Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Ditto.
LBB2 = mass production commercial off the shelf
LBB5 = custom production optimization
Tug Concept
- Thread starter sageryne
- Start date
LBB2 = mass production commercial off the shelf
LBB5 = custom production optimization
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
There are considerably more differences that have to be handwaved away.
A LBB:2 ship can have every turret stuffed with lasers and yet still use its full maneuver drive and evasion, under HG merchant ships and scouts can't power triple laser turrets and evade.
LBB:2 allows for jump 3 at TL9, jump 4 at TL10, jump 5 at TL11, and jump 6 at TL12 - note that these are computer limits, under 77 rules then ships could achieve jump 6 at every TL.
The HG paradigm introduces a different jump progression by TL.
LBB:2 drives are big jump drives and small m-drives, HG reverses this so that the jump drive is small and the m-drive huge.
A LBB:2 ship can have every turret stuffed with lasers and yet still use its full maneuver drive and evasion, under HG merchant ships and scouts can't power triple laser turrets and evade.
LBB:2 allows for jump 3 at TL9, jump 4 at TL10, jump 5 at TL11, and jump 6 at TL12 - note that these are computer limits, under 77 rules then ships could achieve jump 6 at every TL.
The HG paradigm introduces a different jump progression by TL.
LBB:2 drives are big jump drives and small m-drives, HG reverses this so that the jump drive is small and the m-drive huge.
Also a different maneuver progirssiion by TL. Drive TLs are identical for both Jump and maneuver.
LBB2 uses power plant fuel as the tonnage constraint on maneuver (up to 1kTd, and decreasingly so).
Also, the smaller HG Jump drive makes the varies-by-TL power plant a bigger relative component of the system. LBB2 combined the jump drive's power system with the drive (and kept the tonnage for it in '81 while revising the technobabble to say that wasn't what it was for).
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Quite so.
IMTU the LBB5 drive tech progression rules. So my campaign limit is TL10 and Type S can only Jump-1, but costs the same drive. Fuel stays 10% per jump so Type S can jump twice. This fits in nicely with my near future Earth setting and the jump 2 to Centauri.
Whenever TL11 happens, the drives just get more capable.
As for the power issues, HG EP mostly governs. I get around the LBB2 issues with postulating weapons power goes through mini capacitors tied to the turrets that get charged ahead of time and allow for a turn or two of firing without impacting accel/agility.
Also, higher power fuel use so it would be reasonable to assume the letter code power plant runs a little hotter than its HG rating would rate. 20-30% seems in the ballpark.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
One possibility that suggests itself in this arena would be to adopt the "limited shots" paradigm per turret (before needing to reload from outside the turret) mechanic for missiles and sand.
The "limited shots" paradigm for missiles and sand is that each weapon installed into a turret has "3 shots" per weapon ... and the turret itself can store an additional 12 shots (divided amongst all weapons installed). Therefore:
- Single Turret: (3*1+12)/1 = 15 combat rounds endurance before needing external reloading
- Dual Turret: (3*2+12)/2 = 9 combat rounds endurance before needing external reloading
- Triple Turret: (3*3+12)/3 = 7 combat rounds endurance before needing external reloading
Additionally, such a combat endurance understanding provides "a reason for different types of turret to exist" other than just being "cheap" on purchasing the turret itself.
- Single Turret: reduced firepower per combat round, longer endurance
- Dual Turret: balanced
- Triple Turret: increased firepower per combat round, shorter endurance
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
That would make sense if the turrets cost similarly, but they are priced for per weapon count. No cost room for more capacitor tied to less weapon.
What my conception would do is have 3 rounds of laser in the triple turret- if you went mixed and just one laser it would get 3 turns of shots.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
I give you an extrapolation grounded in precedent, including the Show Your Work for clarity to demonstrate everything involved and the implications of doing things that way.
You say ... NO.
Again.
Have a nice day.
You say ... NO.
Again.
Have a nice day.
ady
SOC-11
This is how I see it as well. Traveller was released as a game in progress and added to by multiple authors, not created as a single cohesive system from the start, but instead was a set of different rule systems and wargames that only occasionally tied in with each other, with later editions adding more and more rules and games systems and to the mix. Trying to get every rule set to match up perfectly with each other is the way to madness. I find it's best to pick one system that you like and make the ships/systems/whatever to tie in with that one. I prefer the Highguard system myself (it's what I used when I first started playing) and find it can be quite entertaining to reverse engineer ships from LBB2, Megatraveller, T20, Gurps, etc using the HG81 design system.
ady
SOC-11
Highguard had their ships able to power their lasers and energy weapons from energy stored in capacitators (usually as part of a jump drive, or added for a Black Globe Generator), so maybe assume each Book 2 design to have a small capacitor in every laser turret, allowing it to be trickle charged over time and used to power a round or two of shooting when needed? It would match up the LBB2 and Highguard EP disparity. You could justify it as merchant ships not needing to have constant power supply to their lasers like warships do?
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Hmm, so limiting the lasers to a certain number of shots before the capacitors are completely drained and it takes time to recharge...
this has potential.
12 shots - single laser
6 shots - dual laser
3 shots - triple laser
or something like that , the numbers will need to be playtested for balance
Using lasers for anti-missile, return fire and dual fire would be added complications...
I think this is well worth exploring.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
I give you an extrapolation grounded in precedent, including the Show Your Work for clarity to demonstrate everything involved and the implications of doing things that way.
You say ... NO.
Again.
Have a nice day.
A weapon that is cheaper and has more shots while not variable or higher tech isn’t something that IMO fits the higher capability/higher cost paradigm the ship design sequences have evinced over several decades and versions.
Single turrets are much cheaper and triple turrets are much more expensive. If one is not going to have advanced lasers that are more capable, less power use or cheaper, than it makes sense that the capacity increase is built into the turret.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
I have a whole thing for powering PD shots vs full range shots, and time/power allocation that I got into precisely to allow EP based double fire and PD. 100s phases, not the hero turns of MgT but not the slow mo HG/Mayday stuff either. Definitely geared to RPG play not fleet demolition derby.
Not that anybody or everybody should buy in, but discussing whatever I had done before gives people options to steal and morph into their own aesthetic.
I don’t know that I would give them that much juice, that’s 12 EP of laser per turret and no charge for the capability. 1/3 of a dton of capacitor, that’s MCr 1.33 or roughly Cr111111 per EP.
Proportional bits of turrets, say half the cost of the turret, yields 1EP for a single turret, 2 EP for a double, and 4EP for a triple. Then that is however many shots divided by number of lasers mounted.
For a custom ship I’d allow capacitors in line between the power plant and turrets for more capacity. Or reserve power drain if one is shutting down the reactor for doggo.
If you add in the power plant burning hot with extra fuel and creating 20% more than strict rating, that’s 2.2 EP for a letter A power plant.
Last edited:
