Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Be the discoverer of the Grand Unified Theory of Spacecraft Design.
LBB2 M-Drives in LBB5: When does it help?
- Thread starter Grav_Moped
- Start date
Where does it say one can mix and match construction rules?
The quoted LBB5 rule, IMO, should not be read to allow mix-and-match components, only complete drive sets. It's mostly so you can build LBB2 ships with LBB5 features, but with the fuel use bit added to avoid obsoleting a few years of published designs based on LBB2. ("Wait, the Type S has had 18Td extra cargo space all this time that nobody knew about?"*)
But, as @kilemall observes, it's just hashing out old stuff that doesn't matter if you're not specifically using those rules.
------------
* The logical conclusion from LBB5'80 is that nothing actually makes the power plant burn fuel. Not weapons fire, not maneuver drive use... it's 1% per Pn for 4 weeks "just because". And then you backport it to LBB2 because that's the new paradigm, and LBB2 ships get either a little or a lot of extra payload.
Last edited:
T5 says you're right, since that's basically its mechanic for constructing large ships.
LBB2 suggests it's not possible, assuming the TL constraint on drive sizes is meant to be a hard limit.
The non-linearity (massive bonus power!) of the Size W-Z (TL-15) drives in LBB2 would need to be worked out somehow if this was upscaled. T5 addresses it with their TL Stage Effect rules. I can see merging the LBB2 (bigger=better, TL enables bigger) paradigm with the T5 paradigm (TL makes everything better) so that you can build large ships by either stacking many inefficient low-TL drives or using monolithic efficient high-TL drives.
I tend to reset the Standard drives in a linear fashion, i.e. Type Z is set at 4800 tons of performance (48ep). Couple that with ganged drives, for Jump and Maneuver matched letter codes and must have at least performance of One in the hull they are installed in. I also figure out the amount of power it takes to drive the aforementioned drives in EP rather than Drive number. (Note one needs to remember that a drive needs to be reduced to below A for it to be considered destroyed).
Associated Note I add 2 tons to Maneuver drives to give them both a bit of overhead and to smooth out the progression.
I also am pretty much a small ship universe sorta guy as such it's a either/or situation with me rather than a both.
That's a lot like T5 if memory serves, except for the maneuver drive mod.
Small-ship appeals to me personally, but it requires the fictional physics to drive it in that direction*. On a RPG level, IMTU there are small ships for the players and those they interact with on a peer level; the big ones are backdrop pieces, settings for scenes/situations, foes to avoid or flee, or cavalry coming to the rescue. That means that as long as the big ships don't have capabilities that break suspension of disbelief they don't need to be exactly rules-consistent with PC-scope ships. The PCs aren't going to be fighting them (for long, anyhow...) so those details aren't going to really affect situational outcomes.
Now, if you've got a campaign set aboard a Kinunir, or to an extreme on an Lightning-class cruiser, with the PCs playing bridge crew and marines, it may be worth trying to align the "engineering" details of the ship with whatever construction system you're using.
------------------
* If big ships can be built, and there are scale efficiencies in doing so, they will be built. Economies built on trade between dozens, hundreds, and/or thousands of worlds have a lot of money to put into building big ships... LBB2 mostly kept a lid on that within its rules. LBB5 took the lid off.
Last edited:
The other issue is bringing in rough-peer ships from other rules systems, and that depends a lot on which rules system you're using for combat.
The Gazelle-class is, IMO, the LBB5 version of the LBB2 Type T Patrol Cruiser, more or less. In a 1-on-1 fight, they should be roughly evenly matched. Under LBB5, the Gazelle wins in a curb-stomp. Under LBB2, it's not so clear because armor isn't a thing, particle accelerators are maybe just overpowered lasers, a computer larger than Mod/3 doesn't provide much advantage, and Agility doesn't matter.
The answer is to build each ship (or as close as you can get to it) in the other's construction system. The Type T in LBB5 becomes a Fiery with a little armor traded away for a GCarrier and ship's troops, while the Gazelle in LBB2 becomes a 200-ton ship with 200 tons of drop tanks and a power plant enabling double-fire from its two triple laser turrets.
