Solomani666
Mongoose
Am I missing something or is it simply impossible to design a jump-5 or jump-6 ship of 2000 tons or less using the main rulebook.
Jump 5+ Ships - Am I Missing Something?
- Thread starter Solomani666
- Start date
Solomani666
Mongoose
BP said:
No... I said "LESS".
Egil Skallagrimsson
Mongoose
The Scout book includes a jump 6 courier, at 100t, but needs to use a 50t drop tank, is very high tech and comes in at 198MCr. Cargo capacity 6t vault.
Basically, you have got to have a very specific reason to build a small j6 ship, and even for a larger one, if not using drop tanks, when 60%+ of hull volume is devoted to fuel the ship, size for size, is likely to have limited capablilities compared to a jump 4 equivelent.
Egil
Basically, you have got to have a very specific reason to build a small j6 ship, and even for a larger one, if not using drop tanks, when 60%+ of hull volume is devoted to fuel the ship, size for size, is likely to have limited capablilities compared to a jump 4 equivelent.
Egil
Solomani666
Mongoose
Somebody said:
Thanks. You are correct. I was trying to design a 200 ton jump-5 ship, but gave up after 800 tons still did not fit.
I already have a house rule that a jump-2 ship can make two succesive jump ones using half the jump fuel for each jump.
I think I will be creating a new house rule:
Since all jumps take one week and the jump fuel is only really needed to expand the warp bubble than all ships only require Jump-1 fuel for any jump distance. The ships power plant handles the rest. Hense only the powerplant fuel needs to be refined for a safe jump.
Egil Skallagrimsson
Mongoose
Solomani666 said:
That completely changes ship design! However, why not? I suggest you have a look at some of the alternative drives in the core book as well, may well be better than jump designs that don't need much fuel. It does start to change a lot of aspect of interstellar travel and trade, but whatever suits YTU.
Egil
Solomani666
Mongoose
I do not want to redisign every ship in the Verse. With this rule I can keep ship designs as they are but still have the desired effect I am looking for.
Egil Skallagrimsson
Mongoose
Solomani666 said:
Well, to make sensible use of the space your rule change would free up, 10-50% depending on the size of jump above 1, then a bit of thought would be required, unless as a catch all you decree it is all cargo, but that would make little sense for military or exploration ships. Not redisgning ships in the light of vastly improved fuel efficiency would be an oppourtunity missed, as well as illogical.
Egil
iainjcoleman
Banded Mongoose
It can be done, but it's tricky. You have to choose your tonnage carefully so that you can manage your drives and fuel and still have some space left over for details like the bridge and some accommodation.
After some trial and error, I did manage to get an acceptable J-6, 6G design at 1200 dtons. This seems to be an optimal tonnage for a J-6 design - but once you've accounted for drives, fuel and bridge it's still a tight squeeze.
After some trial and error, I did manage to get an acceptable J-6, 6G design at 1200 dtons. This seems to be an optimal tonnage for a J-6 design - but once you've accounted for drives, fuel and bridge it's still a tight squeeze.
One thing I think would have been nice is if the optional alternate FTL drives in the TMB had been closer in performance to Jump Drive. Not exactly the same, but similar to less than an order of magnitude in efficiency.
This would have lots of useful effects. One is that it would be more feasible to create a setting in which more than one FTL technology was available and in use simultaneously. It could then be used to create tradeoffs in performance and cost between different technologies. Finally it would have been possible to create more differentiation between tech levels in a setting by making more FTL technologies available at higher levels. All of this would make it possible to use the existing designs in the setting, leveraging the large amount of designs and deck plans available, but still enabling alternate designs.
I'm working on a setting like this at the moment and tweaking the FTL technology parameters.
Simon Hibbs
This would have lots of useful effects. One is that it would be more feasible to create a setting in which more than one FTL technology was available and in use simultaneously. It could then be used to create tradeoffs in performance and cost between different technologies. Finally it would have been possible to create more differentiation between tech levels in a setting by making more FTL technologies available at higher levels. All of this would make it possible to use the existing designs in the setting, leveraging the large amount of designs and deck plans available, but still enabling alternate designs.
I'm working on a setting like this at the moment and tweaking the FTL technology parameters.
Simon Hibbs
Egil Skallagrimsson
Mongoose
simonh said:
No, I don't agree, the alternative drives should be very different, so as not to be "jump drive lite" but to create very different consequences, and so very different campaigns, trade, economics, interstellar polities etc, as well as ship designs. E.g. the 3I setting would be very different, perhaps impossible, using hyper drive or warp drive (would make an interesting challange if an alternative FTL was discovered around 1105, perhaps by the Zhodani).
To my mind, if a different FTL means redesigning starships for a different technology, then that is good thing, and will help create a unique campaign.
Egil
Egil Skallagrimsson
Mongoose
Solomani666 said:
I think Solomani666 means 2x jump 2 succesively, at half fuel, not 2x jump 1, which is what he wrote.
Egil
Egil Skallagrimsson
Mongoose
Interesting, but I am a MgT follower only, so those have passed me by
Egil
Egil
