Book 2, version 3

[robject]

Now that HG3 is well underway, it's time to start talking about the revision to Book 2.

First assumption. Book 2 has no flaws.

Second assumption. Book 2 is, however, limited.

Third assumption. Book 2's limitations are solved by knitting its edges into High Guard.


I think this can be done by tuning the upper edges of the drive tables to fit with High Guard's drive percentages and prices, starting with drive letter V. So somewhere between V and Z the Book 2 drive table merges in with High Guard's calculated drive volumes and prices.

Here's some elaboration.

Assume: Jump drives can be generically rated by "jump units", where 100 JUs can put a 100 ton ship into Jump-1.

Jump drive A, then is actually 200 JUs. Its volume formula is therefore 5 + JUs/40, in tons. Its price is JUs/20, in MCr.

And in fact, these formulae are valid up through Drive U. But starting at Drive V, the formula changes: the slope is a bit more generous. The volume slope changes again at Drive X. This is true for Maneuver and Power plant systems as well.

I suggest Drives V through Z should represent a curve by which the values slowly come into line with High Guard, if possible.

It is possible that the High Guard percentages are simply too different to reconcile. In any case, the exercise is to do the best we can, without doing undue violence to the data.

Opinions?

 

[robject]

Now that HG3 is well underway, it's time to start talking about the revision to Book 2.

First assumption. Book 2 has no flaws.

Second assumption. Book 2 is, however, limited.

Third assumption. Book 2's limitations are solved by knitting its edges into High Guard.


I think this can be done by tuning the upper edges of the drive tables to fit with High Guard's drive percentages and prices, starting with drive letter V. So somewhere between V and Z the Book 2 drive table merges in with High Guard's calculated drive volumes and prices.

Here's some elaboration.

Assume: Jump drives can be generically rated by "jump units", where 100 JUs can put a 100 ton ship into Jump-1.

Jump drive A, then is actually 200 JUs. Its volume formula is therefore 5 + JUs/40, in tons. Its price is JUs/20, in MCr.

And in fact, these formulae are valid up through Drive U. But starting at Drive V, the formula changes: the slope is a bit more generous. The volume slope changes again at Drive X. This is true for Maneuver and Power plant systems as well.

I suggest Drives V through Z should represent a curve by which the values slowly come into line with High Guard, if possible.

It is possible that the High Guard percentages are simply too different to reconcile. In any case, the exercise is to do the best we can, without doing undue violence to the data.

Opinions?

 

[BillDowns]

Unfortunately, I don't see a way to reconcile High Guard with LBB2 without "breaking" many designs. HG's percentage formulae will not produce "off-the-shelf" components that LBB2 relies on. Just one example lies in the relative sizes of power-plants and drives. In LBB2, maneuver drives are very small, but in HG, they are very large; and the reverse for jump drives.

That having been said, I feel it way past time that HG and LBB2 be reconciled. These appear to be the most common ships design systems in use.

 

[BillDowns]

Unfortunately, I don't see a way to reconcile High Guard with LBB2 without "breaking" many designs. HG's percentage formulae will not produce "off-the-shelf" components that LBB2 relies on. Just one example lies in the relative sizes of power-plants and drives. In LBB2, maneuver drives are very small, but in HG, they are very large; and the reverse for jump drives.

That having been said, I feel it way past time that HG and LBB2 be reconciled. These appear to be the most common ships design systems in use.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with the first assumption. In some other thread, it was pointed out that larger ships require less fuel to run the same powerplant. That doesn't make sense, and you can't explain it away. If you find some way to reconcile that (with HG), then this will work (IMHO).

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with the first assumption. In some other thread, it was pointed out that larger ships require less fuel to run the same powerplant. That doesn't make sense, and you can't explain it away. If you find some way to reconcile that (with HG), then this will work (IMHO).

 

[robject]

Ah, yes, of course I tend to overlook minor details like "fuel consumption isn't consistent"

-- but you're right.

And ship designs in the 1000 to 5000 ton range will be a bit broken... but I note that they're already broken in several places, having used Book 2, version 1, which we know has been superseded for over 20 years.

