OTU Only: Gypsy Queen Class Fast Merchant, LBB2, 199Td, J26GP7

[Grav_Moped]

at TL-14 (max V drive), the biggest ship with a rating of 6 is 600Td (but a Size T will give you a rating of 6, U gives you that and double fire). V should provide 30-34EP depending on the hull (30 in 3000Td, 36 in 600Td, 40 in 800, 1000. 2000, and 5000Td) if you're tracking it. M-6 in 600Td is 36EP, so you could get up to 4 spare EP for lasers and computer (triple turret and a mod-3?) without needing to go to TL-15 drives to get Agility 6.

I'm seeing a possible design here...
Edit: TL-14, 600Td, Jump-J, Man-T, PP-V. 3xBeam, 12xMissile, 3xSand, Mod/3, Agility 6.
Needs 60Td power fuel (vs. 40Td if HG). 61Td power plant V instead of 80Td power plant at TL-14. So, 1 Td larger when counting fuel but MCr160 vs MCR 120 if HG. Drop to a PP-T (skip agility) and save 6Td/MCr16.
I'll run the rest of the numbers later.

 

[Grav_Moped]

For Z-drives (TL-15) it's a nobrainer:

always has been.gif

 

[AnotherDilbert]

in the >1000Td range, it's a bonus.

The core is this for LBB2:

They are great in larger ships with high letter (=high tech) power plants, not so great in smaller ships with low letter (=low tech) plants.

LBB5 cuts out the size of ship, and simplifies to high tech is better.

at TL-14 (max V drive), the biggest ship with a rating of 6 is 600Td (but a Size T will give you a rating of 6, U gives you that and double fire). V should provide 30-34EP depending on the hull (30 in 3000Td, 36 in 600Td, 40 in 800, 1000. 2000, and 5000Td) if you're tracking it. M-6 in 600Td is 36EP, so you could get up to 4 spare EP for lasers and computer (triple turret and a mod-3?) without needing to go to TL-15 drives to get Agility 6.

EP is PPn×Hull/100.
An oversized LBB2 drive gives nothing extra.

 

[Grav_Moped]

The core is this for LBB2:

LBB5 cuts out the size of ship, and simplifies to high tech is better.


EP is PPn×Hull/100.
An oversized LBB2 drive gives nothing extra.

Again, the problem is that the same LBB2 drive has different outputs in different hulls*, and has different performance in LBB5 than in LBB2. In LBB2, that ship could have 6 triple laser turrets and a Mod/7 computer, and it wouldn't handle any differently than if it had a mod/2 and just missiles and sand. In HG (as you read it) it could never have Agilty-6 if it had any lasers or a computer above mod/2.

ETA footnote
---------------
*notably, it has lower EP output in a 3000Td hull (30EP: Pn-1*3000/100) than it does in a 2000Td hull (40EP: Pn-2*2000/100)

 

[Grav_Moped]

Again, the problem is that the same LBB2 drive has different outputs in different hulls

This is due both to rounding-off and to non-linear table tweaks.

 

[Spinward Flow]

On the other hand, the rating cap means that you can't ever have Agility-6 if you're using LBB2 drives unless your computer is smaller than Mod/3 and you have no energy weapons.

Incorrect.
However, it's obvious why you would think so.

What you actually need in a LBB2 drive starship to achieve Agility=6 AND power a (decent) computer AND power EP consuming weapons is ... excess power plant above the minimum necessary.

A 600 ton hull with Maneuver-T (code: 6) and Power Plant-V (also code: 6) can be done.
Power Plant-V would be generating EP=40
After "paying for" Agility=6 (36 EP) out of the EP budget, you would have 4 EP remaining to split between computer and weapons (on a 600 ton hull).

For the record, a 4 EP surplus is enough to "pay for" a model/5 computer (3 EP) and a single laser (1 EP) ... everything else can be sandcasters and missiles.



Efficient? No ... not really.
Impossible? Clearly not ... but ...

 

[Grav_Moped]

Incorrect.
However, it's obvious why you would think so.

