Jump Drive Variant

[Valarian]

IMTU I'm playing with the idea that ships don't need to come out of jumpspace after a week as long as they have the fuel to stay. The Jump rating is the distance in parsecs that the ship can move through jumpspace in a week. Higher ratings mean that the ship is more efficient at moving through the gravitational morass of jumpspace. This effectively means that Jump-1 vessels can make 2 parsec jumps if they have enough fuel, it just takes them two weeks to do it rather than one.

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Do you require any extra overhead cost for life support during jumps longer than a week?

If you have the fuel capacity built in to the ship, then I assume that this is built in as well. in other words I don't think about it.

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Does a 1.5 parsec jump take 1.5 weeks, or a full 2 weeks?

It would mean that yes, but I go by the 2d maps and hexes. If you want to use a real star distance chart and work on that basis, the system would work for 3d star charts.

Originally posted by Aramis:
The problem with that, Valarian, is that what little justification for per jump pricing there is (versus per parsec) goes RIGHT out the window.

I see no problem with this. I dislike the per jump model and use per parsec pricing.

Originally posted by Aramis:
Further, if you can stay in longer, by gum, logically you should be able to stay in shorter... in which case, by switching to J4, you get 4 J1 jumps in a week, which means, 3.5 jumps per month, in which to make your salaries and payments, with about 2/3 the cargo space, and 7/4 the cargo space, or about 7/6 the income, WITHOUT adjusting for speed, or the lack of per-jump pricing.

You've still got the time to maneuver in-system and refuel. If no refueling takes place, with the exits and entries in to jump space, you'd not get this. You'd perhaps get 2 jumps maybe three. The reason is that it's more costly to create a jump point to enter or exit jumpspace than it is to maneuver in the gravitational morass.

Rough figures - still to be worked out properly and play tested.
30% fuel cost to create entry jump point, or use of jump gate
20% fuel cost to create exit jump point, or use of jump gate
50% fuel cost maneuvering in jumpspace

Originally posted by Aramis:
Logically, all merchants should be the best TL available, or they can't keep up financially...

This would indeed happen on the mains and large shipping companies that can afford the latest technologies would buy these to stay competitive. The cost of the technology would make it costly to put on low bulk freighters, so it would only be used on the larger freighters. However, the large bulk freighters don't serve everywhere and the tramp freighters, using older technology, would be there to pick up local distribution.

Then there's military restriction of technology. the latest technologies would only be available to the military, except in the most stagnated of cultures and economies.

 

[veltyen]

Have you thought about insystem jumping?

With a fast jump drive it would make everywhere (in jump territory) in system nearly instantaneous to get too.

It makes the space between planets as empty as the space between stars.

 

[Jamus]

I like this idea. not the in-system jumping..that just seems wrong but the extended jump based on fuel consumption. Of course if there is no fuel consumption during jump say all the fuel is burned up powering the initial jump then your idea would not work since each leg of the jump would require repowering the jump drive which may or may not be possible in J space. your idea makes J-space travel no different the R-space travel and assumes that there is such a thing as distance in J-space while I always assumed J-space had no distance associated with it and was more like Dunes folding of space. once the J-drive makes the hop nothing for the crew to do but kick back and wait. Unless you use the idea that Jumping appears instantanious to those making the Jump while a weeks worth of time passes in real space.

I ramble.

 

[leighton]

I've always had a problem with Jump space travel as defined in canon Traveller. I like Valarian's idea. I have no problem with in-system jumps as long as you are well away from gravity.

I would prefer that the all the fuel is used to 'propel' the ship into jump space and that the jump grid dissipates until it can no longer hold the ship in jump and it 'pops out' into normal space. The amount of energy used to create the grid determines how long it lasts and hence how far you traveled, which of course is related to fuel.

