Considering alternate world generation

[kilemall]

That was a retcon, and a very silly retcon at that. it was to prevent people charging jump capacitors and using them to power weapons and screens while using full power plant output for emergency agility.

A more sensible interpretation is that the capacitors can only feed power into the power grid an the expense of your power plant generation. Power down your power plant by a factor or 2 and top up with capacitor EPs.

But that adds a lot of complexity and requires a turn by turn EP tracking that HG combat was simply never intended to do.

I agree that if your power distribution grid is damaged then you can not transfer power from the power plant or capacitors to ship systems esxcept at a reduced rate, but that again is not explicitly covered by the rules. Is a power plant hit damage to the energy transfe grid or damage to the reactor itself?

Different referees will have different interpretations and house rules for this.

The increased complexity I introduce to handle all that is to determine where the capacitors are in the power flow relative to downstream systems and distribution.

If inserted between the power plant and the system, the capacitors are then dedicated to that system and can have extra charge banked up, but just for it. And the system cannot be powered except through the capacitors.

If hung off the main power plant than you are limited to the base distribution capacity inherent in the PN. But I allow increase in distribution by determining what the power plant size would be with the PN plus capacitor discharge and charging 20% of that tonnage to handle both.

Alternatively that distribution could be separate from the power plant so could be engaged even if the power plant was destroyed, but would be an either/or with the requirement of hard swapping the power feeds to the capacitor distribution system.

The original defined purpose of black globe absorption would have a power flow of BG to capacitor to power plant.

If using capacitors regularly for battery purposes, there should be a minute chance of detonation. I don’t do ship destroyed, but rather 1 EP = 10 tons of damage. So a dton of capacitors is 360 tons. I’d have to explain my damage system which has a chance of that applying to the hull and thus destruction, but certainly will damage/destroy major systems.

 

[spank]

That was a retcon, and a very silly retcon at that. it was to prevent people charging jump capacitors and using them to power weapons and screens while using full power plant output for emergency agility.

A more sensible interpretation is that the capacitors can only feed power into the power grid an the expense of your power plant generation. Power down your power plant by a factor or 2 and top up with capacitor EPs.

But that adds a lot of complexity and requires a turn by turn EP tracking that HG combat was simply never intended to do.

I agree that if your power distribution grid is damaged then you can not transfer power from the power plant or capacitors to ship systems esxcept at a reduced rate, but that again is not explicitly covered by the rules. Is a power plant hit damage to the energy transfe grid or damage to the reactor itself?

Different referees will have different interpretations and house rules for this.

I personally like the idea of charging the Ship's batteries for temporary capacity. Charge the capacitors up, make an attack run and withdraw for a couple of turns. It gives you some flexibility in combat. It incentivizes striking hard but longer you are engaged the less power you have stored. Kind of how your stamina depletes from strenuous combat.

 

[spank]

But overall, I think you're attempting to houserule a situation that doesn't really need fixing,

Isn't that what we do here?

and the repurcussions for capital warships is huge, basically making a PP hit meaningless. A Jump-1/Thrust-1/Pn-1.9 civilian ship is so wildly toothless in the first place that it should not expect to survive an encounter from someone armed with a meson

As is currently a gunned up 500 ton SDB with a PN of 20+ can largely shrug off a PP from a meson Cannon, if it's 500 Tons it would loose 5 EP, It'd lose 5 EP. The same hit on a much bigger ship takes out alot more the ship's damage potential. This favors small ships, better to have 100 SDB than one battle cruiser with a spinal.

If you take out a fixed number of EP the hit becomes much more damaging to a small ship than it would be to a large ship.


This shows the damage to a number of ships with the same PN, when damaging PN the Small ship is hurt no worse than the large ship. When damaging EP the small ship is completely knocked out, and the larger ship survive better, even at the top end a 50,000 ton ship is hurt less than a 40,000 ton ship. It has more of it's EP remaining and can better continue the fight.

 

[Badenov]

Isn't that what we do here?

Well, we try and do it for the better, not just to see the churn.

As is currently a gunned up 500 ton SDB with a PN of 20+ can largely shrug off a PP from a meson Cannon, if it's 500 Tons it would loose 5 EP, It'd lose 5 EP. The same hit on a much bigger ship takes out alot more the ship's damage potential. This favors small ships, better to have 100 SDB than one battle cruiser with a spinal.

If you take out a fixed number of EP the hit becomes much more damaging to a small ship than it would be to a large ship.

View attachment 7404
This shows the damage to a number of ships with the same PN, when damaging PN the Small ship is hurt no worse than the large ship. When damaging EP the small ship is completely knocked out, and the larger ship survive better, even at the top end a 50,000 ton ship is hurt less than a 40,000 ton ship. It has more of it's EP remaining and can better continue the fight.

So, this version disproportionalely hurts small ships, which mainly include player ships. I think your goal is worthwhile, as a hit that directly reduces PN dispoportionally hurts large ships, but however you implement it is going to change the game, and this seems like a way that's going to cause more problems than it fixes. .

 

[aramis]

Don't forget the '77 universe and the '81 universe.
'77 is just fine with the 100 X-boat in '81 it's not exactly kosher.

It also has a different drive performance table. But that adds 2 more, not one... 2-77, (2&5)-77
So just CT, we've got
2-77
2-77 + 5-79
2-77 + 5-80
5-79
5-80
2-81
2-81 + 5-79
2-81 + 5-80

Thing is, except for certain designs, it's hard to tell 2-77 from 2-81 designs.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Thing is, except for certain designs, it's hard to tell 2-77 from 2-81 designs.

The giveaways for the early rules are "Jn>Pn&MD" (early A2), presence of a separate Jump Governor (later A2) (marks the design as 79-80), and should be whether there's significant extra fuel to support small craft (looking at you, '81 rules Happy Fun Ball). Also small craft's fuel tankage.

 

[Silverhawk]

It also has a different drive performance table. But that adds 2 more, not one... 2-77, (2&5)-77
So just CT, we've got
2-77
2-77 + 5-79
2-77 + 5-80
5-79
5-80
2-81
2-81 + 5-79
2-81 + 5-80

Thing is, except for certain designs, it's hard to tell 2-77 from 2-81 designs.

Is the Traveller Book equivalent to 2-81? I never had 81 LBB's just a set go 77's that I got later.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Is the Traveller Book equivalent to 2-81?

Yes.
TTB is basically LBB1-3.81 ... repackaged.

 

[Silverhawk]

Yes.
TTB is basically LBB1-3.81 ... repackaged.

Thanks. That's what I always thought which is why I never bothered with getting actual LBB1-3.81.

 

[aramis]

Is the Traveller Book equivalent to 2-81? I never had 81 LBB's just a set go 77's that I got later.

Almost. If CT 77 is 1.0, and CT 81 is 2.0, TTB is 2.1 and ST is 2.2. Minor rules differences. But they don't affect ships, save the effects of a pulse laser.

Thanks. That's what I always thought which is why I never bothered with getting actual LBB1-3.81.

There are differences. Significant ones, tho' subtle.
And the rules for Pulse lasers are only in Starter Traveller.

Traveller Section by Section Comparison

Traveller Section by Section Comparison Book 1 1 Book 2 13 Book 3 31 The following tables identify the differences I have identified between the various versions of Classic Traveller. Notable items are called out in bold. Errata corrections have been added in red in the appropriate places. I ...

docs.google.com