CT Ship Errata Discussion : X-Boat

[boomslang]

PS. If you can't make it work and you're not allowed to fix it, a disclaimer is the best way to go.

I think this is the gist of it; the Type X simply will not work under Second Edition B2. It is up to the ref and players to figure out what necessary accommodations will have to be made to squeeze it into any given TU where its existence is to be preserved.

The situation sort of forces a House Ruling, one way or the other.

 

[boomslang]

The more I thought about it, I changed my mind on the Model/3bis. See the errata I proposed just before your post.

Indeed. Here is where individual taste is the deciding factor; I am much more comfortable using deprecated rules about Jump duration and Bis computers than I am about breaking the Drive Performance Table by letting Drives-B have Level-4 performance in what B2 considers a 200-dton hull. But that is only me, not you.

So, again, the engineering is a bust any way you look at it and it falls to personal preference to get a design that one finds both serviceable for one's purposes and the least bothersome in terms of the relevant ruleset.

 

[DonM]

I'm at the point where I think a disclaimer saying we all know it's broken is the best we can do... And yes, it's easy to do under HG2, or I could use a small stateroom, or I could invent a Model/3bis, or I could design a 200-ton ship, or I could assume that 1d6=3 for battery use (I always seemed to roll "1"s for that roll though).

But for now, "yes, it's broken" appears to be the best way to go.

 

[travlar]

I would suggest a "yes, its broken" plus a list of suggested possible fixes. (Make it in HG2, 105 ton ship, small stateroom, etc.)

 

[DonM]

Make it in HG2, small stateroom, etc, are not acceptable for errata for Book 2.

Besides, it already exists for HG2 -- the Xboat does appear in Fighting Ships.

Back to tilting at windmills.

 

[rancke]

Make it in HG2, small stateroom, etc, are not acceptable for errata for Book 2.

Must... resist... temptation...


Hans

 

[boomslang]

Back to tilting at windmills.

I never tilt at windmills; I call in the ortillery strike and crater those suckers en masse.

One last hardcore hack to consider: you can take the displacement up a lot -- to slightly under 200 dtons -- swap in drives-D, pack a Model/4 and two full-size staterooms and the 1 dton of cargo in there, and still get by with a lone crewman because your hull is less than 200 dtons total and therefore only requires crewing as a 100-dtonner under a strict reading of B2.

Then the only errata as such are the drive letters and the hull size. All other performance specs are met, no rules are even bent.

Call it the "Fat X"; the architecture is left as an exercise for the reader.

(And of course, the temptation to slip an m-drive in there is great, but won't someone please think of the Tenders?)

 

[Whipsnade]

Don,

I too agree that the "It's broken design in LBB:2, sorry" statement is the best of several bad choices here.

Boomslang's suggestion of the 3bis computer from High Guard 1e would be a close second choice, IMHO, even though the inclusion of that computer could force a re-design of many canonical ships.

The third suggestion, however, about jump duration being calculated before jump entry should be avoided at all costs.

Every handwave contains the seeds of it's destruction and this change to when a jump's duration is known would lead to, among many other things, a much greater possibility of near-c rocks being aimed at worlds through jump space.

We've enough trouble with maneuver drives and near-c rocks as it is, we don't need the damn things popping out of jump space along the 100D limit too.


Regards,
Bill

 

[robject]

I'd be tempted to leave out the power plant, since that's obviously what broke the design for 2ED, and then include your disclaimer that "you're not allowed to do it this way, but that's how they did it, and you can't make it work otherwise".

 

[Andrew M]

Why not just say that:

The X-boat is a miracle of design, a masterwork of integrated engineering which has never been matched before or since. Because of this it is the most standardised design in the Imperium. Few really understand the subtleties of the design, and of those none would dare tinker for fear of the ramifications of the slightest adjustments. Merely altering the molding of the pilot's seat might critically alter the resonances of the ship, causing it to shake itself to pieces mid-jump.

.. maybe a little over the top, but you get my drift. It is a unique piece of design which should be impossible, and not a precedent for anything.

 

[DonM]

Bill's excellent comments about why we should NOT handwave apply here.

Actually, they apply throughout the CT errata, or any errata.

