Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Kenneth Barns (27 Oct 2014 13:21 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (27 Oct 2014 16:57 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Phil Pugliese (27 Oct 2014 17:25 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Kenneth Barns (27 Oct 2014 19:52 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (28 Oct 2014 02:54 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Kenneth Barns (28 Oct 2014 07:58 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (28 Oct 2014 22:19 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Kenneth Barns (29 Oct 2014 00:30 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2014 05:23 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (04 Nov 2014 23:18 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Richard Aiken (05 Nov 2014 02:28 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Phil Pugliese (05 Nov 2014 19:09 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Ian Whitchurch (05 Nov 2014 21:51 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Ian Whitchurch (05 Nov 2014 22:22 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Phil Pugliese (06 Nov 2014 00:43 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (05 Nov 2014 22:29 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Bruce Johnson (05 Nov 2014 23:09 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Phil Pugliese (06 Nov 2014 00:36 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Phil Pugliese (06 Nov 2014 00:26 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Kelly St. Clair (06 Nov 2014 01:19 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Richard Aiken (06 Nov 2014 09:00 UTC)
[TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Alex Goodwin (06 Nov 2014 12:24 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Ian Whitchurch (06 Nov 2014 13:27 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Ian Whitchurch (06 Nov 2014 21:05 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Bruce Johnson (06 Nov 2014 21:28 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Ian Whitchurch (06 Nov 2014 22:53 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Freelance Traveller (07 Nov 2014 01:31 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Ian Whitchurch (07 Nov 2014 02:56 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Ian Whitchurch (07 Nov 2014 07:25 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Bruce Johnson (07 Nov 2014 16:21 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Richard Aiken (08 Nov 2014 01:42 UTC)
Re: [TML] Multiple economically-interesting worlds in system Freelance Traveller (06 Nov 2014 13:33 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Phil Pugliese (06 Nov 2014 13:31 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Richard Aiken (09 Nov 2014 08:59 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Phil Pugliese (09 Nov 2014 18:16 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Ian Whitchurch (10 Nov 2014 02:25 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Richard Aiken (10 Nov 2014 02:47 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Kelly St. Clair (10 Nov 2014 03:01 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Richard Aiken (10 Nov 2014 06:44 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Bruce Johnson (10 Nov 2014 18:51 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Richard Aiken (10 Nov 2014 22:55 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Richard Aiken (10 Nov 2014 06:45 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Thomas Jones-Low (10 Nov 2014 13:27 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Phil Pugliese (10 Nov 2014 22:55 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Bruce Johnson (10 Nov 2014 23:10 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Phil Pugliese (05 Nov 2014 19:11 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (05 Nov 2014 06:26 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (05 Nov 2014 17:01 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (05 Nov 2014 20:22 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Eris Reddoch (05 Nov 2014 21:50 UTC)
Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives tmr0195@xxxxxx (05 Nov 2014 22:19 UTC)

Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives Phil Pugliese 06 Nov 2014 00:26 UTC

I don't know how many TL14/15 3I (all services) ships would be in a depot but there should but there should be some, I imagine, although almost all of them should be on active duty w/ regular IN (15) or colonial (14) squadrons. Still there should have been an enormous surplus surge after the 3rdFW/SolRimWar (The 'Long' War) similar to WWII here, so as the IN transitioned to TL15 during the '900's, a lot of old ships would've gone to the depots. I can see where a lot of the TL13's could've gone to clients (the Vargr states have fleets that  are canonically TL13) & others could've been/ are still being 'repurposed' for civilian use. In addition, there could just be *some* retired TL15's depending on how long ships are kept in service. The oldest TL15's should be over 90 years by  1105.

So,  the following schemes should be very possible along w/ many others.
An IN Depot could really be the 'place to be' for intrepid adventurers that are less than scrupulous.

p.s. I've always wondered if the IISS keeps some ships at IN Depots, loans them all the surplus out, or maybe has their own places, like Scout Waystations?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 11/5/14, Ian Whitchurch <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives
 To: xxxxxx@simplelists.com
 Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2014, 2:51 PM

 Regarding
 IN Depots, salvaging, rebuilding and refitting, as the
 Imperial Navy's tech level drifts up, ships would move
 from Imperial Navy down to "Colonial Squadrons"
 and then all the way down to scrap.
 Now, stealing entire working ships
 from the IN doesnt strike me as a particularly healthy way
 to make a living - they are too obvious ("Never steal
 booze. Everyone always counts the
 booze").
 On the
 other hand, a corrupt supply clerk signing off on a corrupt
 inspector agreeing that this batch of power plants are
 'unrecoverable and beyond design life', and putting
 them into the auction process for scrap, while tipping off
 their buyer for what batch to bid on - there's
 definitely some money to be made there.
 Pulling this all together
 ...
 Our Heroes start
 with a Detatched Duty type S, and have found a derelict hull
 somewhere deep in an Outsystem.

