Revised LBB2 Drive Potential Table

[Thunderbolt]

I originally posted this to the MGT section but it possibly makes more sense here.

I started looking at the table because the MGT drive table only goes up to 2000 tons displacement.

Looking at Book 2, I could see that the original LBB2 table was not entirely proportional, since we see a Z drive providing factor 6 performance on both 1000 ton and 2000 ton hulls.

I didn't want it to deviate too much, particularly where factors start and stop for a given hull size, but I was looking for something that could fill in the gaps in hull sizes that MGT has with a smoother degradation in performance.

The first table tries to be the standard hull sizes version, while the second addresses the additional MGT sizes and some others in between.

Please critique!!

 

[robject]

Something to keep in mind is that the iconic Traveller ships are all 800 tons and under. Larger ships were published, but not given the same pride of place -- they tended to be in appendices, and often had errors as well. In other words, they were window-dressings. Additionally, note that the drive potential limits on large hulls seems to punish these larger ships. So, feel free to optimize the table appropriately.

And, at the risk of being a thread-crapper, I suggest taking a page from Ken Pick and allowing drives N through Z to be "doubled". This plus a little optimization should give us a nice healthy range of potentials.

     A B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q R S T U V W X Y Z N2P2Q2R2S2T2U2V2W2X2Y2Z2
100  2 4 6
200  1 2 3 4 5 6
300    1 2 2 3 4 4 5 6 6
400    1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 
600      1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6
800        1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6

     A B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q R S T U V W X Y Z N2P2Q2R2S2T2U2V2W2X2Y2Z2

1000         1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6
2000                   1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 
3000                         1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5
4000                               1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
5000                                     1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4
     A B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q R S T U V W X Y Z N2P2Q2R2S2T2U2V2W2X2Y2Z2

You can change the progression rule however you like to suit your needs, of course.

 

[Plankowner]

Rather than use double drives, I just let multiple drives be placed on the same ship, adding performance.

So to get 6Gs on a 5Kton ship, you would use three Z drives. Gives you more hits to absorb as well (at least under CT).

 

[BillDowns]

When I use LBB2 - which is not often - I use reverse-engineered formlae for engine size and cost. It works for 90% (more or less) of the given tables.

Maneuver Drive Tonnage:  (Ship * Mfactor / 200 - 1) * 2 + 1
Maneuver Drive Cost:     (Ship * Mfactor / 200) * 4

Jump Drive Tonnage:    (Ship * Jfactor / 200) * 5 +5
Jump Drive Cost:       (Ship * Jfactor / 200) * 10

Power Plant Tonnage:   (Ship * PFactor / 200 - 1) * 3 + 4
Power Plant Cost:      (Ship * Pfactor / 200) * 8

 

[robject]

When I use LBB2 - which is not often - I use reverse-engineered formlae for engine size and cost. It works for 90% (more or less) of the given tables.

Maneuver Drive Tonnage:  (Ship * Mfactor / 200 - 1) * 2 + 1
Maneuver Drive Cost:     (Ship * Mfactor / 200) * 4

Jump Drive Tonnage:    (Ship * Jfactor / 200) * 5 +5
Jump Drive Cost:       (Ship * Jfactor / 200) * 10

Power Plant Tonnage:   (Ship * PFactor / 200 - 1) * 3 + 4
Power Plant Cost:      (Ship * Pfactor / 200) * 8

Yup, I've done this too. Works extremely well (though your formulae don't look familiar to me... must just be in disguise!)

 

[BillDowns]

Robject, I may have posted it incorrectly

How does it differ from yours?

 

[robject]

Robject, I may have posted it incorrectly

How does it differ from yours?

No I think it's correct, I only remember boiling it down differently.

Jump drive vol = 5 + (hull volume x jump number) / 40
Jump drive MCr = jump drive vol x 2 - 10 (assert: vol >= 10)


Yup, they're the same formulae all right. I based drive prices on their volume, i.e. MCr per ton of drive, rather than the drive number and hull volume. Your way seems to be a better way to do it.

I remember why I did it that way. I wanted to be able to produce lists of drives of varying volumes, and wanted to know the cost, and be able to guesstimate relative differences in power usage (i.e. ratios, not absolutes).

 

[BillDowns]

Thunderbolt, using the basis of my formula on the 500-ton hull, I get slightly different values for Drive G - factor 2, and M - factor 4.

On the 900-ton hull, I get a difference on Drives M & N - factor 2 each, Drive S - factor 3, and Drives W & X - factor 4 each.

For what it's worth

BTW, how did you get that beutifully aligned small font?

 

[robject]

BTW, how did you get that beautifully aligned small font?

Looks like images.

 

[aramis]

He did use images.