A couple questions on drive TL effects.

[spank]

I've been looking at T5 again lately, and there are a few things I've wondered about for a while.
On the Drive TL effects table there are a couple entries that seem redundant.
Standard and Alternate seem identical, Are you are supposed to differentiate them with QREBS effects?
Basic and Generic also seem very close, only the +1 TL for generic is different.
My first thought is to drop Alternate and Basic. But maybe there is something I'm missing.

 

[spank]

Come to think of it, there is not that much difference between Improved and Modified.

 

[whulorigan]

I've been looking at T5 again lately, and there are a few things I've wondered about for a while.
On the Drive TL effects table there are a couple entries that seem redundant.
Standard and Alternate seem identical, Are you are supposed to differentiate them with QREBS effects?
Basic and Generic also seem very close, only the +1 TL for generic is different.
My first thought is to drop Alternate and Basic. But maybe there is something I'm missing.

Come to think of it, there is not that much difference between Improved and Modified.
View attachment 4410

You will want to go to the QREBS tables and look at the modifiers for the Stage Effects.
See T5.10 Book 2, p.223-226 - Technology.

• Standard is the Imperial Standard version for when the technology becomes mature and enters common use. Alternate is there to suggest that there are sometimes different approaches the same engineering problem (sometimes by different species or polities - e.g. How is a Zhodani Gauss Pistol different from an Imperial Standard Gauss Pistol). It is there more for GM fiat. use. You should probably use full QREBS.
• Basic and Generic represent the cheap no-frills version of a technology. Basic is the bare-bones version at the standard TL, whereas Generic is the equivalent mass-produced cheap version produced at one TL higher for mass-market distribution and general export. The differences will be manifested in QREBS. (See TL Stage Effects & QREBS: T5.10 Book 2, p.225).
• Improved and Modified are basically the same, but note that Modified is half the size.

 

[spank]

While part of me likes the idea of having new and unique pieces of equipment, I'm still not sure what to make of QREBS.
I like the Tech Effects, and I like QREBS, but both together seems a little over complicated.
I am working on a table to integrate T5 style tech effects into CT,
Here's what I've got so far, it does deviate a little from the T5 paradigm.
The fuel usage for Improved/Modifed/Advanced/Ultimate is shifted down .01 because there wasn't a reduction for Improved.
And the tech effect for experimental is modified above TL 10 because it fell below the Prototype's performance, and it is no available beyond TL 13 because it would need 108% of the hull volume for fuel.
Prototype is also modified at TL 16 for similar reasons, although it may be a moot point, because it need 87.5% of the hull for fuel at that point.

You will want to go to the QREBS tables and look at the modifiers for the Stage Effects.
See T5.10 Book 2, p.223-226 - Technology.

• Standard is the Imperial Standard version for when the technology becomes mature and enters common use. Alternate is there to suggest that there are sometimes different approaches the same engineering problem (sometimes by different species or polities - e.g. How is a Zhodani Gauss Pistol different from an Imperial Standard Gauss Pistol). It is there more for GM fiat. use. You should probably use full QREBS.
• Basic and Generic represent the cheap no-frills version of a technology. Basic is the bare-bones version at the standard TL, whereas Generic is the equivalent mass-produced cheap version produced at one TL higher for mass-market distribution and general export. The differences will be manifested in QREBS. (See TL Stage Effects & QREBS: T5.10 Book 2, p.225).
• Improved and Modified are basically the same, but note that Modified is half the size.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Generic has a very special QREBS, with no hidden faults. A solid cheap drive.

Mod is very much better than Imp, as it is half the size, and since cost based on size it's half the cost...

Both very good choices.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Note that Efficiency modifies the table potential (or EP) of the drive, so e.g. a Gen A-drive in a 100 Dt hull is normal potential 2 × Efficiency 90% = 1.8, rounded down to 1.

