Primitive and Advanced Spacecraft.

[Libris]

I noticed in High Guard that some of the designs use the rules for Primitive and Advance Spacecraft on pages 48 and 49.

Most of the advantages and disadvantages look pretty good but a couple of them stand out as being way overpowered or redundant in a 3rd Imperium setting.

“Energy Efficient” is definitely overpowered - even if it can only be selected once it massively reduces the power plant size required. Reducing the size of a Jump Drive also seems somewhat redundant when you can save way more space by reducing the fuel required. However, looking through the book the only ship that appears to take advantage of this is the Tigress. And the question would be, why?

However, I’ve done a ‘IMTU’ for the solutions.

You can use energy efficient once but only if the ship’s base tech level is 16.
You can use fuel efficient for jump drives if the base size of the drive is over 100,000 dTons.

Conveniently, these don’t exclude them per se and keep most canon ships designs more than viable.

 

[Baldo]

Reducing the size of a Jump Drive also seems somewhat redundant when you can save way more space by reducing the fuel required.

Used that once on a Marava-class trader. We wanted Thrust 2, so got a Size Reduction 1 J-drive, a Size Reduction 2, Thrust 2 M-Drive and 1 ton of batteries (in the deckplans, the M-drive(s) is adiacent to the J-drive, but NOT to the fuel tank).
On a side note, the new Soho trader from Mongoose apparently adopted many of our ideas, hoping to see the full JTAS article soon !

https://www.facebook.com/mongoosepublishinguk

 

[Condottiere]

The only thing that may be overpowered would be the weapon tweaks, the rest are livable and could make them subject to customized replacement parts.

 

[Libris]

The only thing that may be overpowered would be the weapon tweaks, the rest are livable and could make them subject to customized replacement parts.

I actually like them. Makes it easy to differentiate how dangerous high TL warships can be. ‘Sure, we’re a big TL15 ship but we’re civilian. That my friend is a state-of-the-art-the-art system defence boat with Mk42 beam lasers and Type 85 smart missiles. We’re toast.’

 

[paltrysum]

A lot of things provide the potential for over empowerment in the game. The "Primitive and Advanced Spacecraft" rules are commensurate with the others. Battledress, psionics, armor-piercing discarding sabot rounds, radiation weapons, the list goes on. Traveller is about the narrative, not the collection of high-tech goodies. To get to the heart of a good narrative, there is not technological magic solution.

I love the Primitive/Advanced rules. Gives lots of room for cool customizations and even adds to the story. The drive that had to be Budget quality because that's all they had and the resultant power required. Prototype weapons that break the bank but are absolutely necessary. The desire to acquire some high-intensity or high-yield weapons to counter the threat of piracy. Lots of great plot devices are fed by those rules.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

“Energy Efficient” is definitely overpowered - even if it can only be selected once it massively reduces the power plant size required.

Power is cheap. You generally save more money with Reduced Size on the drives. Note that cost of drives are based on actual size.

Reducing the size of a Jump Drive also seems somewhat redundant when you can save way more space by reducing the fuel required.

Reduced Size on the Jump drives saves a lot of money. It is generally cheaper to make the ship a little bigger with Reduced Size drives to make more room, than using Decreased Fuel.

 

[Condottiere]

That is more or less true.

I chose to make the Victory jump modules fuel efficient to make them compatible with drive modules built with older technology level manufacture processes.

 

[Libris]

“Energy Efficient” is definitely overpowered - even if it can only be selected once it massively reduces the power plant size required.

Power is cheap. You generally save more money with Reduced Size on the drives. Note that cost of drives are based on actual size.

I don’t get that. A 1000 dTon TL15 destroyer with 6G M-Drive and 8 weeks fuel with a very advanced drive can either reduce the size of its drive twice which gives a total reduction of 12 dTons and a cost of (including required p-plant) of MCr210 or reduce size once and power requirement by 25% (assuming you can only select energy efficient once) giving a total reduction of 15 tons and a cost of MCr195. It save 0.3% displacement and MCr15.

Reducing the size of a Jump Drive also seems somewhat redundant when you can save way more space by reducing the fuel required.

Reduced Size on the Jump drives saves a lot of money. It is generally cheaper to make the ship a little bigger with Reduced Size drives to make more room, than using Decreased Fuel.

Again, I don’t see that. As you said the cost of the drive is based on the original size so a reduced size TL15 J3 drive requires 7.5% x 0.7 plus 30% fuel or 35.25% of ship dTons. A reduced fuel drive requires 7.5% plus 30% x 0.85 or 33%. On a 1,000 ton ship that’s 22 1/2 dTons smaller overall and the cost is the same.

 

[Condottiere]

Bang for buck is budgeted early fusion reactor, thirty seven and a half thousand schmuckers per energy point.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Drive cost is based on current, actual size, not some calculated original size.
See e.g. the jump drive of the Survey Scout, HG p140.

I don’t get that. A 1000 dTon TL15 destroyer with 6G M-Drive and 8 weeks fuel with a very advanced drive can either reduce the size of its drive twice which gives a total reduction of 12 dTons and a cost of (including required p-plant) of MCr210 or reduce size once and power requirement by 25% (assuming you can only select energy efficient once) giving a total reduction of 15 tons and a cost of MCr195. It save 0.3% displacement and MCr15.

Energy Efficient:

Reduced Size:

Costs 7 Dt but saves MCr 22.

