Power Plants

[mike wightman]

Sort of - eventually.

The power plant and power plant fuel in MT was based on Striker design values and was ridiculously high.

In order to make classic ship designs work DGP had to reduce the amount of fuel needed for a jump.

It was only when people started designing ships they noticed the rules were not as prescriptive as HG and that fuel endurance could be played around with.

There was also no rule that stated only 1 power plant can operate at a time.

The usual solution from later era MT ship designers is to build multiple power plants and to only provide enough fuel for a few hours of peak output for combat, that same fuel would last months if weapons, screens and agility were all off line.

 

[BytePro]

HG has energy points for computers, weapons and shields which I found work for this sort of thing - and rules for 'standard' (my term) emergency agility rating.

I offer my players 'extreme' emergency agility (and other power options*). There is extra power to be had from that portion of M-Drive power supporting gravitics to compensate for g-forces on crew and equipment, as well as from life support systems (including lighting, atmo, sanitation, automatic doors, decompression and fire systems). I have formulas for calculating internal gravitics and LS EP (which are in addition to the normal calculated amount - since they are normally not optional). Shunting power could give an extra boost (not just to M-Drives, either) - but doesn't come without a whole slew of risks and caveats. :devil:

For a little extra accounting and a handful of mechanics, one can get a lot of RP options out of dealing with power systems.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning BytePro,

Sorry to be late in replying got distracted with a project.

My thought was to provide a separate power plant for a spinal weapon allowing the main ship's power plant to run everything else. If the main power plant is down for some reason then the weapon power plant would serve as a backup.

Appreciate the reply,

Modify away. Since my first ship design (LBB2 in the early '80s) - I've used multiple power plants... after all, the first paragraph in the Introduction of LBB1 (second edition at least) ends with '... after all, no set of rules can totally define the universe and how it works.'

That is canon.

You can just call the 'power plant' an abstraction of multiple plants working together as needed and nothing really has to change in the rules unless you want them to. To take full advantage of the gaming opportunities, allow destruction to not include all power plants and perhaps rolls to apply damage to particular plants till they are individually destroyed. Pretty minor rule mechanic changes there... makes ships less susceptible to power plant failures. Which can be 'balanced' by adding detail to relate a given power plant to particular systems - such that letter reduction or destruction would lower the functioning and/or rating of said systems. (My take on what the OP was after.)

 

[Whipsnade]

Drat another real world idea blasted all to heck. Now I can't build my space going USS Enterprise CVN 65 analog with all the reactors.

You're being too literal again...

You're needlessly complicating things too...

Re-read HG2 page 22: "The power plant table indicates the percentage of ship tonnage required per power plant number...." (emphasis mine)

Power plant number. Not power plant as in sole installation or one big reactor, but power plant number. You're calculating the USP rating only. Whether, as Bytepro and Wil already suggested, that power plant rating is divvied up into separate power plants is entirely up to you.

Remember my earlier remark about wanting to account for the number of rivets mounting toilet tissue dispensers in Panther-IV tanks? That's what you're doing in this thread again. You're needlessly fretting over a level of detail which isn't provided in the construction rules because it's entirely unnecessary in the combat rules.

GDW expected us to use our common sense and not to make problems for ourselves so let's use our common sense and quit making problems for ourselves.

So, what do you think happens aboard a Kokirrak when the ship powers down to save fuel? Does the crew turn some huge dial on some huge single power plant from to "Ten" to "One" or do they idle one or more of the reactor-engine room suites aboard? Which answer is the common sense one and causes the fewest problems?

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning again Whipsnade,

You're being too literal again...

You're needlessly complicating things too...

Re-read HG2 page 22: "The power plant table indicates the percentage of ship tonnage required per power plant number...." (emphasis mine)

Power plant number. Not power plant as in sole installation or one big reactor, but power plant number. You're calculating the USP rating only. Whether, as Bytepro and Wil already suggested, that power plant rating is divvied up into separate power plants is entirely up to you.

Thanks for the reply and being honest about me being too literal which usually occurs after re-reading rules for the umpteenth. Of course another part of my issues comes about from looking at the canon deck plans which appears to show the jump drive, maneuver drive, and power plant as being massive units in the engineering spaces.

Good way of emphasizing key wording, makes them easier for me to catch on to.

