High Guarding again

[AnotherDilbert]

And then there's the whole "thrust/acceleration minus gravity" requirement/argument to be able to lift off from a surface in the first place.
If surface gravity exceeds the thrust/acceleration rating of your maneuver drive and you're "parked" on the ground ... You Are Not Going To Space Today™.

Quite, hence:

LBB2'81, p9:
TRADE CUSTOMS
_ Goods taken on in orbit are delivered when placed in orbit around the destination. Goods taken on on a planetary surface are delivered when off-loaded on the surface of the destination. This custom applies to cargo, passengers, and mail.
_ At any location with a class A, B, or C starport, shuttles routinely operate between orbit and world surface. Typical shuttle price is Cr10 per ton and Cr20 to Cr120 per passenger.

Traders can get by with 1 G, but scouts, explorers, yachts, safari-ships, etc really should have 2 G.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Traders can get by with 1 G, but scouts, explorers, yachts, safari-ships, etc really should have 2 G.

2G is "needed" for direct to surface deliveries on ALL terrestrial worlds (not just Size: 7-).
1G needs orbital shuttle services to complete deliveries to surface on terrestrial worlds with 1G+ surface gravity (Size: 8+) ... therefore ... any delivery to surface on a Size: 8+ world by a 1G starship requires EITHER a type A-C starport OR the starship needs to have a small craft which can make the deliveries to surface (in relays, if necessary).

 

[Rupert]

In TNE the power for the M-drive is required at all times, but reaction fuel is limited.

You can spend M-drive rating acceleration every turn, divided between changing velocity vector and evasion, as long as reaction fuel lasts.

Power for the M-drive (HEPlaR) is baked into the minimum power requirement, as are weapons. There is no choice of routing power to drives or weapons, unlike CT.

Actually, there absolutely is.



Also, despite the above passage's claims that ships generally have enough power to run everything when undamaged, it's actually fairly common for ships to have a shortfall and have to make choices:







So energy allocation is very much a thing, and not running HEPlaR drives at full power is allowed. Normally it's better if you can even when not burning as hard as possible (because the smaller your burn relative to the maximum, the more facing options you have), but it's not required.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Actually, there absolutely is.

OK, thanks for the correction.

I only remembered full power was assumed during design.

 

[kilemall]

That's not really a calculation done in CT HG though is it? It's more of a MT and TNE thing.

HG has two power settings, everything powered and firing, and emergency agility where weapons are powered off and everything outside shields is shunted to escape agility.

My goal is to allow players to use HG ships in a CT maneuver context and preserve most of the HG ship valuation while building in RPG player agency. As such I have more power allocation, but following a priority cascade- as power drops the power allocates by priority 1-2-3, if there isn’t enough power for lower units they don’t get it.

The number of power priority profiles is determined by ship tactics and fleet tactics skill- captains with no tactics skill get the HG default profiles plus one.

But strictly IMTU, not RAW.

 

[infojunky]

HG has two power settings, everything powered and firing, and emergency agility where weapons are powered off and everything outside shields is shunted to escape agility.

My goal is to allow players to use HG ships in a CT maneuver context and preserve most of the HG ship valuation while building in RPG player agency. As such I have more power allocation, but following a priority cascade- as power drops the power allocates by priority 1-2-3, if there isn’t enough power for lower units they don’t get it.

The number of power priority profiles is determined by ship tactics and fleet tactics skill- captains with no tactics skill get the HG default profiles plus one.

But strictly IMTU, not RAW.

Too butt in here, My 1st ship game was Starlet Battles (in the plastic bag), and I have always thought that all versions of Traveller ship combat lose a lot without power allocation.

Every time I touch the various Traveller ship combat systems the urge to tinker sets in.

 

[Ulsyus]

One of the things that strikes me reading through all the comments is the importance placed on the idea of power allocation and the need to consider how this is done as battle damage is accrued in a vessel. Do you see the reduction in damage being various in-series power plants going offline, or do you imagine that a single great power plant can continue to operate, when damaged, producing the containment bottle for the fusion reaction even though the plant itself is physically damaged?

 

[Spinward Flow]

Do you see the reduction in damage being various in-series power plants going offline, or do you imagine that a single great power plant can continue to operate, when damaged, producing the containment bottle for the fusion reaction even though the plant itself is physically damaged?

Doesn't have to be the "generator" itself ... it can be the distribution bus.
Kind of like how in a natural disaster, generator units can be tripped offline because the electrical power grid that delivers the power "off-site" beyond the property the generator occupies is either damaged or compromised. Generation capacity remains undamaged, but the distribution network is no longer able to handle the load.

Point being that the fusion power plant itself can "remain operational" but the power distribution manifold "gets fried" and rendered non-functional. With "nowhere" for the power generated by the fusion reaction "to go to" ... the fusion reactor NEEDS to shut down/reduce output in order to load balance whatever the (surviving) capacity of the in-craft power distribution network can sustain (without incurring additional damage).

Other "fine grained details" are also possible for the specifics, but those become "storytelling nuances" of HOW the power plant has been damaged. Whether damage is sustained to the reactor and/or the power distribution system on-board a craft, the "combat relevant USP stats" effect(s) of damage taken remains the same ... and the shipyard repair costs will be equivalent, no matter HOW the details are described/distributed.

The bulkhead with power busbars inside it got MELTED and so that entire side of the craft can no longer be powered. That's going to cost EXTRA to repair (beyond the basic cost of bulkhead material).

 

[kilemall]

Too butt in here, My 1st ship game was Starlet Battles (in the plastic bag), and I have always thought that all versions of Traveller ship combat lose a lot without power allocation.

Every time I touch the various Traveller ship combat systems the urge to tinker sets in.

I assume you mean Star Fleet Battles, although Starlet Battles makes me giggle and want to create the conflict game of B list actors.

Not going for spreadsheet style allocation, more inspired by the agility calc itself. If one adheres religiously to it, as power plants take hits the ship can slow to agility-0 because there isn’t power left due to the other systems using it.

 

[mike wightman]

So why not power down some weapon systems and/or screens instead to preserve agility? Rhetorical question as I already know the answer, the game lacks the rules for it.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

So why not power down some weapon systems and/or screens instead to preserve agility?

The USP...

HG is streamlined enough to actually play out squadron combat, hence not all that much detail about every individual ship.

 

[mike wightman]

Which is why the entire concept of the EP is a needless complication.