Looking for Jump 6

[mike wightman]

If you're going to use the hybrid drives fudge why not go for a HG jump 6 drive instead of the LBB2 JD F?

That's a saving of 21t right there...

The fix I use for things like this is to use the LBB2 first edition drive requirements, i.e. the power plant must equal or exceed the maneuver drive, but isn't needed for the jump drive.
And a computer model 4 has the capacity to run a jump 6 program.

Oh, and build it as a 199t ship, then you only need a crew of one

 

[DaveShayne]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Oh, and build it as a 199t ship, then you only need a crew of one

But that's cheesy.

Of course I'm the one to talk mister, "If I'm only mounting 1 laser per battery I make it a pulse laser because under High Guard it's better than a single beam laser and half the price."

 

[DaveShayne]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Dave: That fuel reduction is not unique to MT; it is the major difference between FF&S1 (5xJD) and FF&S2 (10%xJN).

Bk 2 can't do a 400 Td due to bridge.
Bk2 can't do a 200 Td due to bridge and PPFuel. "Fix" those, and you can get down a ways with Bk2 drives. Which you can use in HG designs.

some scratchings of a variant Bk2 universe with those two "Fixes"
200Td
JDrive F 35Td (165)
MDB 3Td (162)
TL15 HG Fusion 6 = 12 Td (150)
Model 6 Computer, 7Td (143)
PPF per HG rates of 0.01MPn: 12TD (131)
JFuel: 120 (11)
Req Crew 3, all need BWS at 1Td Ea... 3Td (8)
2 SR, 8Td, DO. (0)
No turrets, no cargo.

The only thing variant here is the Bridge tonnage. Hybrid HG/Bk2 designs are allowed. [Bk 5, p. 22, end of 1st PP in "Drives:"]

Sure there are a lot more things you can do if you change the rules.

And when I'm designing for MTU I use MTU rules. But for public consumption I prefer to stick as close to possible to published rules as I can.

Also my 200 ton ship has 5 tons cargo (as specified) and if you bend only one rule (power plant fuel for a minimum of 28 days) a rule already broken in one canon design (the XBoat from Supplement 7) you can add the two turrets and a couple gunners. All with a 20 ton bridge as well. Hell with only 2.5 staterooms in the V2.0 design the crew needs the extra space of the absurdly large bridge to get some distance from each other.

But yes you are right Book 2 drives are legal for HG designs though I usually don't bother with them in a high guard design because it's a tiny bit more work finding the best combination of drive to use and as I mentioned in another post it's cheesy.

 

[GypsyComet]

MT broke the "one month of fuel" rule because the same set of charts applied to vehicles as well as starships. That said, that change is also key to making HG military designs work under MT, by using multiple dedicated powerplants with short fuel supplies.

It's also a change that does the least amount of violence to previous editions, since fuel durations are *always* stated, regardless of edition.

 

[JAFARR]

Originally posted by GypsyComet:
MT broke the ... That said, that change is also key to making HG military designs work under MT, by using multiple dedicated powerplants with short fuel supplies.

.....

Don't bother with multiple power plants. In real life, naval nuclear power plants generally are operated at less than full power (unlike comercial civilian nuclear power plants). Just keep track of the "extra" power consumption used to know how much operating time you have left. USS Nimitz's full battle load is about 75% of full rated power plant output. That translates to 25% longer fuel life when you get down to the facts of the matter. Do you drive your car 100MPH just because you can? Just size the power plant to put out the max power needed to operate all the equipment installed. Then figure just how long you will need each unit to operate before refueling to get fuel amounts. If you did not fire lasers, the extra fuel may save you in the event of a misjump etc.

 

[far-trader]

Hi KG, I see you found a suitable ship before I got back from my exile (self imposed ) with my rework of the Fleet Courier. Turned out pretty well anyway and so I have posted it to it's own thread if anyone is interested:

IISS Type SF Fast Scout/Courier

 

[parmasson]

^Thanks, that looks good. Bit more teeth than I want to put in the hands of the PCs

Here is one. Not J6 but close . . .
LBB2 style
Imperial Interstellar Scout Service Fast Frigate.

