Bk 5 Small Ship Universe

[Piper]

My apologies if this topic has been done before.

There have been a number of systems for expanding CT Bk 2 ship design. Many of these involve porting various High Guard systems onto Bk 2 designs.

Has anyone tried transferring CT Bk 2's limits (hull size and drive potentials) back into High Guard? In other words, use the standard High Guard design system but limit hull sizes to 5kt max and only use drive combinations available on the CT table.

I'm mainly interested in seeing if any major anomalies show up and how people have dealt with them.

 

[atpollard]

Fuel is a huge 'anomaly', LBB2 and LBB5 have very different PP fuel requirements that will alter the tonnage allocations between 'identical' ships designed under each design system.

IIRC, it is a classic 'min-max' exploit for creating a better ship than either design system allows by itself.

I had always thought that a LBB5 formula derived table for LBB2 would have been useful errata ... but they published Megatraveller instead.

 

[atpollard]

I seem to recall that the largest few LBB2 drive sizes are far more efficient than a linear progression would suggest. That might cause problems replicating combinations in High Guard.

 

[McPerth]

In Bk2 the fuel needed for Pp depended on the PP number (PP number x 10). So a V rated PP could need from 60 tons if installed on a 600 ton ship (so Pn=6) to 10 ton if installed on a 4000 ton ship (so Pn=1). That makes few sense, IMHO. Frankly, I like more HG2 fuel computation for PP.

 

[aramis]

I'm mainly interested in seeing if any major anomalies show up and how people have dealt with them.

The biggest anamolies are that HG JDrives are (Jn+1)%, while Bk2 are (Jn*5)%+5Td, and MD's are 1/3/5... vs (Mn*1)%-1.

The drive sequences in HG are larger MD's, and smaller JD's. Plus PP Fuel.

 

[PFVA63]

Hi,

For the most part I tend to kind of view the differences between LBB2 and LBB5 stuff as not being too much different than differences in the modern world between stuff like “jet planes” and “prop planes” or maybe diesel power plants versus gas turbine power plants on ocean going ships, etc.

 

[sabredog]

I went in the other direction and figured ways to incorporate HG materials into LBB2 for the small ship player-scale part of my games. Armor, weapons, drives, etc.. That was easier than going in the other direction since a major part of the small ship game for me is the more detailed and PC-involved aspects of ship management and combat.

 

[aramis]

Hi,

For the most part I tend to kind of view the differences between LBB2 and LBB5 stuff as not being too much different than differences in the modern world between stuff like “jet planes” and “prop planes” or maybe diesel power plants versus gas turbine power plants on ocean going ships, etc.

Such comparisons are pretty much irrelevant to the traveller setting's ships - it's not like the Bk2 drives are fusion torches and the Bk5 are Ultra-High-Performance Ion Drives (or vice versa) - they're both the same basic drives... an ostensibly gravitic maneuver drive, a jump drive, and a fusion power plant. Note that none of the fuel use regimes in CT/MT are anywhere close to being explainable as the drives being anything other than reactionless; the accelerations would need to have superluminal exhaust speeds.

While there ARE multiple routes to fusion, and with gravitics more, probably only 2-3 of them can pan out, and of those, it's likely there's only one that will eventually win out. There are reasons almost all civil commercial aviation passenger planes for long routes use subsonic low-wing multi-engine jets, and short routes use high-wing twin turboprop designs... within the operational regimes, nothing else can compete.

But all spacecraft operate in the same primary regime. So there have to be particularly compelling reasons to use an alternate route.

 

[PFVA63]

Hi,

Its probably worth noting that even in our current tech level there are differences in how similar objects are designed. For instance, this link provides some interesting info on different current Pressurized Water Reactors currently in use by navies around the world, noting that there are differences in the enrichmant % of the fuels used and the refueling interval required in many applications. As such, eventhough many of these units would likely be considered late 20th century/early 21st century fission plants, there will be noticeable differences in them due to decisions made in their design.

Similarly, if I am understanding correctly, through out the 1930's, 40's. and into the early 50's, on US automobiles there were alternate concepts and configurations for how gasoline internal combustion engines were designed. In particular, I believe both "flat head" or "L-Head" engines co-existed with some "overhead valve" or "valve in head" designs, and both were viable designs for the requirements of the day. However, as the desire to develop more power output per cylinder increased the design of the "flat head" or "L-Head" designs were found to limit the ability to effect these increases, which apparently had something to do with the convoluted flow through the cylinders required by the placement of the valves on these designs due to their "flat" or "L-head" configuration. As such, although they could perform well enough in some applications, as more power was required (IIRC) this technology was kind of found to top out and other technologies (such as the Overhead Valve configuration) was used.

Other examples also include steam plants on early 20th century ships. Not only were there differences in boiler configurations, but there were also differences in the devices used to convert this steam to do the mechanical work on the output shaft to propel the vessel. Early on Vertical Expansion reciprocating engines may have been used, and later in may applications these may have been replaced by steam turbines of various configurations, such as the differences between "Parsons" type turbines and "Curtiss" type designs. (http://dictionary.die.net/parsons turbine).

