Minimum Fuel Tankage?

[AnotherDilbert]

From a strict reading of the rules I must include 4 weeks PP fuel (min 1 dT) and fuel for 1 full jump. Reaction fuel on the other hand I can use as much as I want, down to 0, the rules just say how much I need to use the drives. Is this correct?

If so it would invalidate e.g. the Gazelle and a lot of other designs. The Gazelle has J-5 drives and internal tankage for J-3, the rules says it needs internal fuel for J-5.

Am I interpreting "needs" wrong?
Should the fuel requirement be rephrased to say something like "to jump N Pc you must have N*10% fuel"?
The PP fuel must absolutely be included, right? (Even if no longer needed to limit tiny small craft.)


Note that if you look at power requirements they are soft. It is "good practice" to have enough power, and rules for not having enough power.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Note that if you look at power requirements they are soft. It is "good practice" to have enough power, and rules for not having enough power.

You bring up a good point - a lot of areas in the new High Guard (in fact all of them, from a certain point of view) are supposed to be soft. Making deck plans is a good example, where we introduced more fuzziness than before so referees and players could build the ships they wanted without having to worry about every little square.

In short, High Guard is a toolkit book and everything is designed to be bent as you see fit, to fit in with your own universe.

So, to answer your question, the absolute fuel requirements are up to you and what works for your universe. You can regard the guidelines as 'best practice' for ship builders, but a radical naval architect may have his own ideas, or those bean counters might have a serious impact on the design of a ship... The justification is up to you, but if you want to deviate in this fashion, you have our blessing!

 

[AnotherDilbert]

So, to answer your question, the absolute fuel requirements are up to you and what works for your universe.

Thank you.

Then I will treat fuel requirements as soft, functional requirements as that makes sense to me, just like the Gazelle makes sense.

That of course mean that I will not include more than a day or three of fuel in a fighter that only has 24 h life support anyway.

For starships I can just as well specify cargo space with demountable tanks as internal tankage, it costs very little and increases the ship's flexibility.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I would interpret this rule as "If you are building a ship with Jump-5, you need a design solution that gives you Jump-5 fuel". Doesn't all have to be internal, but usually is.

Putting a Jump-5 engine on a ship that could never carry enough fuel to make that jump is just silly. Demountable tanks, Collapsible tanks, etc. are all acceptable design solutions to meet the minimum fuel requirement.

 

[Condottiere]

You really don't want a fighter crew flying for more than twelve or sixteen hours.

 

[AndrewW]

You really don't want a fighter crew flying for more than twelve or sixteen hours.

Well, the heavy fighter has two staterooms on board.

 

[fusor]

Note that if you look at power requirements they are soft. It is "good practice" to have enough power, and rules for not having enough power.

You bring up a good point - a lot of areas in the new High Guard (in fact all of them, from a certain point of view) are supposed to be soft. Making deck plans is a good example, where we introduced more fuzziness than before so referees and players could build the ships they wanted without having to worry about every little square.

In short, High Guard is a toolkit book and everything is designed to be bent as you see fit, to fit in with your own universe.

So, to answer your question, the absolute fuel requirements are up to you and what works for your universe. You can regard the guidelines as 'best practice' for ship builders, but a radical naval architect may have his own ideas, or those bean counters might have a serious impact on the design of a ship... The justification is up to you, but if you want to deviate in this fashion, you have our blessing!

That's a bit of a wishy-washy answer, isn't it? Not to mention sounding like a cover for "we probably used the wrong numbers but don't want to admit it".

I'm sure we're all aware that we can make up our own values for our own sci-fi settings. The point of a toolkit book is to NOT be vague and undefined about such things and instead to present multiple options.

I keep coming back to it, but have you read Fire, Fusion, and Steel for Traveller: The New Era? If not, you should. You'll probably shriek in terror at all the formulas in it, but the presentation is what you need to pay attention to. Each chapter is a different aspect of technology (Hull, FTL drive, STL drives, controls, weapons etc) - but they also generally have the 3I defaults up front in those sections, and then list a bunch of alternatives afterwards. So it's clear what you'd find in the 3I setting, and what you wouldn't. The alternatives are presented with detailed explanations of how they work and what their effects would be as well as full stats.

That way the reader can read and understand what the technologies do, and how to include them in the design system that they're assembling (that's why it's called a "technological architecture" book).

But please don't give us that "it's all 'soft'" excuse. I think people would prefer to have "tools" that are clearly defined and clearly explained in a product that they're paying money for. They don't need to spend their cash to be told "well you can figure it out for yourself in your own setting".