Remember my earlier remark about wanting to account for the number of rivets mounting toilet tissue dispensers in Panther-IV tanks? That's what you're doing in this thread again. You're needlessly fretting over a level of detail which isn't provided in the construction rules because it's entirely unnecessary in the combat rules.

GDW expected us to use our common sense and not to make problems for ourselves so let's use our common sense and quit making problems for ourselves.

So, what do you think happens aboard a Kokirrak when the ship powers down to save fuel? Does the crew turn some huge dial on some huge single power plant from to "Ten" to "One" or do they idle one or more of the reactor-engine room suites aboard? Which answer is the common sense one and causes the fewest problems?

Yes, I remember the earlier example however, what I think is common sense seems to be very different from a lot of other people. My common sense says that a ship might have a separate power plant to generate the energy needed to run weapons systems and/or computer. In fact I might even throw in a separate power plant to run the computer. The most likely power plants to back up each other would be the weapons, especially if a spinal mount is installed, and the one in engineering. Of course MT, TNE, and T4 do clearly allow for this sort of design.

To me the back-up power plant, during combat anyway, could be supplying power to the weapons systems and other non-engineering systems requiring EP. The primary power plant is providing power to the m-drive and j-drive during combat which gives the ship better agility. When the primary is damaged to the point of putting out less EP than the back-up in combat automatic and/or manual systems switch the plants.

During non-combat situations the back-up system is in stand-by and the primary is providing all ships power. My common sense and real world experience on submarines which are the closest thing to a spacecraft says that a dedicated back-up system probably doesn't have a separate crew from the primary.

Power plants dedicated to weapons and/or other EP using systems will have separate engineering crews to run them. I wouldn't want a weaponette, computer geek, or ping jockey (aka sonarman/tech), to be messing around with a reactor. They all would probably figure away for the reactor to break at the wrong time.

Unfortunately, the way I look at the rules and how I see the deck plans in Traveller seems to be at odds with how a majority of the Traveller community sees them.

Thank you again for trying to make me see the light, change some of my less endearing traits, and patience Whipsnade and all other members of the COTI forum members.

 

[Whipsnade]

Tom,

This isn't about your version of common sense being somehow different from everyone else, because it isn't. This isn't about you looking at deck plans differently either, because you don't. Believe me, you're just like the rest of us.

This is about me worrying that you're causing yourself lots of extra work for no real reason. There's no need for you to do that. It's a waste of your time, time you could spend in more productive ways.

Getting back on topic here. In CT there's no reason why a ship's "power plant" isn't comprised of multiple installations much like USS Enterprise's eight A1W reactor suites. In MT, auxiliary or use-specific "power plant" installations are actually part of the rules. Many of the Hard Times refits sport such "booster" plants meant to power weapons, provide additional agility, or power other systems for periods measured in hours rather than weeks.

What you're asking about, what you're worrying about, is already part of the rules and assumptions regarding starships in the game so go right ahead and keep designing. Even if what you're asking about wasn't already part of the game, you should still go right ahead and keep designing. The only "critic" you need to answer to is yourself.

Good luck and please share whatever you come up with.

 

[Carlobrand]

Remember my earlier remark about wanting to account for the number of rivets mounting toilet tissue dispensers in Panther-IV tanks?

Panthers have toilet tissue dispensers?? I never knew! Must be quite useful for those long battles.

... Of course another part of my issues comes about from looking at the canon deck plans which appears to show the jump drive, maneuver drive, and power plant as being massive units in the engineering spaces. ... Yes, I remember the earlier example however, what I think is common sense seems to be very different from a lot of other peoples. My common sense says that a ship might have a separate power plant to generate the energy needed to run weapons systems and/or computer.

Whipsnade is right about overcomplicating - and right that you don't think any differently than anyone else. The thing to remember is High Guard is intended to be a fairly simple, easy to play game; a lot of the rules are there to simplify the game rather than to emulate real-world possibilities. There is an ongoing debate over whether some of them are even realistic - sandcasters being one case in point. We've all played the game of adding this or that home rule to flesh the system out to our tastes, there's no shame in that. However, when playing the game with others, our collective common sense has to take a back seat to the written rules - except of course when we and the person sitting across from us can negotiate some variation we both like. Some of us move on to MegaTrav specifically because High Guard does not suit our desire for detail.

