New drive tables for non-capital ships

[DFW]

I've been messing around with making the drive tables have a single progression for non-cap starships.

I finally finished by slightly modifying HG tables:

Drive Table

                        1       2         3       4        5      6  
Manoeuvre               1       1.25      1.5     1.75     2.5    3.25
Jump                    3       4         5       6        7      8

M-Drive                 0.5
Mcr/ton

Jump                    2
Mcr/ton

Power Plant Table

Rating                   1     2     3     4     5     6
% of displacement        2     2.5   3     3.5   4     5

Power Plant Fuel Requirements
Power plant fuel depends on the tonnage of the plant. For fusion plants an amount of fuel equal to three quarters of the tonnage of the power plant, will power the starship for two weeks.

This also got me thinking about Jump & small craft. I decided that J-Drives can create a minimum
J-bubble for 100 Dtons. This allows a small craft to spec a J-drive as per 100 Dton sizes (power plant also). The small craft has to follow starship bridge size rules (5 tons for compact in my game), computers, staterooms etc., etc.

 

[BFalcon]

This also got me thinking about Jump & small craft. I decided that J-Drives can create a minimum
J-bubble for 100 Dtons. This allows a small craft to spec a J-drive as per 100 Dton sizes (power plant also). The small craft has to follow starship bridge size rules (5 tons for compact in my game), computers, staterooms etc., etc.

Interesting - would be interested to see how that impacts some of the more common designs...

I would point out, though, that the very definition of a "starship" is that it is capable of installing a J-Drive while a small craft cannot... and making a 100 ton starship actually worthwhile is enough of a challenge sometimes...

I guess what I'm really asking is: Is designing a jump-capable small craft really worth doing?

 

[DFW]

I guess what I'm really asking is: Is designing a jump-capable small craft really worth doing?

Oh, I don't know. In MTU it was probably done early on at TL 10 (earliest TL in my game for J-drives) as a test platform. If you look at my tables you'll see that a J-1, 100 tone ship can be designed. So, a Jump capable "small craft" will be more doable than in MGT if you just used the MRB drive specs for an "A" drive...

 

[GypsyComet]

If you are assuming a hydrogen filled Jump bubble, a hull smaller than 100 tons may actually need more fuel than a 100 ton ship, since you need to maintain a 100 ton bubble regardless.

 

[DFW]

If you are assuming a hydrogen filled Jump bubble, a hull smaller than 100 tons may actually need more fuel than a 100 ton ship, since you need to maintain a 100 ton bubble regardless.

Naw, otherwise any ship that wasn't a sphere would have that problem for a given tonnage due to volume/surface area differences...

 

[rust]

I guess what I'm really asking is: Is designing a jump-capable small craft really worth doing?

I would think so. Two examples I have used in my settings are
jump capable robotic survey drones and jump capable robotic
message drones - much less expensive than manned 100 dton
starships while still good enough to do the job.

 

[far-trader]

Heretics! The lot of you! You're plotting to resurrect Jump Torpedoes!!



...carry on (I've done small jump craft myself, usually alien or ancient tech though)

 

[DFW]

and making a 100 ton starship actually worthwhile is enough of a challenge sometimes...

Here's the vital stats for a 100 tonner designed with this system: (I didn't use any TL price reductions.) Straight prices other than drive system changes as per above.

Pocket Trader
100 tons
Streamlined
4 pts Armour
J-1
M-1
PP-1
Computer: Model/1
Electronics: Standard
1 Hardpoint
Fuel: 13 Tons = 1 J-1 & 4 weeks PP fuel.
2 Staterooms = Crew of 2.
6 Low Berths
53 Tons Cargo
Monthly Maint. Cost: Cr1,340
Monthly Life Support cost: Cr4,600
Total Cost (10% Standard Design) Cr16,080,000

 

[DFW]

Based on fuel usage discussions lately, I came up with a new PP fuel consumption formula.

 Fusion power plants use an amount of fuel equal to the Ships tonnage x PP Rating x .01.   (a 100 ton ship with a power plant rating of 1:  100 x 1 x .01 =  1 ton of fuel/month

See PP Table in original post at top.

 

[BFalcon]

I assume you'll be keeping jump fuel the same though?