Max achievable jump isn't modified by Stage:

T5.10, B2, p116:
Potential Is Limited By Tech Level. Regardless of the table-mandated Potential, a Jump Drive produced at a Tech level is limited by any stated Tech Level restrictions. For example, the maximum Jump available at Tech Level 11 is Jump-2. Regardless of other details, a Jump Drive produced at TL-11 cannot produce more than Jump-2.

A ship's Jump potential is always in whole numbers: 1,2,3,...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

In effect, stages, efficiency, and possible stages are way more complicated than you probably want to deal with in an LBB2 environment...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Here's what I've got so far, it does deviate a little from the T5 paradigm.

View attachment 4411

For Mod and above: Size of a drive can't be less than a standard A-drive, so a Mod Jump-A drive is still 10 Dt.
Cost is based on actual size, so a Mod jump-E drive is 15 Dt and MCr 15.

T5.10, B2, p77, Footnote to table Y:
No drive may be smaller than the Drive-A of the class, even after modifications like Stage Effects.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

This table shows how Stage and Potential works for a B-drive in a B-hull (200 Dt, standard potential 2):

T5.10, B2, p127.

 

[whulorigan]

You will want to go to the QREBS tables and look at the modifiers for the Stage Effects.
See T5.10 Book 2, p.223-226 - Technology.

• Standard is the Imperial Standard version for when the technology becomes mature and enters common use. Alternate is there to suggest that there are sometimes different approaches the same engineering problem (sometimes by different species or polities - e.g. How is a Zhodani Gauss Pistol different from an Imperial Standard Gauss Pistol). It is there more for GM fiat. use. You should probably use full QREBS.
• Basic and Generic represent the cheap no-frills version of a technology. Basic is the bare-bones version at the standard TL, whereas Generic is the equivalent mass-produced cheap version produced at one TL higher for mass-market distribution and general export. The differences will be manifested in QREBS. (See TL Stage Effects & QREBS: T5.10 Book 2, p.225).
• Improved and Modified are basically the same, but note that Modified is half the size.

While part of me likes the idea of having new and unique pieces of equipment, I'm still not sure what to make of QREBS.
I like the Tech Effects, and I like QREBS, but both together seems a little over complicated.
I am working on a table to integrate T5 style tech effects into CT,
Here's what I've got so far, it does deviate a little from the T5 paradigm.
The fuel usage for Improved/Modifed/Advanced/Ultimate is shifted down .01 because there wasn't a reduction for Improved.
And the tech effect for experimental is modified above TL 10 because it fell below the Prototype's performance, and it is no available beyond TL 13 because it would need 108% of the hull volume for fuel.
Prototype is also modified at TL 16 for similar reasons, although it may be a moot point, because it need 87.5% of the hull for fuel at that point.

*<snip>*

Generic has a very special QREBS, with no hidden faults. A solid cheap drive.

Mod is very much better than Imp, as it is half the size, and since cost based on size it's half the cost...

Both very good choices.

As AnotherDilbert noted (and as I alluded to above), the difference between Generic and Basic is entirely in the QREBS descriptor. Generic is TL+1, but it is solid, no-frills, basic tech with all of the kinks worked out, like a thousand other identical pieces produced by various distributors everywhere. No surprises (unlike Basic) and cheap.

QREBS is more or less for the GM to employ as he sees fit. It is a "MOARN" thing. He does not necessarily need to use it in all (or even most) situations. If the party picks up that piece of prototype equipment, they should expect the unexpected and other surprises when it doesn't work quite as intended or be as "polished" as it could be. Likewise, when they buy that ACR from Daasirku Corporation on Rhise (that local company that sells mostly on-world and exports a few units to neighboring worlds of the subsector that most people have otherwise never heard of), it is sometimes useful to find out just how good of a unit it actually is (and let the party find out by trial and error). The GM can then also record the QREBS values for that company generally and use it as a standard for that company in the future.

 

[whulorigan]

BTW, as an aside, while I was looking up the page references for Spank above, I came across a table I had forgotten about:

In T5.10 Book 1, p. 269 (Mod Table 21), there is a list of Standard QREBS Mods for products for each of the MegaCorporations of the Imperium.