This would suggest that you could make shorter jumps and take shorter times. A jump ship would normally take a week to travel irrespective of jump capability (and potential distance). This works out at roughly 0.5 ly per day max for a J1 vessel and 3.0 ly max for J6 ship. You are only as efficient as the distance and speed you wish to travel. There is no reason you why you couldn't travel at lower 'speeds' if you wanted to use this model. You could also allow increased fuel efficiencies for traveling at this slower speeds. For example, a ship with a J4 drive wishing to travel a distance of 4 parsecs (~14 ly) could elect to travel at 1 ly/day and still, arrive at the destination in the same time taken for 2 conventional jump 2 steps. With fuel efficiencies, this would lower the cost of moving slower, and would be an incentive as a more cost-effective mode of travel for those tramp steamers. By the same logic you could allow 'over-clocking' of the jump-drive to give you a boost (at higher fuel cost) - maybe, maybe not, haven't thought that one through.

Once in jump space you are 'stuck' til your grid dissipates enough to return to normal space. As an option, one could allow a premature exit if you expended extra fuel equal to the 'remaining' distance you would have travelled.

I haven't ever really tried all this out but I don't think this would upset game balance too much.

Leighton

PS Does it state somewhere that gravity stops the jump-grid from forming correctly?

 

[Sifu Blackirish]

Leighton, I pretty much follow your .

IMTU ships with small hulls and large drives can 'overcharge' their jump grid to make a longer jump.
They still must have the fuel and they stay in space longer, but it makes VERY long juumps possible.
At TEK 6 (about Traveller TL 15) a 100 ton scout can perform an equivalent jump-10 or more!

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by Valarian:
IMTU I'm playing with the idea that ships don't need to come out of jumpspace after a week as long as they have the fuel to stay. The Jump rating is the distance in parsecs that the ship can move through jumpspace in a week. Higher ratings mean that the ship is more efficient at moving through the gravitational morass of jumpspace. This effectively means that Jump-1 vessels can make 2 parsec jumps if they have enough fuel, it just takes them two weeks to do it rather than one.


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aramis:
Further, if you can stay in longer, by gum, logically you should be able to stay in shorter... in which case, by switching to J4, you get 4 J1 jumps in a week, which means, 3.5 jumps per month, in which to make your salaries and payments, with about 2/3 the cargo space, and 7/4 the cargo space, or about 7/6 the income, WITHOUT adjusting for speed, or the lack of per-jump pricing.

You've still got the time to maneuver in-system and refuel. If no refueling takes place, with the exits and entries in to jump space, you'd not get this. You'd perhaps get 2 jumps maybe three. The reason is that it's more costly to create a jump point to enter or exit jumpspace than it is to maneuver in the gravitational morass.

Rough figures - still to be worked out properly and play tested.
30% fuel cost to create entry jump point, or use of jump gate
20% fuel cost to create exit jump point, or use of jump gate
50% fuel cost maneuvering in jumpspace

Originally posted by Aramis:
Logically, all merchants should be the best TL available, or they can't keep up financially...

This would indeed happen on the mains and large shipping companies that can afford the latest technologies would buy these to stay competitive. The cost of the technology would make it costly to put on low bulk freighters, so it would only be used on the larger freighters. However, the large bulk freighters don't serve everywhere and the tramp freighters, using older technology, would be there to pick up local distribution.

Then there's military restriction of technology. the latest technologies would only be available to the military, except in the most stagnated of cultures and economies. </font>[/QUOTE]Military "restriction" of technology generally doesn't work in the real world. It results in only the civilians not having them, while the crooks and the cops and soldiers do. Not a good thing for your civil merchantmen.

The time taken to get in/out is, according to most traveller rulesets, 1 day each way. Buying cargos is 5 days... I did account for travel times.

Since you're using per parsec costs, it works for you... but it's not "Normal Traveller."

It also drastically affects the nature of naval command and invasion defense... and local communications.

 

[Valarian]

Originally posted by veltyen:
Have you thought about insystem jumping?

With a fast jump drive it would make everywhere (in jump territory) in system nearly instantaneous to get too.

