Extending the drive tables for Mongoose starships

[Thunderbolt]

I'm sure I remember somebody extended the standard drive table above the 2000 tons shown in the Mongoose core rule book, but now can't find it despite some Googling.

Did I imagine it, I'm sure it was extended up to 5000 tons or there about.

 

[aramis]

Look in Classic Traveller, Book 2. Same numbers.

 

[Thunderbolt]

The numbers seem to mostly correspond, but there were differences.

I figured there was a different formula at work and hoped somebody had already done the calculations.

 

[aramis]

The CRB tables are consistent 200 ton-units of effect per drive letter.

 

[Thunderbolt]

I used that formula and got a number of discrepancies as the drive numbers and tonnages increase, especially with the larger end of the drives. (I'm comparing with the MGT Pocket Guide and Core Rules)

 

[aramis]

There are a few glitches in the tables; I don't know if they are intentional or accidental, but they are mostly consistent with rounding errors.


When running the check of (200 per letter)/(hull * rating), only 7 come up outside the range 0.5 to 1.499. Of these, U@2000 is 0.48, and the others are in the range 1.5 to 1.71:
C@400 (1.5), D@500 (1.6), E@600 (1.67), F@700(1.71), F@800 (1.5), G@900 (1.56), & U@2000 (0.48).

____ ___ 100 ___ 200 ___ 300 ___ 400 ___ 500 ___ 600 ___ 700 ___ 800 ___ 900 _ 1,000 _ 1,200 _ 1,400 _ 1,600 _ 1,800 _ 2,000
A __ ___ ok ____ ok ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ___ –
B __ ___ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ___ –
C __ ___ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ___ –
D __ ___ -- ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ___ –
E __ ___ -- ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ___ –
F __ ___ -- ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ___ –
G __ ___ -- ____ -- ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ___ 0.88 ___ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ -- ____ -- ___ –
H __ ___ -- ____ -- ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ___ 0.89 __ 0.80 ___ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ -- ___ –
J __ ___ -- ____ -- ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ___ 0.90 __ 0.75 ___ ok ____ ok ____ ok ___ –
K __ ___ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ___ 0.95 __ 0.83 ___ ok ____ ok ___ 0.83 __ 0.71 ___ ok ____ ok ___ ok
L __ ___ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ___ 0.92 __ 0.81 __ 0.73 __ 0.92 __ 0.79 __ 0.69 ___ ok ___ ok
M __ ___ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ___ 0.89 __ 0.80 __ 0.67 __ 0.86 __ 0.75 __ 0.67 __ ok
N __ ___ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ___ 0.93 __ 0.81 __ 0.96 __ 0.87 __ 0.72 __ 0.62 __ 0.81 __ 0.72 __ 0.65
P __ ___ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ___ 0.88 __ 0.78 __ 0.70 __ 0.78 __ 0.67 __ 0.58 __ 0.78 __ 0.70
Q __ ___ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ ok ____ ok ____ ok ___ 0.94 __ 0.83 __ 0.75 __ 0.63 __ 0.71 __ 0.63 __ 0.56 __ 0.75
R __ ___ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ ok ____ ok ___ 0.91 __ 0.80 __ 0.89 __ 0.80 __ 0.67 __ 0.57 __ 0.67 __ 0.59 __ 0.53
S __ ___ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ ok ____ ok ___ 0.97 __ 0.85 __ 0.76 __ 0.68 __ 0.71 __ 0.61 __ 0.53 __ 0.63 __ 0.57
T __ ___ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ ok ____ ok ___ 0.90 __ 0.80 __ 0.72 __ 0.60 __ 0.64 __ 0.56 __ 0.50 __ 0.60
U __ ___ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ ok ___ 0.90 __ 0.95 __ 0.84 __ 0.76 __ 0.63 __ 0.68 __ 0.59 __ 0.53 __ 0.48
V __ ___ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ ok ___ 0.95 __ 0.83 __ 0.89 __ 0.80 __ 0.67 __ 0.57 __ 0.63 __ 0.56 __ 0.50
W __ ___ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ ok ___ 0.88 __ 0.78 __ 0.84 __ 0.70 __ 0.60 __ 0.66 __ 0.58 __ 0.53
X __ ___ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ ok ___ 0.92 __ 0.81 __ 0.73 __ 0.73 __ 0.63 __ 0.55 __ 0.61 __ 0.55
Y __ ___ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ ok ___ 0.96 __ 0.85 __ 0.77 __ 0.77 __ 0.66 __ 0.58 __ 0.64 __ 0.58
Z __ ___ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ -- ____ ok ____ ok ___ 0.89 __ 0.80 __ 0.67 __ 0.69 __ 0.60 __ 0.53 __ 0.60

Running the other way, however, I see my error...