Many do care, for various reasons, and you've just essentially asked them to quit the discussion. Not cool.
For example, I no longer like to houserule (no matter the impressions my website may give), so I definitely care. And clearly others in the discussion do. If they didn't care, they would not have asked.
I'll take that sidetrack (attitude toward house rules) for a moment.
I like house rules, and as can be seen from my posting history, work on them myself. Most of what I'm trying to accomplish by doing so is to fill in the gaps, and make sense of differences, between editions/systems. If others find that useful, that's a bonus. If others want to challenge them so I can refine my thoughts, that's also a bonus. If nobody cares, well, at least I've gotten a few more minutes of entertainment out of some 40-year-old rulebooks.
Kinda. There really isn't one, but I think it's fun to try to find where things mesh; and where they don't, try to bang the square pegs into the round holes out of sheer cussedness.
Last edited:
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Wouldn't it be simpler with, say, a straight percentage?
T5 with drive nexuses and stage effects is a much more complicated system than either LBB2 or LBB5, and still locks the designer into certain ship sizes for small ships.
The original JTAS Gazelle is a proper little warship with heavy armour, screens, and heavy weapons. It should eat Type T:s for breakfast...
At large enough sizes, the constant-size component of drives drops into the background noise and it may as well be a straight percentage.
I'm not sure that fixed ship sizes are necessarily a bad thing. This is a game, not a simulation. And complexity is sort of T5's raison d'etre...
I fully agree that the Gazelle is a serious warship in LBB5 (especially first edition). I also think the Type T is a serious warship in LBB2, and should be treated as such. It's unarmored, low-agility, and has a small computer not because it's an armed fast courier that's somehow been placed in the wrong category, but because those features don't affect it much -- if at all -- in LBB2. In a universe that incorporates LBB5, the design would have been optimized for LBB5 combat rather than for LBB2 (and as I noted, been something rather like a Fiery instead).
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Why would a 200 Dt ship be preferable to a 150 Dt of 300 Dt ship? Why should the system try to force me into a 200 Dt ship?
While there is not much we can do in LBB2 to make it a warship, even less is done...
To be a warship it should have Double Fire capability: a slightly larger PP and computer, perhaps even a few fighters.
As is, it is likely to lose a fight with a Liner at roughly the same cost.
A 400 Dt LBB2 warship would be something more like this?
400 Dt, J-3, 4 G, MCr 307.
Four triple turrets (Double Fire capable) and two Ship's Boats, each with a m/2 and triple turret.
More expensive than a Type T, but also considerably more powerful...
Code:
EG-4234452-030000-10001-0 MCr 307 400 Dton
bearing 2 8 2 Crew=15
batteries 2 8 2 TL=11
Troops=8 Cargo=5 Fuel=160 EP=16 Agility=1
Dual Occupancy LBB2 design 5 333,9
USP # Dton Cost
Hull, Streamlined Custom 4 400
Configuration Cone 2 44
Scoops Streamlined
Jump Drive F 3 1 35 60
Manoeuvre D H 4 1 15 32
Power Plant J 4 1 28 72
Fuel, #J, #weeks J-3, 4 weeks 3 160
Bridge 1 20 2
Computer m/5 5 1 5 45
Staterooms 15 60 7,5
Cargo 5
Mixed Turret Full 2 2 2,2
Weapon Missile 1 1 1,5
Weapon Pulse 1 2 2
Mixed Turret Full 2 2 2,2
Weapon Pulse 1 2 2
Weapon Sand 3 1 0,5
Ship's Boat 30 Dton 2 60 60
GCarrier 8 Dton 1 8 1
Nominal Cost MCr 333,90 Sum: 5 333,9
Class Cost MCr 30,02 Valid ≥0 ≥0
Ship Cost MCr 306,61
Crew & High 0 Crew Bridge 2
Passengers Mid 0 15 Engineers 3
Low 0 Gunners 4
Extra SR 0 Frozen Service 1
# Frozen W 0 0 Flight 5
Marines 8 Marines 8
rlmercad069
SOC-12
and just had a 
.
