High Guard: Expectations?
- Thread starter Golan2072
- Start date
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
simonh said:
Interesting - it was a NOVA show, IIRC, and it did state they were the last factory in the world making steam engines - perhaps they meant from the ground up ? No idea. Anyway, thanks for the info - I'll put it.....here on deck 473-62/r Hold 323 -n. Check the manifest on the main door for its exact loaction -we have some database updating problems, been getting a bit worse every year.....
captainjack23 said:
Which would mean that top notch Imperial kit would have even smaller drive systems than the basic system allows for. Let's face it, they're already pretty small. In a 1000 dton ship 4G acceleration takes up only 7% of a ship's volume for drive and power plant. Jump 4 is another 7% for the drive (not fuel), a total engineering space of 14% for pretty rocking performance.
I think there's much more room to exand that for clunky old bangers than to reduce it with finely tuned hi-tech kit. Does 6G performance still only take 15% of a ship's displacement at TL9? The engineering spaces on a scout courier only take up 17 dTons, you could double that and all you'd have to lose is the armour, two staterooms and the cargo. It would still be possible to design a workable craft.
Simon Hibbs
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
simonh said:
Not neccessarily - there might be no practical size saving at higher techs for a specific jump drive once the jump drive for that jump range is introduced. Incandescent light bulbs seem to be about the same size as when they were introduced and flourescents are about the same, also. They are, however LOTS cheaper.
LED light is potentially much smaller, but is an entirely diferent tech. The savings would be in cost ...economies of production and higher tech infrastructure of tooling and etc.
One gets a size saving at higher techs when one builds a higher rated jump or M drive -insofar as its always cheaper to add in a higher rated drive than a serious of lower rated drives: a jump 3 can be made with a jump 5 drive, which will be smaller than installing a drive for each rating.
I admit that It's an odd idea that the JD for a given drive has to be the same size, or the M drive, but then we obviously don't have a normal world scale to measure them by, being as they rely on volume rather than mass.
It would seem a bit of a stretch to assume that jump drives, and power plants, and manoueuver drives all scale, not like combustion engines, nuclear power plants or electronics, but like lightbulbs.
Sure you could make that assumption, after all this is fiction. It's possible to handwave it that way instead of any other way, but are there any interesting reasons for doing so?
Simon Hibbs
Sure you could make that assumption, after all this is fiction. It's possible to handwave it that way instead of any other way, but are there any interesting reasons for doing so?
Simon Hibbs
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
simonh said:
Main reason is that in CT and HG, and by extension from what I've seen MGT all scale like lightbulbs - tech makes no difference in size. This is explicit in HG.
As to handwavium, an internal combustion engine that works differently in different volume cars would be needed for a fair comparison of how things scale.
However, I'm not wedded to the idea - just wanted to point out that size and tech are not invariably linked.
So, if the benchmark is tech 15, then all jump drives except 6 and all power plants and M drives would get bigger as tech went down until level of entry is met, which presumably would be the max size .
So, pretty much all the components will take up much more space in TL consistent production: a tech 9 jump 1 will be potentially huge, as will any of the spaceflight entry tech units (M, P, Computers, etc) as will the costs. The size increment/tech is obviously going to be crucial.
As to WHY I think that Lightbulb scaling is the way to go, consider this.
A scout has IIRC 15 tons of M,P and J drives. Assuming a 50% increase per drop in tech level a jump 2 ship engine (tech 11) will be about 5 X the size as the tech 15 version. If the power and M drives are also produced at tech 11 (higher than their introduction level), they also are at 5x. Thats 75 tons of engine equiptment before fuel - 28 tons(?) - which means you cant build a 100 ton jump ship. A 200 ton hull is a bit better, 75 tons + 20some tons fuel - it is at least possible to make it work .
Now, I do have to say that this is more likely a realistic progression by tech - ships will tend to be bigger and much less efficient at lower techs, and generally get smaller and more effective as tech rises. But, it does untravellerize the relationships between planet tech levels, ship types and etc.
