CT Only: CT Book 2 broken designs

[creativehum]

Hello Tom,

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.

So, you're saying when one tries to build the...
100-ton Scout/Courier,
200-ton Free Trader,
200-ton Yacht,
400-ton Subsidized Merchant,
600-ton Subsidized Liner,
800-ton Mercenary Cruiser,
and 400-ton Patrol Cruiser

...from Book 2 using the Book 2 rules, you can't actually build them, yes?

I've never tried to do this, so I'm not contradicting you. Just looking to clarify.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello again all,

On one of the forums, ct starships, COTI, or Steve Jackson Games, someone mentioned that OTU communications and travel are similar to the Age of Sail. During the Age of Sail ships were dedicated for the sole purpose of rapid communications and were usually the fastest available. On average these fast ships where faster than "merchants, liners, and military vessels" as referenced by creativehum. Of course many of these fast ships were part of the navy.

I am not surprised that the OTU has a dedicated relatively rapid communications network using hulls specifically designed similar to those in the Age of Sail. Of course the bulk of communications will be carried by merchants and liners. The military and corporate organizations probably will have their own fleet of fast ships to carry communications. However, the bulk of the time critical messages will, in my opinion, be carried by, in this case Express Boats being operated by the major political power.

Sorry to disagree with you creativehum and thank you for your comments. My thanks also goes to everyone who has posted here.

 

[robject]

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.

It is interesting how High Guard / LBB5 aims to make high maneuver costly: faster ships do better in combat, so a fast ship should be expensive. This is reasonable.

Even trimming back the jump drive size is not unreasonable: jump already takes a huge amount of space in fuel carriage. So the change in drive requirements is first a re-balancing to follow the HG combat rules, and second a simplification in formulas.

I still prefer Book 2's drive progression (in general), but I totally grok why HG changed them.

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

We could. I prefer to say that neither are broken, per se. They both do what they're intended to do. Book 2 is self-limited. The Xboat uses technology which the design systems lack... and there are other instances of GDW doing this sort of thing as well. The design system was clearly not intended to encompass everything available. Other examples: the ANNIC NOVA, the Chamax sleeper ships, defensive laser emplacements and power plants which are operational yet maintenance-free for 75,000 years, and the magical built-in refineries in military vessels.

So, can we call the Xboat a "MacGuffin" instead?

Once upon a time, I listed out stuff that I liked to use with Book 2 design.

"Book 2 Plus" add-ons for Book 2: http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?p=387278

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello again creativehum,

Hello Tom,

So, you're saying when one tries to build the 100-ton ScoutICourier, 200-ton Free
Trader, 200-ton Yacht, 400-ton Subsidized Merchant, 600-ton Subsidized Liner,
800-ton Mercenary Cruiser, and 400-ton Patrol Cruiser from Book 2 using the Book 2 rules, you can't actually build them, yes?

I've never tried to do this, so I'm not contradicting you. Just looking to clarify.

Oops, my apologies for being unclear.

Under CT Book 2 1977 I have not recently tried to recreate the examples. The most consistent failure when I tried back when was the price followed by volume. Of course, if I'm understanding the rules, I can recreate the Express Boat without a maneuver drive, but my cost doesn't match. The Express Boat Tender without the pop turret and two mobile turrets hull can be built, but the cost and number of Express Boats and Scout/Couriers that fit in the repair bay are problems for me.

CT Book 2 1981, with a lot of help from the forum in general and one member in particular, I have finally managed to get everything close enough to say I can recreate the examples as described.

With the success of my CT Book 2 1981 spreadsheet I then tried verifying CT Supplement 7 designs and stumbled into the broken CT Book 2 1977 Express Boat and Express Boat Tender. My attempts to align them with the CT Book 2 1981 rules failed and I've given up the attempt. My main reason for giving up is I'm lousy at selling my ideas at how to get the designs to be less dodgy and or fudged. The other reason is that I don't intentionally try to be a pain in (your choice of anatomy), which I seem to do more often than not ;-).

 

[creativehum]

Thanks for the reply!

 

[BillDowns]

When it comes to duplicating the standard ships from the books, I would only try to get the performance matched and not the price. I have no problem writing off a price difference - assuming the "book" price is lower - as a special discount since it is a completely standardized design that's been around for centuries.

 

[mike wightman]

The installed power plant must be of a letter type at least equal to the drive letter of the installed maneuver drive.

No maneuver drive means no power plant - this is the logic of the designers of the x-boat.

It's not broken, it's not a fudge, it is how the folks at GDW used their rules to design an iconic ship for their setting.

 

[BillDowns]

Once upon a time, I listed out stuff that I liked to use with Book 2 design.

"Book 2 Plus" add-ons for Book 2: http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?p=387278

Those are good extensions. The only thing is, several others have "Book 2+" for their extensions...

 

[creativehum]

No maneuver drive means no power plant - this is the logic of the designers of the x-boat.

It's not broken, it's not a fudge, it is how the folks at GDW used their rules to design an iconic ship for their setting.

Hi Mike,

I'm wading in way out of my depths here, but I just looked up the quoted passage and found this on p. 13 LBB 2, 1981:

The Engineering Section: Drives are installed in the engineering section. A non-starship must have a maneuver drive and a power plant. A starship must have a jump drive and a power plant; a maneuver drive may also be installed, but is not required. In all cases, the power plant letter must equal or exceed either the maneuver drive letter or the jump drive letter, whichever is higher.

[Emphasis added]

I'm not sure how that squares (or does not square) with what you wrote. But it does seem that a power plant is required for a startup with a J-drive. (But maybe not! I'm willing to keep reading!)

