CT Only: Wasp ship (Eurisko) controversy

[atpollard]

To discuss the Z Drive ... BOLD = included in table, NORMAL = missing value

2000 dt x Factor 6 = 12,000 = Z Drive
3000 dt x Factor 4 = 12,000 = Z Drive
4000 dt x Factor 3 = 12,000 = Z Drive
5000 dt x Factor 2 = 10,000 (<12,000) = Z Drive
6000 dt x Factor 2 = 12,000 = Z Drive

It follows the same +200 progression with intermediate DRIVES omitted just as intermediate HULL SIZES were omitted.

EACH Drive (MD, JD, PP) has a single value associated with it. Divide the value by the tonnage of the ship to determine the FACTOR for that drive in that Hull.

A = 200
B = 400
C = 600
D = 800
E = 1000
F = 1200
G = 1400
H = 1600
J = 1800
K = 2000
L = 2200
M = 2400
N = 2600
P = 2800
Q = 3000
R = 3200
S = 3400
T = 3600
U = 3800
V = 4000
(drives omitted / progression changes to +1000)
W = 5000 [note: 800 dTon hull should be "6" not "5"]
X = 6000
(drives omitted / progression changes to +2000)
Y = 8000
(drives omitted / progression changes to +4000)
Z = 12,000

With the exception of a W drive in an 800 dTon Hull (which appears to be a typographic error), if you divide the value above for each drive by the size of any hull in the table, you will obtain the FACTOR for that drive in that hull. The progression is steady and unbroken from Drive A to V with a change in the "step" for the last few drive letters just as the change in Hull Size changed for the last few rows. However, the underlying formula still works, it is just the CONSTANT for the drive that changed.

So What?

Understanding the formula allows better than "interpolation" or "using the next row". It allows an exact LBB2 FACTOR calculation for any Standard Letter Drive in any size of hull. The "B Drive is no longer restricted to "1" or "2" or "4". You can now create a ship with a B drive and J3.

400 / 3 =133 dtons.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

2000 dt x Factor 6 = 12,000 = Z Drive
3000 dt x Factor 4 = 12,000 = Z Drive
4000 dt x Factor 3 = 12,000 = Z Drive
5000 dt x Factor 2 = 10,000 (<12,000) = Z Drive
6000 dt x Factor 2 = 12,000 = Z Drive

It follows the same +200 progression with intermediate DRIVES omitted just as intermediate HULL SIZES were omitted.

No, Spinward is claiming a linear progression between drives: a B drive is twice as powerful as an A drive, A C drive thrice as powerful, ... and a Z drive is 24 times as powerful.

But, LBB2'81 says:
A drive 2 × 100 = 200
B drive 2 × 200 = 400, +200 from last
C drive 1 × 600 = 600, +200 from last
...
X drive 6 × 1000 = 6000
Y drive 4 × 2000 = 8000, +2000 from last
Z drive 6 × 2000 = 12000, +4000 from last

That is not a linear progression. A B drive is twice as powerful as an A drive, but a Z drive is not 24 times as powerful, it's 60 times as powerful.

exactly as I said before:

LBB2'81:
A: 2 EP
B: 4 EP
C: 6 EP
...
X: 60 EP
Y: 80 EP
Z: 120 EP

 

[Spinward Flow]

With the exception of a W drive in an 800 dTon Hull (which appears to be a typographic error), if you divide the value above for each drive by the size of any hull in the table, you will obtain the FACTOR for that drive in that hull. The progression is steady and unbroken from Drive A to V with a change in the "step" for the last few drive letters just as the change in Hull Size changed for the last few rows. However, the underlying formula still works, it is just the CONSTANT for the drive that changed.

So What?

That is an alternative interpretation that I had not considered, primarily because it "broke too much porcelain" in the precedents.

There is also a convenience in this alternative interpretation that handles the "Kinunir precedent" almost elegantly.

• Z=24*200=4800/4=1200 ton starship with Drives-Z for J4/4G performance in LBB A1
• W=5000/4=1250 ton starship with Drives-W for J4/4G performance in LBB A1

However, the bottom line is that the W-Z drives "cheat" relative to the precedent established with the A-V drives. when using your interpretation. The other problem is that such a LARGE increase in drive power/efficiency for such a small increase in tonnage/cost seems to be rather "arbitrarily unfair" ... because the tonnage/cost continues rising using the same linear formula, but the drive performance output does not.

That is not a linear progression. A B drive is twice as powerful as an A drive, but a Z drive is not 24 times as powerful, it's 60 times as powerful.

Exactly, the results on the table BREAK THE PATTERN USED WITHIN THE TABLE ITSELF in a way that cannot be reconciled without either:

1. Changing the table results for SOME (but not all!) of the W-Z drive performance codes.
2. Make the W-Z drive performance codes "more magical" than they have any right to be in order to gloss over the inconsistency.

