The third is that if you're not intermixing drives, agility is almost invariably limited to a maximum of 5 since LBB2 power plants cannot have a rating higher than Pn-5, and computers larger than Mod/2 draw energy points.
A fourth is that TL affects LBB5 power plant size if you're intermixing LBB2 and LBB5 drives. I personally dislike the concept of intermixing them, as it's cherry-picking from systems with different underlying purposes.
My personal preference is ... no intermixing. Your options are:
- All LBB2 drives
- All LBB5 drives
Sure the rules don't "explicitly SAY" that explicitly, but it is definitely the way I would prefer to interpret them ... primarily as a matter of intellectual consistency and Good Taste™ as a naval architect.
However, I would not construe LBB2 drive EP outputs using the LBB5 methodology (code factor x 1% of hull tonnage = EP).
That works just fine for LBB5 drives, which are defined by formula (and integers, for the most part) ... but DOESN'T work just fine for LBB2 drives, which can easily (*easily*!) run into fractional code yields due to the structural granularity of the LBB2 drive system paradigm.
For example:
LBB2.81/LBB3.81 Power Plants have the following benchmark yields (@ 200 tons per letter baseline, M=12 and N=13, because I and O are skipped as letters for disambiguation purposes):
- M (@TL=12) = Code: 1 @ 2400 tons = 24EP for LBB5.80 purposes
- N (@TL=12) = Code: 1 @ 2600 tons = 26EP for LBB5.80 purposes
The nuance of interpretation then comes in when dealing with smaller hull sizes than the Code: 1 benchmarks.
- M (@TL=12) = Code: 1 @ 2400 tons = 24EP for LBB5.80 purposes
- M (@TL=12) = Code: 2 @ 1200 tons = 24EP for LBB5.80 purposes
- M (@TL=12) = Code: 3 @ 800 tons = 24EP for LBB5.80 purposes
- M (@TL=12) = Code: 4 @ 600 tons = 24EP for LBB5.80 purposes
However, if you used a Power Plant-N drive instead in 2400/1200/800/600 tons displacement hulls, you would get 26EPs out of it ... not 24EPs ... in a LBB5.80 rules crossover interpretation. Power Plant-N in a 600 ton hull would still yield Power Plant-4 (technically 4.333, which then rounds down to 4) as far as LBB5.80 is concerned (for USP and so on) but it would output 26EP ... not 24EP ... and it would consume 40 tons of fuel per 4 weeks (because, PP4), which is still more than the 26 tons of fuel per 4 weeks that a LBB5.80 custom power plant would require for the exact same output yield in a 600 ton hull.
So the moral of the story is that if you have a Maneuver-X drive and a Power Plant-Z drive (both TL=15) in an 800 ton hull ... you CAN have Agility=6 with some additional EP surplus for weapons, screens and computers (although it won't be but so much!), even though the code factors for both on the USP yield Maneuver-6 and Power Plant-6 due to the "drop fractions" nature of USP integers only coding. However, due to the limitations of the "200 ton step Code: 1 drives" baseline formulation for LBB2 standard drives, there's only so "far" you can go with standard drives in terms of technology and size (see: Small Starship Universe).
Note also that having a Power Plant letter that is higher than the Maneuver letter enables use of the Double Fire computer program in LBB2 combat (LBB5.80 substantially ignores computer programming as a concern in combat, greatly simplifying the abstract system).
I'm currently working on
yet another revision of my
Five Sisters Clipper design that upgrades the core fundamentals from a(n honestly too tight for comfort) 400 tons @ TL=10 design into a much more
capable and versatile 600 tons @ TL=12 design that includes a lot of conceptual framework refinements over my previously published notions and interpolations/extensions of various CT rules and constraints. Among those considerations is the fact that M-N standard drives are both TL=12 (as per LBB3.81, p15), but you only need Drive-M to yield Drive-4 performance in a 600 ton form factor.
That then means that Jump-M(4), Maneuver-M(4) and Power Plant-N(4) is possible @ TL=12 ... which then enables Double Fire programming in the model/4fib computer with equipped lasers (if you like to play with computer programming rules in your ship to ship combat encounters).
- A Power Plant-N(4) producing a 26EP output (see above)
- Cross-pollinating with LBB5.80 for EP and Agility rules ... Agility=2 in a 600 ton hull requires 12EP.
- Computer model/4 (needed for J4) requires 2EP, whether fib or not.
- That then leave 12EP remaining for weapons ... which is a perfect fit for 4x Triple Laser Turrets (beam or pulse) ... which can then benefit GREATLY from use of Double Fire programming in the main computer (assuming you even want to bother with such details as a Referee). In LBB5.80 "batteries bearing" terms, this gives some variability in the organization of lasers (2x Code: 4 Beam Lasers ... or 4x Code: 2 Pulse Lasers) depending on loadout, with the pulse lasers being the cheaper option (obviously).
- Add 2x Triple Sandcaster Turrets (2x Code: 4) requiring 0EP for defense to round out the ship's weaponry.
This combination of (slightly) overdesigned power plant, minimum computer requirement, decent Agility=2 (and Emergency Agility=4) along with "lots of lasers" and a couple sandcasters means that the ship
ought to be relatively safe in a Small Ship Universe as outlined by LBB2 against most threats of piracy. It also has a crew of 10(!) which makes it more difficult to capture via boarding action (LBB5.80, p43) and of whom only the Navigator receives the minimum salary of Cr5000 per 4 weeks (I like my crews to be ... skilled).
However, this particular exercise (with my revision) once again highlights that there are going to be particular tech levels and tonnages where you can get a performance profile out of a LBB2.81 standard drive that simply IS NOT AVAILABLE to you from a LBB5.80 custom drive ... and more specifically in jump drives.
- Jump-H @ TL=10 yields J4 in a 400 ton hull ... while LBB5.80 requires TL=13 for J4.
- Jump-J @ TL=11 yields J4 in a 450 ton hull ... while LBB5.80 requires TL=13 for J4.
- Jump-K @ TL=11 yields J4 in a 500 ton hull ... while LBB5.80 requires TL=13 for J4.
- Jump-L @ TL=12 yields J4 in a 550 ton hull ... while LBB5.80 requires TL=13 for J4.
- Jump-M @ TL=12 yields J4 in a 600 ton hull ... while LBB5.80 requires TL=13 for J4.
- Jump-N @ TL=12 yields J4 in a 650 ton hull ... while LBB5.80 requires TL=13 for J4.
- Jump-P @ TL=13 yields J4 in a 700 ton hull ... while LBB5.80 requires TL=13 for J4.
There are other breakpoint examples of this phenomenon of course (
@Grav_Moped's
Shugushaag design for a J5/2G @ TL=13 starship being one of the more notable ones), but it does highlight the fact that there are some very notable differences in the underlying paradigms between LBB2.81 and LBB5.80 when it comes to standard vs custom drives. In many cases, "pushing the envelope" like this will yield a design that isn't economically viable (except under subsidy ... and sometimes not even then!). However, there are some
really fascinating possibilities that can be explored in this (for lack of a better term) "prototype realm" of drive performances, particularly when taking a holistic "end user" approach to the entire endeavor.
Add in the fact that it's "dirt simple" to calculate external towing capacity (J4@600 = J3@800 = J2@1200 = J1@2400) with standard drives (you just need a rules framework for doing so) and you're basically all set. With flexibility comes OPTIONS ... and with more options available to you, there are more paths to success and profitability that open up beyond the one single well worn rut carved out by the A1 Free Traders.