The K-1 conundrum - Delving into Kearny-Fuchida theory

[Frabby]

It's been pointed out in at least two threads on this forum that the rules for what can and what cannot be done with a jump drive seems a bit... convoluted. In particular, the K-1 "DropShuttle" (technically a Small Craft) seems to pose a conundrum because it is fluffed to possess a DropShip-like docking collar that allows it to dock to JumpShips for jumps just like a DropShip, in addition to its original option of traveling through a jump inside a small craft bay. It thus combines two worlds that are otherwise mutually exclusive.

Pertinent treads on this forum:
- K-1 Dropshuttles and Jumping (by Cryhavok101)
- Modern DropShips in DropShuttle Bays? (By Giovanni Blasini; referred to in the previously mentioned thread)

The situation, as I understand, is this:

• The KF fields extend around the JumpShip and all items carried inside except refined Germanium, including refined Germanium processed into a Jump core or the K-F boom included in a DropShip's docking collar (the latter being the reason why DropShips cannot be carried in internal DropShuttle bays for a jump).
  
  
• DropShuttle bays can hold DropShuttles (effectively DropShips without a K-F boom) of up to 5,000 tons in size for a jump; for this to work, the DropShuttle bay must be installed directly on the JumpShip, i.e. have a direct link to the KF drive. It stands to reason that it is effectively a physical KF boom built into the JumpShip, not the DropShuttle. The presence of a KF-boom causes problems here, making it impossible to carry DropShips in DropShuttle bays.
  
  
• Small craft of up to 200 tons and aerospace fighters can be carried through jumps in appropriate bays. Unlike DropShuttle bays, these bays are not required to be installed on the JumpShip with a direct connection to the jump drive; they can also be mounted on a DropShuttle or DropShip.
  
  
• DropShips must be at least 200 tons in size; Small Craft must not exceed 200 tons in size.
  
  
• There is no known mass or size limit to items carried in cargo, except that they may not contain refined Germanium. Unrefined Germanium can apparently be carried, but no details are given.

From this I deduct the following for K-F theory:

- Germanium can be transported. It's only at a certain threshold that it starts to noticeably affect hyperspace jump operations. That threshold can be reached by refining it into a purer state, and/or using refined Germanium to construct KF drive coils or KF booms. As long as there is only one KF drive coil and all booms are plugged directly into that one drive coil, everything is fine. (Sorry, Argo. No daisy-chaining.) Otherwise, the presence of a separate KF drive coil or KF boom in the vicinity will interfere with the jump.

- The K-F boom concept, for some reason, doesn't work for vessels below 200 tons. No idea why, except that it's hardcoded into the construction rules.

- Something sets spacecraft over 200 tons apart from other bulk cargo items, necessitating a DropShuttle Bay on a JumpShip or a KF boom to dock as a DropShip.

- The K-1 DropShuttle exists in both worlds simultaneously. It does possess a docking collar K-F boom (in fluff only, not as an actual item on its stats sheet). Yet it can also pass for a Small Craft, and be carried through a jump in a Small Craft bay.

This tells us that a K-F boom for a 200-ton craft is apparently small enough/contains sufficiently little Germanium to remain below the critical threshold for jump operations. My theory is that the 200-ton boundary between Small Craft and DropShips was indeed defined by K-F physics, as you cannot build a K-F boom into a vessel over 200 tons without disrupting jump attempts. (In postulating this I assume that the mass of the spacecraft somehow defines the mass of the K-F boom and the refined Germanium used in its construction.)

But why did DropShuttles require DropShuttle bays? What sets them apart from other large pieces of cargo like the proverbial 5,001 ton bag of rice?

Transit drives.

DropShips and DropShuttles share one feature that is not present on Small Craft, and that is their transit drive and more specifically, its FASA-fysix magic "fusion" engine.
To me, it seems a logical conclusion that spacecraft over 200 tons have some K-F magic going on in their fusion engines and transit drives that requires special attention in the form of DropShuttle bays or K-F booms to safely jump them through hyperspace.

So the K-1's K-F boom would be small enough to not disrupt K-F fields in a jump even when carried in a Small Craft bay.
It does not feature a DropShip-sized transit drive/fusion engine either.
Yet it is still big enough to function with a K-F boom if it wants to.

[worktroll]

A number of possible alternatives:

1) It's a goof between the people who wrote the game over its 30+ years of existance (most likely, least satisfying)
2) Perhaps the K-F boom for the K1 is small enough that it can be mounted/demounted easily and left behind when not needed
3) Perhaps the K-F boom for the K1 is small enough that it can be economically shielded in some way, which larger K-F booms cannot

The issue with germanium seems to be related to some special link between its crystalline structure and the way the K-F field works - sort of like an amplifying lens/antenna mix. Presence of other structures distort the field creation, or (Crazy Ivan) are distorted by it.

The boom usually needs to be secured to the DropShip as an integral part of it's hull. The smallness of the K1's boom may be the difference here. Small enough to avoid the major resonance issues, attached to something big enough to provide enough power to make it work.

