Can anyone here think of a reason why, under the starship construction rules and the canon of the Traveller universe, I couldn't have a spaceship with a maneouvre drive rating that isn not a whole number? Such as a drive rating of 0.5 or 1.75 or the like.
Partial Level Maneouvre Drives
- Thread starter Ben W Bell
- Start date
I see no reasons on the setting not to have them, I just couldn't find any rules that would prohibit them and wanted to check with people to see if they could think of a reason why not.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
I expect it was done just to keep it simple. Much easier, for one example, to make a "Typical Travel Times" table with just 6 accelerations. TNE went a little further, breaking it down to even tenths of a G, but they had to based on the more realistic drive system and all it entailed.
My handwave is the design system supports standard sized modules which allow a consistant parts recylcing and repair operation, and the discounted price for building a ship. So if you want a custom crafted 4.73G ('cause it just fits) racer then you don't get the final price discount (at least not on the maneuver drive). Parts for repair and maintenance will also be hard to find (maybe custom made too) and cost more.
My handwave is the design system supports standard sized modules which allow a consistant parts recylcing and repair operation, and the discounted price for building a ship. So if you want a custom crafted 4.73G ('cause it just fits) racer then you don't get the final price discount (at least not on the maneuver drive). Parts for repair and maintenance will also be hard to find (maybe custom made too) and cost more.
In fact, I've used fractional G-ratings whenever the players needed an extra boost to get away from someone, or when repairs were only partly successful. In other words, I don't use them to reduce travel times per se, but I use them when it's a matter of dire emergency. When your ship has been badly damaged and is in a decaying orbit around a gas giant, a half gee is a lifesaver.
However, every time the engineer tries to "overclock" the maneuver drive, the referee makes a roll to see if something goes horribly wrong...
However, every time the engineer tries to "overclock" the maneuver drive, the referee makes a roll to see if something goes horribly wrong...
...and come to think of it, I also have a House Rule for a "Zero-rated drive": it has a tenth the volume, a tenth the cost, and a tenth the performance of a Rating-1 drive, but consumes the same resources as a Rating-1. Basically a standardized rule to allow in-system jump drives, orbit stabilization maneuver drives, slow insystem freighter drives, and power for defensive orbital platforms. That kind of thing.
Bob Weaver
SOC-12
Robject said:
"However, every time the engineer tries to "overclock" the maneuver drive, the referee makes a roll to see if something goes horribly wrong... "
I've been looking for a place to slide this question in . . .
Would you mind sharing your "house rules" on improving a ship's M-drive? The Starship Operator's Manual from DGP discusses "overdriving" the drive to get more than the listed thrust on a temporary basis. I figure that PC's should at least have some chance of upgrading/fine tuning their drives to permanently increase the thrust rating, even if it is by percent-of-G. There exists of course the possibility for abuse (say, a Suleiman-class scout that can do 6.5G) but it would make a worthwhile goal for an PC group to "Soup-Up" their ship.
"However, every time the engineer tries to "overclock" the maneuver drive, the referee makes a roll to see if something goes horribly wrong... "
I've been looking for a place to slide this question in . . .
Would you mind sharing your "house rules" on improving a ship's M-drive? The Starship Operator's Manual from DGP discusses "overdriving" the drive to get more than the listed thrust on a temporary basis. I figure that PC's should at least have some chance of upgrading/fine tuning their drives to permanently increase the thrust rating, even if it is by percent-of-G. There exists of course the possibility for abuse (say, a Suleiman-class scout that can do 6.5G) but it would make a worthwhile goal for an PC group to "Soup-Up" their ship.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Oh lovely, why didn't I think of that!
Based on that and the SOM (my favorite Traveller publication btw)...
Part 1 - Temporary Active Improvement
The SOM allows temporary overdriving of the thrusters (and presumably the powerplant to support the extra power required) at up to 140% for extended periods (days) with little danger if done carefully, to a maximum of 400% for brief periods (less than 5 minutes) and only by competent engineers and at some risk. Hmm, the SOM doesn't seem to have actually spec'ed the task, oh wait, it might use a performance-based task, yep, hum, its been awhile...
OK, for MT, an altered form of the basic performance-based task to actually have a chance at +400% (rather than a maximum 400% 'cause the numbers work better) with the maximum allowed DM of +8:
Select the task difficulty:
SIMPLE is by the book and you run the drive and/or power plant within its normal operational parameters. Normally no roll needed and no performance change. This task is SAFE and may be handled by UNSKILLED personnel.
