Book 2, Modified

[robject]

So. What if the drive potential table dealt with a much wider span of drive strength?

For example, if the "A" drive had ten divisions, A0 thru A9, which represented what currently is drives A thru K.

There would be essentially 240 drives in progression. Would that take care of ships up to what, 10,000 tons?


...Probably better just to use ganged drives, eh?

 

[rancke]

So. What if the drive potential table dealt with a much wider span of drive strength?

For example, if the "A" drive had ten divisions, A0 thru A9, which represented what currently is drives A thru K.

There would be essentially 240 drives in progression. Would that take care of ships up to what, 10,000 tons?


...Probably better just to use ganged drives, eh?

I really, really don't understand why the percentage-based drives and power plants is not the preferred version. It's simple, it's elegant, and it can be extrapolated and interpolated to support any hull size. It's even more realistic, though that's not so important.

I can understand why a table of drive sizes could be preferred, as it's easier to read a table than to calculate a percentage (only an itsy-bitsy teeny-weenie bit easier, but still...), but I'm baffled as to why such tables can't be based on percentages.


Hans

 

[aramis]

I really, really don't understand why the percentage-based drives and power plants is not the preferred version. It's simple, it's elegant, and it can be extrapolated and interpolated to support any hull size.

I can understand why a table of drive sizes could be preferred, as it's easier to read a table than to calculate a percentage (only an itsy-bitsy teeny-weenie bit easier, but still...), but I'm baffled as to why such tables can't be based on percentages.


Hans

The letter drives have a wonderful dual use in CT: they're also damage steps. Something which Robject's A0-A9-B0-B9 would make far more cumbersome, and which ganged drives also make cumbersome.

And, personally, I prefer the underlying formulae for the book 2 drives to the formulae of the HG drives. I prefer small maneuver drives and big jump drives.

 

[rancke]

The letter drives have a wonderful dual use in CT: they're also damage steps. [...]

I hadn't thought about that, but there's no reason why you couldn't preserve that aspect by having percentage-based letter drives.

I've posted this before, but it's easier to do it again rather than hunt down a link:

Jump drive, maneuver drive and power plant tables.
--------------------------------------------------

    Jump         Maneuver     Power
    Drive        Drive        Plant
    Mass  MCr    Mass  MCr    Mass   MCr
A    2      8      2     1       3     9
B    3     12      4     2       6    18
C    4     16      5   2.5       9    27
D    6     24      8     4      12    36
E    8     32     10     5      18    54
F   12     48     12     6      24    72
G   16     64     16     8      30    90
H   18     72     20    10      36   108
J   20     80     30    15      48   144
K   24     96     32    16      54   162
L   30    120     40    20      60   180
M   32    128     48    24      72   216
N   40    160     50    25      90   270
P   60    240     60    30     120   360
Q   80    320     64    32     150   450
R   90    360     80    40     180   540
S  100    400    100    50     240   720
T  120    480    150    75     270   810
U  150    600    160    80     300   900
V  160    640    200   100     360  1080
W  200    800    240   120     450  1350
X    -      -    250   125       -     -
Y    -      -    320   160       -     -
Z    -      -    400   200       -     -

The following restrictions apply based on TL: At TL 9 and 10, only jump-1
drives may be built; at TL 11, only jump-1 and jump-2 drives may be built;
at TL 12, only jump-1 through jump-3 may be built; at TL 13, only jump-1
through jump-4 may be built; at TL 14, only jump-1 through jump-5 may be
built; at TL 15, jump-1 through jump-6 may be built.


At TL 13 and 14, power plant tonnage and cost are reduced by one third; at
TL 15, they're reduced by another third (E.g. a power plant-A masses 2 tons
and costs MCr6 at TL 13 and 14; it masses 1 T and costs MCr3 at TL 15).

And, personally, I prefer the underlying formulae for the book 2 drives to the formulae of the HG drives. I prefer small maneuver drives and big jump drives.

So switch the percentages around to make small maneuver drives and big jump drives. I know some people think the original change was a simple mistake. (And I think that's quite likely -- not that it matters).


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

The K'kree alien module gives us rules for HG drives being damaged by LBB2 combat - every hit reduces the drive number by 0.2.

The other glaring oddity about LBB2 that needs fixing is the power plant fuel use formula, use the HG formula instead.

 

[mike wightman]

I really, really don't understand why the percentage-based drives and power plants is not the preferred version. It's simple, it's elegant, and it can be extrapolated and interpolated to support any hull size. It's even more realistic, though that's not so important.

I can understand why a table of drive sizes could be preferred, as it's easier to read a table than to calculate a percentage (only an itsy-bitsy teeny-weenie bit easier, but still...), but I'm baffled as to why such tables can't be based on percentages.


Hans

I agree with you completely, this should have been done when CT was revised to bring it and HG2 into compatibility.