The Fast Frigate is based on a 1000 ton, hull. It mounts jump drive W, maneuver drive V, and power plant W, giving a performance of jump-5 and 4-G acceleration. Fuel tankage for 550 tons supports the power plant allowing for 1 jump-5 and 4 weeks of operation. Adjacent to the bridge is a computer Model/5.
The ship has the following accommodations:
12 staterooms (one stateroom is a security cell with four low berths)
60 low berths
The ship has 6 hardpoints and 6 tons allocated to fire control. Installed on the hardpoints are:
6 triple turrets
The turrets are armed with:
6 pulse lasers
6 beam lasers
3 missile launchers
3 sandcasters
There are 2 ship's vehicles:
2 armed fast landing craft (special 6G pinnaces)
Depending on the mission G-carriers may be included.
Cargo capacity is 50 tons. The hull is streamlined. The ship is not subsidized.

The Fast Frigate requires a minimum crew of 20:
1 commanding officer
1 executive officer
3 administrative personnel
1 pilot
1 navigator
6 engineers
1 medic
6 gunners

The ship costs MCr684.6 (not including discounts and fees) and takes 30 months to build.
This ship is designed to transport two S-3 commando units in-system for covert or surprise missions.

 

[far-trader]

A very nice ship, but...

Good Sweet Strephon! (I only pick the best to steal from )

You think mine has too many teeth for your PCs and THIS doesn't?!

Is it the nukes?

That's easy to take care of, they are for commissioned ships only, and the PCs* would not be given nukes, just regular missiles, maybe

* well, if they were in a game where they were still serving sure, and subject to military justice if they used them inappropriately

 

[parmasson]

^I see the confusion . . . this ship is just FYI. Me playing around to make a high gee high jump ship. PC almost never find themselves in charge of this kind of ship. If they do then evil times are ahead.

 

[far-trader]

Ah, that was my second guess

Not that I was ever worried. Well maybe a little for your players if they were indeed using that trouble magnet, hehehe

 

[GypsyComet]

Originally posted by Andy Fralix:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GypsyComet:
MT broke the ... That said, that change is also key to making HG military designs work under MT, by using multiple dedicated powerplants with short fuel supplies.

.....

Don't bother with multiple power plants. In real life, naval nuclear power plants generally are operated at less than full power (unlike comercial civilian nuclear power plants). Just keep track of the "extra" power consumption used to know how much operating time you have left. USS Nimitz's full battle load is about 75% of full rated power plant output. That translates to 25% longer fuel life when you get down to the facts of the matter. Do you drive your car 100MPH just because you can? Just size the power plant to put out the max power needed to operate all the equipment installed. Then figure just how long you will need each unit to operate before refueling to get fuel amounts. If you did not fire lasers, the extra fuel may save you in the event of a misjump etc. </font>[/QUOTE]MT didn't have rules for sub-optimum outputs, but since every power plant need in a starship was well above the best scale-efficiency threshold, designing *as if* you had multiple plants with varying fuel durations had the same effect as the record keeping you describe. Total plant size didn't change, but "one day for that, 7 for those, and 30 for the infrastructure needs" quantified the fuel in a simple AND useful fashion.

Design can be complicated (though this really wasn't), but play should be simple.

 

[aramis]

Dave: I simply hybridized with FF&S for the "bridge" on the HG variant design. I did it to prove a point: The bridge is rather much over-sized in smaller Bk2/HG/T20 designs.

 

[DaveShayne]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Dave: I simply hybridized with FF&S for the "bridge" on the HG variant design. I did it to prove a point: The bridge is rather much over-sized in smaller Bk2/HG/T20 designs.

Well either that or the bridge is undersized in smaller FFS designs.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by DaveShayne:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aramis:
Dave: I simply hybridized with FF&S for the "bridge" on the HG variant design. I did it to prove a point: The bridge is rather much over-sized in smaller Bk2/HG/T20 designs.

Well either that or the bridge is undersized in smaller FFS designs. </font>[/QUOTE]

I think it's more a case of them both being right for their definition of "what a 'bridge' is".

