16g Thrust Small Craft

[middenface]

Is there someway you can build a 16g thrust 30t small craft?

I'm toying with some ideas for stupid fast rich kids drag race ships... inspired by something from a TTA book and Hitchhikers.. where talking Santa Pod Petrol heads of Traveller here..

With Grav drives they just don't fit - drive + power plant is over 30tons
Reaction drives.. possibly I like the idea of retro engines on hitech vessels...
Not too sure that can be done though, what with the fuel a 16g ship would need.

So is it impossible? To be honest think I'll have to go to a lower speed.. still 16g would be nice.

Pity the TL rules don't seem to apply to small craft... or do they?

 

[rust]

Well, let's see ... :wink:

According to the "Performance by Hull Volume" table on page 59 of High
Guard, an sZ maneuver drive would give a 30 dton craft an acceleration
of 16 G, and according to the "Small Drive Costs and Tonnage" table on
page 58 of High Guard such a drive requires 8 dtons. Using the formula
given for the fuel use of reaction drives, one hour at 16 G would require
40 % of the ships volume in fuel, in the case of a 30 dton ship 12 dtons.
If you manage to get everything else into the remaining 10 dtons, the
rules allow the design of a 30 dton craft with 16 G acceleration without
any tweaking, although the range of the craft would be rather low.

 

[middenface]

AH, perfect, thanks to be honest I thinking on this with not enough sleep damn you World of Tanks..

Ships with rocket engine has a distinctive feel, more sort of old retro ness... and that hint of danger... !

Oh hang on do I need power plant too or batteries..? Reading...

 

[DFW]

AH, perfect, thanks to be honest I thinking on this with not enough sleep damn you World of Tanks..

Ships with rocket engine has a distinctive feel, more sort of old retro ness... and that hint of danger... !

Oh hang on do I need power plant too or batteries..? Reading...

If you use reaction drives, you need another source of power for the rest of the ship systems.

 

[BP]

Haven't looked it up - but you might also apply the TL tonnage reduction options from page 53 (IIRC).

For a PP you probably want to use batteries. (tonnage = PP 1 rating for needed rating I believe).

Also, instead of 1 hour at 16 G maybe only 15 minutes or something (you mentioned 'drag racing'?) and extrapolate the rest at lower Gs...

 

[middenface]

Haven't looked it up - but you might also apply the TL tonnage reduction options from page 53 (IIRC).

For a PP you probably want to use batteries. (tonnage = PP 1 rating for needed rating I believe).

Also, instead of 1 hour at 16 G maybe only 15 minutes or something (you mentioned 'drag racing'?) and extrapolate the rest at lower Gs...

The TL reduction for M-Drive only go as far as 6g and a 75%. Might be able to use that. And the 75% reduction for the PP too or use batteries. I'l take a stab later.. got a large ship in the Drydock...

At a push we'll not need live support Vacc suit will do. Limited Fuel and perhaps a drag space race thing, though I feel a Longer race could be done, but having small stations as pit stops along the way.

 

[AndrewW]

The TL reduction for M-Drive only go as far as 6g and a 75%. Might be able to use that. And the 75% reduction for the PP too or use batteries. I'l take a stab later.. got a large ship in the Drydock...

Well, the table only lists the TL for the regular M-Drive, not the small craft M-Drive, it's not limited to 6g drives.

At a push we'll not need live support Vacc suit will do. Limited Fuel and perhaps a drag space race thing, though I feel a Longer race could be done, but having small stations as pit stops along the way.

So only dead support?

 

[DFW]

Well, the table only lists the TL for the regular M-Drive, not the small craft M-Drive, it's not limited to 6g drives.

Interesting. A 4G M-drive for a 100t small craft (small craft rules) is a model sP @ 9 Tons & Mcr18. A 4G M-Drive for a 100t ship (model B) from the MRB; 3 tons, Mcr8.

 

[BP]

Yep there is a disjoint there - it is sorta balanced by other (PP?) necessary requirements, IIRC. (I recall a worse disjoint happens going from standard to capital sized vessels - cost and dTon wise).

Factoring in bridge requirements may apply some balance to this...

[Personally would have preferred simple, consistent, formulas with tables for those who need the easy reference - almost all the design rules are based on formulas anyway, they just have unneeded exceptional cases (some are probably errors actually).]

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

That issue goes all the way back to the writing of HG. I mentioned that disconnect in the rules during the playtest.

The idea of the writer is that Small Craft drives are SUPPOSED to be less efficient. The interface at 100 tons is handwaved as you must either design the ship using the starship rules (6G max) or using the small craft rules, but you cannot mix and match the rules.

 

[simonh]

That issue goes all the way back to the writing of HG. I mentioned that disconnect in the rules during the playtest.

The idea of the writer is that Small Craft drives are SUPPOSED to be less efficient. The interface at 100 tons is handwaved as you must either design the ship using the starship rules (6G max) or using the small craft rules, but you cannot mix and match the rules.

It would make more sense to start from the POV of using starship drive stats at 100 DTons and have them become less efficient as the ship gets smaller, so e.g. for a 10 ton ship a 4G drive takes up 1 ton instead of 0.3 tons.

As it is it's a bit daft. They realy are three different ship design systems, just sharing some concepts and terminology.

Simon Hibbs

 

[hdan]

In the current world (unless I'm mistaken), a cargo ship doesn't use the same design of engine as a yacht, which doesn't use the same design of engine as a commercial fishing boat or a bass boat. Let alone military ships.

I don't think it's unreasonable in concept to have different engineering parameters for small craft (off-the-shelf parts), "normal" ships (standardized designs) and capital ships (custom built for the ship class).

 

[BP]

Quite - though generally they become more efficient space and power wise as one goes up in size - there are all sorts of tradeoffs and various requirements depending on role - whether for profit, for speed, for safety, for war...

As a totally arbitrary (fictional) game mechanic - simplicity and flexibility would have been nice... (i.e. formulas with consistent tables for reference, more TL effects built-in, full support for any tonnage, not just +10, +100 discrete increments). The RAW almost are this way.

 

[hdan]

As a totally arbitrary (fictional) game mechanic - simplicity and flexibility would have been nice... (i.e. formulas with consistent tables for reference, more TL effects built-in, full support for any tonnage, not just +10, +100 discrete increments). The RAW almost are this way.

I can't disagree with that. It's a bit odd that a 120t ship can't get any better performance than a 200t ship out of the same drives. (In the past I've just stuck to standard hull sizes to avoid the problem - I would probably pro-rate to fractional G's if it came up.)

I would especially liked to have better TL effects (or even a clearly laid out "which drives and jump numbers are available at which TLs" table LOL), including some RP stuff like "A TL-8 M-Drive doesn't have very good inertial compensators, takes X% extra maintenance time; Get that drive type built at TL-14 though, and it will purr like a kitten for a whole year without you even having to crack the case open."

Obviously we can (and do) add stuff like that ourselves, but those sorts of details would help set the mood. (Maybe that stuff is in HG? - I don't have that one yet.)

Hmm, maybe that would be a good idea for an S&P article.... Time to start thinking.

 

[BP]

HG does have a page and a half dedicated to TL upgrades - the difference between engineering parts, however, are rather limited.

Don't get me wrong I like the rules - but they can be better.

And the extra RP-able stuff - I do a bit of that, but extra sources are always welcome!