V = 4000
(drives omitted / progression changes to +1000)
W = 5000 [note: 800 dTon hull should be "6" not "5"]
X = 6000
(drives omitted / progression changes to +2000)
Y = 8000
(drives omitted / progression changes to +4000)
Z = 12,000

You're going to run into a problem with that.
It may work for the code: 6 stuff, but not for the rest of it.

Let me redo my updated table above using your methodology to show you, where:

• W = code: 1 @ 5000 tons
• X = code: 1 @ 6000 tons
• Y = code: 1 @ 8000 tons
• Z = code: 1 @ 12,000 tons

So that answer fits for SOME of the combinations in the bottom right corner (the 2000-5000 ton drives), but breaks pretty badly for the 800-1000 ton drive code entries.

 

[atpollard]

Believe less, show more.

No. It is not reasonable for you to place the burden on me to PROVE that LBB2 contains no EP rules in its ship design when I question your use of EP to prove rather than claim that LBB2 does not have a linear progression behind its Drive factor Table.

So, you agree it's not a linear formula?

No. I agree that the +200 progression breaks at the top ... as I stated.

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.

• I am saying that the table is NOT arbitrary.
• I am saying that the table follows a progression different from the LBB5 rules/formula.
• I am saying that without establishing a linear progression or non-linear progression, any discussion of converting LBB2 factors to LBB5 EP is premature.

 

[Spinward Flow]

A Z drive in an 800 ton ship has a performance number of 6, according to the HG EP formula 0.01xxhull displacement x power plant number we get 48
Put the same Z drive in a 2000 ton ship and it still has a performance number of 6 but now has an EP output of 120.

So:

• At TL 7-8 1 EP per 4 tons of PP
• At TL 9-12 1 EP per 3 tons of PP
• At TL 13-14 1 EP per 2 tond of PP
• At TL 15 1 EP per ton of PP

So, a PP A would produce from 1 to 4 EPs, depending on the TL, while a Z would produce 73 EPs (as it must be TL15)

The tonnage formula for LBB5.80 is not compatible with the tonnage formula used in LBB2.81.
The two systems use COMPLETELY DIFFERENT paradigms.

Hint:

• LBB2.81 jump drives are huge, maneuver drives are small and power plants are middling
• LBB5.80 jump drives are tiny, maneuver drives are huge and power plants vary wildly in size (and thus cost)

The only way you can reconcile the two paradigms is NOT through tonnage or cost.
You have to use Drive Performance.

When you can calculate the equivalent output performance code for a given hull size, you can compute your way to EPs.
That's where the code: 1 per 200 tons per letter drive really simplifies things down to basically be +2 EP per letter.

Power Plant-A = 2 EP
Power Plant-B = 4 EP
Power Plant-C = 6 EP
... and so on and so forth ... which works just fine for the A-V drive letters (which I would point out is MOST of the chart and covers the important parts for ACS designs).

It's the W-Z drives that "cheat and break the pattern" in extraordinarily unhelpful ways, which then creates arguments like this one here in this topic.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Exactly, the results on the table BREAK THE PATTERN USED WITHIN THE TABLE ITSELF in a way that cannot be reconciled without either:

Yes, they don't follow the pattern you imagine they should follow. We don't have to change anything, we can just use the table in LBB2 as we always have.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Yes, they don't follow the pattern you imagine they should follow. We don't have to change anything, we can just use the table in LBB2 as we always have.

There are 24 drive letters.
My proof works PERFECTLY for 20 of the 24 drive letters (A-V).
4 of the 24 drive letters DON'T FIT THE PATTERN (W-Z).

So when it comes down to 20/24=83.333% correct ... and 4/24=16.667% incorrect ... because 4 of the drive letters "cheat their performance numbers" as we've been proving extensively now (backwards, forwards, upside down and wrong way 'round!) ... it's Baby vs Bathwater time!

I would also point out that for all practical purposes, essentially "ALL" of the ACS designs for use by PCs that come out of LBB2 are going to use drives A-V (and will very likely go no higher than Drive-N @ TL=12).
Why?
Because most PC relevant ACS are going to be 1000 tons or less.
Big starships with large crews are "less than ideal" for adventuring bands of Travellers to tool around in. For one thing, "Big Ships" have BIG BILLS to pay ...

 

[atpollard]

That is an alternative interpretation that I had not considered, primarily because it "broke too much porcelain" in the precedents.

There is also a convenience in this alternative interpretation that handles the "Kinunir precedent" almost elegantly.