 

[spank]

Max achievable jump isn't modified by Stage:

A ship's Jump potential is always in whole numbers: 1,2,3,...

That seems to be at odds with the text on page 76 ,

Drives (and Power Systems) produce full (100 percent) Potential (Table 11Y) at base TL. Other TLs may produce other Potentials based on Drive Efficiency.

It seems to say that Drive potential is modified by by TL, a Drive A in a 100 tone hull will provide different potentials if it is an Experimental, Prototype, Early etc.

I understand, from a game design standpoint it is desirable to have a Jump number be a whole number, but that limits gameplay options,
A Jump 1.5 drive for example provides alot of interesting possibilities. It's got benefits and hinderances. Limiting advancement to whole numbers also hides some of the effort behind the advancement. Consider for instance aTL-7 planet that has developed a Jump drive, How long will it take for them to cross to a system 1 parsecs away? If Jump numbers are limited to whole numbers then the answer is never. but if they can make two half parsec jumps to get there it open up alot of possibilities. Ditto an experimental TL13 J-6 drive it would make an interesting plot hook.

I am not really happy with the way some of the TL effects for advancements work. For example, there is no reason to build an experimental drive after TL-9, That does make a certain amount of sense, but as I said, I like the idea of having the players test out an Experimental, or Prototype drive.


As far a Powerplants go, I really don't like how the TL modifers interact with them, I think it is alot simpler to say a Drive A requires a P-Plant A, or that a Drive A requires 100 EP, and a Plant A make 100 EP. So I am toying with the idea of normalizing them to make the same amount of EP for each drive Class ,and instead modify the size, compounded with the size modification from the TL Effects. For Example an experimental Powerplant A is 6X heavier than a standard one, and 20X more expensive, but it makes the same power, all of the Powerplant A make the same power.

For Mod and above: Size of a drive can't be less than a standard A-drive, so a Mod Jump-A drive is still 10 Dt.
Cost is based on actual size, so a Mod jump-E drive is 15 Dt and MCr 15.

I'm not super fond of this rule either, For example, by this rule any TL 16 ultimate Jump drive below G is paying a substantial penalty size wise.
I could see an argument for halving the reduction below the minimum drive size, you'd still get some benefit from the increased TL, just not as much as larger drives.

 

[whulorigan]

That seems to be at odds with the text on page 76 ,

It seems to say that Drive potential is modified by by TL, a Drive A in a 100 tone hull will provide different potentials if it is an Experimental, Prototype, Early etc.

I understand, from a game design standpoint it is desirable to have a Jump number be a whole number, but that limits gameplay options,
A Jump 1.5 drive for example provides alot of interesting possibilities. It's got benefits and hinderances. Limiting advancement to whole numbers also hides some of the effort behind the advancement. Consider for instance aTL-7 planet that has developed a Jump drive, How long will it take for them to cross to a system 1 parsecs away? If Jump numbers are limited to whole numbers then the answer is never. but if they can make two half parsec jumps to get there it open up alot of possibilities. Ditto an experimental TL13 J-6 drive it would make an interesting plot hook.

I am not really happy with the way some of the TL effects for advancements work. For example, there is no reason to build an experimental drive after TL-9, That does make a certain amount of sense, but as I said, I like the idea of having the players test out an Experimental, or Prototype drive.


As far a Powerplants go, I really don't like how the TL modifers interact with them, I think it is alot simpler to say a Drive A requires a P-Plant A, or that a Drive A requires 100 EP, and a Plant A make 100 EP. So I am toying with the idea of normalizing them to make the same amount of EP for each drive Class ,and instead modify the size, compounded with the size modification from the TL Effects. For Example an experimental Powerplant A is 6X heavier than a standard one, and 20X more expensive, but it makes the same power, all of the Powerplant A make the same power.



I'm not super fond of this rule either, For example, by this rule any TL 16 ultimate Jump drive below G is paying a substantial penalty size wise.
I could see an argument for halving the reduction below the minimum drive size, you'd still get some benefit from the increased TL, just not as much as larger drives.

