Misjumps
- Thread starter fiat_knox
- Start date
The game mechanics emulate the same reality somewhat differently, because they reduce a complex situation to gamable simplicity differently. :devil:
Hans
Fundamentally different level of accuracy; With normal skill & att levels, as much as 5/12 of jumps drop you randomly in the inner system despite perfect systemry (refined fuel, undamaged drives, outside 100D entry point, proper maintenance).
MGT has 4 results possible: Accurate Jump, Innacurate Jump, Misjump, no jump
(MT has 6: successful, time error, time & accuracy, classic misjump, destroyed, no jump)
(CT has 4: Successful, classic misjump, destroyed, no jump.)
The MGT misjump is also undefined as to effect, leaving it to Referee Fiat, but essentially, it's "destroyed" or "Removed from current campaign setting".
There is no multi-parsec classic misjump of 1-36 hexes, but a kind GM can impose that.
Because a margin of Y on the power transfer gives the following chances, assuming no other issues, of inaccurate jump:
Y:_____0_____1_____2_____3_____4_____5_____6+
IJ:__21/36_15/36_10/36__6/36__3/36__1/36___0
With an engineer having a task DM of X, the chance of inaccurate jump (random dump in the inner system) is figured to:
EngrDM __ No Jump __ IAJ __ AJ __ IJ%J
__ -2: ___ 1080 ____ 103 __ 113 _ 47.7
__ -1: ____ 936 ____ 155 __ 205 _ 43.1
__ +0: ____ 756 ____ 210 __ 330 _ 38.9
__ +1: ____ 540 ____ 266 __ 490 _ 35.2
__ +2: ____ 360 ____ 285 __ 651 _ 30.4
__ +3: ____ 216 ____ 264 __ 816 _ 24.4
__ +4: ____ 108 ____ 228 __ 960 _ 19.2
__ +5: _____ 36 ____ 180 _ 1080 _ 14.3
__ +6: ______ 0 ____ 126 _ 1170 __ 9.7
__ +7: ______ 0 _____ 70 _ 1226 __ 5.4
__ +8: ______ 0 _____ 44 _ 1252 __ 3.4
__ +9: ______ 0 _____ 13 _ 1283 __ 1.0
_ +10: ______ 0 ______ 5 _ 1291 __ 0.4
_ +11: ______ 0 ______ 1 _ 1295 __ 0.1
No Jump: Chances (of 1296) of not jumping
IAJ: Chances (of 1296) of an inaccurate jump, used to calcuate IJ%J
AJ: Chances (of 1296) of an accurate jump, used to calculate IJ%J
IJ%J: Percentage of successful jumps which result in inaccurate jump. Rounded to 1 decimal
Most PC groups will have an engineer with a DM of +2 to +4, as will most NPC merchants... just due to CGen mechanics... so between 1/3 and 1/5 of jumps will result in a random dump in-system.
Plankowner
SOC-13
Where did you get the info on inaccurate jumps in MGT? I can only find that is mentions them, but no indication of how bad they are etc?
plankowner: all it says is they randomly drop you in the inner system.
MGT CRB p141, rc, ¶3
Knowing, however, that the distances involved are several days for even inner system...
MGT CRB p141, rc, ¶3
When the ship exits Jump space after an accurate Jump, it tends to arrive close to the target world, but outside or on the verge of the hundred-diameter limit. Inaccurate Jumps just dump the ship somewhere in the inner system, requiring a long space flight.
Knowing, however, that the distances involved are several days for even inner system...
Plankowner
SOC-13
AH! Missed that, thank Aramis.
By Inner system, I do not believe that they ment Inside the Habitable Zone. After all the ship must emerge outside the 100D limit of the star.
So, if I read it right, what they mean is it dumps you within a couple AU of the target. That works for me.
THANKS
By Inner system, I do not believe that they ment Inside the Habitable Zone. After all the ship must emerge outside the 100D limit of the star.
