CT Only: CT Book 2 broken designs

[snrdg082102]

Howdy all,

It has been a while since I tried to go through CT Book 2 and CT Book 5 trying to verify ship designs. After some time working on other things I'm going to state an opinion that finally popped into my head.

CT Book 5 added the final nail that fatally broke CT Book 2 1977 ship designs.

CT Book 2 1977 indicated in the design section that all ships required a power plant to run life support, computers, weapons, and the maneuver drive. The power plant, per CT Book 2, had to be at least the same rating (1 through 6) or larger than the maneuver. My impression at the time was that the jump drive was specialized power plant created to open jump space. Looking at CT Book 2 Drives and Power Plants the Jump Drive is larger than the power plant which, in my fuzzy brain, supported my impression.

CT Book 5 indicates that .5% of the jump drive is made up of capacitors which would add to a power plants size that was specifically tailored to creating the hole into jump space. Unfortunately, CT Book 5 required the power plant to provide the charge to the capacitors, which means that if the jump drive rating is larger than the maneuver drive rating the power plant has to match the jump drive.

Had CT Book 5 not linked the power plant to the jump drive the Express Boat could be constructed.

However, there are far more CT Book 5 designs which means that changing the rule would make an even bigger headache.

I will once again thank everyone who has helped me out here on COTI forums.

 

[creativehum]

I have not dug into ship design from CT at all, so please forgive me if this question is naive:

Are the CT Book 2 ship designs broken? Or do they break when one tries to make Book 2 work in conjunction with Book 5?

Because the first case would be a surprise. The second case would not be.

 

[mike wightman]

No, the LBB2 designs are not broken.

The '77 era designs work as written, the '81 designs work as written.

The rule differences between LBB2 77 and LBB2 81 mean that designs from 77 don't work with 81 rules, and neither work with HG2.

They are all similar, but the details are very different.

 

[creativehum]

Well, yes.

LBB 2 and LBB 5 are two different systems for handing ships. One is not an extension of the other. It is a replacement.

 

[aramis]

Well, yes.

LBB 2 and LBB 5 are two different systems for handing ships. One is not an extension of the other. It is a replacement.

Better reread Book 5. It's not a replacement. It was intended to be the big ships (≥1000Td) rules. And all Bk 2 systems (including drives) are legit in HG designs.

It also lacks certain items from book 2, but notes the need for them.

 

[rancke]

Better reread Book 5. It's not a replacement. It was intended to be the big ships (≥1000Td) rules.

It also covers small ships, so that's probably not the case. It seems to me much more likely that it was intended as a replacement. An intention spoiled by the grandfathering rule that legitimized Book 2 designs despite the incompatibility between the two design systems.

And all Bk 2 systems (including drives) are legit in HG designs.

No, they're not. You can use Book 2 systems OR Book 5 systems, but you can't mix the two. The grandfathering rule didn't make the two design systems compatible, it merely meant that GDW didn't have to redo all their Book 2 designs because they could pretend that it didn't make a difference.


Hans

 

[creativehum]

[EDIT: Cross-posted with Hans' post. Which might make it look like I'm trying to pile on with my lengthy post. Which wasn't my intention.]

Better reread Book 5. It's not a replacement. It was intended to be the big ships (≥1000Td) rules. And all Bk 2 systems (including drives) are legit in HG designs.

It also lacks certain items from book 2, but notes the need for them.

Oh, I'm aware of what the intent was. And god bless GDW for thinking it would be so. Their intent was admirable.

But as you yourself wrote back in December:

Whie the two design systems are merged, the combat systems aren't . Once you start using Bk5 designs, you need to use Bk5 combat modes, or make up your own rules for Bk2 armor, fusion guns, etc. (PA's are 4 CT damage points, according to a JTAS article. And a bonus to hit. It appears to be grounded in the Bk5-79 ratings tables)

Add to this the various issues people have written about in trying to reconcile Books 2 and 5 in ship design, and I'm more than willing to say, for myself at least, that one is best using one or the other.

Please, note: I'm not contradicting your statement nor GDW's. You are correct in what you wrote above.

I'm saying, in practical terms, I think one is really is better of using Book 5 as a replacement rather than an expansion. But then, High Guard doesn't have much appeal to me, so it's probably too easy for me to decide that.

But we're derailing the thread.

The point at hand is:
Does Book 2 work?
Does Book 2 work with Book 5?

I asked my follow up question to snrdg082102's original post. Mike confirmed my own thoughts on the matter.

I'm curious what snrdg082102 thinks.