My two M-bills,

W.

[Daryk]

I'm for number 1, but not in the way I think you mean.  I think the problem lies with the "no dropships in dropshuttle bays" ruling.  I see zero problem with allowing people to more expensively transport ships.  Each drop collar allows you to bring up to 100,000 tons of ship and cargo for only 1,000 tons of jumpship.  If you want to limit yourself to 5,000 tons or less per bay, feel free.  Cheesy designs will exist regardless of the rule set.  The best any rule set can hope for is internal consistency.  Leave the DBaJ stuff to players and GMs.

[Giovanni Blasini]

But why did DropShuttles require DropShuttle bays? What sets them apart from other large pieces of cargo like the proverbial 5,001 ton bag of rice?

Transit drives.

DropShips and DropShuttles share one feature that is not present on Small Craft, and that is their transit drive and more specifically, its FASA-fysix magic "fusion" engine.
To me, it seems a logical conclusion that spacecraft over 200 tons have some K-F magic going on in their fusion engines and transit drives that requires special attention in the form of DropShuttle bays or K-F booms to safely jump them through hyperspace.

There are other 200-ton small craft with transit drives that can't dock to a JumpShip docking collar.

[vidar]

 I wonder if the K-1 does not have a K-F boom, but instead simply fits into the hard point of a K-F collar.  Think of plugging in childproof caps to electric outlets, the caps don't transfer electricity but do fill up the space for a plug.  The K-1 does not transfer a K-F field, but is small enough to fit within the normal field generated over the collar.

[worktroll]

Vidar, I like that one! Makes game-sense.

[Nebfer]

Indeed makes some reasonable sense, small enough to fit into the KF field generated by the collar. No real need to rework the rules or what nought just a small addition.

[Giovanni Blasini]

Sounds good, and like excellent Quirk material.

[Frabby]

Good one Vidar! This indeed seems to be an elegant solution - the K-1 would then feature a docking collar like DropShips but no KF boom.

This solution does come with strings attached, as it means you could transport a great many (other) things this way too, but the 200 ton limit kepps this a low concern.

[Cryhavok101]

DropShuttle bays can hold DropShuttles (effectively DropShips without a K-F boom) of up to 5,000 tons in size for a jump; for this to work, the DropShuttle bay must be installed directly on the JumpShip, i.e. have a direct link to the KF drive. It stands to reason that it is effectively a physical KF boom built into the JumpShip, not the DropShuttle. The presence of a KF-boom causes problems here, making it impossible to carry DropShips in DropShuttle bays.

I was under the impression that dropshuttle bays don't do anything special with the K-F field, and are instead basically just internal cargo space for dropshuttles, and the mechanisms to do so securely and also easily launch them again. The K-F "boom" in this case, is the K-F drive of the ship with the dropshuttle bays, because those bays are inside that ship, and going to be jumped along with it as long as they don't contain something that interferes with K-F fields, like a dropship's K-F Boom.

If you say that what amounts to internal cargo requires some kind of boom mechanism, then you are really gonna to cause a lot of havoc with the setting, as that would infer that any other internal cargo would need K-F boom mechanics. I'd say just stick with: the ship's K-F drive covers everything inside the ship and booms are only needed for ships hooking onto the outside to hitch a ride.

[Frabby]

@Cryhavoc101:
Unfortunately the construction rules dictate that while a DropShuttle bay can hold up to 10,000 tons, individual DropShuttles can be no larger than 5,000 tons.

At the same time there is no rule against individual pieces of cargo exceeding 5,000 tons in mass, like huge machinery, or blue-water naval craft, mobile structures, you name it.
This seems to imply that a DropShuttle somehow doesn't qualify as regular cargo but something else. In the absence of a KF boom the fusion engine for its transit drive was the only distinction I could come up with. (Different construction rules and different fuel efficiencies for Small Craft vs. DropShips/DropShuttles do seem to indicate there is some technical difference in construction between their engine systems.)

You could also make an argument for the docking systems being the limiting factor, i.e. that some unspecified engineering concerns limit docking operations to vessels of no more than 5,000 tons. However, regular (non-KF boom) docking collars exist since the early 2300s and can dock two vessels of whatever size as per the rules; I also have problems imagining an engineering problem limiting DropShuttle size when the bays as such can be twice as large and house two DropShuttles simultaenously.

[Cryhavok101]

I was imagining the limiting factor being the necessity to have the structure of the ship remain dense, and not have massive pockets of empty space. The limit of a 5000 ton dropshuttle could be a size thing rather than a weight thing, where that is the limit in how big a pocket of empty space they can have in order to put another ship inside the hull of the jumpship, without compromising the SI.

A normal Cargo bay would be able to still have structural supports throughout the bay and wouldn't suffer these problems. It would also help explain why they don't just carry dropshuttles as normal cargo as well.

