Power Plant Issues Workaround

[barasawa]

As you know, the Power Plant outputs are woefully short of reasonable levels, especially if you want a ship that functions. Several people, myself included, have chimed in to complain about this. I just can't leave well enough alone, so I calculated out a far more reasonable table. I have it as an Excel file, but I don't have a way to upload it here, so I'm going to try and post it in this message. The new values will support a reasonable energy expenditure, and M-Drives. I started with a 50% efficiency rating (after adjusting for the 1 tonne misc component) and increased by 1% thereafter. It is reasonable that higher tech levels, or certain size categories get more efficient, and thus produce more output for that rating. Of course outputs were rounded to integers. Have fun, hope this helps.

Type Power/round
A 2
B 3
C 5
D 6
E 8
F 10
G 12
H 14
J 16
K 18
L 20
M 22
N 25
P 27
Q 29
R 32
S 34
T 37
U 39
V 42
W 45
X 48
Y 50
Z 53


Random Note: Original cost for Type Z was listed as 192MCr, I'm guessing this was a typo as it's the only break in the pattern of all 24 types. Suggestion, reset it to 190MCr.

Volume is calculated at 3 per rating plus a one tonne misc. system. (Distribution, Console, etc) The Adjusted Efficiency takes this extra tonne in account.

This obviously is just my own musings since I'm not a Mongoose employee or anything like that.

 

[AKAramis]

the irregularities are troublesome...

I'd rather see something I don't need a table look-up for... which is why I suggested lowering power values to 1 per letter for MDrive, and 5 per letter for Jdrive, with power out being 1 per letter... with a 6 point per letter reserve power system.

 

[barasawa]

It's an idea. Fortunately nobody would need to reference any charts in play, as the writeup for the ship would detail power available and usages. Without that it would get really annoying since there are more things that take power other than drives.

My idea in this was to follow the basic concept of the power plant tables without completely ignoring the concepts that have been in use. In that, larger generators are supposed to be more efficient. So I looked at the size of the generators and their output. I noticed that the size was always 3 tonnes per rating plus one more tonne. Guessing that the one extra is for a console or engineering station or something like that, I left it out of the calculations.
Then I divided the power output by the size to determine an efficiency ratio. The type A is massively efficient compared to the rest. Obviously a designer fudge to a minimum output of 2 so that certain design criteria could be met. Using that, I made some guesses, and started recalculating outputs based on efficiency ratios. The one that worked out best is the one I posted.
I placed the type A at 50% efficiency ratio and improved it by 1% each subsequent type. That may not seem to be a huge difference, but it adds up, especially when you consider that the size of the drives is increasing as well.
Obviously there are many other ways to do this, but this method doesn't need any other charts changed, can run equivalent sized M-Drives while still having power leftover for life support and other stuff at a reasonable level.

With the current generator outputs, I can't imagine the vessels being being functional. For example, the example of a Fat Trader can only fly at 1G for 24 rounds, if all power (output and stored) is used for the M-Drive. Hope the crew are wearing vaccsuits.
As to military vessels... Only if they use slingshots as weapons...
If I was the Architect for those starships, I'd load them up on multiple type A generators to give much better performance. A real Naval Architect would do such a system if they had to use generators that keep reducing in efficiency as size increases.

I'm not saying I have a definitive solution, it's just one idea, as something needs to be done, and just complaining isn't sufficient. You know, that whole constructive criticism thing.

That was my basic reasoning. Hope it makes sense.

 

[barasawa]

I think I type too much when trying to explain anything :?

 

[AKAramis]

There are those who will be using drive letter damage (me, for one) and so anything requiring a table instead of a memorable formula (which I don't see in your table, and didn't see in either of Gar's) is problematic.

 

[barasawa]

K, just a concept. No way will I think I've got the ultimate solution for anything.

Just trying to be constructive instead of just critical.

There are lots of ways to do it. I've even considered that the drives have their own dedicated power systems that provide exactly what they need. No more, or less. In that scenario, you could juice them with your power plant to give more performance, or even tap into them for emergency life support, if you take them offline. (Not suggesting this, it's just one of many ideas.)

I did a lot with the older Travellers ship design systems, so I guess they are kinda in my blood. (Actually I did use a formula, but most people couldn't do it in their heads.) I don't feel bad about having a chart during design process, it'll never be used in active play.

Once I ran a character who was a Naval Architect. He spent all his free time on his 'masterpiece' design. After 5 years gametime (1 RW), he finally got to get it built. That was a heck of a wierd adventure. Who says dealing with outlaying shipyard redtape with skillfully falsified documents and real MCr isn't an adventure. Especially when Security is supicious of you to begin with... >^_^<