As said, rules proably make you right, but literature (including at least an official module) don't...
And that is one of the main points any new BCS should avoid (IMHO)
Big Naval Ships in the Traveller Universe
- Thread starter robject
- Start date
As said, rules proably make you right, but literature (including at least an official module) don't...
And that is one of the main points any new BCS should avoid (IMHO)
Marcatlas
SOC-12
I'll give you an example of why not. I take a GE9X engine (https://www.geaerospace.com/commercial/aircraft-engines/ge9x) and drop it off at a TL6 Boeing aircraft manufacturing plant and they will NOT be able to hook the engine up and use it on one their TL6 airliners. You can study up to figure out the practically ENDLESS technical reasons why that is so.
It is self-evident that if a TL 6 world imports all the TL 15 parts it desires, assembles vast quantities of goods at TL 15 so that TL 15 goods are ubiquitous, and even sells the surplus to its TL 12 neighbor (because the TL 6 world has a large population and a lower cost of labor) ... then the TL 6 world is ... to any SURVEY TEAM and by any reasonable measure ... TL 15.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
LBB2 drives are standard components.
If you took a jet engine, simplified and standardised the connections to something they could understand, they would be able to install a higher tech drive. They might not understand why it was soo good, but they wouldn't have to.
If we imported artificial gravity modules with clear interfaces of apply power here to get thrust there, could we make primitive air/rafts? Of course we could...
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Yes, if most local tech is TL-15, the world is classified TL-15, whether imported or not.
If a few components of higher tech is imported, TL-6 would still be TL-6.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
The power plant is the primary low tech penalty imposed by LBB5.
I don't think it needs to be removed, lower tech ships are supposed to be "worse", and higher tech ships "better".
It's a simple yet functional system.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
The more any future system can avoid copying LBB2, the better...
They are still better with that house rule. Just not also cheaper.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Quite, and my house rule is that you are generally limited to the TL of your own polity. So, no Z-drives for the Zhos or in the Old Islands.
Last edited:
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Why would we ever buy less capable LBB2 ships, if they are not cheaper?
LBB2 ships are supposed to be common in the OTU.
Example (with the house rule):
Code:
SC-11222R1-000000-00000-0 MCr 33,1 100 Dton
bearing Crew=1
batteries TL=11
Pass=3 Cargo=19 Fuel=22 EP=2 Agility=2
Code:
Single Occupancy 19 41,2
USP # Dton Cost
Hull, Streamlined Custom 1 100
Configuration Needle/Wedge 1 12
Scoops Streamlined 0,1
Jump Drive 2 1 3 12
Manoeuvre D A 2 1 1 4
Power Plant 2 1 6 6
Fuel, #J, #weeks J-2, 4 weeks 2 22
Purifier 1 7 0,0
Bridge 1 20 0,5
Computer m/1bis R 1 1 4
Staterooms 4 16 2
Cargo 19
Empty hardpoint 1 1
Air/raft 4 Dton 1 4 0,6
Nominal Cost MCr 41,23 Sum: 19 41,2
Class Cost MCr 8,53 Valid ≥0 ≥0
Ship Cost MCr 33,10Why would I buy a LBB2 Scout for MCr 29.5, when I can get an extra 16 Dt payload (twice as much) for an extra MCr 3.5?
Or at the same cost with a flying saucer hull?
atpollard's fix doesn't change the volume penalty, just the cost penalty.
Because you can get it at TL9, not TL11? At least when you're not in the OTU with it's TL9/11/12/13/14/15 requirements for jump.
I understand in this example you use LBB2 for the MD and HG drives for PP and JD. I know rules don't explicity forbid it, but take for sure I consider it cheating, as JD needs smaller tonnage in HG while MF needs smaller tonnage in LBB2, and while the end result is more or less the same if uning any of the systems, using the samller of each one gives a huge advantage.
And it has nothing to do with Atpollard suggested house rule, but siwth merging both systems. Atpollard HT only applies (as I understand, from now and other times he has suggested it) to HG drives, and, as Rupert said, it applies to cost, not to tonnage. The problem with HG PP is that as teh cost is for dton, having it double (or triple) tonnage means also double (or triple) cost,
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
It's allowed by the rules.
House rule whatever you want, I don't consider it necessary.
The example used a TL-11 LBB5 PP with triple the tonnage but not triple the cost, as Atpollard suggested.
That makes the LBB5 ship similar in cost, but with more capable. Effectively this makes LBB2 obsolete, but I believe they shouldn't be.
House rule whatever you want, I don't consider it necessary.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Of course not, they are bog standard LBB2 drives still, and explicitly use LBB2 rules for fuel.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Not that clear...
Rules say(HG80, page 22) It is possible to include standard drives (at standard prices) from Book 2 if they will otherwise meet the ship's requirements; such drives use fuel as indicated by the formulas in Book 2. While I must concede it's not clear, I guess most prople understand you use wither LBB2 o LBB5 drives, but cannot merge both
Yes, they explicity use LLB2 rules for fuel and cost, but only for this (as otherwise those two factors would not be named and just "they use LBB2 rules" would have been written), but they need to meet the ship's requirements, and one of the requirement in HG is the TL, so they cannot exceed the TL of the ship, as per page 20: Equipment and components of a starship may always be equal to or less than the ship's tech level.
As you can use those standard (LBB2) drives because of a rule of HG, HG rules apply, and they become another component in HG, just nor repeated there because they are already in LBB2, and the ship is a HG design, and so HG rules apply except where the opposite is explicited (as the case of fuel and cost).
In HG, you cannot put a J drive on a TL10 ship, as J drive is TL11, as you cannot put a Computer 6 on it, because computer 6 is TL 12, and so those components would not abide with page 20 rule as above.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
A plural is any number that is not exactly one in English. The phrasing used allows as many LBB2 drives as you wish.
Yes, so you believe. I make a different interpretation.
Neither of us will convince the other by quoting the same text we disagree about.
I offered a published example, you rejected it.
Impasse.
With this reasoning, your design was illegal as it used exactly one LBB2 drive, and as you say, plural is any number not exactly one
I guess you're right, and this is what new BCS should avoid. Thiose rules merging use to lead to such chaos. I believe this rule was to allow LBB2 designs to keep being used in a HG setting, as redesigning them with HG rules changes them quite a lot.
Sorry about that, but I already explained you my motives
And I offered youa published official design that used 4 hardpoints in a 300 dton ship, and I guess we will agree this is not allowed by the rules...
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Great minds think alike lol, I posted that house rule a couple of years ago, how long have you used it? Does it work in practice?
