Maneuver Drive Energy Efficiency

[kevinknight]

Can this advantage be taken 3 times (ie, TL12 drive built at TL15) for a total power reduction of 75%? It seems like that's correct by the rules, but it also seems kind of over powered...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Up to you:

Where the referee deems it appropriate, the same Advantage or Disadvantage can be applied more than once to a component.

 

[phavoc]

I would disregard that, it's too much of a good thing. That discount should be 5%.

 

[baithammer]

Could also crank the cost up similar to the range for prototypes.

 

[SSWarlock]

As baithammer pointed out, keep in mind the cost increase. Just because something is possible doesn't automatically mean anyone would be willing, or able, to pay for it especially with the budget available to the average Traveller player. Can governments afford it? Sure, but there's also legislation that blocks progress thanks to industrial groups that want to maintain their income streams in the face of rivalry. Also, governments may not want just anyone to have such an advantage. There are a number of billionaires in the world today but how many of them can privately own an F-22? And that's just in-game effects.

Really look at the true meta-game consequences of such a device. By that, I mean actually play it out with dice rolling. Does it really provide some kind of unacceptable advantage or is it just a fancy gimmick? A more efficient M-drive would allow better performance and/or a reduction in tonnage allocation which can be used for other purposes but what can really happen when dice start hitting the table?
Can the players outrun any missile or energy weapon? No.
Does it automatically enable them to fill the suddenly available cargo space? No.
Does it enable them to completely ignore fuel use or maintenance time and costs? No.
Is the more efficient M-drive much easier to maintain? At TL15?!? Yeah, right. Try finding a Spinward Marches world with spare parts. Even if the players do, how much will that cost? Such a drive, and the need for spare parts, would be extremely rare and therefore not very profitable for businesses to support. And businesses must make a profit or they simply won't provide those spare parts. Why should they?

Traveller, like life in general, may seem to be a game about experiencing adventure but when push comes to shove, it's actually a game about access to resources and supply versus demand. Adventures happen when a resource deemed critical to existence suddenly becomes difficult to obtain or unavailable.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I would disregard that, it's too much of a good thing. That discount should be 5%.

It's still generally better to use Reduced Size, so I don't worry about Energy Efficient...

Power is very cheap in MgT2.

 

[PsiTraveller]

TL 12
400 Ton Ship M-Drive Thrust 7: 7% of ship is 28 Tons Cost: 56 MIllion
Power Needs: 400 ton ship * 10% * 7= 280 Power Points
TL 12 Power Plant: 18.6 (call it 19 Tons): Cost 19 Million Credits

Total Tons: 47 Total Cost: 75 Million

TL 15
400 Ton Ship M-Drive Thrust 7: 7% of ship is 28 Tons Cost: 56 MIllion
Power Needs: 400 ton ship * 10% * 7= 280 Power Points
TL 15 Power Plant: 14 Cost 28 Million Credits

TL 15 Tonnage: 42 Tons Cost: 84 Million Credits


TL 15 with Energy Efficient * 3
400 Ton Ship M-Drive Thrust 7: 7% of ship is 28 Tons @ 3million/Ton= Cost: 84 MIllion
Power Needs: 400 ton ship * 10% * 7= 280 Power Points * 25% (25% erduction 3 times) = 70 Power points
TL 15 Power Plant: 4 Tons for 80 Power points Cost 8 Million Credits

Total Tons: 32 Tons Total Cost: 92 Million

TL 15 with Reduced Size *3
400 Ton Ship M-Drive Thrust 7: 7% of ship is 28 Tons - 2.8 Tons * 3 = 19.6 Tons (Call it 20 Tons) Cost: 3 million/Ton = 60 Million
Power Needs: 400 ton ship * 10% * 7= 280 Power Points
TL 15 Power Plant: 14 Tons for 280 Power points Cost 28 Million Credits

Total Tons: 34 Tons Total Cost: 88 Million Credits

Close numbers. If you have an energy weapon based ship the energy savings of 25% can result in a lot more power being available for weapons, 210 in this case. This could power a lot of heavy firepower. You lose the tonnage savings but increase energy availability.

If your ship is not that fast the energy savings are not as great obviously. I picked Thrust 7 as the max available at TL 12.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Close numbers.

Yes, but also use Size Reduced TL12 power plants. For your 400 Dt TL15 ship:

Thrust 7 (Energy Efficient):
M-Drive : 28 Dt, MCr 84, Power -70
P-Plant: 3.27 Dt, MCr 4,90, Power +70
Fuel: 1 Dt
Sum: 32.27 Dt, MCr 88.9.

Thrust 7 (Reduced Size):
M-Drive : 19,6 Dt, MCr 58,8, Power -280
P-Plant: 13,07 Dt, MCr 19,60, Power +280
Fuel: 2 Dt
Sum: 34.67 Dt, MCr 78.4.

You save MCr ~10.5 for the cost of ~2.4 Dt. Generally worth it, except on very tightly packed military ships.


Also don't forget:
Thrust 7 (Budget, Energy Inefficient):
M-Drive : 28 Dt, MCr 42, Power -364
P-Plant: 17 Dt, MCr 25.5, Power +364
Fuel: 2 Dt
Sum: 47 Dt, MCr 67.5.

Cheaper, but takes a lot of tonnage. Usually worth it for traders combined with budget jump drives.

 

[Condottiere]

It's not game breaking, so why not?

 

[GarethL]

Can this advantage be taken 3 times (ie, TL12 drive built at TL15) for a total power reduction of 75%? It seems like that's correct by the rules, but it also seems kind of over powered...

It could be argued that the reduction is only 0.75 x 0.75 x 0.75 = 0.42 or 42% rather that 25%,

That's how I tend to play it.

It kind of makes sense that you get diminishing returns for each level.