 

[creativehum]

It also covers small ships, so that's probably not the case. It seems to me much more likely that it was intended as a replacement. An intention spoiled by the grandfathering rule that legitimized Book 2 designs despite the incompatibility between the two design systems.


No, they're not. You can use Book 2 systems OR Book 5 systems, but you can't mix the two. The grandfathering rule didn't make the two design systems compatible, it merely meant that GDW didn't have to redo all their Book 2 designs because they could pretend that it didn't make a difference.


Hans

This is my reading of what happened as well.

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening creativehum,

Update: As usual I only saw the notification for creativehum in the email inbox and clicked on the link. I didn't check to see if there where other posts.

I have not dug into ship design from CT at all, so please forgive me if this question is naive:

Are the CT Book 2 ship designs broken? Or do they break when one tries to make Book 2 work in conjunction with Book 5?

Because the first case would be a surprise. The second case would not be.

The best example of a broken CT Book 2 design is the Express Boat.

CT Book 2 1977 is what I am fairly sure was used to design the Express Boat. In my opinion the designer bent the design rules by not installing a power plant.

From CT Book 1977 page 11 The Engineering Section: Each starship is fitted with a power plant (to provided internal power and power for the maneuver drive), a maneuver drive (for interplanetary travel), and a jump drive (for interstellar jumps). Page 13 states that the installed power plant must be of a letter type at least equal to the drive letter of the installed maneuver drive (the power plant may be higher than the maneuver drive letter).

From the above my impression was that the jump drive was built around a dedicated power plant.

Based on the above information all non-starships and starships require a power plant to provide internal power for life support, electronics, and weapons. Not having a power plant in my opinion makes the Express Boat a broken design which between 1977 and 1979 when CT Book 5 1st edition was published could have been fixed by installing a power plant. That would have removed one of the staterooms for sure. I can't remember off the top of my head what else was modified.

As has been pointed out the Express Boat should have a maneuver drive as indicated in the engineering section, but I'm okay with not having one.

The Express Boat per Supplements 7 and Supplements 9 is capable of Jump-4. Per CT Book 2 rules the computer has to run a Jump-4 program which runs best on a Computer Model 4. Checking the Technological Levels Table on pages 10 and 11 of CT Book 3 1977 a Computer Model 4 is available at TL 10. CT Book 3 1977 indicates that Jump Drive Types A through H would be available at TL-10

CT Book 5 1979 is printed and changes the rules which really breaks the CT Book 2 1977 designed Express Boat. CT Book 5 1979 does not allow a Jump-4 capable hull until TL 13, which isn't that bad. Requiring the power plant to have at least the same rating as the largest drive breaks the CT Book 2 1977 design.

CT Book 2 1981 was published to conform to the CT Book 5 1980 rewrite of CT Book 5 1979. The 100-ton Express Boat described in Supplements 7 and 9 cannot be designed using CT Book 2 1981 in my opinion. The Express Boat that is part of the Consolidated CT Errata is, in my opinion, breaks the rules since the power plant does not have the required fuel allotment.

The Express Boat Tender has issues too. The lack of information on the pop and mobile turrets is an issue in my opinion since one cannot duplicate the volume, cost, and other details. A major issue, brought out in my discussions here back in November and December 2014, is that the repair bay as described does not appear to be able to handle four express boats or two scout/couriers.

In summary:

The OT designs I checked that used CT Book 2 1977 had issues that did not follow the design and construction rules in my opinion. Running the designs through the process probably would have made them possible. Unfortunately, when CT Book 5 1979 linked the power plant to the largest drive installed would have invalidated CT Book 2 1977 designs. Issuing CT Book 5 1980 and CT Book 2 1981 also invalidated CT Book 2 1977 designs.

Hopefully, the above helped to clarify what I met by broken designs. It may help to check my topic posts for November and December of 2014.

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy mike Wightman,

No, the LBB2 designs are not broken.

The '77 era designs work as written, the '81 designs work as written.

The rule differences between LBB2 77 and LBB2 81 mean that designs from 77 don't work with 81 rules, and neither work with HG2.

They are all similar, but the details are very different.

The CT Book 2 1977 Express Boat is broken, in my opinion, since the rules clearly state that the power plant supplies internal power for a ship and is also linked to the maneuver drive. There is no clear indication that the jump drive can supply internal power. CT Book 2 1981 links the power plant with the largest drive which is the Jump Drive. The power plant, in the case of the Express Boat must have a rating of 4 and must have a fuel load equal to 10 x Pn. There is no clear rule that I can find that allows for less fuel for CT Book 2 1981.

