you gotta fix architecture(fire,fusion and steel)for t5

[bodai]

I think i got more done with MT.bought ff&s TNE and T4(I couldn't believe force(most specifically weight) was not an issue in damage for small arms,just muzzle energy)Since TNE was supposed to be compatible with T:2000 I decided to do something simple a 53ton M-1w/105mm w/1500hp engine(mw1.12)TL7-8 especially since the TL8 tank in TNE was weird;247.1t,2724L/fuel per hr,13MW but it was not an MBT and incapable of standing up to one. HOLYCRAP what was an Mbt,an aegis cruiser on wheels er,treads.SO i went back to the historical ref, an M1 MBT.I got to the engine and noticed the fuel consumption is at least dble(560L/4hrs vs336L/hr)so i can cut consumption,then I noticed the turret is way diff than striker1 ,also.If this stuff has been dicussed b4 let me know plz and where.I just about pulled out my hair when i tried to build BB Missouri with t4 Central supply catalogue

.IVebeen poking around on line for fixes but i probly havent found them all so im asking for sites.Im not above fudging if its reasonable,butthe bb had like no fuel.IMPORTANT QUESTION NEED OPINION,antimatter fuel cells(TL18 100MW/m3)would seem to have enough power to do away with jump engines at least the fast burning fusion plant part of it let me know what u think about this subject

 

[ditzie]

Um, hi there, bodai. I guess this is as good a place as any to post a major correction about Fusion+ -- or, as it's called in T5, Pocket Fusion. 'Cause it's sort of about fixing the T4 supplement that caused me to exist in the first place: Fire, Fusion, and Steel 2.

Fusion+ has the same output rate as traditional fusion. But traditional fusion has a lower limit of mass...

Power Plant A (on a Scout) is 4 tons and outputs 864 MW.

To handwave on what I think should be, the minimum tonnage for a Fusion Power Plant (pre-Fusion+) is 50 tons. Typical output for Fusion is 1600 mw per ton.

Thus, pre-Fusion+, power plants are big fusion contraptions. Fusion+ has a single value that it can reduce the required size to 17 liters or so, or anywhere in between. Effectively, Fusion+ provides portable unlimited power supplies.

This seems to imply these numbers:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Fusion+:

16 kW per Liter, or
16 MW per cubic meter, or
218 MW per ton.

minimum size is
17 Liters, or
0.017 cubic meters, or
0.00126 tons
[yielding 272 kilowatts].


Fusion:

118.5 kW per Liter, or
118.5 MW per cubic meter, or
1600 MW per ton.

minimum size is
675,000 Liters, or
675 cubic meters, or
50 tons
[yielding 80 gigawatts].</pre>[/QUOTE]I'll go make sure those numbers are right.

All that seems to mean that, around Power Plant K or so, you switch to regular fusion, and get a huge boost in available power to your ship.

 

[ChaserCaffey]

Hey there, bodai.

First off: before giving up on FF&S1 (the TNE version), I recommend trying to design something else with it, such as a weapon or spaceship. The design rules for turreted vehicles in that book are notorious for producing somewhat strange results, and for being very difficult to actually stat real world vehicles with. So, give something else a shot, and if you haven't gotten the "Mark 1, Mod 1" errata yet, give it a look.

Also, if I recall correctly there's a pretty well-written sidebar at the end of the small arms design chapter that talks about wound ballistics and the choices they made in that design sequence. Basically, what it came down to is, "As far as we can tell from the data we have, both muzzle energy and weight are important. However, energy seems to be more important *in general*, so we've used it to determine damage to keep things simple". That was always something I could just shrug and accept- I love FF&S, but one thing it doesn't need to be is more complicated, and trying to balance muzzle energy and ammo weight in a damage formula would be nightmarish.

 

[ChaserCaffey]

Hey there, bodai.

First off: before giving up on FF&S1 (the TNE version), I recommend trying to design something else with it, such as a weapon or spaceship. The design rules for turreted vehicles in that book are notorious for producing somewhat strange results, and for being very difficult to actually stat real world vehicles with. So, give something else a shot, and if you haven't gotten the "Mark 1, Mod 1" errata yet, give it a look.

Also, if I recall correctly there's a pretty well-written sidebar at the end of the small arms design chapter that talks about wound ballistics and the choices they made in that design sequence. Basically, what it came down to is, "As far as we can tell from the data we have, both muzzle energy and weight are important. However, energy seems to be more important *in general*, so we've used it to determine damage to keep things simple". That was always something I could just shrug and accept- I love FF&S, but one thing it doesn't need to be is more complicated, and trying to balance muzzle energy and ammo weight in a damage formula would be nightmarish.

 

[ditzie]

Hi Chaser. I think FFS1 rocks!

 

[ChaserCaffey]

I just got noticed by Ditzie...

*Runs for the thickest cover he can immediately see and dives behind it*

 

[ditzie]

Homework: list the differences between FFS1 and 2.

