I think I've figured out a way to make a Jump-5 (6 when expending a 10 ton drop tank) Express Boat and fit it into a 100 ton hull(!) using LBB5.80. The ship manages Jump-5 on internal fuel but can retain the L-Hyd Drop Tank through Jump-5 without losing performance. The only time the L-Hyd Drop Tank needs to be dropped/expended (and therefore replaced at the destination by a Tender) is when needing to make a Jump-6.
Whole starship weighs in at 100 tons and MCr 109 for the first ship in class (of which MCr 55 is just the model/6 computer!), and only MCr 87.20 in quantity ... which honestly compares pretty favorably to the MCr 70.65 for the legacy Jump-4 X-Boats detailed in LBB S7. Major downside though is maintenance support, since annual overhauls would require TL=15 at A or B starports, which is a LOT less common than TL=10 at A or B starports.
Although, once I had a (new) X-Boat design, it naturally called for a new Express Tender to service it ... so the more things change, the more they stay the same. Still cross-checking math on it, but I might post the combination in the next week or so once I'm sure I haven't overlooked something important.
The rules are obviously set up to punish small ships. The point of the 10Pn rule (and the 20 Dt bridge) is that small ships are not very capable, and larger ships are disproportionally more capable. So to remove those restrictions you are fundamentally changing the LBB2 system. Making 100 Dt ships as capable as larger ships is directly against the spirit, as well as the letter, of LBB2.
LBB2 is very clear: Want a J-4 ship with some payload, make a bigger and more expensive ship.
The problem is that the rules don't match the physics/engineering constraints of the game universe, for purely arbitrary reasons (that are, as you note, meant to affect game play). EDIT: I don't need the drop-tank XBoat example to make the point, so I spoilered it.
For a familiar example, consider a LBB2 '81 100Td drop-tank-enabled XBoat (J4/0G) with 52 tons onboard tankage*, designed to use 40-ton drop tanks every Jump-4. With the tanks, it's rated as Jump-2, Pn=2. Drop the tanks at Jump initiation, and it's Jump-4, Pn=4. Without the tanks it has fuel for a jump-1 (fuel limited) while still having 4.2 weeks of power plant fuel.
This is a legal design, assuming drop tanks are allowed for LBB2 ships.
Have it do a Jump-4 while dropping the tanks. The Jump-4 takes all 40 tons of fuel from the drop tanks, and in the worst case of a 184.8 hour jump (168 hours +10%, rounded up), it will burn 11 tons (1/4, plus 10% of that 1/4, of the 40 ton 4-week allocation) of fuel in the power plant during the 7.7 days in jumpspace. It will have 41 tons of fuel left when it exits Jump.
40 of those tons of fuel could have powered the jump drive for the Jump-4 (the extra 1Td is to keep the power plant lit for another 16 hours while it's waiting for the XBoat Tender to come get it).
Why did it need drop tanks?
Yeah, I know: the rules say you need 10Td*M*Pn fuel for the power plant for 4 weeks and that cannot be violated.
That said, what is there in the rules that would prevent it from doing a Jump-4 on its internal tanks and coming out with 1-3 tons of fuel left over, depending on the +/-10% jump duration variance?
That's also the rules.
And that's where the Yacht Loophole comes from. As a ship with fuel for Jump-1 once and 3 months of power plant fuel, it's amazingly inside the rules. As a ship that has fuel for two Jump-1 in four weeks (thus possibly doing each Jump-1 with only two weeks of power plant fuel) it's pushing hard against any in-universe safety parameters that could be driving the "4-week power plant fuel allocation" rule.
Same ship -- it's all in how you use it.
* It all fits if you put the pilot in a half-stateroom:
Code:
Tons MCr Description
20 0.5 Bridge
4 30 Mod/4 Computer
2 0.5 Half-Stateroom
15 20 Jump Drive B (J4)
7 16 Power Plant B (Pn=4)
0 0 No Maneuver Drive
40 0 Jump Fuel (Jump-4)
10 0 Fuel for 1 week Pn 4
1 0 Fuel for 10% over-duration Jump
1 0 Fuel for 16.8 hours recovery wait time
0 10 Hull (100Td custom unstreamlined)
0 0.010 Drop Tank Fittings (TCS cost)
Totals:
100 78.010
The only item not explicitly described in LBB2 is the half-stateroom.