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy rancke,

It also covers small ships, so that's probably not the case. It seems to me much more likely that it was intended as a replacement. An intention spoiled by the grandfathering rule that legitimized Book 2 designs despite the incompatibility between the two design systems.


No, they're not. You can use Book 2 systems OR Book 5 systems, but you can't mix the two. The grandfathering rule didn't make the two design systems compatible, it merely meant that GDW didn't have to redo all their Book 2 designs because they could pretend that it didn't make a difference.


Hans

In my opinion GDW failed to make CT Book 5 1979/1980 compatible with CT Book 2 1977 when trying to create hulls >5,000 tons. CT Book 5 1979/1980 did correct the problem of not being able to make non-starships under 100-tons that plagued CT Book 2 1977 and 1981.

 

[creativehum]

This might be seen as pedantic -- but here we go.

Could we say the Express Boat itself is broken, rather than the rules in Book 2.

The Express Boat is an attempt to make the most efficient method of communication across the stars possible -- in a system that implies a setting that communication across the stars is difficult.

From your posts, it seems as if the Express Boat breaks the rules in order to do this. Instead of assuming the existence of the Express Boat is the bar the rules should be judged by, why not assume the Express Boat should be judged by the rules.

In this case, the Express Boat fails. A new design -- perhaps not as fast or efficient -- needs to be built. One that does work according to the rules. And if an item such as the Express Boat can't be built with the Book 2 rules -- well then, there you have it. Such a thing doesn't exist.

Aside from the Express Boat -- and without linking Book 5 to Book 2 and only using Book 2 -- are there any other design issues?

[Keep in mind two things:
1) I'm not concerned about The Third Imperium or canon, so I'm happily willing to ditch the Express Boat and build from the rules as given.
2) I'm not sure if such a thing as a super efficient communication vehicle can be built or not built with the Book 2 rules. I'm writing based off of snrdg082102's posts.]

 

[infojunky]

Why does this matter?

 

[creativehum]

Why does this matter?

Well, speaking only for myself:

If the Book 2 rules design rules are broken that's a big thing and I'd like to know about it.

If the only problem is Express Boats break the rules -- well, that's insignia any to me and I don't care.

Given the two extremes I'd like to know which one it is.

 

[infojunky]

Well, speaking only for myself:

If the Book 2 rules design rules are broken that's a big thing and I'd like to know about it.

If the only problem is Express Boats break the rules -- well, that's insignia any to me and I don't care.

Given the two extremes I'd like to know which one it is.

Ok then....

Yes book two is broke. Work out the formula that the drives are rated under, the top end is broken. Drives all break out in a basic 200 tons worth of effect per drive letter. But that isn't consistent within the performance chart.

Ergo all the ships of book two have a great potential to be broke.

 

[aramis]

Well, speaking only for myself:

If the Book 2 rules design rules are broken that's a big thing and I'd like to know about it.

If the only problem is Express Boats break the rules -- well, that's insignia any to me and I don't care.

Given the two extremes I'd like to know which one it is.

Book-2 '81, TTB, and ST: you cannot build a 100Td J4 with the "standard" fuel rates.

20 Bridge
15 JD B
07 PP B
00 MD —
40 Fuel - 1J4
40 Fuel - 30 days PP-4
04 Model 4
04 1 stateroom
130 total tonnage of above

Book-2-77, however
20 Bridge
15 JD B
04 PP A
00 MD —
40 Fuel - 1J4
20 Fuel - 30 days PP-2
02 Model 2bis (big enough to run Jump 4 and navigate)
04 1 stateroom
105 total tonnage of above

There are two ways to dodge this version into compliance
1: cut the fuel duration to 15 days. Saves 10 tons. This allows a second stateroom, and an A MD
2: Fuel only for P1, not P2 Saves 10 tons. If you put in the MD, it's also limited to M1.

Combining them gets...
3: Fuel for P1 for 15 days: saves 15 Td of fuel volume. J4 P1 M1 15 days...

 

[Matt123]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]

Book-2 '81, TTB, and ST: you cannot build a 100Td J4 with the "standard" fuel rates.

20 Bridge
15 JD B
07 PP B
00 MD —
40 Fuel - 1J4
40 Fuel - 30 days PP-4
04 Model 4
04 1 stateroom
130 total tonnage of above

My 2Cr, use the '81 version Aramis knocked up. Reduce the stateroom to half a stateroom (its not a civilian run service) and pp fuel to 12 ton, giving 9 days of endurance at PP4. This is legal under Bk5 plus CT-errata.

In the event of a mis-jump, immediately power down to PP1 and extend endurance up to 36 days. Then hope you end up in a populated system with friendly locals... (Also legal under Bk5 plus CT-errata. I am assuming you know you have miss-jumped immediately, which might not always be the case --- poor bastard...)

