Fractional drives
- Thread starter spank
- Start date
Ok several general points on my cometary.
Where I say reconcile and/or Book2 and Book5 drives is to give the sane generic flavor of Large Power plants with smaller Jump and Maneuver drives.
I have honestly considered using the "77 edition assumption of drives as well, when one looks one finds that is where the weirdness of 80's Book2 charts has it's beginning. Also Note the 1st edition of book5 also morphs into some strange design bits as well.
With all that consider the Tech Levels of Book2's standard drives, shouldn't the be a more regular performance increase in drive performance as minimum require TL to build said drive increases.
And finally when I think of Traveller's ships I look to the Imperial Average of TL 12 instead of the Imperial Max at 15.
Where I say reconcile and/or Book2 and Book5 drives is to give the sane generic flavor of Large Power plants with smaller Jump and Maneuver drives.
I have honestly considered using the "77 edition assumption of drives as well, when one looks one finds that is where the weirdness of 80's Book2 charts has it's beginning. Also Note the 1st edition of book5 also morphs into some strange design bits as well.
With all that consider the Tech Levels of Book2's standard drives, shouldn't the be a more regular performance increase in drive performance as minimum require TL to build said drive increases.
And finally when I think of Traveller's ships I look to the Imperial Average of TL 12 instead of the Imperial Max at 15.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
The Imperium was building TL12 ships a thousand years ago. To still be building even civilian ships at that TL would be like putting coal fire boilers in modern ships. It just isn't done since even diesel engines are more efficient and use less, more easily handled, fuel.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
To follow your analogy ... try taking that diesel engine someplace where diesel fuel is not available and see how far you get with it.
So long as the technological infrastructure is available to support a given level of technology, it will be used. It's only when something falls "so far out of date" that it gets completely abandoned because it can't be supported anymore. I would point out that even with gas turbine technology, there are still ocean going ships that are built (new!) with sails in the modern era (highly advanced technologically optimized sails and materials, too!).
In numerical terms, TL=9 is as far from TL=15 as TL=2 is from TL=8, as far as relative scaling goes ... yet people still hunt "varmints" with bows and arrows in our modern TL=8 era, despite the bow (as a weapon) being a TL=1 (or even TL=0) weapon invention.
And then there's people in our modern era who invent things like the "Instant Legolas" attachment for a modern bow (hat tip to The Slingshot Channel) ... "let me show you its features!"
What you need to accept is that in a Traveller universe you aren't going to have "maximal tech EVERYWHERE" no matter your location. As soon as you can accept the notion that "lower" tech levels have a broader/wider support base than maximal tech does, in which case maximal tech isn't always the "best" option for civilian use (when needing to travel around a lot!) ... the choice to "limit" the sophistication of technology used in ships and the like starts making more sense.
Once you accept that formulation, it then becomes a question of "how low can you go" while still managing to achieve minimum desired performance? Needless to say, that's when designing stuff starts getting REALLY interesting ...
That one idea always fascinated me, and which flavored my campaigns. I tend to prefer smaller, more "frontier" type setting such as the rift sector, or a Small empire/federation set somewhere fairly isolated.Once you accept that formulation, it then becomes a question of "how low can you go" while still managing to achieve minimum desired performance? Needless to say, that's when designing stuff starts getting REALLY interesting ...
Note I live in one of the most Technologically advance parts of the world, My brother lives in pace that is beyond here, we still are amused by the number of things that haven't changed. Next couple that to our family farm, many things there are two or three tech level behind me and my sibling.
Then couple all that to the Concept of Comparative Advantage.
Then there is the entire myth that is Tech Level. But the real answer is things are built with the technology that is most cost effective to use.
And finally the Imperium is much more conservative place than you or I can Imagine.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Have you ever considered
Sure, it's all on the Spinward Main, but there's a 3 parsec (minimum) gap between the Sisters' Reach and the Collace Arm if you don't want to "go the long way 'round" to get between them. You can get up to a LOT of shenanigans with a J3 or a J4 Clipper ship in this region of space.
Highest tech level in the Five Sisters? TL=12 at Karin and Iderati.
Highest tech level in District 268? TL=13 at Collace.
Place is practically BEGGING for a plucky crew to make their fortune in these subsectors ...