The drop tanks are only needed to demonstrate fuel use using a LBB2+LBB5 rules-compliant design, and they use no tonnage inside the ship.
There isn't room for "mail" data banks, but a little volume can be carved out of the bridge allocation -- at the very least, the 1/2 ton that would have been a co-pilot seat. (There are other things that would normally be included in "bridge" tonnage that aren't needed by a ship without a maneuver drive, as well.)
The ship I started this out with is absolutely legal when described as follows:
It has a fuel-limited Jump-3 (with J-4 potential), Pn=4, 2G, and 6 weeks power plant fuel. This is legal the same way the Type J Seeker and the Gazelle are legal (J-fuel shortfall).
It carries a 10 ton drop tank, which makes it Jump-2, 1G, with fuel for 2 Jump-2 and 1.8 months of power plant fuel (at Pn=2).
When dropping the 10 ton tank during Jump, it can accomplish a Jump-4 (10Td fuel from drop tank, 70Td from internal; 40Td fuel for 4 weeks of Pn=4 internal.)
This is completely within the LBB5 drop tank rules.
And then note that when it comes out of a Jump-4 while dropping the tank (even assuming a week to reach jump limit, when it usually takes less than a day), it has 29-31 tons of fuel left over. 20 tons of it could have stretched that J-3 into a J-4 without the drop tank, and then it would have had 9-11 tons of fuel left instead -- enough for 1 week at Pn=4. That's plenty to get from jump limit to the destination. (I'm rounding up to 200Td for simplicity. Yeah, when you describe it this way it's 209Td all-up and needs a medic and engineer.)
So, just build it to carry the 10 ton drop tank, then leave the drop tank at the shipyard and never look back.
H Jump 25tons
D Maneuver 7 ton
H Power 13 tons
Fuel Jump 160 tons
Fuel Month 160 tons
Bridge 20 tons
Computer 4 tons
2 Turrets/FC 2 tons
Staterooms 16 tons
Cargo 3 tons
Not even a mail/courier.
The 3-week fuel rule fudge would be THE option for me, freeing up 40 tons. Then you get room to get a couple more turrets, more staterooms, possibly low-berths, and usable cargo space. Something like 6 staterooms, 3 turrets, 6 low berths, 30 tons cargo.
It scales as you get bigger, a 600 ton one might work without the fudge and definitely be that much better with the 3-week fuel setup.
Back in original, dead-tree JTAS #6, LKW and MWM penned an article, "The Imperial Interstellar Scout Service", which was a prototype of what eventually became CT B6: Scouts. Even then, there was a recognized need for a "business jet" type of starship to courier VIPs around. (This was before the various 200dt, Jump-3 Couriers from the CT Alien Modules were canonical, I reckon.)
Anyway, the original idea for a dedicated IISS Courier was to gut a Type S of all fittings except two staterooms (keeping only the required engineering) in order to cram something like 55dtons of fuel into the hull in lieu of normal payload.
Depending on what fuel consumption model you use IYTU (see posts above), this configuration can either do two Jump-2s with a total of three weeks' power plant endurance, or else a couple of J-2s plus a J-1 with over six weeks' power plant endurance.
This is noteworthy as evidence that even back in the early days there was already a recognition that there would be circumstances in which certain people can be at least as high a priority for a courier service as dispatches are.
Heck, if you allow TCS power-down rules to count by weeks instead of whole months, the Type S has a 3-parsec range as-is (and IMTU, that's why it has the silly huge fuel tank).
Yes, it's an obvious niche that generally hasn't been well-served in canon.
One problem is that in LBB2'81, the small fast-movers are too cramped to make for interesting deck plans...
