Hot Rodding is dead?

[Vormaerin]

So what are you suggesting, that we don't discuss rules that we don't like or the implications of the rules as written because everyone knows that you can just ignore them? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Especially since, at no point did anyone say anything about feeling constrained by the rules or being unaware that there's no rules police coming to get us at our tables.

The question was why was this changed and how is it reconciled with previous statements about this exact thing being normal? "Ignore it if you don't like it" does not answer that question. Presumably, someone made that decision for a reason. They most likely thought it benefited gameplay somehow. Or it was a mistake, as the 10 fold increase in the cost of parts likely was.

Is there someone out there who thinks this rule is good and that retconning out the ability to upgrade Free Traders into Far Traders makes the game better? I'd be interested in hearing what the reasoning is.

 

[Condottiere]

I'm pretty sure I'll be reiterating this point.

A lot of rules in Mongoose are copy pasted from previous editions, and based on whatever the writers at that time would work for their design systems.

In theory, you should be able to refit your spacecraft with larger engines, or increase the size of the hull, or add more hull armour.

Copy pasting previous rules text rules that out.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Rule Zero.
The upgrade rule impedes your fun? Ignore it.
We are not playing tournament WH40K where the mini-police inspect your models for purity.
I hate that engines and power plants cannot be used in modules. I understand the logic behind engine restriction (although other systems allow such things), but not the power plant restriction.

I totally agree, although the more things you have to change using Rule Zero, the harder it is to use the system.

I'm pretty sure I'll be reiterating this point.

A lot of rules in Mongoose are copy pasted from previous editions, and based on whatever the writers at that time would work for their design systems.

In theory, you should be able to refit your spacecraft with larger engines, or increase the size of the hull, or add more hull armour.

Copy pasting previous rules text rules that out.

Was it in the pre-update High Guard? I know it wasn't in MgT1 High Guard. Either way, it seems specifically written into the current MgT2 High Guard.

 

[Condottiere]

Outmoded ships may be improved by refitting; obsolete systems are replaced by newer models. All refitting must be done at an A or B starport, and jump-drives may be refitted only at A starports. Refitting involves the complete removal of an old system and the installation of a new one; for instance, if a power plant is refitted, the entire power plant is removed and a new one put in its place. Refitting takes up shipyard capacity equal to the refitting ship's tonnage. Changes in power plant, maneuver drive, or jump drive are major changes. They cost 1.5 times the amount the new system would cost in a new ship; the time required to install major changes is one fourth the time required to build a new ship (from the construction time table).

Changes in any other ship component are minor changes. They cost 1.1 times the cost of the system in a new ship and take one tenth the time required for new ship construction.

Refitting is subject to the same time modifiers and weekly costs as in the ship-building rule. If several ships of a class are being refitted the same way, all ships after the first receive the time benefit. Work may proceed concurrently: if several ship systems are being replaced, the refit takes only the time required for the longest one.

The degree to which a ship may be changed is limited. Power plant, M-drive,J-drive, and spinal mount weapons may not be increased in tonnage. There may be no additional launch facilities built (although they may be removed). Armor and configuration may not be changed. The number and size of weapons bays may not be changed.


Major refits cover changes in power plant, manoeuvre or jump drive, as well as changes to spinal mounts or launch facilities (such as launch tubes). Removing these components costs 0.5 times the cost of the original system, while removing them and then installing new ones costs 1.5 times the cost of the new system. The time this takes is one quarter of the time required to build a new ship of the same size.

Minor refits are changes to any other components aboard the ship, such as weapon mounts or staterooms. Removing these components costs 0.1 times the cost of the original system, while removing them and then installing new ones costs 1.1 times the cost of the new system. The time this takes is one tenth of the time required to build a new ship of the same size.

Armour and other parts of the ship integral to the hull (such as configuration or reinforced structure) cannot be changed under any refit. Those items covered under a major refit cannot be increased in size though they may be reduced. Other components may be increased in size if there is tonnage available. If several systems or components are being removed or replaced in a single refit then it only takes the time required for the longest one to be completed though all costs must be paid.