What you actually need in a LBB2 drive starship to achieve Agility=6 AND power a (decent) computer AND power EP consuming weapons is ... excess power plant above the minimum necessary.

A 600 ton hull with Maneuver-T (code: 6) and Power Plant-V (also code: 6) can be done.
Power Plant-V would be generating EP=40
After "paying for" Agility=6 (36 EP) out of the EP budget, you would have 4 EP remaining to split between computer and weapons (on a 600 ton hull).

For the record, a 4 EP surplus is enough to "pay for" a model/5 computer (3 EP) and a single laser (1 EP) ... everything else can be sandcasters and missiles.



Efficient? No ... not really.
Impossible? Clearly not ... but ...

The problem is that the math does not say PP-V generates 40EP.

It should, but it doesn't always.

The math says that in a 600Td hull, it generates 36EP. It only generates 40EP in 800, 1000, 2000, and 5000Td hulls, but not 600 or 3000Td ones.

What I was getting at was that because it should be generating 40EP (because in most hulls it can be used in, it does)*, the 36EP needed for Agility-6 in a 600Td hull would have it with a surplus of 4EP for weapons and computer. But, as was pointed out, EP is based on tonnage and Pn, not tons of drives [ETA: or drive letter]. Based on that, no LBB2 ship that has any EP-using components can have Agility-6 regardless of how large a power plant it has.

Of course, I disagree.


ETA: footnote
----------------------------
*and because 2x the ordinal value (a=1, b=2, etc. skipping I and O) of the drive letter is 40, yeilding the expected rating point (EP in this case) value.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Based on that, no LBB2 ship that has any EP-using components can have Agility-6 regardless of how large a power plant it has.

Of course, I disagree.

Which is to say, going up one letter (for double-fire) might well "check the box" to get full agility in HG for LBB2 ships. Or, we could do the math and figure out how many EPs the power plant should be putting out (without rounding down or up) and use that figure relative to how much the maneuver drive uses.

 

[atpollard]

Except it produces a dash <-> which is "will not produce results"

If it produces no results it does not power anything, as they would be results, which it has none of.

LBB2 77
"2. Only drive and power plants shown on the maximum drive potential table are
available. Relationships between hulls and drives marked with a dash (-) cannot be
used."
Clarrified or reinforced by LBB2 81
"2. Only the drives and power plants shown on the drive potential table are
possible. Drives marked with a dash (-) may not be used with that hull size."

As long as we are being pedantic (essential in a discussion like this ) … is a POWER PLANT really a “DRIVE”?

A “Maneuver DRIVE” is clearly a DRIVE and a “Jump DRIVE” is clearly a DRIVE … but a “Power PLANT” is a PLANT rather than a DRIVE and “RAW” says “Drives marked with a dash …”.

 

[Spinward Flow]

The math says that in a 600Td hull, it generates 36EP.

Drive-T = code: 1 @ 3600 tons / 600 = code: 6
Drive-U = code: 1 @ 3800 tons / 600 = code: 6.333 ≈ code: 6
Drive-V = code: 1 @ 4000 tons / 600 = code: 6.666 ≈ code: 6

No need to take my word for it.

In other words ... DON'T DO THIS:

 

[Grav_Moped]

Drive-T = code: 1 @ 3600 tons / 600 = code: 6
Drive-U = code: 1 @ 3800 tons / 600 = code: 6.333 ≈ code: 6
Drive-V = code: 1 @ 4000 tons / 600 = code: 6.666 ≈ code: 6

No need to take my word for it.

In other words ... DON'T DO THIS:

Do what? Math, RAW from the performance table, says inconsistent things -- and that's fine for what it is. Math, based on rules interpreted for consistency, says something different that we agree is more useful.

And yes, the RAW are inconsistent here (juat due to rounding issues and the "table" format, not the blatant bonuses for the TL-15 drives).

 

[Spinward Flow]

Do what? Math, RAW from the performance table, says inconsistent things -- and that's fine for what it is. Math, based on rules interpreted for consistency, says something different that we agree is more useful.

