2 powerplants
- Thread starter Beastttt
- Start date
Rikki Tikki Traveller
Cosmic Mongoose
One of the great unanswered questions of this version (and many others).
My PERSONAL take is that YES, you can double-up your PP or drives and that you add their performance together (6 maximum of course).
I have used this interpretation since the very beginning (1977). It is how I got 5000 ton ships with M6 or J6.
So, if you wanted to have Maneuver-4 in your 100 ton scout ship, you could have a Drive-B or two Drive-As.
The disadvantage is that is will take up more space and cost more. The advantage is that you now have 2 drives to hit and you just doubled the number of hits it can take (from 3 to 6) before you loose all capability.
The rules do not specifically address it, but I believe they assume that you cannot double-up the drives. The rules IMPLY that you can have multiple drives/PP but only 1 in on-line at a time (the old Backup system idea).
It's your game, you decide.
My PERSONAL take is that YES, you can double-up your PP or drives and that you add their performance together (6 maximum of course).
I have used this interpretation since the very beginning (1977). It is how I got 5000 ton ships with M6 or J6.
So, if you wanted to have Maneuver-4 in your 100 ton scout ship, you could have a Drive-B or two Drive-As.
The disadvantage is that is will take up more space and cost more. The advantage is that you now have 2 drives to hit and you just doubled the number of hits it can take (from 3 to 6) before you loose all capability.
The rules do not specifically address it, but I believe they assume that you cannot double-up the drives. The rules IMPLY that you can have multiple drives/PP but only 1 in on-line at a time (the old Backup system idea).
It's your game, you decide.
far-trader
Mongoose
It's an awkward bit of rules. I suspect it's a simplification for quick and easy play. So a ship with a Powerplant 6 might in fact be separate powerplants and not simply one, but for damage considerations it is all treated as a single powerplant.
Nothing wrong with house-ruling separate powerplants though, and say, a hit on "powerplant" is diced for which one of the multiples it is, with damage carrying over to others in turn
Nothing wrong with house-ruling separate powerplants though, and say, a hit on "powerplant" is diced for which one of the multiples it is, with damage carrying over to others in turn
Mark A. Siefert
Mongoose
I was going to use secondary drives/power plants as axillary drives in case one drive was destroyed or damaged.
Supergamera
Mongoose
As an extension of this, can power plants be run at part load, to reduce fuel consumption? If you have a J-2, 1G trader, can you run the power plant at rating 1 in normal space, and halve your consumption?
Rikki Tikki Traveller
Cosmic Mongoose
Again, the rules are vague. That type of reduced output will have to be house ruled. The basic rules do not account for reduced load.
Alternately, you could consider the published fuel load as the AVERAGE fuel usage for normal operations.
It is a simplication to reduce the math of a role playing game. If you and your group want to track the fuel use to that level of detail, go for it.
Alternately, you could consider the published fuel load as the AVERAGE fuel usage for normal operations.
It is a simplication to reduce the math of a role playing game. If you and your group want to track the fuel use to that level of detail, go for it.
far-trader
Mongoose
Ommadawn said:
CT didn't
But maybe Mongoose will.As noted the fuel endurance is a simplification to keep the game light. I've always just accepted it and explained it as: "Once you light the fusion plant it's more efficient to just keep it burning than shut it down (for anything less than a week or so) and relight it, and the bulk of the "fuel" is for cooling."
When in port (any port with facilities that is) part of the cost is for the hooking up of your coolant lines to the grid (so you're not just venting it). The cooled and condensed "fuel" (with a little loss) is then resold as unrefined fuel to starships
(it a nice little racket 
).I'd have to say no
this is at what ever power plant you got for the ship
lets take 2 ships of the same size,weapons,computers,staterooms,low berths,etc...(say 1200 tons) 1 has a Z type power plant and the other has a F type power
Both will run all weapons,lifesupport,computers,etc
the only difference is the F plant will get you jump 1 and 1 g of acceleration
so if you still want power for weapons but do not need speed for a turn or 2
why not turn down your power plant and conserve fuel
the diffence in fuel consuption is 4:1 Z vs F 48 tons vs 12 tons
but then I feel jump fuel cost is twice what it should be inamounts needed
this is at what ever power plant you got for the ship
lets take 2 ships of the same size,weapons,computers,staterooms,low berths,etc...(say 1200 tons) 1 has a Z type power plant and the other has a F type power
Both will run all weapons,lifesupport,computers,etc
the only difference is the F plant will get you jump 1 and 1 g of acceleration
so if you still want power for weapons but do not need speed for a turn or 2
why not turn down your power plant and conserve fuel
the diffence in fuel consuption is 4:1 Z vs F 48 tons vs 12 tons
but then I feel jump fuel cost is twice what it should be inamounts needed
Rikki Tikki Traveller said:
Rikki Tikki Traveller
Cosmic Mongoose
Sounds like a good house rule.
Again, the fuel consumption is obviously a game simplification. If you want to keep track of it that way, go for it. I feel that you would be perfectly within the spirit of the rules. Your call.
Again, the fuel consumption is obviously a game simplification. If you want to keep track of it that way, go for it. I feel that you would be perfectly within the spirit of the rules. Your call.
