captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
Gar,
(And all)
I wonder if it would be best to look at the possibility of removing energy points from ship design entirely - with a caveat in the rules that this IS an approximation and will be expanded in HG.
My reason for this suggestion is this: Adding power points to the basic LBB2 design system, is a valiant effort, and seems needful, but looking at this (and other attempts to do so) I wonder if anything is actually gained except some tables and complication ?
The best argument for it seems to be that it seems unreasonable for a ship to be able to do everything and fire all its weapons and jump and etc using the same power plant as an unarmed systemship of the exact same size.
The argument against it is..well, more tables, more number crunching and the kind of issues already seen in this draft (and MT and T4, and IIRC HG).
Perhaps the solution is to start from last principles, and try not to assume too much about the fictional elements of the ship. With luck, this allows us to stick to the simple requirement that plant rating must at least equal M and J drive.
What do we need power for?
Start by assuming that the standard designs work, without needing a power tally or balancing.
Drive
Jump
weapons
ships basic systems (e.g. life support)
computer
control systems
sensor systems
The last three are arguably seperate functions -but could easily be subsumed as Life support and Other: or, simply Ship systems. (Read on for a justification.)
Lets discuss the first three: M drive, J drive and Weaponry
Point: we have no idea whatsoever about the actual quantitative energy requirements for generating reactionless thrus or Jump insertion. We know only that MdriveE<JumpdriveE.
We have some idea based on exisiting tech of what the requirements are for some weapons. It is assumed that WeponE ~= some significant fraction of MdriveE. Why ? Strictly speaking we don't even know if it requires more or less energy.
However, we see from existing designs that there is no performace difference betweened the same ship in armed vs unarmed configurations. We feel there should be. But, why ?
Reset the assumed (ie "made up") relationships, and see if it helps. Keep their interval canonical relationships intact, but play with the quantitative values.
For instance, one can posit that the M drive is itself a extrememly high power system, and still proportional to the jump drive capabilities of the same rated jump drive.
We know power plants overclock, so assume that reactionless thrust requirements are a fixed proportion of the jump power requirements for any two drives of the same rating. Now state that the plant ratings are designed to provide that amount of thust always, and jump level energy briefly.
Then, since we really don't know how much energy reactionless thrust or jump requires (other than E = REALLYVERYLOTS for jump), let us assume that any turret weapon fire is a much smaller energy drain than even the M-drive. Still less, just now it is WAY less.
Since agility isn't an issue, this allows us say that the energy difference between an unarmed ship and an armed ship (of the same size ,drive , jump and power requirements) is trivial with regard to game operations. It cant move the ship any faster, or jump any sooner, so why bother ?
I note that this suggests one (incomplete) rationale for the 100dTon limit per hardpoint: For a ship of a given size, any powerplant which can move the ship has enough excess energy to run that number of maxed out triple turrets onthe largest hull it can move.
Larger weapons (military grade) have more than 1 ton displacement effects partly because of dedicated energy plants which are included in the weapon, if extra power is neccessary. Meson bays would have this, missle bays might not. Since we really dont know what the space requirements of a meson wepon are, there is no reason NOT to stipulate that it is less than 100% of the bay space.
So, weapons are functionally irrelevent to the performance of the ship, and thus eureka ! the designs work logically from the altered but canonical basic postulates.
The same applies to the other ship systems. We have even more idea how much energy they require based on modern tech, and that amount is way less than weaponry.
Give the ship a simple high tech UPS*, possibly trickle supported from te power plant, possibly included in every bridge installation, and you have the problem solved. Again, no effect on the ships game performance.
In fact, one could divorce the powerplant from all functions except weapons given that bridge scales to ship size, and so would the basic UPS to run all the everyday systems.
[edit addition]
If one wanted to, one could ago as far as to assume all turrety (civilian &Point defence) type weapons are similary powered by the UPS (which is a scaled component of the bridge, which is scaled to ship size).
Thoughts ?