Mixing dissimilar design rules to create hybrids can lead to all kinds of problems. I'm not saying your's is wrong, just requiring a note of caution.

 

[aramis]

As compared to the 20 Td bridge minimum of CT and T20, it's the worst "design limitation" that can be thrust upon it. If only by changing the limit to 5 Td, one makes a lot of smaller craft viable.

CT Bk2 has two major flaws: 20Td minimum bridge, and 10Pn Fuel.
Everything else works.

HG has weapons issues... I'd rather see all USP's available at all TL's where technically doable. EG, TL9 should have entries for PA's 1-Z... and it has issues in size/scale. But it works, too.

 

[parmasson]

CT Bk2 has two major flaws: 20Td minimum bridge, and 10Pn Fuel.

IF you have a 20 tn bridge then I consider the computer part of that tonnage.

My secret heresy is to combine the computer with the bridge tonnage and free up that space. If I am designing for MTU I use book 8 to fill in the gaps left by book 2 when it comes to how they actually work. So your ship’s computer can be more useful but it costs. I end up visualizing the ship’s locker in the old computer slot.

I consider that fuel requirement part of the really high efficiency M drives. IIRC the rules has you constantly acc or deacc The entire time you are in N space. Shut down the M drives and you could coast forever.

 

[DaveShayne]

Originally posted by far-trader:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DaveShayne:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aramis:
Dave: I simply hybridized with FF&S for the "bridge" on the HG variant design. I did it to prove a point: The bridge is rather much over-sized in smaller Bk2/HG/T20 designs.

Well either that or the bridge is undersized in smaller FFS designs. </font>[/QUOTE]

I think it's more a case of them both being right for their definition of "what a 'bridge' is".

Mixing dissimilar design rules to create hybrids can lead to all kinds of problems. I'm not saying your's is wrong, just requiring a note of caution. </font>[/QUOTE]Hey! I'm not the one mixing design rules.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Kurega Gikur:
...I end up visualizing the ship’s locker in the old computer slot.

Interesting, I always took the lockers out of the bridge tonnage and left the computer as seperate

Kind of amounts to the same thing on smaller ships But it's a problem if your multi-kiloton ships only have a puny little 1-9tons of lockers. Or are the computers on your multi-kiloton ships likewise hugenormous? My lockers as a percentage of the bridge tonnage mean the bigger the ship the more lockers (for tools, repair parts, emergency gear, vacc-suits, whatever) which makes sense, well, to me at least

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by DaveShayne:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DaveShayne:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aramis:
Dave: I simply hybridized with FF&S for the "bridge" on the HG variant design. I did it to prove a point: The bridge is rather much over-sized in smaller Bk2/HG/T20 designs.

Well either that or the bridge is undersized in smaller FFS designs. </font>[/QUOTE]

I think it's more a case of them both being right for their definition of "what a 'bridge' is".

Mixing dissimilar design rules to create hybrids can lead to all kinds of problems. I'm not saying your's is wrong, just requiring a note of caution. </font>[/QUOTE]Hey! I'm not the one mixing design rules. </font>[/QUOTE]

Never meant for it to read that way Dave. Just the first part applies to both, the second was directed more at Aramis' post. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[DaveShayne]

Originally posted by Aramis:
As compared to the 20 Td bridge minimum of CT and T20, it's the worst "design limitation" that can be thrust upon it. If only by changing the limit to 5 Td, one makes a lot of smaller craft viable.

CT Bk2 has two major flaws: 20Td minimum bridge, and 10Pn Fuel.
Everything else works.

HG has weapons issues... I'd rather see all USP's available at all TL's where technically doable. EG, TL9 should have entries for PA's 1-Z... and it has issues in size/scale. But it works, too.

I agree with you on the Power Plant fuel issue; the rule in Book 2 is just plain broken. However I have to say that as annoying as the large minimum bridge tonnage is if you want to build uber capable small ships I don't see it as wrong particualrly in the context. There are a number of things that a spacecraft has to have no matter how big it is and the bridge tonnage minimum reflects that.