ROUTINE is a bit more hands on and may introduce some performance improvement. This level is usually the standard for an Apprentice Engineer. The systems added performance is computed as the Engineer's task DM total x (1d6-1)% on success. The typical result boosts performance by +20% to a maximum of +40% and the system may be operated at this level for a week between checks. Failure results in the performance above being actually a loss (i.e. negative) of performance until repaired, in addition to any other effects. Repair difficulty is ROUTINE and requires no more than standard tools and time.
DIFFICULT involves closer attention but offers more potential for improvement though with some risk of damage. Journeyman Engineers are usually confident enough to operate at this level. The systems added performance is computed as the Engineer's task DM total x (2d6-2)% on success. The typical result boosts performance by +40% to a maximum of +80%. There is a small chance that despite the engineers best intentions no improvement will result. This task is FATEFUL and checks need to made daily. Failure results in the performance above being actually a loss (i.e. negative) of performance until repaired, in addition to any other effects. Repair difficulty is DIFFICULT and requires no more than standard tools and time.
FORMIDABLE should only be attempted by Master Engineers but they will usually make significant improvements in performance. The systems performance is computed as the Engineer's task DM total x (5d6-5) for the added % on success. The typical results boost performance by +100% to +200%. The task is FATEFUL and HAZARDOUS. Checks must be made every four hours. Failure results in the performance above being actually a loss (but you don't go backwards or implode if its more than a 100% loss
IMPOSSIBLE improvement should not be attempted though many gifted Master Engineers will try it now and then. The systems added performance is computed as the Engineer's task DM total x (10d6-10)% on success. The typical result boosts performance by +200% to a maximum of +400%. The task is FATEFUL and HAZARDOUS. Checks must be made every 30 minutes so this is only useful in limited circumstances. Failure results in the performance above being actually a loss of performance until repaired, in addition to any other effects. Repair difficulty is IMPOSSIBLE and requires no more than standard tools and time.
Part 2 - Permanent Aftermarket Improvement
Warning - The following alterations to your powerplant and/or thrusters will void your warranty and may make insurance and financing difficult or impossible. Proceed at your own risk
ROUTINE aftermarket parts are quite common, especially for older ships that may be suffering reduced performance. The work requires a class A or B Starport. The systems added performance is computed as the Engineer's task DM total x (1d6-1)% on success. The typical result boosts performance by +20% to a maximum of +40%. Failure results in the performance above being actually a loss (i.e. negative) of performance until removed, in addition to any other effects. Repair difficulty is ROUTINE and requires no more than standard tools and time. The cost of the parts and installation is 0.00001 x the full cost of the system. Cost is halved for DIY work or in the case of a refund for unsatisfactory results if done by a professional. Up to 3 seperate aftermarket kits may be installed at a time with each adding its % boost.
DIFFICULT performance alteration involves more work but offers more potential for improvement though with some risk of damage. The systems added performance is computed as the Engineer's task DM total x (2d6-2)% on success. The typical result boosts performance by +40% to a maximum of +80%. Failure results in the performance above being actually a loss (i.e. negative) of performance until restored, in addition to any other effects. Repair difficulty is DIFFICULT and requires no more than standard tools and time. The cost of the parts and installation is 0.0001 x the full cost of the system. Cost is halved for DIY work or in the case of a refund for unsatisfactory results if done by a professional. Up to 2 seperate alterations may be installed at a time with each adding its % boost.
Aftermarket parts and Alterations may not be mixed, only one or the other may be in effect at a time. Temporary Active Improvement can not be used on systems with Aftermarket parts or Alterations.
Comments? Its been a while since I did any MT so if someone wants to check it for reasonable game balance etc. that'd be great.
Now I need to work up the CT/T20 version
Whoops, almost forgot. No matter what the improvement gained I'm pretty sure the maximum possible accelleration for Thrusters is 6g. Its some kind of gravimetric physics limit (least IMTU and I think OTU). If you're using a fueled manuver drive then you also need to burn a like amount of extra fuel.
Dan,
An interesting wrinkle might be to make improvements specific to specific engineering 'units' (1 M-drive unit per 50T, PP units per EP required at the rate they generate by Tech level), so M-drive can only be run at the level of the lowest Unit and only if the PP has been upgraded to provide enough EP to run the M-drive at that level.
It might be worth making PP upgrades a different difficulty.
Fine-tuned engineering sections would require extra TLC to keep running and when they go wrong, they'll go big-time.
Personally, I feel that this is significantly underpricing the performance improvements; I'm sure (to take the RL analogy furhter) you can spend an integer multiple of the cost of a stock engine on after market improvements.
An interesting wrinkle might be to make improvements specific to specific engineering 'units' (1 M-drive unit per 50T, PP units per EP required at the rate they generate by Tech level), so M-drive can only be run at the level of the lowest Unit and only if the PP has been upgraded to provide enough EP to run the M-drive at that level.
