In T5 and probably Mongoose, yes.
In LBB2, drive stacking can break the TL limits to capability.
CT Only: Fleet Scout (Type SF) 199.5Td, J4/4G
- Thread starter Grav_Moped
- Start date
In LBB2, drive stacking can break the TL limits to capability.
I agree, that’s why I always told about being setting breakers, not rules…
But the fact custom drives give worse performance than customized ones always sounded me wrong. At TL 10 I can have a 200 dtons with J3 with standard drives C, while I can only make it reach J1 with customized hulls, so customization reduces capacities.
That’s, again IMHO, as if having a custom built suit looked worse than one bought at any shop… I would not talk too well about my taylor if so…
Add to this that, once PP is added, having standard drives is more expensive than customized ones, and you'll understand why it seems odd to me: customization is cheaper but gives worse performance than standarization...
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
While that is true, it is limited only to small hulls.
With LBB2.81, high drive performance requires technology AND small hulls.
With LBB5.80, high drive performance required ONLY technology.
So to use your own example, at TL=10 you have access to A-H standard drives from LBB2.81 and up to a model/4 computer.
TL=10 Drive-H is code: 1 @ 1600 tons / 2 @ 800 tons / 3 @ 533 tons / 4 @ 400 tons / 5 @ 320 tons / 6 @ 266 tons
So while you can do Drive-C in a 200 ton hull and get code: 3 performance output ... there is an upper limit on how large the hull can be and still deliver code: 3 performance. Conversely, a LBB5.80 custom drive capable of delivering code: 3 performance output can be scaled to whatever size of hull you want.
In most circumstances, when you're aiming for "small ship" ACS type designs for adventuring in, that's an advantage rather than a drawback ... but when you start wanting to build "big ships" for Definitely Not Adventuring™ purposes, that same factor turns into a pretty serious disadvantage. For example, you can't even build V-Z standard drives until TL=15 and thus can't even build minimal code: 1 performance for 4000 ton craft until TL=15 ... so the factor that you're citing cuts both ways (so to speak).
Notably, this also includes maneuver drives.
Yes, you need TL-15 to get a 4KTd ship to do 1G.
Agreed, but even those would kill the setting.
Well, what I have now handy is TTB, and there I cannot find the TL limits for standard drives, but I trust your word on it.
Even so, at TL11 (Vilani while the IW) you could easily build a J5 400 don’t ship (I guess JD K were available by then), so allowing for far quicker communications than given in IW history…
And the Terrans are told to have been kept from reaching Bernanrd Star because they had only access to J1 for some time. Of course, this is broken (again) if a TL9 ship may even be J3…
BTW, one side question: if standard JD V-Z need TL 15, which TL would need the even larger JD shown in the K’kree module? Remember they use it on their larger ships that allow them to space, as they need more space due to their gregarious and claustrophobic nature…
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Standard drives are better for building 200 Dt ships at low TL (i.e. standard ships), custom drives are better for building 150 Dt or hightech ships (i.e. custom ships).
In other words, standard components force you to build standard (boring?) ships. E.g. LBB2 only lets you build Scouts and Free Traders somewhat economically. 150 or 300 Dt ships are just not economically viable. 400 Dt allows some choice. Large (i.e. high TL) ships have lots of choice.
Custom (HG) ships has lots of choice at any size, instead performance-limited by TL.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Compare the standard Far Trader (no passengers):
TL-9: J-2, M-1, 82 Dt payload, MCr 62:
With a custom job:
TL-11: J-2, M-1, 83 Dt payload, MCr 60.
Smaller, cheaper, needs less crew, uses less and cheaper fuel. What's not to like?
We are so used to be forced into narrow viable choices by LBB2, that we hardly see the prison walls anymore...
TL-9: J-2, M-1, 82 Dt payload, MCr 62:
Spoiler:
With a custom job:
TL-11: J-2, M-1, 83 Dt payload, MCr 60.
Spoiler:
Smaller, cheaper, needs less crew, uses less and cheaper fuel. What's not to like?
We are so used to be forced into narrow viable choices by LBB2, that we hardly see the prison walls anymore...
Drop it to 199Td.
Crew is then pilot, gunner. Delete the 2 now un-needed staterooms (+7Td cargo after sacrificing that 1Td to exercise regulatory arbitrage -- also, saves MCr 1, plus the Cr from the 1Td of removed hull).
Then restore both to 2G capability...
Or, to put it another way, the apples-to-apples comparison should be to 89Td payload at J2/2G.
Last edited:
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
LBB2:
Code:
A2-12212R1-000000-00000-0 MCr 60,8 199 Dton
bearing Crew=1
batteries TL=9
Cargo=91 Fuel=59,8 EP=3,98 Agility=1
Expenses per jump Revenue
Bank Cr 121 653 High Cr 0
Fuel Cr 29 900 Middle Cr 0
Life Support Cr 2 000 Low Cr 0
Salaries Cr 2 400 Cargo Cr 72 000
Maintenance Cr 2 433
Berthing Cr 199
Summa kCr 159 kCr 72
Income potential per jump kCr -87
Yearly yield on down payment -17,8%
Spoiler:
Income: kCr -87 per jump.