In the end then, if the way the game of Traveller has developed is that it ended up with two somewhat different design "concepts" with differing fuel requirements, and differing size raltionships etc, that doesn't really bother me that much anymore. And if one of these methods becomes capped at a certain size or level and is treated more as a "modular" type approach, where the same components may be used in different size/types of vessels, while the other "concept" appears to provide more "scalable" results applicable over a larger range of vessel sizes, then I'm pretty much OK with that too.

 

[Dragoner]

Yes, the differences are imo, parallel design paths, which is typical, esp between things like commercial and military nautical architecture.

 

[Darkwing]

So, has anyone put any thought into expanding Book 2 or High Guard with fission plants, detonation lasers, fusion drives, etc?
IMTU, the Frontier from Star Frontiers is just off the map to spinward, and has made contact in recent years. They, of course, have different ideas and tech base, so a side project at some point is to work out the Knight Hawks material in Traveller terms. But since the PCs ended up leaving the Spinwar Marches and went to the Solomani Sphere, that's kind of gone to the back burner.

 

[Piper]

So, has anyone put any thought into expanding Book 2 or High Guard with fission plants, detonation lasers, fusion drives, etc?
IMTU, the Frontier from Star Frontiers is just off the map to spinward, and has made contact in recent years. They, of course, have different ideas and tech base, so a side project at some point is to work out the Knight Hawks material in Traveller terms. But since the PCs ended up leaving the Spinwar Marches and went to the Solomani Sphere, that's kind of gone to the back burner.

I think you've just given me an "A-HAA!" moment
Thanks!!

 

[Darkwing]

Glad to be of service!

 

[sabredog]

So, has anyone put any thought into expanding Book 2 or High Guard with fission plants, detonation lasers, fusion drives, etc?

Mongoose Traveller has some of those, as does MegaTraveller. I ported the fission plants and bomb lasers to my CT TU from MgT. It was pretty simple to do.

I've always just considered, as does PFVA63, that the HG system runs parallel to the LBB2 one as merely another way to build really large, and/or specialized ships. The difference in efficiencies allows for the types of weapons and agilities. You can even mix and match to a certain degree but ultimately it is a matter of writing some basic design protocols to allow for it. IMTU I have these:

Agility:

High Guard ships have huge power plants and maneuver drives tailored to the specific ship designed compared with the off the shelf ones in Book 2. That means the High Guard drives are more efficient and will produce more bang for the buck, but you have to make sure the power is distributed to computers, weapons, shields, etc., so there might not be enough power left for high agility. But, (IMTU) I assume that while the players don't have to worry about having enough power points for all their weapons and computers when designing Book 2 ships (which is my rule for all non-military ships), they don't get to have all that agility you can get from High Guard drives and plants.

I assign potential agility to Book 2 designs by tonnage. The actual agility the ship then gets is equal to the acceleration of the maneuver drive to the max potential. So 6-G fighters get 6, but an 800 ton cruiser can never have more than 3 no matter how big the drives are. Straight line acceleration is easy, but pushing the mass around laterally quickly takes more time and effort.

1-99 max Agility 6
100-300 max Agility 5
301-600 max Agility 4
601-800 max Agility 3
801-1000 max Agility 2
1001-2000 max Agility 1
2001 + no agility

Agility is based on the maneuver drive number up to the max allowed for the tonnage of the ship. For example, a 200 ton ship has a max agility potential of 5, but if the M-drive is only rated to 3 then that will be the agility.
Ships greater than 1000 tons cannot land, they can be streamlined but they are restricted to landing only on worlds without atmosphere and smaller than UPP code 2.
Ships must have an Agility rating that is equal to or greater than the gravity of the planet they are lifting off from in order to land safely. Pilot skill may offset this with a higher roll for success depending on the situation.



Design rules overall:

If you are a civilian building a civilian ship you use LBB2 unless you need some super custom job for some reason. Like if you are building a research vessel that has some special requirements, or want to be able to use the more exotic weapons...

...in which case you then use HG to build your ship because if you are using other than the off-the-shelf components in LLB2 you have to take into account energy point requirements, finer tuned agility rules (one reason to custom build using HG is if you want a ship that absolutely positively has to have high agility all the time), and more flexibility in design.

Ship hulls can be refit using either design system but again, only so long as you use the basic weapons can you use the LBB2 components. You want PAWs and/or screens you have to use HG.

Armor can be built into an LBB2 design per the HG rules. The primary sections of a ship can have armor added to them by calculating the tonnage of the section and using that to determine armor tonnage for that section alone. The sections are: Bridge (incl Computer), Fuel tankage, Engineering, Cargo, hull (everything else).

LBB2 ships can use drop tanks but the tanks do not add tonnage for the purposes of creating more hardpoints (no Gazelle Cheat allowed).

Component backups can be worked into either design system, but they are backups only - not combined for increased performance.

