General Jump Fuel decreases?

[mike wightman]

MT introduced reduced jump fuel but it didn't kick in until higher TLs

TL	9->16	17	18	19	20	21
jump fuel	10%	8%	6%	4%	2%	1%

TNE then had this rule for jump fuel:

"The fuel necessary fora jump of 1 parsec is equal to the total volume of the jump drive machinery multiplied by 10 and divided by the drive's maximum jump number. Thus, ships with higher jump performance make more efficient use of fuel at short distances."

Note that both had a reduced jump fuel requirement so I have converted them back to the standard 10% per jump number.

 

[spank]

MT introduced reduced jump fuel but it didn't kick in until higher TLs

TL	9->16	17	18	19	20	21
jump fuel	10%	8%	6%	4%	2%	1%

TNE then had this rule for jump fuel:

"The fuel necessary fora jump of 1 parsec is equal to the total volume of the jump drive machinery multiplied by 10 and divided by the drive's maximum jump number. Thus, ships with higher jump performance make more efficient use of fuel at short distances."

Note that both had a reduced jump fuel requirement so I have converted them back to the standard 10% per jump number.

At this point I can't remember the genesis of the idea, it's been so many years ago. I do remember liking both the MT and TNE approaches, at least in theory. But the MT approach isn't going to be useful in routine play, only exotic one off future tech ships. And the TNE implementation could have been better presented, and generated some wonky numbers,
The base progression isn't too bad, But the reduction produced some interesting numbers, owing primarily to the fact that fuel was J-drive size times 10 divided by max JN.
So your jump fuel progression ends up with something like this.

TL	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
Drive size	2%	2%	3%	4%	5%	6%	7%
jump fuel	10%	10%	7.5%	6.66%	6.25	6%	5.83%

edit-
That's enough of trying to type tables on my phone.
I'll try again when I am at a proper computer.

 

[Spinward Flow]

IMHO, this gives a benefit to having a higher TL drive, but not a huge benefit.

ORLY?

What it does in practice is mean that if you aren't building at Max TL available, then you're quantifiable MORON (both as a PC and an NPC).
It turns every world that isn't at Max TL into an "also ran" ... rather than a place that can compete.

This isn't just a "slippery slope" towards munchkinism ... this is spaghettification in the direction of intentionally rewarding the min/max potential of The Bestest Tech Level™.



The ... impulse ... towards doing this sort of thing is extremely understandable ... after all, why shouldn't starship drives "get more efficient" with their fuel consumption at higher tech levels? Isn't that what higher tech levels are SUPPOSED TO MEAN, after all?

The problem is that "if allowed" in the rules, it basically turns everything into "Go High Tech Or Go Home" ... which means that (game mechanically) if you aren't Max Tech "everything" then you're a LOSER ... and it's quantifiable just how big of a LOSER you are.



Or to put it another way ...

 

[coliver988]

ORLY?

What it does in practice is mean that if you aren't building at Max TL available, then you're quantifiable MORON (both as a PC and an NPC).
It turns every world that isn't at Max TL into an "also ran" ... rather than a place that can compete.

This isn't just a "slippery slope" towards munchkinism ... this is spaghettification in the direction of intentionally rewarding the min/max potential of The Bestest Tech Level™.



The ... impulse ... towards doing this sort of thing is extremely understandable ... after all, why shouldn't starship drives "get more efficient" with their fuel consumption at higher tech levels? Isn't that what higher tech levels are SUPPOSED TO MEAN, after all?

The problem is that "if allowed" in the rules, it basically turns everything into "Go High Tech Or Go Home" ... which means that (game mechanically) if you aren't Max Tech "everything" then you're a LOSER ... and it's quantifiable just how big of a LOSER you are.



Or to put it another way ...

...

as has previously pointed out, though, higher tech requires higher tech bases to maintain your high-tech ship. So, while it gets mileage, so to speak, if you can't get it repaired it is worthless as you can no longer go. So not sure it is as extreme as posited.

in a reverse of this: I'm finally selling my 40-year-old motorcycle. I love the bike, but no one can maintain it as parts are just not available. Makes me sad as it is the 1st vehicle I ever bought but it barely got ridden last year. And due to leaking gaskets that cannot be replaced, it is going to an auto mechanic who may be able to maintain it. Point being maintenance is also part of the picture.