Major refits cover changes in power plant, manoeuvre or jump drive, as well as changes to spinal mounts or launch facilities (such as launch tubes). Removing these components costs 0.5 times the cost of the original system, while removing them and then installing new ones costs 1.5 times the cost of the new system. The time this takes is one quarter of the time required to build a new ship of the same size as described in Construction Times on page 8.

Minor refits are changes to any other components aboard the ship, such as weapon mounts or staterooms. Removing these components costs 0.1 times the cost of the original system, while removing them and installing new ones costs 1.1 times the cost of the new system. This takes one tenth of the time required to build a new ship of the same size.

Armour and other parts of the ship integral to the hull (such as configuration or reinforced structure) cannot be changed under any refit. Those items covered under a major refit cannot be increased in size but they can be reduced. Other components can be increased in size if there is tonnage available. If several systems or components are being removed or replaced in a single refit, all replacements are made simultaneously; therefore, it only takes the time required for the longest job to be completed.

 

[Geir]

So for those of us who think colour helps but attribution would be better, the blue part at the bottom of the above is the newest version. In all three versions, it does say that the engineering bits cannot be increased in size, though a creative reading to take it to mean all of the items requiring a major refit as a whole cannot increase in size, but individual components within can be re-jiggered (such as increasing the size of the jump or m-drive, but decreasing the size of the powerplant, perhaps by making it higher tech or adding advantages. Pretty sure that's not the intent, but I would probably let it slide - unless you where trying to mount an m-drive in a spinal mount tunnel...

Modular hulls can't help here since:
HG'22 p. 44: This tonnage cannot include the bridge, power plant, drives or any structure or armour options.
(What about armoured bulkheads??? Or armour just for the module, he asks.)

But there is one hot-rod trick that will still work with a reasonable RAW interpretation: adding a Breakaway Hull section (HG'22 p. 12). That would be literally strapping more drives onto the hull.

 

[Condottiere]

Hulls are identified by their mass displacement, expressed in tons. Hulls of different mass displacements come in standard configurations which
divide the tonnage into a (shielded) engineering section and a (pressurized) main compartment. All drives and powerplants must be located in the engineering section, and only drives and power plants may be placed in that section. All other ship components, including fuel, cargo hold, living space, and computer must be located in the main compartment.

The hull types chart indicates the configurations of the six standard hulls, and states the proportion each has devoted to the engineering section and the main compartment, the price of the basic hull (expressed in millions of credits), and the construction time (expressed in months. Hulls in sizes (or engineering/main compartment proportions) not indicated in the chart must be produced on a custom basis.


Outmoded ships may be improved by refitting; obsolete systems are replaced by newer models. All refitting must be done at an A or B starport, and jump-drives may be refitted only at A starports. Refitting involves the complete removal of an old system and the installation of a new one; for instance, if a power plant is refitted, the entire power plant is removed and a new one put in its place. Refitting takes up shipyard capacity equal to the refitting ship's tonnage.

Changes in power plant, maneuver drive, or jump drive are major changes. They cost 1.5 times the amount the new system would cost in a new ship; the time required to install major changes is one fourth the time required to build a new ship (from the construction time table). Changes in any other ship component are minor changes. They cost 1.1 times the cost of the system in a new ship and take one tenth the time required for new ship construction.

Refitting is subject to the same time modifiers and weekly costs as in the ship-building rule. If several ships of a class are being refitted the same way, all ships after the first receive the time benefit. Work may proceed concurrently: if several ship systems are being replaced, the refit takes only the time required for the longest one.

The degree to which a ship may be changed is limited. Power plant, M-drive, J-drive, and spinal mount weapons may not be increased in tonnage. There may be no additional launch facilities built (although they may be removed). Armor and configuration may not be changed. The number and size of weapons bays may not be changed.