In other words, the bulk of small starships should remain unbroken, or at least be no more warped than typical.

 

[robject]

Ah, yes, of course I tend to overlook minor details like "fuel consumption isn't consistent"

-- but you're right.

And ship designs in the 1000 to 5000 ton range will be a bit broken... but I note that they're already broken in several places, having used Book 2, version 1, which we know has been superseded for over 20 years.

In other words, the bulk of small starships should remain unbroken, or at least be no more warped than typical.

 

[mike wightman]

I'd design a new version of LBB2 by cherry picking the previous two versions and then adding a few components from High Guard.

I would definitely keep the drive paradigm of LBB2 though.

 

[mike wightman]

I'd design a new version of LBB2 by cherry picking the previous two versions and then adding a few components from High Guard.

I would definitely keep the drive paradigm of LBB2 though.

 

[mike wightman]

In fact, I may post it here

Starting with standard hulls, then bridges and add ons, drives (using the extended drive table), fuel, computer and sensors, weapons, screens, armour (how do people feel about plasma armour ), crew and staterooms, vehicles, extra facilities, cargo hold.

 

[mike wightman]

In fact, I may post it here

Starting with standard hulls, then bridges and add ons, drives (using the extended drive table), fuel, computer and sensors, weapons, screens, armour (how do people feel about plasma armour ), crew and staterooms, vehicles, extra facilities, cargo hold.

 

[BillDowns]

There definitely seems to be interest in this.

If I were a prince of the Imperial Household running this show, then the basis on which I would want the engineering - power plants, maneuver drives, jump drives - is:
</font>

• LBB2, 3ed would be off-the-shelf components.</font>
• HG3 would be entirely custom components.</font>
• HG3 and LBB2, 3ed would arrive at the same results, give or take a little.</font>
• Component sizes and fuel consumption should vary by Tech Level.</font>
• Component sizes and fuel consumption should make sense formulaically</font>

I qualify the 3rd point by noting that since LBB2, 3ed basis is off-the-shelf, that implies a certain amount of "slop" for add sizes of ships. A second corollary is that the new HG3 engineering rules are used to build the components for LBB2, 3ed.

BTW, a shorter way of designating LBB2, 3ed needs to be created

Back on course,

by robject
Assume: Jump drives can be generically rated by "jump units", where 100 JUs can put a 100 ton ship into Jump-1.

I go along with this idea as well as applying it to maneuver drives. I would suggest adoption of a standard rocketry term - impulse. So, Jump Drive A would carry a Jump Impulse rating of 200 Jtons.

The final corollary I want to bring up is this. Graphing capability vs percent of ship on this basis gives a linear graph, but current HG gives non-linear graphs.

Just IMO, of course.

 

[BillDowns]

There definitely seems to be interest in this.

If I were a prince of the Imperial Household running this show, then the basis on which I would want the engineering - power plants, maneuver drives, jump drives - is:
</font>

• LBB2, 3ed would be off-the-shelf components.</font>
• HG3 would be entirely custom components.</font>
• HG3 and LBB2, 3ed would arrive at the same results, give or take a little.</font>
• Component sizes and fuel consumption should vary by Tech Level.</font>
• Component sizes and fuel consumption should make sense formulaically</font>

I qualify the 3rd point by noting that since LBB2, 3ed basis is off-the-shelf, that implies a certain amount of "slop" for add sizes of ships. A second corollary is that the new HG3 engineering rules are used to build the components for LBB2, 3ed.

BTW, a shorter way of designating LBB2, 3ed needs to be created

Back on course,

by robject
Assume: Jump drives can be generically rated by "jump units", where 100 JUs can put a 100 ton ship into Jump-1.

I go along with this idea as well as applying it to maneuver drives. I would suggest adoption of a standard rocketry term - impulse. So, Jump Drive A would carry a Jump Impulse rating of 200 Jtons.

The final corollary I want to bring up is this. Graphing capability vs percent of ship on this basis gives a linear graph, but current HG gives non-linear graphs.

