Is it time for Jump-7 drives in Traveller?

[McPerth]

Notice the word adapted?

In fact, no, I didn't notice it, nor in your first post nor in the second one, until I reread my own seccond post and your post quoted on it.

I understood you just quoted the MT formula and missremembered it.

As an adaptation to the usual (non MT) jump fuel formula, that uses as a base the ship's volume (instead of the JD volumen), I must agree the adaptation is quite correct.

I guess your insinuation that I have not checked it made me jump in my defense, not giving the due attention to your first sentence in your post (the one quoted in this one).

 

[aramis]

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

MT used a multiplier of drive volume to find fuel volume. While this didn't change J1 shipping, it made higher J numbers FAR less expensive to operate due to much lower fuel volumes (and non-Warships didn't have to have massive power plants for the Jump Drive - the JD was self-powering).

TL	Vol	J1	J2	J3	J4	J5	J6	J7
9-16	JDriveVol x5	10%	15%	20%	25%	30%	35%	40%
17	JDriveVol x4	8%	12%	16%	20%	24%	28%	32%
18	JDriveVol x3	6%	9%	12%	15%	18%	21%	24%
19	JDriveVol x2	4%	6%	8%	10%	12%	14%	16%
20	JDriveVol x1	2%	3%	4%	5%	6%	7%	8%
21	JDriveVol x0.5	1%	1.5%	2%	2.5%	3%	3.5%	4%

 

[Vladika]

MT used a multiplier of drive volume to find fuel volume. While this didn't change J1 shipping, it made higher J numbers FAR less expensive to operate due to much lower fuel volumes (and non-Warships didn't have to have massive power plants for the Jump Drive - the JD was self-powering).

TL	Vol	J1	J2	J3	J4	J5	J6	J7
9-15	JDriveVol x5	10%	15%	20%	25%	30%	35%	40%
17	JDriveVol x4	8%	12%	16%	20%	24%	28%	32%
18	JDriveVol x3	6%	9%	12%	15%	18%	21%	24%
19	JDriveVol x2	4%	6%	8%	10%	12%	14%	16%
20	JDriveVol x1	2%	3%	4%	5%	6%	7%	8%
21	JDriveVol x0.5	1%	1.5%	2%	2.5%	3%	3.5%	4%

TL16 ? Not in your table.

 

[aramis]

TL16 ? Not in your table.

fixed. Fumble fingered.

 

[Patron Zero]

.....(and non-Warships didn't have to have massive power plants for the Jump Drive - the JD was self-powering). .....

Oh now that is something I did not know, hmmmm.

 

[Vladika]

(and non-Warships didn't have to have massive power plants for the Jump Drive - the JD was self-powering).

I'll have to look deeper into MT. (Great way to "fix" the xboat.)

 

[McPerth]

I'll have to look deeper into MT. (Great way to "fix" the xboat.)

Yes, in MT, the Xboan, needing only 25% of its volume (instead of the 40% in other versions) for fuel to achieve J4, it's a perfectly valid design (IIRC it can even have some MD). As Mike says, though, this was not maintained in latter versoins, so I guess it should be considered a flawled change.

My guess is that the game designers assumed most sships (at least those owned by players) whould be low jump, so the difference will not be major (as this difference raises as the jump capacity does).

 

[rancke]

Yes, in MT, the Xboan, needing only 25% of its volume (instead of the 40% in other versions) for fuel to achieve J4, it's a perfectly valid design (IIRC it can even have some MD).

I have to disagree. One of the core features of an X-boat, the lack of any kind of maneuvering capability, is valid only if there was no other way to design a 100T jump-4 ship. Any design that would allow a modicum of maneuver drive and nevertheless leaves it out is, IMO, completely unbelievable.


Hans

 

[McPerth]

I have to disagree. One of the core features of an X-boat, the lack of any kind of maneuvering capability, is valid only if there was no other way to design a 100T jump-4 ship. Any design that would allow a modicum of maneuver drive and nevertheless leaves it out is, IMO, completely unbelievable.


Hans

Agreed, I think I did not explain myself well.:

I meant that, unlike in HG2, where the need of PP equal to the JD made the xboat a fawlty (and in now I mean impossible to build according the rules) design, In MT it was a perfect valid (from the rules POV) design, as it did not need so large a PP nor so much fuel.

Also due to those changes, it could even have a MD (at least for M1 capability, IIRC) and (again IIRC) even some small cargoes.