 

[DFW]

I assume you'll be keeping jump fuel the same though?

I was pondering that last night. Does the 10% make it too restrictive on ship design and would 5% be better? What are your thoughts?

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I like the idea of 10% jump fuel, but what I would change is the fuel rate for higher TLs or higher jumps.

So:
TL-9: 10% per jump
TL-10: 9% per jump
TL-11: 8% per jump (J-2 = 16% fuel)
TL-12: 7% per jump (J-3 = 21% fuel)
TL-13: 6% per jump (J-4 = 24% fuel)
TL-14: 5% per jump (J-5 = 25% fuel)
TL-15: 4% per jump (J-6 = 24% fuel)
TL-16: 3% per jump (J-6 = 18% fuel)

So paying to upgrade the TL of your Jump Engines now has a MUCH bigger impact on your design. Also, as you can see, it sort of maxes out the jump fuel at near 20% rather than the 60% of the standard design. Still a lot of fuel, but also a lot more space for other stuff at higher Tech Levels.

Cruisers could even mount enough fuel for 2 Full-Length jumps. At TL-15, it would actually take up LESS fuel space than the standard design (same fuel as a normal J5 design at TL-14).

 

[BFalcon]

I was just concerned that changing the fuel needs would invalidate ship designs too much - the power plants tend not to use too much, so there'd not be too much difference, but if you reduce or expand the jump fuel then you'll start to alter designs too much... or upset the economy of the game (such as it is).

A higher TL needing less fuel (although I'd make it only slight to moderate) would be a good plan - but I'd also want to see the maintenance costs increase at the same time.

 

[DFW]

I was just concerned that changing the fuel needs would invalidate ship designs too much - the power plants tend not to use too much, so there'd not be too much difference, but if you reduce or expand the jump fuel then you'll start to alter designs too much... or upset the economy of the game (such as it is).

A higher TL needing less fuel (although I'd make it only slight to moderate) would be a good plan - but I'd also want to see the maintenance costs increase at the same time.

Yes, it would be a major paradigm shift. I'll spec some more ships using the new drive rules and post them as these rules above free a little bit a space that might make adventure class freighters viable. (see the J-1 Trader earlier in the thread.)

If it does indeed do this, I won't mess with J-fuel. Too many repercussions.

 

[DFW]

I duplicated a Far Trader using the new drive system. Cost is Cr.9,450,000 less and gained 23 tons for cargo.

 

[GypsyComet]

Which means its half right, IMO. The letter drives should be cheaper, assuming an exact performance match, but larger. Standardization for a wide range of possibility will do that.

Once you go custom the price should go UP, but you'll use space more efficiently.

 

[DFW]

Which means its half right, IMO. The letter drives should be cheaper, assuming an exact performance match

But, MGT does the opposite, the letter drives are more expensive for an equal performance/ton... Also, the non-capital J & PP ARE larger (in these rules) than Capital ship equivalent ("custom drives"). So, have you made rules for your game to reflect what you posted above?

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I use a houserule that if you use Standard (letter) Drives, any Class A or B starport can do the repairs, but if you customize your drives, then only a starport of the same or higher TL as the ship can do the repairs.

So, that makes the standard designs much more desireable. It also adds an extra complication for the customized, High Tech drives that every players wants.

 

[DFW]

I use a houserule that if you use Standard (letter) Drives, any Class A or B starport can do the repairs, but if you customize your drives, then only a starport of the same or higher TL as the ship can do the repairs.

So, that makes the standard designs much more desireable. It also adds an extra complication for the customized, High Tech drives that every players wants.

Right. The "drive letters" are meta. A drive is "standard" if it is one commonly used in a given hull size. All drives produced for non-capital ships are considered standard in this system as they are modular pieces.

 

[GypsyComet]

Which means its half right, IMO. The letter drives should be cheaper, assuming an exact performance match

But, MGT does the opposite, the letter drives are more expensive for an equal performance/ton... Also, the non-capital J & PP ARE larger (in these rules) than Capital ship equivalent ("custom drives"). So, have you made rules for your game to reflect what you posted above?

Not so far, as I'm reasonably content with the balancing points of MGT ship design. The scale efficiency relationship seen in the CRB works for me.