It certainly looks like the sort of place I'd go for.Have you ever consideredpiracythe Five Sisters and District 268 subsectors as a good "stomping ground" for adventures?
Sure, it's all on the Spinward Main, but there's a 3 parsec (minimum) gap between the Sisters' Reach and the Collace Arm if you don't want to "go the long way 'round" to get between them. You can get up to a LOT of shenanigans with a J3 or a J4 Clipper ship in this region of space.
Highest tech level in the Five Sisters? TL=12 at Karin and Iderati.
Highest tech level in District 268? TL=13 at Collace.
Place is practically BEGGING for a plucky crew to make their fortune in these subsectors ...
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
And I'll point out that I've done a bit of an IMTU write-up about Collace/D268 in Collace Between the Lines (thread in IISS subforum).
But I digress...
But I digress...
Last edited:
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Falling into the trap of sunken costs, if you have a factory that's more or less been paid off and debt free, all that's left is operating costs and normal overhead.
Operating costs of bleeding edge, plus debt servicing, may be several times more than anything you can squeeze out for efficiency and premiums that the customers are willing to overcompensate, in the short and medium term.
Operating costs of bleeding edge, plus debt servicing, may be several times more than anything you can squeeze out for efficiency and premiums that the customers are willing to overcompensate, in the short and medium term.
Generally, the tables work at n×200/tons, where n is 1 per drive letter, A=1, B=2, etc.
81, the 800 tonners are borqued. the X, Y, and Z are much larger steps, and W probably is, too.
77, the 1000 tonner is off; and XYZ are larger.
| Hull | does not match 200 per letter '81 drives | does not match 200 per letter '77 drives |
| 800 | C G L Q U W X Y | |
| 1000 | W X Y Z | Y Z |
| 2000 | X Y Z | X Y Z |
| 3000 | X Y Z | X Y Z |
| 4000 | Y Z | Y Z |
| 5000 | W X Y Z | Y Z |
Th = Hull Tonnage
I've noticed that the '81 tables round n+0.8 to n+1, which accounts for most of the 800 Td discrepancies...
| R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | |
| 81 | 3200 | 3200 ! | 3600 | 4000 !! | 4000 | 5000 | 6000 | 8000 | 12000 |
| 77 | 3200 | 3200 ! | 3600 | 3600 !? | 4000 # | 4000 ?? | 6000 | 9000 | 12000 |
!! rounding 4.8 up to 5 at 3800.
!? '77 U should be 3800, and it's due to rounding that it doesn't multiply out.
# V 2000 Td should be 2, not 1, if formulaic
?? Any value 4200-4700 leaves extant outcomes as is. I'd suggest 4200
Note that the '81 spacing V→W is 1000, W→X 1000, X→y 2000, Y→Z 4000...
| V→W | W→X | X→Y | Y→Z | |
| 81 | +1000 | +1000 | +2000 | +4000 |
| 77 | +? | +? | +3000 | +3000 |
Differences between 77 and 81 (81 - 77) potentials. Bold purple indicates no entry in '77.
| Tons | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | J | K | L | M | N | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z |
| 100 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 200 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 400 | - | +1 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 600 | - | - | +1 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | - | - | - | - |
| 800 | - | - | +1 | +1 | +1 | ±0 | -1 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | -1 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | -1 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | -1 | ±0 | -1 | -1 | -1 | - |
| 1000 | - | - | - | - | +1 | +1 | +1 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | +1 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | +1 | +1 | ±0 | -1 | -1 | -1 | ±0 |
| 2000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | +1 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | -1 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | -1 |
| 3000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | +1 | ±0 |
| 4000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 | ±0 |
| 5000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | +1 | +1 | ±0 | ±0 |
My suggested "book 2 formulaic" would be rating = entry below ×1000 divided by tonnage
| Tons | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | J | K | L | M | N | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z |
| 81 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 2.4 | 2.6 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 3.2 | 3.4 | 3.6 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 12 |
| 77 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 2.4 | 2.6 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 3.2 | 3.4 | 3.6 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 12 |
.What I love about Bk 2 is that the drive letter is also the drive's attribute, and damage reduces performance. Not so fond of 11 hit computers...
Would like armor. Want PA-Beams just for the Blade Runner references...
