Fuel Purification Plant

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by boomslang:
Well, again, under B2, you don't need purification if you specify your drives don't require refined fuel.

From what I read in Book 2, every drive can use unrefined fuel. It just has to deal with the unrefined DM when it jumps. That's what I meant about using "unleaded" instead of "premium" and gumming up the works.

Are you saying that, IYTU, you simply allow any drive to use unrefined fuel simply by stating the drive can use it?

Or, is there something in Book 2 that I missed?

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by boomslang:
Well, again, under B2, you don't need purification if you specify your drives don't require refined fuel.

From what I read in Book 2, every drive can use unrefined fuel. It just has to deal with the unrefined DM when it jumps. That's what I meant about using "unleaded" instead of "premium" and gumming up the works.

Are you saying that, IYTU, you simply allow any drive to use unrefined fuel simply by stating the drive can use it?

Or, is there something in Book 2 that I missed?

 

[boomslang]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
Or, is there something in Book 2 that I missed?

Yes, I think so -- the DMs for unrefined fuel use on the Misjump and Malfunction tables only apply to drives that aren't built to use it. This is explained in parentheticals in the text, under the Malfunction and Misjump rules respectively [pg. 51 in TTB, for example].

These qualifications seem to have been omitted from the tables to save space in the layout...

Unrefined fuel causes no issues in drives that are built to use it...

 

[boomslang]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
Or, is there something in Book 2 that I missed?

Yes, I think so -- the DMs for unrefined fuel use on the Misjump and Malfunction tables only apply to drives that aren't built to use it. This is explained in parentheticals in the text, under the Malfunction and Misjump rules respectively [pg. 51 in TTB, for example].

These qualifications seem to have been omitted from the tables to save space in the layout...

Unrefined fuel causes no issues in drives that are built to use it...

 

[far-trader]

EDIT: Ah boomslang beat me to the post...

Well, besides the misjump chance you're forgetting the basic Drive Failure chance pg 6 B2 where each week there's a chance one or all of your drives go dead if using unrefined fuel. A powerplant or manevuer drive suddenly going dead can leave you just as dead as a misjump.

So I can't see anyone wanting to use unrefined unless they have no other option.

And with Book 5 the onboard purifier break-point, economically, for the standard J1 200ton type A Free Trader is TL11 or TL12. That's considering the cost of buying unrefined compared to the lost revenue volume of the purifier. So I find it hard to believe that every single ship doesn't have one installed, either as standard or after-market with the first profitable run.

I also expect even the lowly type S Scout to have one, even a TL9 one as big as it is, simply because they will need to be able to safely refuel anywhere by the very nature of their duties.

As for simply stating "it is so" that's how B2 seems to work for both military drives and sensors. The ref just gets to say that such and such a ship is built to mil spec.

 

[far-trader]

EDIT: Ah boomslang beat me to the post...

Well, besides the misjump chance you're forgetting the basic Drive Failure chance pg 6 B2 where each week there's a chance one or all of your drives go dead if using unrefined fuel. A powerplant or manevuer drive suddenly going dead can leave you just as dead as a misjump.

So I can't see anyone wanting to use unrefined unless they have no other option.

And with Book 5 the onboard purifier break-point, economically, for the standard J1 200ton type A Free Trader is TL11 or TL12. That's considering the cost of buying unrefined compared to the lost revenue volume of the purifier. So I find it hard to believe that every single ship doesn't have one installed, either as standard or after-market with the first profitable run.

I also expect even the lowly type S Scout to have one, even a TL9 one as big as it is, simply because they will need to be able to safely refuel anywhere by the very nature of their duties.

As for simply stating "it is so" that's how B2 seems to work for both military drives and sensors. The ref just gets to say that such and such a ship is built to mil spec.

 

[boomslang]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
Are you saying that, IYTU, you simply allow any drive to use unrefined fuel simply by stating the drive can use it?

Yeppers.

 

[boomslang]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
Are you saying that, IYTU, you simply allow any drive to use unrefined fuel simply by stating the drive can use it?

Yeppers.

 

[far-trader]

Oh, and for the umptezillionth time, the trade system of Book 2 is not broken

Abused, biased, and designed to force players into adventures, yes. But not broken because it does what it was designed to do in the context of LBB1-3 rather well when used without invented tweaks.

 

[far-trader]

Oh, and for the umptezillionth time, the trade system of Book 2 is not broken

Abused, biased, and designed to force players into adventures, yes. But not broken because it does what it was designed to do in the context of LBB1-3 rather well when used without invented tweaks.

 

[tbeard1999]

An interesting thread. My comments:

1. Supp 4, I like the procedure to navigate and pilot through a gas giant skimming operation. That's an interesting mechanic you came up with and could be used for all sorts of situations where two skills are required.