It is important to note, from the maximum drive potential table, that some drive and power plant types will not function in certain types of hulls (those situations indicated by a dash); the drives and power plants table also indicates that some drives will not fit into some hulls. It is also possible to fit a set of drives and power plant into a hull and then to have insufficient tonnage remaining for fuel, basic controls or life support. The completeness is intended to cover situations where custom hulls are produced. A jump capability of greater than 6 (or an acceleration of greater than 6 Gs) cannot be achieved with the 24 drive types listed in the table.

The installed power plant must be of a letter type at least equal to the drive letter of the installed maneuver drive (the power plant letter may be higher than the maneuver drive letter).


1. This being from the original Book/Two.

2. Would indicate that once you have constructed a hull, the engineering section is separate and can't be increased in size.

3. Though the engines themselves, could be, if the combined tonnage remains within the limitations of the engineering section.

4. So, in theory, if the design rules still require an engineering section, once allocated, you can adjust the size of all engines, if they stay within the designed limits.

5. However, it's quite possible that hulls nowadays have all sorts of engineering sections.

6. For example, distributed power production.

 

[ottarrus]

Only the rules stop you. Rules in a game are like the physics of the universe. They are how the universe is defined. In this particular instance, Mongoose created their own problem that didn't exist before. Simply remove the rule from the book that forbids increasing the size of major refit components. Problem fixed. I have no idea why they thought that little bit of extra text was even required. It adds nothing to the game, but it does prevent people from being able to build the Millenium Falcon from a stock ship.

The only sticking point in your assessment is two-fold:
1. Just because it fits into the hull doesn't mean that an upgrade fits. The upgrade has to fit within the compartment. Bulkheads on a ship are the pressure compartments and part of the internal skeleton that keeps the hull intact. Those can't be moved or modified without MAJOR structural consequences. Sure, you can rigamarole fitting all kinds of upgrades but on most Traveller ships the largest compartment aboard is going to be the cargo hold, aka 'where you make your money'. It's a game of Tetris to fit 'x' tons of new drive into 'y' tons of compartment space only to discover that the most efficient fit is the engines you're trying to replace.
2. Then there is the issue of economics. You can 'gamble for a Type N hyperdrive' but you're still gonna need multiple engineers, a slipway in a full service shipyard, and lots of time to get that bad boy installed on your ship. And that's gonna run you multiple millions of credit. Granted that's not the tens of millions buying a new drive will cost you, but VERY few Traveller characters are gonna have that kind of cash. And here's the thing about going into debt with a Hutt cartel: they put clauses in the contract that ensure that you'll NEVER actually pay them off.

 

[Arkathan]

For those who are not familiar with either heraldry or which colors go together in text, you put metals next to colors, not metals to metals or colors to colors.
White and yellow are metals. It is very hard to read when you overlay them.
For the citation above, you pretty much have to highlight the text in order to read it.

 

[Arkathan]

Modular hulls can't help here since:
HG'22 p. 44: This tonnage cannot include the bridge, power plant, drives or any structure or armour options.
(What about armoured bulkheads??? Or armour just for the module, he asks.)

I always assumed that armored bulkhead around modular components are legal inside a module and that the module cover was part of the ship's hull and not the module, like the doors under a greyhound bus, so it would be the same as the ship.
Still don't understand why you cannot have a power plant module or an aux bridge/drone control center.
For example, a bay that could hold a hangar module with a flight control center, a cargo module, a troop berthing module or a bay sized energy weapon that carries its own power supply, which get's damaged at the same rate as main power.

