• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

The nature of the book 1-3 Universe

What changes with ignoring PP fuel is that is TOO much change is that: a single fuel hit can disable any jump-1 ship's ability to jump away, whereas it wasn't always so. There's no cushion there. Plus it makes fuel hits immaterial on system ships and small craft.
And this is intrinsically bad because...?


Hans
 
Personally I don't find the idea of changing the power plant fuel intrinsically or otherwise bad. Just a change, with repercussions, so it needs work to implement. And it's low on my list of "fixes" as well since it works for me as is.

On the LBB divide I've long labeled LBB1-3 as CT and inclusion of everything else that was "Traveller" but changed the basic premises (such as LBB4-7) or used such (some adventures) as CT+ but I'm not sure that's an accepted notation or not.
 
Personally I don't find the idea of changing the power plant fuel intrinsically or otherwise bad.
OK, but that's not what I got from your original statement.

Just a change, with repercussions, so it needs work to implement.
What work? That's what I've been trying to point out, that it wouldn't involve much work. Granted, the deckplans would all be wrong, but they're all buggered up anyway (There's not a single design I know of that actually spends 40 squares on the bridge). As for basic stats, how much work does it take to change
"A Free Trader. 200 tons. Jump-1, 1-G. 30 tons fuel. Model/1. 10 staterooms, 20 low. 2 hardpoints. 82 tons cargo. Streamlined. 4 crew. MCr37.08; 11 months."​
to
"A Free Trader. 200 tons. Jump-1, 1-G. 20 tons fuel. Model/1. 10 staterooms, 20 low. 2 hardpoints. 92 tons cargo. Streamlined. 4 crew. MCr37.08; 11 months."​
?

And it's low on my list of "fixes" as well since it works for me as is.
It's only just dawned on me in the course of this discussion that PP fuel tankage for BT differs from PP fuel tankage for HG. That where HG requires 2 tons of fuel for a Free Trader (already ridiculous), BT actually requires TEN tons!

So I have to say that much as HG PP fuel tankage doesn't work for me, that goes double (or rather, quintuple) for BT! ;-)


Hans
 
Personally I don't find the idea of changing the power plant fuel intrinsically or otherwise bad.

OK, but that's not what I got from your original statement.

Perhaps if I had bolded the key word?

Power plant fuel could (should) probably be ignored, for power generation requirements, as inconsequential.

To clarify, I put it under the usual, "it's your game, mess about, have fun" with the caveat "but consider the consequences" that I apply to any house rules ideas.

Just a change, with repercussions, so it needs work to implement.

What work? That's what I've been trying to point out, that it wouldn't involve much work.

I suppose it depends a lot on what you call work. As noted the deckplans for one, for those that need them.

I wouldn't simply make it more cargo space. The Type A for example should have 8 passenger staterooms imo to fully utilize that layabout Steward for better profits :)

Speaking of which, using the same trade rules you now have a more profitable (10tons more revenue space and 10tons less fuel to buy each month) Free Trader. The players will never have to adventure to make ends meet. I know some claim they can get rich quick anyway but I've only seen it when the rules are bent. Personal experiences may differ I guess. And no, there's nothing wrong with a profitable ship, if that's what you're after. But it is a dynamics change. With repercussions for adventures. And just one. I haven't given it enough thought to wonder what others there might be.

It's only just dawned on me in the course of this discussion that PP fuel tankage for BT differs from PP fuel tankage for HG.

Yeah, that's a big part of the "what could they have possibly imagined saying HG and B2 are compatible", of course for a time I said the difference was HG drives are gravitic thrusters so they don't need all that reaction mass of the B2 fusion torch drives. But it's hardly enough of handwave, and you have to do it really really fast. Gets tired quick ;)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top