That seems fairly compelling to me and DOES appear to match the table as a "Formula behind the Table".
CT Only: Wasp ship (Eurisko) controversy
- Thread starter Tobias
- Start date
- Status
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Now do the same at the upper end of the drives...
E.g. a V drive is potential 1 at 4000 Dt, a W drive is potential 1 at 5000 Dt, each step is +1000 Dt.
If I do ... If I run the table out to the end and calculate the underlying formula for EVERY drive including noting special exceptions that may have been deliberately altered for metagame reasons ... will you accept it?
Or is this just an offer of "busy-work" that will also be rejected with a shrug once I do it?
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
It is just coincidence. It doesn't work if you plug LBB2 drive numbers and hull sizes into the HG formulae.
Last edited by a moderator:
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I have calculated the EP generated by every hull and drive number plugged into HG80 formulaIf I do ... If I run the table out to the end and calculate the underlying formula for EVERY drive including noting special exceptions that may have been deliberately altered for metagame reasons ... will you accept it?
Or is this just an offer of "busy-work" that will also be rejected with a shrug once I do it?
Trouble is it was 40 years ago or so and done on paper.
Respectfully, setting aside the question or "correlation vs causation" (ie. is the +200 progression deliberate or a coincidence), it is incorrect to apply the LBB2 drives to the LBB5 formula as proof that LBB2 does not employ a completely different formula behind the progression in the table.
That is how I WOULD HAVE HANDLED the issue back in the 1980's ... by updating the LBB2 tables with Errata to match the LBB5 formula. Sadly, they did not ask me and I did not think to write them way back then.
This is about trying to determine what was written on the piece of paper they used to create the table in LBB2 back in the 1970's when nobody was thinking of a LBB5. I think the +200 progression is compelling as an underlying formula that somebody may have had on a sheet of loose-leaf paper and used to create the abridged TABLE that ultimately saw print in LBB2.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
I know there is no linear formula for the biggest drives, so I doubt you will find any.If I do ... If I run the table out to the end and calculate the underlying formula for EVERY drive including noting special exceptions that may have been deliberately altered for metagame reasons ... will you accept it?
Or is this just an offer of "busy-work" that will also be rejected with a shrug once I do it?
T5 does what Spinward Flow suggest, but then a Z-drive is potential 6 in a 800 Dt hull, not a 2000 Dt hull as in LBB2'81.
T5.10, B2, p70-78.
LBB2'81:
A: 2 EP
B: 4 EP
C: 6 EP
...
X: 60 EP
Y: 80 EP
Z: 120 EP
Last edited:
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
In theory, these are standard commercial engines, and you could have corporations offering their variants.
The alphabets could be a generic way to identify models built to Imperium standards.
The alphabets could be a generic way to identify models built to Imperium standards.
Do you know the Z drive has no linear formula, or that its formula does not match that of any other drive?
[I am a LBB5 small ship universe guy, so I have never needed a "Z Drive" and seldom needed the A-N drives of LBB2.]
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
LBB2'81:
A: 2 EP
B: 4 EP
C: 6 EP
...
X: 60 EP
Y: 80 EP
Z: 120 EP
It's just a table. The formula works (approximately) for small drives in LBB2'81, but not in LBB2'77.
Last edited:
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
How about that the progression breaks down for certain drives showing the pattern is a coincidence?
LBB2 doesn't have EP, they are a LBB5 addition. LBB2 just has Letter Codes and Factors based on Hull Tonnage in a table. So this MUST be some chimera of LBB2 and LBB5 which does not really prove or disprove whether the table of HULL vs Z drive in LBB2 is linear or non-linear in progression.
I am quite prepared to concede that the upper progression breaks the +200 step established at the bottom. I would posit that this was to create a small table that allowed big ships so rows and letters were dropped just as the hull size progression dropped intermediate sizes (like 300 dtons or 1200 dtons). However if there is a factor 1 hull with a Z drive that is twice the volume of a Factor 2 hull with a Z drive and triple the volume of a Factor 3 hull with a Z drive ... then the Z-Drive follows the same progression formula as was discovered in the A-N drives. If the value of that Z-drive (in dtons x factor) is a multiple of 200, then the progression table was simply truncated due to the limitation of available space and letters.
That is what I posit to exist.
Stated several times, but not actually demonstrated.
IOW ... Objection, stating facts not in evidence.
Last edited:
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Welcome to my world, @atpollard ...If I do ... If I run the table out to the end and calculate the underlying formula for EVERY drive including noting special exceptions that may have been deliberately altered for metagame reasons ... will you accept it?
