But supposedly describing the same universe (or one that's indistinguishable up to around 1116).
Hans
MGT Fuel
- Thread starter Jame
- Start date
Hans
E.D.Quibell
SOC-13
But you left TNE in? as it's a different system.
So it would either be the 4th (CT, MT, T4, MGT) or the 8th, (CT, MT, TNE, T4, GT, T20, TH, MGT (assuming I haven't forgotten any)).
Regards,
Ewan
mbrinkhues
SOC-14 1K
Each his own but for me GT, T20 and TH are so different that they don't belong there.
Yes it does. There's a table in the ship design section of the TMB (Sorry, I haven't the page reference, as I don't have the book) which says that you get two weeks of fuel for X tons based on Plant X (X being a variable, not a size description). I'll get it to this thread when I have the chance.
S
scrabble
Guest
RPGs have always been house-ruled, and always will be. If you expect a system to work exactly as it is supposed to, straight out of the box, then I would say that your expectations are set too high. I have never, in my entire roleplaying career that spans over 25 years, purchased a game that I did not have to house-rule at least slightly before I was satisfied with it. And I would argue that purchased RPGs save you the time of making an entire ruleset and setting from scratch, but some minor alterations on an individual level are to be expected.
The same applies to most things that people purchase that they plan to use for a long time. For example, one does not buy a car and then leave it exactly as it is for its entire life; one can add decorations, or change the stereo, or add GPS, or improve the speakers. So why should I be forced to use (or be expected to use) the rules as written for every RPG? As long as house rules are set out at the start of the game and everyone at the table agrees to them, I cannot see how it could possibly be a problem.
Obviously it would be preferable to use the rules as written if one was demoing a new game to new players at a convention, but you are the only person here making an issue out of convention play. In all other practical examples of gaming, house rules are fairly standard. Otherwise, the discussion is about fuel in MGT, not about whether house rules are better than official rules.
And I should point out that Classic Traveller itself has at one point or another most likely been house-ruled to death by almost everyone who has played it.
Back to Jame's point.
It is what it is.
I've never found fuel to be a problem in any of the Traveller games I've played. In effect, the rules say you'll run out, but my players never have. And, if they ever do, they may still have choices to make.
I hope this is also your experience, but perhaps there's a situation your players or you as a player had to face where this rule was a problem?
It is what it is.
I've never found fuel to be a problem in any of the Traveller games I've played. In effect, the rules say you'll run out, but my players never have. And, if they ever do, they may still have choices to make.
I hope this is also your experience, but perhaps there's a situation your players or you as a player had to face where this rule was a problem?
S
scrabble
Guest
Do we really need yet another argument about what is or is not Traveller?
But MGT isn't straight out of the box, is it? It's built on 30 years of prior development. And it has been a well-known issue for a couple of decades that CT fusion power plant fuel efficiency is unbelievably (and I use that word advisedly) inefficient. That's (presumably) why they changed it for MT, and kept it changed for T4. So, in effect, MGT re-broke something that has been fixed for decades for no good reason that I can see.
Hans
S
scrabble
Guest
Of course it is. A new team of people designed it from scratch and it is also a brand-new ruleset. Whether they "properly" considered earlier work is another argument though (and which version they should consider the highest priority is also another argument).
But even new editions that are more directly based on a previous edition (e.g. Call of Cthulhu, or the old World of Darkness) often create their own issues specific to the new edition.
Either way, what people generally do (with any RPG) when they see what they think is a problem is to assess it and create their own solution. This is what "house-rules" are. People did that with CT, they did that with MT, they did it with TNE and every other edition of Traveller, and MGT is no different.
But you can add more fuel - several ship designs in the core rules do this. It is only a stated _minimum_.
If you can, check the other thread. I gave page references showing this (and people are still arguing over something that does not exist. . .).
There are two issues here, Matt.
1) Two Weeks is probably not a good minimum, in light of the prior editions' 4 week standard
1.1) the standard designs should have used a 4 week minimum in order to match with canon requirements of the 3I for 28 days operation time. (1 Imperial Month.)
2) the rates of fuel use in CT, MT, T20, MGT are implausibly high given the known energy out of fusion reactions.
on point two
Either 99.99% of that fuel is going through without effect, or is used for something other than actual fusion. TNE had much more realistic fusion rates; the measurements were in kL of fuel per YEAR per kL of drive, and still presumed overhead energy costs of IIRC 90%.
Hey there - glad to have some debate.
1. It actually gives more flexibility - you can always have the 4 week minimum for ships you design yourself, and we want to cover a broad range of bases with the core rules.
1.1. There would be some debate about whether that is actually a canon fixture, or just a convenience that became established. Either way, most designs we have done for 3I are way above the 2 week minimum, and those that stick to it have a good reason (such as the aforementioned light traders needing ever scrap of tonnage for cargo).