As to differences in engines: small craft, all military dropships and civilian dropships that are 999 tons or less all have the same fuel efficiency. In addition to that a 200 ton small craft and a 200 ton dropship of the same technology base will have the exact same size engine (and same fuel efficiency). Since dropshuttles are just dropships of a certain size who don't carry a K-F boom, I have to disagree that their engines are somehow different.

[Kovax]

One might assume that anything beyond a certain volume or mass requires a K-F boom or some way of extending the field to include it.  A Dropship or Jumpship has the internal boom extensions built into it to cover its internal systems, and the docking collar allows them to properly link those booms from a separate vessel to the core.  You can carry 50, 500, 5,000, or 50,000 tons of cargo only because the carrying vessel already has boom extensions for its entire maximum carrying capacity integral to its design.  For what you pay for these vessels, they had BETTER include them.

A Dropshuttle needs to be able to operate either as cargo in a bay OR as a boom extension via docking collar.  A Dropshuttle bay clearly provides a way of linking its field to the main field without a normal collar (as a cargo extension).  If the relatively small boom extensions in the Dropshuttle can be removed and linked up to the Jumpship core separately, as well as being capable of attaching to the normal cargo network of booms within a linked Dropship (limiting its maximum size and/or mass before the effects of "daisy-chaining" come into play), then it potentially doesn't break the rules.  The main point is that the Dropshuttle's hardware likely needs to be able to come into direct contact with the Jumpship's core for it to work, requiring special bays or other considerations.

[Cryhavok101]

I don't recall anything indicating items located inside the hull of a jumpship need a K-F boom of any kind. Your explanation just doesn't make sense to me. The K-F drive puts it's field around the hull of the jumpship. Anything inside that hull is covered. The K-F boom extends the field the jumpship's K-F drive produces around the hull of the attached dropship, because it is outside the hull. The dropshuttle bay is located inside the hull of the jumpship, so it is already covered by the K-F Drive.

The K-F systems costs are not dependent on cargo space. I know of at least one item that weighs 30,000 tons and can use it's full functionality while stored in a cargo bay, showing that can have a massive item that certainly isn't affecting the prices of the K-F core. Dropshuttle Bay prices do not affect K-F prices. I can find no evidence of any link between the two. In fact dropshuttle bays exist because K-F booms didn't exist back then, they hadn't been invented yet.

[vidar]

Good one Vidar! This indeed seems to be an elegant solution - the K-1 would then feature a docking collar like DropShips but no KF boom.

This solution does come with strings attached, as it means you could transport a great many (other) things this way too, but the 200 ton limit kepps this a low concern.

And don't forget the limits collars and the weight of them.  If memory serves a 1000ton investment to move 200 tons if not a wise one.

[cray]

Note the plan is to republish the K-1 as a DropShip.
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=55480.msg1281495#msg1281495

[Frabby]

Note the plan is to republish the K-1 as a DropShip.

This is actually what prompted this thread. I'm afraid this solution would cause more problems than it solves in canon, which is why I'm exploring other possible solutions.

[Maingunnery]

This is actually what prompted this thread. I'm afraid this solution would cause more problems than it solves in canon, which is why I'm exploring other possible solutions.

Indeed, retconing the little pice of fluff that started it all would be the lesser evil.

[Frabby]

You cannot, imho, retroactively turn the K-1 into a DropShip because there are canonical examples of it being used as a small craft and carried in small craft bays. The example(s) that spring to mind are the Magellan and Columbus, K-1 DropShuttles carried aboard the JumpShip Sacajawea in Herb Beas' Forgotten Worlds story.

The point here is that the Sacajawea is an Explorer-class JumpShip of 50,000 tons. Even if modified it could never have more than one docking hardpoint, and the Explorer-class features zero hardpoints in its standard configuration plus four small craft... so at least one of the K-1 was carried in a small craft bay.

Another, though weaker, argument would be the Magellan Mk II JumpShip image. The image clearly shows four, implicitly six, spheroid vessels attached to the JumpShip.
I do admit that the Magellan Mk II has no published stats beyond the official ruling that it is not a new class and thus implicitly a mere variant of the 175,000 ton Magellan; there is very strong evidence however that whatever the modifications to the JumpShip are regarding docking hardpoints and small craft bays, what we're seeing are K-1, one of them docked to the Magellan's sole hardpoint and the others docked to at least 3 and implicitly 5 small craft bays.

Ultimately, the smallest "retcon" would probably be to introduce a variant of the K-1 that is built as a DropShip and outwardly indistinguishable from the small craft version, and rule that these versions exist side-by-side but are distinct vessels, one a small craft and the other a DropShip.

[Cryhavok101]

Wall of Text ahead:
TL:DR I think the ruling that is messing with the K-1 is more damaging than it is useful, and it is the thing that should go.


Personally I think it would be best fixed by getting rid of the ruling causing this, and other issues. It's primary purpose, as I understand it, is to prevent dropships from being carried as cargo in the rather spacious cargo bays warships generally have. Personally though, I look the the unloading cargo times, and realize that it would take a huge amount of time to unload dropships that way.