Thus, if one has to scale for tech, I'd suggest either do it upwards, although that will have the effect you nore -components become miniscule, which is likely realistic, but again not traveller; or just scale by cost. One can always throw more money at a ship - one cannot ignore the space relationships. Lower tech planets would have to pay thru the nose for a humble scout, and so would have much smaller fleets, although of equal efficiency.
Sounds easier to implememt without a spreadsheet, also.
Pick the highest tech component of the ship (assume that J,M,and P need to be compaptable for tech level; one could make the same argument for the bridge, computer and avionics, i suppose) and apply the TL increment to the cost. Boom. Done.
Deniable said:
Uh, my copy of FF&S1 has 20-some penciled-in erratum items, plus 2 paste-in replacement tables, and a paste-in replacement PAGE... at least one rather important table was simply missing in printing one... hence the paste-in.
I've never been able to replicate ANY FF&S1 based GDW-published design with FF&S1, although a few of the earlier ones are legit with Brilliant Lances sans errata... but it SHIPPED with the errata sheet...
GDW was always rife with errata. I never bought a GDW game that didn't have an errata sheet within a year of release. Some, rather than re-layout, simply got an errata sheet in the second printing, or the plate for the last page had errata added. (For the record: TFG was FAR worse... and AH was about the same.)
FF&S2 is unplayable without errata to explain the munged symbols.
MT merely had a lot of bad entries in odd spots.
Now, What I'd Like
1) TL to matter more
2) compatibility with bk2 style damage systems (IE, Letter Code matters)
3) Nothing below 0.1 Td resolution (MT and FF&S's biggest flaw... 1L resolution)
4) Bk2 style damage option. (Hits to drives reduce drive letter rather than KO systems)
5) More weapons.
captainjack23 said:
All that shows is that 50% is too steep an increment.
The rate I suggested was 10% (page 2 of the thread, last post but one), which I think is believable and leads to workable results. A TL9 scout ship would have an engineering compartment that's 50% bigger. You could go to 20% per TL and you could still come up with a workable design. Of course you'd have to make compromises, but that's part of the fun of creating any design.
Simon Hibbs
For the purposes of the OTU, one possible compromise would be to rule that within the Imperium, starship technology has been largely standardized. Much in the way that third world countries are hosting manufacturing facilities at western technical standards, it might be possible for a TL12 world to manufacture starships with the engineering components at effectively TL15 standard perhaps using imported tooling.
The Imperium itself, viewing starship manufacturing as a strategic capability might actively sponsor such technology tyransfers to bost wartime production capacity, with this capability inevitably filtering down to the commercial sector.
This given, 'low-tech' drive systems might only be found in real backwaters, or from non-imperial worlds.
Simon Hibbs
The Imperium itself, viewing starship manufacturing as a strategic capability might actively sponsor such technology tyransfers to bost wartime production capacity, with this capability inevitably filtering down to the commercial sector.
This given, 'low-tech' drive systems might only be found in real backwaters, or from non-imperial worlds.
Simon Hibbs
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
simonh said:
hmmm, okay I missed that. Well, 10% compounds to 77% by tech 9, but still, close enough. Yes, that would work well enough as an increment -AND give some reasonable design difference fun. but for a 6 tech difference it seems a bit low -BUT thats a YMMV issue entirely,particularly given how flat the tech increase is in traveller - I often think its more about jump and space tech than anything - If you model of the tech 9 ship one that is built from tech 15 designs optimised/compromised for tech 9 ; in otherwords, retro tech ? That could justify a fairly small incriment, and it neccessarily doesn't need to model a "from scratch" TL 9 ship, which would probably have a much bigger increment.
Good stuff !
edit: we crossed posts - looks like we are on the same page.....
AKAramis said:
That is a good list.
Adding to the weapon options I would like to see more options in the way of turret size. Heavy Lasers, Single mount Bay Missile launchers. Options for Sandcasters. etc... Compatible with both the fleet design system and the main rule books.
