• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Fusion Torches in CT

J

jawillroy

SOC-13
(I'm quite certain there's a dead horse to be beaten about this - I can smell it, but I can't see it, the search keywords are a trifle too common)

The first iteration of CT, up through HG 1st Ed, seems to have assumed that maneuver drives are fusion torches; I know that later on, the OTU went for variants of gravitic drives. For MTU, I'd be just as happy to follow the torch-drive path, but I'd like to know your thoughts on it. If there's an obvious thread I'm missing, I'd be delighted to see it.

I seem to recall seeing opinions bruited that this would necessitate greater fuel expenditure than the power plant/maneuver fuel indicated in either LBB2 or High Guard - how big an issue is this with you? (Granted, LBB2 2nd Ed. has the fuel going to the power plant, which in turn makes the drive go - so perhaps even by then fusion torches were "out". Anyone know if the language used in LBB2's first edition differed?)

I'm prepared to handwave torches in, because I like the feel of it, but I'm curious about what others have done with it. If one goes with fusion torch drives, that's going to have a big effect on starport design, regulations, and "planetary visitation etiquette" (landing areas with high berms, well away from port buildings; fairly hard limits on the size of ships allowed to land; don't land near anyone who you want to stay your friend, be polite and let people put some distance between themselves and your ship before you lift, and so on.) Any thoughts on that score?

It certainly makes it attractive, from a world's point of view, to have ships dock at a high port... and it makes the standard, unstreamlined designs of some of the smaller starships make more sense.

Also, from a Refereeing point of view, I rather like the notion that when visiting a planet with a rudimentary port, or when landing away from a port, the PCs would have to do it a safe distance from settlements. Force them PC's to hoof it for a while if they want to meet the locals, get 'em out of the ship and pounding ground for a while. Put some mileage on that Air/Raft, or invest in an ATV to schlep cargo to your Free Trader...
 
jawillroy said:
The first iteration of CT, up through HG 1st Ed, seems to have assumed that maneuver drives are fusion torches;
Click to expand...


There is nothing in my original LBBs that points to this, that I remember. Is there a specific rule in Book 2 you are thinking of?
 
It was actually a specific rule (clarification) in HG1 that positively identified CT drives as fusion torch drives. I don't have the book at hand to quote from it but basically it stated that the maneuver drive could be used as a weapon, when at short(?) range (HG ranges of course), doing damage as a fusion gun (factor equal M rating?) and the next turn the ship was automatically at long range. I'll see about snagging the text later.

The big implication was (given how long even short range is) that no one would allow such a ship to enter a habitable atmosphere (persistent radiation I think) or operate anywhere near civilization (fusion attacks not being welcome). So either you'd have to handwave some grav lifter operation of ships (like Air/Rafts etc.) for landing and take-off, or keep all spacecraft in orbit and use grav vehicles for interface operations.
 
HG_B said:
There is nothing in my original LBBs that points to this, that I remember. Is there a specific rule in Book 2 you are thinking of?
Click to expand...

Well, no. Book 2 isn't explicit on how the drives work at all, beyond tying fuel consumption to the power plant's performance. HG 1st Ed allowed ships at close range (REALLY close, one assumes) to use their drives as high energy weapons, so I take that to be an indication of the designer's initial intentions/assumptions. On the other hand, that rule got dropped from HG2, and I use LBB 1-3 2nd Ed, so... <shrugs>
 
far-trader said:
It was actually a specific rule (clarification) in HG1 that positively identified CT drives as fusion torch drives.
Click to expand...

Okay, I didn't think it came from the original rules.

From HG - "Fuel: A ship requires fuel for its jump drives and for its power plant; the power plant converts fuel to energy for computers, jump drives, maneuver drives, weapons, and screens. Fuel tankage must be sufficient to contain a full load for the power plant and the jump drive."

This would indicate that the M drives AREN'T reaction mass drives as the fusion PP is supplying power to them & other ship systems. I couldn't find anything about torch drives.
 
far-trader said:
The big implication was (given how long even short range is) that no one would allow such a ship to enter a habitable atmosphere (persistent radiation I think) or operate anywhere near civilization (fusion attacks not being welcome). So either you'd have to handwave some grav lifter operation of ships (like Air/Rafts etc.) for landing and take-off, or keep all spacecraft in orbit and use grav vehicles for interface operations.
Click to expand...