It might be worth making PP upgrades a different difficulty.
Fine-tuned engineering sections would require extra TLC to keep running and when they go wrong, they'll go big-time.
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
Import Tuning comes to the Traveller universe
The other implication of allowing this is the sub-G craft. Cargo to the outer system just needs to get there on a regular schedule, it doesn't need to get there *today*. As such, in-system cargo "barges" may be rated at 0.5G or lower to reduce the cost of the vessel (in some cases by a LOT of Cr). Once you have in-system vessels doing this, it's only a matter of time before some bright bulb converts one to jump-capable operations.
Sub-G installations also makes an emergency drive on an X-boat more likely...
As for tenth-G upgrades, the cost of a do-it-yourself upgrade should be easy to calc in most Traveller design systems (Book 2 being an obvious exception) as most M-Drive systems do follow a formula. Find out what a new drive purpose built for that fraction would cost in excess of a "whole-G" engine and work the calcs from there...
The other implication of allowing this is the sub-G craft. Cargo to the outer system just needs to get there on a regular schedule, it doesn't need to get there *today*. As such, in-system cargo "barges" may be rated at 0.5G or lower to reduce the cost of the vessel (in some cases by a LOT of Cr). Once you have in-system vessels doing this, it's only a matter of time before some bright bulb converts one to jump-capable operations.
Sub-G installations also makes an emergency drive on an X-boat more likely...
As for tenth-G upgrades, the cost of a do-it-yourself upgrade should be easy to calc in most Traveller design systems (Book 2 being an obvious exception) as most M-Drive systems do follow a formula. Find out what a new drive purpose built for that fraction would cost in excess of a "whole-G" engine and work the calcs from there...
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Personally, I feel that this is significantly underpricing the performance improvements; I'm sure (to take the RL analogy furhter) you can spend an integer multiple of the cost of a stock engine on after market improvements.
An interesting wrinkle might be to make improvements specific to specific engineering 'units' (1 M-drive unit per 50T, PP units per EP required at the rate they generate by Tech level), so M-drive can only be run at the level of the lowest Unit and only if the PP has been upgraded to provide enough EP to run the M-drive at that level.
It might be worth making PP upgrades a different difficulty.
Fine-tuned engineering sections would require extra TLC to keep running and when they go wrong, they'll go big-time. </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, the aftermarket stuff for stock engines can be that steep. It might be a poor analogy, multi-Mcr drives being more akin perhaps to high end racing engines or monster sized vehicle motors, but they don't really lend themselves to improvement in the same way. Besides I wanted to keep the price in the PC's price-point range or they would never go for it
The unit idea might be good. Another thought occurs to me, for those using CT/HG. The Book 2 rules could represent the base unit/stock drives which could be enhanced with aftermarket parts, while the custom built Book 5 drives would already be optimized.
The extra TLC and catastrophic failure is surely on the money, I'm seeing replays in my head of all the AA fuel funny cars and dragsters blowing heads and such. I even recall, though I missed seeing it personally, a highschool friend who horsed up his car and went out to see what it would do. Dropped the clutch and went nowhere fast, but his unimproved driveshaft twisted real nice before snapping. I wonder if that could be applied to ship drives, maybe too much power into base thrusters could overload and burn out the transfer feed
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Yeh, jus us gud ol boys an our toys down at Cooter's shipyard.Originally posted by GypsyComet:
Import Tuning comes to the Traveller universe
Come on in
Didn't occur to me to do it that way. Makes sense, at least it'll give a good ballpark idea. I was just going largely off the cuff and from memory above.
No free lunch IMTU...
I allow "emergency power" maneuvers as follows:
For each additional G of acceleration, there is a 10% chance per 2 combat turns that the drive system croaks and you lose 1G acceleration permanently until the drive is overhauled at an A/B starport ($$$). No drive may go more than 2G more than its rated capacity.
While drives are using this extra power, no energy weapons may be fired (missiles OK).
Oh, and the engineer has to make a skill check to apply emergency drive power, of course.
If the players really want more power on a consistent basis, let them buy a bigger power plant!
BTW, we're using a custom percentile-based RPG system, which is why I express everything in percentage terms.
I allow "emergency power" maneuvers as follows:
For each additional G of acceleration, there is a 10% chance per 2 combat turns that the drive system croaks and you lose 1G acceleration permanently until the drive is overhauled at an A/B starport ($$$). No drive may go more than 2G more than its rated capacity.
While drives are using this extra power, no energy weapons may be fired (missiles OK).
Oh, and the engineer has to make a skill check to apply emergency drive power, of course.
If the players really want more power on a consistent basis, let them buy a bigger power plant!
BTW, we're using a custom percentile-based RPG system, which is why I express everything in percentage terms.
