A jump drive replacement for T5

[Lapthorn]

I'm finding MgT Warp Drive rather interesting. So far, other than some extra cargo/passenger tonnage, it doesn't seem to "break" the OTU for FTL.

Warp is simply how far your drives can take of in ONE week, pretty much the same as other Traveller versions jump drive. The big difference is your ship's power plant is the fueling source, burning twice the fuel as usual, BUT, no "J Fuel" required.

Keeps FTL flight times in line with the OTU, but allows an interesting alternative to jump.

One big difference is you can go much further than 6pc in a single journey, without having to stop to refuel. So there's that much less reason to settle the rockballs and AtmA+ worlds with which the OTU is so charmingly replete.

Plus the "no borders" issue arises.

 

[JimMarn]

As an alternative to Niven's Drive above, suppose your vessel has a drive system that allows your ship to enter the Quantum I excited state. But instead of traveling at a continuous 3 days to the light-year, you have to use your M-Drive for acceleration & deceleration as normal - except that the maximum speed of the universe is now 3 days to the light-year instead of standard lightspeed. At Quantum II, lightspeed is 1.25 minutes to the light-year, and you can use your M-Drive to accelerate & decelerate up to that value as a maximum, etc. (You can of course make up your own light-speed values for the excited states).

This might be something Jim Marn can employ for his Bussard Ramjet ideas as well.

This is what I have decided on:

Starship Wanderer: 1 parsec in 30 days
http://travellergame.drivein-jim.net/articles/482/starship-wanderer-faq

Wormholes: equivalent to Jump 2
http://travellergame.drivein-jim.net/articles/688/vespucian-arm-column-b-sector-3-wormholes

Do those speeds break anything ? I wanted Wanderer to travel slower than Jump speeds. The wormholes are limited in area they are used in.

 

[whulorigan]

This is what I have decided on:

Starship Wanderer: 1 parsec in 30 days
http://travellergame.drivein-jim.net/articles/482/starship-wanderer-faq

Wormholes: equivalent to Jump 2
http://travellergame.drivein-jim.net/articles/688/vespucian-arm-column-b-sector-3-wormholes

Do those speeds break anything ? I wanted Wanderer to travel slower than Jump speeds. The wormholes are limited in area they are used in.

I don't believe they break anything relative to a "Travelleresque" Universe (it is your ATU after all ). As long as normal travel speeds are less than Jump-1, it should not break the paradigm.

Things to consider:

1) I am presuming you are using the Bussard Ramjet idea in conjunction with my "Quantum-Excitation Hyperdrive" idea above that you quoted in your post? Presumably Wanderer can travel for long periods without refuelling? This would mean that things like the Great Rift in the OTU will not be an impediment to it (i.e. rifts will not be astrographic impediments to travel, and will not create natural "borders" and choke-points). As long as that is not a problem for your campaign, it should be fine.

2) The idea I proposed above does raise the potential spectre of an FTL communication system (at the higher-level lightspeed values). It is easy enoguh to say that there are technical problems with the FTL-signal dropping down to normal lightspeed after a short time, but it does make the possibility of FTL communication a little more "feasible" (at least in theory) than the standard Jump-Drive paradigm.​

 

[JimMarn]

I don't believe they break anything relative to a "Travelleresque" Universe (it is your ATU after all ). As long as normal travel speeds are less than Jump-1, it should not break the paradigm.

Things to consider:

1) I am presuming you are using the Bussard Ramjet idea in conjunction with my "Quantum-Excitation Hyperdrive" idea above that you quoted in your post? Presumably Wanderer can travel for long periods without refuelling? This would mean that things like the Great Rift in the OTU will not be an impediment to it (i.e. rifts will not be astrographic impediments to travel, and will not create natural "borders" and choke-points). As long as that is not a problem for your campaign, it should be fine.

2) The idea I proposed above does raise the potential spectre of an FTL communication system (at the higher-level lightspeed values). It is easy enoguh to say that there are technical problems with the FTL-signal dropping down to normal lightspeed after a short time, but it does make the possibility of FTL communication a little more "feasible" (at least in theory) than the standard Jump-Drive paradigm.​

Yes, your "Quantum-Excitation Hyperdrive" idea is what I went with.

