Drive potential table - filling in the missing hulls

[mike wightman]

How many additional drives do we need to extend the 5000-ton hull to jump 6? 20 more?

Looks like some of them would be interleaved with the standard drives, too. Messy.

Not necessarily 20

Oz's progression is
V = 4000
W = 5000
X = 6000
Y = 8000
Z = 12000
so it could keep going like this:
ZV = 16000
ZW = 20000
ZX = 24000
ZY = 28000
ZZ = 32000
or any other progression that fits the bill

That's only an extra five columns on the table, and it would only affect hulls 2300t and larger, anything smaller and the drive would be too powerfull for the hull.

 

[mike wightman]

Or you could just stack drives

 

[far-trader]

I used to just stack drives but now I wonder if (for Book 2) that breaks the TL rules. Maybe the idea is that for any given TL only a certain size of drives can be built. I know it makes little sense but it seems to be the logic (to stretch the term) behind the system.

 

[aramis]

FT: It's perfectly sensible.

If we assume there is some component that needs to be single-cast, ala Bujold's Jump Mirrors, then TL could very easily limit it.

Also, the tables make smaller ships faster; which is true of surface craft, but only because smaller craft mount proportionately larger drives.

The actual formulae show that longer ships will go faster for a given rating for surface ships. There is no such break in the CT Hulls, but it does do a nice job replicating that early motorcraft feel.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Aramis:
FT: It's perfectly sensible.

If we assume there is some component that needs to be single-cast, ala Bujold's Jump Mirrors, then TL could very easily limit it.

Also, the tables make smaller ships faster; which is true of surface craft, but only because smaller craft mount proportionately larger drives.

The actual formulae show that longer ships will go faster for a given rating for surface ships. There is no such break in the CT Hulls, but it does do a nice job replicating that early motorcraft feel.

I like it.

I also pondered the length of wake issue once and played with the idea of gravity drives (aka Thrusters) producing such a disturbance and limiting the speeds to hull length like surface ships. It was just some speculation that never led anywhere but it seemed a fun bit of theorizing at the time

 

[Straybow]

Why bother with a chart? Use some form of drive values and do the math. Using drive values is better for assessing damage as well, as they can be scaled to match weapon effects.

Make rules for using multiple drives for larger vessels.

Problems solved.

 

[mike wightman]

The formula that Oz has devised it what I used to build the table, but many people prefer a quick look up on a table to doing the math

Either method allows for the hull sizes not on the CT table to be a bit more versatile than the "use the next highest hull size" rule, and it's closer to the High Guard percentage based outcome for those hull sizes.

Using multiple drives to make bigger ships is something I allow for maneuver and power plant, but not for the jump drive.

 

[robject]

I did the same thing Sigg and Oz did -- derive the formula so that charts can be created where needed.

The chart makes designing with common elements quick and easy. The formula makes designing to large hulls possible, and opens up the possibility of custom-designing drives for custom-sized hulls.

 

[robject]

Here's my heretical table. I dropped several of the intermediate drive letters -- ones I thought were the least useful -- in order to accomodate hulls up to 5000 tons.

Drive 'strengths' dropped: 1400, 2200, 2800, 3400, 3800. Maybe a couple others?

     A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 100 2 4 6 6 6
 200 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 6 6
 300   1 2 2 3 4 5 6 6 6 6 6 6
 400   1 1 2 2 3 4 4 5 6 6 6 6 6 6
 500     1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 6 6 6 6 6
 600     1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 6
 700       1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6
 800       1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 6 6 6
 900         1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 6 6

     A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
1000         1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 5 6 6
1200           1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 5 6 6
1400             1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 4 5 6
1600             1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 5 6 6
1800               1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 6 6
2000                 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 6 6 6
2200                   1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 5 6 6 6
2400                   1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 5 6 6 6
2600                     1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 6 6 6 6
2800                       1 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 5 6 6 6

     A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
3000                       1 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 5 6 6 6 6
3200                         1 1 1 1 1 2 3 5 6 6 6 6 6
3400                           1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 6 6 6
3600                           1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 6 6 6
3800                             1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 6 6 6
4000                             1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 6 6 6
4200                               1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 6 6
4400                               1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 6 6
4600                               1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 6 6
4800                               1 1 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 6 6
5000                               1 1 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 6 6


Drive    Strength  Vol  MCr
A           200     10   10
B           400     15   20
C           600     20   30
D           800     25   40
E          1000     30   50
F          1200     35   60
G          1600     45   80
H          1800     50   90
I          2000     55  100
J          2400     65  120
K          2600     70  130
L          3000     80  150
M          3200     85  160
N          3600     95  180
O          4000    105  200
P          5000    130  250
Q          6000    155  300
R          8000    205  400
S         12000    305  600
T         16000    405  800
U         20000    505 1000
V         24000    605 1200
W         28000    705 1400
X         32000    805 1600
Y         34000    855 1700
Z         36000    905 1800

 

[daryen]

You would then need to go back to the dton/cost charts and make them non-linear, too, wouldn't you?