• Z=24*200=4800/4=1200 ton starship with Drives-Z for J4/4G performance in LBB A1
• W=5000/4=1250 ton starship with Drives-W for J4/4G performance in LBB A1

However, the bottom line is that the W-Z drives "cheat" relative to the precedent established with the A-V drives. when using your interpretation. The other problem is that such a LARGE increase in drive power/efficiency for such a small increase in tonnage/cost seems to be rather "arbitrarily unfair" ... because the tonnage/cost continues rising using the same linear formula, but the drive performance output does not.

Exactly, the results on the table BREAK THE PATTERN USED WITHIN THE TABLE ITSELF in a way that cannot be reconciled without either:

1. Changing the table results for SOME (but not all!) of the W-Z drive performance codes.
2. Make the W-Z drive performance codes "more magical" than they have any right to be in order to gloss over the inconsistency.

You're going to run into a problem with that.
It may work for the code: 6 stuff, but not for the rest of it.

Let me redo my updated table above using your methodology to show you, where:

• W = code: 1 @ 5000 tons
• X = code: 1 @ 6000 tons
• Y = code: 1 @ 8000 tons
• Z = code: 1 @ 12,000 tons

So that answer fits for SOME of the combinations in the bottom right corner (the 2000-5000 ton drives), but breaks pretty badly for the 800-1000 ton drive code entries.

There is a FACTOR 6 limit on MD and JD in LBB2 that is independent of performance and based on RULES FIAT more than anything else. So the only real issue is can a ship have LOTS more PP than it needs? What would happen if I installed THREE PPs ... the same LOTS of EP.

Personally, I wonder why anyone would so oversize a PP/MD/JD and suspect that if the size tracked with the increase in performance it would not be an issue. However, I just started with the table you provided and multiplied FACTOR x HULL to find the highest rating for each DRIVE LETTER. They are what they are. Comparing that rating to all the other sizes shows how good or bad that value fits to the table.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

No. It is not reasonable for you to place the burden on me to PROVE that LBB2 contains no EP rules in its ship design when I question your use of EP to prove rather than claim that LBB2 does not have a linear progression behind its Drive factor Table.

But it's entirely reasonable to put the burden of proof for your suppositions on others?

No. I agree that the +200 progression breaks at the top ... as I stated.

That is Spinward's claim. So, you agree it is false?

• I am saying that the table is NOT arbitrary.

So prove it, show the pattern.

• I am saying that the table follows a progression different from the LBB5 rules/formula.

Yes, of course. LBB2 is not linear. LBB5 is, a twice as large ship needs twice as large drives, no arbitrary table involved.

• I am saying that without establishing a linear progression or non-linear progression, any discussion of converting LBB2 factors to LBB5 EP is premature.

Linear or not is irrelevant. EP = PM/100, where P is the potential, taken from the LBB2 Drive Potential Table if a LBB2 drive. It is always defined, whether LBB2 drive power is linear or not.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

There are 24 drive letters.
My proof works PERFECTLY for 20 of the 24 drive letters (A-V).
4 of the 24 drive letters DON'T FIT THE PATTERN (W-Z).

And J.

So, you agree your formula don't work for all of them, so can't replace the Drive Potential Table as it is?

 

[Spinward Flow]

There is a FACTOR 6 limit on MD and JD in LBB2 that is independent of performance and based on RULES FIAT more than anything else.

I'm aware of that.
I'm also aware that for every OTHER instance on the LBB2 table where drive performance would compute out to be 7+ there is a "-" symbol there.

It's why you don't see a Drive-G = 7 @ 200 tons appear on the LBB2 table.

My point is that for the 800 and 1000 ton hull sizes, you have to STRETCH MIGHTILY in order to make your interpretation of the W-Z problem "work" the way that it ought to, if you aren't going to errata correct the table.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

There is a FACTOR 6 limit on MD and JD in LBB2 that is independent of performance and based on RULES FIAT more than anything else. So the only real issue is can a ship have LOTS more PP than it needs?

No potential = no output.

It is important to note from the drive potential table that some drives will not produce results in some tonnages of hulls, as indicated by a dash instead of a number on the table; ...

What would happen if I installed THREE PPs ... the same LOTS of EP.

Not allowed with LBB2'77.

Only one of each may be installed in the engineering section, ...

Only one of them is active at any time with TCS and presumably LBB2'81:

Spare jump drives, maneuver drives, power plants, computers, and screens may be installed in a ship to take over in the event that the main unit is disabled.
These are backup devices only and may not be in operation at the same time as the main device. The higher-output device is the mainstay and operates under normal conditions; the backup device does not consume fuel or energy points while it is not in use.

They never add performance, like it or not.


Yes, LBB2 is quite silly...

 

[McPerth]

As moods are going too high with personal attacks, the thread is temporary closed for everyone to cool down, pending staff discussion.