However, given the following table (Drive Letters by rating and size of hull):
____ 1 ___ 2 ___ 3 ___ 4 ___ 5 ___ 6
_100 ___ 0.5 _ 1 __ 1.5 _ 2 ___ 2.5 _ 3
_200 ___ 1 ___ 2 ___ 3 ___ 4 ___ 5 ___ 6
_300 ___ 2 ___ 3 ___ 5 ___ 6 ___ 8 ___ 9
_400 ___ 2 ___ 4 ___ 6 ___ 8 __ 10 __ 12
_500 ___ 3 ___ 5 ___ 8 __ 10 __ 13 __ 15
_600 ___ 3 ___ 6 ___ 9 __ 12 __ 15 __ 18
_700 ___ 4 ___ 7 __ 10 __ 13 __ 16 __ 19
_800 ___ 4 ___ 7 __ 10 __ 13 __ 16 __ 20
_900 ___ 5 ___ 8 __ 11 __ 14 __ 17 __ 21
1000 ___ 5 ___ 8 __ 11 __ 14 __ 17 __ 22
1200 ___ 6 ___ 9 __ 12 __ 15 __ 18 __ __
1400 ___ 7 __ 10 __ 13 __ 16 __ 20 __ __
1600 ___ 8 __ 11 __ 14 __ 17 __ 22 __ __
1800 ___ 9 __ 12 __ 15 __ 18 __ 24 __ __
2000 __ 10 __ 13 __ 16 __ 19 __ __ __ __
One can see where to add the data. A=1, Z=24. I suspect the 5 column should climb 2 per step, and the 6 column by 3 (so it correctly ends off the chart).

Extending it with the extant pattern would be
2000 __ 10 __ 13 __ 16 __ 19 __ 26
____ __ 11 __ 14 __ 17 __ 20 __ 28
____ __ 12 __ 15 __ 18 __ 21 __ 30
____ __ 13 __ 16 __ 19 __ 22 __ 32
____ __ 14 __ 17 __ 20 __ 23 __ 34
____ __ 15 __ 18 __ 21 __ 24 __ 36

But what goes on those tonnage lines is a good question... I'd use 2500, 3000, 3500, 4000, 5000, 6000, 7000, 8000, 10K, 12K, 14K, 16K, 20K 24K... putting the break points at 1K, 2K, 4K, 8K, 16K

 

[Icosahedron]

This is why I find tables a PITA. Give me a formula any day, then I can derive my own tables if I want them.

 

[rancke]

This is why I find tables a PITA. Give me a formula any day, then I can derive my own tables if I want them.

In the case of drives and power plants, I agree completely. It would have been so easy to make a set of Book 2 style tables that were compatible with the percentage-of-hull rules from HG. I've done it myself.

That grandfathering rule in HG has a lot to answer for. If only GDW had gone to the trouble of redoing the original classic ship designs once and for all back when HG came out, we wouldn't have to deal with this idiocy 25 years later. Mind you, neither T20 nor MGT were forced to perpetuate it. In both cases it was, IMO, simply a bad call.


Hans

 

[far-trader]

...neither T20 nor MGT were forced to perpetuate it. In both cases it was, IMO, simply a bad call.

I know it's been a while since I cracked my T20 book but I don't recall that being the case there. My recollection is of tables, derived from formulae, that were nearly direct copies of HG formulae. And all the classic ships were redone. Have I forgotten something?

 

[aramis]

In the case of drives and power plants, I agree completely. It would have been so easy to make a set of Book 2 style tables that were compatible with the percentage-of-hull rules from HG. I've done it myself.

That grandfathering rule in HG has a lot to answer for. If only GDW had gone to the trouble of redoing the original classic ship designs once and for all back when HG came out, we wouldn't have to deal with this idiocy 25 years later. Mind you, neither T20 nor MGT were forced to perpetuate it. In both cases it was, IMO, simply a bad call.


Hans

T20 doesn't. T20 is HG++. T5 does. Marc seems attached to the Bk2 paradigm.

 

[rancke]

I stand corrected. It's not easy keeping track ;-).


Hans