Or is this just an offer of "busy-work" that will also be rejected with a shrug once I do it?
"Okay, so it works in REALITY ... but what about in THEORY?"
BINGO!
We have a winner!
Glad to see that I'm not the only one who "gets it" here.
Using the wrong paradigm to draw your conclusions will only give you the Wrong Answers™ that you're so desperately looking for.
100 tons = +2 code per +1 letter
200 tons = +1 code per +1 letter
400 tons = +1 code per +2 letter
600 tons = +1 code per +3 letter
800 tons = +1 code per +4 letter
1000 tons = +1 code per +5 letter
The pattern breaks "to the bottom right" of the table because somebody went in and BROKE THE FORMULA that had been in use up to that point. Someone forgot (or there was a miscommunication) that there was a formula behind the numbers and things just started getting arbitrary towards the bottom right ... probably with the assumption that "no one would care or notice" because ships of that size requiring TL=15 drives (see LBB3 for tech level limits on letter drives) would Never Be A Thing™ that PCs would ever get to play around with, so Referees didn't have to worry about it.
Give me a little more time and I can generate a Drive Potential table that DOES perfectly reflect the code: 1 @ +200 tons per letter formula.
Last edited by a moderator:
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
J drive in 2000 Dt hull.
It's so well known, I didn't have to look it up.
This has been thoroughly discussed many times for the last 40 years, it's not something discovered yesterday...
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
All of the changes are made in BLUE, to help make them more apparent and easy to spot.
Drive-J @ 2000 tons is "-" instead of 1.
Drive-W @ 800 tons had a poor print quality "5" so I just replaced it, but it IS CORRECT in the original. It's the Drive-X/Y @ 800 tons that were "cheating" and needed to be rewritten to follow the formula.
Also, to get to a 5000 ton hull, you would need a Drive-(Z+1) in order to reach (Z+1)=25*200=5000 tons when following the formula correctly and consistently (oops
).For those people "keeping score" on How Right Or Wrong™ the entire code: 1 per 200 tons per letter drive postulate is ... I actually only needed to CHANGE:
- 2 codes for 800 tons (X, Y)
- 4 codes for 1000 tons (W, X, Y, Z)
- 4 codes for 2000 tons (J, X. Y, Z)
- 3 codes for 3000 tons (X. Y. Z)
- 2 codes for 4000 tons (Y, Z)
- 1 code for 4800 tons (not 5000 tons) (Z)
It's only the "bottom right" of the table where Things Went Wrong™.
I'm completely convinced that THAT specific instance was someone "rounding off" (for convenience) something that shouldn't have been rounded off.
J=9
9*200=1800
Since there was no 1800 ton hull, but there was a 2000 ton hull in the table, someone either thought "eh, close enough" ... OR ... it's literally a typo (should have been a "-" but a "1" got put there instead and the editor didn't catch the error).
Notice that the 1000 ton row is 5 drive letters per +1 code.
So logically, the 2000 ton row ought to be 10 drive letters per +1 code.
However the 2000 @ J makes for 11x code: 1 instead of 10 ... so it breaks the pattern and is probably an error/misprint.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Believe less, show more.
So, you agree it's not a linear formula?
No, that means nothing. The claim was that each step added the equivalent of 2 EP so that a Z-drive has 48 EP. That is a linear formula. That is patently not true, as a cursory examination of the Drive Potential Table shows.
What you are saying here is that there is no linear formula, just an arbitrary table.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
So, you agree the large drives don't follow your formula in the actual LBB2?All of the changes are made in BLUE, to help make them more apparent and easy to spot.
Drive-J @ 2000 tons is "-" instead of 1.
Drive-W @ 800 tons had a poor print quality "5" so I just replaced it, but it IS CORRECT in the original. It's the Drive-X/Y @ 800 tons that were "cheating" and needed to be rewritten to follow the formula.
Also, to get to a 5000 ton hull, you would need a Drive-(Z+1) in order to reach (Z+1)=25*200=5000 tons when following the formula correctly and consistently (oops
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
If you want a linear formula for drive performance, expressed as a table, it already exists:
Note that is transposed compared to LBB2.
Hull A is 100 Dt, Hull Z is 2400 Dt.
T5-10, B2, p78.
Or simply:
P = EP/Tons × 2
T5.10, B2, p114.
Note that is transposed compared to LBB2.
Hull A is 100 Dt, Hull Z is 2400 Dt.
T5-10, B2, p78.
Or simply:
P = EP/Tons × 2
T5.10, B2, p114.
- Status
Similar threads