Wanderer is 21 miles long and about 15 miles tall. It can carry thousands of people and lots of fuel. Has a forest or two as well as a lake or two.

 

[simonh]

I'm not super familiar with MgT but unfortunately as described it sounds like it does break at least 2 fairly big things that the 'standard' jump drive has set. ...

Warp drives are one of several optional variants to the core system provided in sidebars in the MgT rulebook. They don't 'break' anything, they're simply options available for GMs wanting to use Traveller to create their own SF setting using the MgT rules, or some variation of them.

Simon Hibbs

 

[esampson]

. . .they don't 'break' anything. . .

For a given definition of 'break'.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that MgT is 'broken' because the drives exist (optional or otherwise). If not saying these drives shatter the entire Traveller ethos. I'm saying that the drives as described do mean that certain aspects of the core Traveller universe (that systems must be strongly self sufficient because help is at least 2 weeks away, that ships can't zip around within a system in a matter of an hour, and that a lot of rockballs can be bypassed because it is no longer as important to have fuelling facilities every few parsecs) no longer hold up. That's all.


Those elements get 'broken'. It isn't a horrible crime. It isn't the end of life in the known universe. You aren't a bad person because you prefer that kind of arrangement. It is just that the in universe existence of those considerations cease to be and that universe becomes a bit different.

 

[robject]

For a given definition of 'break'.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that MgT is 'broken' because the drives exist (optional or otherwise).

Well. I think MgT added those drives in order to give referees (and future publications) options to NOT write for the OTU.

 

[David Johansen]

What about just using maneuver drive values and making the fuel requirements serve the maneuver drive instead of the ftl.

So, at 10% of the ship's volume you've got 1 G week. Yes I know the exhaust velocities are absurd and down right impossible but it's simple and uses the existing system. Alternately you could say you've got 1 G hour but it'll take a lot longer to get anywhere.

 

[simonh]

Well. I think MgT added those drives in order to give referees (and future publications) options to NOT write for the OTU.

Exactly, the OTU is a universe. Traveller is not a universe, it's a rules system for creating and running games in whatever universes the GM chooses.

Did FF&S 'break' Traveller by including options for drives and systems unknown in the OTU? No, and neither did MgT.

Simon Hibbs

 

[Dagrill]

If there's one pet hate I have about Traveller, it's the confounded jump drive.

What I've been wondering and possibly this would be an interesting idea for the T5 revision, is a jump drive replacement. After all if there's a far far future, why on earth wouldn't there have been advancements in all that time. The ancients had teleportation for crying out loud, so surely humanity being how it is, would have invested considerable time into establishing new star drive technologies.

Hi,

You might want to check out Avenger games alternative Translight drive,
the example I have is called Starships & Spacecraft book 0 Cawthorne

Regards

David

 

[mike wightman]

What about just using maneuver drive values and making the fuel requirements serve the maneuver drive instead of the ftl.

So, at 10% of the ship's volume you've got 1 G week. Yes I know the exhaust velocities are absurd and down right impossible but it's simple and uses the existing system. Alternately you could say you've got 1 G hour but it'll take a lot longer to get anywhere.

That's pretty much what the designers of TNE decided to do.

They wanted to go back to a reaction drive paradigm for the manoeuvre drive where fuel use becomes an issue.

You can use your fuel for jump and have limited fuel remaining for manoeuvre or you can use lots of your fuel for in system manoeuvring but this limits your jump range.

 

[mike wightman]

Exactly, the OTU is a universe. Traveller is not a universe, it's a rules system for creating and running games in whatever universes the GM chooses.

Did FF&S 'break' Traveller by including options for drives and systems unknown in the OTU? No, and neither did MgT.

Simon Hibbs

The original poster is asking how the setting would be broken by changing the types of FTL drive available.

And yes, TNE/FFE most definitely "broke" the setting as it existed - a completely new drive paradigm for the manoeuvre drive (for broke read radically changed)

(I liked the TNE drive paradigm by the way)

 

[esampson]

Exactly, the OTU is a universe. Traveller is not a universe, it's a rules system for creating and running games in whatever universes the GM chooses.

