog, the detachable repulsortruck was necessary because you began the game with a ship that could only land at a starport, but often had to transport cargo to other cities on planet without the use of a shipping agent. Still, a company could market a service of all-inclusive transport; the entire transportation process is handled by the same company from beginning to end, being loaded onto a repulsortruck which is then loaded onto a ship, which flies to the destination planet where the repulsortruck drives off to make the delivery without the cargo having to be unloaded or ever change hands until it gets to the receiver. "Worried about security at the local port? Contact the Sundog Transportation Company, where we deliver your freight from across the galaxy right to your front door." Sure, it's a little silly and pointless, but the SWU is full of stuff like that (COUGHJar-JarCOUGH).
As far as the repulsorlifts, if the starship and the repulsortruck were designed by the same company as part of an integrated design, it's conceivable that the repulsorlifts on the truck could synchronize with the ship's repulsorlifts and act in concert. An alternate possibility is that repulsortruck could be designed to fit the same dimensions as a standard shipping container, so that the transporting vessel could haul either the truck or containers, depending on the ship captain's preference.
The idea reminds me of the USMC's LCU, a landing craft that can carry vehicles from ship to shore, but also has the endurance to make longer ranged voyages under its own power. A RO-RO type transport could be a ship found in regional militaries or with mercenary companies as a cost-effective way to transport an armored vehicle. In fact, if the repulsortruck was fitted with armament, it could even conceivably be used to help the transport starship defend itself...
I love the smell of new possibilities in the morning...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | I was thinking of maybe a rotating rack such as one would find in a B-1's bomb bay, mounting six roughly triangular cargo containers. The rack would drop a container, rotate as it's taken away and drop another. The idea of fitting them with repulsor sleds never occured to me, though. Pure genius! |
If you look at what happens on earth with sea transport. Large bulk ships carry loads of rectangular cargo containers that fit on a flat bed rail or a tractor trailer for transport to and from a sea port. But if you visit a large cargo sea port you see huge stacks of cargo containers waiting to load, for customs inspection and clearance, or to be taken away. Sometimes the wait can be mutiple weeks at a time. If you add a repulsor drive to what is essentially an empty box for holding cargo, you greatly increase the cost of the box and the repulsor drive is idle during bulk transit and waiting times. On the plus side you may somewhat decrease the delay on planet at the destination once the container clears customs. But I expect it isn't worth the cost of paying for an engine that sits idle the rest of the time. Rather than including the expense of the repulsorlift drive with the cargo container, make the containers in a standard size that can easily be loaded onto a standard flat bed cargo hauling repulsor truck. Just my two credits. |
I've unloaded shipping containers and live in a port town, so I know what you're talking about. But out in Wildspace, many worlds don't have developed starport facilities. (At least in my Wildspace!) and this vessel could land in a flat field and deliver cargo anywhere, in a similar concept to what crmcniell was talking about.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gamer
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 20 May 2010
Posts: 125
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd rather have a regular cargo hold and moving the containers via a repulsorsled 'pallet', that way I could carry alot more various types of cargo to various clients at various stops.
A repulsor truck makes it of limited use and wastes time as you still have to unload the truck itself if you want it back, I would never want that type of system, it's too limiting.
A rotary deployment system like on the B1 and B2 series bomber is a waste of space on a freighter, takes up too much space for little gain which means profit loss.
A rotary system cuts down on number and types of containers that could be carried, making it a niche market product.
An automated/droid ceiling mounted cargo tractor beam is all that would be needed to lift and stack containers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