 

[Vormaerin]

The only sticking point in your assessment is two-fold:
1. Just because it fits into the hull doesn't mean that an upgrade fits. The upgrade has to fit within the compartment. Bulkheads on a ship are the pressure compartments and part of the internal skeleton that keeps the hull intact. Those can't be moved or modified without MAJOR structural consequences. Sure, you can rigamarole fitting all kinds of upgrades but on most Traveller ships the largest compartment aboard is going to be the cargo hold, aka 'where you make your money'. It's a game of Tetris to fit 'x' tons of new drive into 'y' tons of compartment space only to discover that the most efficient fit is the engines you're trying to replace.
2. Then there is the issue of economics. You can 'gamble for a Type N hyperdrive' but you're still gonna need multiple engineers, a slipway in a full service shipyard, and lots of time to get that bad boy installed on your ship. And that's gonna run you multiple millions of credit. Granted that's not the tens of millions buying a new drive will cost you, but VERY few Traveller characters are gonna have that kind of cash. And here's the thing about going into debt with a Hutt cartel: they put clauses in the contract that ensure that you'll NEVER actually pay them off.

That basically boils down to 'if you ever get a ship, that's all the ship you'll ever have in' in your campaign. Because if they can't afford a refit, they sure can't buy a new ship with the improvements they want.

Maybe that is the most popular way to play in the larger fanbase, but all the campaigns I've ever been in either the players didn't want a ship at all or they wanted to be able to upgrade it during play.

Maybe the intention is that every A2 Hero class Far Trader was purpose built that way, not converted from an A1 Beowulf class Free Trader and the aforementioned comment about being modified to this configuration meant at the blueprint stage

 

[AndrewW]

For the citation above, you pretty much have to highlight the text in order to read it.

It is readable without highlighting, but it wasn't the best of choices.

 

[Sigtrygg]

As someone with a deteriorating eyesight condition can I ask a favour?
Pleas stop using coloured fonts.

 

[Garran]

I can understand the thematics of not being able to easily swap in a higher-rated M-drive; the hull may simply not be able to withstand the structural stress of that extra thrust if it wasn't designed for it in the first place. (Jump mechanics are wibbly enough that J-Drives may or may not have similar issues.)

On the other hand, all of that extra refit cost presumably includes reinforcing/rebuilding the hull to handle the new thrust. As long as it's within reason (going from M-1 to M-2 seems reasonable for most standard or streamlined hulls; asking for your planetoid to be upgraded from M-1 to M-5 not so much) then I don't see a problem with it.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

"Those items covered under a major refit cannot be increased in size but they can be reduced."

Why are rules being made that make it impossible to modify ships as stated in their description?

This goes back to the fixed size of the engineering section for LBB2 ships in 1977, propagated in CT TCS and MgT TCS.

Upgrading a Free Trader to a Far Trader with some bigger drives has never been a thing under most Traveller rule sets.


Whether that is a good thing or not is a completely different matter.

 

[MasterGwydion]

This goes back to the fixed size of the engineering section for LBB2 ships in 1977, propagated in CT TCS and MgT TCS.

Upgrading a Free Trader to a Far Trader with some bigger drives has never been a thing under most Traveller rule sets.


Whether that is a good thing or not is a completely different matter.

Has the description of the Far Trader changed? I remember it always being a modified Free Trader.

Literally My point is this. Stop making stupid rules that serve no purpose and contradict almost everything else. I have yet to see how the game is improved by adding a restriction to player choice, to prevent???? prevent what? Upgrading to a ship that you could build anyway? That makes no sense. Whoever first came up with the "fixed engineering section size" was an idiot. I was an engineer on ships in the real world. This has no basis in reality. In reality you can make any change that you want to almost any part of a ship. It is just a question of how much work it will take, having the proper tools, and having the proper facilities.

Again. Why write a rule that has no basis in reality, no positive function in the game, and contradicts other material in the game?

In MTU, everything on a ship can be changed, including armor, tonnage, shape, etc. The only question is how much money do you want to spend to do it. I do this because it is realistic and it takes absolutely nothing away from the game while giving Me, as a Ref, another way to siphon on money when the players want to make drastic changes to their ships.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I can understand the thematics of not being able to easily swap in a higher-rated M-drive; the hull may simply not be able to withstand the structural stress of that extra thrust if it wasn't designed for it in the first place. (Jump mechanics are wibbly enough that J-Drives may or may not have similar issues.)