It makes absolutely no sense for a pawn to only capture on the diagonal, but Chess wouldn't be Chess if the various pieces didn't have their own unique limitations.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Whipsnade,

Thanks for setting me straight that I'm not totally out of whack with the rest of the Traveller community.

There you go getting nasty on me again, I'm a retired submarine sailor looking for part time work and you want me to be more productive. I'm already a poor example for lazy sailors.

Have a good day.

 

[Whipsnade]

The thing to remember is High Guard is intended to be a fairly simple, easy to play game; a lot of the rules are there to simplify the game rather than to emulate real-world possibilities.

Very well put.

There is an ongoing debate over whether some of them are even realistic - sandcasters being one case in point.

Sandcasters are in no way realistic. They share that attribute with jump drive, psionics, meson guns, and many other things.

Sandcasters do, however, work within the confines of the game. Different combat systems within the game present sandcasters differently because different combat systems have different design criteria, but the "idea" of sandcasters remains the same.

Some of us move on to MegaTrav specifically because High Guard does not suit our desire for detail.

I've actually spent the time designing CT ships in FF&S because I was intrigued as to what such additional detail might reveal to me.

It makes absolutely no sense for a pawn to only capture on the diagonal, but Chess wouldn't be Chess if the various pieces didn't have their own unique limitations.

An apt analogy.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning Carlobrand,

Panthers have toilet tissue dispensers?? I never knew! Must be quite useful for those long battles.

Yep, the tissue dispenser is right next to the clean underwear drawer.

Whipsnade is right about overcomplicating - and right that you don't think any differently than anyone else. The thing to remember is High Guard is intended to be a fairly simple, easy to play game; a lot of the rules are there to simplify the game rather than to emulate real-world possibilities. There is an ongoing debate over whether some of them are even realistic - sandcasters being one case in point. We've all played the game of adding this or that home rule to flesh the system out to our tastes, there's no shame in that. However, when playing the game with others, our collective common sense has to take a back seat to the written rules - except of course when we and the person sitting across from us can negotiate some variation we both like. Some of us move on to MegaTrav specifically because High Guard does not suit our desire for detail..

Thank you too, Carlobrand for seconding Whipsnade about complicating, not my intention most of the time, and that I'm not as far in left field as I thought.

I can see sandcasters as a defensive weapon system. In the Star Carrier
series by Ian Douglas there is a device similar to a sand canister. The difference is that the device is more of a missile type munition. Of course the major draw back is that the particles are dangerous to friends and foes alike since they are traveling a really high speeds.

It makes absolutely no sense for a pawn to only capture on the diagonal, but Chess wouldn't be Chess if the various pieces didn't have their own unique limitations.

I really do understand that HG is simplified for easy of play and design. Unfortunately, some of the simplifications just don't make sense to me based on how I understand the rules. When I read through the engineering rules when I first purchased Traveller I figured out the Book 2 crew requirements based on the three separate engineering systems not lumping them together, since that is how I understood the rules. When Book 5 came out I continued the practice of calculating separate crews for the jump drive, maneuver drive, and power plant.

Thanks again for the reply.

 

[sabredog]

Thank you too, Carlobrand for seconding Whipsnade about complicating, not my intention most of the time, and that I'm not as far in left field as I thought.

Getting caught up in the details can drive you insane in this game - trust me. I decided to let HG just be for the big ships and the big battles - which is realistically what is is deigned to do, and LBB2 for the RPG Adventure Class stuff when players are playing. It allows for more "character" in battles and ship operations in role-playing sessions. But it would be a nightmare to (and was before HG showed up) big fleet battles with LBB2.

When I got my head around that paradigm it stopped exploding from trying harmonize HG with LBB2.

But that doesn't stop me from tinkering either when I get bored. So I have some house rules for blending some some of HG into LBB2 small ship designs and making it work in the context of LBB2 combat. It allows for my two-tiered small ship = player's sphere of influence + big ships= grand back drop of space opera epic to exist smoothly. Stuff like armor, high energy weapon turrets, and such. I know I might be able to make all that easier on myself if I just switched to MT but I'm old-fashioned and prefer CT. 'sides, what fun would it be if I let someone else fix it all for me?

 

[snrdg082102]

Thanks again Sabredog for the help.

