Proposed additions to drop tanks description

[AnotherDilbert]

I admit I am not seeing the advantage of having a permanently attached Drop tank. Could someone explain the advantages to me? Your Jump drive number is altered, as is your Thrust under M-Drive.

For carriers and freighters: drop tanks are cheaper than hull and requires no power for life support of crew to maintain.

For warships: You carry the jump fuel outside your armour, so your hull and M-Drive is smaller and cheaper. You drop them before combat, hopefully to retrieve them later.

 

[phavoc]

I admit I am not seeing the advantage of having a permanently attached Drop tank. Could someone explain the advantages to me? Your Jump drive number is altered, as is your Thrust under M-Drive.

For carriers and freighters: drop tanks are cheaper than hull and requires no power for life support of crew to maintain.

For warships: You carry the jump fuel outside your armour, so your hull and M-Drive is smaller and cheaper. You drop them before combat, hopefully to retrieve them later.

And this is where the abuse of the concept comes in. Players looking to min/max things when they don't have to factor in the realities. These are drop tanks, and as such, by the rules, the ship is supposed to suck the fuel out prior to jump, and then drop them. When first introduced they were specifically meant to be disposable means of allowing a ship to jump somewhere without burning it's internal tankage - thus allowing a ship to cross areas it could not normally cross on it's own, or allow warships the ability to jump into enemy systems without coming in on empty tanks.

Looking through some previous versions I don't see anything related to combat and what happens to ships that get shot while they still have their drop tanks attached. But the still refer to them as being dropped prior to jump, which implies their temporary nature and a one-time usage. I don't recall which version specifically called out the chances drop tanks would be destroyed by the jump distortion formation. Which is another reason why they need to be as fragile as possible - you don't want their mass to affect the jumping ships jump course.

Put it this way, unless these tanks are plated in the same manner that starships are, they would be treated as NON-starship targets. And the rules are pretty clear - anything that isn't a starship getting shot by a starship-class weapon takes massive damage. And IF you use starship hull plating to build them, they essentially become parasite craft. So they can take the damage of a armor 1 starship, but they also force the jumping starship to distance itself further from them, and that isn't quite possible unless you explosively separate them from your vessel and mount engines on them to get them away from your ship's jump bubble - which starts forming when you turn on your jump engines.

So do we keep within the existing rules for how they should work or just say frak-it and throw that out and leave these where they don't belong?

 

[PsiTraveller]

This does change the design paradigm for ships, and it does make sense. The name could be changed from Drop Tank to modular Demountable fuel pod. You could design it using the modular rules. It is sort of like the Manta ship in TNE that skims and acts as fuel tank for the modular clipper. You could even put the fuel purifier tonnage in the module. Once you drop the module off your M-Drive uses the reduced tonnage of the ship to decrease the cost of the M-Drive.

This is different from my understanding in the my previous post because I was using Drop Tanks to increase the number of bays I could fit into a 1000 Ton Hull. Having the tanks as modular Demountable tanks keeps the interior space at the Hull minus Jump fuel tanks. My 1000 ton ship example, needing 400 tons of space for fuel would go into combat at its fighting weight of 600 tons.

Leaving the main fuel tank behind would also allow the power plant fuel to be more cheaply armoured to decrease Critical Hits. (although there is nothing stopping you from putting in a 1 ton module of protected fuel for a months worth of fuel. This prevents those embarrassing fuel leaks in combat.)

For ships in the 2000 plus tonnage range dropping the fuel tank would take your volume below 2000 tons and reduce the hit chance from Bay weapons.
It also opens the possiblity to have your fleet's fuel modules destroyed by a raid, leaving you stuck in system. Your supply train got looted.

 

[Chas]

And this is where the abuse of the concept comes in. Players looking to min/max things when they don't have to factor in the realities. These are drop tanks, and as such, by the rules, the ship is supposed to suck the fuel out prior to jump, and then drop them. When first introduced they were specifically meant to be disposable means of allowing a ship to jump somewhere without burning it's internal tankage - thus allowing a ship to cross areas it could not normally cross on it's own, or allow warships the ability to jump into enemy systems without coming in on empty tanks.

