The nature of the book 1-3 Universe

[far-trader]

Very well (Though it's 20T for jump drive C).

Ack, errata! Oh wait, it's Traveller (you're right, typo, fixed)

EDIT: Oh, and another thought, perhaps aramis was referring to needing a TL12 model/6 computer to do J6? At TL9 in B2 all you can do is J3. That still breaks the B5 paradigm, just not by as much. So: 400ton, TL12, J6 is probably doable (as in a decent ship), might as well max out the drives by TL

How about 15 T for jump drive B, 7 T for power plant B, and 40T jump fuel, total 62T, leaving 38 T for bridge, maneuver drive, etc.? That gives you jump-4 at TL 9. Or 30 T for jump drive E, 16 T for Power plant E, plus 100T jump fuel, total 146T, leaving 54 T out of a 200T hull, giving you jump-5 at TL 10? And you certainly do get jump-6 at TL 12.


Hans

B2 is a different paradigm from B5 is all.

In B2 small ships are easier technologically to design and build. Jump as a discovery covers the whole gamut of the first layer (1-6 parsecs). Maneuver drive is limited perhaps because a larger hull takes more to resist the forces. Bigger powerplants have built in fuel efficiency reflecting maturing technology.

In B5 for some reason the technology for J1 thru J6 is different and you can't build J6 at TL9 (not until TL15 in fact). Maneuver drive is less limited but still has a TL limit, though now you can build ridiculously large hulls at low TLs (TL7, B2 required TL9 for large ships) that can do 6G (at TL9) which you can't in B2 (5000ton hull is limited to 2G and that's TL15). And power plants are more efficient by TL instead of size.

I dunno, to me B2 has always seemed more real and rational in those ways.

 

[rancke]

B2 is a different paradigm from B5 is all.

Precisely. You can point out my factual mistakes ("For practical reasons you can't build jump-6 ships at TL9, etc."), and you'll be factually right (or wrong ). But it doesn't change my opinion: that the HG paradigm is vastly superior to the B2 paradigm (And that's before we begin to examine which of the two describes the TU best :devil.


Hans

 

[aramis]

A 100T ship with a Jump Drive C can perform jump-6.


Hans

But can't exist under B2 '81.
020 T bridge
020 T JDrive
010 T PP
060 T JFuel
006 T Computer
---
116Td
015 PPFuel 7 days (bare minimum)
---
131 Minimum functional Bk2-81 Tonnage.

J5 is closer....
020 T bridge
020 T JDrive C
010 T PP C
050 T JFuel
005 T Computer
---
106Td
013 PPFuel 7 days (bare minimum)
---
119Td Minimum functional Bk2-81 Tonnage.FAIL

Heck, 100T J4 almost can't exist under Bk2-'81
020T Bridge
015T JD B
007T PP B
040T JFuel
004T Computer 4 TL=10
---
086T Subtotal
010T PP Fuel 7 Days
004T Stateroom
---
100T Total

Voila...A workable Bk2-'81 XBoat.
A J3 boat is available at TL 9, using drives B
020T Bridge
015T JD B
007T PP B
030T JFuel
003T Computer 4 TL=9
---
075T Subtotal
008T PP 3 Fuel 7 Days
008T Stateroom
009T Cargo
---
100T Total

Of course, this presumes one can run the PP (and JD) at rating three even tho' the table would give it a 4.

Let's see: 200T J6 in CT B2-'81
020T Bridge
035T JD F
019T PP F
120T JFuel
007T Computer 6 TL=12
---
202T Subtotal
015T PP Fuel 7 Days
004T Stateroom
---
221T Total Fail

Let's see: 400T J6 in CT B2-'81
020T Bridge
065T JD M
037T PP M
240T JFuel
007T Computer 6 TL=12
---
369T Subtotal
015T PP Fuel 7 Days
008T Stateroom x2
---
392T
008T Elective tonnage
---
400T Total PASS


Ok, we have a winner. The smallest J6 hull in Bk2-'81 is 400 T
(in Bk2-77, smaller is possible, by omitting the PP and MD.)

 

[far-trader]

Ok, we have a winner. The smallest J6 hull in Bk2-'81 is 400 T
(in Bk2-77, smaller is possible, by omitting the PP and MD.)