They would probably have to use specialized work mechs that can operate in vacuum to remove the ship from the cargo bay, and then get tech teams to restart it's cold engines. A 100 ton mech with a heavy cargo platform and null-g equipment helping it move cargo in zero-g, would be able to move ~6.5 tons per minute, so it would take about three hours to unload a single 1200 ton dropship stored in a warship's cargo-bay. Exoskeletons would be even slower.

You certainly wouldn't want to fire the drive inside the ship, it does a lot of damage to it's surroundings, and firing it inside the cargo bay would be bad. You would have to have consumables for the crews of the cargo-ized dropships because they would need to be shut down and wouldn't be running their own. Space for that crew as well, and they would all be using the cargo bay numbers for their consumables unless the ship had sufficient quarters for them.

By the time you have deployed any kind of sizable force from a cargo bay you have lost a lot of advantage, for example, that is plenty of time for stuff to have jumped to the jump point and started attacking you. It's just not a feasible way to attack. Not to mention if you fill a cargo bay with dropships instead of things like ammo and spare parts for your invasion force, you are going to be running into other issues anyway.

And it doesn't really solve the problem of warship cargo bays being ridiculous transport options. A Kyushu, for example could simply fill it's cargo with mechs and then drop another 108 mechs on a planet every 15 minutes, for hours. Don't even get me started on the human wave that could be unleashed from cargo bays in infantry form, even with the increase consumable costs to do it. You could blanket a city in infantry with a single deployment from a cargo bay. A Fox for example could deploy ~5000 foot platoons in a single round, from it's cargo bay.

Besides that, concentrating that much firepower (a bunch of dropships carried as cargo), isn't that useful. It is often unneccessary. Sure it's OP, and nice to think about, but just look at how everyone feels about the Potemkin for an example. It carries and overwhelming 25 dropships and people can't give them away fast enough. The only group that wants them wants to turn them into something else.

To me, this seems like an issue similar to the monitors: it's not even close to a good idea to do, and the only place it would happen is in one-of games with no balancing factors involved. Only unlike monitors, this ruling mucks up a bunch of other things.

It mucks up things like dropships being able to attach to a jumpship somewhere other than a docking collar, for example the cargo bay doors, and while attached, prevent the jumpship from jumping without a K-F mess happening.

Personally, if I were trying to make a rule to prevent dropships-as-cargo, I would simply rule that dropships are too big for workmechs, exoskeletons, and the like to actually move, and as such it would take another dropship to move a single massive object like that, but firing it's drive inside the cargo bay in order to do this would cause untold damage to the warship's insides (to the tune of more than 20 capital damage per 6 seconds), so it simply isn't done. This would also explain why dropshuttle bays were important as a place that a dropship could actually maneuver to dock inside the hull of the ship. As far as I can tell that doesn't actually mess with any lore (none I know about anyway), and would prevent the dropships-as-cargo thing.

Then the K-1 wouldn't need to be retconned into a dropship at all.

[Amaris Fan Club]

You certainly wouldn't want to fire the drive inside the ship, it does a lot of damage to it's surroundings, and firing it inside the cargo bay would be bad.

I'm thinking of the book Consider Phlebas, where the main character does exactly that.  Much hilarity ensues.

[Cryhavok101]

I'm thinking of the book Consider Phlebas, where the main character does exactly that.  Much hilarity ensues.

Had to google that. Thanks for growing my reading list. :)

[ColBosch]

Potential solution: early K-1s lacked dropcollars, and are small craft. Later K-1s had dropcollars, and are DropShips. One line gets modified, a new design gets generated - which was happening anyway - and everyone is happy.

[Maingunnery]

Potential solution: early K-1s lacked dropcollars, and are small craft. Later K-1s had dropcollars, and are DropShips. One line gets modified, a new design gets generated - which was happening anyway - and everyone is happy.

So K-1D?

[ColBosch]

So K-1D?

Maybe. Or just leave the designations the same to drive purists insane.

[SCC]

You certainly wouldn't want to fire the drive inside the ship, it does a lot of damage to it's surroundings, and firing it inside the cargo bay would be bad.

Can't be any worse then bring up an Impeller Wedge inside a bay.

[Cryhavok101]

Can't be any worse then bring up an Impeller Wedge inside a bay.

I really don't think it would be nearly as destructive as that, but give a dropship's plasma drive enough time and it'll destroy a warship all the same, even if it isn't as quick at it lol.

[Frabby]

Maybe. Or just leave the designations the same to drive purists insane.

That was what I suggested.

Here's the catch though: We're looking at essentially the same ship, only in one case its docking collar has a KF boom (DropShip version) and in the other it doesn't.
A DropShip collar (with KF boom) is explicitly integral to the DropShip design and doesn't have any mass in construction. I'd therefore argue that the KF boom components which are of "negligible" mass could be carried on the Small Craft version. It perhaps comes down to a simple KF boom module that is activated or physically plugged in to switch between DropShip and small craft modes. And that brings us full circle back to the K-1 being capable of performing in either role.

