OTU Only: Gypsy Queen Class Fast Merchant, LBB2, 199Td, J26GP7

[Spinward Flow]

Then it isn't following a formula.

The TL=15 drives, rather egregiously, break the established pattern used throughout the rest of the table.

And THIS is rather obviously a TYPO error ... but some people would rather not admit it as a possibility.

If there is a formula being used to produce the results in the table, it works consistently for drives A-V and tonnages 100-4000 just fine.

Drive-V = 20 * 200 = 4000
4000 / 600 = 6.66666667 ... drop fractions to yield an integer result = 6
4000 / 800 = 5
4000 / 1000 = 4
4000 / 2000 = 2
4000 / 3000 = 1.5 ... drop fractions to yield an integer result = 1
4000 / 4000 = 1

---

Try doing it for the W-Z drives and the answers just go ... WACKY.

---

Drive-W = 21 * 200? = 4200?
4200 / 600 = 7 ... therefore, code: -
4200 / 800 = 5.25 ... drop fractions to yield an integer result = 5
4200 / 1000 = 4.2 ... drop fractions to yield an integer result = 4 ... but the table has an entry of 5

---

So the only way that the Drive-W "works" as shown in the table is if Drive-W is code: 1 @ 5000 tons ... a +1000 tons increment step from the prior Drive-V.
Except, even THAT fudge doesn't work correctly!

Drive-W = 5000
5000 / 600 = 8.33333333 ... therefore, code: -
5000 / 800 = 6.25 ... drop fractions to yield an integer result = 6 ... but the table has an entry of 5
5000 / 1000 = 5
5000 / 2000 = 2
5000 / 3000 = 1.66666667 ... drop fractions to yield an integer result = 1
5000 / 4000 = 1.25 ... drop fractions to yield an integer result = 1
5000 / 5000 = 1

---

If the drive formula changes from +200 per letter from A-V to being +1000 per letter from V-Z ...

• Drive-W (code: 1 @ 5000 tons) has one table error entry @ 800 tons (should be 6, but it's only 5)
• Drive-X (code: 1 @ 6000 tons) has one table error entry @ 800 tons (should be - instead of 6, because 6000/800=7.5)
• Drive-Y doesn't work as code: 1 @ 7000 tons, but it does work as code: 1 @ 8000 tons ... except ...
  • Drive-Y (code: 1 @ 8000 tons) creates TWO table entry errors!
  • @ 800 tons (should be - instead of 6, because 8000/800=10)
  • @ 1000 tons (should be - instead of 6, because 8000/1000=8)
• Drive-Z can only work as code: 1 @ 12,000 tons(!) ... except ...
  • Drive-Z (code: 1 @ 12,000 tons) creates TWO table entry errors!
  • @ 800 tons (should be - instead of 6, because 12,000/800=15)
  • @ 1000 tons (should be - instead of 6, because 12,000/1000=10)

See if you can spot the pattern break in this progression (@ TL=15, of course ):

1. A = 200 ... TL=9
2. B = 400 ... TL=9
3. C = 600 ... TL=9
4. D = 800 ... TL=9
5. E = 1000 ... TL=A
6. F = 1200 ... TL=A
7. G = 1400 ... TL=A
8. H = 1600 ... TL=A
9. J = 1800 ... TL=B
10. K = 2000 ... TL=B
11. L = 2200 ... TL=C
12. M = 2400 ... TL=C
13. N = 2600 ... TL=C
14. P = 2800 ... TL=D
15. Q = 3000 ... TL=D
16. R = 3200 ... TL=E
17. S = 3400 ... TL=E
18. T = 3600 ... TL=E
19. U = 3800 ... TL=E
20. V = 4000 ... TL=F
21. W = 5000 ... TL=F
22. X = 6000 ... TL=F
23. Y = 8000 ... TL=F
24. Z = 12,000 ... TL=F

No wonder the "magical Drive-Z" is SO MAGICAL!
It's 3x the performance of the Drive-V (the last "sane" drive that "respects" the rest of the table) for only +4 increments on the drive tonnage and cost table!

In other words ... the "magical Drive-Z" ... CHEATS LIKE A MOFO to produce its performance yield ... according to a table that can't even "play by its own rules" consistently. It's pure munchkinism, plain and simple ... and it's been sitting there this entire time, since 1977/1981 ... unquestioned, because it is RAW.

