Checking how Drives are calculated

[EDG]

I'm a bit confused about how to calculate the drive and power plant volumes in ships - here's how I think it works if I'm reading it right:

Say I had a 500 dton ship. If I wanted to add J5 to it, I'd need a type N Jump Drive, right? Or a type P, though I'm not sure why I'd want that because it's bigger and more expensive and uses more fuel for no gain in jump.

And because I have a type N jump drive, I'd need at least a type N power plant too, right?

And if I wanted to give it a 4G Manoeuvre drive, it'd need a type K, right (again, why would I bother with the L and M options that are available)?

So in total, that's 70 + 19 + 40 = 129 dtons used for the J-drive, powerplant, and M-Drive respectively, costing a total of 130 + 40 + 104 = 274 MCr.

Being a type N, the powerplant would need 26 dtons of fuel to run the ship for two weeks, and I'd need 250 dtons of fuel for a single J5 jump (0.1 * 500 * 5).

Is that right?

And would a smaller jump use less fuel? (i.e. would a J2 jump use up 100 dtons of fuel instead of 250?).

 

[Ommadawn]

Yes to each and all of your points, as I've read and understand the current rules.

 

[EDG]

Cool. Thanks!

Though I'm still curious to know why I'd want to use the higher-rated power plants/drives (e.g. the type P jump drive) if they don't give me any gain in performance.

 

[far-trader]

Cool. Thanks!

Though I'm still curious to know why I'd want to use the higher-rated power plants/drives (e.g. the type P jump drive) if they don't give me any gain in performance.

Is it the same as CT B2 where they gave you a damage soak? Being able to take a hit and still work at the performance you want.

 

[EDG]

Cool. Thanks!

Though I'm still curious to know why I'd want to use the higher-rated power plants/drives (e.g. the type P jump drive) if they don't give me any gain in performance.

Is it the same as CT B2 where they gave you a damage soak? Being able to take a hit and still work at the performance you want.

I don't think it is. Skipping forward to the Damage rules, it seems that damage is either "-2 DM to all jump attempt rolls" or "drive disabled", or "drive destroyed". I didn't spot anything about bigger drives soaking more damage.

 

[Beastttt]

the new rules give each item only 3 hits
1 hit is damaged and is a -2dm
2 hits is unuseable but fixable
3 hits is destroyed needs replacing

so the upper values have no use
I think it is just a carry over from CT which had each hit lowering the value of the plant hit(jump,power,maneuver)

Cool. Thanks!

Though I'm still curious to know why I'd want to use the higher-rated power plants/drives (e.g. the type P jump drive) if they don't give me any gain in performance.

Is it the same as CT B2 where they gave you a damage soak? Being able to take a hit and still work at the performance you want.

 

[far-trader]

Bit of a silly carryover then Unless there is some hidden use yet unfound...

 

[AKAramis]

Bit of a silly carryover then Unless there is some hidden use yet unfound...

Tugs, man, Tugs....

 

[EDG]

Bit of a silly carryover then Unless there is some hidden use yet unfound...

Tugs, man, Tugs....

I don't see how that would work. There's no way to factor in 'load' or 'mass pulled' here is there?

 

[far-trader]

Bit of a silly carryover then Unless there is some hidden use yet unfound...

Tugs, man, Tugs....

I don't see how that would work. There's no way to factor in 'load' or 'mass pulled' here is there?

Yeah, ok, and LASH and Drop Tanks I suppose. As long as the model of the zero tonnage to carry modules and drop tanks models of the old Modular Cutter and Drop Tanks is allowed. That works I guess

 

[rje]

Bit of a silly carryover then Unless there is some hidden use yet unfound...

Tugs, man, Tugs....

I don't see how that would work. There's no way to factor in 'load' or 'mass pulled' here is there?

Only if your tug is engineered for a specific load/loads... This model can handle ships or modules up to size X at rating Y...

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Well, you COULD use a larger drive to get the same performance. Nothing stopping you from doing that. Of course it makes no sense, but the numbers are there, so you could do it.

Under CT drive letters were a measure of damage that could be absorbed, but under MGT that is not the case.

 

[Infojunky]

Under CT drive letters were a measure of damage that could be absorbed, but under MGT that is not the case.

Yes, the choice to retain the letter code system without it's related use in basic ship's combat was and odd decision. IMHO the weakest point of MGT is Ship combat and construction. But, in all it works.

 

[EDG]

So basically we can't find a reason to use the higher codes that give the same performance? Is this a bug in the design system then?

 

[far-trader]

So basically we can't find a reason to use the higher codes that give the same performance?

:?

Except for Tugs, LASH, and Drop Tanks? And perhaps (externally) carried ships?

Cases where you want performance X for the ship when empty or loaded with external additions.

So in your case the 500ton ship with jump drive N can do J5 but if you add 100tons of drop tanks that probably drops to J4 but perhaps with a jump drive P you can make J5 with the drop tanks carried and still (more easily) do J5 when the tanks are dropped.

* no idea of the actual build rules, just tossing the example in as a general idea of how it might work

Is this a bug in the design system then?

Depends on if any of the above options work in the build/design rules.

 

[Infojunky]

So basically we can't find a reason to use the higher codes that give the same performance? Is this a bug in the design system then?

Pretty much, it was central artifact of Book2 design and combat. It does give the feel for standardized drives, i.e. like how a lot of real-world ships and aircraft are designed, but without the rest of it's game-mechanic function in this edition.