Just IMO, of course.

 

[robject]

Bill,

Until perhaps this year, I used to think the same way: that Book 2 ideally should be the off-the-shelf version of an underlying, unified HG3 mechanic.

I still think that has merits, but my view has shifted slightly to a less-scaled one. Book 2 is not meant to be necessarily simple, but interesting. So, small starships end up not being scaled versions of each other.

With High Guard, quirky breakpoints are sort of bad. In Book 2, they're good. They serve two different but complementary purposes.

ON THE OTHER HAND... I haven't even considered the possibility that HG3 might use those quirky kind of breakpoints in the lower volume drives. It would end up making HG3 look something like this (warning: not checked for errors!):

Jump Drives:
6000 jump units or less: (5 + JU/40) tons
Any size: (100 + JU/100) tons

Maneuver Drives:
All sizes: "G-Units"/100 - 1 tons (minimum volume 1 ton)

Power Plants:
(Anyone have strong opinions about these?)

Required EPs = G-Units/100 ?

Volume:
? + ?*EPs/? tons (TL 7-8)
1 + 3*EPs/2 tons (TL 9-12?)
? + ?*EPs/? tons (TL 13-14?)
? + ?*EPs/? tons (TL 15-16?)

etc (leave other power sources for HG3 to enumerate!).

 

[robject]

Bill,

Until perhaps this year, I used to think the same way: that Book 2 ideally should be the off-the-shelf version of an underlying, unified HG3 mechanic.

I still think that has merits, but my view has shifted slightly to a less-scaled one. Book 2 is not meant to be necessarily simple, but interesting. So, small starships end up not being scaled versions of each other.

With High Guard, quirky breakpoints are sort of bad. In Book 2, they're good. They serve two different but complementary purposes.

ON THE OTHER HAND... I haven't even considered the possibility that HG3 might use those quirky kind of breakpoints in the lower volume drives. It would end up making HG3 look something like this (warning: not checked for errors!):

Jump Drives:
6000 jump units or less: (5 + JU/40) tons
Any size: (100 + JU/100) tons

Maneuver Drives:
All sizes: "G-Units"/100 - 1 tons (minimum volume 1 ton)

Power Plants:
(Anyone have strong opinions about these?)

Required EPs = G-Units/100 ?

Volume:
? + ?*EPs/? tons (TL 7-8)
1 + 3*EPs/2 tons (TL 9-12?)
? + ?*EPs/? tons (TL 13-14?)
? + ?*EPs/? tons (TL 15-16?)

etc (leave other power sources for HG3 to enumerate!).

 

[Berg]

Originally posted by BillDowns:
BTW, a shorter way of designating LBB2, 3ed needs to be created

LBB2.3 perhaps

 

[Berg]

Originally posted by BillDowns:
BTW, a shorter way of designating LBB2, 3ed needs to be created

LBB2.3 perhaps

 

[BillDowns]

Originally posted by Berg:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BillDowns:
BTW, a shorter way of designating LBB2, 3ed needs to be created

LBB2.3 perhaps

</font>[/QUOTE]I'll go for that.

Originally by robject
I still think that has merits, but my view has shifted slightly to a less-scaled one. Book 2 is not meant to be necessarily simple, but interesting. So, small starships end up not being scaled versions of each other.

Now see, I always figured on having a Far Trader "chopped" down to a scout with tuck 'n roll naugahyde and chrome pilot's panel to be interesting.

 

[BillDowns]

Originally posted by Berg:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BillDowns:
BTW, a shorter way of designating LBB2, 3ed needs to be created

LBB2.3 perhaps

</font>[/QUOTE]I'll go for that.

Originally by robject
I still think that has merits, but my view has shifted slightly to a less-scaled one. Book 2 is not meant to be necessarily simple, but interesting. So, small starships end up not being scaled versions of each other.

Now see, I always figured on having a Far Trader "chopped" down to a scout with tuck 'n roll naugahyde and chrome pilot's panel to be interesting.