 

[Grav_Moped]

And THIS is rather obviously a TYPO error ... but some people would rather not admit it as a possibility

Not necessarily a typo. As I noted above, it's rounded up by 10% to the next integer instead of rounded down as with the rest of the (internally-consistent part of the) table. After piling all the bonus performance onto the TL-15 drives, that's a trivial "gimmie" by comparison.

In other words ... the "magical Drive-Z" ... CHEATS LIKE A MOFO to produce its performance yield ... according to a table that can't even "play by its own rules" consistently. It's pure munchkinism, plain and simple ... and it's been sitting there this entire time, since 1977/1981 ... unquestioned, because it is RAW.

It's like that because it's the only way to get more-than-token performance out of the largest hulls on the table, without the table itself either spilling onto the next page, or turning it sideways on a page.

 

[Grav_Moped]

It's like that because it's the only way to get more-than-token performance out of the largest hulls on the table, without the table itself either spilling onto the next page, or turning it sideways on a page.

Here's what that corner of the table would look like if the TL-15 drives were "normal":
(This is the lower right corner of the table with the X and Y axes swapped.)

Note that Drives V are TL-14, not 15. [Edit: V is also TL-15.]
I mean, at that point the only drive bigger than V that matters is Z in an 800Td hull. Everything else yields the same performance as the V drives.

Drive/Tons	800	1000	2000	3000	4000	5000
V	5	4	2	1	1	-
W	5	4	2	1	1	-
X	5	4	2	1	1	-
Y	5	4	2	1	1	-
Z	6	4	2	1	1	-

 

[Spinward Flow]

Note that Drives V are TL-14, not 15.

Not according to LBB3.81, p15 ...

Also, if you count the letters for each tech level, an interesting pattern emerges.

TL=9 ... 4
TL=A ... 4
TL=B ... 2
TL=C ... 3
TL=D ... 2
TL=E ... 4
TL=F ... 4

I'm thinking that the pattern of 4.4.2.3.2.4.4 being a palindrome is not a coincidence.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Not according to LBB3.81, p15 ...

Right. Doesn't change much but it's a fair catch. I'd actually had it correct in my spreadsheet but un-did it because it didn't seem right. Guess it was.

There's a performance step between the U (TL-14) and V (TL-15) drives, but as noted, all the drives V-Z have the same performance in each hull increment 800+ except that Z will yield 6 in 800Td where the others only yield 5.

I'm thinking that the pattern of 4.4.2.3.2.4.4 being a palindrome is not a coincidence.

"Able was I ere I saw tech levels"? Nah, that's not right...

 

[Grav_Moped]

There's a performance step between the U (TL-14) and V (TL-15) drives, but as noted, all the drives V-Z have the same performance in each hull increment 800+ except that Z will yield 6 in 800Td where the others only yield 5.

I think (but am not really motivated to try to sort it out) that it's an artifact of the scale changing from 200Td increments to 1000Td increments. There'd be a bit more variety in ratings in the "un-bonused V-Z range" if they'd kept to the 200Td intervals -- at the cost of adding over a dozen rows that nobody would ever use. (Need a 1400Td ship, anyone? 3200Td? No? Didn't think so.)

 

[Grav_Moped]

I'm just going to note that I now understand why they felt they could and should stuff bonus performance into the last 4 columns of the drive performance table: if you don't, you're pretty much wasting them because they exactly duplicate the V drive column (except for drive Z, which has 6 instead of 5 in 800Td).

For consistency, those drives ought to be sized and priced at the level of their performance (like a double-sized un-bonused Z drive or whatever instead of just following the trend up from drives A-U). But that's well outside the scope of this...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Here's what that corner of the table would look like if the TL-15 drives were "normal":
(This is the lower right corner of the table with the X and Y axes swapped.)

Don't just look at the drives, look at the total ship.

The drives, the drive table, the 20 Dt bridge, and the PP fuel requirement all work together to make small (= low tech) ships less efficient and large ships (=high tech) ships more efficient.

Take J-2 (&M-2) ship:

Free usable space "Payload" as a percentage of the ship increases as the size and TL increases, and the cost of the ship per Dt payload decreases.
The 5000 Dt ship is IIRC the only J-2 ship that is profitable at standard freight rates.

It's much the same at J-4:

The negative payload indicates that we can't really make effective ships under 400 Dt with J-4.
We can make a J-4 ships with TL-10 drives, but we need TL-12 drives and 600 Dt to be marginally effective.