Cap
[edit addition]
* nowadays "Uninterrupted power supply - but for traveller how 'bout "Universal Power System"
(And all)
I wonder if it would be best to look at the possibility of removing energy points from ship design entirely - with a caveat in the rules that this IS an approximation and will be expanded in HG.
My reason for this suggestion is this: Adding power points to the basic LBB2 design system, is a valiant effort, and seems needful, but looking at this (and other attempts to do so) I wonder if anything is actually gained except some tables and complication ?
The best argument for it seems to be that it seems unreasonable for a ship to be able to do everything and fire all its weapons and jump and etc using the same power plant as an unarmed systemship of the exact same size.
The argument against it is..well, more tables, more number crunching and the kind of issues already seen in this draft (and MT and T4, and IIRC HG).
Perhaps the solution is to start from last principles, and try not to assume too much about the fictional elements of the ship. With luck, this allows us to stick to the simple requirement that plant rating must at least equal M and J drive.
What do we need power for?
Start by assuming that the standard designs work, without needing a power tally or balancing.
Drive
Jump
weapons
ships basic systems (e.g. life support)
computer
control systems
sensor systems
The last three are arguably seperate functions -but could easily be subsumed as Life support and Other: or, simply Ship systems. (Read on for a justification.)
Lets discuss the first three: M drive, J drive and Weaponry
Point: we have no idea whatsoever about the actual quantitative energy requirements for generating reactionless thrus or Jump insertion. We know only that MdriveE<JumpdriveE.
We have some idea based on exisiting tech of what the requirements are for some weapons. It is assumed that WeponE ~= some significant fraction of MdriveE. Why ? Strictly speaking we don't even know if it requires more or less energy.
However, we see from existing designs that there is no performace difference betweened the same ship in armed vs unarmed configurations. We feel there should be. But, why ?
Reset the assumed (ie "made up") relationships, and see if it helps. Keep their interval canonical relationships intact, but play with the quantitative values.
For instance, one can posit that the M drive is itself a extrememly high power system, and still proportional to the jump drive capabilities of the same rated jump drive.
We know power plants overclock, so assume that reactionless thrust requirements are a fixed proportion of the jump power requirements for any two drives of the same rating. Now state that the plant ratings are designed to provide that amount of thust always, and jump level energy briefly.
Then, since we really don't know how much energy reactionless thrust or jump requires (other than E = REALLYVERYLOTS for jump), let us assume that any turret weapon fire is a much smaller energy drain than even the M-drive. Still less, just now it is WAY less.
Since agility isn't an issue, this allows us say that the energy difference between an unarmed ship and an armed ship (of the same size ,drive , jump and power requirements) is trivial with regard to game operations. It cant move the ship any faster, or jump any sooner, so why bother ?
I note that this suggests one (incomplete) rationale for the 100dTon limit per hardpoint: For a ship of a given size, any powerplant which can move the ship has enough excess energy to run that number of maxed out triple turrets onthe largest hull it can move.
Larger weapons (military grade) have more than 1 ton displacement effects partly because of dedicated energy plants which are included in the weapon, if extra power is neccessary. Meson bays would have this, missle bays might not. Since we really dont know what the space requirements of a meson wepon are, there is no reason NOT to stipulate that it is less than 100% of the bay space.
So, weapons are functionally irrelevent to the performance of the ship, and thus eureka ! the designs work logically from the altered but canonical basic postulates.
The same applies to the other ship systems. We have even more idea how much energy they require based on modern tech, and that amount is way less than weaponry.
Give the ship a simple high tech UPS*, possibly trickle supported from te power plant, possibly included in every bridge installation, and you have the problem solved. Again, no effect on the ships game performance.
In fact, one could divorce the powerplant from all functions except weapons given that bridge scales to ship size, and so would the basic UPS to run all the everyday systems.
[edit addition]
If one wanted to, one could ago as far as to assume all turrety (civilian &Point defence) type weapons are similary powered by the UPS (which is a scaled component of the bridge, which is scaled to ship size).
Thoughts ?
Cap
[edit addition]
* nowadays "Uninterrupted power supply - but for traveller how 'bout "Universal Power System"