Oh and fractional G for maneuver drives, Maybe even a mass based construction system.
I really don't like the idea of a drive letter based damage system - it would be a pain to manage. The less cross-referencing of tables you have to do in combat the better. I'd rather a system based on drive ratings, with modifiers on the damage table for ship tonnage.
As for fractional drive ratings an seperating out mass from volumne, this is High Guard, not FF&S thank god. If you want a FF&S style system, why not just use FF&S? I'd be much more interested in a Book5 derived system that's more compatible with the basic system that Book5 was, and with more of the modern style options mongoose have added. We don't currently have anything like that, so it would be a very worthwhile project.
Simon Hibbs
As for fractional drive ratings an seperating out mass from volumne, this is High Guard, not FF&S thank god. If you want a FF&S style system, why not just use FF&S? I'd be much more interested in a Book5 derived system that's more compatible with the basic system that Book5 was, and with more of the modern style options mongoose have added. We don't currently have anything like that, so it would be a very worthwhile project.
Simon Hibbs
Rikki Tikki Traveller
Cosmic Mongoose
simonh said:
But then this would invalidate the idea of TL limiting Jump capability. Everything would be J6 possible (even if not build in). A TL 9 world could still build a J6 ship and that was not part of Traveller in the past.
If TL is pretty standardized on ships and TL 15 is IMPERIAL maximum, then any ATU settings at a lower TL would have to use completely different tables or at least Size/Cost numbers. THAT doesn't work either.
Rikki Tikki Traveller said:
Uh, J5 has been doable at TL 9 with an imported computer since Bk2... no room for anything ELSE... and using the CT 1st Ed exception for no PP.
20Td Bridge
20Td JDrive C
50Td JFuel
5Td Model 5 (TL 11)
4Td SR
1Td Cargo. (I'd call it batteries to run LS...)
MoTrav
10Td Bridge
20Td JDrive C
50Td JFuel
10Td PP C
6Td PPFuel
4Td SR
Import that model 5, and away you go! (And note: no PP Exception, either!) Give it drop tanks, a mere 10 tons worth, and a model 6, and she goes J6!
J5 isn't TL9 according to FF&S, it's TL 14.
(J1 = TL 9, J2 = TL B, J3 = TL C, J4 = TL D, J5 = TL E, J6 = TL F).
I'm not entirely sure how you can claim that J5 is possible at TL 9 because all the indications from canon (e.g. Interstellar Wars) are that at the very best you had J2 at that TL. Unless you're talking about importing the jump drive too from a higher TL world.
The FF&S makes a lot more sense as a tech progression.
(J1 = TL 9, J2 = TL B, J3 = TL C, J4 = TL D, J5 = TL E, J6 = TL F).
I'm not entirely sure how you can claim that J5 is possible at TL 9 because all the indications from canon (e.g. Interstellar Wars) are that at the very best you had J2 at that TL. Unless you're talking about importing the jump drive too from a higher TL world.
The FF&S makes a lot more sense as a tech progression.
Rikki Tikki Traveller said:
Where did I say anything about allowing jump capabilities before their TL of introduction? I don't remember writing anything like that.
You use the same tables, and adjust by a percentage. I prefer 10% per TL because it makes it brain-numbingly simple to do the calculation. Also I'd go for an additive 10% per TL, not cumulative.
e.g. I'm building a 500 dTon ship at TL12 with M-2. That requires a PP and MDrive of code E each. Base sizes are 9 and 16 dTons.
Adjusted up by 30% (3 TL difference) these come to 12 dtons for the M-Drive (9 + 2.7 = 11.7, rounded up to 12) and 21 dtons for the Power Plant (16 + 4.8 = 20.8, rounded up to 21).
If you're working on an OTU then it might be worth doing your own tables, but that's the work of about 15 minutes with a spreadsheet.
Simon Hibbs
EDG said:
FF&S bears no relationship to Bk2 limits. FF&S is a child of Bk5, and Bk5 is almost incompatible with Bk2.