And finally at J-6 we can only make usable ships with TL-15 drives:

The only really useful J-6 ship is the 2000 Dt Z drive ship, essentially the Type TJ.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I'm just going to note that I now understand why they felt they could and should stuff bonus performance into the last 4 columns of the drive performance table: if you don't, you're pretty much wasting them because they exactly duplicate the V drive column (except for drive Z, which has 6 instead of 5 in 800Td).

It just mirrors the larger steps in hull sizes. The drive potential table is compressed on both axles.

 

[atpollard]

I'm just going to note that I now understand why they felt they could and should stuff bonus performance into the last 4 columns of the drive performance table: if you don't, you're pretty much wasting them because they exactly duplicate the V drive column (except for drive Z, which has 6 instead of 5 in 800Td).

For consistency, those drives ought to be sized and priced at the level of their performance (like a double-sized un-bonused Z drive or whatever instead of just following the trend up from drives A-U). But that's well outside the scope of this...

Funny, the instant I looked at the progression, I thought each letter should produce J1 in a 100 dTon increment hull (A = J1 in a 100 dT hull, B = J1 in a 200 dT hull, etc) until you reach K = J1 in a 1000 dT hull, then step 1000 dTon increments to U = J1 in a 10,000 dT hull, then step 10,000 dT increments until Z = J1 in a 60,000 dT hull.
Filling in the rest of the table (same number of A-Z drives) would now allow up to J6 in a 10,000 dT hull with a Z drive!

However, I didn’t come along until The Traveller Book (1982) … so the damage was already done. I just moved on the High Guard for ship design.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

And THIS is rather obviously a TYPO error ... but some people would rather not admit it as a possibility.

Or perhaps someone thought the table looked neater this way, or someone had a favourite design, or something...
Either way that is the way it was printed (& reprinted) and used for decades.

In other words ... the "magical Drive-Z" ... CHEATS LIKE A MOFO to produce its performance yield ... according to a table that can't even "play by its own rules" consistently.

Quite, so why do you think nothing else in the system can be inconsistent?

 

[atpollard]

Either way that is the way it was printed (& reprinted) and used for decades.

Only maybe. I asked about an actual ship design that used that drive in that hull and nobody knew of any.

So intended or errata may have little actual consequence. If nobody ever placed that drive in that hull … then these pages of debate on “errata” vs “RAW” is really closer to “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” in importance.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Only maybe. I asked about an actual ship design that used that drive in that hull and nobody knew of any.

Published, official design...

So intended or errata may have little actual consequence. If nobody ever placed that drive in that hull …

Of course someone somewhere made a 2000 Dt J-1 ship...

IIRC GravMoped made one a few years ago because it was slightly more efficient than other J-1 ships?

 

[Grav_Moped]

Don't just look at the drives, look at the total ship.

My point was that if the TL-15 drives don't get that performace boost, there's no point to any drive larger than V, except for Z in an 800Td hull. Otherwise, V drives yield the maximum available performance and the others merely match them at greater size and cost (and 5000 ton ships aren't possible).

It just mirrors the larger steps in hull sizes. The drive potential table is compressed on both axles.

It's only compressed by rating, not by drive cost/tonnage. That is, the ratings by letter get compressed (with boosted ratings shoved into those columns) but the drives themselves aren't.

There's a jump from 200Td increments to 1000Td increments, but no corresponding jump from, say, a 40EP power plant to an 80EP power plant in the next letter step (nor, if it's direct compression, from 61Td and MCR160 -- size V -- to the 121Td and MCr320 that a "W that's actually a Double-V"* power plant should have).


---------------
* dual-language pun not intended but I'll go with it.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It's only compressed by rating, not by drive cost/tonnage. That is, the ratings by letter get compressed (with boosted ratings shoved into those columns) but the drives themselves aren't.

The last few drives are scaled to the last few hull sizes, both axles are compressed:

Sure, size/cost doesn't keep up with the increased performance.

 

[atpollard]

Published, official design...

That would be ideal, but I would be happy for a fanzine design. If it only exists as a single design on COTI, then it begs the question whether it is otherwise RAW legal since MOST of what appears here is house ruled and installing that drive (MD/PP/JD “J” in a 2000 dT hull) could just as easily be a house rule or a LBB’77 design (like a JD with no PP).

