mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I posted this elsewhere as a several times edited post so I thought I'd put the full version here as well to make it easier for people to comment, or not
I sometimes use a house rule where the power plant of a ship is run at a lower rating during cruising than during combat, weapons training, etc. It costs you hours or days of endurance when you switch everything on though.
This comes from MT days when power plants were so thirsty you would use every possible "rules interpretation" to lower fuel tonnage. IIRC it was originally presented in optional rules for High Guard in a JotTAS article. MT/DGP went one step further by having multiple power plants(one for ship systems on all the time, one for agility, one for weapons, etc) with different fuel durations depending on how many are on.
Take the standard design scout/courier with an upgrade to a TL13 power plant. Same tonnage, 2 more EPs(for a total of 6) to power two lasers, say.
Does it need agility 2 for the full four weeks? If not, then why can't you turn the power plant down to conserve fuel? The same question can be asked for weapons and screens.
You are already paying 2 EPs per round to get 2G movement/acceleration, what you are losing are the AC and initiative bonuses for the agility of 2(which are lost anyway if you install two lasers without uprating the power plant).
If you accept powering down then you could keep the 4t fuel tank, which should last you 6 weeks of maneuver at 2G and two jumps or 8 weeks maneuvering(you'd need to stock up on more food etc).
Enter combat and suddenly you are using fuel at three times the rate. So each day(?) in combat costs you three days endurance.
Military ships with high agility and multiple weapons and screens, with sufficient life support and stores, would be able to cruise for several months in normal space between engagements in a power saving(and lower emission) state.
Just a (resurrected) thought.
Any comments?

I sometimes use a house rule where the power plant of a ship is run at a lower rating during cruising than during combat, weapons training, etc. It costs you hours or days of endurance when you switch everything on though.
This comes from MT days when power plants were so thirsty you would use every possible "rules interpretation" to lower fuel tonnage. IIRC it was originally presented in optional rules for High Guard in a JotTAS article. MT/DGP went one step further by having multiple power plants(one for ship systems on all the time, one for agility, one for weapons, etc) with different fuel durations depending on how many are on.
Take the standard design scout/courier with an upgrade to a TL13 power plant. Same tonnage, 2 more EPs(for a total of 6) to power two lasers, say.
Does it need agility 2 for the full four weeks? If not, then why can't you turn the power plant down to conserve fuel? The same question can be asked for weapons and screens.
You are already paying 2 EPs per round to get 2G movement/acceleration, what you are losing are the AC and initiative bonuses for the agility of 2(which are lost anyway if you install two lasers without uprating the power plant).
If you accept powering down then you could keep the 4t fuel tank, which should last you 6 weeks of maneuver at 2G and two jumps or 8 weeks maneuvering(you'd need to stock up on more food etc).
Enter combat and suddenly you are using fuel at three times the rate. So each day(?) in combat costs you three days endurance.
Military ships with high agility and multiple weapons and screens, with sufficient life support and stores, would be able to cruise for several months in normal space between engagements in a power saving(and lower emission) state.
Just a (resurrected) thought.
Any comments?