BTW, don't forget the ability of drives to be "ganged" together. Their ganged total performance is based on their net total EP output/input. So you can have an A4-Drive, which is functionally the same as a D-Drive. But it is more survivable - if an A4-Drive takes a hit, perhaps only one of the component drives is damaged and you still have an A3-Drive. If the D-Drive is hit, it may be completely out of commission.

Also, a neat setting-fluff advantage of ganged drives is that you can now make the drive configuration fit your artwork. Gazelle Class Escort can have an A4 M-Drive configuration (or 2A2 - Port A2 & Starboard A2). Either is a D-Drive equivalent.

 

[spank]

BTW, don't forget the ability of drives to be "ganged" together. Their ganged total performance is based on their net total EP output/input. So you can have an A4-Drive, which is functionally the same as a D-Drive. But it is more survivable - if an A4-Drive takes a hit, perhaps only one of the component drives is damaged and you still have an A3-Drive. If the D-Drive is hit, it may be completely out of commission.

Also, a neat setting-fluff advantage of ganged drives is that you can now make the drive configuration fit your artwork. Gazelle Class Escort can have an A4 M-Drive configuration (or 2A2 - Port A2 & Starboard A2). Either is a D-Drive equivalent.

But,
OTOH,
Ganged drives will always be less efficient, due to the 5+x nature of drive size advancements.
4A will be 40 tons and 40 MCr, a drive D will be 25 tons and 25 MCr.
TANSTAAFL.....
A M2 or F4 drive is a better substitute for a Z drive than a A4 or B2 is for a D.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

That seems to be at odds with the text on page 76 ,

It seems to say that Drive potential is modified by by TL, a Drive A in a 100 tone hull will provide different potentials if it is an Experimental, Prototype, Early etc.

Yes:


The potential in the table is multiplied by efficiency, and rounded down.

I understand, from a game design standpoint it is desirable to have a Jump number be a whole number, but that limits gameplay options,

Yes, of course... That was the simplification chosen in 1977, and kept since.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Ganged drives will always be less efficient, due to the 5+x nature of drive size advancements.

M-drives are better small, so many small drives are better than one big.

You can build bigger ships with better performance with nexus drives, e.g. J-6 in 2400 Dt.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

As far a Powerplants go, I really don't like how the TL modifers interact with them, I think it is alot simpler to say a Drive A requires a P-Plant A, or that a Drive A requires 100 EP, and a Plant A make 100 EP. So I am toying with the idea of normalizing them to make the same amount of EP for each drive Class ,and instead modify the size, compounded with the size modification from the TL Effects. For Example an experimental Powerplant A is 6X heavier than a standard one, and 20X more expensive, but it makes the same power, all of the Powerplant A make the same power.

Yes, that is a simpler way to go.

I'm not super fond of this rule either, For example, by this rule any TL 16 ultimate Jump drive below G is paying a substantial penalty size wise.

No-one promised T5 would be as simple as LBB2...

The rule is probably there to avoid some exploit or something.
Or just to penalise small ships, just as in LBB2.

 

[whulorigan]

But,
OTOH,
Ganged drives will always be less efficient, due to the 5+x nature of drive size advancements.
4A will be 40 tons and 40 MCr, a drive D will be 25 tons and 25 MCr.
TANSTAAFL.....
A M2 or F4 drive is a better substitute for a Z drive than a A4 or B2 is for a D.

Yes, but once again (for a military vessel), the survivability-factor may be worth the extra tonnage.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I am not really happy with the way some of the TL effects for advancements work. For example, there is no reason to build an experimental drive after TL-9, That does make a certain amount of sense, but as I said, I like the idea of having the players test out an Experimental, or Prototype drive.

If you want an J-6 drive at TL-12, you have to look at an Experimental drive (and use EP drive performance instead of the drive potential table).

P = 2 × EP × Eff / Hull
(T5.10, B2, p63)

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Yes, but once again (for a military vessel), the survivability-factor may be worth the extra tonnage.

Combat-wise, they are the same, I believe.