On the other hand, all of that extra refit cost presumably includes reinforcing/rebuilding the hull to handle the new thrust. As long as it's within reason (going from M-1 to M-2 seems reasonable for most standard or streamlined hulls; asking for your planetoid to be upgraded from M-1 to M-5 not so much) then I don't see a problem with it.

No one said easily. Easy is for minor refits. These are major undertakings that require a shipyard. Realistically, you could probably swap out a turret while parked on a planet, but it might take you a few days or a week depending on how complex it is and how badly you rolled, but moving bulkheads, engines, power plants, etc.? No, that is a major job in a good shipyard.

So even if you go from an M1 to an M5 drive, a refit should be able to do it, including enhancing the structure to be able to handle it, even moreso, when you consider that with gravitics, there would be no additional g-force strain, since the g-compensators keep it at a nice easy 1G inside the ship.

 

[Condottiere]

Mongoose ignored the acceleration cap on dispersed structure.

So, I don't think it's an issue with them, hull structural integrity and imposed stress.

 

[Arkathan]

It is readable without highlighting, but it wasn't the best of choices.

Cataracts. so...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Has the description of the Far Trader changed? I remember it always being a modified Free Trader.

The other way around:

CT S7, p26-27:
THE FAR TRADER
The basic ship involved in free trade is called the free trader. Variations on the basic ship have resulted in variations in the name. The subsidized merchant, partly because of its size, and partly because of its subsidy, is called the fat trader. Some well equipped high-G traders employed beyond the Imperial border are called fast traders. The type A2 far trader derives its name from its jump capability: its drives are capable of jump-2, twice what the standard free trader can do.
The far trader can be encountered anywhere in the Imperium. It ranges far and wide, and deals with every world it finds. Even amber zones and red zones are not considered off limits by its captains, provided there is profit to be made and the risk of being caught is slight.
Far Trader (Type A2): Using the type 200 hull,

Variants: In addition to minor variations based on the ship's weaponry, one
major variant has been produced -
a cheaper A1 free trader with large cargo capa city. The A1 free trader is essentially identical in performance with the type A (from Book 2) but is otherwise similar to the A2. It has only four low passage berths, a computer Modelll, and jump-1, 1-G capabilities. Its cargo capacity is increased to 81 tons, primarily through a higher ceiling on the cargo bay; its fuel capacity is reduced to 30 tons, and much of the drive room becomes waste space. Cost is MCr54.5, which still cannot compete with the type A, primarily because it
uses a cheaper hull configuration. Nonetheless, some of these ships can be encountered; they are externally identical to the type A2.

The LBB2 Free Trader uses a standard hull, that can only accommodate J-1, M-1 drives.
The A2 Far Trader uses an expensive non-standard hull with a larger engineering section. You can make refit that with smaller drives, to make an A1, much more expensive than an LBB2 Free Trader.

Literally My point is this. Stop making stupid rules that serve no purpose and contradict almost everything else.

Sure, that would be lovely. Hasn't happened in any Traveller edition I can remember...


I must admit, having the Far Trader described as a refit of the Free Trader, while the refit rules in the same book says that is impossible is a bit over the top.

 

[MasterGwydion]

The other way around:


The LBB2 Free Trader uses a standard hull, that can only accommodate J-1, M-1 drives.
The A2 Far Trader uses an expensive non-standard hull with a larger engineering section. You can make refit that with smaller drives, to make an A1, much more expensive than an LBB2 Free Trader.



Sure, that would be lovely. Hasn't happened in any Traveller edition I can remember...


I must admit, having the Far Trader described as a refit of the Free Trader, while the refit rules in the same book says that is impossible is a bit over the top.

How did they increase the height of the cargo bay, but keep the exterior of the ship identical? One question.

Doesn't "non-standard hull" just refer to the ship not getting the 10% discount in price? Or has that definition changed over the editions? 2nd and 3rd questions. lol