 

[aramis]

Hello Tom,



So, you're saying when one tries to build the 100-ton ScoutICourier, 200-ton Free
Trader, 200-ton Yacht, 400-ton Subsidized Merchant, 600-ton Subsidized Liner,
800-ton Mercenary Cruiser, and 400-ton Patrol Cruiser from Book 2 using the Book 2 rules, you can't actually build them, yes?

I've never tried to do this, so I'm not contradicting you. Just looking to clarify.

those, you can.

The safari ship, lab ship, and minining platform you cannot, as they include components not specified in any of the three CT design systems (Bk2-77/Bk2-81/Bk5)

 

[creativehum]

Well, sure. But those are introduced in Supplement 4. And the ships and the components are listed in Supplement 4. And so the moment you crack open Supplement 4, you can now combine those components with Book 2 and make new ships with those components. Right?

 

[mike wightman]

Hi Mike,


I'm not sure how that squares (or does not square) with what you wrote. But it does seem that a power plant is required for a startup with a J-drive. (But maybe not! I'm willing to keep reading!)

Hi there.

Keep reading to the end of the section.

What I quoted is almost the last thing written, and is obviously what the designers intended the rules to mean otherwise they couldn't have built the x-boat

 

[aramis]

Well, sure. But those are introduced in Supplement 4. And the ships and the components are listed in Supplement 4. And so the moment you crack open Supplement 4, you can now combine those components with Book 2 and make new ships with those components. Right?

Wrong. The new components are not provided anywhere. Those components being: Capture tanks (Safari Ship), labs (Labs), the mining tools (Mining Platform), the mining laser (Seeker and mining platform).

Supplement 4 doesn't provide them.
Nor do the adventures in which they appear.

 

[creativehum]

Hi there.

Keep reading to the end of the section.

What I quoted is almost the last thing written, and is obviously what the designers intended the rules to mean otherwise they couldn't have built the x-boat

I'm confused by this post. But there might be some inside-baseball-Traveller thing going on. So I'm not going to sweat it.

 

[creativehum]

Wrong. The new components are not provided anywhere. Those components being: Capture tanks (Safari Ship), labs (Labs), the mining tools (Mining Platform), the mining laser (Seeker and mining platform).

Supplement 4 doesn't provide them.
Nor do the adventures in which they appear.

You're right! I though the fact tonnage was given was enough. But, of course, no prices are listed. Anything else I would be missing?

Thanks!

 

[aramis]

You're right! I though the fact tonnage was given was enough. But, of course, no prices are listed. Anything else I would be missing?

Thanks!

I think so, but I can't recall exactly.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello mike wightman,

No maneuver drive means no power plant - this is the logic of the designers of the x-boat.

It's not broken, it's not a fudge, it is how the folks at GDW used their rules to design an iconic ship for their setting.

I'm sorry to disagree with you about CT Book 2 1977 power plant and maneuver drive requirements based on the rules as written.

1. "Each starship is equipped with a power plant (to provide internal power and power the maneuver drive), a maneuver drive (for interplanetary travel), and a jump drive (for interstellar travel)." CT Book 2 77 p11

The Express Boat, per the back story, does not travel around a planetary system but stays out near the 100D limit a maneuver drive can be omitted. However, I do agree that a maneuver drive 1 would be a good idea as a way to make contact with the tender quicker at the end of a jump. The rule as written states that the power plant provides internal power. In my opinion the most important item that needs the power plant is the life support system which is carried on every starship and non-starship.

The rule clearly states the jump drive is not linked to the power plant in anyway. There is no clear indication that the jump drive can supply internal power that was done with the power plant. Based on the details my interpretation is that the jump drive cannot supply internal power to the ship.

2. "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 letter may be higher than the maneuver drive letter)." CT Book 2 77 p13

Since the maneuver drive gets power from the power plant the drive letter and the maximum potential (1 to 6) must at least match. A 2G M-Drive Letter Type A requires a Power Plant at least the size of Letter Type A and a potential of 2. However, one could also select a power plant letter type B which is run at a potential of 2 even though the maximum potential is 4.

In summary a ship that will be making interplanetary jaunts requires a maneuver drive and the installed power must be at least the same drive letter and potential as the maneuver drive. As far as I can tell the jump drive cannot provide internal power as described in CT Book 2 1977.

Of course CT Book 2 1981 is a different kettle of fish as is CT Book 5.

 

[mike wightman]

Nope.

No maneuver drive means no need for a power plant. You even quote the sentence that says it:
"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 letter may be higher than the maneuver drive letter)." CT Book 2 77 p13

GDW designed the x-boat without a maneuver drive and according to this sentence that means no power plant is required.

 

[rancke]

The Express Boat, per the back story, does not travel around a planetary system but stays out near the 100D limit a maneuver drive can be omitted. However, I do agree that a maneuver drive 1 would be a good idea as a way to make contact with the tender quicker at the end of a jump.

Or just a maneuver drive 0.1. The failure to provide the option to have fractional G maneuver drives is one of the things that annoy me most about the various ship design systems, because it is something that we know for a fact is not only possible but extremely easy to make (Just what happens if you take a 1G maneuver drive for a given size ship and install it in a ship ten times bigger?). And if internal volume is a problem for X-boats, just give them freaking 0.1G drives and 0.2 power plants. Problem solved.

The rule as written states that the power plant provides internal power. In my opinion the most important item that needs the power plant is the life support system which is carried on every starship and non-starship.

Agreed. Problem is that there are no separate rules for life support power requirements.


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

I'm confused by this post. But there might be some inside-baseball-Traveller thing going on. So I'm not going to sweat it.

Sorry it is a bit vague

What I meant was if you keep reading to the end of the engineering section section you will find the sentence fragment I posted.