Love the TNE style damage tables...
Dang it, time to revise the concordat setting....
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
A further point to be derived is that following developments involved getting higher horsepower levels with a new base design, then get the same HP while stepping down the cylinder count and thus fuel efficient use. Less pollution too.Most V-12, V-16, even V-20 () are diesel used in industrial and heavy transportation applications such as locomotives. But as was discovered by railroads the bought the V-20 SD 45 in the 1960's the fuel use did not equate to the advantage of the extra cylinders and horsepower. Thus it was that the V-16 model SD 40 and follow on SD 40-2 sold much better.
That would give you a table that is pretty close to LBB2. But me, being the trouble maker that I am,
I'd change the progression to be more like this:
| Tons | 8 | 13 | 18 | 23 | 28 | 33 | 38 | 48 | 63 | 73 | 83 | 95 | 110 | 125 | 150 | 175 | 250 | 300 | 350 | 400 | 500 | 600 | 700 | 800 |
| Eff | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.7 | 2.3 | 2.7 | 3.1 | 3.6 | 4.2 | 4.8 | 5.8 | 6.8 | 9.8 | 12 | 14 | 16 | 20 | 24 | 28 | 32 |
| Code | a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | j | k | l | m | n | p | q | r | s | t | u | v | w | z | y | z |
That'd make the drives progress at a different rate than the neat 200 ton increments, and give the larger hulls viable drive options. I'd also add a 1500 ton hull to the chart.
Silverhawk
SOC-12
Which is what happened. But the railroads in particular found that a single locomotive of 6,000 hp was not better that using two 3,000 hp as if it was out of service you had less flexibility to move trains. If one of two 3,000 hp locomotives fails you can adjust to still move some of the train.
Well, that's the key thing with the railroads, right? Going back to the "fixed size power plant".
As general rule, need more power? Add more locomotives. Don't make bigger ones, just get two. Well witnessed by the locomotive shenanigans they perform to drag stuff up and down the Cajon Pass here in So Cal. I know they do this routinely, but it's still a marvel of orchestration.
As general rule, need more power? Add more locomotives. Don't make bigger ones, just get two. Well witnessed by the locomotive shenanigans they perform to drag stuff up and down the Cajon Pass here in So Cal. I know they do this routinely, but it's still a marvel of orchestration.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
As I understand it the rule of thumb was the railroads wanted to replace on a 3:2 basis- 2 new locomotives did the work of three previous generation ones.
So 2 3000 HP did the work of 3 2000 HP locomotives.
The last jump up was to a typical 4200-4400 HP range, 2 4400s are close enough to 3 3000 HP to do the deed. There were 6000 HP ones made but the lack of flexibility as noted has doomed them for now. Different conditions or power plant advances may change that equation.
The emphasis now is on fuel efficiency and greater adhesion, getting more out of the current 4000+ sweet spot.
Silverhawk
SOC-12
Something else that has come in play is the tightening of emissions standards. Most of the big railroads are rebuilding locomotives taking advantage of rules rather than buy new. The railroads experience with the models that meet the current standards is that they do reduce emissions but a greater fuel consumption.
As far a ships are concerned, I think that the concept of a ship design where the drives are not one monolithic block is a better thing. Gives more adventure possibilities. Hits/accidents that disable one of two engines halving acceleration and maintaining course is just one possibility.
I long assumed the letter drive increments for PP are minimum size for peak scale efficiency for fusion bottles... plus the 1 Td control equipment
Likewise, whatever component moves one through spacetime's fabric by pulling on it, is in 1 Td first and 2td second and later chunks, and the JDrive is in 5 Td chunks, of which 3 is the rapid fusion jug, 1 is a zucchai crystal, and 1 is other make-it-work... The initial extra five? the needed sensors for monitoring the jump process...
I've also assumed that multiple gravitic maneuver drives lose that bonus for the first jug... and create harmonic resonances, so only one can operate at a time.
From the initial conception of maneuver drives, they're a scalable block with a constant 1Td hole cut out of the center, that's tied to the power plant. Like an exhaust nozzle...
Once the flavor text changed to "reactionless thruster" from "fusion torch drive," I'm not sure how to explain the LBB2 M-drive tonnage progression.
