L
lordmalachdrim
Guest
Been hanging out there a bit of late and it's gone to the printer they are just waiting for it to come back. They expect it to return from the printers late April/early May
Some News From Mongoose
- Thread starter rust
- Start date
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
I like the approach to providing alternative drives -- they're rated similarly and simply replace existing drives.
And if the warp/atomic/whatever drives are presented as alternatives, I'm not overly concerned with the fact that they may be better than the stock fusion drives. But the designer should probably have warned the reader that this is the case and been more explicit about the effects.
The warp drive, for instance, will make long range travel much easier than the canon jump drives. This is because the warp drive uses far less fuel than the canon jump drive, and fuel is a major limiting factor for canon jump drives.
For instance, a 100 ton MGT canon jump drive ship will require 60 tons of jump fuel and 6 tons of power plant fuel for a single jump (assuming 2 weeks of fuel for the power plant).
A warp drive ship will require only 12 tons of warp drive fuel (and its vaguely worded, but I'm assuming that it will still require 6 tons of power plant fuel).
This means that the canon ship can only make 1 jump 6 before refuelling. The warp ship can travel 22 parsecs on the same fuel load. A universe with this drive will have profoundly different economics, IMHO. The strategic implications would be profoundly different as well. The battlerider vs starship debate would be rendered largely academic, since the tonnage cost of adding FTL capability is far more modest. Empires would need a defensive strategy that envisions a defensive front 20+ parsecs deep rather than 4-6 parsecs deep. Raiders and corsairs would be far more effective since the defending navies would have far more systems to defend at any given time. Truly deep penetration raids could be mounted against enemy systems.
And no sane operator would choose a jump drive over the warp drive.
(Now, as it happens, I think that such a drive would better model the types of classic sci-fi stories that Traveller was based on. It would be possible for journeys of far greater duration than a week, which is more like 16-18th century travel).
The inclusion of an atomic power plant is curious, since no comparable atomic powered jump drive is provided. If the normal fusion based jump drives are available, there should be some explanation as to why its necessary to use the more dangerous (and expensive, at least in initial costs) atomic drive. There is some sloppy editing in this section -- the fission power plant is referred to as a "fission drive" most of the time -- so it may be that the same rules were intended to provide fission jump drives. If so, such ships would have effectively unlimited ranges (which is realistic) and greater cargo carrying capability. A fission powered ship would only have to refuel once per year. It's hard for me to see why any reasonable starship designer would choose the canon fusion drives and power plants over these fission alternatives. (The answer, I think, is that Traveller does not model projected Real World fusion drives very well).
Last edited:
Kharum1
SOC-12
For instance, a 100 ton MGT canon jump drive ship will require 60 tons of jump fuel and 6 tons of power plant fuel for a single jump (assuming 2 weeks of fuel for the power plant).
A warp drive ship will require only 12 tons of warp drive fuel (and its vaguely worded, but I'm assuming that it will still require 6 tons of power plant fuel).
QUOTE]
I have to correct you here. In Mongoose Traveller for a 100 ton ship using a jump drive "A" would require 20 tons of fuel for the jump drive and 2 tons for the power plant (assuming 2 weeks of fuel for the power plantand making the full jump two). Not the 66 tons you are speaking off.
For instance, a 100 ton MGT canon jump drive ship will require 60 tons of jump fuel and 6 tons of power plant fuel for a single jump (assuming 2 weeks of fuel for the power plant).
A warp drive ship will require only 12 tons of warp drive fuel (and its vaguely worded, but I'm assuming that it will still require 6 tons of power plant fuel).
QUOTE]
I have to correct you here. In Mongoose Traveller for a 100 ton ship using a jump drive "A" would require 20 tons of fuel for the jump drive and 2 tons for the power plant (assuming 2 weeks of fuel for the power plantand making the full jump two). Not the 66 tons you are speaking off.
He is useing "C" drives to make both ship Jump/warp factor 6
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
I have to correct you here. In Mongoose Traveller for a 100 ton ship using a jump drive "A" would require 20 tons of fuel for the jump drive and 2 tons for the power plant (assuming 2 weeks of fuel for the power plantand making the full jump two). Not the 66 tons you are speaking off.
We both need correcting. So does Mongoose, it seems.
You mistakenly assumed that I meant a jump-2 ship when I meant a jump-6 ship. I should have made this more explicit, but I do think it was pretty clear from the context.
A canon 100 ton Jump-6 ship would require 60 tons of jump fuel, plus a variable amount of power plant fuel depending on the design rules used.