So, unde MT rules, it was a valid design from the "being posible to build under MT rules" POV. Of course, those same changes mean thet not equiping it with this maneuver capability is a major flawl, from the design POV, as you say.

 

[atpollard]

TL16 ? Not in your table.

That's because TL 16 is a myth started by the Darrians to scare small children and Vargr.

 

[Vladika]

fixed. Fumble fingered.

Thanks for adding it in. When I first wrote I was in a major hurry and looking back it seems I was a bit terse. Not intentionally so please accept my apologies should there have been any offense.

Was hoping TL16 would have fallen in with TL17 but, such is life.

 

[McPerth]

Was hoping TL16 would have fallen in with TL17 but, such is life.

As this was MT and on it there were several TL 16 systems (not only the Darrians), this would have had a big efect on the game, and I guess GDP did not want that.

MT is (AFAIK, maybe T5 also) the only rules that allow you bulding ships up to TL 21. As three are no planets able to, I guess it's moslty to standarize any ancient ship you might want to introduce in your campaign (and to allow you a campaign a la Blake's 7). Unfortunately, should you want to use them, many of them were quite unclear or offered no clear advantages (e.g. see this post and the following ones).

 

[Patron Zero]

..... Any design that would allow a modicum of maneuver drive and nevertheless leaves it out is, IMO, completely unbelievable. Hans

Unless someone in the maze of design-procurement was a majority shareholder in the shipyards that produced X-boat Tenders and had vested interests in the development of X-boat 'taxis'.

Politics makes strange, but quite frequently, profitable bedfellows.

 

[rancke]

Unless someone in the maze of design-procurement was a majority shareholder in the shipyards that produced X-boat Tenders and had vested interests in the development of X-boat 'taxis'.

No, not even then, because that begs the question of how any shipyards got to produce X-boat tenders (of the kind that had to go fetch X-boats) in the first place.


Hans

 

[Vladika]

What's the point of just going up by 1?

The next generation of jump drives should be capable of 'controlled misjump' performance, 1-36 parsecs range.

I agree totally. By TL16 you should be able to control what can, and does, happen anyway.

I voted against J7 as there wasn't choice for 'controlled misjump'. J7 just isn't worth the bother.

 

[robject]

MT is (AFAIK, maybe T5 also) the only rules that allow you bulding ships up to TL 21. As three are no planets able to, I guess it's moslty to standarize any ancient ship you might want to introduce in your campaign (and to allow you a campaign a la Blake's 7). Unfortunately, should you want to use them, many of them were quite unclear or offered no clear advantages (e.g. see this post and the following ones).

Traveller5's core rulebook provides a consistent way to design, operate, and fight ships in the low TL 20s. It also provides a way to generate worlds at up to TL20, so it is possible to roll up a setting where these ships exist.

The reason you can't use this process to design worlds (and ships) above TL21 (or so) is that things change somewhere around there. You can have a ship designed with superior conventional equipment (for example, it's easy and clear to understand how a TL33 Particle Accelerator is better than a TL15 PA), but the very nature of warfare starts changing after TL21.

 

[Timerover51]

Traveller5's core rulebook provides a consistent way to design, operate, and fight ships in the low TL 20s. It also provides a way to generate worlds at up to TL20, so it is possible to roll up a setting where these ships exist.

The reason you can't use this process to design worlds (and ships) above TL21 (or so) is that things change somewhere around there. You can have a ship designed with superior conventional equipment (for example, it's easy and clear to understand how a TL33 Particle Accelerator is better than a TL15 PA), but the very nature of warfare starts changing after TL21.

The nature of warfare changes much, much earlier than that, but that is flogging a dead horse.

 

[atpollard]

The nature of warfare changes much, much earlier than that, but that is flogging a dead horse.

So warfare is no longer about killing people and breaking things?

 

[aramis]

So warfare is no longer about killing people and breaking things?

At TL 1-3, warfare is generally "up close and personal"
At TL 4-6, Warfare is generally "Line up and shoot"
At TL 7-9, warfare is generally, "Him with the best toys (that they can use) wins"

TL 10-12 should be "He who shoots first shoots; the other guy dies."

 

[Carlobrand]

At TL 1: "Up close and personal"
At TL 2: "Up close and - damned Welshmen!"
At TL 3-4: "Line up and shoot, then get up close and personal"
At TL 5: "Line up and - Hey! OW!"
At TL 6: "Get your damn head down, rookie!"