CT Only: LSP Modular Pinnace

[AnotherDilbert]

That maneuver drive, if extrapolated down from A, would be zero tons.

Since we are house ruling, it can be anything. I wouldn't allow a 0 Dt drive, so I used half the A drive size. Doesn't really matter in a standard hull.

The only way to get away with that is to bundle it with the power plant (Pn=Gs and it's 5% per G, MCr1.2 per ton of "drives") and not look at it closely (that is, somehow the power plant does part of the maneuver drive thing and less of the power plant thing).

That's a worse house rule, in my opinion. Keep 'em separate.

It also probably doesn't actually have 1EP in the High Guard sense, in that its power output is committed to the maneuver drive and can't be redirected to, say, a turret laser.

It must have a PP-1 to support the J-1/M-1, so has 1 EP.

Anyhow, what you get is a Scout/Courier with J1/1G, only a Mod/1 computer, 5 wasted tons of drive bay space*, and 24Td cargo -- and save a little under MCr12, considering the volume discount. It can only mount missiles or sandcasters. Strip out the unneeded bits (2 staterooms** and the Air/raft) and you get 36Td payload. Its viability depends on whether the bigger Standard Hull discount at 100Td makes up for "wasting" 15% of its tonnage relative to the Type A Free Trader, in the form of its excess drive bay space and proportionately larger bridge.

It gains a straight 20 Dton over the Scout. Remove everything not absolutely needed and get a stateroom and 40 Dt free. A turret isn't absolutely necessary.

My point was: I think that ship is unreasonable and wouldn't allow it, you would perhaps find it reasonable and allow it. And that is the problem with "reasonable" house rules.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

IIRC, LBB2'77 simply halved the price of non-starships built with its starship construction rules. Not sure how this could be backported into LBB5'80 small craft design rules as adapted for LBB2'81 since that half-price business didn't show up anywhere else, but I thought I'd mention it.

The problem here is that a minimalistic 100 ton non-starship with 40 Dt payload would cost about MCr 8, compared to a 50 ton Cutter with about 20 ton payload costing MCr 28.

Double the payload for a third of the price. Not all that balanced...

 

[Grav_Moped]

Since we are house ruling, it can be anything. I wouldn't allow a 0 Dt drive, so I used half the A drive size. Doesn't really matter in a standard hull.



That's a worse house rule, in my opinion. Keep 'em separate.

It's derived from LBB2'77, as is most of LBB2'81.

It must have a PP-1 to support the J-1/M-1, so has 1 EP.

The M-1 is intrinsic. Might need a bit extra to actually cover the jump drive, but combining the two drives is in the spirit of the '77 rules. Mostly it's to nerf the "combine PP and MD" idea so it's mostly just used for small craft.
Or just set minimum maneuver drive size to 1Td (with only the cost scaling downwards by output) and let the power plant be normal. Worst case is that it's a Size A M-Drive that only gets enough power to support 100G-tons. <shrug>

It gains a straight 20 Dton over the Scout. Remove everything not absolutely needed and get a stateroom and 40 Dt free. A turret isn't absolutely necessary.

You're going to run a completely unarmed merchant with just 1G drives? <shrug>

My point was: I think that ship is unreasonable and wouldn't allow it, you would perhaps find it reasonable and allow it. And that is the problem with "reasonable" house rules.

Unreasonable? Nah. The only thing in its favor is that it exploits the extremely generous 100Td standard hull discount, and reveals that the Type S is an artifact of the ship construction rules.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

You're going to run a completely unarmed merchant with just 1G drives? <shrug>

Sure, why not? Like a default Free Trader, Subbie, or Liner. Just don't run them into warzones.

If loss rates were all that noticeable, starship economics would look a lot different.

Toss in a hardpoint if you want, it's cheap enough not to worry about. Frankly I just wanted the ship definition to be smaller and deleting the hardpoint saves two lines... It wasn't relevant to the point I wanted to make.


Armament alone is ruinous for a Free Trader.

Default Free Trader:

AT-2211111-000000-00000-0       MCr 37,1         200 Dton
bearing                                            Crew=4
batteries                                            TL=9
            Pass=6 Low=20 Cargo=82 Fuel=30 EP=2 Agility=1
                                                                
                                                                
Estimated Economy of Ship     Standard                                     
       Ship price     Down Payment         Mortgage       Avg Filled
        MCr 37,08        kCr 7 416          kCr 155              80%
                                                                
Expenses per jump                       Revenue                 
Bank                 Cr 74 160          High            Cr 24 000
Fuel                 Cr 15 000          Middle          Cr 19 200
Life Support         Cr 19 600          Low             Cr 16 000
Salaries             Cr  7 200          Cargo           Cr 64 000
Maintenance          Cr  1 483                                   
Berthing             Cr    200                                   
                                                                