Again, I don’t see that. As you said the cost of the drive is based on the original size so a reduced size TL15 J3 drive requires 7.5% x 0.7 plus 30% fuel or 35.25% of ship dTons. A reduced fuel drive requires 7.5% plus 30% x 0.85 or 33%. On a 1,000 ton ship that’s 22 1/2 dTons smaller overall and the cost is the same.

Decreased Fuel:

Reduced Size (and bigger):

Slightly cheaper and slightly more free space.

 

[Condottiere]

Besides the cost of the item in question, the trade offs tend to be smaller reactors (due to energy requirements) for energy efficiency, more space for fuel efficiency, and (somewhat) more space for decreased size.

Since only three advantages are permitted, double slots tend to ensure that you can't overuse the really effective ones.

 

[Libris]

It was mentioned that the costs of more advanced drives is based on the original size of the drive. If this is the case then the spreadsheet numbers are incorrect.

A standard J3 drive for a 1,000 dTon ship displaces 75 tons and costs MCr112.5 A reduced size one would be 52.5 dTons and cost MCr168.75
For a 1,110 dTon ship it would be 83.25 tons and MCr124.875. A “High Technology” version would cost MCr187.3125. A reduced size one would be 58.275 tons and a reduced fuel one would still be 83.25 tons but would use 283 tons of fuel for a 3 parsec jump as opposed to 333 tons.

If drive cost is based on the final drive size then every every ship TL12 and above would carry an advanced drive with size reduction 1. A Jump 4 drive on a 1,000 ton ship would normally by 100 tons and cost MCr150 using final drive size means it would be 90tons and MCr148.5

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It was mentioned that the costs of more advanced drives is based on the original size of the drive. If this is the case then the spreadsheet numbers are incorrect.
...
If drive cost is based on the final drive size then every every ship TL12 and above would carry an advanced drive with size reduction 1. A Jump 4 drive on a 1,000 ton ship would normally by 100 tons and cost MCr150 using final drive size means it would be 90tons and MCr148.5

It's based on final size, cf p140.

Yes, we can make more efficient drives with the Tech upgrades. Most standard designs don't bother. I would probably prefer Budget drives for civilian designs, cheap is good.

 

[Libris]

It was mentioned that the costs of more advanced drives is based on the original size of the drive. If this is the case then the spreadsheet numbers are incorrect.
...
If drive cost is based on the final drive size then every every ship TL12 and above would carry an advanced drive with size reduction 1. A Jump 4 drive on a 1,000 ton ship would normally by 100 tons and cost MCr150 using final drive size means it would be 90tons and MCr148.5

It's based on final size, cf p140.

Yes, we can make more efficient drives with the Tech upgrades. Most standard designs don't bother. I would probably prefer Budget drives for civilian designs, cheap is good.

Okaaay... if that’s the official line it does seem pretty broken.

 

[Condottiere]

Costs and tonnage have to based on default before applying the percentages, and then calculated.

Otherwise, it's barely worth it.

That means the cost per tonne increase as the tonnage itself shrinks.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Okaaay... if that’s the official line it does seem pretty broken.

I wouldn't call it broken. Higher tech items are better.

To take your example:

A Jump 4 drive on a 1,000 ton ship would normally by 100 tons and cost MCr150 using final drive size means it would be 90tons and MCr148.5

The normal drive is TL13, the Reduced Size drive is TL14. Higher TL is better.

To expand the list (Jump-4 drive, nominally TL13):
TL11: 210 dT, MCr 3465 (Early Prototype)
TL12: 105 Dt, MCr 945 (Prototype)
TL13: 105 Dt, MCr 157.5
TL14: 94.5 Dt, MCr 155.9
TL15: 84 Dt, MCr 157.5
TL16: 73.5 Dt, MCr 165.4

Not broken, just an evolutionary enhancement for each TL.

 

[baithammer]

Pricing is out of whack as in too many cases the high tech version is far cheaper than the average at the same tech level, not to mention fusion power plant TL12 + 3 TL = 1t per 19.5 pow compared to TL15 at 20 per power. ( Also 1.5 mcr per ton compared to 2 mcr per ton.)

Should bump +1 TL to x1.25, +2 TL to x1.5 and +3 TL to x2 for price.

 

[DickTurpin]

It's based on final size, cf p140.

Which book is cf?

 

[Condottiere]

I interpret this somewhat differently, and I'll simplify the equation:

Jump drive
. factor four

.. technology level eleven
... early prototype
.... late jump
.... increased size
..... two hundred twenty five tonnes
... cost
.... 1'650 megabux
.. technology level twelve
... prototype
.... increased size
..... one hundred twenty five tonnes
... cost
.... 900 megabux
.. technology level thirteen
... default
.... hundred tonnes
... cost
.... 150 megabux
.. technology level thirteen
... budget
.... increased size
..... one hundred twenty five tonnes
... cost
.... 112.5 megabux
.. technology level fourteen
... advanced
.... decreased size
..... ninety tonnes
... cost
.... 165 megabux
.. technology level fifteen
... very advanced
.... decreased size
..... eighty tonnes
... cost
.... 187.5 megabux
.. technology level sixteen
... high technology
.... decreased size
..... seventy tonnes
... cost
.... 225 megabux

 

[Libris]

I interpret this somewhat differently, and I'll simplify the equation:

Snip interesting stuff...

This is my take on it as well. Otherwise every Jump 1 or Jump 2 ship at TL12+ would have an advanced drive. Smaller and cheaper? Why even bother with a standard one?