CT Only: Wasp ship (Eurisko) controversy

[Tobias]

Published example (you're going to hate this):
View attachment 4878
A TL-12 ship with Z-drives. Part of the Eurisko fleet in JTAS#10, p39.

Heh, I didn't even know that Eurisko went for that exploit. But yeah, using Book 2 maneuver drives in a Book 5 nonstarship is basically cheating, considering Book 2 had the reversed paradigm regarding the relative sizes of maneuver and jump drives.

(Something that IMHO should've been smoothed out by errata switching the jump and maneuver drive tonnages in Book 2 and publishing a short list of changed cargo values for affected ships about 40 years ago, but oh well.)

 

[McPerth]

Published example (you're going to hate this):
View attachment 4878
A TL-12 ship with Z-drives. Part of the Eurisko fleet in JTAS#10, p39.

(sorry, I must have skipped this one until Tobias caught it into my attention)

Why should I hate this? It just shows the referees of the contest didn’t pay attention to the design, as using a TL15 component in a TL 12 ship is clearly against the rules.

LBB580, page 22:

It is possible to include standard drives (at standard prices) from Book 2 if they will otherwise meet the ship's requirements; such drives use fuel as indicated by the formulas in Book 2.

A TL 15 component does not meet the requirements to be installed in a TL12 ship, as those requirements include:

LBB580, page 20:

Equipment and components of a starship may always be equal to or less than the ship's tech level..

So, it was clearly cheating and the design illegal according with the rules, and should not be accepted. I cannot understand how the contest referees skipped this…

But yeah, using Book 2 maneuver drives in a Book 5 nonstarship is basically cheating, considering Book 2 had the reversed paradigm regarding the relative sizes of maneuver and jump drives.

Well, this point is specifically allowed by the rules, so I would not call it cheating (though unethical maybe…)

 

[Tobias]

Well, bug exploiting you could say.

Btw I didn't even think about the fact that the tourney was TL 12 and that the drives were thus illegal.

 

[whartung]

But yeah, using Book 2 maneuver drives in a Book 5 nonstarship is basically cheating, considering Book 2 had the reversed paradigm regarding the relative sizes of maneuver and jump drives.

I've seen that "can use book 2 drives" rule, but never made much sense about how you would use a B2 drive in a B5 design.

 

[Carlobrand]

...Why should I hate this? It just shows the referees of the contest didn’t pay attention to the design, as using a TL15 component in a TL 12 ship is clearly against the rules. ...

There may have been a technicality involved. TCS says you need Book 5. Book 5 says you can use Book 2 components. Book 2 makes no mention of tech levels for the equipment; that crops up in Book 3. Lenat was a programmer, not a Traveller player. He programmed in the rules he was aware of. Since Book 3 was not mentioned, he was likely not aware of the limitation, and the judges on scene would have had difficulty enforcing a limitation based on a book that wasn't identified as part of the tournament rules.

 

[McPerth]

That's why I said the contest referees should have realized it...

 

[Carlobrand]

That's why I said the contest referees should have realized it...

What I mean is the contest referees may have realized it but may not have been able to do anything about it since Book 3 was never mentioned as a rules source for the contest.

 

[Condottiere]

You shouldn't have to look up rules in more than one publication.

Though, currently, I think it's a dozen.

 

[Grav_Moped]

considering Book 2 had the reversed paradigm regarding the relative sizes of maneuver and jump drives.

Not cheating in that way, but (as noted) cheating by breaking the TL constraints of LBB3.

The paradigm flip there seems to have been to impose tonnage cost for high m-drive ratings to parallel the tonnage cost of LBB2's absurd (in smaller ships) power plant fuel requirements.

Jump's tonnage cost was always the fuel requirement, so smaller jump drives didn't unbalance things too much. Then they allowed drop tanks...

Oops.

And in general, the Pn=Jn or Pn=Gs allowed HG to sneak in TL efficiency improvements to the M- and J-drives without formally stating that's what they were doing.

 

[Tobias]

The paradigm flip there seems to have been to impose tonnage cost for high m-drive ratings to parallel the tonnage cost of LBB2's absurd (in smaller ships) power plant fuel requirements.

Not really. LBB2 jump drives where just large and maneuver drives small. In LBB5 it was the opposite. By dragging LBB2 maneuver drives into an LBB5 nonstarship design, you're using a cheap trick to save tonnage, is all.
The PP fuel requirements are another matter, but they are irrelevant for a 1000-ton ship such as the one discussed here. Using an LBB2 maneuver drive gave you the same performance as an LLB5 one at ~a quarter of the tonnage, simple as that.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Not really. LBB2 jump drives where just large and maneuver drives small. In LBB5 it was the opposite. By dragging LBB2 maneuver drives into an LBB5 nonstarship design, you're using a cheap trick to save tonnage, is all.
The PP fuel requirements are another matter, but they are irrelevant for a 1000-ton ship such as the one discussed here. Using an LBB2 maneuver drive gave you the same performance as an LLB5 one at ~a quarter of the tonnage, simple as that.

