CT+ Ships

[mike wightman]

Where does it say MT has hits per ton? The combat system in the ref's book is High Guard converted to the task system. If you use the personal combat/vehicle combat resolution option then the weapons have a pen and damage.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

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

And you get T5, which is vastly more complex than LBB5 (although it's mostly the fault of the Stage system).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Sure, Don't you?

Large pointless tables, hell no!

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

Then what's the point of the table?

Other than perhaps to force ships into certain sizes? What's wrong with a 150 Dt or 300 Dt ship?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

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

Agreed, but the cost of armour fill in some of the gaps for warships.

For civilian ships the PP is the basic TL efficiency.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Which means that under the rules, powering-down in jump is not possible (in order to prevent exploits).

Agreed.

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.)

Or fuel consumption is not correlated with power production, as LBB5'79 says.


Of course it's just a simplification to make the game playable, without having to count every EP:s worth of fuel...

 

[Spinward Flow]

For civilian ships the PP is the basic TL efficiency.

THIS FACTOR is what is so absolutely murderous to low end/low tech starships in terms of economic efficiencies. At MCr3 per ton, power plants are EXPENSIVE, and needing "extra multiples" of power plant tonnage at lower tech levels (the x3, x2, x1 multiplier) just becomes a double whammy in extra up front cost AND reduced revenue tonnage fraction (3 tons and MCr9 per EP @ TL=9-12 instead of 2 tons and MCr6 per EP @ TL=13-14). That double whammy factor quickly adds up ... especially on starships with "lots of drive" in them (factors: 3-6) that can quickly make them uneconomical.

So yes, power plant as the "basic TL efficiency" is a HUGE factor in the design of starships that aren't TL=15. The combined tonnage cost and MCr cost increase because of the higher power plant multiple can easily "make or break" an otherwise useful starship design. The same performance parameters done at lower tech levels often times wind up yielding "that doesn't fit anymore" compromises that make the entire concept non-viable.

 

[mike wightman]

Like I said earlier if you are using HG as your base then the cost of the power plant should be tied to EP output (or pp number) rather than displacement tonnage.

I'm going to repost this from earlier too:

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)

 

[Dragoner]

If I were to figure this, I'd go from fuel energy, carnot cycle, etc to work.

 

[Spinward Flow]

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)

Let's compute that out, shall we?

TL=7
M1 = 3+3 = 6% vs LBB5.80 is 2%
M2 = 3+6 = 9% vs LBB5.80 is 5%

TL=8
M1 = 2+2 = 4% vs LBB5.80 is 2%
M2 = 2+4 = 6% vs LBB5.80 is 5%
M3 = 2+6 = 8% vs LBB5.80 is 8%
M4 = 2+8 = 10% vs LBB5.80 is 11%
M5 = 2+10 = 12% vs LBB5.80 is 14%

TL=9+
M1 = 1+1 = 2% vs LBB5.80 is 2%
M2 = 1+2 = 3% vs LBB5.80 is 5%
M3 = 1+3 = 4% vs LBB5.80 is 8%
M4 = 1+4 = 5% vs LBB5.80 is 11%
M5 = 1+5 = 6% vs LBB5.80 is 14%
M6 = 1+6 = 7% vs LBB5.80 is 17%

TL=9-10
J1 = 5+(-4) = 1% vs LBB5.80 is 2%

TL=11-12
J1 = 4+(-3) = 1% vs LBB5.80 is 2%
J2 = 8+(-2) = 6% vs LBB5.80 is 3%
J3 = 12+(-1) = 11% vs LBB.80 is 4%

TL=13-14
J1 = 3+(-1) = 2% vs LBB5.80 is 2%
J2 = 6+(0) = 6% vs LBB5.80 is 3%
J3 = 9+(1) = 10% vs LBB.80 is 4%
J4 = 12+(2) = 14% vs LBB.80 is 5%
J5 = 15+(3) = 18% vs LBB.80 is 6%

TL=15
J1 = 2+(0) = 2% vs LBB5.80 is 2%
J2 = 4+(1) = 5% vs LBB5.80 is 3%
J3 = 6+(2) = 8% vs LBB.80 is 4%
J4 = 8+(3) = 11% vs LBB.80 is 5%
J5 = 10+(4) = 14% vs LBB.80 is 6%
J6 = 12+(5) = 17% vs LBB.80 is 7%

 

[mike wightman]

I swapped the jump drive back to being the larger of the two drives as it is in LBB:2 and since I would revert to power plant being tied to m-drive only.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

TL9-10 (5J)+(J-5)

You mean (6J-5)%?

Why would J-1 drives be so small? LBB2 does the opposite, something like 5 Dt + J × 2.5%?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Like I said earlier if you are using HG as your base then the cost of the power plant should be tied to EP output (or pp number) rather than displacement tonnage.

So tonnage can vary by TL, but not cost? Why?

 

[Grav_Moped]

Bold added.

