Fleet sizes

[McPerth]

The book says: "The purpose for multiple stutterwarps is twofold. First, it prevents the failure of a single unit from crippling the ship. Second, it allows the ship to make a single run of up to 15.4 light-years between stars on the outbound and inbound legs of its voyage."

It never mentions anything about ejecting them.

But as you cannot carry a charged drive, you must eject it before the coils begin radiating the whole ship if you reached the 7.7 threshold and watn to keep going with another drive, so it's assumed they must.

And in an article about the bayern (IIRC in a TD, but not sure) they made clear those used engines must be disposed before engaging the spare ones.

 

[rancke]

But as you cannot carry a charged drive, you must eject it before the coils begin radiating the whole ship if you reached the 7.7 threshold and watn to keep going with another drive, so it's assumed they must.

I would have thought that it should be possible to switch at 7.6 ly and carry the not-yet-radiating drive along.

And in an article about the Bayern (IIRC in a TD, but not sure) they made clear those used engines must be disposed before engaging the spare ones.

Oh, I don't doubt you. I just don't see the game setting reason for making it necessary.


Hans

 

[McPerth]

I would have thought that it should be possible to switch at 7.6 ly and carry the not-yet-radiating drive along.



Oh, I don't doubt you. I just don't see the game setting reason for making it necessary.


Hans

As it is explained in various articles about this issue, a drive cannot be turned off when the coils are charged withut them discharging at once, and if you carry them tuned on, even if iddle, they accumulate charge. So neither turning it off with the coils is not an option.

 

[McPerth]

As to the second, if assembly/disassembly becomes too easy, then you reap the problem of players setting out for distant systems with disassembled stutterwarps and assembling them along the way, thereby breaking the near star map. But you know this.

Not necessarily. As I said in my following post, this cannot be done with a starship due to sheer size. You can easily change the battery of your celular pone or pocker radio, as it's normal and easy to replace, not so easy for your car's battery, but doable, but for a submarine, where the batteries are trully large and more protected (so more inaccesible) you need a full base support to change them.

As I said, I see the missiles coils as the celular phone's or car's batteries, while the ship's coils would be more like the submarines'. To be able to repalce (or simply put them in place if it doesn't have them) its coils, it must either be specifically designed for that (and yet it's a daunting task, so the tasks given by Bmonery will be applied) or, to put them on line while carried by a tug, having help from the tug, that, being built specifically for it, has base capability for that.

 

[LemnOc]

Responding to shaunhilburn:

But as you cannot carry a charged drive, you must eject it before the coils begin radiating the whole ship if you reached the 7.7 threshold and watn to keep going with another drive, so it's assumed they must.

And in an article about the bayern (IIRC in a TD, but not sure) they made clear those used engines must be disposed before engaging the spare ones.

Yes, the earlier book does seem to contradict many things stated and published later about charged drives. If you drag them through space assembled, they build a charge. You can't turn them off if they've accumulated a charge* and therefore they can't be disassembled and therefore must be disposed of [when] outside a gravity well.

*Bmonery suggests this can be done at great peril and difficulty, and that's probably canon.

 

[LemnOc]

Oh, I don't doubt you. I just don't see the game setting reason for making it necessary.

Here, it is probably a bit more vital to the game setting than most of the things we kvetch about. Making it too easy to drag multiple drives around tends to break the Arms and many assumptions about the 2300AD map.

It makes a scenario and a place like Back Door somewhat useless.

 

[shaunhilburn]

Here, it is probably a bit more vital to the game setting than most of the things we kvetch about. Making it too easy to drag multiple drives around tends to break the Arms and many assumptions about the 2300AD map.

It makes a scenario and a place like Back Door somewhat useless.

What about 'delaying discharge'? The faster a ship is, the farther it can stretch the 7.7 limit. I've never hear anyone gripe about that as an Arm-breaker.

 

[LemnOc]

What about 'delaying discharge'? The faster a ship is, the farther it can stretch the 7.7 limit. I've never hear anyone gripe about that as an Arm-breaker.

Really? I've never heard about this capacity before. What's the source of that info? In my understanding a fast ship just hits the 7.7 bound faster/sooner. Not that it can extend it. Interesting.

But, yes, you can extend the 7.7 bound, if prepared at the outset. By about a day's travel, according to MgT2300.

 

[McPerth]

Really? I've never heard about this capacity before. What's the source of that info? In my understanding a fast ship just hits the 7.7 bound faster/sooner. Not that it can extend it. Interesting.

But, yes, you can extend the 7.7 bound, if prepared at the outset. By about a day's travel, according to MgT2300.