H Jump 25tons
D Maneuver 7 ton
H Power 13 tons
Fuel Jump 160 tons
Fuel Month 160 tons
Bridge 20 tons
Computer 4 tons
2 Turrets/FC 2 tons
Staterooms 16 tons
Cargo 3 tons
Not even a mail/courier.
The 3-week fuel rule fudge would be THE option for me, freeing up 40 tons. Then you get room to get a couple more turrets, more staterooms, possibly low-berths, and usable cargo space. Something like 6 staterooms, 3 turrets, 6 low berths, 30 tons cargo.
It scales as you get bigger, a 600 ton one might work without the fudge and definitely be that much better with the 3-week fuel setup.
You have way too much power plant fuel. It only needs 40Td, not 160 (LBB2 needs 10 tons per PN, not 10% per PN).
Drop tanks and making like it's a Seeker (counting the fuel shortfall against Jump fuel to keep the 4-week power plant fuel reserve, on paper), then never bothering to install the drop tanks, gives you a "legal" way to use the 3-week fudge.
Two points:
1. The drop-tank dodge can't work for J-1 ships. By analogy it should, but we're only talking 5-10 tons at most (for LBB2 ships) so it's a moot point.
2. It could possibly be stretched to a "2-week fudge", but unless you're building an XBoat (see the spoilered part of my post upthread) that might be as far as you ought to go..
Yes, like any RPG I have ever played. LBB1-3 seems better than most? Of course the many books and magazines issued later by many different publishers contained more contradictions. Sure, it's not perfect, but what game is?
Yet we are still using and discussing this particular rule-set many decades later. Seems to be good enough to use?
What was there to rebalance? The system works well, as far as I can see.
Yes, someone actually read the rules and used computer support to design a fleet fairly well optimised for that particular case (TL-12, J-2?, limited number of pilots).
Next year he came back with a completely different fleet optimised for a different set of criteria, I believe. Isn't that the point of TCS Tournaments?
There is no general optimised solution to HG combat, as far as I know.
... and I don't know how many TCS games were played where the combat actually made one iota of difference, since most fights were likely (by design) horribly unbalanced so as not to bring up any glaring design issues with the system.
Yes, if you show up to a TCS fight with some random ships you will likely be outclassed at the design stage. If two reasonably well-designed fleets show up, the combat will matter.
TCS is about designing fleets, and then using the combat system to adjudicate which is the better fleet. All ships or fleets are not supposed to be equal or balanced.
The problem is that the rules don't match the physics/engineering constraints of the game universe, for purely arbitrary reasons (that are, as you note, meant to affect game play).
You believe. The engineering constraints you use are not defined or assumed in LBB2. The engineering constraint in LBB2 seems to be "small drives are less efficient", however clumsily the rule is implemented.
That said, what is there in the rules that would prevent it from doing a Jump-4 on its internal tanks and coming out with 1-3 tons of fuel left over, depending on the +/-10% jump duration variance?
There is no "Yacht Loophole", it's perfectly legal. You can carry as much fuel above the minimum as you wish when you design the ship. You can carry fuel for five J-1 and four weeks for the PP if you want. You might not be able to use it that way, but you can build it that way...
It's even perfectly legal to build a J-4 ship with a m/2 computer. It will never be able to perform J-4, but still requires tankage for J-4. The design rules certainly allows you to build stupid designs...
The ship I started this out with is absolutely legal when described as follows:
It has a fuel-limited Jump-3 (with J-4 potential), Pn=4, 2G, and 6 weeks power plant fuel. This is legal the same way the Type J Seeker and the Gazelle are legal (J-fuel shortfall).
It carries a 10 ton drop tank, which makes it Jump-2, 1G, with fuel for 2 Jump-2 and 1.8 months of power plant fuel (at Pn=2).
When dropping the 10 ton tank during Jump, it can accomplish a Jump-4 (10Td fuel from drop tank, 70Td from internal; 40Td fuel for 4 weeks of Pn=4 internal.)
This is completely within the LBB5 drop tank rules.
