Is it time for Jump-7 drives in Traveller?
- Thread starter Shonner
- Start date
Since I have stayed with the OTU I can see research trying to break the J-6 limit but nothing that would do it anytime soon. Much of the Third Imperium's activity behind the curtain is based on J-6 being the best star-drive available and is the reason for much of what goes on in the shadows, it would also allow for tighter control from Capital, changing the politics of the setting.
For those you using their own settings, well the sky's the limit. But for those using the Third Imperium, I would have to suggest sticking with the current limit.
For those you using their own settings, well the sky's the limit. But for those using the Third Imperium, I would have to suggest sticking with the current limit.
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
I'm in complete agreement.
Canonically no one has broken the J6 limit yet and no one is going to break it for a long time because there's a hard limit of 6 to jump drives. Jump-7 is not a TL16 technology.
That last part has never made sense to me. Since the Imperium is only TL15, jump-7 would not have been invented yet anyway. Unless the Old Darrians invented it, but a) there's no evidence that they did, and b) a J7 prototype would be a really nifty gimmick for PCs to get hold of.
I don't think there would be a huge difference between J6 and J7 as the top performance.
It always is.
Intorducing a newly-invented J7 drive wouldn't change the setting overnight. It would take years and decades before it had any real impact.
Hans
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I wish T5 hadn't decimalised jump, I would have gone with powers of six for higher performance drives (hop, skip, leap vault), and gone with the MT reduced fuel for jumps at higher TLs (17+).
That's how I'm doing it IMTU
That's how I'm doing it IMTU
I like the CT High Guard progression and see no reason not to continue it upward. I like the diminishing returns as ever more ship is consumed by the JD and fuel.
I would simply continue the progression both 'per TL' and as a percent of the ship. At some point, drop tanks become the only way of fitting 120 dTons of fuel and drives in a 100 dTon hull ... making those really long ranged ships a very specialized item (like a race car).
I would simply continue the progression both 'per TL' and as a percent of the ship. At some point, drop tanks become the only way of fitting 120 dTons of fuel and drives in a 100 dTon hull ... making those really long ranged ships a very specialized item (like a race car).
My Thoughts
A) Jump 1= jump 1 Parsec in 1 week, J2 = 1 Parsec in 4 days, J3 = 1 Parsec in 3 days, J4 = 2 days, J5 = 1 day, J6 = 12 hours.
B) J1 = 1 parsec in 5.9 days, J2 = 1 parsec in 3 days, J3 = 1 parsec in 2 days, J4 = 1 parsec in 1.5 days, J5 = 1 parsec in 1.2 days, J6 = 1 parsec in 1 day
C) J1 = 5 Parsecs Per week, J2 = 10 Parsecs Per week, J3 = 15P, J4 = 20P, J5 = 25P, J6 = 30P
Or slow them down...
D) J1 = 1 Parsec in 1 week, J2 = 2 Parsecs in 2 weeks, J3 = 3 Parsecs in 3 weeks, ETC.
Hop Drives (Hop 1 = 10 Parsecs in 1 week, H2 = 20 Parsecs)
Skip Drives (Skip 1 = 100 Parsecs in 1 week, S2 = 200 Parsecs)
Leap Drives (Leap 1 = 1,000 Parsecs in 1 week)
Gate Technology Gate 1 =?
Jump 7 then seems reasonable after looking at the rest of the alternative options.
I see several options for redefining "Jump Drive" without breaking traveler too badly (and other options that completely change the nature of the game).I wish T5 hadn't decimalised jump, I would have gone with powers of six for higher performance drives (hop, skip, leap vault), and gone with the MT reduced fuel for jumps at higher TLs (17+).
That's how I'm doing it IMTU
A) Jump 1= jump 1 Parsec in 1 week, J2 = 1 Parsec in 4 days, J3 = 1 Parsec in 3 days, J4 = 2 days, J5 = 1 day, J6 = 12 hours.
B) J1 = 1 parsec in 5.9 days, J2 = 1 parsec in 3 days, J3 = 1 parsec in 2 days, J4 = 1 parsec in 1.5 days, J5 = 1 parsec in 1.2 days, J6 = 1 parsec in 1 day
C) J1 = 5 Parsecs Per week, J2 = 10 Parsecs Per week, J3 = 15P, J4 = 20P, J5 = 25P, J6 = 30P
Or slow them down...
D) J1 = 1 Parsec in 1 week, J2 = 2 Parsecs in 2 weeks, J3 = 3 Parsecs in 3 weeks, ETC.
Hop Drives (Hop 1 = 10 Parsecs in 1 week, H2 = 20 Parsecs)
Skip Drives (Skip 1 = 100 Parsecs in 1 week, S2 = 200 Parsecs)
Leap Drives (Leap 1 = 1,000 Parsecs in 1 week)
Gate Technology Gate 1 =?
Jump 7 then seems reasonable after looking at the rest of the alternative options.
Given that progression, and the extrapolations in MT for AM, (TL17 AM plants are 1/4 the size of TL15 fusion, and require 0.0125Td/year/EP; call it 0.001Td/month per EP, so 0.00001*H*R
TL16 J7 70% JFuel, 2% Bridge, 8% JD, 7% PP 1%MD, and roughly 2% crew quarters, that's 10% payload.