 

[Condottiere]

It's sorta guesswork in this game, but you could try identifying commonality for individual components from similar products, and hoard unique ones, or have artisanal engineers or three dee printers prepared to replicate them.

 

[kilemall]

It's sorta guesswork in this game, but you could try identifying commonality for individual components from similar products, and hoard unique ones, or have artisanal engineers or three dee printers prepared to replicate them.

They keep old warplanes and tanks driving decades after their parts were mass produced. Just a matter of how badly the owner wants to keep them moving.

Perhaps use the same mechanism in Striker for maintenance for higher tech than the operating planet, only apply the same costs trying to keep lower tech going.

 

[Condottiere]

There are jokes that next up are Tee Thirty Fours recommissioned to service.

Though, I think it's currently at Tee Fifty Four/Fifty Five.

In our case, prevailing procurement policy seems demonstrated with the Scout Service, in Scout/Couriers and Express Boats in particular.

 

[spank]

ORLY?

What it does in practice is mean that if you aren't building at Max TL available, then you're quantifiable MORON (both as a PC and an NPC).
It turns every world that isn't at Max TL into an "also ran" ... rather than a place that can compete.

This isn't just a "slippery slope" towards munchkinism ... this is spaghettification in the direction of intentionally rewarding the min/max potential of The Bestest Tech Level™.



The ... impulse ... towards doing this sort of thing is extremely understandable ... after all, why shouldn't starship drives "get more efficient" with their fuel consumption at higher tech levels? Isn't that what higher tech levels are SUPPOSED TO MEAN, after all?

The problem is that "if allowed" in the rules, it basically turns everything into "Go High Tech Or Go Home" ... which means that (game mechanically) if you aren't Max Tech "everything" then you're a LOSER ... and it's quantifiable just how big of a LOSER you are.



Or to put it another way ...

Not at all,
Back to the example ship,

Some years ago I suggested a system for higher TL drives being more efficient, when the ship was "over-driven". What I suggested was reducing the fuel consumption by 1% for each TL the drive exceeded the JN of the Jump. For example a TL 15 J-6 Drive would perform a J-1 jump for ((10-(6-1))* hull) fuel or 5% of hull.
The same ship, with the same drive would also be able to make:

• J-6 @ 60%
• J-5 @ 45% (9% * JN)
• J-4 @ 32% (8% * JN)
• J-3 @ 21% (7% * JN)
• J-2 @ 12% (6% * JN)

IMHO, this gives a benefit to having a higher TL drive, but not a huge benefit.
Sure your TL-15 Trader only needs 10 tons of jump fuel, for a J-1, But it needs +25 tons of drive.
So you save 10 tons of Jump Fuel, but waste 25 tons on drive.
Not to mention extra 50 MCr it wall add to the ship's cost.
87 MCr for a Free Trader with -15 tons of cargo space?
There is some savings, but the costs outweigh it from a purely bean-counting standpoint.
Something like this is not going to find it's niche in the commercial market.
But maybe an explorer or long-haul ship would find it useful.

The fuel usage goes down, but the cost goes up. Dramatically.

How many jumps are you going to have to make to save 50,000,000 Cr in fuel?
And how are you going to make the payments on a ship that costs 135% more and carries 24% less cargo? That Free Trader is going from marginal profitability to an absolute money pit.

ORLY?

What it does in practice is mean that if you aren't building at Max TL available, then you're quantifiable MORON (both as a PC and an NPC).
It turns every world that isn't at Max TL into an "also ran" ... rather than a place that can compete.

So it turns out to be quite the opposite, you'd have to be a moron to stick a TL-15, J-6 drive in a Free trader and try to make a profit.

 

[Silverhawk]

They keep old warplanes and tanks driving decades after their parts were mass produced. Just a matter of how badly the owner wants to keep them moving.

Perhaps use the same mechanism in Striker for maintenance for higher tech than the operating planet, only apply the same costs trying to keep lower tech going.

Smaller railroads in RL do it by buying used from the Big roads sometimes including ones that are otherwise unrepairable but have usable parts to be able to do some repairs. Once the usable parts have been done sell the remainder for scrap value.

 

[Condottiere]

Cannibalization also occurs for aircraft.

The problem the Russians have, is that due to tight safety regulations, you need certification of parts and chain of custody.

Besides, actually paying for it.