 It needs everything - M-drive, power
 plant, jump drive, repaired lanthanum grid, life support,
 computer/sensors and possibly even guns. Some of that can be
 obtained as scrap, some can be bodged together and at last
 resort, it could possibly be bought.
 Oh, and kept secure during the build
 process.
 Depending on
 your Imperium, the ship then needs to get new Registry
 paperwork, possibly via pretending it came in from past the
 Imperial border.

 On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 6:09
 AM, Phil Pugliese (via tml list) <xxxxxx@simplelists.com>
 wrote:
 This email was sent from yahoo.com which does not allow
 forwarding of emails via email lists. Therefore the
 sender's email address (xxxxxx@yahoo.com)
 has been replaced with a dummy one. The original message
 follows:

 This all gives me an idea concerning what goes on at
 IN Depots.

 Along w/ storage there's also salvage &
 rebuilding/refitting going on too.

 PC's could in on the 'action' w/ the intent of
 coming out of it w/ a ship of their own, one way or
 another...

 --------------------------------------------

 On Tue, 11/4/14, Grimmund <xxxxxx@gmail.com>
 wrote:

  Subject: Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for
 drives

  To: xxxxxx@simplelists.com

  Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2014, 8:25 PM

  On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at

  8:28 PM, Richard Aiken <xxxxxx@gmail.com>

  wrote:

  > On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 7:39 PM,

  Grimmund <xxxxxx@gmail.com>

  wrote:

  >>

  >> . .

  . unless you are planning to build enough ships to
 reduce

  the

  >> share of the architect's

  fee per ship to something manageable.  But

  >> that's still a bad financial

  decisions.

  >

  >

  > Does that still apply if you're a

  megacorp building the hulls in-house?

  As an opinion?  Yes.

  Even if you don't have to pay someone the

  fee, you're still going to

  spend a lot

  of time and money developing the plans.

  Unless you are a very small shop, your

  architecture department is

  going to have to

  bill your production department for all those labor

  hours and all that computer modeling time. 

  Even if the company eats

  the cost

  internally, there is still an expense involved.

  > I always

  assumed the standard design discount represented a
 megacorp

  pumping

  > out pre-built cookie-cutter

  hulls and then calling on low-bid subcontractors

  > to actually install the working bits of

  the ship.

  I had sort of

  assumed that the "standard designs" were
 ships

  which

  were designed by Imperial agencies,

  and the design was released into

  the public

  domain (which probably caused some conservative Vilani
 to

  have heart attacks at the thought of not

  collecting royalties...)

  >The corp could easily

  >

  stockpile not-as-yet needed hulls (especially in an
 orbital

  yard), only

  > fitting these out when the

  current market called for it. Also, a certain

  > precentage of these hulls (particularly

  along the fringes) would be

  >

  "re-manufactured" models; hulls of salvaged
 or

  repossessed standard designs,

  > with the

  old working guts removed and replaced with "as

  new" components.

  Unless there is some odd economic downturn, it

  doesn't make a lot of

  sense to sink

  money into producing things you have no need for and

  don't have much of a market for.

  The only exception to this is

  production of niche items (like, say,

  tanks,

  or specialized trucks, or aircraft, or some other

  specialized

  widget that requires a lot of

  infrastructure to manufacture) where you

  need some low level of level of production to

  justify keep the

  production facility open

  and the staff employed.  Otherwise, the

  producer will shut down the line and build

  something else, and when

  you need tanks

  again, you're going to be out of luck.

  Dan

 -----

 The Traveller Mailing List

 Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml

 Report problems to xxxxxx@travellercentral.com

 To unsubscribe from this list please goto

 http://archives.simplelists.com

 -----
 The Traveller Mailing List
 Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
 Report problems to xxxxxx@travellercentral.com
 To unsubscribe from this list please goto
 http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=EwREIRgLK8vaUEhNlnoNdSGKwnjoID8a