So, if I read it right, what they mean is it dumps you within a couple AU of the target. That works for me.
THANKS
I trust Mongoose has properly considered the ramifications of this change and amended the cost of freight and passenger tickets accordingly.
Hans
No. I've posted a whole lot of math figuring out workable alternatives to the prices in book....
Fixing the Economics
But I hadn't accounted for the roughly 1-in-5 chance of adding another 1-2 days in-system travel. It's as low as 1-in-36 for even the most elite... once every 1.5 years MTBE...
And without more specifics, one can't figure out just what they mean into a number of days.
Thanks, great work. I was just starting on this project with the major difference being 80% financed. I had one sticking point. For example, the median or even low #s for J6 cargo are MANY times over X6 the cost for J1.
So, for cargo where it isn't time sensitive the numbers won't work. This was the point I was trying to resolve. Would there be a market big enough for high jump cargo ships or, would most cargo go at a lower cost (and speed) thus limiting the Dton costs to the J1 cost times # parsecs shipped?
most cargos will move at J2 if not perishable nor time essential. It's the cheapest
Pretty much, only people and high value perishable foods (say, caviar and its ilk) will get J6. (and a dTon of caviar is 10 metric tons... and at roughly KCr1 per kilogram already, adding KCr100 per dTon is adding KCr10 per mass-ton, or KCr0.1 per J6... if there's a market, it can make several jumps profitably before exceeding the "still in the market" range.
Pretty much, only people and high value perishable foods (say, caviar and its ilk) will get J6. (and a dTon of caviar is 10 metric tons... and at roughly KCr1 per kilogram already, adding KCr100 per dTon is adding KCr10 per mass-ton, or KCr0.1 per J6... if there's a market, it can make several jumps profitably before exceeding the "still in the market" range.
I really didn't think I needed to add a smiley to that remark. I was being sardonic, trying to convey the opinion that making that sort of changes without taking the ramifications into account was bad world-building[*].
Hans
[*] I hope that expressing this opinion does not put me over the Mongoose-bashing line.
Makes sense. I guess the simplest way if one wanted to make more economical would be to lower the J-fuel % requirements.
Depending on what assumptions you choose, J2 may be cheaper than J3 or J3 may be cheaper than J2. In any case the costs are quite close together, and what is cheapest also depends on the astrography. Over a three-parsec distances, for example, J3 would be a lot cheaper than J2. Across a four parsec gap J4 would be cheapest.
Hans
Ignoring power plant fuel doesn't make much difference at J1 and J2, but it helps quite a bit at J5 and J6.
Hans
Do you mean Jump fuel? @J2 it depends on the ship size...
At least MGT tried to address. CT was oblivious...
No, I mean power plant fuel. According to HG, the minimum power plant size is equal to the jump drive rating. Quite often it will be a bit bigger. Power plants consume 1% of the ship's tonnage per power plant rating in 4 weeks (which is a ridiculously low efficiency), which means it has to set aside that much of its tonnage for a power plant fuel tank. A jump-1 design has a payload of 50 or 60%. Reducing that by one or two percentage points doesn't make a big difference. A jump-6 ship, OTOH, has a payload of less than 20%. Reducing that by six or seven percentage points makes a big difference to its capacity.
How's that? MGT also require tons of fuel per 2 weeks to run the power plants.
Hans
Well, I listed J-fuel. So, don't have a clue why you responded with PP Fuel.
Umm, MGT addressed the issue of passengers & cargo costing MORE to be taken MORE than one parsec. Something CT never addressed. And, the subject of what I was talking about. So, don't worry about "bashing" MGT, worry more about looking like you haven't studied the rule set... :devil:
Let me clue you in, then: It was a suggestion of a simpler way to improve economics (at least for higher jumps) than to change a basic feature of all Traveller versions[*].
[*] Except MT.
I'm more worried about how I could possibly think you were talking about lowering the jump fuel requirements when you were actually talking about per parsec costs.
Hans
Similar threads