Looking through some previous versions I don't see anything related to combat and what happens to ships that get shot while they still have their drop tanks attached. But the still refer to them as being dropped prior to jump, which implies their temporary nature and a one-time usage. I don't recall which version specifically called out the chances drop tanks would be destroyed by the jump distortion formation. Which is another reason why they need to be as fragile as possible - you don't want their mass to affect the jumping ships jump course.

Sorry Phavoc but this is your own interpretations of the rules and I don't agree at all. There's never been anything in Traveller that prevents drop tanks coming with the ship, in fact as mentioned and built from the release of the original High Guard I've always assumed drop tanks can go with the ship, and it should be workable in any event, what about drop tanks for the reaction drives? It is also specifically allowed in this edition of Traveller where the authors consider it perfectly viable so I'm hardly coming from a point of view of the minority.

I also think it's quite logical that drop tanks travel with jump ships and can be used however they want to be. This is an advanced technology society with the equivalent of 100s of years of millions of geniuses at work at one of the fundamental issues of what makes star travel work... for sure they work out how to maximize use of them, therefore the TL15 ability to release and jump without damage.

This is one of those things I feel where you don't use drop tanks in your own Traveller universe if you want, but it's best if you let other people use them however they want and there's no need to drive a hard rule into print.

 

[phavoc]

And this is where the abuse of the concept comes in. Players looking to min/max things when they don't have to factor in the realities. These are drop tanks, and as such, by the rules, the ship is supposed to suck the fuel out prior to jump, and then drop them. When first introduced they were specifically meant to be disposable means of allowing a ship to jump somewhere without burning it's internal tankage - thus allowing a ship to cross areas it could not normally cross on it's own, or allow warships the ability to jump into enemy systems without coming in on empty tanks.

Looking through some previous versions I don't see anything related to combat and what happens to ships that get shot while they still have their drop tanks attached. But the still refer to them as being dropped prior to jump, which implies their temporary nature and a one-time usage. I don't recall which version specifically called out the chances drop tanks would be destroyed by the jump distortion formation. Which is another reason why they need to be as fragile as possible - you don't want their mass to affect the jumping ships jump course.

Sorry Phavoc but this is your own interpretations of the rules and I don't agree at all. There's never been anything in Traveller that prevents drop tanks coming with the ship, in fact as mentioned and built from the release of the original High Guard I've always assumed drop tanks can go with the ship, and it should be workable in any event, what about drop tanks for the reaction drives? It is also specifically allowed in this edition of Traveller where the authors consider it perfectly viable so I'm hardly coming from a point of view of the minority.

I also think it's quite logical that drop tanks travel with jump ships and can be used however they want to be. This is an advanced technology society with the equivalent of 100s of years of millions of geniuses at work at one of the fundamental issues of what makes star travel work... for sure they work out how to maximize use of them, therefore the TL15 ability to release and jump without damage.

This is one of those things I feel where you don't use drop tanks in your own Traveller universe if you want, but it's best if you let other people use them however they want and there's no need to drive a hard rule into print.

So you've never seen it written that drop tanks drop away prior to the ship jumping? I'm not interpreting anything, just repeating what is written.

From MGT v1.0

Drop Tank: Military assault ships sometimes use external fuel tanks that are explosively jettisoned as the ship enters jump space. The virtue of a drop tank is that it allows a ship to carry a large amount of
extra fuel, but the tank carries a risk. Jumping is a delicate procedure, which is greatly complicated by having big empty fuel tanks flying around in close proximity to the jump bubble. Jump tanks come in two parts. Firstly, there are the docking ports, fuel injectors and explosive collars that allow the spacecraft to mount drop tanks and to jettison them quickly. Secondly, there are the physical tanks themselves.

A drop tank mount costs MCr1 per 50 tons of fuel in the drop tank, and takes up two tons of space per 50 tons of fuel for the fittings to transfer fuel.

A drop tank itself costs MCr 0.1 per 50 tons of fuel space.