Interesting. A technical winner anyway (I'd guessed there'd be more room and it'd actually be legal).

So I tried 600tons. It bumps the TL to 14 and you still have to cheat.

The absolute smallest hull you can make J6 work legally without cheats in B2 design is 800tons. And guess what Hans That makes it TL15 due to the drive letter required

+800tons Hull
-115tons Jump Drive X6 (TL15)
-27tons Maneuver P3 (optional)
-67tons Power Plant X6 (TL15)

-480tons Fuel x6 parsecs
-60tons Fuel x4 weeks

-20tons Bridge
-7tons Computer m/6

-20tons Staterooms x5 (crew x9: Pilot, Nav, Eng x6, Med)
-4tons Other (optionally 31tons if no maneuver drive)

Hardly a practical ship for a role other than courier, which HG can do (better and cheaper iirc) in half the tonnage.

 

[rancke]

You're not going to convince me about the superiority of the Book 2 system by mentioning power plant fuel tankage. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing you can say for Book 2's ridiculously high power plant fuel consumption (including that it overlooks that a power plant won't be going full blast 24/7) is that HG has the same ridiculous flaw too.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Since fuel for PP is given as a rate for 4 weeks (I'd forgotten it was 4 weeks, not a month), it's not illegal to install less.
I went back and corrected the above. A long jump is going to be a problem

The 400Td J6 Data courier
020T Bridge
065T JD M =6 TL=12
037T PP M =6 TL=12
003T MD B =1 TL=9
240T JFuel
007T Computer 6 TL=12
022T PP Fuel 10.26 Days
008T Stateroom x2 (DO)
---
400T Total

Requires a crew of 4. One Pilot/Engineer, One Navigator/Engineer, One Medic/Engineer, one engineer.

TL12, Jump 6 capable, and pretty damned worthless for ANYTHING else. Requires at least late 2nd term scouts (scout gets pilot 1 in term 1 free, then rolls pilot 1 and one other needed skill — Pilot, Nav or Medic — and then repeats that skill in term 2.

Realistically, these guys would be elites...

600Td
020T MCr003 Bridge
095T MCr180 JD T =6 TL14
055T MCr144 PP T =6 TL14
005T MCr012 MD C =1 TL9
360T MCr000 JFuel
007T MCr055 Computer 6 TL=12
030T MCr000 PP Fuel 14 Days
016T MCr002 Stateroom x4 (DO)
012T MCr000 Cargo
---
400T MCr456 Total
Crew 8: Pilot, Nav, Medic, 5 Engr (Salary Cr33400/Mo)


It's still only useful as a Priority courier. Payment is MCr1.9/mo
Even then, the cost per ton is FRIGHTFUL (Cr161,116 per ton per jump), and is only available for non-commercial service anyway (due to double occupancy).

It is upgradeable to 3G by sacrificing all cargo, or 2G by sacrificing half.

 

[Jason]

You're not going to convince me about the superiority of the Book 2 system by mentioning power plant fuel tankage. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing you can say for Book 2's ridiculously high power plant fuel consumption (including that it overlooks that a power plant won't be going full blast 24/7) is that HG has the same ridiculous flaw too.

Why assume that the power plant figures are for "full power all the time" instead of "daily operations plus good combat time plus reserves"?

 

[rancke]

Why assume that the power plant figures are for "full power all the time" instead of "daily operations plus good combat time plus reserves"?

Because the rules allow you to run a ship at full maneuver drive 24/7 for four weeks on one load of PP fuel. If the indicated amount of fuel was only for normal average operation, that wouldn't be possible.

(Also, power plants would become even more inefficient by an order of magnitude. That's not a major concern, though; they're ridiculous either way.)


Hans

 

[Jason]

Because the rules allow you to run a ship at full maneuver drive 24/7 for four weeks on one load of PP fuel. If the indicated amount of fuel was only for normal average operation, that wouldn't be possible.

Unless average operation includes running the maneuver drive 24/7, which it probably does in regular starship operations.

(Also, power plants would become even more inefficient by an order of magnitude. That's not a major concern, though; they're ridiculous either way.)