I confess I don't see much broken. I see some dodgy designs that have been published and I see efforts to rationalize or fix those dodgy designs (i prefer to rationalize rather than fix, it leaves the color in the game).

The problem I see is the all or nothing approach to Bk5. By discarding it entirely, you miss out on features that can be retro'ed back into Bk2. Don't adopt all of Bk 5, just cherry pick what you need.

[/FONT]

 

[BillDowns]

As far as the LBB2 construction rules, I have issues with 3 items I consider "broken". All are easily fixed, however.

• The Drive Potential table is inconsistent as pointed out earlier; the table in 1st edition ('77) is worse than the later versions
• Fuel usage is absurd; the same powerplant in different hulls have different consumption rates
• No smallcraft design rules
• Computer pricing is not good; no one would pay 450% increase in price for a 50% increase in performance - Model 1 vs Model

I should note I have more issues with LBB5.

 

[creativehum]

Hi guys,

First, thanks for all the replies.

Second, I have not dug into all the design work the way you guys have. So I'll say you guys are right -- to the degree anyone can be right about a fictional technology that is as improbable as anything else.

If anyone is interested, here's are some thoughts from a guy who looked over Book 2 years ago (never was interested in High Guard, so I'm not adding that into the way ships work.) Also, we may or may not have moved the thread far from the original topic, so I apologize about that.

I should note now that this is my approach to what I consider the purposeful design of LBBs 1-3:

Like Classic Traveller character creation, all elements of Traveller never get you exactly what you want; sub-optimal choices have to be made; and things break down if you push too hard on them. (Characters break down the older they get; performance of ships becomes more inefficient the larger they get, and so on...)

1) It is a shame, I suppose, that the Xboat can't be built per the rules. Here's the thing: I never much liked the Xboat. It seemed to me to be a dodge on the notion -- essential to the implied setting built into the game -- that communication moves slowly through the stars.

The fact that GDW had to cheat the rules to make the Xboat work doesn't surprise me. After LBBs 1-3 the rules were tweaked again and again to make everything easier and more efficient for GDW's house setting. I've always seen this as reversal on the core ethos of the LBB rules. Character creation, combat, travel... all of it was supposed to be difficult.

Communication was supposed to move at the speed of travel -- and travel was implied to be merchants, liners, and military vessels. The Xboat blows past that as designed. So, my attitude is, of course it breaks the rules to get itself made. It's trying to do something the rules didn't want to encourage to begin with.

I understand the Xboat is canon and part of the color. I'm just not impressed with it. I'm nutty that way. In my view, the question is, what is the most efficient way of communicating across the stars that can be built using the rules as written that have built in limitations. Because the limitations are there for a reason.

2) As for the inefficiency of the drives at higher levels, I just assumed the drives became more and more inefficient at higher levels. This is why I'm not as keen as extrapolating the chart beyond 5,000 tons as some people do. I understand that one can do this. And I understand why one would want to do this. But it means dodging the fact that there's a sharp drop in performance right in the table and that I, at least, would assume there's a reason for this and that another steep drop is going to occur if one keeps pushing the sizes of the ships and the expectations of the drives.

Again, my view: Limitations, inefficiencies, and things breaking down the further you go are part of what was baked into the LBB 1-3 Traveller rules. The fact that this was generally dumped in later books doesn't mean it isn't there in those first three books.

3) And then some other things:

* The computer increase isn't just for the programming but for Jump capability. I'd say that moving from Jump 1 to 2 is a big deal. What one is willing to pay for it is a fictional market concern. But in my imagination, the implied, core (non-OTU) Traveller setting suggests it is a big deal. That is, the price jumps for computer reveal just how valuable squeezing another parsec per jump out of your ship is. It's not that computers are too expensive. The game is pointing out how much more valuable those extra Js are.

* I have no idea how Jump technology "really" works -- and so I have no idea how fuel "should" work. When I read the rules it seems clear to me that Jump technology obviously interacts with the mass of the ship being jumped -- which is why larger ships use more fuel. It might suck -- but, again, there you go. Traveller ship technology doesn't work the way we'd like. It works the way it works. And the Players (and the folks in whatever Traveller universe the ref builds) has to make the best of it.


Please note that I am speaking as someone only looking at LBBs 1-3. I'm ignoring all the rigamarole of books as well as setting/canon details of the OTU. (Not out of spite or anything. I just think later books began building setting details that didn't interest me as much as the implied setting restrictions baked into the rules, as explained above.)