ROI pa: -18%.
Custom, same payload:
Code:
AN-16222R1-000000-00000-0 MCr 66,8 184 Dton
bearing Crew=1
batteries TL=11
Cargo=91 Fuel=40,4 EP=3,68 Agility=2
Expenses per jump Revenue
Bank Cr 133 686 High Cr 0
Fuel Cr 4 048 Middle Cr 0
Life Support Cr 2 000 Low Cr 0
Salaries Cr 2 400 Cargo Cr 72 000
Maintenance Cr 2 674
Berthing Cr 184
Summa kCr 145 kCr 72
Income potential per jump kCr -73
Yearly yield on down payment -13,6%
Spoiler:
Income: kCr -73 per jump.
ROI pa: -14%
Still more profitable (less unprofitable), and can operate without misjumping every few years.
Added this in the edit.
ETA: So the difference isn't quite as large. HG is "better" in some respects, but the A2 wasn't optimized as presented (and the Cr1000/jump freight rate did it it no favors anyhow).
Last edited:
The "regulatory arbitrage" diffeence at the 200Td breakpoint is significant. Saves the engineer and medic crew slots (8Td, MCr 1, plus salaries and life support costs), and if you were going to max out weapons, another 5Td and at least another MCr.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Yes, the A2 is a silly ship in LBB2. If you want a J-2 trader in LBB2 you get a 400 Dt standard hull.
The point is: If you want custom ships, custom drives are better.
Nothing can touch a Scout, Free Trader, or the Fat (&Far) Trader for economic viability at low TL. Or Z-drives at high TL. That is the LBB2 prison.
As I don't think 150 Dt, 300 Dt, or 257 Dt ships should be discriminated against, I dislike the LBB2 railroading.
The S, A, and R (and the J2 version of it that the standard hull implies) have explict rules carve-outs to make those ships preferable for play purposes.
Odd tonnages should be possilble. IMO, if you look at the drive tables/letter drives as point cases of the underlying engineering and physics, there's no reason you couldn't construct a set of "A-and-a-half" drives that'd give a 100Td ship J3/3G or a 150-tonner J2/2G. It's just that in-universe, nobody actually makes them, so logistical support might be sketchy. Maneuver drives smaller than size A are problematic, but this can be worked out.
The TL-15 drives (W-Z) are excptional because they "ran out of letters" (or space on the page) and wanted to include bigger drives for bigger ships. Ham-handed, but hardly a jail.
Again, IMO the rules describe the universe, but they do not define it. Rules-consistent interpolation (and extrapolation where valid) works IMTU.
What I meant about customized vs standard ship:
Let’s imagine we want a TL 15 1000 dton freighter with J4 M1 (bare bones)
Standard (TTB):
Note 1: Hull must be custom due to main/drives separation, at 0.1 MCr/dton, but the final cost is the same
Custom:
So, the custom hull is cheaper (though barely if not using config modifiers) than the standard (at TL15, at lower TLs the larger PP would reverse it), aside from quite smaller percentage for drives and needing less engineers.
Frankly, what I’d expect from customization would be to be more specific (we can assume the smaller percentage accomplishes this), but more expensive and need more maintenance (engineers), while I find those last two reversed.
At TL 13-14, the numbers for the customized hull would be 150 dton, 570 MCr, 1.5 engineers. So it would (at least) be more expensive, as expected from a custom built ship, but keeps needing less engineers…
At lower TLs it would not be possible due to the J4 (and I guess due to TL Drives for LLB2 too)
Let’s imagine we want a TL 15 1000 dton freighter with J4 M1 (bare bones)
Standard (TTB):
- Hull1: 100 MCr
- PP V: 61 dton, 160 MCr
- JD V: 105 dton, 200 MCr
- MD E: 9 dton, 20 MCr
Note 1: Hull must be custom due to main/drives separation, at 0.1 MCr/dton, but the final cost is the same
Custom:
- Hull: 100 MCr (+/- config)
- PP3: 40 dton, 120 MCr
- JD 3: 50 dton, 200 MCr
- MD 1: 20 dton, 30 MCr
So, the custom hull is cheaper (though barely if not using config modifiers) than the standard (at TL15, at lower TLs the larger PP would reverse it), aside from quite smaller percentage for drives and needing less engineers.
Frankly, what I’d expect from customization would be to be more specific (we can assume the smaller percentage accomplishes this), but more expensive and need more maintenance (engineers), while I find those last two reversed.
At TL 13-14, the numbers for the customized hull would be 150 dton, 570 MCr, 1.5 engineers. So it would (at least) be more expensive, as expected from a custom built ship, but keeps needing less engineers…
At lower TLs it would not be possible due to the J4 (and I guess due to TL Drives for LLB2 too)
Last edited:
It is sure possible: is called customization
If you go to the clothing shop, you'll find standard clothing. If it does not fit you (e.g. because you're more thin or strong than expected for your height), you need them customized (usually at a higher price)
Last edited:
That's the fluff-text that's given to explain the inconsistencies between LBB2 and HG anyhow.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Code:
MT-A341441-000000-00000-0 MCr 467 1 000 Dton
bearing Crew=8
batteries TL=15
Cargo=329 Fuel=440 EP=40 Agility=1
Spoiler:
Code:
MN-A441441-000000-00000-0 MCr 360 1 000 Dton
bearing Crew=7
batteries TL=15
Cargo=391 Fuel=440 EP=40 Agility=1
Spoiler:
Cost in quantity. Even a one-off is cheaper that a standard LBB2 ship.