Persistent radiation would certainly be a problem, if we assume it to be an inevitable by-product of a fusion drive. I'm not entirely convinced that this is a given, though: I don't recall that fusion and plasma weapons cause any radiation damage, either in their shipboard or their ground based applications.

Now, if we remove persistent radiation from the mix, might we be able to say that a port sufficiently removed from habitations would be able to accept starships with drives up to a certain (low) capacity, but not others? Or are we going on the assumption that even puny A-D drive fusion torches are such weapons of mass destruction as to be entirely silly?
 
HG_B said:
Okay, I didn't think it came from the original rules.

From HG - "Fuel: A ship requires fuel for its jump drives and for its power plant... This would indicate that the M drives AREN'T reaction mass drives as the fusion PP is supplying power to them & other ship systems.
Click to expand...

I haven't my LBB2 with me, but I seem to recall that its language is much the same. I'd be curious to see if LBB2 1st ed's language was any different, if only to trace the developmental process on a meta-game level.
 
1st edition LBB2 implied fuel was burned by the maneuver drive somehow in the fuel duration section.

1st edition HG (which most people still have never seen) flat out states that the maneuver drive is a fusion torch.

As I have posted a few times IMTU the maneuver drive reduces the inertial mass of a ship in order for the plasma/fusion drive bit to work as a deep space drive. Again IMTU I rule that in an atmosphere the ship uses the power plant to super heat the air to provide thrust while relying on the grav modules/inertial reduction system to provide 'boyancy' while within the atmosphere.

Once outside the atmosphere the plasma engine/fusion torch can kick in.
 
mike wightman said:
IMTU I rule that in an atmosphere the ship uses the power plant to super heat the air to provide thrust while relying on the grav modules/inertial reduction system to provide 'boyancy' while within the atmosphere... Once outside the atmosphere the plasma engine/fusion torch can kick in.
Click to expand...

Neat!
 
HG_B said:
Okay, I didn't think it came from the original rules.

From HG - "Fuel: A ship requires fuel for its jump drives and for its power plant; the power plant converts fuel to energy for computers, jump drives, maneuver drives, weapons, and screens. Fuel tankage must be sufficient to contain a full load for the power plant and the jump drive."

This would indicate that the M drives AREN'T reaction mass drives as the fusion PP is supplying power to them & other ship systems. I couldn't find anything about torch drives.
Click to expand...

You're looking in the wrong (1980) edition of HG. The rule cited is in the 1979 edition, a very different beastie.

Fusion Drives As Weapons: Any ship may use its maneuver drive as a weapon when at short range, provided the drive is operational, and fuel is available. When used, the ship attacks as with energy weapon. Automatically, the ship (all ships in the side) move to long range, regardless of initiative.
(GDW, 1979. High Guard. p. 40.)​

Note that there is another 1980 version of HG (JTAS 6-7-8); it is the 1980 ships section in parts.

The 79 HG is not on the CD; Marc Miller does have it in PDF, but hasn't put it out there for general sale.
 
jawillroy said:
Watch out now, old man, you're dating yourself... some of us young lions didn't discover the game until the EIGHTIES.
Click to expand...

Me amongst them. Fall... lessee...
86-87... 85-86... 84-85... 83-84... Fall 1983. Late September, to be more specific. 27 years ago, to the week... I got books for Christmas 1983. Deluxe and TTB.
 
HG_B said:
Unfortunately, I "loaned" my original LBBs to a friend shipping out on a Boomer in '80.
Click to expand...

:rofl:

Don't feel bad, when I was coming back from my first tour in Korea (1983) dear old uncle sam "lost" a box of my household goods (I had gotten married while there) in which was ALL Traveller and D&D published up to that point.

:nonono:
 
From the heights to the depths so quickly! Alas, science makes a buffoon of me, as it always has. I should have stuck with T&T. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Grav_Moped
OTU Only: Gypsy Queen Class Fast Merchant, LBB2, 199Td, J26GP7
12 13 14
Replies
268
Views
4K
Condottiere
C
Y
Orbital facilities and small starships
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
2K
aramis
aramis
RossWinn
Maneuver Drives
Replies
14
Views
862
Condottiere
C
Lautenschlaeger
Looking for TechLevel 12(ish) warships
2
Replies
26
Views
488
AnotherDilbert
A
W
T4 merchant design challenge
Replies
9
Views
970
warwizard
W
Back
Top