For purposes of determining agility you have to use the agility system matched to the design system used to build the ship:

LBB2 designs use my house rule for determining agility; this is because the maneuver drives in this system are smaller than in HG for the same thrust. Included in this house rule is the size limit for landing ships safely. LBB2 ships tend to be slower and less agile but cheaper.

HG ships use the HG formula for agility; it creates faster, more nimble ships which is why the maneuver drives are so huge. The house rule for size limits for landing still applies. HG ships tend to be faster and more agile, but more expensive.

Player ships built with HG don’t use the battery rules for weapons; that is only for the really big ships that players swim in the shadows of.

Bays are really huge turrets in my universe so you can’t use them to store things if you take out the weapons like it mentions in HG.



For weapons I use a slightly different system of x# of hits per weapon type (this allows me to incorporate armor into LBB2 among other things) with expanded damage tables for LBB2 combat. Regular HG combat is used for fleet actions, which is what it is best suited for.

 

[rancke]

Yes, the differences are imo, parallel design paths, which is typical, esp between things like commercial and military nautical architecture.

I would be fine with two different parallel technologies[*], provided those two technologies were mixed and matched to optimize ship design. I really can't get behind two different kinds of maneuver drives and two different kinds of jump drives that just happens to be mutually unable to function in the same hull.

[*] Except that I wouldn't accept a Book 2 jump drive that allowed jump-2+ at TL9, etc..​

Moreover, the parallel designs explanation runs up against the fact that the different rules sets claim that the very same ship is built in both ways simultaneously. It's not just that one set setting of details tells of a 200T jump-1 design that works according to one paradigm and another set of setting details tells of a 200T jump-1 design that works according to another paradigm. No, one set tells us that all Beowulfs are designed with one technology and another that all Beowulfs are designed with a different technology.

Sorry, that bursts my belief suspenders. I do not believe in a universe where the Great Galactic Bird snuck down from its perch in the Heavens one day and changed all Beowulfs from working one way to working another way. Even less do I believe in ships that flip-flop between Book 2 designs and MgT designs on alternate thursdays. (MgT is set in the very same time period as CT).


Hans

 

[sabredog]

hmmm...I dunno...when I bought my Acadia I ordered it with the bigger engine and tow package. That gave it different ratings than the one with the smaller engine. Same body and interior, though.

So it would seem the same sort of reconciliation can be had between LBB2 and HG.

 

[aramis]

I seem to recall that the largest few LBB2 drive sizes are far more efficient than a linear progression would suggest. That might cause problems replicating combinations in High Guard.

They are.

Drive Z is roughly 12000 rating-tons, and is step 24. 500 per step.
Drive Y is roughly 8000 rating-tons, and step 23. 347 per step
Drive X is roughly 6000 rating-tons, and step 22. 272 per step
Drive W is roughly 5000 Rating-tons, and step 21. 238 per step.
Drive V is roughly 4000 rating-tons, step 20, 200 per step
Drive M is roughly 2400 rating-tons, step 12, 200 per step.
Drive C is roughly 600 rating-tons, step 3, 200 per step.

The "rating-tons" are the maximum product of hull size and rating for a given drive. Note that there are a couple hiccoughs in the table...

 

[mike wightman]

hmmm...I dunno...when I bought my Acadia I ordered it with the bigger engine and tow package. That gave it different ratings than the one with the smaller engine. Same body and interior, though.

So it would seem the same sort of reconciliation can be had between LBB2 and HG.

Just a quick question.

Did you look under the hood at the small engine version?

Notice all the wasted space in the engine compartment.

Compare with the engine compartment on the large engine model - not as much room in there now is there?

CT had the same - often overlooked - rule. Main compartment and engineering compartment.

Standard hulls have the sizes of these compartments pre-defined, and for some hull sizes you could end up with a low performance ship with wasted space in the engineering compartment. Or you could cram the maximum possible sized engines in there and get improved performance.

Custom hulls allow you to build the engineering compartment to exactly match you engine requirements.

 

[The Oz]

So, has anyone put any thought into expanding Book 2 or High Guard with fission plants, detonation lasers, fusion drives, etc?

I have made up numbers to translate MT fission plants into HG and CT, if you'd like to see them.

 

[sabredog]

Just a quick question.

Did you look under the hood at the small engine version?

Notice all the wasted space in the engine compartment.

Compare with the engine compartment on the large engine model - not as much room in there now is there?

CT had the same - often overlooked - rule. Main compartment and engineering compartment.

Standard hulls have the sizes of these compartments pre-defined, and for some hull sizes you could end up with a low performance ship with wasted space in the engineering compartment. Or you could cram the maximum possible sized engines in there and get improved performance.

Custom hulls allow you to build the engineering compartment to exactly match you engine requirements.

Not overlooked at all in my situation. My point was that you can use either system to design similar ships with different performance characteristics using even the same hulls. While LBB2 drives may be less efficient in the energy producing department, they are obviously more redundant and sturdy since they will often take more punishment before completely failing than the same rated HG drives.

So like my Acadia, the HG drives will be more powerful and take up more space, but the LBB2 drive will do the same job, just less efficiently and you'll end up with waste space. Unless you use the custom hull. So what was your point?