Bk2 makes J5 available at TL12... the drives are limited by how big they may be and the computer installed. THose drives will actually push a J6...
Bk2 limits how big the drives may be by TL, not their rating. It does, however, also limit jump by the computer number. It also limits the size of ship (but not stations) by TL as well, since ships have a maximum drive, thus a maximum size the drive provides a rating for.
TL 9: Drives A-D, Comps 1-3, max hull 800Td, Max Jump 3
TL10: Drives A-H, Comps 1-4, max hull 1000Td, Max Jump 4
TL11: Drives A-K, Comps 1-5, Max Hull 2000Td, Max Jump 5
TL12: Drives A-N, Comps 1-6, Max Hull 2000Td, Max Jump 6
TL13: Drives A-Q, Comps 1-7, Max Hull 3000Td, Max Jump 6
TL14: Drives A-U, Comps 1-7, max hull 3000Td, Max Jump 6
TL15: Drives A-Z, Comps 1-7, max hull 5000Td, Max Jump 6
(See TTB, p 58 & 87)
So, under Bk2 (and thus Bk5 as well, due to specific inclusion), TL 9 can get J3 with no imports. Import the computer, and use drop tanks, and you get TL9 building J6 ships...
200Td J3 TL 9 Bk2 design MCr87
00 Td MCr008 Hull
20 Td MCr001 Bridge
20 Td MCr030 JDrive C
10 Td MCr024 PP C
01 Td MCr004 MDrive A
60 Td MCr000 JFuel 1xJ3
30 Td MCr000 PPFuel
02 Td MCr018 2/Bis
12 Td MCr002 4xSR
45 Td MCr000 45 Td Cargo
Crew is Pilot, Nav, Engineer, Medic.
200Td J4 TL A Bk2 design MCr117
00 Td MCr008 Hull
20 Td MCr001 Bridge
25 Td MCr040 JDrive D
13 Td MCr032 PP D
01 Td MCr004 MDrive A
80 Td MCr000 JFuel 1xJ3
40 Td MCr000 PPFuel
04 Td MCr030 Model 4
12 Td MCr002 4xSR
5 Td MCr000 5 Td Cargo
Crew is Pilot, Nav, Engineer, Medic.
Now, Mongoose is more forgiving...
TL9: Drives A-Z, Comps 1-2bis (J3 rating)
TLB: Drives A-Z, Comps 1-3bis (J4 rating)
TLC: Drives A-Z, Comps 1-4bis (J5 rating)
TLD: Drives A-Z, Comps 1-5bis (J6 rating)
200Td J3 TL 9 MGT design MCr84
00 Td MCr008 Hull
10 Td MCr001 Bridge
20 Td MCr030 JDrive C
10 Td MCr024 PP C
01 Td MCr004 MDrive A
60 Td MCr000 JFuel 1xJ3
06 Td MCr000 PPFuel
00 Td MCr015 2/Bis
12 Td MCr002 4xSR
81 Td MCr000 45 Td Cargo
00 Td MCr000 Std Electronics
Crew is Pilot, Nav, Engineer, Medic.
200Td J4 TL B MGT design MCr110
00 Td MCr008 Hull
10 Td MCr001 Bridge
25 Td MCr040 JDrive D
13 Td MCr032 PP D
01 Td MCr004 MDrive A
80 Td MCr000 JFuel 1xJ3
08 Td MCr000 PPFuel
00 Td MCr023 3/Bis
12 Td MCr002 4xSR
51 Td MCr000 51 Td Cargo
00 Td MCr000 Basic Sensors
Crew is Pilot, Nav, Engineer, Medic.
In both MGT and CT-Bk2, the limit is the computer model.
AKAramis said:
So? Are you seriously suggesting that J5 is available at TL 9 just because Book 2 says it is? Without any regard for the actual canon of the setting?
Not to mention the fact that Book 2 is the earliest version of the design system, and is largely unrefined and arguably has less relevance to the OTU setting as the latter has evolved over the years and the former has not.