If you allow mix-and-match, maybe. I don't.

The point of LBB5's paradigm is that things that are combat-relevant (M-Drive and the power plant to run it) are costly in MCr and tonnage, things that aren't, are less so. LBB2 is similar, but for RPG value (High Jn is useful for PCs, maneuver -- in LBB2 -- is much less so). In the size range of typical PC ships (100Td Type S, through Type R and the 600Td Type M), that 10Td/Pn hurts. Above 1000Td, it's better than HG's fuel requirement.

But keep in mind that LBB2 constrains maneuver drive size exactly as it does jump drives and power plants. A 1000Td ship with LBB2 drives is limited to 3G and Pn-3 until TL-15! (TL-14 allows Size R-U drives, which still only yield a rating of 3 in 1000Td.) And if it's J-3, it then can have agility no higher than 2, even without any energy weapons, because of the computer power requirement.

And as I alluded to, the LBB5 jump drive "outsourced" the "fast-burn-fusion-reactor element" of the drive* to the "power plant in overdrive mode", bringing the increased-TL-efficiencies of HG power plants to jump drives. (In LBB2, J-Drive + Power Plant does not vary by TL, all else about a ship being equal; in LBB5, it does vary by TL because the power plant does).

(edit complete)
-----------------------
*LBB2'77 didn't need a power plant for the jump drive (see canon XBoat), so it had to have included some kind of fusion reactor that'd burn 10% of the ship's tonnage per Jn in a ten minute combat turn(!) Drive sizes and costs were retained in the '81 version, but Pn>=Jn or Pn>=Gs, whichever was higher. Fuel use changed: jump drives could be throttled back (10% per Jn used, not 10% per Jn the drive was capable of -- that is, jump governors became standard; power plants still used 10Td/Jn but instead of that being "one trip, world-to-world", it was now 4 weeks worth).

 

[Tobias]

If you allow mix-and-match, maybe. I don't.

I don't use Book 2 for ship design in general. But I apply the "LBB2 maneuver and jump drives switch tonnages" fix just for completeness' sake. Doing that roughly (very roughly) brings LBB2 drive tonnage in line with LBB5. It does not break any canonical designs; it just slightly increases or decreases cargo capacity for some.

The point of LBB5's paradigm is that things that are combat-relevant (M-Drive and the power plant to run it) are costly in MCr and tonnage, things that aren't, are less so.

Sorry, I don't see it. The actual jump capability (including fuel) still consumes a major part of the ship. Battle riders are a thing for a reason. And jump drives are still much more expensive. In fact, prices map relatively well to LBB5 values as-is.

But keep in mind that LBB2 constrains maneuver drive size exactly as it does jump drives and power plants. A 1000Td ship with LBB2 drives is limited to 3G and Pn-3 until TL-15! (TL-14 allows Size R-U drives, which still only yield a rating of 3 in 1000Td.) And if it's J-3, it then can have agility no higher than 2, even without any energy weapons, because of the computer power requirement.

Regarding this specific design, I think his tactic involved abusing the emergency agility rules (un-errata'd) as well to obviate that problem.

And as I alluded to, the LBB5 jump drive "outsourced" the "fast-burn-fusion-reactor element" of the drive* to the "power plant in overdrive mode", bringing the increased-TL-efficiencies of HG power plants to jump drives. (In LBB2, J-Drive + Power Plant does not vary by TL, all else about a ship being equal; in LBB5, it does vary by TL because the power plant does).

(edit complete)
-----------------------
*LBB2'77 didn't need a power plant for the jump drive (see canon XBoat), so it had to have included some kind of fusion reactor that'd burn 10% of the ship's tonnage per Jn in a ten minute combat turn(!) Drive sizes and costs were retained in the '81 version, but Pn>=Jn or Pn>=Gs, whichever was higher. Fuel use changed: jump drives could be throttled back (10% per Jn used, not 10% per Jn the drive was capable of -- that is, jump governors became standard; power plants still used 10Td/Jn but instead of that being "one trip, world-to-world", it was now 4 weeks worth).

I think you're overthinking this. In any event, LBB2 rules explicitly state that you do need a power plant for the J-Drive. It's just that the X-Boat as envisioned doesn't work under those rules (but it would work just fine under LBB5), so the designers fudged them.

 

[McPerth]

What I mean is the contest referees may have realized it but may not have been able to do anything about it since Book 3 was never mentioned as a rules source for the contest

There was not something like "the designs must be valid in Traveller (or HG) rules" in the contest basis?

If so, the only thing I can say is that it was an oversight, probably due to the contest organizer's good faith...

 

[mike wightman]

The problems I have with mixing the drives:
is it all or nothing - can I mix say a HG jump drive, a LBB2 pp and m-drive, or how about a HG j-drive, pp, and a LBB2 m-drive?
if I use the LBB2 pp do I use the LBB2 power plant fuel formula or do I use the HG pp fuel formula?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Why should I hate this?

