CT+ Ships

[Spinward Flow]

Do you really want a giant table with hundreds or even thousands of "standard" drives?

Tables are clunky and limited.
Give me formulas to work with ... like LBB5 does to determine tonnage of drives and fuel required for a given hull size.

Tables are fixed and immutable.
Formulas are flexible.

It's kind of like the difference between arithmetic (tables) and algebra (formulas).
Besides, if you're going to use formulas to create the table(s) with in the first place, you might as well skip the table results (of the formulas) and just provide the formulas directly instead. Makes for a better sliding scale of possibilities, rather than fixed breakpoints of specifically (pre)selected options to choose from.

 

[Dragoner]

Truthfully, there would only be like four engines, and they would stack to get the desired work.

 

[kilemall]

Problem with the fixation on formula is differing technologies often do not scale uniformly. Which might be fine for story focused game groups but maybe not where gearhead differences are part of the story.

 

[robject]

Gotcha. And docs survive?

They do, but the rules are purely High Guard. Some interpolation was done for spines, and the MegaTraveller extended tables I believe were added.

I still think the easiest fix to pp fuel is the 0.01xMxn formula - but have you considers making the formula 0.05xMxn?

This would preserve the 10t pp fuel for the scout courier and the 200t free trader.

And stick with only requiring pp to equal m-drive.

I like that!

 

[robject]

Tables are clunky and limited.
Give me formulas to work with ... like LBB5 does to determine tonnage of drives and fuel required for a given hull size.

Tables are fixed and immutable.
Formulas are flexible.

That's why I lobbied for formulas in Traveller5 (and got them).

 

[Spinward Flow]

Problem with the fixation on formula is differing technologies often do not scale uniformly. Which might be fine for story focused game groups but maybe not where gearhead differences are part of the story.

If you're talking about "breakpoints" between integers, there's a remarkably simple way around that problem (although it partially brings back the table).

LBB5.80

Power Plants	TL=7-8​	TL=9-12​	TL=13-14​	TL=15​
Multiplier	x4​	x3​	x2​	x1​

LBB5.80 Interpolation Example

Power Plants	TL=7​	TL=8​	TL=9​	TL=10​	TL=11​	TL=12​	TL=13​	TL=14​	TL=15​
Multiplier	x4​	x4​	x3​	x3​	x2.5​	x2.5​	x2​	x1.5​	x1​

Something THAT SIMPLE would open up a tremendous amount of "design space" when it comes to make lower than maximal tech level ships both more interesting and more viable, mainly because you aren't "punishing" TL=11-12 for not being TL=13 yet ... which has interesting implications for "fringe space" (Imperial or otherwise).

 

[Grav_Moped]

Agreed, but there are no "fuel use credits" for anything. Normal acceleration = full fuel use, parked in orbit = full fuel use, etc.




That is a consequence of the 4 weeks period for power-down, presumably to avoid exploits like routine powering down in jump.

What the rules actually say is that you have to power down for a full four weeks. If you do J-2, you didn't power down, and if you do power down, you can't do J-2.

Which means that under the rules, powering-down in jump is not possible (in order to prevent exploits). This suggests that full powerplant output (weirdly, even if the powerplant output is significantly higher than the Jn) is required to sustain Jump after initiation. (Or, perhaps, that powerplants in general can't be operated for long at anything other than full power or idle -- transitions between those conditions have to be done promptly, and yet take 20 minutes per Pn up or down.)

This only applies to the rulesets that do not explicitly establish other base load power requirements, of course.

 

[mike wightman]

One thing if using the HG formulae - power plant cost should be by EP not tonnage or possibly a combination of the two.
I would also go back to big jump drive, smaller m-drive, and once agsaain stick with pp size being uncoupled from jump drive performance.

There should be a sentence to the effect that the four weeks is for normal space maneuvering, the week in jump space doesn't count towards this duration.

 

[Condottiere]

What pops up in my mind is spare parts and mass production.

 

[aramis]

Tons per hit is in MT, but only used in the vehicle combat system IIRC, not space combat.

No, MT has hits per ton...

 

[whartung]

That's why I lobbied for formulas in Traveller5 (and got them).

Well, I mean, that's all well and good.

But it's not "how things work". I mean, to a point that's true, but I don't know how much a Saturn V rocket is simply an "upscaled" Redstone motor. Is it just a material science/manufacturing issue of making bigger nozzles, pumps, and hoses?

One thing we don't see in Traveller is what we see today. Stacking motors.

The Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy use the same engines (for assorted, fuzzy definitions of "same"). The Falcon uses 1, and the Heavy uses 3 of them. The Soviets were famous for simply cramming more motors on to their larger rockets. If you want your speed boat to go faster, bolt on another outboard to it. There's a reason large ships have 4 screws.

Obviously there are efficiency concerns, scale concerns and overhead.

If you can get a single 4G M-Drive, it should be more efficient than two 2G drives. It should, in theory, use a bit less total space, and perhaps use less power, and cost a little less. 4G drive may use less total surface area for the thruster.

But 2 2G drives gives you M-Drive redundancy. While it may use more total surface area than the 4G, it's in 2 pieces given design flexibility. Maybe the 2G drives are from a lower TL, and more available.

Two TL 11 2G drives may have service benefits over a TL13 4G drive.

Sure, it would be nice to have that perfect, 17.2 MW fusion power plant, but Harbor Freight has an off the rack 5MW model that they sell in a blister pack next to the candy and gum at the register, and you can just bolt them to the deck next to each other.

