CT Only: CT Book 2 broken designs

[creativehum]

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.

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the clarification.

I think you'll notice that the texts from '77 and '81 are significantly different on key points.

*The '77 edition says that every starship will have a power plant, maneuver drive, and a jump drive. So... you're going to have a maneuver drive. And thus a power plant.
* The '81 edition says that a starship needs a jump drive, but might not have a maneuver drive. But if you have a jump drive, you're going to have a power plant.

In both cases, there's a power plant.

Now, you might well say, "Yeah, but they wanted it to work a different way to make the Xboats work the way they wanted." Which is great and all. But what you're doing by cherrypicking one sentence to try to make the rules say what they aren't saying is getting strange. (And keep in mind, I'm not attacking you or anything. I'm enjoying everyone here. But it is getting strange that you are simply pulling out one clause and and ignoring the sentences that don't support the reading you want.)

 

[snrdg082102]

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.

Again per 1977 description the power plant provides internal power and powers an installed maneuver drive. If a maneuver drive is installed the installed power plant must be of the same letter and drive potential while still supplying internal power. No maneuver drive means the installed power plant still must supply internal power to operate life support, power the computer, communicators, and other electronic systems.


None of the CT Books states that the jump drive can provide internal power. CT Book 2 1977 clearly indicates that the jump drive does not need power from the power plant. CT Book 5 1979, CT Book 5 1980, and CT Book 2 1981 linked the jump drive with the power plant. GDW and licenses in MT, TNE, and T4 reverted to the jump drive being separate from the power plant.

Again the line "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

coupled with the first section that a power plant supplies internal power means that if a maneuver is installed the power plant must match the maneuver drive specifications.

Hans you are correct that CT Book 2 does not have rules that specifically detail how internal power is supplied. However there is mention of life support, computers, and lasers which all to my knowledge require power to operate. I agree that a system that allowed for less than 1-G maneuver drive should have been included to make things a bit more real world.

Thanks again for the replies.

 

[WistfulD]

I do not have the books, so I won't debate the actual numbers. I just have one question. Regardless of what you think the rules do state, would the following addition to the rules mean that GDW's design does work?:

"Since a jump drive powers jumps by itself, the primary energy draw for the power plant is the maneuver drive. While a ship without a maneuver drive needs a power plant to run life support, computers, etc. The actual wattage of such a plant is so low in comparison, it can be effectively ignored in ship design and its cost, mass, and maintenance can be considered part of the hull."

Would the system work with that addition? If so, it is my position that this is an unwritten rule (or poorly explained rule, following mike's logic) that GDW used to design the Xboat. Equally valid explanations include that they simply forgot and made an error, saw the error but decided to fudge it, or it was an error, but instead of correcting it, they 'corrected' the whole darn system with MT.

There's a certain amount that I think Rules As Written needs to be honored, and an amount where I say, "they've said X, but their own designs instead consistently do Y. It seems clear that they thought that the rules said Y. Perhaps they needed a better editor 35 years ago, but it seems obvious what they intended."

This is all predicated on the logic that allowing maneuver drive-less ships not to need power plants resolves the math of the issue. If not, then nevermind.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello WistfulD,

Thank you for the reply.

I do not have the books, so I won't debate the actual numbers. I just have one question. Regardless of what you think the rules do state, would the following addition to the rules mean that GDW's design does work?:

"Since a jump drive powers jumps by itself, the primary energy draw for the power plant is the maneuver drive. While a ship without a maneuver drive needs a power plant to run life support, computers, etc. The actual wattage of such a plant is so low in comparison, it can be effectively ignored in ship design and its cost, mass, and maintenance can be considered part of the hull."

Would the system work with that addition? If so, it is my position that this is an unwritten rule (or poorly explained rule, following mike's logic) that GDW used to design the Xboat. Equally valid explanations include that they simply forgot and made an error, saw the error but decided to fudge it, or it was an error, but instead of correcting it, they 'corrected' the whole darn system with MT.

There's a certain amount that I think Rules As Written needs to be honored, and an amount where I say, "they've said X, but their own designs instead consistently do Y. It seems clear that they thought that the rules said Y. Perhaps they needed a better editor 35 years ago, but it seems obvious what they intended."

This is all predicated on the logic that allowing maneuver drive-less ships not to need power plants resolves the math of the issue. If not, then never mind.

I think you might be on the right track, however there would still be the issue that CT Book 5 also added energy point requirements for computers, lasers, plasma/fusion guns, particle accelerators, meson guns, nuclear dampers, and meson screens.

A modification to the suggested might be that all starships and non-starships require a power plant with a minimum potential of 1 to power the computers, installed lasers, life support, and other internal systems might have worked.

Thank you again for offering a solution and jogging me out of a rut to other possibilities that would support the need for a power plant in CT book 2 1977.

 

[snrdg082102]

Has anyone else received the email notification that "atpollard has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - CT Only: CT Book 2 broken designs - in the Classic Traveller forum of Citizens of the Imperium.

This thread is located at:
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=34024&goto=newpost"?