Just about everyone hates Eurisko...

It just shows the referees of the contest didn’t pay attention to the design, as using a TL15 component in a TL 12 ship is clearly against the rules.

Or this highly controversial fleet is actually correct.

As we are arguing about how LBB2 works it is not "clearly against the rules".

A TL 15 component does not meet the requirements to be installed in a TL12 ship, as those requirements include:

That is not a requirement, a requirement would be "I want a J-4 drive".


Effectively, you are saying that the preceding sentence means nothing:

LBB5'80, p22:
Custom-built drives must be produced and installed while observing restrictions as to tech level and interior space. It is possible to include standard drives (at standard prices) from Book 2 if they will otherwise meet the ship's requirements; such drives use fuel as indicated by the formulas in Book 2.

As far as I can see, it means custom (LBB5) drives are limited by TL, whereas standard (LBB2 lettered) drives use LBB2 rules, where all starports can use all drives.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The problems I have with mixing the drives:
is it all or nothing - can I mix say a HG jump drive, a LBB2 pp and m-drive, or how about a HG j-drive, pp, and a LBB2 m-drive?

A plural is any number that is not specifically one:

LBB5'80, p22:
Custom-built drives must be produced and installed while observing restrictions as to tech level and interior space. It is possible to include standard drives (at standard prices) from Book 2 if they will otherwise meet the ship's requirements; such drives use fuel as indicated by the formulas in Book 2.

You can use any number of drives from LBB2.

if I use the LBB2 pp do I use the LBB2 power plant fuel formula or do I use the HG pp fuel formula?

It specifically says:

LBB5'80, p22:
Custom-built drives must be produced and installed while observing restrictions as to tech level and interior space. It is possible to include standard drives (at standard prices) from Book 2 if they will otherwise meet the ship's requirements; such drives use fuel as indicated by the formulas in Book 2.

LBB2 drives have advantages and disadvantages; you get both...

 

[McPerth]

Just about everyone hates Eurisko...

Then I must be no one. ...

What I know about Eurisko doesn't make me hate it (Side note, I guess "it should be used when refering to Eurisco, while "him when refering to Lenat. My appologies if this is not right). It just pushed to the limit may own saying that is in extreme cases when you find the flaws.

That is not a requirement, a requirement would be "I want a J-4 drive".

Is not a requirement taht any component must be equal or lower in TL tahn the ship's? If so I musr reread the rules, as I clearly didn't understand them...

whereas standard (LBB2 lettered) drives use LBB2 rules,

And the rules say Drives Z are TL15...

Basic Traveller (what is also called Prototraveller) is a whole, including LBB1-3. Saying "as this is in LBB3 doesn't apply to LBB2 is like saying, for AD&D "as this is in teh DMG doesn't apply to the PH".

Another example would be a Doctor ignoring an adverse effect of a drug because "this is a pharmacologist matter, not a medical one"...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Not cheating in that way, but (as noted) cheating by breaking the TL constraints of LBB3.

That is not the LBB2 paradigm:

LBB2'81, p12:
Design and Construction
Space ships are constructed and sold at shipyards throughout the galaxy. Any class A starport has a shipyard which can build any kind of ship, including a starship with jump drives; any class B starport can build a small craft and ships which do not have jump drives. The military procures vessels through these yards, corpor- ations buy their commercial vessels from these shipyards, and private individuals can purchase ships that they have designed through them as well. The major restriction on the purchase of ships is money.

LBB2 does not mention TL. LBB2 ships does not have TLs.
LBB5 imposed strict TL restrictions on LBB5 ships.

LBB3'81, p8:
The technological level is used in conjunction with the technological level table to determine the general quality and capability of local industry. The tables indicate the general types or categories of goods in general use on the world. In most cases, such goods are the best which may be produced locally, although better goods may be imported by local organizations or businesses when a specific need is felt.

You want better tech? Just import it!


Hence, a Kinunir can be built at the Regina shipyard, whatever the local TL.

 

[mike wightman]

Next how do you determine the actual EPs produced by a letter drive?

Do you use the largest hull it can fit into for that pp number or do you use the hull size it is in?
Z drive in 800t full ppN6 - EPs = 48
Z drive in 2000t hull ppN6 - EPs = 120

 

[McPerth]

or how about a HG j-drive, pp, and a LBB2 m-drive?

Then you wil lsave quite a lot tonnage, as HG JD are smaller than LBB2, while it occurs the opposite for MD, and HG PP needless fuel for ships under 1000 dtons...

And yes, I'd also consider it cheating. If so, you use one system or the other, but not mixting them.

if I use the LBB2 pp do I use the LBB2 power plant fuel formula or do I use the HG pp fuel formula?

As AnotherDilber pointed, rules are quite celar at this point: yes