View Full Version : Stat comparison

28 December 2002, 10:02 PM
Hey there, Deck. I finally got a chance to look over your various ships that I had also done some "stock" stats for. It's pretty amazing that we are so close to the same for many of the ships.

Interestingly enough, there are some you've got on your site that I haven't seen (probably in some various supplements I don't have) but there were also a couple I had that I didn't see on your site.

I don't remember seeing the following:
Baudo Class Star Yacht
Gymsnor-3 Freighter
Curich class shuttle
Kazellis Light Freighter

If these are on your site, let me know, as my eyes are bugging right now so I could have missed then. If not, let me know and I'll send you what I've got, see if your interested.

6 January 2003, 01:55 PM
Thank you Grimace for your efforts! It's nice to see someone else posting in this forum. ;)

I have a full reference list for all listed ships, so you can discover the supplements where the ships are in which you couldn't remember. :)

As for the 4 ships you mentioned above, there exist stock stats for all of them (Pirates & Privateers, Stock Ships). The Curich Cargo shuttle is only mentioned once, a stock model in "Classic Campaigns".

Cheers! :)

15 January 2003, 03:38 AM
Is there going to be any activity on your site?

Chris Curtis
15 January 2003, 07:35 AM
I know that Deck is pretty busy with school right now. Give him some time and I'm sure you'll see an update -- I know he's no happier with the current situation than anyone else.

15 January 2003, 11:15 PM
Hiya Deck,

I'm working on a conversion of the ships listed in your Lost WEG stats section to my Revised D20 Starship Combat system. In the course of the operation I came across the Thallasian Slaver and have some reccomendations for the Capsule description:

(Christopher Deck) The Thalassian Medium Slave Transport is an older type of transport infamous throughout the outer regions. The transport is very slow but is able to hold up to 9,800 slaves and 200 metric tons of cargo. As the Y164 is a very old vessel, they are no longer available new. Some have found their way into slaver's hands. Most of them have been heavily modified by their owners. Space for cargo has often been sacrificed to hold more slaves and heavier weapon systems are a common modification.

(FULONGAMER) Since the listed 90m size is unable to carry this quantity of slaves alive (it would require a compartment 90m x 27m to hold them all standing 4 per square meter) I chose to extend the size a full 100m to 190. WEG had a chronic problem with cramming completely unrealistic volumes into extradimensional hulls.

Slaves are kept in utterly inhuman conditions, crammed vertically into cage modules 0.5m x 0.5m x 2m or 4 per square meter. These cage modules are linked into a sub-unit of 5m x 7m containing 140 slaves which is manipulated like a regular cargo container. A block of 5 of these can be linked into a 700 slave train 25m x 7m to a side. There are slots for 7 of these slave blocks each in the decks of 2 cavernous holds (63m x 25m x 8m). Unbelievably only 8 dedicated slavers are required to manage the “cargo” due primarily to their constant isolation and mass handling with cargo cranes. Slaves are never loose on the ship, as they are loaded into the cages outside the ship and extracted only upon delivery to their destination. Feeding and sanitation is handled via roving automated hoses that alternately deposit rations of watery nutrient gruel from above the cell and purge the cells with blasts of warm water and air. To prevent loss of cargo to hypothermia, the slave decks are actually kept quite sweltering. The dead are unceremoniously dumped into the consumables recycling center to reclaim nutrients and water.

If converted to an actual cargo carrier, the Y164 could carry a massive 4,200 metric tons (average of 150lbs per slave then add support equipment)

Slave Hold Layout:
O = Slave Unit 5mx7m
H = 2m catwalk


Whaddaya think?

Chris Curtis
16 January 2003, 08:16 AM
That's definitely a very cool description and some good ideas.

Part of it, though, seems rather dependent on the assumption that there's only one deck on which to hold the slaves. Looking at the side view pic that accompanies Deck's stats, it's quite obvious that the ship consists of multiple levels.

Assuming a length of 90m, then there should easily be six or seven decks, even accounting for space "wasted" on various shipboard functions and equipment. If you have, say, 3 decks of 60mx27m, then you could fit all the slaves in with just 2 slaves per square meter.

Anyway, I'm just saying that I think the stats as stated could work. Your added descriptions would certainly be nice for the capsule, however.

16 January 2003, 08:56 AM
Thanks Chris,

I should have been clearer in stating that the 2 slave holds (and the regular cargo hold as well) were on 3 seperate decks. The pic of the ship definitely implies multilevel arrangement, and the system of slave handling I describe would definitely allow so few people to handle so many slaves.

The raw number of slaves is the primary reason I decided the ship needed expansion, not so much to accomodate the slaves as cargo, but to accomodate the Engines that would be needed to push that kind of weight. 4200 metric tons of cargo made of slaves and the 200mt extra. This does not even account the the amount of lifesupport & consumables (water, food, and air) tonnage. And all this in a 90 meter ship? Even allowing minimal bulkhead space and room for ships superstructure that would allow less than 30 meters of ship space for the engines. Now 1/3 of the ship's size as engines is a good formula, but look at the cargo capacities of comparable sized ships. None even come close to approaching a significant fraction of the 4200mt this boat must be able to handle for it's listed size. Nothing that small is that powerful or efficient.

Call me cranky but I am a big fan of the rules of starship design from FV Bonura's Deckplan site and Bob Brown's page. And taken together they definitely lean towards letting out the seams of this craft a significant amount. Total cargo weight and habitable space requirements plus engine accountability seem to require it.

