|
Post by Philip on Jan 4, 2005 14:55:13 GMT -5
=Cargo system in 40K==Outbound=- Cargo arrives at the deport in Cargo Creates. The Cargo Creates are then loaded into an Anti/Contra grav system that moves Cargo Creates from ground to an orbiting space station/ dock/ port.
- Cargo Creates are collected and packaged by an orbiting space station into a massive Cargo Container (which can hold thousands of creates if not millions).
- When the Cargo Container is full, it is undocked from the Space Station, pulled away but Dock-Tugs and then attached to the sub-light System-Tug.
- System-Tug provides the drive to move the cargo container to the edge of the solar system, to the warp zone, where it waits for a prearranged Warp-Tug.
- The System-Tug is at the back of the ship, the Warp-Tug can connect to the front of the Cargo Container.
- The System-Tug disengages and moves away from the Warp-Tug/ Cargo Conatiner.
- Once the System-Tug is clear the Warp-Tug drops into the warp where it is, and begins the journey to its target destination.
Dropping of the Cargo is like the above in reverse. =Inbound=- The Warp-Tug drops out of warp in the edge of the Solar System, and is met by a waiting System-Tug.
- The Warp-Tug slows down and turns around.
- The Warp-Tug and System-Tug swap Cargo Containers. While swapping Cargo Containers, the Warp-Tug can take supplies.
- The System-Tug engages its sub-light engines and pushes the Cargo Container to its planets space station. The Warp-Tug drops into the warp.
- At the space station, the System-Tug drops off the Cargo Container, refuels and picks up another Cargo Container.
- Once the Cargo Container is docked, it is unloaded directly onto the Anti/Contra grav system, which takes the much smaller Cargo Creates down to the planets surface. The Cargo Creates are then loaded onto the ground transport network for distribution.
;D
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 4, 2005 17:45:57 GMT -5
The thing is that it is useable as a concept. The main problem, as with many of your other ideas, is that it has very little basis in the 'fluff'. The goal is to keep something consistent with the 'fluff' as much as possible - all editions, remember - and only then when something is broken to you end up revising it. Not revising it as a matter of course. At least use it for inspiration! It does little to actually address the problem. Furthermore, at least as explained, it perpetuates the idea that a warp drive is 'small'. Of course, this woud just require a tiny bit of explanation (and offers the hilarious potential of them holding the key)... But it hardly sticks to anything we know of the 'fluff' nor even the common image... And arguably the spirit when it comes down to it. Of course, all three of those are up for grabs. Let's not just automatically revise the ships of the 40k universe quite yet, at least in terms of the overall shapes.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 4, 2005 17:55:34 GMT -5
Let's not just automatically revise the ships of the 40k universe quite yet, at least in terms of the overall shapes. Are there official GW models for cargo ships?
edit; I see you have included a quote from WD140, the cargo shipping method I have described is for supplying hives, and there is very little info on them. Tough I would like Warp-Tugs al over the place, I think there would be other types of ship in the Anargo sector. As for size: I think a Warp-Tug is a big, ad-mec boosted battle monster, and damn fancy on the details. Its main advantage though is speed, if not pulling Cargo it would be very fast. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 4, 2005 18:17:42 GMT -5
Are there official GW models for cargo ships? The majority of the ships tend to conform to the same overall shape, i.e. borrowing from terrestrial imagery. Don't blame me, blame the artists, writers and modellers of the 40k universe! Why would a hiveworld require a different type of shift since we're likely to be dealing with the same rough overall volumes of cargo?
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 4, 2005 18:24:36 GMT -5
The majority of the ships tend to conform to the same overall shape, i.e. borrowing from terrestrial imagery. Don't blame me, blame the artists, writers and modellers of the 40k universe! Hmm, perhaps I’ll get the opportunity…. Why would a hiveworld require a different type of shift since we're likely to be dealing with the same rough overall volumes of cargo? I thought I explained that! But to sum up: Efficiency, not a popular word in 40K, but considering the amount of traffic, and number of ships, there isn’t much choice.
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jan 4, 2005 18:31:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 4, 2005 18:39:12 GMT -5
Thanks CELS, but aren’t these all military craft? I’m thinking of pure massive Cargo carriers, merchant shipping etc.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 4, 2005 18:43:26 GMT -5
Ships are ships... One might go about asking why GW selected that shape for the military ships.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 4, 2005 18:49:18 GMT -5
Ships are ships... One might go about asking why GW selected that shape for the military ships. Ya, but their different types of ship! There are good reasons that a military based transport would be an all in one, in the same way America doesn’t send articulated-lorries into front line combat. At the moment I see no fluff that would invalidate Warp-Tugs. GW/ BL has always been a bit vague on the specifics of Hive systems.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 4, 2005 18:54:32 GMT -5
Of course, this is where someone throws that horrendously crap tag line into the melee: "In the grim dark future there is only war."