[ColBosch]

*shrugs* I think retconning the history is better than inventing new, edge case rules.

[Fireangel]

I think the ruling is wrong.

The cargo handling rules can be used to prevent outright abuse of the idea of shipping dropships as cargo. I really do not see any real reason why a KF-boom-equipped dropship cannot be carried in a large craft bay, particularly when large craft bays are significantly more mass-intensive than docking collars, and nowhere near as flexible, particularly in standard-core jumpships that simply do not have the mass to make them useful.

The K-1 has always been something beautiful and unique in Battletech canon, a cornerstone of possibility; a dropship that can be carried as a small craft, now its uniqueness will be retconned away to make it a useless thing, a dropship that is too small to in any way justify its existence when canonically it costs 50,000 c-bills per collar per jump; if it cannot be carried as a small craft, it might as well be retconned out of existence or left as an oddity of the Star League era.

Why are retcons ok for aerospace, but a bad thing for mainstream BT?

There are many in-universe reasons why dropships are not carried as cargo or in large craft bays. Why must there be a rule specifically to prohibit this, especially when it forces the retcon of yet another bit of Aerotech that has existed since at least DS&JS.

Rescind the ruling. It is the right thing to do.

[Cryhavok101]

There is one difference between a small craft version and a dropship version: The dropship version will have 1 more crew and need to have 1 more quarters for it. Small craft crew are 3+gunners, dropship crew are 3+1 per 5000 tons (round up)+gunners (pg 189 tech manual). That 'round up' means the K-1 dropship would have 4+gunners crew instead of 3. Presumably that would be as simple as designating only 5 passenger quarters, but they could keep the passenger count and drop the cargo I suppose. Either way, it isn't 100% the same as the small craft version.

But then with the ship's name being K-1 DropShuttle, I think it should be able to go in a DropShuttle Bay, and the ruling is what should change.

[Daryk]

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one that disagrees with the ruling.  Now if we could get the
"no bay quality crew quarters for Small Craft" rescinded and something done about VTOL gear for aerodyne Small Craft, we'd really be making progress...

[ColBosch]

It has no value in either ground-scale nor aerospace games as anything but a special objective. It is a piece of background filler, and yet it is causing problems for the major playable units. Its "special snowflake" nature calls into question some of the basic assumptions that the setting relies on.

A retcon, of some form, is in order. It's been done innumerable times before.

[Cryhavok101]

calls into question some of the basic assumptions that the setting relies on.

The only problem involved involves a ruling that isn't in any errata document or book. I don't think I would describe it this way. In fact, it is the ruling that is doing this very thing. In more ways than one.

[Daryk]

And to reinforce that point, with a 5,000 ton limit for drop shuttle bays, there's nothing particularly game breaking about letting drop ships under that tonnage be carried that way.

[Fireangel]

It has no value in either ground-scale nor aerospace games as anything but a special objective.

For decades now, it has been an essential part of more than one force in our local games. Just because it is not widely used by some players does not mean that they are not used by others.

A retcon, of some form, is in order. It's been done innumerable times before.

Not trying to sound bitter, but the ratio of aero to ground retcons is heavily skewed.   :-X

[ColBosch]

Not trying to sound bitter, but the ratio of aero to ground retcons is heavily skewed.   :-X

 ;D

[glitterboy2098]

Perhaps small craft (and the earlier dropshuttles) have a kind of 'lesser' boom system, a predecessor tech to the full blown boom system used in dropships. Call it a KF anchor, say. Which is designed to connect through a small craft bay (or dropshuttlebay).
The K1 then could just be fluffed as having a full dropship collar compatible docking clamp and airlock, and adaptors to make the small craft system work with the collar, which only works because it is so small and falls within the KF field fully already, just needing that 'anchor' to ensure it meshes properly.

[glitterboy2098]

Sorry, accidental double post network issues

[Giovanni Blasini]

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one that disagrees with the ruling.  Now if we could get the

Believe me, you're not.

"no bay quality crew quarters for Small Craft" rescinded and something done about VTOL gear for aerodyne Small Craft, we'd really be making progress...

I'm OK with at least steerage quarters being required.  Makes life support and a transit drive the difference between small craft and an aerospace fighter that carries cargo.

[Cryhavok101]

Perhaps small craft (and the earlier dropshuttles) have a kind of 'lesser' boom system, a predecessor tech to the full blown boom system used in dropships. Call it a KF anchor, say. Which is designed to connect through a small craft bay (or dropshuttlebay).
The K1 then could just be fluffed as having a full dropship collar compatible docking clamp and airlock, and adaptors to make the small craft system work with the collar, which only works because it is so small and falls within the KF field fully already, just needing that 'anchor' to ensure it meshes properly.

This is an explanation that causes as many problems as the ruling itself does. It's discussed previously in the thread as well.

[Fireangel]

Believe me, you're not.