Well, IIRC the rules talk about delaying the discharge (by distributing more evnetly it, and engineer task), but if this extends the range or just allows you to have it charged for longer time (e.g. just in case you need to fight before dischargeing, with distances ) is not clear (after all, charge is distance dependent, not time dependent, so, should it allow it, the extra allowance should be in distance, not in time).

I've never read about this allowing to travel longer distances , and, in any case, it would be quite dangerous, as if you fail the task you're stranded in the middle of nowere with your coils charged. Too dangerous to try more than as an emergency measure (as told, if allowed at all).

EDIT: Reviewed rules (Traveller2300, so first edition, but IIRC from when I read 2300AD this was on them too). It's on page 20 of the Referee's Manual, under Tinkering with your ship.

 

[LemnOc]

Well, IIRC the rules talk about delaying the discharge (by distributing more evnetly it, and engineer task), but if this extends the range or just allows you to have it charged for longer time (e.g. just in case you need to fight before dischargeing, with distances ) is not clear (after all, charge is distance dependent, not time dependent, so, should it allow it, the extra allowance should be in distance, not in time).

Yes; in my understanding you can hang around forever with a drive charged below capacity. Same logic you could go to a Star A 3 ly distant, then on to another Star B 3 ly distant without discharging at A. Still below capacity. But if at full capacity you just can't go anywhere until it is discharged.

I can imagine, though, if you were charged above capacity, say on the Broward <-> Serurier run, it would be dangerous/risky to delay that discharge.

 

[rancke]

Here, it is probably a bit more vital to the game setting than most of the things we kvetch about. Making it too easy to drag multiple drives around tends to break the Arms and many assumptions about the 2300AD map.

(Personally I don't see why you couldn't allow something like that. If the material for drives are as rare as I understand, a double-drive ship would be a very expensive way to extend range. The arms would still be very important for regular traffic even if a few such "scout" vessels existed.)

It makes a scenario and a place like Back Door somewhat useless.

I don't know that scenario.


Hans

 

[shaunhilburn]

Really? I've never heard about this capacity before. What's the source of that info? In my understanding a fast ship just hits the 7.7 bound faster/sooner. Not that it can extend it. Interesting.

First and second edition 2300. Delaying discharge for 24 hours is an engineering task.
That's 24 hours of travel, not just sitting around idle, so the distance is 7.7 + warp efficiency.

That's the only way I can interpret this.

 

[McPerth]

The task for delaying discharge is difficult (11+) engineering, and made before the trip begins. So, an engineer 3 (good but not exceptional) making it a careful task (needing 7+) will succeed more often tan not. If this allows the ship to travel (and so accumulate charge) for a day more, a Kenedy could easily travel over 12 LY on a trip, so I guess it's not so easy (or the setting is really broken and Lemnoc is right in saying :

But, yes, you can extend the 7.7 bound, if prepared at the outset. By about a day's travel, according to MgT2300.

).

Frankly, I've never understood the true meaning of this task wihtout breaking the setting, but if it allows to travel this extra day (instead of just delaying discharge for a day), then I'd house rule (at least) it to be uncertain and hazardous. Uncertain would mean that in some truth, either the engineer would know it has failed (if he failed and the referee succeeds) or it will discover it before no-return point is reached (referee`s roll succeeds and player's fails), and hazardous for the drive, being damaged on a mishap. This way it will bcome the very rare maneuver I guess it was intended to be.

I don't know that scenario.

It's a four part adventure published on Challenge nubers 49-52 where a Brown Dwarf reacheable with tugs is used to cross a gap.

 

[rgrove0172]

ok, am I understanding that...

An offline drive - setting cold in a crate in the cargo hold - will not accumulatge a charge. Assembling and preparing such a drive is a difficult and possibly hazardous task, typically undertaken in dry-dock by highly qualified techs with specialized equipment. Smaller drive units such as those found in fighter and missile complements are often brought online in the field through a less extensive procedure.

An online drive - rigged to work but not currently tunneling, will accumulate the same charge as any other functioning drive on the ship. This is the typical state of drives while in orbit, using thrusters etc.

A tunneling/working drive - accumulates a charge up to 7.7 Ly while moving the ship. The 7.7LY maximum may be exceeded by one day of travel by a competent engineer but is a risky endeavor.

A discharging drive is still online but locked into a maintenance cycle until the charge is bled off.

Drives must be in a gravity well (.1G) in order to discharge. All drives discharge together (presumably automatically or by some linked maintenance mechanic)

A drive cannot be taken offline until it discharges. It may however be jettisoned.

It is therefore possible, but very expensive and a bit risky, to carry additional drives, jettison each as they become charged and bring another one online in the field. (Bayern)

Does that about cover it? Im trying to write up a little addendum to the stutterwarp technology for my game files.