Combine that with horrendous arguments about STC and... well, it is a horrifyingly simplistic picture.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 4, 2005 19:08:47 GMT -5
Of course, this is where someone throws that horrendously crap tag line into the melee: "In the grim dark future there is only war." Exactly, hence my Warp-Tugs are armed to the teeth with advanced Ad-Mec weapons. Combine that with horrendous arguments about STC and... well, it is a horrifyingly simplistic picture. No more simple than modern day living!
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jan 4, 2005 23:10:44 GMT -5
The thing is, GW/Forgeworld have done several different transports, and they all look alike. There's nothing that suggests that the normal Imperial transports used in BFG are military ships. Indeed, in the BFG rulebook (aka blue book), they specifically say that the majority of transports used in the Gothic war were 'chartered merchantmen'. I'm not saying that it is impossible that non-military transport ships look completely different, but I think it's unlikely. Of course, there's that quote about absence of evidence... Do me one favour though; drop the idea of ships 'armed to the teeth with Ad-Mech weapons'. The Adeptus Mechanicus pretty much uses the same weapons as the rest of the Imperium. They do have some weapons that they keep to themselves, most of which are highly experimental or unreliable according to fluff, but generally they realise that there's no reason to keep the best weapons to themselves. Don't get me wrong; I like some focus on division within the Adeptus Terra and the Imperium in general, but it doesn't make much sense when you take it too far. IMHO
Thanks for posting that short article, Kage. I should really start reading more of the old stuff- it's amazing how much GW has actually written about in the old days, and neglected completely in recent years. To be honest, I don't have a big problem with Philip's system, despite Sojourner's protests. Maybe I'm forgetting fluff now, but I don't actually recall the fluff being very clear on methods of transporting cargo - except for the stuff in WD#140, now. The thing is though, that I'm not sure that Philip's system is the best way of doing things. For all I know, it might be a waste of resources to transfer the cargo from the big (and apparently extremely fast) interstellar transports to smaller (and possibly slower) system ships. It sounds a lot like sending cargo by train from Washington to New York, except that you stop the train about 100 miles from New York, and have the cargo taken the rest of the way by trucks. And if this is a more effective way of doing it - how do we justify that it's only done for hiveworlds and forgeworlds, or whatever? It would be a lot better -considering the guidelines of the Anargo Sector Project- to find out the reason why the Imperium handles transportation like they do, rather than change important parts of the fluff.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 4, 2005 23:55:51 GMT -5
The only problem is that there really is no need for the dedicated tugs given how it is described in the old 'fluff'. They're still going to require the same rough amount of fuel to get them to the edge of the system. Their only advantage is that you have a 'warp tug' with minimum sublight drives and potential problems with integrating the warp drive into the rest of the ship (this gets back, in essence, to Sojourner's tongue-in-cheek "warpdrive-in-suitcase" comment), and a sublight tug without the warp drive.
About the only advantage is that you've got a less expensive 'cargo ship' for in-system (less warp drive) but increased vulnerability given the 'fluff' on the operation of pirates in a system (i.e. working on the edges). Admittedy this could be ameliorated by centralised patrols, but still...
For consistency with the 'fluff' I think we should stick to the rather standard designs. The 'warp tug' idea might be explored, but perhaps not for hiveworlds. It would be best to stick them with lots more ships when we can think about the volume of 'export' involved.
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jan 5, 2005 0:14:17 GMT -5
Well. Now that we've sorted all that out, I'd once again like to bring your attention to my list of ship categories, with volumes and average body lengths in meters. I'm pretty happy with my list, so I'm ready to just consider it good and ready for the archives when approved- except for one thing.
Corvettes. Right now, the smallest military ship class is ten times larger than the smallest non-military ship class. I'd really, really like to hear your thoughts on this. Is that acceptable? Should we create more ship classes (In that case, I'll need names for military ships that are smaller than corvettes)? Should we leave corvettes varying from 100 meters to 1000 meters in size?
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jan 5, 2005 8:03:23 GMT -5
CELS:
Aren't Destroyers supposed to be around 400m? In that case, no, corvettes should be small, 100-200m. I'd like to suggest that the minimum 'ship' size is the smallest vessel that cannot fit into standard cruiser launch bays. Anything smaller than this is an attack craft.
Attack craft are another matter. As well as heavy fighters and bombers, there are also mentioned Brigs, Dories, Lighters, Pinnaces and Shuttles. Brig, as far as I know, is short for Brigantine which was historically not that small of a ship, i.e. it had masts rather than oars like the various rowboats carried by warships.
Still, we're fudging names anyway here.
|
|