Summa               kCr    118                         kCr    123
                                                                
     Income potential per jump     kCr 6                   
  Yearly yield on down payment      1,9%

With two mixed turrets (on the mortgage) and two gunners:

AT-2211111-020000-10001-0       MCr 41,6         200 Dton
bearing     2     2   2                            Crew=6
batteries   2     2   2                              TL=9
            Pass=4 Low=20 Cargo=82 Fuel=30 EP=2 Agility=0
                                                                
Estimated Economy of Ship     Standard                                     
       Ship price     Down Payment         Mortgage       Avg Filled
        MCr 41,58        kCr 8 316          kCr 173              80%
                                                                
Expenses per jump                       Revenue                 
Bank                 Cr 83 160          High            Cr 16 000
Fuel                 Cr 15 000          Middle          Cr 12 800
Life Support         Cr 20 400          Low             Cr 16 000
Salaries             Cr  9 120          Cargo           Cr 64 000
Maintenance          Cr  1 663                                   
Berthing             Cr    200                                   
                                                                
Summa               kCr    130                         kCr    109
                                                                
     Income potential per jump     kCr -21                   
  Yearly yield on down payment     -6,2%

It's going from barely profitable, to definitely not profitable. Not even a mail contract would make up the difference.

If there's risk enough to warrant armaments you would need a risk premium of at least 50% to cover costs.

 

[Grav_Moped]

The problem here is that a minimalistic 100 ton non-starship with 40 Dt payload would cost about MCr 8, compared to a 50 ton Cutter with about 20 ton payload costing MCr 28.

Double the payload for a third of the price. Not all that balanced...

Cutter is 4G.

Bridge, computer, stateroom, Maneuver-B, Power-B, standard hull (wastes 5Td), and 40Td of fuel.
Payload is 20Td.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Cutter is 4G.

Bridge, computer, stateroom, Maneuver-B, Power-B, standard hull (wastes 5Td), and 40Td of fuel.
Payload is 20Td.

Sure, if you must have 4 G.

Still half the cost of the Cutter for the same payload.

50% cost is MCr 15.

QY-1204411-000000-00000-0       MCr 30,1         100 Dton
bearing                                            Crew=1
batteries                                            TL=9
                          Cargo=20 Fuel=40 EP=4 Agility=4

Single Occupancy    LBB2 design                    20        30,1
                                     USP    #     Dton       Cost
Hull, Streamlined      100 Dt          1          100         
Configuration       Cone               2                      3
Scoops              Streamlined                               

Engineering                                         5         
Manoeuvre D         B                  4    1       3         8
Power Plant         B                  4    1       7        16
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-0, 4 weeks                   40         
                                                              
Bridge                                      1      20         0,5
Computer            m/1                1    1       1         2
                                                              
Staterooms                                  1       4         0,5
                                                              
Cargo                                              20         
                                                              
Empty hardpoint                             1                 0,1
                                                              
Nominal Cost        MCr 30,10            Sum:      20        30,1

If you can make do with 2 G (which I suspect is often enough to get twice the payload for half the price):
50% is MCr 9.

QY-1202211-000000-00000-0       MCr 18,1         100 Dton
bearing                                            Crew=1
batteries                                            TL=9
                          Cargo=40 Fuel=20 EP=2 Agility=2

Single Occupancy    LBB2 design                    40        18,1
                                     USP    #     Dton       Cost
Hull, Streamlined      100 Dt          1          100         
Configuration       Cone               2                      3
Scoops              Streamlined                               

Engineering                                        10         
Manoeuvre D         A                  2    1       1         4
Power Plant         A                  2    1       4         8
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-0, 4 weeks                   20         
                                                              
Bridge                                      1      20         0,5
Computer            m/1                1    1       1         2
                                                              
Staterooms                                  1       4         0,5
                                                              
Cargo                                              40         
                                                              
Empty hardpoint                             1                 0,1
                                                              
Nominal Cost        MCr 18,10            Sum:      40        18,1

 

[Grav_Moped]

Sure, if you must have 4 G.

Still half the cost of the Cutter for the same payload.

50% cost is MCr 15.

QY-1204411-000000-00000-0       MCr 30,1         100 Dton
bearing                                            Crew=1
batteries                                            TL=9
                          Cargo=20 Fuel=40 EP=4 Agility=4

Try fitting a pair of 100Td shuttlecraft into a Type C Happy Fun Ball. You're paying for miniaturization.

If you can make do with 2 G (which I suspect is often enough to get twice the payload for half the price):
50% is MCr 9.

QY-1202211-000000-00000-0       MCr 18,1         100 Dton
bearing                                            Crew=1
batteries                                            TL=9
                          Cargo=40 Fuel=20 EP=2 Agility=2

Apples to Apples, ok?
What's the cost of a 50Td LBB2'77 boat with 2G drives, and its payload? (Yes, I know: Undefined.)