I was just curious whether it actually mattered at all.
Part of the issue is that at 100 dT and 200 dT, LBB2 creates ships better than LBB5, but I am not sure that advantage still holds at 2000 dT.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I was just curious whether it actually mattered at all.

No, of course the 10 Dt difference between a set of J drives and K drives doesn't matter much. They are even the same TL.

The LBB5 version is more expensive with less payload, unless we use a TL-15 power plant.
A LBB5 ship with LBB2 drives is as usual cheapest and can have a purifier, so even cheaper to run.

MT-B611122-000000-00000-0        MCr 311       2 000 Dton
bearing                                           Crew=19
batteries                                           TL=11
                      Cargo=1569 Fuel=210 EP=20 Agility=1

Spoiler:

Single Occupancy                                  1 570       389
                                     USP    #      Dton      Cost
Hull, Streamlined   Custom             B          2 000       
Configuration       Flattened Sphe     6                      160
Scoops              Streamlined                                 2
                                                              
Jump Drive          J                  1    1        50        90
Manoeuvre D         J                  1    1        17        36
Power Plant         J                  1    1        28        72
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-1, 4 weeks            1       210       
Purifier                                    1         7         0
                                                              
Bridge                                      1        40        10
Computer            m/2                2    1         2         9
                                                              
Staterooms                                 19        76        10
                                                              
Cargo                                             1 570       
                                                              
Nominal Cost        MCr 388,54           Sum:     1 570       389
Class Cost          MCr  81,59          Valid        ≥0        ≥0
Ship Cost           MCr 310,83                                 
                                                              
                                                              
Crew &               High     0        Crew          Bridge    11
Passengers            Mid     0          19       Engineers     1
                      Low     0                     Gunners     0
                 Extra SR     0      Frozen         Service     7
               # Frozen W     0           0          Flight     0
                  Marines     0                     Marines     0

Estimated Economy of Ship     Standard                                   
       Ship price     Down Payment         Mortgage       Avg Filled
       MCr 310,83       kCr 62 166        kCr 1 295              80%
                                                              
Expenses per jump                       Revenue               
Bank                Cr 621 664          High         Cr         0
Fuel                Cr  21 000          Middle       Cr         0
Life Support        Cr  38 000          Low          Cr         0
Salaries            Cr  38 400          Cargo        Cr 1 252 000
Maintenance         Cr  12 433                                 
Berthing            Cr   2 000                                 
                                                              
Summa              kCr     733                      kCr     1 252
                                                              
     Income potential per jump     kCr 519                 
  Yearly yield on down payment     20,9%

14 DT and MCr 18 wouldn't make all that much of a difference, but it does actually lower the yield by 3%.

MT-B611122-000000-00000-0        MCr 329       2 000 Dton
bearing                                           Crew=20
batteries                                           TL=11
                      Cargo=1555 Fuel=210 EP=20 Agility=1

Spoiler:

Single Occupancy                                  1 556       411
                                     USP    #      Dton      Cost
Hull, Streamlined   Custom             B          2 000         
Configuration       Flattened Sphe     6                      160
Scoops              Streamlined                                 2
                                                                
Jump Drive          K                  1    1        55       100
Manoeuvre D         K                  1    1        19        40
Power Plant         K                  1    1        31        80
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-1, 4 weeks            1       210         
Purifier                                    1         7         0
                                                                
Bridge                                      1        40        10
Computer            m/2                2    1         2         9
                                                                
Staterooms                                 20        80        10
                                                                
Cargo                                             1 556         
                                                                
Nominal Cost        MCr 411,04           Sum:     1 556       411
Class Cost          MCr  86,32          Valid        ≥0        ≥0
Ship Cost           MCr 328,83                                   
                                                                
                                                                
Crew &               High     0        Crew          Bridge    11
Passengers            Mid     0          20       Engineers     2
                      Low     0                     Gunners     0
                 Extra SR     0      Frozen         Service     7
               # Frozen W     0           0          Flight     0
                  Marines     0                     Marines     0

Estimated Economy of Ship     Standard                                     
       Ship price     Down Payment         Mortgage       Avg Filled
       MCr 328,83       kCr 65 766        kCr 1 370              80%
                                                                
Expenses per jump                       Revenue                 
Bank                Cr 657 664          High         Cr         0
Fuel                Cr  21 000          Middle       Cr         0
Life Support        Cr  40 000          Low          Cr         0
Salaries            Cr  40 320          Cargo        Cr 1 244 000
Maintenance         Cr  13 153                                   
Berthing            Cr   2 000                                   
                                                                
Summa              kCr     774                      kCr     1 244
                                                                
     Income potential per jump     kCr 470                   
  Yearly yield on down payment     17,9%

 

[atpollard]

No, of course the 10 Dt difference between a set of J drives and K drives doesn't matter much. They are even the same TL.