It makes the space between planets as empty as the space between stars.

The jump drive doesn't work very well in gravity wells. All sorts of nasty misjump possibilities if the PCs try it. They can risk a misjump if they want, and rely on the GM's kindhearted and fluffy nature for him not to take advantage.

As a merchant, I'd still use the maneuver drive from the 100d limit. I'd not want to risk the ship or passengers beyond this unless the risk was worth it. A military raid or covert operation might try it. But an entry jump point would register as a fairly large gravitational disturbance on sensors. If I were coming in covertly, I'd jump in the outer system and coast in.

 

[Valarian]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Military "restriction" of technology generally doesn't work in the real world. It results in only the civilians not having them, while the crooks and the cops and soldiers do. Not a good thing for your civil merchantmen.

Ah ... I must have missed those criminal gangs and terrorist groups with B2 stealth technology and nuclear warheads.

Originally posted by Aramis:
It also drastically affects the nature of naval command and invasion defense... and local communications.

This is true. Naval vessels can pile on the fuel and become long range raiders. However, every ton of fuel means a ton less in weaponry/armour. This'll mean you need more of the vessels to meet the defence force at your target destination. Of course, this reinforces the argument for a battle rider / tender force.

 

[aramis]

Actually, there is great concern about nuclear terrorism. The issue there isn't that the technology is terribly restricted (the actual technology was public in the early 1970s'), it's that it's space inefficient, dangerous to do, and requires major infrastructure.

Also, two years ago, the soviets lost several warheads... There was no public acknowledgment of finding them that I am aware of.

B2 stealth technology is public theory. The baseline theories are published. The basis of how the materials work are available in non-classified sources. Again, it's cost-effectiveness. Air-to-Air combat has little use for pirates. The ability to work the materials is a rare skill, and requires, again, major infrastructure. The specifics of the aircraft may not be, but any country with the will, money, and the infrastructure could work with the public mathematical models and develop a stealth aircraft. There have been a couple of picket boats using minimal radar return shapes off of florida... but the USCG still does visual search... and that caught them.

The specific details of the Radar Absorbing Material are not released. However, the base principals are out there.

Secrecy is the only tool for maintaining a military weapon's exclusivity... and that presumes one can keep the military members from leaking it. Sooner or later, it all leaks out.

 

[sgbrown]

Firearms are a good real world example. Nearly every government in the world severly restricts firearms use. End result is the crooks don't need as much fire power to intimidate the honest citizen so they are usually lighter armed when restrictions are in place. However, with the right funding and connections, they can still get sufficient arms (even in high law areas - consider Northern Ireland) to challenge small military units without too much difficulty. So the end result is much the same as Aramis suggested - but it doesn't stop governments from restricting weapons tech anyway.

 

[leighton]

To add to Valarian's piece, buying cargoes shouldn't necessarily take 5 days. It's just that 5 days can be seen as the first time you get all the cargo rolls.

If you are only planning to hang around for 2 days then say only 25% of the roll is available, determined randomnly. But if you are small vessel and you are on a world that generates high cargo volumes, a day or two is all you may need...

You could use something like 1 day: 10%, 2 days: 25%, 3 days: 40%, 4 days: 65%, 5 days: 100%.

IMTU, I've also allowed players to undercut the market price to improve their chances of finding cargo.

All in all, you may only save a day every second trip, but it might mean over a year an extra cargo run.

 

[Valarian]

Originally posted by Leighton:
If you are only planning to hang around for 2 days then say only 25% of the roll is available, determined randomly. But if you are small vessel and you are on a world that generates high cargo volumes, a day or two is all you may need...

You could use something like 1 day: 10%, 2 days: 25%, 3 days: 40%, 4 days: 65%, 5 days: 100%.

I like this ... could mean you get a cargo after a couple of days hanging around, could mean that you have to wait a couple of weeks. Planetside adventuring possibilities as the PCs take jobs to fill in the quiet periods. Mind if I nick this idea?