For example, a mercenary cruiser wants to mount a 250 ton drop tank. This would cost MCr5 and take up ten tons of internal space. The tank itself would cost MCr 0.5. Jumping using a drop tank applies a –(15–TL) DM to the roll for misjumping (see page 141 in the core rulebook).

When a drop tank is used, roll 2d6. On an 8+, the tank survives the ejection process and can be retrieved and reused. Otherwise, it is destroyed by the expanding jump bubble or warped by the jettison
explosion. At TL14 the use of drop tanks has been improved to such a degree that drop tanks designed at this tech level or above will automatically survive use.

A ship’s M–Drive rating must be recalculated when carrying a drop tank. For example, a 200–ton ship with a 150–ton drop tank counts as being a 400–ton ship for the purposes of determining its effective
M–Drive rating. Round the tank’s tonnage up to the nearest hull size. Drop tanks can also be used to store fuel for other purposes,such as reaction drive propellant.

The jump performance for the ship is calculated assuming that the drop tanks are not attached unless the jump is to be carried out without jettisoning the drop tanks. In this case, the jump
performance should be calculated in a similar manner to the effective M–Drive rating.

The power plant rating must be calculated assuming the drop tanks are not in place.

Drop tanks are relatively fragile and if they are attached when the ship is attacked, they are very vulnerable to fire. A drop tank has one hull point and one structure point per 100 tons. Determine the
proportion of the drop tank is of the combined ship and drop tank. When the ship is fired on, there is a probability equal to this that the drop tank will be hit, until the drop tank is destroyed. For every point
of damage it will suffer hit it will take hull and structure damage as normal and automatically suffer a “fuel” hit as well to the fuel in the drop tank. For example, a 400 ton ship has a 100 ton drop tank.
Until the drop tank is destroyed, any fire against the ship has a 20% probability of hitting the tank instead of the ship.


Drawing the analogy to aircraft has to end when it comes to multiple areas. First aircraft don't jump, so that's a difference. Also, while both starships and aircraft have to accomodate the additional mass, aircraft don't have to factor it into their displacment, per se, like a starship. Thirdly, if you wanna go there, drop tanks for aircraft have always been for military missions, and while Traveller ships are more or less paramilitary, since there is additional danger in using drop tanks, it makes sense that they would be uncommon for civilian craft to use. Also, for a civilian craft, it takes up valuable space best used for making money, not for the off chance it needs to jump further. Freighters would be more likely to use demountable internal tanks. It's safer and fits the profile of a merchantman.

As far as use of the rule goes... that's been the gold standard since Traveller (hell, ANY RPG) was published. You can modify, add to, or drop the rule entirely if you want to. However, the point of having printed rules is to set the standard within the gaming universe, and players can move in any direction from there they see fit.

 

[PsiTraveller]

Actually having tanks NOT drop away during Jump is written in the rules as well, as your post points out. The tanks can do both

"The jump performance for the ship is calculated assuming that the drop tanks are not attached unless the jump is to be carried out without jettisoning the drop tanks. In this case, the jump
performance should be calculated in a similar manner to the effective M–Drive rating." HighGuard 1st edition pg 44

So taking along a spare tank of fuel is allowed in the game. The rules go on to give a 20% chance that an attack hits the tank first, but taking along an extra tank of gas is fine with 1st edition. Tonnage has to be calculated based on what is making the Jump. If you jettison the tank then go with the lower number, if you keep it, go with the higher number.

As for merchants not using the technology, in 2nd edition with the better freight rates a TL 14 shipping line would be well advised to go with the Camel Hump system. Much like the X Boat network tenders would haul capture the dropped tanks (or TL 12 and above Drones similar to the Spaceport mining and fueling drones). The tanks would be inspected and filled and made available for the next ship. Every ton of space saved on the ship is worth 1000 to 7000 Credits depending on how far the Jump is.

Spend an extra few tons on Jump drives and you can make a ship that can Jump AND carry an extra ration of fuel. Two jump 4 capacity and you can clear a Rift in a couple of weeks.

Battle Riders are now really modular and have grapple arms to grab ships and attachments for big fuel tanks. Fuel Tenders could ferry full tanks in standardized sizes to re-equip ships that had to jettison their tanks.