Yes, you can design it that way, but I would call it a J-3 ship without the drop tank. By strict RAW you can only place additional and jump fuel in drop tanks, not the basic PP fuel. So what you have is a ship with 4 weeks of fuel for the PP, and 70 Dt (J-3.5 @ 199 Dt) for the jump drive. But as we have agreed, fuel is fungible...
If you routinely use it for J-4 I would use Referee fiat to cause trouble, just as if you tried to game the crew rules by saying that all crew members has several skills and covers two roles each, so you only need half the normal crew, all in double occupancy.
It you file a J-4 flight plan with a J-3 rated ship Imperial authorities might want to have a pointed discussion with you, especially if you carry passengers...
But, sure, if you want to do it once in an emergency...
What was there to rebalance? The system works well, as far as I can see.
Yes, someone actually read the rules and used computer support to design a fleet fairly well optimised for that particular case (TL-12, J-2?, limited number of pilots).
Next year he came back with a completely different fleet optimised for a different set of criteria, I believe. Isn't that the point of TCS Tournaments?
There is no general optimised solution to HG combat, as far as I know.
In the extreme view, everyone shows up to the tournament with the same fleet. The min/maxing dictates a specific fleet composition. The real issue is that HG fleet engagements are decided at the design stage and, perhaps less so, the luck of the dice. If two "perfect" fleets engaged each other, odds are that battle is decided on the first round. There's little a player can do during the fight to change the outcome.
What glaring design issues?
Yes, if you show up to a TCS fight with some random ships you will likely be outclassed at the design stage. If two reasonably well-designed fleets show up, the combat will matter.
TCS is about designing fleets, and then using the combat system to adjudicate which is the better fleet. All ships or fleets are not supposed to be equal or balanced.
Who knows what design issues might have cropped up. We've all seen the edge case designs (ye olde 19,999 ton ship, etc.) playing on break points.
Properly played TCS never has a "balanced" fight. It's all about being in the right place at the right time, not lining up ranks of troops in an agreed upon field at dawn.
The real issue is that HG fleet engagements are decided at the design stage and, perhaps less so, the luck of the dice. If two "perfect" fleets engaged each other, odds are that battle is decided on the first round. There's little a player can do during the fight to change the outcome.
No. In the case of the Eurisko fleet, I believe the battle would be decided by the players when they deployed their few spinals to the battleline. That is an active choice by the players. All other damage can be repaired faster than the enemy can inflict it, but mesons (and PA vs small ships) kills ships permanently.
Back in original, dead-tree JTAS #6, LKW and MWM penned an article, "The Imperial Interstellar Scout Service", which was a prototype of what eventually became CT B6: Scouts. [...]
Anyway, the original idea for a dedicated IISS Courier was to gut a Type S of all fittings except two staterooms (keeping only the required engineering) in order to cram something like 55dtons of fuel into the hull in lieu of normal payload. [...]
Tons Component MCr
---- --------- -----
(199) Hull (S) 22
20 Bridge 1
4 Model/4 30
25 Jump-4 40
3 1G 8
13 Power-4 32
80 Jump fuel -
40 Power fuel -
8 Staterooms(2) 1
1 Low Berths(2) 0.1
1 T3 LMS 3
4 Cargo hold -
---- ---------- ------
subtotal --> 137
Crew required:
--------------
Pilot: yes (1)
Astrogator: no
Engineer: no
Steward: no
Medic: no
Gunner: no
Using a 199-ton custom streamlined hull, the transport scout is intended for personnel transfer duties along the XBoat network, as well as exploration, survey, and courier missions. It has jump drive-D, maneuver drive-B, and power plant-D, giving performance of jump-4 and 1-G acceleration. A 120-ton fuel tank provides fuel for four weeks of power plant operation output and one jump-4. Adjacent to its bridge is a Model/4 computer. There are two staterooms and two low berths. One hybrid Beam Laser-Missile-Sandcaster triple turret is installed on the hardpoint. No vehicles are carried. Cargo capacity is 4 tons. The hull is streamlined, and incorporates fuel scoops. The drives can tolerate unrefined fuel without difficultly. Sensors are Scout/Military grade unless specified otherwise.