THIS FACTOR is what is so absolutely murderous to low end/low tech starships in terms of economic efficiencies. At MCr3 per ton, power plants are EXPENSIVE, and needing "extra multiples" of power plant tonnage at lower tech levels (the x3, x2, x1 multiplier) just becomes a double whammy in extra up front cost AND reduced revenue tonnage fraction (3 tons and MCr9 per EP @ TL=9-12 instead of 2 tons and MCr6 per EP @ TL=13-14). That double whammy factor quickly adds up ... especially on starships with "lots of drive" in them (factors: 3-6) that can quickly make them uneconomical.

So yes, power plant as the "basic TL efficiency" is a HUGE factor in the design of starships that aren't TL=15. The combined tonnage cost and MCr cost increase because of the higher power plant multiple can easily "make or break" an otherwise useful starship design. The same performance parameters done at lower tech levels often times wind up yielding "that doesn't fit anymore" compromises that make the entire concept non-viable.

And it's the only "basic TL efficiency" modifier for drives in LBB5. It works for its purpose as a simplifying game mechanic -- consolidating all of the drive-related TL benefits into the drive that has the greatest impact on LBB combat.

This seems a little unrealistic, and T5 does address the issue.

 

[Grav_Moped]

So tonnage can vary by TL, but not cost? Why?

Not the OP here, but what's being paid for is the capability, not the machinery.

 

[mike wightman]

I hate being unable to edit previous posts.

There is a transcription error in the table:

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	TL 9+ 1+1M
jump	TL 9-10 (5J)+(J-4)	TL 11-12 (4J)+(J-3)	TL 13-14 (3J)+(J-2)	TL15 (2J)+(J-1)

This should make the jump 1 drive 2% as it is in HG.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Not the OP here, but what's being paid for is the capability, not the machinery.

But why? The capability is what we want/need, but the machinery is what we have to have and pay for.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

So a small lowtech warship would go from:

FL-A1266E2-400000-00000-0        MCr 860       1 000 Dton
bearing                                           Crew=15
batteries                                           TL=11
                       Cargo=122 Fuel=263 EP=63 Agility=6

Dual Occupancy                                      123     1 076
                                     USP    #      Dton      Cost
Hull, Streamlined   Custom             A          1 000      
Configuration       Needle/Wedge       1                      120
Scoops              Streamlined                                 1
Armour              4                  4            150       105
                                                             
Jump Drive                             2    1        30       120
Manoeuvre D                            6    1       170        85
Power Plant                            6    1       189       567
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-2, 4 weeks            2       263      
Purifier                                    1         9         0
                                                             
Bridge                                      1        20         5
Computer            m/5fib             E    1        10        68
                                                             
Staterooms                                  3        12         2
Staterooms, Half                           12        24         3
                                                             
Cargo                                               123      
                                                             
Nominal Cost        MCr 1 075,54         Sum:       123     1 076
Class Cost          MCr   225,86        Valid        ≥0        ≥0
Ship Cost           MCr   860,43

to:

FL-A1226E2-400000-00000-0        MCr 948       1 000 Dton
bearing                                           Crew=13
batteries                                           TL=11
                       Cargo=186 Fuel=263 EP=63 Agility=2

Dual Occupancy                                      187     1 185
                                     USP    #      Dton      Cost
Hull, Streamlined   Custom             A          1 000         
Configuration       Needle/Wedge       1                      120
Scoops              Streamlined                                 1
Armour              4                  4            150       105
                                                                
Jump Drive                             2    1        70       280
Manoeuvre D                            6    1        70        35
Power Plant                            6    1       189       567
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-2, 4 weeks            2       263         
Purifier                                    1         9         0
                                                                
Bridge                                      1        20         5
Computer            m/5fib             E    1        10        68
                                                                
Staterooms                                  3        12         2
Staterooms, Half                           10        20         3
                                                                
Cargo                                               187         
                                                                
Nominal Cost        MCr 1 185,04         Sum:       187     1 185
Class Cost          MCr   248,86        Valid        ≥0        ≥0
Ship Cost           MCr   948,03

What's the big improvement? Why did we need a new system?

 

[Grav_Moped]

But why? The capability is what we want/need, but the machinery is what we have to have and pay for.

A 4Td TL-8 powerplant produces 1 EP. So does a 1Td TL-15 powerplant.

In each case, the product is a 1EP powerplant. How much it costs to make it isn't your problem. It's a problem for the company making TL-8 powerplants who has to compete against TL-15 powerplant manufacturers.

Supply and support logistics will of course affect this to some extent.

 

[mike wightman]

No one in the Imperium would buy anything other than a TL15 power plant, the cost to ship it is less than the saving. You can even employ some TL15 engineers to look after it at vastly inflated wages.

 

[kilemall]

No one in the Imperium would buy anything other than a TL15 power plant, the cost to ship it is less than the saving. You can even employ some TL15 engineers to look after it at vastly inflated wages.

I thought the Striker/TCS price/currency rules could help with that making the lower performance stuff cheaper, but the tech trees would have to support that valuation.