And the MGT preview for the Scout (where I got my information) is contradictory. The Seeker has 40 tons of fuel for Jump-2 and 10 weeks operations. The Seeker Mining Ship has 24 tons of fuel for Jump-2 and 4 weeks operations. So the power plant fuel is 2 tons per week for the Seeker and 1 ton per week for the Seeker Mining Ship. Oops.
I glanced at the Seeker Mining Ship for my fuel figures. Extrapolating from that, a 100 ton ship jump-6 ship would need 60 tons jump fuel and 3 tons per week for power plant. Given the need to refuel and maneuver, 2 weeks power seemed about right. So, a 100 ton MGT ship would need 60+6=66 tons of fuel to complete a single Jump-6. Strictly considering the fuel cost for the jump itself would reduce this to 63 tons (1 jump 6 and 1 week of fuel).
Using the same fuel estimates, a Warp-6 ship would require double the power plant fuel consumption -- 6 tons per week. Adding in the power plant fuel consumption (the text is rather vague on whether this should be done) of 3 tons gives 9 tons per week.
So at the end of the trail, my point is amplified. Assuming the Mining Ship data is accurate, the Warp Drive is vastly superior to the canon hyper drive. A Warp ship will be able to travel at least 6 times as far on the same fuel load. This will profoundly alter the economic and military characteristics of a campaign.
If the Seeker data is correct, the Warp Drive would consume 18 tons per week vs 66 tons consumed by the Jump-6 ship. My point remains, I think.
Last edited:
A Warp drive could be an interesting why to take the OTU and the 30 years worth of work put into and change it to an ATU. Pick a point in the timeline and introduce the warp drive. The way I would do it, is make it a just introducted Tec. and have the meta-seting changes affect the ongoing game you have your players in.
However, I would limit or change the new Warp drive in a number of ways.
Have a 200 dTon ship be the min size need for a stable Warp field, to make all those 100dTon ships still be of use.
Limit max hull size by some method, so the 2,000+ dTon Jump 3-4 Megacorp ships are still viable.
Two ways I might use to limit the Warp drivers is by TL and / or hardcap max size due to a "Warp / Real Space interface limit."
i.e. TL12 = A Wdrive, TL13 = B Wdrive, TL 14 = C Wdrive, TL15 = D Wdrive
200 dTon ship = 4 parsec per week Max Warp speed
300 dTon ship = 3 parsec per week Max Warp speed
400 dTon ship = 2 parsec per week Max Warp speed
500 dTon ship = 1 parsec per week Max Warp speed
600 dTon ship = 1/2 parces per week Max Warp speed
You could allso up fuel useage and / or require that ships be armored and have hardened Electroncis and computer systems to withstand the transient radiaton produced by the Warp Drive.
There are all sorts of things you could do to lessen or increase the impact, the introduction of a Warp drive system into a Jump drive setting would have.
However, I would limit or change the new Warp drive in a number of ways.
Have a 200 dTon ship be the min size need for a stable Warp field, to make all those 100dTon ships still be of use.
Limit max hull size by some method, so the 2,000+ dTon Jump 3-4 Megacorp ships are still viable.
Two ways I might use to limit the Warp drivers is by TL and / or hardcap max size due to a "Warp / Real Space interface limit."
i.e. TL12 = A Wdrive, TL13 = B Wdrive, TL 14 = C Wdrive, TL15 = D Wdrive
200 dTon ship = 4 parsec per week Max Warp speed
300 dTon ship = 3 parsec per week Max Warp speed
400 dTon ship = 2 parsec per week Max Warp speed
500 dTon ship = 1 parsec per week Max Warp speed
600 dTon ship = 1/2 parces per week Max Warp speed
You could allso up fuel useage and / or require that ships be armored and have hardened Electroncis and computer systems to withstand the transient radiaton produced by the Warp Drive.
There are all sorts of things you could do to lessen or increase the impact, the introduction of a Warp drive system into a Jump drive setting would have.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Agreed. But my comments were about the Warp drive as defined by MGT, not hypothetical rules written by unknown folks
As I see it, a different drive should be, uh, different. If its clearly superior (considering all relevant characteristics), then it will rapidly supplant the previous technology.
The MGT warp drive is not only clearly superior to the Jump Drive, but it would force a number of very dramatic changes to the OTU. I think that these changes should be well defined and players warned about them.
FWIW...