Do we really have any idea how much power is needed to run a gravitic drive, or how much fuel a TL 12 fusion reactor should use?

 

[rancke]

Unless average operation includes running the maneuver drive 24/7, which it probably does in regular starship operations.

I'm pretty sure that according to the rules, the maneuver drive is only used when the ship is, you know, maneuvering. Since a ship spends 5 days out of every 14 standing in a starport and another seven of those days in jump space, the same amount of fuel that can propel a ship at top speed for 28 days should last, at a minimum, seven times longer with average use. It's actually more, since ships really only maneuver for 5-6 hours to get to/from surface to jump limit. It gets even better (= worse) when the power plant has been sized to power energy weapons.

Do we really have any idea how much power is needed to run a gravitic drive, or how much fuel a TL 12 fusion reactor should use?

Yes. Anyone with a better grasp of explaining basic physics than I want to take over?


Hans

 

[far-trader]

Do we really have any idea how much power is needed to run a gravitic drive...

No, not really. And I've usually handwaved B2 fuel as largely reaction mass and coolant overboard as 1st ed B2 drives were fusion torches not gravitic, and I still tend to see them as such through all Traveller regardless It's probably the legacy of the too much power plant fuel issue. Where as reaction mass in a fusion torch it was probably not enough but at least a reasonable stab, as simple fusion power plant fuel it's just far too much.

...or how much fuel a TL 12 fusion reactor should use?

Yes. Anyone with a better grasp of explaining basic physics than I want to take over?

I'm not really up for much better, I know others have done but I can't recall who. I'll try to track down the thread(s).

But, yes we do actually. Or rather some guesses based on total conversion of fuel and such, and the issues it raises on the heat generated is far more damning than anything.

Of course most of the stuff I've seen presumes high orders of efficiency. Who's to say the reactors used are that efficient Maybe they're just really really low efficiency (which still doesn't change the heat issue though).

Personally I've long thought the power requirements of everything is out to lunch by at least a factor of 10 (over), probably more. I think it was something in MegaTraveller that I compared to real life components that really quantified it but I can't recall what.

Power plant fuel could (should) probably be ignored, for power generation requirements, as inconsequential. But that would change CT too much. Unless you required the same huge volume for coolant or reaction mass, and kept it as LH2 for simplicity and (a bonus for starships) possibly a safety margin for emergency jump fuel in case of misjump.

 

[rancke]

Power plant fuel could (should) probably be ignored, for power generation requirements, as inconsequential. But that would change CT too much.

Why? I mean, I know it would change things a bit (all other things being equal, jump-3 becomes slightly more economic than jump-2 instead of the other way around, but all other things are seldom equal). What else? Let's say you (that's a generic 'you') change the ship design system to ignore power plant fuel ("The amount of fuel used by a power plant between refuelling is too little to bother with and power plant fuel tankage is assumed to be subsumed in the 'slob'.") What about Book 1-3 changes significantly? What about post-HG Traveller universes change significantly? What about the OTU changes significantly?


Hans

 

[atpollard]

What about Book 1-3 changes significantly? What about post-HG Traveller universes change significantly? What about the OTU changes significantly?
Hans

No 10 ton runabouts with on-board fuel for 40 weeks operation as the absolute minimum.

 

[mike wightman]

If you are ignoring the pp fuel then ships can have bigger power plants for higher agility and carry more armour. That would change things quite a bit in a HG based ship engagement.

It all depends upon if you think HG accurately models ship combat in the OTU, which happens to be incompatible with the CT1-3 ship combat paradigm (Kinunir class ships being able to hold the line at the battle of the two suns - not in HG ).

 

[rancke]

If you are ignoring the pp fuel then ships can have bigger power plants for higher agility and carry more armour. That would change things quite a bit in a HG based ship engagement.

Quite, but would that be a significant change? The other side will have the same performance boost. Would playing a TCS battle be much different? I doubt it; I've never run a Book 2 or HG battle, so I won't swear to it, but I really doubt it.

It all depends upon if you think HG accurately models ship combat in the OTU

Oh, that's easy enough to answer: I don't. For one thing, the fuel tanks are too big .