2. I might not actually argue that - but is it not canon?
Okay, that is fairly cheap, but we always stated that we were using CT as a foundation for the new game. Certainly though, we regard it as no more than a base. For example, we are starting work now on an all (non 3I) setting for Traveller, and the huge amount of sloshing fuel on board ships is one of the things we are changing. It just requires the odd new table, much as we would (and will) do for different weapons. You would be welcome to take such rules and apply them to your 3I games.Caveat: I don't have the Mongoose basic rules, so I'm relying on hearsay from people who claim that the fuel rules are based on CT rules.
14 days worth of fuel is way too much, incidentally. Ignoring the power used for life support (and the CT rules certainly treat it as negligible), a merchant ship uses its power plant to power the maneuver drive to get from the surface of the departure world to the jump limit and from the jump limit of the destination world to the surface. That's about 8 hours each way (depending on the diameter of the jump limit). So a merchant ship will often use less than a day's worth of power plant fuel per jump. It's true that jump masking and jump shadowing can increase that to several days in some systems, but then again, the CT rules ignore jump masking and even jump shadowing too.
Hans
That doesn't mean that you absolutely have to copy the flaws as well. Especially not the flaws you are (or at least ought to be) aware of.2. I might not actually argue that - but is it not canon?
14 days worth of fuel is way too much, incidentally. Ignoring the power used for life support (and the CT rules certainly treat it as negligible), a merchant ship uses its power plant to power the maneuver drive to get from the surface of the departure world to the jump limit and from the jump limit of the destination world to the surface. That's about 8 hours each way (depending on the diameter of the jump limit). So a merchant ship will often use less than a day's worth of power plant fuel per jump. It's true that jump masking and jump shadowing can increase that to several days in some systems, but then again, the CT rules ignore jump masking and even jump shadowing too.
Way ahead of you. I've already made such rules changes long, long ago. What would be nice is if you eshewed the use of broken rules in the official products.
Hans
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
And what of all the other possible if not probable reasons for such large fuel requirements and a steady drain power plant?
Like the artificial gravity? Who knows how much power that takes (MT and such later rules aside, which imo made it too little).
Or heat radiation? Traveller's infamous never melting ships.
Or radiation shielding? So the traveller's don't die.
...and others I'm sure. All things based on hull size, just like the power plant is. And all required pretty much 24/7 while the ship is in use.
Yes, the rules only require the ship to have a power plant to equal or exceed the big energy hogs and you might claim anything not specifically mentioned is below consideration. I figure it's more like they all use the same degree of power as the energy hogs but in parallel with them, or at the very least a minimum of a power plant 1 or equal to the maneuvers being done.
And I have no problem with the original CT LBB2 design fuel requirements, in the context of those rules. The maneuver there was arguably a fusion torch drive that would require massive reaction mass.
When we get the magic thruster plate drives the fuel requirements can (and did) go down a lot. But not enough for some. I still think the amount is a good heat radiator and can live with it. Sure your powerplant could run on so little that it would break down long before running out, but before then you and your ship will be cooked from the heat build up. Until something critical melts and the power shuts down and everything freezes solid.
I'm not saying it's at all accurate. Or that my answers will work for everyone, or anyone. It's a game. A sci-fi game to be sure, so we owe some due diligence to science. But let's not forget just when these rules were created too, and how far we've come since, nor how much further we will go. Our rants and fixes to bring Traveller into the 21st century will surely look as ridiculous in a few years as the original rules do today.
Like the artificial gravity? Who knows how much power that takes (MT and such later rules aside, which imo made it too little).
Or heat radiation? Traveller's infamous never melting ships.
Or radiation shielding? So the traveller's don't die.
...and others I'm sure. All things based on hull size, just like the power plant is. And all required pretty much 24/7 while the ship is in use.
Yes, the rules only require the ship to have a power plant to equal or exceed the big energy hogs and you might claim anything not specifically mentioned is below consideration. I figure it's more like they all use the same degree of power as the energy hogs but in parallel with them, or at the very least a minimum of a power plant 1 or equal to the maneuvers being done.
And I have no problem with the original CT LBB2 design fuel requirements, in the context of those rules. The maneuver there was arguably a fusion torch drive that would require massive reaction mass.
When we get the magic thruster plate drives the fuel requirements can (and did) go down a lot. But not enough for some. I still think the amount is a good heat radiator and can live with it. Sure your powerplant could run on so little that it would break down long before running out, but before then you and your ship will be cooked from the heat build up. Until something critical melts and the power shuts down and everything freezes solid.
I'm not saying it's at all accurate. Or that my answers will work for everyone, or anyone. It's a game. A sci-fi game to be sure, so we owe some due diligence to science. But let's not forget just when these rules were created too, and how far we've come since, nor how much further we will go. Our rants and fixes to bring Traveller into the 21st century will surely look as ridiculous in a few years as the original rules do today.
That's exactly what I'm claiming.