I've clicked on the link in the email then closed and reopened the COTI page checking for the post without any success. The web gremlins appear to have decided to come out and play with my system.

Hopefully atpollard's post will show-up so I can properly reply, even though the email I have does provide the body of the post.

 

[aramis]

I do not have the books, so I won't debate the actual numbers. I just have one question. Regardless of what you think the rules do state, would the following addition to the rules mean that GDW's design does work?:

"Since a jump drive powers jumps by itself, the primary energy draw for the power plant is the maneuver drive. While a ship without a maneuver drive needs a power plant to run life support, computers, etc. The actual wattage of such a plant is so low in comparison, it can be effectively ignored in ship design and its cost, mass, and maintenance can be considered part of the hull."

Would the system work with that addition? If so, it is my position that this is an unwritten rule (or poorly explained rule, following mike's logic) that GDW used to design the Xboat. Equally valid explanations include that they simply forgot and made an error, saw the error but decided to fudge it, or it was an error, but instead of correcting it, they 'corrected' the whole darn system with MT.

There's a certain amount that I think Rules As Written needs to be honored, and an amount where I say, "they've said X, but their own designs instead consistently do Y. It seems clear that they thought that the rules said Y. Perhaps they needed a better editor 35 years ago, but it seems obvious what they intended."

This is all predicated on the logic that allowing maneuver drive-less ships not to need power plants resolves the math of the issue. If not, then nevermind.

Only for first ed CT.
2nd ed CT (1981 and later), no, because the PP is required to meet or exceed the JD as well.

 

[atpollard]

Has anyone else received the email notification that "atpollard has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - CT Only: CT Book 2 broken designs - in the Classic Traveller forum of Citizens of the Imperium.

This thread is located at:
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=34024&goto=newpost"?

I've clicked on the link in the email then closed and reopened the COTI page checking for the post without any success. The web gremlins appear to have decided to come out and play with my system.

Hopefully atpollard's post will show-up so I can properly reply, even though the email I have does provide the body of the post.

I first edited, and then deleted the post ... it was a touch ruder than I intended and added heat, but very little light to the topic.

... suffice to say that IMHO, X-Boats are stupid.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello atpollard,

I first edited, and then deleted the post ... it was a touch ruder than I intended and added heat, but very little light to the topic.

... suffice to say that IMHO, X-Boats are stupid.

Drat, I wasted a perfectly lame excuse of not getting something on web gremlins.

I have replied to the notification message via PM, which of course occurred before I checked the forum again. I did not get the impression that you where rude or any heat only a bit frustrated with my imitation of a mule again.

I'll not disagree that X-Boats are not something I would have designed without a maneuver drive or power plant using CT Book 2 1977.

Thanks as always for your input.

 

[snrdg082102]

Thank you aramis for adding clarification the suggestion made by WistfulD work for CT Book 2 1977 1st edition. CT Book 5 1979 and CT Book 5 1980
also requires the power plant to meet of exceed the largest of the two drives and meet the energy point requirements of other components installed.

Only for first ed CT.
2nd ed CT (1981 and later), no, because the PP is required to meet or exceed the JD as well.

 

[aramis]

Thank you aramis for adding clarification the suggestion made by WistfulD work for CT Book 2 1977 1st edition. CT Book 5 1979 and CT Book 5 1980
also requires the power plant to meet of exceed the largest of the two drives and meet the energy point requirements of other components installed.

No problem. It just is particularly helpful to remind people that the CT core rules did change a LOT in 1981.

But note also: all prior printings before 1981 differ from each other. It's lost to the depths of time now, but at one point, there was a comparison thread for the various printings against the 2E printing hunter had (with Marc's blessing) made available as a PDF. It was frankly astonishing how much printings 1-4 differed from each other. The CD version is whichever printing whomever (ISTR DonM) had to hand to relayout from.

 

[whulorigan]

Classic Traveller CDROM (2nd Edition)

No problem. It just is particularly helpful to remind people that the CT core rules did change a LOT in 1981.

But note also: all prior printings before 1981 differ from each other. It's lost to the depths of time now, but at one point, there was a comparison thread for the various printings against the 2E printing hunter had (with Marc's blessing) made available as a PDF. It was frankly astonishing how much printings 1-4 differed from each other. The CD version is whichever printing whomever (ISTR DonM) had to hand to relayout from.

The Classic Traveller CDROM (2nd Edition) has Special Supplement 4: The Lost Rules on it as a PDF. It covers all of the rules-variants between the various CT publication-versions.

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy aramis and whulorigan,

Than you both for providing additional information hopefully sometime this year I'll have the cash to start picking up the CD-ROMS.

 

[aramis]

Howdy aramis and whulorigan,

Than you both for providing additional information hopefully sometime this year I'll have the cash to start picking up the CD-ROMS.

Set aside twenty pence a day, and in under a year, you can afford your CD.

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening aramis,

Set aside twenty pence a day, and in under a year, you can afford your CD.

I've been saving, but some of the funds got shifted to pay for dental and soon to pay for updated eye glasses.