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Try fitting a pair of 100Td shuttlecraft into a Type C Happy Fun Ball. You're paying for miniaturization.

Yes, but as we are already stuffing 160 Dt worth of cutters and modules in there, it shouldn't be an insurmountable problem. But that is LBB2'81... The LBB2'77 Cruiser just had a couple of Pinnaces.

If we are schlepping it with us, we would rarely need anything as huge as a Cutter, when a Boat has nearly the same payload for 60% of the tonnage.

Apples to Apples, ok?

Yes, unless I don't want the added capability of the expensive apple, and is satisfied with the good-enough cheap orange...

What's the cost of a 50Td LBB2'77 boat with 2G drives, and its payload? (Yes, I know: Undefined.)

So, up to the Referee to Gygax, yes.

As the Lifeboat (MCr 14) is barely cheaper than the Boat (MCr 16), I would guess a Slow Cutter is barely cheaper than a Cutter?

 

[Grav_Moped]

If we are schlepping it with us, we would rarely need anything as huge as a Cutter, when a Boat has nearly the same payload for 60% of the tonnage.

If the main purpose isn't to be a detachable turret, you only need it for non-streamlined ships as an interface craft.

Yes, unless I don't want the added capability of the expensive apple, and is satisfied with the good-enough cheap orange...

Which is fine, but shouldn't be used for comparison shopping.

As the Lifeboat (MCr 14) is barely cheaper than the Boat (MCr 16), I would guess a Slow Cutter is barely cheaper than a Cutter?

Better comparison is Slow Boat (MCr15) to Ship's Boat (MCr16). Main thing you get is more payload, not lower cost.

I won't dispute that "half-off for non-starships" is a hack rule. Most players aren't going to be buying them by choice anyhow, so it might have been meant as a mechanism to encourage them to do so instead of buying similar starships, or discourage asking questions about customized small craft design for which the authors didn't have answers. Don't know.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Better comparison is Slow Boat (MCr15) to Ship's Boat (MCr16). Main thing you get is more payload, not lower cost.

I don't think we should compare LBB2'77 smallcraft with LBB2'81 smallcraft, very different logic behind them, as far as I can tell. There are no Slow craft in LBB2'77.

In LBB2'77 you would still need about the same amount of fuel to travel the same distance with a lower acceleration, you would just use it slower. So, a Slow LBB2'77 craft wouldn't have much more payload, but hopefully be a bit cheaper. Unfortunately you seem to pay per ton, as the Lifeboat with a ¹/₁₀ drive barely costs less than a Boat.

I won't dispute that "half-off for non-starships" is a hack rule. Most players aren't going to be buying them by choice anyhow, so it might have been meant as a mechanism to encourage them to do so instead of buying similar starships, or discourage asking questions about customized small craft design for which the authors didn't have answers. Don't know.

Yes, that was a weird one, I think better left in the 77 edition.

 

[atpollard]

A brief note to all ... I loved the topic, but I can speak for all the Moderators that we could live without the parts that flirted with "getting personal". Here is an OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT to cover multiple reported posts and explain multiple edited and deleted posts:

NO WARNINGS OR INFRACTIONS HAVE BEEN EARNED OR GIVEN IN THIS TOPIC; HOWEVER, SOME EXCHANGES WERE LESS "GENTLEMANLY" THAN OTHERS. ANYTHING THAT GOT TOO CLOSE TO THE LINE WAS EDITED OR REMOVED WITH AN EYE TOWARDS THE SIMPLE QUESTION: "Does this advance the discussion?" MOVING FORWARD, CONTINUE TO DISAGREE AND EXPRESS STRONG OPINIONS, BUT TRY TO KEEP THEM POLITE AND FOCUSED ON THE FACTS AND THE TOPIC.

- In the words of Bartles and James, "Thank you for your support"

 

[atpollard]

LBB5.80 drives are ... whacktastic ... in their relationship to variations in displacement.
As proof of that statement, look at my Spinward Flex Courier that I wrote up a year and a half ago (and would do slightly differently if I were to re-design it today, but not by much).

The relationship between total displacement and acceleration is decidedly non-linear ... which is WEIRD when you think about it in Newtonian Physics F=ma terms. But hey ... that's LBB5.80 for you.

Playing with MODULAR Ship design, I came across an observation that may “SORT OF” make sense of the progression. Start with a “given” assumption that a MD correctly sized for a ship in LBB5 requires 2% of the ship and delivers 1G performance. This is the correct “model” of MD for a ship of that size. ONE engine Module in that hull will deliver 1G performance [shades of MegaTraveller, right].