The LBB5 version is more expensive with less payload, unless we use a TL-15 power plant.
A LBB5 ship with LBB2 drives is as usual cheapest and can have a purifier, so even cheaper to run.

It comes as no surprise that a LBB2/5 chimera is the best option. I was wondering how a LBB2 RAW ship and a 2000 dT LBB5 (only) ship compared. I figured that LBB5 would be more expensive to build (except maybe at TL 15 which is a flaw in the LBB5 PP price per dTon instead of price per EP … but them is the RAW and predate me). I was thinking the LBB5 ability to use UNREFINED FUEL might lower operating cost enough to actually make it more profitable. I also remembered that the gap between LBB 2 and LBB 5 got smaller as the ships got larger, but didn’t remember where the turnover was (if LBB 5 ever became cheaper).

 

[Spinward Flow]

Either way that is the way it was printed (& reprinted) and used for decades.

You keep harping on this point as if it were a protective talisman (against heresy, perhaps?).

No one is saying that it wasn't PUBLISHED that way.
The problem is that the data entries in the table have errors which just keep getting perpetuated ... because no one questions The Most Holy RAW. No one "checks" to see if the info presented in the table is "correct" ... it's just taken at face value without a second thought.

So intended or errata may have little actual consequence. If nobody ever placed that drive in that hull … then these pages of debate on “errata” vs “RAW” is really closer to “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” in importance.

Kinda ... but there's also the (mathematical) FACT vs FICTION side of things as well ...

The negative payload indicates that we can't really make effective ships under 400 Dt with J-4.
We can make a J-4 ships with TL-10 drives, but we need TL-12 drives and 600 Dt to be marginally effective.

My own research into the topic of J2-4 merchant starships yields these conclusions as well.

I can make J2(+2) "work" using TL=10 drives (E-H), range 4 parsecs.
I can make J3(+2) "work" using TL=10 drives, range 5 parsecs.
Trying to make J4 "work" using TL=10 drives ... there just isn't enough payload capacity to make it reliably viable on ticket revenues (speculative goods though, it ought to "clean up" on small cargo lots, provided a variety of trade codes within easy reach @ J4).

Moving up to TL=12 drives (M-N), things start moving towards "practical" for a merchant starship when reaching for J4 (and even then, the payload fraction "is not wonderful").

I keep trying various things to attempt to make TL=11 drives (J-K) "work" @ J4 ... and there really isn't enough space in the hull. If you want your jump and maneuver drives to match (J4/4G) then you're going to need to settle for Jump-J, Maneuver-J and Power Plant-K in order to have the +2 EP budget to pay for a model/4 computer without losing agility.

The thing is ... 1800/4 = 450 tons ... and trying to squeeze J4 into 450 tons of hull (or less if using external towing that is capable of J4!) gets REALLY TIGHT (still).

 

[Spinward Flow]

There's a jump from 200Td increments to 1000Td increments, but no corresponding jump from, say, a 40EP power plant to an 80EP power plant in the next letter step (nor, if it's direct compression, from 61Td and MCR160 -- size V -- to the 121Td and MCr320 that a "W that's actually a Double-V"* power plant should have).

I could post a "fix" for this issue here in the forums, if anyone is interested in seeing the results.
Probably better to do it in a different thread from this one ... in the House Rules Forum.

The thing is ... in order to do the "fix" PROPERLY, to be consistent at all levels for all drives, I'd need to rewrite 2 tables, not just 1.
Both the Drives And Power Plants table would need to be updated AND the the Drive Performance table along with it.

The fix for the Drives and Power Plants table would be to make the W-Z drives actually "accrue the requisite number of 200 ton increment steps" in the Mass (tonnage) and MCr columns to match their +1000, +1000, +2000, +4000 tons of performance parameters. This wouldn't quite 3x the tonnage and cost for Drive-Zs, but it would be in that ballpark ... at which point the Drive-Z stops being "magical" and just becomes BIG (and expensive!).



Would anyone be interested in seeing that bit of research (by me)?