 

[LemnOc]

Frankly, I've never understood the true meaning of this task wihtout breaking the setting, but if it allows to travel this extra day (instead of just delaying discharge for a day), then I'd house rule (at least) it to be uncertain and hazardous. Uncertain would mean that in some truth, either the engineer would know it has failed (if he failed and the referee succeeds) or it will discover it before no-return point is reached (referee`s roll succeeds and player's fails), and hazardous for the drive, being damaged on a mishap. This way it will bcome the very rare maneuver I guess it was intended to be.

Related to what you and shaunhilburn are saying, yes, I'm vaguely uncomfortable with the idea that a very fast, high efficiency ship can also apply that special efficiency to extending its discharge (and therefore its travel limits). It really pushes the shape of two parameters at once, a recipe for imbalance. You already get there faster; now you get to go longer/farther, too. It tends to unbalance military ships in particular, and therefore military engagements.

It kind of does to 2300 what J4-6 drives did to Traveller, which is to hammer the map flat to the point where chestnut concepts like "The Kessel Run" get flattened out of all meaning.

 

[rgrove0172]

If Im gathering this correctly then a commander would keep his missiles/fighters offline until preparing for an engagement or going on patrol, where he would "spin up" a number for immediate deployment. In on an extended patrol he would have to discharge them along with his main drive when the opportunity presented.

Oh and I have to say Im not a fan of the "delaying of discharge" actually extending travel distances. Although if that was the original intent of the rules, Ill go with it.

 

[LemnOc]

ok, am I understanding that...

An offline drive - setting cold in a crate in the cargo hold - will not accumulatge a charge.

An assembled but OFF drive *could* accumulate a charge. I, for one, am not asserting that OFF drives do not accumulate a charge. In fact, you run into some "gamey" troubles if you don't assert that it accumulates a charge. So let's assume OFF drives accumulate a charge just like ON drives.

What I'm saying is that it should not be a particular pain in the neck to discharge the charge of an OFF drive when all you're doing is towing it around at conventional distances. If you determine that it is difficult, but then handwave the consequences that follow from the difficulty, no big deal, you're just gilding the lily without particular purpose IMO. What's the point of establishing a difficulty if it is a difficulty of no consequence?

Drives must be in a gravity well (.1G) in order to discharge. All drives discharge together (presumably automatically or by some linked maintenance mechanic)

This works, IMO. This works.

A drive cannot be taken offline until it discharges. It may however be jettisoned.

It is therefore possible, but very expensive and a bit risky, to carry additional drives, jettison each as they become charged and bring another one online in the field. (Bayern)

Yes; in this understanding, the Bayern's extra drives would be partially disassembled to prevent them from accumulating an explosive charge when the ship travels beyond the standard 7.7 range. Engines that carry a charge that cannot be discharged would need to be jettisoned.

 

[rgrove0172]

I guess Im just not sold on a lump of non-functioning machinery accumlating a gravimetric charge. Im imagning a freighter, hauling parts to a shipyard somewhere. In its hold are 4 StarCross IV, Model B Stutterwarp tunneling drives. They are fully assembled but crated up and lacking the ignition cylinders, 2nd stage capacitors and primary relays that will bring the things 'online'.

I dont see these things arriving at their destination with a charge they have to manage. Now, installing, calibrating and bringing one of those babies up to speed is no small matter - typically not performed in the field unless a very well equipped and trained crew is on hand, not to mention a full sevice engineering hanger.

 

[rancke]

Drives must be in a gravity well (.1G) in order to discharge. All drives discharge together (presumably automatically or by some linked maintenance mechanic)

Um... that one is going to run into the same problem that has bedevilled Traveller jump drives of the Interstellar Wars for a long, long time, namely that the space between stars is littered with brown dwarves and sunless planetary bodies. If a body that generate 0.1 G is all you need, there's no such thing as an arm -- there's just hexes with scores and hundreds of potential rest stops in each and every one of them.

(Note: I don't know the specific numbers for dark planets; you'd have to ask an astronomer for those).

BTW, what's the size of a body that can generate a 0.1 G field? Is it small enough that it would be practical to mount SLT drives on them and move them in practical timespans (decades)?


Hans

 

[LemnOc]

First and second edition 2300. Delaying discharge for 24 hours is an engineering task.
That's 24 hours of travel, not just sitting around idle, so the distance is 7.7 + warp efficiency.

That's the only way I can interpret this.

As an alternative house rule, it might be interesting to explore the idea that each .1 ly of distance traveled beyond 7.7 increases the chance of explosion by 10%. Or maybe express that as a logarithmic scale, so you can go the extra .1 at essentially no chance of death, 1 ly at absolute certain chance of death.

That way you can really push the engines in a pinch.