I'm not really trying to put Book 2 and Book 5 together to get one set of rules. I'm trying to figure out how Adventure 5 TCS rules modified HG and what I could legally get away with. I have published a couple designs using HG2 was was politely informed that my design was not canon because I didn't follow the design sequence. I did follow the sequence, unfortunately my interpretation of the step was out of whack.

Which is why I haven't shared designs and ask redundant questions to make sure I'm on the same page as a majority of designers. So far I'm not feeling warm and fuzzy enough to share anything I create.

Getting caught up in the details can drive you insane in this game - trust me. I decided to let HG just be for the big ships and the big battles - which is realistically what is is deigned to do, and LBB2 for the RPG Adventure Class stuff when players are playing. It allows for more "character" in battles and ship operations in role-playing sessions. But it would be a nightmare to (and was before HG showed up) big fleet battles with LBB2.

When I got my head around that paradigm it stopped exploding from trying harmonize HG with LBB2.

But that doesn't stop me from tinkering either when I get bored. So I have some house rules for blending some some of HG into LBB2 small ship designs and making it work in the context of LBB2 combat. It allows for my two-tiered small ship = player's sphere of influence + big ships= grand back drop of space opera epic to exist smoothly. Stuff like armor, high energy weapon turrets, and such. I know I might be able to make all that easier on myself if I just switched to MT but I'm old-fashioned and prefer CT. 'sides, what fun would it be if I let someone else fix it all for me?

 

[sabredog]

Thanks again Sabredog for the help.

I'm not really trying to put Book 2 and Book 5 together to get one set of rules. I'm trying to figure out how Adventure 5 TCS rules modified HG and what I could legally get away with. I have published a couple designs using HG2 was was politely informed that my design was not canon because I didn't follow the design sequence. I did follow the sequence, unfortunately my interpretation of the step was out of whack.

Which is why I haven't shared designs and ask redundant questions to make sure I'm on the same page as a majority of designers. So far I'm not feeling warm and fuzzy enough to share anything I create.

I share all the time and if nobody appreciates my genius it is a loss for humanity but oh well. Tell away! A fresh opinion is always welcome!

 

[Hyphen]

Howdy BytePro,

Problem is that I'm gun shy when the feedback on the designs did not exactly encourage further sharing, so I put stuff together, save, and after a while forget I did them.

That's... disheartening. I don't understand people stomping on other people's creativity, especially given the snafu's common even to official Trav publications (Shattered Ships comes to mind, and T4's ships book... )

To my mind, it's all good. I just hope people would _critique_ the work (dispassionately), rather than just _criticise_ (tell you it's rubbish, while also commenting on your lack of sartorial elegance and dubious parentage). It's easier to destroy than to create.

Why not put them up again, and point out that they are deliberately designed to showcase the concept of multiple pp's under CT. After all, MT (the direct descendant of CT) realised this restriction was just silly, and allowed them in! (After all, CT allows backup bridges, and just look at the Leviathan!) Surely this means that you can relax "The Rules" for your own IMTU designs.

(I'm not sure if that HG Shipyard program will allow 2 pp's - but as already pointed out, you can build it as a single, oversized pp with no problems. Then just use the comments to say it is split in two.)

 

[Hyphen]

So, what do you think happens aboard a Kokirrak when the ship powers down to save fuel? Does the crew turn some huge dial on some huge single power plant from to "Ten" to "One" or do they idle one or more of the reactor-engine room suites aboard?

Hah! I'm betting if Dakhrongkae, our Vargr engineer, ever got aboard Count Leto's Kokirrak, he'd replace that stupid, underpowerd, human dial with one that goes up to "Eleven"...

(in Vargr "hot pink", 'natch...)

Yep, the tissue dispenser is right next to the clean underwear drawer.

Dang, didn't notice that, was that part of the basic or advanced life support rules? <thwap!>

<g, d & r>

 

[snrdg082102]

My problem is that I prefer sharing something that fits with the frame work of what every I'm working in. In CT the frame work for design is Book 2 and Book 5 for stellar and interstellar vehicles, being informed I'm in left field, very politely, doesn't make me what to share.

However, I do like see what others come up with and I usually keep my comments to myself. Unless there is a math error or perhaps a missing word or two.

Thanks again Sabredog.

I share all the time and if nobody appreciates my genius it is a loss for humanity but oh well. Tell away! A fresh opinion is always welcome!