My Traveller campaign has an older FTL drive technology (TL9-10) that has certain advantages over the Jump drive, but is, overall, inferior. I guess it's a "warp drive" -- actually, it's modeled after the Ehrenhaft magnetic drives of A. Bertram Chandler's novels. Ships that use them are called Gaussjammers.
The drives require less power than Jump drives and predate fusion power. So Gaussjammers had atomic piles (fission power plants). The drives could even be powered by emergency diesel generators.
Bottom line is that they require far less fuel than jump drives, so ships can travel much farther -- as much as 24 parsecs for typical ships -- but at a low speed (0.5 parsecs per week). The drive is very vulnerable to damage and cannot be armored very effectively, so warships stopped using it as soon as the jump drive came out. Worse, ships would be thrown WAY off course if they encountered a magnetic storm (roll 5- on 3d6 per week; DM +1 per level of Navigation, a "4" is always a storm). This would fling them 2d6x10 parsecs off course (reroll and add doubles). (Strangely, such mishaps usually resulted in the ship being within 2 parsecs of a star system; something to do with gravity, scientists theorize). The mishap also had the regrettable effect of destroying the atomic pile.
Mishaps were common enough that most large ships carried colonizing supplies (including frozen sperm and ova of various animals). The ship's biologist/doctor could usually make alcohol to power the emergency diesel generators for a few months to find a new world.
So IMTU, there are a large number of "lost colonies" out there.
This drive could be added to a Traveller campaign without disrupting it overly much. It's very different than jump drives, but its unreliability and vulnerability in combat make it generally inferior to the jump drive.
Almost steampunk, there. Sounds interesting and fun.
Hi there,
It should be pointed out that the warp drive is not OTU (unless, perhaps, it was unfathomable alien tech?), and is presented as an alternative for those who wish to make their own settings.
Unless, of course, that was exactly the point you were making
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Hi there,
It should be pointed out that the warp drive is not OTU (unless, perhaps, it was unfathomable alien tech?), and is presented as an alternative for those who wish to make their own settings.
Unless, of course, that was exactly the point you were making
Pretty much, although I guess I was cautioning that the Warp drive as written would profoundly affect a typical Traveller setting. I approve of basing rules for alternate tech (where practicable) on existing rules.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
More like atomicpunk -- 1940s and 1950s sci-fi that envisioned fission powered spaceships.
The jump drive is even better IMHO. It's a complext mass of gyroscopes that distorts time so that a ship can move faster than light by moving backwards through time while moving forwards through space (or some such technobabble). Anyhow, a ship IMTU has to expend reaction mass in FTL, which works out to the same 10% per jump number fuel expenditure in CT. (No dismountable fuel tanks, IMTU, though).
And the jump drive (called the "Mannschenn Drive" in Chandler's novels) is very user-unfriendly. It's mechanically complex and cranky (ships just fall back into normal spacetime while they repair a warped rotor or a burned out bearing). If you get too close to it, it will turn you inside-out, literally. Staring at it for long periods can induce a hypnotic effect (so engineers usually have a lifeline attached to the bulkhead). And when you initiate and come out of FTL, you may have flashes of prescience. (I like to mess with the PCs when that happens...) Mishaps can send you back in time and/or even to different universes.
MTU does not have reactionless drives. Drives are nuclear thermal rockets with unobtanium liners that allow incredibly high temperatures and much better performance than currently thought possible. (The fuel rods get coated with carbon deposits, especially with cheaper reaction mass like methane; the solution is to flush them with LOX. If the flushing system breaks down, someone has to don a rad suit and scrub the rods with a Brillo pad. Of course, this happens occasionally to my players...). Radiation poisoning is a real danger in space travel IMTU.
The Maneuver drives cost and displace the same as normal CT drives; the CT power plant fuel requirement is the reaction mass used in normal operations. MTU power plants are nuclear piles with fuel rods that last for years. The limiting factor is reaction mass--you have to have it to go anywhere at FTL. These assumptions let me use normal CT starship designs; just the operations are somewhat different.
The Manschenn drive is Chandler's design; the NTR maneuver drive is my own.
Last edited:
captainjack
SOC-13
Tubepunk is the term I've seen tossed around - diesel punk for pre WWII.
And presumably atompunk too for the later 50's; and transistorpunk for the sixties, discopunk for the seventies, yuppiepunk for the eightys, Webpunk for the nineties; dualcorepunk for the uh ...oughties, and then futurepunk, I guess for after that.
Genres are confusing.
casquilho
SOC-13
I think some folks spend too much time trying to create new buzz words. :rofl:
Discopunk, the real punks would die to see that one.
Daniel
Similar threads