You're looking through the wrong end of the telescope.
I can't make it any clearer than that.

 

[Grav_Moped]

You're looking through the wrong end of the telescope.
I can't make it any clearer than that.

I'm looking at the rules-as-written end: what's there in black and white on the table. It's inconsistent, but it's there. I think you're looking at the rules-as-(probably)-intended end, which is present but only by implication. If a power plant is Rating=1 in X tons, it produces 1xTons/100 EP and always does -- as you see it (and, again, I mostly agree!) However, if the performance table says it produces a different value (due to rounding effects) in a different hull, that's what it produces in that hull according to the rules as written. So, per RAW, drives T, U, and V in a 600Td hull produce exactly the same quantity of EPs despite being different sizes.

This is a problem. It can easily be resolved by house-ruling (as you do, and I agree is a better answer than the rules as written) that the formulae underpinning the table take precedence over the table itself, except for the known TL-15 deviations -- which get resolved by multi-point interpolation.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Again, the problem is that the same LBB2 drive has different outputs in different hulls*, and has different performance in LBB5 than in LBB2. In LBB2, that ship could have 6 triple laser turrets and a Mod/7 computer, and it wouldn't handle any differently than if it had a mod/2 and just missiles and sand. In HG (as you read it) it could never have Agilty-6 if it had any lasers or a computer above mod/2.

Yes, it's silly, but RAW.

What is the performance of a Z-drive in a 6000 Dt hull?
What is the performance of a C-drive in a 150 Dt hull?

The tyranny of the Drive Potential Table leads to silly corner cases...


T5 solves this with an EP formula that has a (totally different) Drive Potential Table as a subset of possibilities. Each drive has a fixed specified EP rating, but a different scale of EP (of course).




Which leads to:


You can easily calculate the drive potential for any combination of drive and hull size.
The formula and hence table is completely linear and can be extended.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Which is to say, going up one letter (for double-fire) might well "check the box" to get full agility in HG for LBB2 ships. Or, we could do the math and figure out how many EPs the power plant should be putting out (without rounding down or up) and use that figure relative to how much the maneuver drive uses.

If you don't want the Drive Potential Table, remove it entirely and the lettered drives with it.
What's left is LBB5 with different drive size formulae.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Drive-T = code: 1 @ 3600 tons / 600 = code: 6
Drive-U = code: 1 @ 3800 tons / 600 = code: 6.333 ≈ code: 6
Drive-V = code: 1 @ 4000 tons / 600 = code: 6.666 ≈ code: 6

No need to take my word for it.

Your home-brew formula is not consistent with the Drive Potential Table.
What's the potential of a J-drive in a 2000 Dt hull?
What's the potential of a J-drive in a 400 Dt hull?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The advantage with LBB5 is that you get the high tech advantage at any ship size, e.g.:

Scoutish at TL-11:

SC-11222R1-000000-00000-0       MCr 40,5         100 Dton
bearing                                            Crew=1
batteries                                           TL=11
                          Cargo=31 Fuel=22 EP=2 Agility=2

Spoiler:

Single Occupancy                                   31        50,7
                                     USP    #     Dton       Cost
Hull, Streamlined   Custom             1          100           
Configuration       Needle/Wedge       1                     12 
Scoops              Streamlined                               0,1
                                                                
Jump Drive                             2    1       3        12 
Manoeuvre D                            2    1       5         3,5
Power Plant                            2    1       6        18 
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-2, 4 weeks            2       2           
Purifier                                    1       7         0,0
                                                                
Bridge                                      1      20         0,5
Computer            m/1bis             R    1       1         4 
                                                                
Staterooms                                  1       4         0,5
                                                                
Cargo                                              31           
Demountable Tanks   J-2                     1      20         0,0
                                                                
Empty hardpoint                             1       1           
                                                                
Nominal Cost        MCr 50,65            Sum:      31        50,7
Class Cost          MCr 10,64           Valid      ≥0          ≥0
Ship Cost           MCr 40,52