 

[aramis]

There's one outside reason - and I've not asked Marc if it factored, but it's an important design criterion -

Under US law, a formula cannot be protected by copyright. (it's blackletter law.)
A table used as part of a process can be, provided the table is not expressible as a simple formula, and is not simply an accumulation of observed data.

The hiccups at larger drives render Bk2 non-formulaic, and thus the table is copyrightable.

 

[mike wightman]

So you do what HG2 did - have a table with % that changes by TL. It's a table so you can copyright it.
Or are the drive % tables in HG free to rip off?

 

[HG_B]

So you do what HG2 did - have a table with % that changes by TL. It's a table so you can copyright it.
Or are the drive % tables in HG free to rip off?

A % that changed by TL (a number) is a formula and is NOT subject to copyright. The FORMULAS used in HG are free to use. "Rip off" means to steal. Which would not be the case in the event someone duplicated a formula.

 

[aramis]

So you do what HG2 did - have a table with % that changes by TL. It's a table so you can copyright it.
Or are the drive % tables in HG free to rip off?

There are two kinds of tables that cannot be protected by copyright:
1. Expressions of a formula
2. collectable data

It is buried in the US copyright laws, but neither of these is copyrightable.
Phone books can be copyrighted, but the collection of phone numbers therein cannot be, for example.

And a table that is formulaically generated is a formula, and not subject to copyright protection, even in a copyrighted work. Introduce a non-formulaic item, and it becomes subject to copyright as art...

17 USC §102(b) reads

(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.​

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102

 

[rancke]

Why would that be a concern? Most of the ship design system would not be copyrightable, would it? That a few bits and pieces would be does not seem to me to matter much.


Hans

 

[HG_B]

Why would that be a concern? Most of the ship design system would not be copyrightable, would it? That a few bits and pieces would be does not seem to me to matter much.


Hans

Bingo

 

[aramis]

Why would that be a concern? Most of the ship design system would not be copyrightable, would it? That a few bits and pieces would be does not seem to me to matter much.


Hans

In the case of Bk2, that table drives the design system. It makes a true-clone impossible without violation of copyright.

 

[HG_B]

In the case of Bk2, that table drives the design system. It makes a true-clone impossible without violation of copyright.

I'm sure that one could work up a formula with conditionals that would duplicate what is on the tables.

 

[aramis]

I'm sure that one could work up a formula with conditionals that would duplicate what is on the tables.

The number of conditionals would be roughly the number of deviations from formula on the table... so, not in a meaningful way. (The courts have rejected similar for map copyright claims, apparently.)

 

[HG_B]

The number of conditionals would be roughly the number of deviations from formula on the table... so, not in a meaningful way. (The courts have rejected similar for map copyright claims, apparently.)

This isn't maps at all. So not to worry about that. (I have enough Fed copyright experience to know that) And yes, it would of course HAVE to be roughly equal to the deviations. Otherwise, the answer wouldn't work out on the formula.

But, it isn't something worth doing. CT in the realm of current RPG games isn't competitive. You'd want radical changes in order to bring in more of the current RPG crowd.

 

[BillDowns]

I really, really don't understand why the percentage-based drives and power plants is not the preferred version. It's simple, it's elegant, and it can be extrapolated and interpolated to support any hull size. It's even more realistic, though that's not so important.

I can understand why a table of drive sizes could be preferred, as it's easier to read a table than to calculate a percentage (only an itsy-bitsy teeny-weenie bit easier, but still...), but I'm baffled as to why such tables can't be based on percentages.


Hans

I used to feel that way, but later on, I realized that I didn't like the formulae. As Aramis pointed out, the proportions are all way off from Book 2. And further, the Book 2 tables are mostly linear but the formulae are not. So in Book 2, if a 100 ton ship and a 200 ton ship both have the same drives, the smaller has twice the performance as the larger. You can't replicate that with the formulae and I don't like that. Carrying it all the way out, the formulae prevent off-the-shelf engineering components.

 

[rancke]

I used to feel that way, but later on, I realized that I didn't like the formulae. As Aramis pointed out, the proportions are all way off from Book 2.

That's down to the specific formulae, not the use of percentages as such. As I said before, get TPTB to agree and nothing would be easier than switching the percentages to resemble the Book 2 components.

And further, the Book 2 tables are mostly linear but the formulae are not.

Eh?!? Percentages are nothing BUT linear. There's an oddity with the maneuver drive formulae, but it's linear.

So in Book 2, if a 100 ton ship and a 200 ton ship both have the same drives, the smaller has twice the performance as the larger. You can't replicate that with the formulae and I don't like that.

That can be fixed. The Book 2 version has its own oddities, such as a power plant twice the size uses twice as much fuel if installed in a hull the same size but only half as much fuel if installed in a hull twice the size. I certainly don't like that!

Carrying it all the way out, the formulae prevent off-the-shelf engineering components.

Check out post #4. There's a list of off-the-shelf drives and plants for a percentage-based ship design system.


Hans