Even the US Navy uses "stock", "off the shelf" drives (the Ticonderoga has two GE turbines, who sells them to lots of folks).

Similarly you can use "jump modules" or something to make build jump drives out of.

I think "stock drives" can offer a lot of nuance. The LBB problem is that they're monolithic.

 

[infojunky]

Sure, but how many "drives" do exist on our little world for a single TL?

Ever gone shopping for for a short block 350? Or a four cylinder Marine Diesel?

Do you really want a giant table with hundreds or even thousands of "standard" drives?

Sure, Don't you?

 

[infojunky]

After my flippant answer, one could use "Percentage based" drives to generate Standard drive if one knew what the standards were.

Heck, if one examines Maneuver Drives from Book5 one quickly finds that Inertial Compensation is equal to the drive rate minus one. (Note in the lead up to ships it states ships acceleration is limited by Compensation).

As such one could give a ship x number of thrusters while having compensation being a part of the hull. Thus you could have big freighters with big beefy engines that are limited one or two Gs do to lack of compensation.

Another issue is relative crew sizes.

 

[robject]

I think "stock drives" can offer a lot of nuance. The LBB problem is that they're monolithic.

The larger problem is that rules yield decreasing value as they increase in complexity. T5 has a lot of that, as did MT and TNE -- and not enough advice on where the nuance is typically best avoided.

 

[aramis]

The larger problem is that rules yield decreasing value as they increase in complexity. T5 has a lot of that, as did MT and TNE -- and not enough advice on where the nuance is typically best avoided.

MT is high guard design redone in Striker detail. That was actually a selling point for SciFi in the late 80's and early 90's... SpaceMaster revised from the simpler system in Tech Law to the more complicated version in Star Strike at edition change (and took ground vehicle from a simple system to a similar level of detail inArmoured Assaul)t.
Several detailed space games were out... Battletech/Battleforce/Aerotech/Mechwarrior, Renegade Legion, SpaceMaster 2E, GURPS Commonwealth being replaced by G: Space, the ship design in Reichstar (directly comparable to Spacemaster 1E), Mekton moving to the Mekton Technical system... SFB was growing, Starfire was at it's peak as a tactical game,

 

[whartung]

The idea of adding stacking to the stock drive system simply gives it potentially a bit more flexibility, with less math. And maybe some deep dive Spinward Flow-esque spreadsheeting to find gaps or overlaps in the system to gain advantage.

I do that all the time with "combo" meals and specials at restaurants. I'll noodle over the menu for a minute to save a quarter and game the price structure.

Why not bolt 3 "Z" drives into a 5000 ton ship to get it to go 6G.

I quickly contrived a drive table chart much like the one in Book 2 with a speadsheet, simply taking the simple M Drive formula from FF&S and applying it to hulls of different sizes. No doubt the book 2 table was arrived at similarly.

For example, if you could stack drives, then 2 A drives in a 100 ton hull cost the same at 1 B drive, but are only 2 tons instead of 3. However, if you stack the powerplants (2A vs 1B), you lose the ton back, and it breaks even. So, stack 2 A drives, with one B power plant, and save the ton of space and your 127.65 ton inter system lunar snack and soda ship (with the legless steward, so his stateroom isn't as long because of the bed, so that saves some more space [actually he uses prosthetics, he just doesn't sleep with them, so...]) is that much more profitable!

But, see, this system is no more "complex", not really.

 

[Grav_Moped]

The idea of adding stacking to the stock drive system simply gives it potentially a bit more flexibility, with less math. And maybe some deep dive Spinward Flow-esque spreadsheeting to find gaps or overlaps in the system to gain advantage.

I do that all the time with "combo" meals and specials at restaurants. I'll noodle over the menu for a minute to save a quarter and game the price structure.

Why not bolt 3 "Z" drives into a 5000 ton ship to get it to go 6G.

I quickly contrived a drive table chart much like the one in Book 2 with a speadsheet, simply taking the simple M Drive formula from FF&S and applying it to hulls of different sizes. No doubt the book 2 table was arrived at similarly.

For example, if you could stack drives, then 2 A drives in a 100 ton hull cost the same at 1 B drive, but are only 2 tons instead of 3. However, if you stack the powerplants (2A vs 1B), you lose the ton back, and it breaks even. So, stack 2 A drives, with one B power plant, and save the ton of space and your 127.65 ton inter system lunar snack and soda ship (with the legless steward, so his stateroom isn't as long because of the bed, so that saves some more space [actually he uses prosthetics, he just doesn't sleep with them, so...]) is that much more profitable!

But, see, this system is no more "complex", not really.

Nicely Procrustean utilization of berthing facilities there.

 

[Condottiere]

In theory, you could mix and match, but lowest common performance prevails.

 

[mike wightman]

If you are going to have a formula for m-drive and jump drive then it should change by TL, a TL15 jump 1 drive is surely more efficient than a TL9, so my proposal would be something like this:

Drive	drive percentage for TL	drive percentage for TL	drive percentage for TL	drive percentage for TL
maneuver	TL 7 3+3M	TL 8 2+2M	TL9+ 1+1M
jump	TL9-10 (5J)+(J-5)	TL11-12 (4J)+(J-4)	TL 13-14 (3J)+(J-2)	TL15 (2J)+(J-1)

 

[AnotherDilbert]

No, MT has hits per ton...

Thanks, I must misremember.