All kidding aside, if HG accurately reflected the realities of ship combat, no one would build combat vessels bigger than the smallest one needed to mount the biggest spinal mount available (Somewhere around 75,000T, I've been told). Who in their right mind would ever build battleships? Yet we know for a fact that in the OTU, all the major navies do build battleships, and plenty of them (not just a command vessel or two, but squadron upon squadron of them).


Hans

 

[aramis]

The lack of a fuel reserve DOES make escape by jump quite different, Hans.
Under both HG and Bk2, usually any 400T or bigger ship, even a sub-merchant, can jump after a single fuel hit.

Under Bk2, once you get to a PP2, one fuel hit is only half your fuel supply for the PP, and you can still escape. If, however, you are not using PP fuel, it's going straight to jump fuel.

It means, under Bk 2, merchants don't get to escape if they get a fuel hit, since they can't jump!

 

[rancke]

The lack of a fuel reserve DOES make escape by jump quite different, Hans.

I don't dispute that. What I'm questioning is Dan's statement that any such changes would be too much of a change. What is 'too much' and why is it too much?


Hans

 

[far-trader]

I have been pondering your question since you asked it but I'm still not sure just how to answer it. I think because I sense we're at an impasse from the get-go since you asked it with an implication of applying per-parsec pricing for economics (if I read your question right and recall that you advocate per-parsec economics) while I was thinking strictly LBB1-3 economics and effects.

There are a number of ways that ship design would change if you eliminate a substantial tonnage requirement. And that will change the way things work in fundamental ways.

I never actually figured out exactly what or how, it's more a gut sense, and some of what's been mentioned fits pretty well with that. More/bigger guns*, more armor*, faster ships, more cargo, reduced fueling costs/time, etc...

...you have to admit it would be a different TU.

* if we throw HG into the mix, though to a smaller degree given the lower fuel requirements

 

[rancke]

I have been pondering your question since you asked it but I'm still not sure just how to answer it. I think because I sense we're at an impasse from the get-go since you asked it with an implication of applying per-parsec pricing for economics (if I read your question right and recall that you advocate per-parsec economics) while I was thinking strictly LBB1-3 economics and effects.

Perhaps we should come up with a term for strictly LBB1-3 Traveller, since 'CT' is manifestly inappropriate, as it applies to post LBB3 Traveller too. How about 'BT' for 'Basic Traveller'? (I was going to suggest 'PT' (Primeval Traveller), but the fact that 'BT' comes before 'CT' (alphabetically) and could also stand for 'Book1-3 Traveller' made me decide in favor of that ).

The per-parsec economyish reference was merely an example to show that I realized that there would be differences. If you want to disallow that, so much the less fuss. (Mind you, I can't fathom why anyone would want to stick to an obviously broken feature, especially since there's a very simple way to retain 95% of said feature and still convert to per-parsec economy. But that's a digression).

There are a number of ways that ship design would change if you eliminate a substantial tonnage requirement. And that will change the way things work in fundamental ways.

Change, yes. But where does it become fundamental? Is there a single BT adventure or amber zone that would be changed in any way if ships didn't need power plant fuel? OK, Twilight's Peak would be slightly different (Does a Far Trader really use 20T of PP fuel every two weeks in BT?), but would the difference affect the running of the adventure at all?

I never actually figured out exactly what or how, it's more a gut sense, and some of what's been mentioned fits pretty well with that. More/bigger guns*, more armor*, faster ships, more cargo, reduced fueling costs/time, etc...

...you have to admit it would be a different TU.

Sure, but how significantly different would it be? Slightly bigger guns (hardpoint limitation still the same), a bit more armor, slightly faster ships, a bit more cargo, slightly reduced fuel costs, etc. What real difference would it make to the average BT session?



Hans

 

[aramis]

PT is "proto-traveller" in IMTU code, which isn't exactly the same, either... as PT is pre-Atlas except for HG. BT works for me to refer to a Bk1-3 universe...

What changes with ignoring PP fuel is that is TOO much change is that: a single fuel hit can disable any jump-1 ship's ability to jump away, whereas it wasn't always so. There's no cushion there. Plus it makes fuel hits immaterial on system ships and small craft.