The same Scoutish at TL-15:

SC-11222R1-000000-00000-0       MCr 30,9         100 Dton
bearing                                            Crew=1
batteries                                           TL=15
                          Cargo=39 Fuel=22 EP=2 Agility=2

Spoiler:

Single Occupancy                                   39        38,7
                                     USP    #     Dton       Cost
Hull, Streamlined   Custom             1          100           
Configuration       Needle/Wedge       1                     12 
Scoops              Streamlined                               0,1
                                                                
Jump Drive                             2    1       3        12 
Manoeuvre D                            2    1       5         3,5
Power Plant                            2    1       2         6 
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-2, 4 weeks            2       2           
Purifier                                    1       3         0,0
                                                                
Bridge                                      1      20         0,5
Computer            m/1bis             R    1       1         4 
                                                                
Staterooms                                  1       4         0,5
                                                                
Cargo                                              39           
Demountable Tanks   J-2                     1      20         0,0
                                                                
Empty hardpoint                             1       1           
                                                                
Nominal Cost        MCr 38,65            Sum:      39        38,7
Class Cost          MCr  8,12           Valid      ≥0          ≥0
Ship Cost           MCr 30,92

Much cheaper and more payload.

It's only the PP (and purifier) that differs, but it makes a large difference for the complete ship.


LBB2 cannot replicate this effect. If you want the high-tech advantage, you have to build larger ships that are only possible with high-tech components.

 

[mike wightman]

As long as we are being pedantic (essential in a discussion like this ) … is a POWER PLANT really a “DRIVE”?

A “Maneuver DRIVE” is clearly a DRIVE and a “Jump DRIVE” is clearly a DRIVE … but a “Power PLANT” is a PLANT rather than a DRIVE and “RAW” says “Drives marked with a dash …”.

I thought even the use of the word pedant was now an infraction? I assume since you use it I can?

I agree. Since 77 drives has been the catch all term of jump, maneuver, and power plant machinery, except when it isn't

"including drives and power plants,"

"DRIVES AND POWER PLANTS"

"Jump Drive, Maneuver Drive, or Power Plant Type"

"The drives and power plants table lists the 24 different types"

"that some drive and power plant types"

"also possible to fit a set of drives and power plant"

"When drive or power plant letter is correlated with hull size,"

 

[mike wightman]

Unfortunately for us the catch all term drives is also used:

"A drive of a certain size will be less efficient as the size of the hull increases." - note they drop the "and power plant", and yet the very next sentence shows they mean power plants as well.

It is "Maximum Drive Potential" with the sub heading "Jump Drive, Maneuver Drive, or Power Plant Type" again showing that power plants are included in the catch all term. You could ask for errata to clarify it to "Maximum drive and power plant potential table" but is it really necessary when the intent has been shown?

 

[atpollard]

I thought even the use of the word pedant was now an infraction? I assume since you use it I can?

I don't know ... I only have the same list of rules that you do to go by. REPORT my post and we can let an ADMIN decide ... then we will both know.
Clearly, no malice was intended (I hope the humor came across ... I WAS being VERY pedantic to argue the PP does not contain the word "Drive").

For what it is worth, I agree that it is clear that their INTENT was that DRIVE for DRIVE TABLE meant MD, JD and PP. I was just pointing out the sort of technicality that a PP is not a "Drive" by the common definition of that term which is akin to the technicality that a 77 ship could have a JD without a PP (even if that didn't make sense).

If one WANTED a larger PP, the rules DO SAY "Drive" ... so that is an interpretation of the RAW that is not contradicted by the actual TEXT.

As I stated earlier, the "more fuel for same PP in a smaller Hull" (a core feature of LBB2 design) pushed me towards High Guard as an infinitely better ship design mechanic. The only real "fix" that HG needed was PP cost is per EP rather than per dTon. Now all ships are not forced to be HIGH TL for economic reasons ... they can compete with LBB2 ships. [and you get Small Craft Design with HG as a bonus].