However, being the “hot rodder” that I am … I want 2G performance, so I slap in a second unit for another 2% of the ship volume. When I try to travel at 2G, the ship shakes like crazy … all the passengers throw up and I damage one of the bulkheads. It turns out that my engines need to be in perfect sync … that requires a part that is 1% of the volume of the ship and fits between the two engines linking them together (and providing the additional 1G compensation to keep passengers and crew off the aft bulkhead).

3G performance requires three (3) engines [1G and 2% each] and two synchronizers linking them together [1% each].

6G performance requires six (6) engines [1G and 2% each] and five synchronizers linking them together [1% each].

The percentages match the High Guard (LBB5) values for each performance. The description just serves as “chrome” to help visualize why two engines are not twice as powerful as 1 engine. The ENGINES are, it is the G-rating above 1 that requires 1% per G above 1G (ie. 2% for 3G) either for G Compensation or Engine Synchronization (or insert your own handwavium).

 

[Grav_Moped]

Playing with MODULAR Ship design, I came across an observation that may “SORT OF” make sense of the progression.

That's a semi-plausible lampshade to hang on it.

The real reason, of course, is to impose a high design cost (in Td) for high maneuver drive factors, since maneuver drive capability is significant in LBB5's combat system.

 

[atpollard]

That's a semi-plausible lampshade to hang on it.

The real reason, of course, is to impose a high design cost (in Td) for high maneuver drive factors, since maneuver drive capability is significant in LBB5's combat system.

One would then expect an even less linear progression like:
1G = 1% (vs 2%)
2G = 3% (vs 5%)
3G = 6% (vs 8%)
4G = 10% (vs 11%)
5G = 15% (vs 14%)
6G = 21% (vs 17%)

… rather than each additional 1G is a constant 3%. Honestly, they should have just made it 3% per Gee and had a far simpler mechanic that was closer to F=m*a and shaved tonnage off the bloated bridge that even THEY never illustrated.

Does ANY official ship show a 20 dT bridge?

 

[Spinward Flow]

However, being the “hot rodder” that I am … I want 2G performance, so I slap in a second unit for another 2% of the ship volume. When I try to travel at 2G, the ship shakes like crazy … all the passengers throw up and I damage one of the bulkheads. It turns out that my engines need to be in perfect sync … that requires a part that is 1% of the volume of the ship and fits between the two engines linking them together (and providing the additional 1G compensation to keep passengers and crew off the aft bulkhead).

This is an elegant explanation and solution to the question.

However, an even more elegant solution would have been a (G * Constant)% instead of doing the "off by one" progression that LBB5.80 uses in its multiples.



To borrow your paradigm, I would argue that the progression ought to be like this instead:

1. 2.5%
2. 5.0%
3. 7.5%
4. 10.0%
5. 12.5%
6. 15.0%

So you have a 2% tonnage to create acceleration/thrust and a 0.5% tonnage additional for internal inertia compensation to maintain a constant 1G nadir oriented through the floors internal gravity field.

But that's one of the benefits of hindsight, some 40+ years after the fact, with regards to the meta of Rules Design (and the radical simplification thereof).

 

[Condottiere]

It would be more amusing to make it diminishing returns.

 

[Grav_Moped]

It would be more amusing to make it diminishing returns.

That's what LBB5 does in its ham-handed fashion. It has to, because it needs to put a design cost/penalty on high maneuver capability to balance its combat system.

 

[Spinward Flow]

That's what LBB5 does in its ham-handed fashion. It has to, because it needs to put a design cost/penalty on high maneuver capability to balance its combat system.

And then proceeds to make pretty much every 20k+ ship in LBB S9 (with some notable exceptions that the fluff text notes are "failed designs") be a J4/6G ship with Model/9fib computer anyway.

 

[atpollard]

But that's one of the benefits of hindsight, some 40+ years after the fact, with regards to the meta of Rules Design (and the radical simplification thereof).

Then the LBB2 tables could have been made to match the LBB5 formula.
Where is that Flux Capacitor when you need one.

 

[mike wightman]

Or the HG formula could have made a stab at similarity to the LBB2 tables in the first place instead of switching m-drive and j-drive sizes, and power plant cost should have been based on EP produced rather than tonnage (TL15 drives being the most powerful and cheapest makes anything but a TL15 pp pointless in the Third Imperium setting - not to mention the huge mess that was made of MT ship construction as a result).

There were three opportunities to reconcile the ship construction paradigm after the two attempts to get HG "right".

The 81 revision to CT maintained just enough of 77 to make them look compatible, but they are not.

LBB2 77 is different to HG79 which is different to HG80 (although the two HGs do at least share some commonality of design paradigm they are incompatible with 77)

If HG80 was supposed to be the "new and correct" ship building system then why go back to the 77 based 81 LBB2 but with just enough changes to invalidate the J2M1 Far Trader and of course the xboat. The same rules would then be included in TTB and ST.