Did FF&S 'break' Traveller by including options for drives and systems unknown in the OTU? No, and neither did MgT.

Simon Hibbs

And again, I'm not saying that the drives 'break' the game. I am saying that they 'break' aspects of the OTU, that is all. I'm not even saying they shatter the entire core of the OTU. I'm saying that there are several aspects of the OTU that do not function under those drives.

Using most of those drives from FF&S would 'break' similar aspects of the OTU, yes. Does that mean they have no place in that book? Of course not, because the rules system can be used to generate worlds other than the OTU and those rules are deliberately written to be more encompassing than the OTU.

 

[esampson]

. . .
(I liked the TNE drive paradigm by the way)

I actually liked it a lot as well. Largely removed the problems of ships being pointed at planets and then having their engines run flat out for days on end until they became planet killers (largely removed because a ship could still be crashed into a planet at fairly catastrophic velocities for the people on the ground, but you were in no way getting remotely close to planet killing capability).

 

[aramis]

The original poster is asking how the setting would be broken by changing the types of FTL drive available.

And yes, TNE/FFE most definitely "broke" the setting as it existed - a completely new drive paradigm for the manoeuvre drive (for broke read radically changed)

(I liked the TNE drive paradigm by the way)

TNE was a fun system, even with the drive paradigm change... but it lacked the traveller feel in a great many ways.

One of the biggest issues was that merchants generally couldn't sustain the two-week cycle. Which meant that merchants had issues making money.

 

[David Johansen]

Well, without turning to selling arms and slaves to TED.

But TNE is one of those games that would have worked better as its own thing instead of as a Traveller / Third Imperium tie in.

 

[simonh]

The original poster is asking how the setting would be broken by changing the types of FTL drive available.

I just went back and re-read the first post, twice, and honestly can't see how you interpret it that way. It struck me as more of a "I've got this cool idea, isn't it great?" kind of post, with not even a hint of concern about breaking anything.

And yes, TNE/FFE most definitely "broke" the setting as it existed - a completely new drive paradigm for the manoeuvre drive (for broke read radically changed)

(I liked the TNE drive paradigm by the way)

That's fair enough, TNE was misconceived in many different ways but that was explicitly a change to the setting. FF&S was setting agnostic. They should have created a new setting for TNE, the way they did with 2300.

Simon Hibbs

 

[simonh]

I actually liked it a lot as well. Largely removed the problems of ships being pointed at planets and then having their engines run flat out for days on end until they became planet killers (largely removed because a ship could still be crashed into a planet at fairly catastrophic velocities for the people on the ground, but you were in no way getting remotely close to planet killing capability).

It traded that for the problem that instead every spaceship comes equipped with an extremely efficient, high powered fusion cannon theoretically capable of burning holes right through capital ships.

Simon Hibbs

 

[esampson]

It traded that for the problem that instead every spaceship comes equipped with an extremely efficient, high powered fusion cannon theoretically capable of burning holes right through capital ships.

Simon Hibbs

That's actually less of an issue. A fusion reactor is not the same thing as a fusion cannon any more than a nuclear reactor is a nuclear bomb (and for the uninitiated, nuclear reactors are incapable of causing a nuclear explosion. The greatest danger they have is a steam powered explosion that distributes nuclear waste over a large area. Bad news, certainly, but significantly less destructive than a nuclear explosion using the same amount of fissionable material).

 

[simonh]

That's actually less of an issue. A fusion reactor is not the same thing as a fusion cannon any more than a nuclear reactor is a nuclear bomb (and for the uninitiated, nuclear reactors are incapable of causing a nuclear explosion. The greatest danger they have is a steam powered explosion that distributes nuclear waste over a large area. Bad news, certainly, but significantly less destructive than a nuclear explosion using the same amount of fissionable material).

I'm talking about the standard HEPLaR manoeuver drive system, a fusion torch reaction drive that blasts out a superheated stream of high energy plasma at a non-trivial proportion of the speed of light to provide thrust.

As Larry Niven wrote, the efficiency of a reaction engine as a weapon is directly proportional to it's efficiency as a drive.

Simon Hibbs