 

[SanDragon]

The numbers 1 and 2.

 

[Golan2072]

The one thing I'd like to see for "Pocket Fusion" or any other T5 "Tech Architecture" design ruleset is the main T5 book "stock" gear designed with it. Alot of RPG systems (from a few Traveller editions to Shadowrun) have a design system added post-fact, and sometimes is incompatible with the "stock" designs. I'd like to see the "stock" designs made with the "Tech Architecture", reproductible by it and modifyable by it.

 

[robject]

Employee, I'm on that page, too.

Classic Traveller would have been a stronger product if the tables and components for starship design had something like FFS as its basis.

 

[jappel]

Originally posted by robject:
Employee, I'm on that page, too.

Classic Traveller would have been a stronger product if the tables and components for starship design had something like FFS as its basis.

Well, maybe. Remember, not everyone has the time or inclination to build all the pieces from scratch. Also, in those days (as I'm sure you remember, Rob, as do many others) people were a lot more willing to simply wing it.

Yes, the hard core gearheads (and I've done some gearheading myself in the past) will insist on an architecture. But if you want a game people can actually play, not just play with, you've got to have a simpler option available, such as the modular sequence I see being talked about elsewhere.

If I could make one suggestion to Marc Miller, it would be a paraprhase of that. "Make a game built to be played, not just played with."

I agree wholeheartedly with the general point about consistency between the design sequences and the canned offerings, though, if you're going to offer design sequences at all. Traveller hasn't been too bad compared to others (Shadowrun is probably the worst I've personally experienced in trying to make the canned vehicles mesh with the design sequences).

-John

 

[robject]

John, I'm witcha. I've scratched my head over FFS2, and fretted over HG, but always loved Book 2.

What I'm aiming for is a set of formulae that is consistent with the modules in Book 2. In other words, FFS1 and 2 were, in my opinion, the tails wagging the dog. Rather, FFS3 should exist to serve Book 2.

Worded differently, I want a gearhead system that does no violence to Book 2, as much as possible.

 

[Pickles]

I've never been happy about designing imaginary technology to the Nth degree of finickityness. And I've been doing just that with Striker. That's a lot of unhappy years, wistfully looking at that little black book two sticking out of the bookshelf at a jaunty angle as if saying, "try me, go on, i'm very friendly".

Modular starship (and vehicle) design, yummmm ...

 

[robject]

Today I've been sweating over small craft design in Book 2. Reverse engineering that section -- with the possibly faulty assumption that the data can be forced into a consistent yet simple mold -- has proven challenging. But then, I do things by the seat of my pants.

I have a partial solution, but want a solution that comprehends all.

Actually, what I want is a small craft design page that looks similar to the Book 2 starship design page. Shouldn't be difficult at all. Right?

Absurd? Possibly. Insane? Maybe.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by robject:
Today I've been sweating over small craft design in Book 2. Reverse engineering that section -- with the possibly faulty assumption that the data can be forced into a consistent yet simple mold -- has proven challenging. But then, I do things by the seat of my pants.

I have a partial solution, but want a solution that comprehends all.

Actually, what I want is a small craft design page that looks similar to the Book 2 starship design page. Shouldn't be difficult at all. Right?

Absurd? Possibly. Insane? Maybe.

Should be quite doable, at least the way I think it was meant to be done. I'd say tackle it from the HG formulae side and build the modules to make the Book 2 design style. While you're at it correct the Book 2 starship design so it works using HG formulae

I like your kind of absurd insanity

 

[mike wightman]

I'd still rather see HG formulas changed to match the CT paradigm - big jump engines, small maneuver drives

 

[far-trader]

Me too Sigg

With the big fuel requirements for powerplant rationalized better to usage rather than hull size. Even something as simple as fuel = powerplant size times x (where x could even be 1). Is that the way CT+ is going? (And is the thread AntiHijack program disabled )

 

[mike wightman]

[thread hijack]IMHO it should be CT+ = LBB2 plus what you want to add to it... [/thread hijack]

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
[thread hijack]CT+ = LBB2 plus what you want to add to it... [/thread hijack]

(disable thread AntiHijack, again ) Maybe I'm thinking Proto Traveller. It's all getting too confusing

(with apologies, boots self from thread to prevent further hijack by self )

 

[mike wightman]

Sorry, I should have put an IMHO in there

The original idea of Hunter's was to use the T20 based ship design system for his revised version of CT.

It is proto-Traveller that ignores the paradigm change that High Guard brought with it - but I still want to be able to use armour, screens, spinal mounts, bay weapons, heavy turrets, barbettes, energy weapons, meson guns, and PAWs with LBB2 designed ships.

TNE and T4 show that this is possible, it's just a matter of finding a way to rate it all in the LBB2 so that it can be easily assembled, and to integrate with the combat system so that all of the new toys work.

Which sort of brings it back to the point of the original post