grrrrr...

[shadowdragon]

ep: vehicle powerplant
EP: space/star ship powerplant

vehicle design sequence fission reactor:
4.5 dTons
fuel .1 dtons per 4 weeks. Or 1.2 dtons per year
1000 ep per round
1 min round

starship design sequence fission reator:
2 tons per unit
1 ton fuel per 4 weeks per unit
1 EP
20 min round

WHAT?????
this implies that 1 EP = 20,000 ep?
Cant find it but somewhere in T20 it states 10 ep to 1 EP
does this make ANY sense?

 

[BetterThanLife]

There is no decent scale for ep to EP. I have never seen 10 ep is one EP. As I recall the laser power for weapons shows a number quite different to that.

 

[far-trader]

Nope, the numbers make no sense when comparing between the two design sequences. There is a similar relationship among the fusion plants in each sequence which implies there should be some translation but it doesn't work.

Depending on which elements are compared I get totally different answers...

Comparing equal sizes of powerplant:

Vehicle fusion plants are about 10% the cost of Ship fusion plants.

Fuel consumption is about equal IF it is about 1000 Vehicle ep to 1 Ship EP EXCEPT for TL15 where it's about 500 to 1.

Nowhere near your 20,000 to 1 though. I'm not sure the energy per turn is a valid comparison which seems to be where you're getting your numbers. Each powerplant puts out the rated energy continuously the way I understand it. Turns are just a game convention for actions. I think it would apply to the following comaparison though.

Another comparison I've used is the weapons tables. There seems to be a clear relationship between the Ship lasers and Vehicle lasers. With a straight comparison it would seem 2 Vehicle ep are equal to 1 Ship EP. If adjusting for combat time scale effects* then maybe 40 Vehicle ep are equal to 1 Ship EP.

* Except that in combat between vehicles and ships (at least in an atmosphere of a planet - pg 159) the turn is the same for both, 1 minute. The rule implies that vehicle combat only happens in an atmosphere of a planet and that anything operating outside such is a ship.

So we have my 2 to 1, 40 to 1, 500 to 1, 1000 to 1, and your 20,000 to 1 to choose from. And none of them are quite right. And we haven't looked at batteries yet.

It's not a new question either, we've tried to get answers and work it out way back (c2003), with marginal or less success. Ranks up there (and messes a bit) with the whole "vl" to "dt" debates.

Just wait until you start trying to figure out the computer design rules and make them mesh with the computers in the Starship Design Sequence...

 

[shadowdragon]

already have- rather move to nightmare subsector

i KNOW the sequences dont match up, just got caught by surprise since i rarely design fission reactors into anything. my comparison was solely what would be available to the vehicle with a 20 min round. it does say if you dont use it you lose it. and i have seen SOMEWHERE in the t20 book that you divide ep
by 10 for some reason in relation to space/star ships. cant find it or remember exactly what for

 

[far-trader]

Sorry I couldn't offer more in the way of help shadowdragon. It's pretty much gonna be a YTU fix from the looks of it.

 

[BetterThanLife]

It is definitely a mess, but at least it isn't contradicted directly within canon sources.

After all the THB says 1400vls is 1DTon. Yet several of the TA's have it at 2800vls is 1DTon. While the vehicles and some of the components appear to imply that 1000vls is 1DTon.

 

[tjoneslo]

This is the problem with using two different design sequences, they will never match.

Please feel free to yell at me about some of the mismatches since they were my suggestions/writings, if it will make you feel better.

 

[far-trader]

Nah, I won't yell at you, nor Hunter, though I do grumble a bit at ya both and the playtesters now and then

Really, there is no reason two design sequences, in the same game, using the same units, and the same technology, for essentially the same purpose, shouldn't produce the same (or bloody close to) results. None. It shouldn't be a "never" situation, ever. Either the two should use different units to make it clear that there is no compatibility (and provide some rational reason*) or they should be compatible. Period. Your own, how to put it... fudge? with vl in the vehicle TAs, while reasonable, only adds to the incompatibility and further confuses the issue. I can live with it and all is forgiven It would have just been better if it was compatible.

* Like in this case: Space craft require a certain level of something that atmospheric vehicles don't and if you want to design a space craft you can't use the atmospheric vehicle design sequence. I'm not saying that is the case, it clearly isn't as the rules are presented. I'm saying some rational is needed if the sequences don't produce matches.

 

[robject]

Hi Dan! Happy new year, btw.

Originally posted by far-trader:

Really, there is no reason two design sequences, in the same game, using the same units, and the same technology, for essentially the same purpose, shouldn't produce the same (or bloody close to) results.

To quote Bill Cameron: Bullfeathers.