 

[aramis]

Really, with 7-days duration and 1-6 days LS, and a fully charged TL13+ vacc suit, it can be done, without cargo, by only cutting the fuel from 30 days.

020 Bridge
015 JD B=4
007 PP B=4
040 JFuel 1J4
010 PFuel 30/4=7.5 days (x24 Hrs =180 Hrs)*
004 Model 4
004 Stateroom

*which, based upon more recent sources, should be safe if it's on umbilical until minutes before jump.

 

[boomslang]

010 PFuel 30/4=7.5 days (x24 Hrs =180 Hrs)

Yes, but: note that B2 powerplant fuel requirements are for four weeks, not 30 days.

10 dtons runs a powerplant-B for only 7 days and no more, because of course 28/4 = 7.

Given that the maximum Jump duration can exceed 168 hours (175 or 184.4 respectively, depending on the particular rules chosen), there is a large chance of Misjump from powerplant failure (cessation) if the S7-derived, CT-dependent Type X attempts a blind Jump-4 with only 10 dtons of powerplant fuel available (even allowing for the very-plausible idea of keeping it tethered until the last few moments before Jump).

 

[aramis]

Note, Boomslang, that MT and T5 sources indicate that the actual variance of a given drive in good repair is ±1.7 hours, rather than ±16.8...

 

[rancke]

A 100T ship burning up 40T of fuel in 28 days is broken in the first place. Maybe not inherently broken[*], but certainly broken in a universe where HG2 produces valid ship designs. Granted, it's not a flaw in the design, its a flaw in the design system. But it's still broken.

And before anyone points out that Book 2 doesn't necessarily mean the 3rd Imperium universe, the X-boats do belong to the 3rd Imperium universe. The only reason why we can't make the vanilla Book 2 jump-4 couriers into a 200T design (with a maneuver drive) is that OTU canon says that the 3rd Imperium's jump-4 couriers are 100T designs.


Hans

[*] Nothing in this statement should be taken to indicate that I don't believe it isn't inherently broken too; I just don't want to discuss it here.​

 

[boomslang]

Note, Boomslang, that MT and T5 sources indicate that the actual variance of a given drive in good repair is ±1.7 hours, rather than ±16.8...

Duly noted, but that rule being MT/T5 sourced, I do not think we can use it to meet the "strictly CT" guidelines of the task at hand.

And even if we could, you are still looking at a 50% chance of Misjump from powerplant shutdown if you have only 168 hours of powerplant endurance (well, 168 minus the one turn pre-Jump while the XT maneuvers away and the X powers up the Jump). Reducing the standard deviation does not move the mean.

I think at this point the most-rules-legal choice is to bump the hull displacement upwards well-towards-but-not-completely-to 200 dtons, keeping it a 100-dton-class design for crewing purposes but fitting drives as if it were a 200-dton-class hull, in order to make the engineering work under strict CT.

 

[boomslang]

A 100T ship burning up 40T of fuel in 28 days is broken in the first place. Maybe not inherently broken[*], but certainly broken in a universe where HG2 produces valid ship designs. Granted, it's not a flaw in the design, its a flaw in the design system. But it's still broken.

I concur, and have always assumed IMTU that B2 powerplant fuel numbers reflect a regulatory requirement for safety, rather than an engineering requirement for operation. Duly, I use a variation of the HG2 formula to calculate actual fuel use by B2 powerplants, and my planetary navies are not constantly tasked with rescuing out-of-fuel merchants and yachts.

But, as it has been forcefully and vehemently implied that such handwaving will apparently generate a cascade effect that utterly destroys the coherence of the Traveller rules and the canon of the OTU, we are prohibited from going that route, and must accept the constraint as given. Ergo, 10 dtons runs a powerplant-B for 7 days, tops, and we must design accordingly.

 

[atpollard]

020 Bridge
015 JD B=4
007 PP B=4
040 JFuel 1J4
010 PFuel 28/4=7 days (x24 Hrs =168 Hrs)*
004 Model 4
004 Stateroom

Just adding a note acknowledging that this design is broken may be the best answer in the end (since changing the rules from 'no PP needed' to '7 dT PP needed' is a big deal on a 100 dT ship). One thing which has been fairly conclusively shown it that the minimum required components add up to greater than 100 dT 'by the book' ...