I'm OK with at least steerage quarters being required.  Makes life support and a transit drive the difference between small craft and an aerospace fighter that carries cargo.

I would require steerage for actual crew, and accept bay for gunners.

Which reminds me... we need to bring back canon ASF lighters. 8)

[Daryk]

If Small Craft had an upper limit higher than 200 tons, I could see Steerage quarters as a requirement.  With only 200 tons to work with and a minimum crew size, I think they're excessive.  Small Craft are more than sufficiently limited by their fuel tanks and don't need the mass penalty of full quarters of any kind.  Even with bay quarters, you'd be hard pressed to build a "heavy fighter" that's worth the trouble compared to their weight or cost in ASFs.

[Fireangel]

If Small Craft had an upper limit higher than 200 tons, I could see Steerage quarters as a requirement.  With only 200 tons to work with and a minimum crew size, I think they're excessive.  Small Craft are more than sufficiently limited by their fuel tanks and don't need the mass penalty of full quarters of any kind.  Even with bay quarters, you'd be hard pressed to build a "heavy fighter" that's worth the trouble compared to their weight or cost in ASFs.

Or, since all small craft regardless of weight have a minimum crew of 3 (not counting gunners), we could have something like a small craft cockpit that incorporates control functions* and quarters-equivalent life support for the three crew into one construction unit weighing, for example, 7 tons, and each gunner adding an extra ton.


* 100-165 tons = 1 ton control equipment; 170-200 tons = 1.5 tons control equipment

[Cryhavok101]

The main problem I see is in the consumable requirements. Those are decided by the type of quarters, since the quarters include life support systems to cover the crew. With steerage you have the not quite as good consumable needs as with 1st & 2nd class quarters. If you go even smaller, would the consumable requirements go up? Not that that is a huge problem, just something that would need to be decided.

Personally, I am all for being able to design small craft for short range operations or long range operations. One has quarters and life support it needs, and the other gets minimalistic because it doesn't need to go all out on that stuff. The more options the better.

[Intermittent_Coherence]

The main problem I see is in the consumable requirements. Those are decided by the type of quarters, since the quarters include life support systems to cover the crew. With steerage you have the not quite as good consumable needs as with 1st & 2nd class quarters. If you go even smaller, would the consumable requirements go up? Not that that is a huge problem, just something that would need to be decided.

Personally, I am all for being able to design small craft for short range operations or long range operations. One has quarters and life support it needs, and the other gets minimalistic because it doesn't need to go all out on that stuff. The more options the better.

IMHO the minimum crew of 3 is excessive. I get that it's to give you 24 hour coverage at the helm and engines, but what if you don't need 24 hours?

Same with life support requirements. I can understand long duration missions where you'll need full crews and at least steerage quarters, but what about purpose-built short duration craft that won't need even steerage quarters(only acceleration couches @ 3T each) and can be flown by only one pilot for a few hours?

[Fireangel]

The main problem I see is in the consumable requirements. Those are decided by the type of quarters, since the quarters include life support systems to cover the crew. With steerage you have the not quite as good consumable needs as with 1st & 2nd class quarters. If you go even smaller, would the consumable requirements go up? Not that that is a huge problem, just something that would need to be decided.

Personally, I am all for being able to design small craft for short range operations or long range operations. One has quarters and life support it needs, and the other gets minimalistic because it doesn't need to go all out on that stuff. The more options the better.

A single ton of consumables should be more than enough; 200 man-days in quarters supply equals 20 man-days in bay supply, which should be more than enough for a short mission lasting at most a couple days.

[Daryk]

Even the long range shuttles weren't designed for a mission profile of more than about one week.  Both Cryhavok and Fireangel have it right: we should have the flexibility to go either way, and a ton of consumables should be enough for the crew regardless.  Passengers are another kettle of fish.

[Cryhavok101]

...and a ton of consumables should be enough for the crew regardless.

Not necessarily. At the 20 man-days per ton rate a crew of 3 with 2 gunners would be through 1 ton in 4 days. All that takes is a small craft with 7 weapons (or other gear that takes crew). Add a 28-man infantry platoon to that and you would need 1.65 tons per day. System transit can be a problem without enough consumables (which is not just food, but water and air as well), but a battletaxi delivering boarding marines would probably only need 68.75 kg of consumables per hour of operation.

And if we went with a minimalistic cockpit style thing, it might have worse life support, reducing it from they Bay quality 20 man-days per ton, all the way to passengers-in-cargo quality of 5 man-days per ton, making the space needed for consumables even worse. However, that problem is not really a problem for a short range shuttle, which would still be needing a miniscule amount to operate at it's intended range.

What is funny though, is that you can put that same 28 man infantry bay aboard an aerospace fighter, and it gets 96 hours free.

[Daryk]

It's almost like the whole design system for Small Craft needs to be revisited...  ::)

And sorry, I should have been more clear: I was using Fireangel's distinction between "crew" and "gunners" there.

[Cryhavok101]

And sorry, I should have been more clear: I was using Fireangel's distinction between "crew" and "gunners" there.