2. Regarding the discussion whether a 1-G ship can leave a world with >1.0 standarg gravities, I've always assumed that the Maneuver drives could produce at least twice their rated thrust for a short period -- long enough to escape the gravity well of most worlds, but short enough that it wouldn't make much difference in combat (say, 2 turns in the book 2 starship combat system). Had anyone tried to run their engines for more than 2 turns, they'd have likely burned their engines out, with dire (and expensive) consequences.

At the end of the day, reactionless (or effectively reactionless) maneuver drives are such a collossal handwave that I'm not much troubled by this little additional handwaving.

In fact, I think a far more glaring handwave happens when we let almost any ship (regardless of damage in most cases) to re-enter the atmosphere without burning up. What's coating the hull of these ships, exactly? I don't know of any unobtanium that would be cheap, rugged and effective enough to coat our starships. So our heat shields must be made of handwavium...

To me, the question is whether the referee wants ships to commonly land on planets or not.

3. The unrefined fuel debate is the same, seems to me. Does the referee want the players to be able to easily (and cheaply) refuel or not? I don't. I prefer that wilderness refueling be available, but a desperation tactic. So in MTU, non-military ships using unrefined fuel have a chance of severely clogging the "fuel intake manifold" (or whatever), which will require a lengthy tear-down of the engine to put right.

 

[tbeard1999]

An interesting thread. My comments:

1. Supp 4, I like the procedure to navigate and pilot through a gas giant skimming operation. That's an interesting mechanic you came up with and could be used for all sorts of situations where two skills are required.

2. Regarding the discussion whether a 1-G ship can leave a world with >1.0 standarg gravities, I've always assumed that the Maneuver drives could produce at least twice their rated thrust for a short period -- long enough to escape the gravity well of most worlds, but short enough that it wouldn't make much difference in combat (say, 2 turns in the book 2 starship combat system). Had anyone tried to run their engines for more than 2 turns, they'd have likely burned their engines out, with dire (and expensive) consequences.

At the end of the day, reactionless (or effectively reactionless) maneuver drives are such a collossal handwave that I'm not much troubled by this little additional handwaving.

In fact, I think a far more glaring handwave happens when we let almost any ship (regardless of damage in most cases) to re-enter the atmosphere without burning up. What's coating the hull of these ships, exactly? I don't know of any unobtanium that would be cheap, rugged and effective enough to coat our starships. So our heat shields must be made of handwavium...

To me, the question is whether the referee wants ships to commonly land on planets or not.

3. The unrefined fuel debate is the same, seems to me. Does the referee want the players to be able to easily (and cheaply) refuel or not? I don't. I prefer that wilderness refueling be available, but a desperation tactic. So in MTU, non-military ships using unrefined fuel have a chance of severely clogging the "fuel intake manifold" (or whatever), which will require a lengthy tear-down of the engine to put right.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by boomslang:
-- the DMs for unrefined fuel use on the Misjump and Malfunction tables only apply to drives that aren't built to use it. This is explained in parentheticals in the text, under the Malfunction and Misjump rules respectively [pg. 51 in TTB, for example].

See, I take it that the drives that are built to use unrefined fuel are the ones in Book 5 with fuel processors.

Book 5 makes the distinction that it's the Jump Drive that needs the better quality fuel. Spaceships (non-starships) can use unrefined fuel with no problem--according to Book 5.

So, the reference in TTB is to address (a) non-starships and (b) starships with fuel processors.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by boomslang:
-- the DMs for unrefined fuel use on the Misjump and Malfunction tables only apply to drives that aren't built to use it. This is explained in parentheticals in the text, under the Malfunction and Misjump rules respectively [pg. 51 in TTB, for example].

See, I take it that the drives that are built to use unrefined fuel are the ones in Book 5 with fuel processors.

Book 5 makes the distinction that it's the Jump Drive that needs the better quality fuel. Spaceships (non-starships) can use unrefined fuel with no problem--according to Book 5.

So, the reference in TTB is to address (a) non-starships and (b) starships with fuel processors.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
1. Supp 4, I like the procedure to navigate and pilot through a gas giant skimming operation. That's an interesting mechanic you came up with and could be used for all sorts of situations where two skills are required.

Thanks!

[/quote]2. Regarding the discussion whether a 1-G ship can leave a world with >1.0 standarg gravities, I've always assumed that the Maneuver drives could produce at least twice their rated thrust for a short period -- long enough to escape the gravity well of most worlds, but short enough that it wouldn't make much difference in combat (say, 2 turns in the book 2 starship combat system).[/quote]

Ahh... You must have been exposed to MegaTraveller sometime in your gaming career.

At the end of the day, reactionless (or effectively reactionless) maneuver drives are such a collossal handwave that I'm not much troubled by this little additional handwaving.

Why not? It works as you do it for MT, TNE ...

But, I like the system CT has. It lends itself well to roleplaying. It adds depth and detail to the gaming universe.