16 January 2003, 12:16 PM
Hello my dear fellows!

Thank you for your interest! I haven't had that much feedback since the opening of the site.

Thanks Chris for mastering the thread. I have been kept in my laboratory at the university. Lots of studying currently... :(

It's only a few more weeks until spring break! That's the good message! And you can be sure to have updates then! :)

Fulongamer, the description is great, and I already consider changes in the one on my site.

So, thanks a lot for your companyship, and be sure I'll soon be back! :)

Chris Curtis
17 January 2003, 09:14 AM
I don't mean to be argumentative. I really don't.

None even come close to approaching a significant fraction of the 4200mt this boat must be able to handle for it's listed size.
Now, I'm working purely off of memory here, so I don't know if I'm right at all, but isn't the Gallowfree Medium Transport (the transport that leaves Hoth) 90m with a cargo capacity of 19,000 metric tons?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but those are the numbers I remember. I'd also say the Gallowfree has much less space inside than the Thallasian Slaver. Anyway... ;)

17 January 2003, 09:23 AM
Just to confirm what Chris said:

Gallofree Medium Transport, with sources (http://www1.theforce.net/cuswe/search.asp?search=gallofree&EandD=EyDn&no=10)

If you click the source link, you'll see quite a few that garnered that entry into the Encyclopedia. starwars.com's databank confirms the 90m length, but does not broach the topic of cargo. Since all of those sources are LFL, I'd say that the 19,000mT is pretty solid.

17 January 2003, 12:06 PM
Sounds right, since the Gallowfree is basically a command deck plopped on top of one huge honkin' empty cargo hold.


17 January 2003, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by Chris Curtis
I don't mean to be argumentative. I really don't.

Now, I'm working purely off of memory here, so I don't know if I'm right at all, but isn't the Gallowfree Medium Transport (the transport that leaves Hoth) 90m with a cargo capacity of 19,000 metric tons?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but those are the numbers I remember. I'd also say the Gallowfree has much less space inside than the Thallasian Slaver. Anyway... ;)

Well, not so much so (I admit I am working from memory here too). I am away from the vast majority of my resources. And yes, the WEG dimensions for the Gallofree and the LFL listed length match up.

The last thing I want to do is to accuse the LFL Guys of getting a dimension wrong, but they have been caught out flat out wrong before. Take the Millenium Falcon for instance. If you believe the LFL Guys, the thing is only 35 meters long, when in actuality to accomodate the internal canon structures, it had to be about 45m. All WEG external dimensions were given in refrence to the external "full-size" Falcon mockup which was built underscale. It's insides are bigger than its outsides.

With that the 90m Gallofree listing can be suspect, especially when compared to other craft of known dimension, but yes, probably not up to the 190m either. I'll scale that back too, somewhat.

Comparative hull views for the corvette can be found here:
Bob's Corvette Analysis (http://www.synicon.com.au/sw/br/tantive.htm)
Use the Green views by Mr. Mike Marincic

The Corvette which has the closest analog to the alluded to engine array is 150m and has a cargo capacity of only 3000mt and a crew + passengers total of up to 765 (with 1 year of lifesupport & consumables). Comparing the engine arrays at similar scale lends the size of the Slaver to 90-120m, however as a bulkier craft, it's cargo capacity could be estimated to be equal or greater. It would also seem to have more engines, looking to be perhaps a 4x4, 16 engine spread,or even 4x5 for 20.

Note also the differences between the design of the Gallofree, essentially the 18-wheeler trailer, C-5 Galaxy of space, used for bulk, uninhabited cargo versus the allowable hull requirements to keep live cargo in the slaver. Everywhere you plan to put living things in a starship you have to have the required support equipment and infrastructure. The hull shape and function known for the Gallofree seems far more spacious internally, thus lending to the higher per capita cargo volume.
Thanks BRodgers for noting that

One big blank area in our assumptions comes from the limited perspective we have on the craft visually. We do not know the 3rd dimensions of the craft, what the profile as seen from above or the front may be. These elements will definitely have to be extrapolated to develop a logical design.

One bennie for it is the engine array, which seems to lean in the direction of a Corellian Corvette in general design and array, though overbuilt and enclosed. On the downside, the forequarters depiction of a "bridge window" seems dangerously out of scale with the back 1/3, especially if the craft is to be projected as 90m long. Looking at the minimalist nature of the illustration, we see 4 distinct design areas, the engine array, the bow/bridge decks, the dorsal superstructure/crew decks, and the central mass (likely 2-3 decks of cargo).

The obvious docking collar ring is also of the oversize 2-deck version found on the corvette, as opposed to the smaller YT-1300 style. This would be to facilitate large cargo movement. This point, other than perhaps the engines must needs be the widest structure in the ships top-down profile. The bow appears to be rounded as it tapers from the docking collars to the front.

The laser turrets have to be accessible, and we have significant areas in the bow (just above the "waterline") and the upper deck porthole array that seem to preclude use as cargo decks.

The craft then seems to imply being at least as wide or probably wider than it is tall. This will help accomodate a landing capability, both in providing undetailed structure to allow for landing gear space, and added stability in a grouded stance. However, large wing-like structures are not likely, due to the docking collar position.

Hmmmm, I'll work to expand on this and project some probable extra views and deck allocations....

2 July 2004, 08:55 AM
If we take the Heros Guide Web Enhancement, then 4 slaves fit just fine in one metric ton. So the Thalassian Medium Slave Transport would have a cargo capacity of about 2650 tons, comparing it to other freight ships of its size, it could easily carry that much cargo (living or not).

just my two cents