It's hard to make systems mesh, regardless of their relation to each other. The force of detail times patience equals a high probability of incompatability.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by robject:
Hi Dan! Happy new year, btw.

Thanks, and a good and prosperous new year to you and yours too.

Originally posted by robject:
To quote Bill Cameron: Bullfeathers.

It's hard to make systems mesh, regardless of their relation to each other. The force of detail times patience equals a high probability of incompatability.

OK, no good reason they shouldn't mesh. We're not talking a lot of detail here (at least not a lot of needed detail, as in multiple decimal points, it's a game not a real production line) and I think the patience was supplied in adequate quantity given the time to playtesting and final editing and printing from playtest release.

I agree it's not easy to make incompatible systems mesh, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the systems show a root compatiblity that almost seems to have been deliberately messed to make them incompatible but without editing them to change the units and show a reason for the differences. In fact in places it looks like some elements were copied over from one sequence to the other, but with different applications of unit conversion. Like there was no consistant rule, yet such is defined in the rules.

I'm convinced, or nearly so, that the original goal and outline was that the two be cross compatible but somewhere along the way wires were crossed and tangled so badly that it began to resemble a Gordian knot.

 

[morty_shworts]

After reading all this I have decided to put down my book and take the MRs out to dinner.

I have come to this decision after realizing we are all thinking too hard about something as silly as a game.

But that is poo on me as well as I spend so much time trying to figure out the power consumtion dinamics of J-drives.

See the new topic I started.

 

[shadowdragon]

So one wonders what it is worth to hunter to have someone reconcile the design sequences......

ah, nevermind. hunter NEVER reads the threads anyway.

 

[shadowdragon]

hint hint?

 

[Savar]

Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
There is no decent scale for ep to EP. I have never seen 10 ep is one EP. As I recall the laser power for weapons shows a number quite different to that.

in the computer design section there is a note about if installed on a ship devide the ep/10 ?

I am sorry I do not have the page numbers on me at this time

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Savar:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
There is no decent scale for ep to EP. I have never seen 10 ep is one EP. As I recall the laser power for weapons shows a number quite different to that.

in the computer design section there is a note about if installed on a ship devide the ep/10 ?

I am sorry I do not have the page numbers on me at this time </font>[/QUOTE]While this is one option, it doesn't hold across the board for conversion. Equivalent sized Fusion Plants for example have different values.

 

[Savar]

Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Savar:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
There is no decent scale for ep to EP. I have never seen 10 ep is one EP. As I recall the laser power for weapons shows a number quite different to that.

in the computer design section there is a note about if installed on a ship devide the ep/10 ?

I am sorry I do not have the page numbers on me at this time </font>[/QUOTE]While this is one option, it doesn't hold across the board for conversion. Equivalent sized Fusion Plants for example have different values. </font>[/QUOTE]I didn't say it made sense I just said it was in the book.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Savar:
I didn't say it made sense I just said it was in the book. [/QB]

I know. I was just pointing out, that while the book says that, in that instance, it is apparently specific to that instance.

 

[shadowdragon]

i found the conversion for ep to EP (vehicles to spaceships). 450 ep equals 1 EP. its in the power to volume ratio, although it must be done 1350 vl per dTon and it works for every powerplant except fusion 16, which is off just to piss me off. thanks hunter!

Starship______dTons__EP____vl_______EP/vl________EP/dton_____EP/ep
Fission____________2____1____2700____0.00037________0.5________0.002222222
Fusion-9__________1.5___1____2025___0.000493827____0.6667______0.002222222
Fusion-13_________1____1_____1350___0.000740741______1________0.002222222
Fusion-15_________1____2_____1350___0.001481481______2________0.002222222
Fusion-16_________1____3_____1350___0.002222222______3________0.001111111
Antimatter-17_____1_____8____1350____0.005925926______8_______0.001185185

Vehicle________dTons____ep_____vl_____ep/vl______ep/dton______ep/EP
Fission__________4.444444__1000___6000__0.166666667______225________450
Fusion-8________0.33333____100____450___0.222222222_____300_________450
Fiusion-13_______0.02222_____10____30___0.333333333______450________450
Fusion-15_______0.00111______1____1.5___0.666666667______900________450
Fusion-16_______0.00037037___1____0.5_______2___________2700________900
Antim-17________0.000148148__1____0.2_______5___________6750_______843.75

 

[shadowdragon]

oh yes- computers are still right off the edge of the world. i will figure it out eventually..................

 

[far-trader]

go go shadowdragon! cool, and thanks

btw, for the tables above try cut and pasting your data into the "code" tags (the little # icon in the advanced menu) to preserve the spacing and column format. You'll have to strip out the underlines you tried to use to do it if that was their purpose. If your original lined up properly it should look the same inside "code" tags.