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy all,

When I purchased CT Book 1, 2, and 3 1977 my attempt to build the example designs crashed and burned. My attempt to use CT Book 5 1979 hit the wall with the weapons resulting in another crash and burn. CT Book 5 1980 I was able to, with the exception of MCr in many cases, build the example designs. CT Book 2 1981 I was able to also get close to the design examples, but I liked CT Book 5 1981 because hulls greater than 5,000-tons could be built.

CT Book 2 1977 totally ignores TL requirements which are found in CT Book 3 1977. Unfortunately, the computer is the only component clearly showing TL requirements. The power plant and maneuver drive TLs are vague, while starship drives are sort of listed by TL using the drive letter. Linking the computer model with the jump distance one can get a better idea of the 1977 OT technological background.

CT Book 2 1977 stated that non-starships could be designed using the starship rules by eliminating the jump drive. Unfortunately, I was not able to create any of the small craft designs.

Until 2014 when I tried my hand at verifying the CT designs requested in the Consolidated CT Errata my design and construction sequence was CT Book 5 1980.

Further, I was finally able to get CT Book 2 1981 to work with a lot of help and ran into the Express Boat and Express Boat Tender which I was not able to verify using either the 1977 or 1981 editions as written.

Again, in my opinion, CT Book 2 1977 required that starships and non-starships need a power plant to supply internal power. Starships require a jump drive and from the design examples have a maneuver drive. The only non-starships shown are under 100-tonswith all of them having maneuver drives. However, starships and non-starships require the power plant drive letter to be at least same.

CT Book 2 1977 Maximum Drive Potential table lists the maximum rating for a power plant type A as 2, which means that the power plant can also be operated with a rating of 1. CT Book 3 TL Chart based on the TL Chart starships can be built capable of jumping four parsecs at TL 9 using a Model 2 bis computer.

If I understood the Computer rules correctly in order to plot a jump requires three programs which are Generate, Navigation, and Jump. Of course I recall from somewhere, and I haven't been able to find the source, there is a jump tape that skips the generate program.

Modifying the power plant to 1 in the CT Book 2 1977 example posted by Aramis an Express Boat can be created at TL 10 based on TL chart on pages 10 and 11 in CT Book 1977.

Book-2-77, however
20 Bridge
15 JD B
04 PP A
00 MD —
40 Fuel - 1J4
20 Fuel - 30 days PP-2
02 Model 2bis (big enough to run Jump 4 and navigate)
04 1 stateroom
105 total tonnage of above

Modified Aramis Book-2-77 Example 1
20 Bridge
15 JD B
04 PP A
00 MD —
40 Fuel - 1J4
10 Fuel - 30 days PP-1
02 Model 2bis (big enough to run Jump 4 and navigate)
04 stateroom
95 total tonnage of above leaving 5 tons for cargo

Modified Aramis Book-2-77 Example 2
20 Bridge
15 JD B
04 PP A
00 MD —
40 Fuel - 1J4
10 Fuel - 30 days PP-1
02 Model 2bis (big enough to run Jump 4 and navigate)
08 2x stateroom
99 total tonnage of above leaving 1 ton for cargo

Modified Aramis Book-2-77 Example 2
20 Bridge
15 JD B
04 PP A
00 MD —
40 Fuel - 1J4
10 Fuel - 30 days PP-1
04 Model 4 (more than big enough to run Jump 4 and navigate)
04 stateroom
97 total tonnage of above leaving 3 tons for cargo

I hope my math is right on the two modified examples showing that in 1977 through 1979 prior to the release of CT Book 5 1979 the Express Boat can be built without a maneuver drive.

Unfortunately, CT Book 2 1981 design and construction rules re-written to support CT Book 5 1980 does not, in my opinion, allow an Express Boat as described to be built on a 100-ton hull. Further, unless someone can cite a source that allows a power plant to have less than the fuel load calculated using the formula 10Pn then the 105-ton Express Boat in the Consolidated CT Errata is broken.

The fudging or dodgy factor using the ship design and construction rules is in my opinion is on of the causes for broken designs.

As for the combat systems crossing CT Book 2 designs to CT Book 5 is a snap since CT Book 2 has missiles, beam lasers, pulse lasers, and sandcasters which in my opinion are the same weapons. Trying to use CT Book 2 combat rules for spinal mounts, bays, fusing guns, plasma guns, meson guns, particle accelerators, and spinal mounts are an issue.

Anyone interested in looking at a modified CT book 3 TL Chart I put together merging CT Book 5 1980 TL for computers and jump drives?

If anyone does please provide me with a way to send you a copy using COTI's PM system.