THe X-boat is perfectly legal under Bk2 1977. if your rulebook is 1981 or later, it's a different ruleset from the 1977 edition. And early CT jump drives do not require a separate powerplant.
The Type A and Type R work fine using core rules Trade & Commerce.
The Type M only makes sense if jump price is per parsec, rather than per jump, but one of the adventures shows the profit in practice...
Oh, absolutely, it's completely arbitrary, the entire LBB2 is.
But it's a strict rule, with no wiggle room.
E.g. a B-drive in a 100 Dt hull is potential 4, and the same drive in a 101 Dt hull is potential 2. It's completely arbitrary and utterly ridiculous, yet people still use the system ~45 years later.
The LBB5 system is much better from this perspective.
If you want to avoid the arbitrariness of LBB2, then use LBB5?
Or just wave the Referee wand and say "House-rule", but then you can't really say it's an LBB2 ship anymore...
LBB5 is a lot more sensible, but has the same arbitrary 4-week power plant fuel minimum. It's just not as noticeable because of the much lower fuel burn rates in LBB5 ACS sized-ships. That said, a fixed standard minimum endurance is not unreasonable for ships designed as combatants.
But the fundamental issue is that using LBB5 where LBB2 is called for is cheating. Yes, it's a legitimate rule set, but that's not the point. The point is that LBB5's construction rules are integrated with its abstract combat system and technology paradigm, which is markedly different from the one in LBB2 and LBB3. High jump range can be accomplished relatively easily in LBB5 (TL permitting) because that design system imposes lower (size and credit) costs for it to compensate for its higher (size and credit) costs of combat-relevant components. It's difficult in LBB2 because that system was designed to make things that are useful to player characters in an RPG context (high jump range, for example) costly and difficult.
You believe. The engineering constraints you use are not defined or assumed in LBB2. The engineering constraint in LBB2 seems to be "small drives are less efficient", however clumsily the rule is implemented.
I do call it those things. And because of that, I feel entitled to exploit other arbitrary features of the setting to work around the arbitrary impediments in ways that foster internal consistency.
There is no "Yacht Loophole", it's perfectly legal. You can carry as much fuel above the minimum as you wish when you design the ship. You can carry fuel for five J-1 and four weeks for the PP if you want. You might not be able to use it that way, but you can build it that way...
It's even perfectly legal to build a J-4 ship with a m/2 computer. It will never be able to perform J-4, but still requires tankage for J-4. The design rules certainly allows you to build stupid designs...
I was kind of waiting for you to get here...
Yes, you can design it that way, but I would call it a J-3 ship without the drop tank. By strict RAW you can only place additional and jump fuel in drop tanks, not the basic PP fuel. So what you have is a ship with 4 weeks of fuel for the PP, and 70 Dt (J-3.5 @ 199 Dt) for the jump drive. But as we have agreed, fuel is fungible...
If you routinely use it for J-4 I would use Referee fiat to cause trouble, just as if you tried to game the crew rules by saying that all crew members has several skills and covers two roles each, so you only need half the normal crew, all in double occupancy.
Pretty sure T5 has a mechanic for that. Better to use robots...
It you file a J-4 flight plan with a J-3 rated ship Imperial authorities might want to have a pointed discussion with you, especially if you carry passengers...
But, sure, if you want to do it once in an emergency...
Flight plan? But of course!
12 hour 2G burn to 100D (estimated, from the chart in LBB2), Then jump-4, then 12 hours 2G deceleration to the destination. Assume a 7.7 day Jump and round up, that's 9 days with the power plant running. Even if it's running at Pn=4 the whole time, there will still be 12 days reserve at full power -- enough to go to and from the 100D limit 12 more times.
~shrug~
And coming back to the yacht thing. A Type Y doing back-to-back jumps across 2 parsecs comes out of the second jump with about the same reserve duration (15% higher). If it's going to jump at standard cadence without refueling (1 jump every two weeks), it'll have significantly less.