 

[robject]

Yeah, it totally messes up the charts. In other words, it's not CT-material friendly at all.

 

[daryen]

But can't you just regenerate the charts? If you already know where the "holes" are, you should be able to regenerate a "correct" dton/price chart trivially.

 

[robject]

Of course. The formulae are straightforward.

But... the real problem is that a Jump Drive-J is no longer the same as the CT Jump Drive-J, because I did away with the CT's 'H' drive and shifted everyone down. So I can't use existing CT broadsheets with my new table.

Here's another version of my heretical table, using my JavaScript "CT Technical Architecture" script. The Device ("TADS") entries are in cubic meters, while the Module ("TAMS") entries are in dtons.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Technical Architecture Device/Module Specification (TADS/TAMS):

Volume is in tons or m^3.

KAM Name Type/TL Vol Output MCr
---- ---------- ------------------------ ----- ------ ------
TADS, Type A , J-Drive Device/12 , 140, 2800, 10
TAMS, Type A , J-Drive Module/12 , 10, 200, 10
TADS, Type B , J-Drive Device/12 , 210, 5600, 20
TAMS, Type B , J-Drive Module/12 , 15, 400, 20
TADS, Type C , J-Drive Device/12 , 280, 8400, 30
TAMS, Type C , J-Drive Module/12 , 20, 600, 30
TADS, Type D , J-Drive Device/12 , 350, 11200, 40
TAMS, Type D , J-Drive Module/12 , 25, 800, 40
TADS, Type E , J-Drive Device/12 , 420, 14000, 50
TAMS, Type E , J-Drive Module/12 , 30, 1000, 50
TADS, Type F , J-Drive Device/12 , 490, 16800, 60
TAMS, Type F , J-Drive Module/12 , 35, 1200, 60
TADS, Type G , J-Drive Device/12 , 630, 22400, 80
TAMS, Type G , J-Drive Module/12 , 45, 1600, 80
TADS, Type H , J-Drive Device/12 , 700, 25200, 90
TAMS, Type H , J-Drive Module/12 , 50, 1800, 90
TADS, Type J , J-Drive Device/12 , 840, 30800, 110
TAMS, Type J , J-Drive Module/12 , 60, 2200, 110
TADS, Type K , J-Drive Device/12 , 980, 36400, 130
TAMS, Type K , J-Drive Module/12 , 70, 2600, 130
TADS, Type L , J-Drive Device/12 , 1120, 42000, 150
TAMS, Type L , J-Drive Module/12 , 80, 3000, 150
TADS, Type M , J-Drive Device/12 , 1260, 47600, 170
TAMS, Type M , J-Drive Module/12 , 90, 3400, 170
TADS, Type N , J-Drive Device/12 , 1400, 53200, 190
TAMS, Type N , J-Drive Module/12 , 100, 3800, 190
TADS, Type P , J-Drive Device/12 , 1540, 58800, 210
TAMS, Type P , J-Drive Module/12 , 110, 4200, 210
TADS, Type Q , J-Drive Device/12 , 1680, 64400, 230
TAMS, Type Q , J-Drive Module/12 , 120, 4600, 230
TADS, Type R , J-Drive Device/12 , 1820, 70000, 250
TAMS, Type R , J-Drive Module/12 , 130, 5000, 250
TADS, Type S , J-Drive Device/12 , 1960, 75600, 270
TAMS, Type S , J-Drive Module/12 , 140, 5400, 270
TADS, Type T , J-Drive Device/12 , 2170, 84000, 300
TAMS, Type T , J-Drive Module/12 , 155, 6000, 300
TADS, Type U , J-Drive Device/12 , 2380, 92400, 330
TAMS, Type U , J-Drive Module/12 , 170, 6600, 330
TADS, Type V , J-Drive Device/12 , 2660, 103600, 370
TAMS, Type V , J-Drive Module/12 , 190, 7400, 370
TADS, Type W , J-Drive Device/12 , 2940, 114800, 410
TAMS, Type W , J-Drive Module/12 , 210, 8200, 410
TADS, Type X , J-Drive Device/12 , 3220, 126000, 450
TAMS, Type X , J-Drive Module/12 , 230, 9000, 450
TADS, Type Y , J-Drive Device/12 , 3570, 140000, 500
TAMS, Type Y , J-Drive Module/12 , 255, 10000, 500
TADS, Type Z , J-Drive Device/12 , 4270, 168000, 600
TAMS, Type Z , J-Drive Module/12 , 305, 12000, 600</pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[Jame]

If someone were to put this table together and publish it somewhere I would be very interested.