I don't understand why there is a distinction. The only one I can find in the rules is that base crew is a set number and gunners are variable depending on number of weapons. I can't find any other distinction between the two in the rules. Care to elaborate?

[Vition2]

It's almost like the whole design system for Small Craft needs to be revisited...  ::)

The aerospace aspect of the entire battletech rules set could probably be revisited, just about all the types of design could use some changes.

[Daryk]

I meant that a ton will be sufficient for the three crewmen required by every craft.  Gunners would need extra, just like passengers.  Saying it that way kind of drives home the point: people are people.  Why should "crew" need anything more than any other person aboard for the same amount of time?  The underlying lack of consistency there is what is driving me to look at the rules from the bottom up (starting with power packs down in the fan rules section).

And Vition2: agreed!

[Cryhavok101]

I've always wondered why we can put a 3 ton bay on to cover 28 people but need a 5 ton item for a single person. In that one, I think the problem lies in the infantry bay rules, counting as having quarters and life support for the whole platoon. Personally, I think all bays should have quarters separate from the bay. Several of the bays make no sense when they are suppose to have quarters in them. For example the 200 ton vehicle bay has space for not only a 200 ton vehicle, but also 15 bay personnel.

The 3 ton infantry bay is why I think we should be able to design short range small craft and long range ones: ones with quarters, and ones as cramped as any APC.

But yeah, the aerospace rules could definitely use a revisiting.

I'd like to see quarters separated from bays, life support separated from quarters, complete reworking of fire control (200 gunners, but gets a penalty to shoot more than one target?), actual space devoted to drop cocoons (reflected in a difference in transport bays aboard things that can orbitally drop stuff possibly, and an 'ammo' of how many drop cocoons a bay has before it needs a new supply), and a bunch of other things.

[Fireangel]

I don't understand why there is a distinction. The only one I can find in the rules is that base crew is a set number and gunners are variable depending on number of weapons. I can't find any other distinction between the two in the rules. Care to elaborate?

You can fly the small craft without gunners manning the guns, just like you can fly a B-17 without the gunners or bombardier, but you need to have the crew present.

The quarters for the crew represent full-on facilities so the crew can transport the ship vast distances without expecting combat. Minimal (bay) quarters for the gunners indicate minor mods so that the gunners can be present for missions lasting less than a few days.

Doing this, a hypothetical small craft with three crew (with steerage-grade quarters) and three gunners (with bay grade quarters) will consume 33 man-days of supplies every day (3 man-days for the crew and 30 man-days for the gunners), giving the craft an endurance of six days, which should be more than enough for an escort gunship, or a short-range unit.

For orbit-to-surface landing craft, you do not need consumables for infantry or bay personnel, because they are not going to be in the shuttle for more than a few hours.

[Amaris Fan Club]

Well, a lot of stuff about bays doesn't seem to make much sense, but it let's the rules be fairly simple.

If you want true detail then you have to start doing things like calculating the difference between empty bays and full ones, or (gasp) recalculating the delta-v of the ship based on how much fuel it has used ... look up the equations and prepare to be confused unless you have an engineering degree (i don't, so Duuhhh....)

All that having been said if we have a distinction between bays and compartments we should have a distinction between long-haul small craft quarters and short-haul quarters - maybe a 1 ton "stateroom" that covers a small bunk and 96 hours of food and water?

[Cryhavok101]

Ah, I get what you are saying. Personally, I'd never deploy a ship without it's gunners. When I am designing one, I roll the gunners into the rest of the crew and just use one big number. RP-wise rather than tabletop you could probably fly the ship with less crew, with reduced effectiveness. I know I generally have One pilot, one navigator, and one engineer as that 3 man crew, and for a skeleton crew, it could probably be flown with just one guy... just poorly lol.

Despite that, I support anything that gives you more options to build stuff with, and if someone wants to build a ship that way it should be allowed. More options is almost always better.

[Nebfer]

IMHO the minimum crew of 3 is excessive. I get that it's to give you 24 hour coverage at the helm and engines, but what if you don't need 24 hours?

Same with life support requirements. I can understand long duration missions where you'll need full crews and at least steerage quarters, but what about purpose-built short duration craft that won't need even steerage quarters(only acceleration couches @ 3T each) and can be flown by only one pilot for a few hours?

Most large craft have used more dedicated Navigators, even on flights lasting a few hours, Now days we do not need them as much due to GPS and robust navigation systems emplaced, but even then most aircraft are built with multiple crew in mind, even if that crewman is not used most of the time. In B-tech it can be assumed that a GPS network is at best spotty, and other systems are also likely to be a bit spotty.

So having a dedicated Navigator might be a good idea, this is considering that all small craft have endurance's in the 30+ hours. As such having multiple shifts will be required and as such it will be made to factor that, even if that option is not used at a given time.

In WW2 it was not unknown for single seat fighters undergoing long range patrols in areas with limited navigation aids to bring along a multi crew aircraft who did have a dedicated navigator (or some one who was more free to do that function than the pilot).