 

[captainjack23]

Bit of a silly carryover then Unless there is some hidden use yet unfound...

I suppose one way to look at it, which is somewhat consistent with the playtest version, is that families of letters (such as A,B,C) represent one drive tuned or upgraded to different hulls; IIRC, one could up the output of a drive by an engineering check - and effectively make it the next letter higher; or lower, one presumes.

But that isn't explicitly in the core rules anymore, so possibly its a hook for high guard ?

Otherwise, yes, it is redundant - as far as I can see given the new combat rules, except possibly for referencing fission drives, and even then it just shifts the issue over.

But, not sure if it's a bug. Bugs make things not work, from my understanding of QC; and inelegent code reducing the efficiency of CPU power isn't a big issue in here, I think.....

 

[CosmicGamer]

Bit of a silly carryover then Unless there is some hidden use yet unfound...

I suppose one way to look at it, which is somewhat consistent with the playtest version, is that families of letters (such as A,B,C) represent one drive tuned or upgraded to different hulls; IIRC, one could up the output of a drive by an engineering check - and effectively make it the next letter higher; or lower, one presumes.

But that isn't explicitly in the core rules anymore, so possibly its a hook for high guard ?

Otherwise, yes, it is redundant - as far as I can see given the new combat rules, except possibly for referencing fission drives, and even then it just shifts the issue over.

But, not sure if it's a bug. Bugs make things not work, from my understanding of QC; and inelegent code reducing the efficiency of CPU power isn't a big issue in here, I think.....

I've not created any ships yet. I'm confused about statements of a bug. I'm even more confused with statements about a carryover since I have no knowledge of where this carryover comes from.

Here is my fairly ignorant take on things though.

Every engine type, except the Y, I believe has a tonnage where it provides a higher jump/maneuver than the engine type that comes before it.

For example, at 500 tons the E, F, and G all are jump 2. But at 200, 400, 600, and 1200T F gives one higher jump capability than E. At 700, 800, and 1400 the G gives one higher jump than the F. So there are applications for all these jump drives - just not at every tonnage.

Hull sizes weights and Jump distances are all nice round numbers - makes things easier. Technically some of these combinations are a little less or a little more than the figure stated. Personally I don't want the complication of calculating where within a system the ship is exactly when it starts its jump and where exactly within the destination system the world is that you are trying to arrive at (where it currently is in it's orbit). If the 2 points are on opposite sides of their systems this would give that 500T Jump drive G combo that gives a jump of 2.5 a purpose though. (2.5 is a made up figure for example purposes)

How many people calculate the orbits and locations of everything in a system? What if your destination is currently orbiting on the opposite side of the sun? What do you do about asteroid belts that may be between you and your destination? Did you even check if the system has other planets or asteroids? Sometimes its better to just ignore some things so that you don't spend over half of your game doing calculations - hence a good reason for the drives not to have fractional values and some drives having no application at certain tonnages.

Again, don't know if this makes any sense since I don't have any experience with it. (I'm sure you'll let me know if my idea are half baked)

 

[EDG]

For example, at 500 tons the E, F, and G all are jump 2. But at 200, 400, 600, and 1200T F gives one higher jump capability than E. At 700, 800, and 1400 the G gives one higher jump than the F. So there are applications for all these jump drives - just not at every tonnage.

That may be true, but that's not the issue here. The issue is that for a given hull size, there are several drive options that provide exactly the same performance, but are larger and more expensive.

A 500dt ship that wants Jump-2 will get that from an E or an F or a G Jump drive, but there doesn't seem to be any reason for them to want an F or a G drive - they give the exact same performance as an E drive, but take up more room and cost more money. And the larger drives don't give you anything in terms of extra damage absorption or anything else it seems... so what's the point of getting an F or a G drive for that ship?

Hull sizes weights and Jump distances are all nice round numbers - makes things easier. Technically some of these combinations are a little less or a little more than the figure stated. Personally I don't want the complication of calculating where within a system the ship is exactly when it starts its jump and where exactly within the destination system the world is that you are trying to arrive at (where it currently is in it's orbit). If the 2 points are on opposite sides of their systems this would give that 500T Jump drive G combo that gives a jump of 2.5 a purpose though. (2.5 is a made up figure for example purposes)

Where the planets are in a system makes absolutely no difference to the jump number at all - planetary systems are tiny compared to the space between the stars. Whether you jumped into our system from Alpha Centauri and arrived at the side of Pluto's orbit closest to Alpha Centauri or furthest from it, it's still a J2 jump.

 

[captainjack23]

Well, really, given that rule mechanics (such as drive enhancement or combat damage) are different in this version, the extra letters are simply spaceholders before the next jump number on the table.

However, until HG comes out we won't know for sure that they are useless.....given Garth's previous prresentation of engines and power and how they interact with the characters and play in general, I'll be surprised if there isn't some use of the redundant drive letters to quantify things like damage or upgunning ships or even hot-rodding them.


But like I said. It's hardly somthing that breaks the system -it just makes for a bigger table. One could compress the table, but IIRC, the drives don't actually scale the same way ; so there are breakpoints where some hulls may well be more efficient than others for a given engine size. So one may be willing to go up two or three letters to get a jump 3 ship instead of a jump 2, but going up four or more may be impractical.

Both steam and Ic engines have these kind of non linear scaling effects (generally based around internal volume vs surface volume) so, really, I suppose, at worst, its just chrome and a desire to have the design system be less linear.