Originally posted by Leighton:
IMTU, I've also allowed players to undercut the market price to improve their chances of finding cargo.

This would depend on the trade policies of the polity. As I understand the Imperium, trade is heavily regulated and this practice could well be illegal. Even in less regulated polities, if there's a Trader's Union or Union of Shiphands, they could get rather upset that the PCs are undercutting the regular traders and putting the jobs of their members at risk. Even upset enough to send the heavies round.

Look 'ere mate, somebody don't like you takin' all dees jobs see. Somebody don't like te see you puttin' peoples livelihoods at risk see. Now you play nice or we not going goin' to play nice. Capiche!

 

[leighton]

Undercutting the market could well raise the ire of the local Union and regulatory bodies. Good excuse for a feud and add some colour to the players planetside time.

Feel free to pinch anything that takes your fancy.

Leighton

 

[Lochlaber]

Maybe you should add in modifications for hiring a local merchant to work as your agent. They already ae linked into the local network and probably would know more about the local conditions than you would after a day or two. In fact, to make your scheme work, you would have to work with somebody local or suffer time penalties. If you visited more than once, you could earn positive modifiers to your time and cargo rolls, in addition to your merchant rolls.

 

[leighton]

I would certainly go with Lochlaber's suggestion. Any model of commerce and transaction you can think of operating now or in the past could be seen in or around a starport/spaceport.

Passengers would come under this as well ... even if there are strict controls on passenger charges by the local Starport Authority or local Chamber of Commerce (or something of that ilk), you could always attract extra passengers by offering transport at lower prices. It's a win for both parties - well admittedly the local Authority may lose their cut.

 

[Valarian]

Originally posted by Leighton:
... even if there are strict controls on passenger charges by the local Starport Authority or local Chamber of Commerce (or something of that ilk), you could always attract extra passengers by offering transport at lower prices. It's a win for both parties - well admittedly the local Authority may lose their cut.

... and again the heavies come visiting.

<CRACK - sound of fingers breaking>

 

[aramis]

Don't forget, a large part of historical price controls have been legal MAXIMUM prices, not legal minimums.

In the US, 1942-1947 was the period of price controls... (Records of the Office of Price Administration.... scary stuff.)

 

[veltyen]

As soon as you start undercutting the competition, then the locals might also want to understand why you aren't paying the dockworkers more, rather then charging less.

Lot of breakable things in your cargo like.

Accidents do happen. These are the docks, things sometimes end up... misplaced.

 

[Valarian]

In wartime, maximum pricing policies are common. What I'm alluding to is unions and polities getting upset at free traders coming in and undercutting the regular trade.

As I understand the Imperium, there are set prices on the flow of trade. The can't be undercut without breaching Imperial trade regulations. That is the price for moving 1dt of goods one jump (or one parsec depending on which you use IYTU) and that is the price you shall charge.

 

[leighton]

You're all correct, that undercutting may lead to trouble with the local dockers, Starport Authority, Unions, Imperial Trade Office, etc. But, hey, if you want to add a bit of spice?!

However, non-Imperial governments may encourage different pricing structures for cargo and passengers to stimulate trade and commerce in their regions. Undercutting here may come in the form of subsidies, or some other such scheme.

It all depends on how you structure your commercial model for your universe - if you can be bothered with it. In a purely capitalist universe, the big boys would drive the prices down and squeeze out the free trader on the plum routes. Those independents may be forced to look at the side routes for their income.

Just look at the emergence of the budget, no-frills airlines (particularly in Europe at the moment) for an example of how successful it can be. Sure, these airlines have upset unions and those that regulate trade, but it hasn't stopped them and they have become quite big in the process. Ultimately their protection is their size, but no doubt when they started there were all sorts of tactics by numerous groups to scupper their ambition.

If you want to impose top-down pricing controls, your call. These are just options to add a bit of flavour.

Leighton