I figure that explanation doesn't make sense. If the energy requirements of "everything else" is significant, you need a power plant that can deliver whatever "everything else" needs PLUS whatever the maneuver drive needs for those occasions when you do use the maneuver drive. It's not as if you're going to switch off life support, gravity, etc. for six or eight hours at a time, is it? If, contrariwise, you only need a power plant capable of delivering what the maneuver drive needs, then "everything else" is below the granularity of the game, in which case it does not use up measurable amounts of fuel. And if the amounts are not measurable in game terms, you should not be required to pay for them in the game.
Very arguably indeed. But that context was left behind many years ago, and even if it hadn't been, you'd still only need to use the 'fuel' when you were using the maneuver drive. Same difference.
But if the hydrogen is used for heat dissipation, ship designs are unbelievably idiotic, because hydrogen is a much less efficient substance than, say, water for that purpose. And, once again, there would be a significant difference between the expenditure of 'heat dissipation fuel' when maneuvering and when not maneuvering.
Hans
If it works, it is not broken.
Hey there - glad to have some debate.
2. I might not actually argue that - but is it not canon?
Actually, no, not canon in the sense that a week in jump is canon; not since 1992. TNE and T4 use kL per year... and not much even then. They are canon, so canon is in a dual state... and Gareth picked the less sensible choice of the two, presumably out of ignorance of the other option and its closer relationship to reality.
Keep in mind... doing a little back of the envelope calculation, a single liter of mixed duterium & tritium (in the ratio 2D to 4T) is 8442467 MJ of recoverable energy (ignorign Neutron energy, thus accounting for the 80% loss to the neutron; if you can recover the neutrons, multiply that by 5); at 250 MW, 33769.868 seconds per liter, or 9.3 hours per liter, or 70L per 28days... Assuming a whoppingly bad 1% efficiency, 7kl per 28 days per 1Td drive... half a ton fuel per ton of drive per month is about as much fuel as can be credibly swallowed.
Your best fusion drives, presuming they have the same rates of power out as MT/TNE peak, are 1/4th as efficient, or 0.25% recovery.
Oh, and using the "cool it with hydrogen" doesn't fly, either; the energy you can pump in it is pretty darned low before it energetically finds its way out of confinement...
And as maneuver fuel? you're far better off with much denser materials for reaction mass. water is 14x as dense, and more easily magnetized... and mercury is another 9x that and much easier to accellerate... smaller tank, smaller tank mass. Heck, Amonia and Methane are better for reaction mass than LHyd.
It's one of those issues that resulted in MT and T4 explicitly using reactionless thrusters for the 3I.
In any case, however, accepting a 3000+ year old and 6 TL old technology as being in the 1% efficiency range is a stretch. It's reasonable to expect at TL9 a 1% efficiency (by assuming a 90% capture of energy and 90% overhead cost), but not TL15. Heck, current issues are that the current peak efficiency is about -20%, due to energy capture losses, from what I last read... that is, the recoverable energy is 80% of the overhead of causing fusion.
Now, the other thing is that about TL12, fusion should get a MAJOR energy boost, since neutron energy should be recapturable, given the introduction of damper tech, and other TL12-15 advances (and thus cutting fuel use by up to a factor of 5).
E.D.Quibell
SOC-13
O, I can undertand your point of view, but why the inconsistancy over TNE?
Regards,
Ewan
If it's wrong, it's broken. That is, if it requires an unnecessary amount of willing suspension of disbelief, it's broken. Also, it doesn't work. That is, it only works if the players don't think of the ramifications.
Hans
Last edited:
S
scrabble
Guest
There are a lot of things in Traveller that are broken (i.e. require an unnecessary amount of suspension of disbelief) or that make no sense, and have been from the beginning. One only has to look at all the arguments over the same topics (trade, piracy, economics, fuel, rules, realism, power, etc) that have been repeated time and time again on every discussion board and mailing list, and each time no solution has been found and more bad blood is created. And again, this thread appears to be turning into yet another "bash Mongoose" thread.
Canon is a complete mess, and has been changed in various editions. Sometimes it is internally contradictory sometimes even within editions. I would argue that previous editions are irrelevant to the edition being discussed; after all how often does one actually directly convert characters and ships to a new edition from an old one and continue playing the same game? If one is playing a new edition, then it is best if one treats that edition as if it is the only one; it is the only way to really stay sane. Problems will arise only when people insist on using older rules with newer editions that were not designed with those in mind.
Canon is a complete mess, and has been changed in various editions. Sometimes it is internally contradictory sometimes even within editions. I would argue that previous editions are irrelevant to the edition being discussed; after all how often does one actually directly convert characters and ships to a new edition from an old one and continue playing the same game? If one is playing a new edition, then it is best if one treats that edition as if it is the only one; it is the only way to really stay sane. Problems will arise only when people insist on using older rules with newer editions that were not designed with those in mind.