Even the Mercenary Cruiser (the other LBB2 vessel that's apparently intended to be a combatant) doesn't have the oversized power plant needed for Double-Fire. It's something the authors didn't do when designing "typed" ships back then, for reasons that aren't entirely clear but probably have to do with backward compatibility with legacy designs from the 1977 edition.
rlmercad069
SOC-12
Poor Happy Fun Ball of Death, can only shoot once per round
. And that's why IMTU I rebuild all PC vessels using LBB5 '81, just so all encounters are even.
Last edited:
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Double Fire and the need for big computers was a thing even in LBB2'77.
The Mercenary Cruiser is a small LHA, not a space superiority warship:
The Patrol Cruiser is something like a Coastguard Cutter:
The Type T is not based on a LBB2'77 standard design, so no legacy to protect.
It's designed to harass civilians, not warships.
Neither is a full on warship, even in LBB2.
So, LBB2 had no actual naval ships. That's possible. Seems a little unlikely. Also note the first military ship in an official Adventure, the Kinunir, only had 4G acceleration (and as built under the '77 rules, had Pn=Gs).
Getting back to where I started...
From my table in Post #4 of this thread.
(Using LBB2'81 components only)
Required tons and %D (ship tonnage) for 6G in largest hull possible including power plant and fuel allocation:
TL-9 (C): 75Td, 75% of 100Td hull, MCr 36
TL-10, -11 (F): 90Td, 45% of 200Td hull, MCr 72
TL-12, -13 (M): 120Td, 30% of 400Td hull, MCr 144
TL-14 (T): 150Td, 25% of 600Td hull, MCr 216
TL-15 (Z): 180Td, 9% of 2000Td hull, MCr 288
Note that the largest hull possible is also the most efficient, and smaller hulls use the same drives as lower TLs for the same effect.
Again, but using LBB5'80 components only:
Required %D (ship tonnage) for 6G by TL, including power plant and fuel allocation:
TL-9 to 12: 41% of hull, MCr 62.5 per 100Td
TL-13 and 14: 35% of hull MCr 44.5 per 100Td
TL-15: 29% of hull, MCr 26.5 per 100Td
Note that 6G is available at TL-9 and above, so variation is only from power plant size.
From my table in Post #4 of this thread.
(Using LBB2'81 components only)
Required tons and %D (ship tonnage) for 6G in largest hull possible including power plant and fuel allocation:
TL-9 (C): 75Td, 75% of 100Td hull, MCr 36
TL-10, -11 (F): 90Td, 45% of 200Td hull, MCr 72
TL-12, -13 (M): 120Td, 30% of 400Td hull, MCr 144
TL-14 (T): 150Td, 25% of 600Td hull, MCr 216
TL-15 (Z): 180Td, 9% of 2000Td hull, MCr 288
Note that the largest hull possible is also the most efficient, and smaller hulls use the same drives as lower TLs for the same effect.
Again, but using LBB5'80 components only:
Required %D (ship tonnage) for 6G by TL, including power plant and fuel allocation:
TL-9 to 12: 41% of hull, MCr 62.5 per 100Td
TL-13 and 14: 35% of hull MCr 44.5 per 100Td
TL-15: 29% of hull, MCr 26.5 per 100Td
Note that 6G is available at TL-9 and above, so variation is only from power plant size.
Yes and no. Consider the number of Hardpoints, most of your standard civilian ships have far fewer hardpans and computers than warships.
Specifically they will look the same, kinda. Consider drives, warships will have the largest installation available for the desired performance.
Also not Book2 absolute acceleration isn't that big a factor in that it isn't used for anything other than movement.
I’m certainly not asking people to quit the discussion- I don’t have that power and have a near decade record of expanding conversations against the argument of people that feel they do have that authority. If that is how people are taking it, that is not my intent and in general I detest the interchanges where someone was being shut down.
What I am reacting to is the idea that they must follow x rule. Rule Zero and all that. If they choose to that’s fine. But IMO I should be able to say that we should be past the point of mother may I.