020 Bridge
015 JD B=4
007 PP B=4
040 JFuel 1J4
011 PFuel 11/40 x28 days =7.7 days (x24 Hrs =184.8 Hrs)
004 Model 4
004 Stateroom
101 TOTAL

... so something has to give. If the goal is to change as little as possible while minimizing the impact of the change on the other designs, I suggest that the Computer is the only practical item to change.

Shrinking the bridge would impact every sub 200 dT ship design.
Changing the model B JD or PP is unthinkable and would impact every other ship design that uses them.
Reducing the fuel requirements would impact every other ship design.
Reducing the stateroom would also impact every other ship design.

So how can we shrink the Model 4 computer by one dTon in such a way that it would not impact other ships that use the Model 4?

It occurs to me that the most unique aspect of the X-boat is that it has no Maneuver Drive. Let us, therefore, postulate a model 4J computer - custom built to run ships with Jump Drives but no Maneuver Drives. Thus the 'demand' for such a specialized computer would be negligible.

The Model 4J Computer needs to run Generate (1 space), Navigate (1 space), and Jump 4 (4 spaces) with Jump 3 (3 spaces), Jump 2 (2 spaces), and Jump 1 (1 space) on standby in case of other jump distances. That adds up to 6 active and 6 backup spaces required (or 9 backup spaces required for Jump-1 with J2, J3 and J4 in backup) compared to the 8/15 of a standard 4 dT Model 4 computer. If we make the Model 4J computer 3/4 of the size and capacity of a Model 4, then the Model 4J Computer becomes 3 dTons with a capacity of 6 active and 11 backup CPU spaces.

If we wanted to ensure that nobody else wanted one, then the model 4J could be hardwired with its programs fixed and unchangeable. If we just wanted to 'gently discourage' its use compared to a Model 3 or Model 4 computer, then we could just make it more expensive than a Model 4. I would suggest that the cost be MCr 45 (MCr 30 x 3dt/4dt x 2 'specialized').

020 Bridge
015 JD B=4
007 PP B=4
040 JFuel 1J4
011 PFuel 11/40 x28 days =7.7 days (x24 Hrs =184.8 Hrs)
003 Model 4J
004 Stateroom
100 TOTAL

Obviously this opens a door to players wanting to build other specialized computers, yet clearly makes 'specialized computers' overpriced toys. I have attempted to minimize the impacts to the game and leave it to you all to decide whether or not this solution is still 'too disruptive'.

 

[atpollard]

020 Bridge
015 JD B=4
007 PP B=4
040 JFuel 1J4
011 PFuel 11/40 x28 days =7.7 days (x24 Hrs =184.8 Hrs)
004 Model 4
004 Stateroom
101 TOTAL

As a slight aside, a 101 dTon "100 dTon" ship is technically a legal design.

Note that a 100 dTon Scout ship with a hardpoint and no turret is a 100 dTon ship with 1 dT of internal volume set aside for 'fire control'. Adding a triple turret fills the 1dt internal 'fire control' with fire control and mounts an additional 1 dT of weapons in an external turret. It is not generally argued that a 100 dT scout without its turret is only a 99 dT ship and therefore not jump capable. Neither is it generally argued that a 100 dT scout with its turret is a 101-200 dT ship and therefore has its jump capability lowered to J1. The official designs indicate that ships are allowed to exceed their rated size by 1% based upon allowable turrets.

Since the X-boat has no hardpoint or weapon or fire control, a 1 dT blister of fuel seems within the precedent of turrets on other ships.

 

[rancke]

Duly noted, but that rule being MT/T5 sourced, I do not think we can use it to meet the "strictly CT" guidelines of the task at hand.

Speaking of strictly CT, and strictly Book 2 CT at that, isn't it illegal to put less than four full weeks' worth of fuel into a ship? Wouldn't that require changing the rules too? After all, if you allow that, what's to prevent a merchant from having only 14 days worth of power plant fuel aboard and profiting from the extra cargo space thus gained?


Hans