It makes traveling from one world to another that much more interesting...that much more believeable.

I think CT's rule really adds to the game.

Jumping around is less vanilla, one-size-fits-all.

In a game, it could even provide incentive for players to want to upgrade their ship's drive. I don't think I've ever had that happen in a game.

Maybe it will now.

I don't know of any unobtanium that would be cheap, rugged and effective enough to coat our starships. So our heat shields must be made of handwavium...

Hyperdense hulls, constructed in zero G, using graviton manipulation to allign the molecules?

They provide decent protection vs. laser fire. I have no problem believing they can provide protection on re-entry too.

To me, the question is whether the referee wants ships to commonly land on planets or not.

Not really. It's only the planets with Class D- starports that are also Size 8+. That's a fairly rare combination.

On most worlds, a 1G ship will land fine. For those it can't, there's the High Port.

There will be a few that stick out, though, that may remain offlimits for a ship's captain.

He may look into upgrading the drives on is lauch to 2Gs.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
1. Supp 4, I like the procedure to navigate and pilot through a gas giant skimming operation. That's an interesting mechanic you came up with and could be used for all sorts of situations where two skills are required.

Thanks!

[/quote]2. Regarding the discussion whether a 1-G ship can leave a world with >1.0 standarg gravities, I've always assumed that the Maneuver drives could produce at least twice their rated thrust for a short period -- long enough to escape the gravity well of most worlds, but short enough that it wouldn't make much difference in combat (say, 2 turns in the book 2 starship combat system).[/quote]

Ahh... You must have been exposed to MegaTraveller sometime in your gaming career.

At the end of the day, reactionless (or effectively reactionless) maneuver drives are such a collossal handwave that I'm not much troubled by this little additional handwaving.

Why not? It works as you do it for MT, TNE ...

But, I like the system CT has. It lends itself well to roleplaying. It adds depth and detail to the gaming universe.

It makes traveling from one world to another that much more interesting...that much more believeable.

I think CT's rule really adds to the game.

Jumping around is less vanilla, one-size-fits-all.

In a game, it could even provide incentive for players to want to upgrade their ship's drive. I don't think I've ever had that happen in a game.

Maybe it will now.

I don't know of any unobtanium that would be cheap, rugged and effective enough to coat our starships. So our heat shields must be made of handwavium...

Hyperdense hulls, constructed in zero G, using graviton manipulation to allign the molecules?

They provide decent protection vs. laser fire. I have no problem believing they can provide protection on re-entry too.

To me, the question is whether the referee wants ships to commonly land on planets or not.

Not really. It's only the planets with Class D- starports that are also Size 8+. That's a fairly rare combination.

On most worlds, a 1G ship will land fine. For those it can't, there's the High Port.

There will be a few that stick out, though, that may remain offlimits for a ship's captain.

He may look into upgrading the drives on is lauch to 2Gs.

 

[atpollard]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Oh, and for the umptezillionth time, the trade system of Book 2 is not broken

Abused, biased, and designed to force players into adventures, yes. But not broken because it does what it was designed to do in the context of LBB1-3 rather well when used without invented tweaks.

I find that it is very hard to make a profit hauling only freight, but very easy to make a fortune in cargo speculation. I always assumed that this is what Marc had in mind when he wrote it.

 

[atpollard]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
I think you're in the right place but drew the wrong conclusion.

I agree that virtually all ships should have purification plants and buy unrefined fuel whenever possible. (My Liberty Ship does.) I would also suggest that merchant ships should be built at TL 13 given the advantages over TL 9 and relative abundance of TL 13+ worlds. Why should the typical merchant ship be able to pull in for an annual overhaul at some of the worst ports in the subsector when there are plenty of "better" ports nearby.

My earlier post addressed the suggestion that fuel purifiers should be automatically included in engineering (at no cost). I was pointing out THAT would work better for large ships than small ones.

 

[atpollard]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
I think you're in the right place but drew the wrong conclusion.

I agree that virtually all ships should have purification plants and buy unrefined fuel whenever possible. (My Liberty Ship does.) I would also suggest that merchant ships should be built at TL 13 given the advantages over TL 9 and relative abundance of TL 13+ worlds. Why should the typical merchant ship be able to pull in for an annual overhaul at some of the worst ports in the subsector when there are plenty of "better" ports nearby.

My earlier post addressed the suggestion that fuel purifiers should be automatically included in engineering (at no cost). I was pointing out THAT would work better for large ships than small ones.

 

[atpollard]

RE: landing on big worlds.

In the old "Starport Authority" article (JTAS) by Mr. Ford, class A & B starports had orbital facilities and class C & D starports had an orbital shuttle service. Thus "not landing" was only a problem for large worlds with class E & X starports - landing on a cleared rock outcropping or an empty field with no support facilities. How much cargo and how many passengers want to go there and can afford to leave? How common of a problem is that anyway?