For larger ships the HG ship is cheaper and has a larger cargo hold. And can use unrefined fuel. Ships more, cheaper. A no brainer...
It didn't even use a LBB2 m-drive.
At higher capability (=higher tech) ships, HG is better (unless Z-drives).
It's difficult to compare on a component basis, we have to compare complete ships.
Of course the HG transport would use a cheaper configuration. Because they can...
Note that HG 1000 Dt ships still use LBB2 crew requirements, so no major difference in engineers.
At least we could build the ship... Limited to TL-13 LBB2 couldn't.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
They are possible, just uneconomical.
We could house-rule a percentage based system based on LBB2 (and T5 did), but LBB2 is rather explicit: that isn't how it works.
As the first attempt of a ship design system, I guess someone thought a table was simpler than a percentage. But jump fuel was a percentage, and no-one seems to have a problem with that?
I don't think its unintended, it's the high tech advantage. Bigger ships are higher tech, and more efficient.
Your assumed RAI isn't my assumed RAI...
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Ah, but would they?
TTB, p87.
No need to take my word for it.
Also, just for reference ... TTB, p87 is a reprint of LBB3.81, p15, so that's how I knew where to look for that info in TTB.
You're overlooking something fundamentally important in how LBB2 "styled" starship design works ... and I don't blame you because that kind of "dismissive overlook" is the DEFAULT for all of us.
Take a look at TTB, p75 (or LBB2.77, p12 or LBB2.81, p41) for the computer programming rules (that we all prefer to ignore at every opportunity).
See those computer programs required for different jump numbers?
Now, ask yourself ... what happens if you've got drives that are "inherently capable" of delivering more parsecs per jump ... but you don't have a computer program capable of handling jumps at those longer ranges?
Exactly.
The limitation doesn't necessarily have to be one of hardware (drives) ... it can be a software bottleneck in the computers that control the jumps.
So what you could wind up with is a case in which during the Interstellar Wars period that you're citing, the Vilani could be building starships that would be capable of J3 if they had perfected the computer programming needed to do so ... but for whatever reason (take your pick!) the Vilani simply hadn't been able to "break the astrogation barrier" needed to develop the Jump-3 software program for their starships. So you wind up with a circumstance in which "the hardware can do it but the software can't (yet)" that totally preserves the historical events you're citing.
And then it's the Solomani who "make the Jump-3 software programming breakthrough advancement first" and it's the "wild navigators" of the Solomani who are the first to unlock J3 capability ... not because the engineering hardware was holding them back, but because there needed to be a "paradigm shift" in the software engineering to take astrogation (successfully!) to the next level of J3 capability.
Now try to imagine what the Flight Testing Program needed to write and debug all that Jump-3 programming software must have looked like ... and how many failures (and casualties!) would have been involved before finally succeeding. Consider that the only way to test such programming would involve REPEATEDLY executing a J3 in order to prove that there were no programming bugs hiding in the code (somewhere) that if triggered would result in the complete loss of craft and all hands aboard. Think about the effort and investment that would have been needed to get that Jump-3 program "man rated" for safety ... and how many failures would have occurred along the way to getting there.
Now consider that the Vilani could have done the exact same thing and simply been "unlucky" with their dice rolls for programming research.
After enough CONSISTENT FAILURES in the attempts to write a Jump-3 program ... I can easily imagine the sponsor(s) "pulling the plug" on funding and abandoning the effort (as futile) on the Vilani side. They just couldn't get it to work and demonstrate the capability "quickly enough" to meet expectations/budgets ... and so the effort was abandoned as a failure and a dead end, which then hardened into Conventional Wisdom™ so no one else tried (or more importantly, no one else succeeded after the initial failures).
I can easily imagine that Vilani research could have continued ... but it just couldn't advance far enough to make the breakthrough ("the dice were against them").
Conversely, the Solomani "got lucky" with their research program, "rolled boxcars" at some point and successfully developed and tested a Jump-3 computer program (that worked! bug free!), unlocking the secrets of J3 performance.
That way, the CAPABILITY was always present within the drives that were being used at the time ... but their FULL POTENTIAL hadn't been unlocked yet, with respect to J3 performance.
And THAT is how you get around the bottleneck of having "too much jump at too low a tech level" if you REALLY want to ...
The rules show "how it all fits together" once you've got everything worked out ... but are relatively silent on what it takes to make the necessary enabling advances (since that's all swept under the rug of Tech Levels).
If, as a Referee, you want to limit jump range potential in your campaign, you don't have to rely on drive numbers/letters available at particular tech levels in order to do it. You can also limit the availability of bug free computer programming capable of "finding the last puzzle piece" needed to unlock that higher capability.
Indeed.
Similar threads