Crew roles I can see in most small craft, though a number of can be combined or omitted depending on the role.
Pilot
Engineer
Navigator
Load Master
Communications
Gunners
Commander
Sensor operator

For example
Pilot/Commander (and likely the "officer", though other crew many also have piloting functions), Engineer/Load master (monitors the engines and maintains them in flight as well as other maintenance functions, also looks after the ships cargo, as most small craft have notable cargo transport dutys) & Navigator/Communications (fairly self explanatory) as a basic crew, with Gunner(s)/Sensor operator(s) if the craft is armed.

[glitterboy2098]

So what does all this have to do with the issue of the K1's dual docking methods, and proposed retcons thereof?

[Cryhavok101]

So what does all this have to do with the issue of the K1's dual docking methods, and proposed retcons thereof?

My assumption was that we said pretty much everything there was to say on the matter, and afterwards the conversation evolved. Did you have more to add to it?

[Fireangel]

I will point out that under DS&JS, the K-1 was built using whatever under-the-hood rules they used for designing dropships; the other small craft used the ASF construction rules. The implication being clear that a dropship small enough could be carried in a small craft bay.

I will also reiterate that it is far more efficient to use collars on standard-core jumpships; for 1,000 tons, you can carry droppers as large as 100kt, while a large craft bay takes up the tonnage of multiple collars and has a much lower maximum capacity.

[Cryhavok101]

I will point out that under DS&JS, the K-1 was built using whatever under-the-hood rules they used for designing dropships; the other small craft used the ASF construction rules. The implication being clear that a dropship small enough could be carried in a small craft bay.

Interesting! DS&JS was before I was collecting my own books, so I have no idea what is in it.

I will also reiterate that it is far more efficient to use collars on standard-core jumpships; for 1,000 tons, you can carry droppers as large as 100kt, while a large craft bay takes up the tonnage of multiple collars and has a much lower maximum capacity.

That is one of the reasons the ruling that dropships can't go in dropshuttle bays boggles my mind, it certainly doesn't give any real advantage to either the jumpship or the dropship.

Historically that ruling would have made the transition from dropshuttle bays to docking collars brutal, since if you use the jumpships you already have, you can't use new dropships, and if you make the modern jumpships, you can't use your old dropships without also doing the K-F boom upgrade to them. That would be a logistical nightmare.

Design wise, 11,000 tons to carry 2 5000-ton dropships or 11,000 tons to carry 11 100,000-ton dropships kind of eliminates that as any kind of threat to balance. The carrying limit of max 6 dropshuttle bays versus the much higher limit of possible docking hardpoints further sets them apart as well.

And I already talked about the dropships-as-cargo thing. I really fail to see how this ruling is any good.

Back to this:

I will point out that under DS&JS, the K-1 was built using whatever under-the-hood rules they used for designing dropships; the other small craft used the ASF construction rules. The implication being clear that a dropship small enough could be carried in a small craft bay.

Small craft bays can already hold things other than small craft, and dropships, with only miniscule differences, design wise, are basically the same thing as small craft. I think 200 ton dropships should be able to fit in a small craft bay, and if that ruling wasn't there, I don't think there would be a problem with that. There certainly isn't any other advantage to a 200 ton dropship that I can think of (at least for interstellar transport).

Anyway, I think I am done in this thread, I don't want to just repeat the same things over and over, and I think I've made my own position on these things pretty clear. There isn't really anything else constructive I can do, other than completely disregarding that ruling in my own games, even though I prefer not to diverge from the canon rules very much.

[Intermittent_Coherence]

Most large craft have used more dedicated Navigators, even on flights lasting a few hours, Now days we do not need them as much due to GPS and robust navigation systems emplaced, but even then most aircraft are built with multiple crew in mind, even if that crewman is not used most of the time. In B-tech it can be assumed that a GPS network is at best spotty, and other systems are also likely to be a bit spotty.
 

True that. But then again, most pilots are also trained as navigators. And engineers should have no trouble manning weapons, or splitting those with the pilot.

Bottomline, for short duration trips, you should be working fine with just half the crew.

[pheonixstorm]

Interesting! DS&JS was before I was collecting my own books, so I have no idea what is in it.

DS&JS was a great book back when the aero construction rules were really sketchy. They gave stats to all the major dropships, the core jumpships, some small craft, and the original space stations.

Its funny though, the stats for the K-1 in DS&JS are so skewed its ridiculous.

Weight 200 tons
Engine 52.5 tons
Armor 12 tons (3057 lists 21 tons)
Cargo 55 tons (3057 shows 17 tons)
Cockpit 3 tons (3057... wtf is a cockpit??)
Crew 2 (3057 crew of 4)

Makes me think that SC were built using ASF construction rules. The fluff on the other hand shows that the K-1 has a collar but is rarely used as it was intended due to cost.

On another note, the book also says a Leopard DS will cost you around 60 million C-Bills lol