TL17 J8 80% JFuel 2% bridge, 9% JD, 2%PP, 1% MD, and roughly 1.5% crew.
You're not going to get J9 off that progression.
... without drop tanks.You're not going to get J9 off that progression.
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
Personally, rather than seeing a Jump-7 drive, which I am not sure would have that great an effect, I would like to see more efficient Jump drives, using half the amount of fuel, allowing a J-1 Free Trader to make two jumps to get to a planet 2 Parsecs away.
Why not have both?
Patron Zero
SOC-13
Ships capable of J-7 would be another good tool for increasing commerce and trade as well as presenting new enterprises of long-distance couriers and transports utilizing such.
As in the modern world, it's only a matter of time before high-end technology generally restricted to the military and the financially elite ends up on the common market.
And absolutely no reason why said technology can't be that which gives J-drive with longer ranges as well as more efficient-less fuel-consumptive capacities.
As in the modern world, it's only a matter of time before high-end technology generally restricted to the military and the financially elite ends up on the common market.
And absolutely no reason why said technology can't be that which gives J-drive with longer ranges as well as more efficient-less fuel-consumptive capacities.
I agree. Have both. But I also like the idea that there is a certain "deeper-understanding" of Jump Theory necessary for Jumps beyond the J-6 level that does not become realized until TL-17. After that, perhaps allow much more rapid progression in higher-level Jump #'s per TL (up thru J-36 at ultra-tech levels). Make J1 thru J6 a "Tier-1" Jump Drive paradigm.
For example:
| Phase-1/Tier-1: | |
| TL9 | J0/J1 |
| TL10 | J1 |
| TL11 | J2 |
| TL12 | J3 |
| TL13 | J4 |
| TL14 | J5 |
| TL15 | J6 |
| Phase-2/Tier-2: | |
| TL17 | J7 |
| TL18 | J8-J9 |
| TL19 | J10-J12 |
| TL20 | J13-J15 |
| TL21 | J16-J18 |
| Phase-3/Tier-3: | |
| TL23 | J19-J24 |
| TL24 | J25-J30 |
| TL25 | J31-J36 |
Obviously the higher Jump #'s will require the greater fuel-efficiencies to utilize them, or require a different power source altogether, such as antimatter.
Last edited:
mY tHOUGHTS
Or Latinum plated carbon nanotube converters
Or Hydrogen Cracking
Or Geodesic Solar molecule harvesting
OR Dylithium Crystals
Or Latinum plated carbon nanotube converters
Or Hydrogen Cracking
Or Geodesic Solar molecule harvesting
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
While MT changed the fuel required by a jump drive paradigm, it also introduced a reduced fuel use at higher TLs that can be adapted to standard Traveller fuel use.
TL17 8% per jump number
TL18 6% per jump number
TL19 4% per jump number
TL20 2% per jump number
TL21 1% per jump number
TL17 8% per jump number
TL18 6% per jump number
TL19 4% per jump number
TL20 2% per jump number
TL21 1% per jump number
That's not exact...
MT formula for jump fuel is:
- TL 16-: (jn+1)x5%
- TL 17: (jn+1)x4%
- TL 18: (jn+1)x3%
- TL 19: (jn+1)x2%
- TL 21: (jn+1)%
- TL 18: (jn+1)/2%
The jn+1 is the percentage occupied by the jump drive, and the fule needed is according to the multipliers.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Notice the word adapted?
Please - before you criticise - go and read what MT says and then try to understand how I converted it.
I don't claim its exact, I claim it is the same progression for CT fuel use rates.
MT changed the jump fuel used, TL9-16 is x5 as you say, but in CT it is x10%
At TL17 MT has it as x4. 4/5=.8 or 8%
x3 - 3/5 = .6 or 6%
x2 - 2/5 = .4 or 4%
etc.
Please - before you criticise - go and read what MT says and then try to understand how I converted it.
I don't claim its exact, I claim it is the same progression for CT fuel use rates.
MT changed the jump fuel used, TL9-16 is x5 as you say, but in CT it is x10%
At TL17 MT has it as x4. 4/5=.8 or 8%
x3 - 3/5 = .6 or 6%
x2 - 2/5 = .4 or 4%
etc.
Last edited:
I just checked it before posting.
In MT, the jump fuel is dependent on the jump drive size, and, while no formula is given for its size, if you check the table in page 64 of the RM, you'll see the forumula is (Jn+1)% of the ship's volume devoted to JD (as each jump unit is in fact a dton).
So, this (Jn+1)% (the JD volume) is the basis for the multipliers (that you seem to remember correctly), giving you the table I posted.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
It's the overall fuel used progression that I adapted, MTs reduced jump fuel rule was one thing that should never thane got through play testing IMHO. Note that it is not used in any other version of Traveller.
I know why DGP had to do it - maintain compatibility with Striker vehicle design rather than CT/HG ship design - but I think they made the wrong call.
I know why DGP had to do it - maintain compatibility with Striker vehicle design rather than CT/HG ship design - but I think they made the wrong call.