 

[spank]

Cannibalization also occurs for aircraft.

The problem the Russians have, is that due to tight safety regulations, you need certification of parts and chain of custody.

Besides, actually paying for it.

The old joke,
"We fly because we CAN"

 

[Condottiere]

Actually:

 

[kilemall]

Smaller railroads in RL do it by buying used from the Big roads sometimes including ones that are otherwise unrepairable but have usable parts to be able to do some repairs. Once the usable parts have been done sell the remainder for scrap value.

In many cases the diesels and motors themselves are generic enough to be in production still or rebuilt, more the electrical costs too much to refurbish or fiddly parts specific to railroading.

 

[kilemall]

Cannibalization also occurs for aircraft.

The problem the Russians have, is that due to tight safety regulations, you need certification of parts and chain of custody.

Besides, actually paying for it.

IMTU there is an outlaw Oort Cloud where entire drives are swapped out for ships rather then parts, cause that’s where the pirated ships go. Lowly A drives are worth gold, inspections are nil and taking passage is a risk just in terms of arriving even if no violence.

 

[Condottiere]

Actually, I've figured out a faster way to pirate.

You steal the fuel, just before they jump.

Untraceable.

I assume, unless it has to do with ionic identification.

 

[Condottiere]

Speaking of pirates.

Bundle of Holding - Drinax.

You have six days.

 

[Grav_Moped]

The ... impulse ... towards doing this sort of thing is extremely understandable ... after all, why shouldn't starship drives "get more efficient" with their fuel consumption at higher tech levels? Isn't that what higher tech levels are SUPPOSED TO MEAN, after all?

This is kind of what LBB5 did -- just in terms of drive size though, not fuel efficiency*

Cutting the size of the Jump Drive, adding the Pn>=Jn requirement, and then making power plant size dependent on TL, made the total %Td needed for a given Jn also dependent on TL. It's not directly proprrionate (PP % changes by multi-TL ranges, while jump capability is -- mostly -- in 1TL steps), but it did add a sort of TL efficiency boost that LBB2'77 did not have. Well, aside from the W-Z drives at TL-15...

---------
*LBB2'81 kept the '77 sizes for backwards compatibility, but changed the accompanying technobabble to align with LBB5.

 

[Rupert]

Not at all,
Back to the example ship,


The fuel usage goes down, but the cost goes up. Dramatically.
View attachment 6270
How many jumps are you going to have to make to save 50,000,000 Cr in fuel?
And how are you going to make the payments on a ship that costs 135% more and carries 24% less cargo? That Free Trader is going from marginal profitability to an absolute money pit.

It shouldn't be carrying less cargo, unless you're using it at more than Jump-1. J-1 + 10% fuel = 12%. J-6 + 5% fuel = 12%, so the cargo space is the same if the ship is equipped for jump-1.

 

[spank]

It shouldn't be carrying less cargo, unless you're using it at more than Jump-1. J-1 + 10% fuel = 12%. J-6 + 5% fuel = 12%, so the cargo space is the same if the ship is equipped for jump-1.

In the example you are using an engine with J-6 potential, to get the fuel savings. IE the ship is over-engined, so the drive is 25 Tons bigger, but the fuel is 10 tons less. Ultimately a net loss of 15 tons of cargo.
Honestly I have mixed feeling about the concept, I like the part about going 1 day faster per excess JN of the actual jump. But for the other half of the idea, fuel usage being reduced -1% per JN in excess of the actual jump, the cost seems to outweigh the efficiency saving across the board.
I have been messing with the idea of adding cost reduction per TL favoring the lower TLs and a efficiency bonus favoring Higher TLs Essentially lower TL drives are cheaper, but burn more fuel.
From what something like:

I tried to peg the "standard" drives at TL-12.
From what I see the optimum cost to performance ratio settle in at TL 12-13, and gets more deeply rooted as the multiplier decreases, and as the size of the ship increases.

Here is the profit shortfall for a free trader-- the amount of the monthly costs not covered by cargo only that has to be covered by PAX.
For smaller modifiers, cost reduced by .95 per TL, there is a slight advantage at the higher TLs. Anything beyond about .85 and there is a definite middle ground the ship "should" be in to be the most profitable.

 

[kilemall]

On the speed issue, depends on how many more runs per month that can be done to offset the greater cost.