The rule has always been there, it is just being used in a creative way to push the envelope of ship design.

I am messing around now with ships with no more fuel than 1 months supply, plus collar mounting system. My Navy designs will use the Drop tank system to make attack ships with hundred of extra tons of space for weapons.

Ships with internal storage will also have modular collars for connecting to increase range. Jump drives will be increased in size to allow hauling extra fuel. My operational range will be greatly magnified.

My Jumpships will have almost the same weapon to hull ratio as an SDB, aside from the Jump Drive percentage and fuel collar.

 

[Chas]

And this is where the abuse of the concept comes in. Players looking to min/max things when they don't have to factor in the realities. These are drop tanks, and as such, by the rules, the ship is supposed to suck the fuel out prior to jump, and then drop them. When first introduced they were specifically meant to be disposable means of allowing a ship to jump somewhere without burning it's internal tankage - thus allowing a ship to cross areas it could not normally cross on it's own, or allow warships the ability to jump into enemy systems without coming in on empty tanks.

Looking through some previous versions I don't see anything related to combat and what happens to ships that get shot while they still have their drop tanks attached. But the still refer to them as being dropped prior to jump, which implies their temporary nature and a one-time usage. I don't recall which version specifically called out the chances drop tanks would be destroyed by the jump distortion formation. Which is another reason why they need to be as fragile as possible - you don't want their mass to affect the jumping ships jump course.

Sorry Phavoc but this is your own interpretations of the rules and I don't agree at all. There's never been anything in Traveller that prevents drop tanks coming with the ship, in fact as mentioned and built from the release of the original High Guard I've always assumed drop tanks can go with the ship, and it should be workable in any event, what about drop tanks for the reaction drives? It is also specifically allowed in this edition of Traveller where the authors consider it perfectly viable so I'm hardly coming from a point of view of the minority.

I also think it's quite logical that drop tanks travel with jump ships and can be used however they want to be. This is an advanced technology society with the equivalent of 100s of years of millions of geniuses at work at one of the fundamental issues of what makes star travel work... for sure they work out how to maximize use of them, therefore the TL15 ability to release and jump without damage.

This is one of those things I feel where you don't use drop tanks in your own Traveller universe if you want, but it's best if you let other people use them however they want and there's no need to drive a hard rule into print.

So you've never seen it written that drop tanks drop away prior to the ship jumping? I'm not interpreting anything, just repeating what is written.

I said drop tanks can go with the ship. As the rule you just quoted allows. I didn't say anything about drop tanks not dropping away prior to jumping. That's been fundamental to them. But if drop tanks can go with the ship then all the options associated with that are allowable. It's not "abusing" the system as you seem to be claiming, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[PsiTraveller]

I think Drop tanks are great. As I keep saying, Drop Tanks will allow more weapons on a warship. You will have a months fuel in an armoured shell on your ship, fuel collars which are .4%, so 1000 tons of Drop Tank fuel takes up 4 tons of ship space.

1000 tons of extra weapon space in a warship. So a 2500 ton Jump 4 ship would need 1000 tons of space for fuel inside the hull, now it needs 4 tons and can put 996 tons of weapons and support tonnage onto the ship. This will have to include power, crew etc (or not with Virtual Crew), space for ammo etc.

Drop Tank usage can be a huge force multiplier in a Navy.

Making Jump Drives larger to carry the Drop tanks and still maintain Jump4 will mean having Jump Drives capable of 3500 tons of Jump capacity. Or you get into the odd math of how many tons of drives per total tonnage moved, and then finding on the table what Jump factor you have. (pg 11 of High guard)
2500 ton ship J4 is 10 percent +5 = 255 tons of Jump Drive
If you have 3500 tons of ship and Drop Tank then the 255 tons of drive represents 7.2%, which is less than 7.5% for a Jump 3 , so you warship has a Jump 2 carrying capacity. Which means you can now jump 4 times in a row without refueling, covering 8 hexes in a month.

Or you design your 2500 ton ship with 355 tons of Jump Drive and maintain a J4 capacity when carrying Drop Tanks.

I think the risk of abuse is carrying 1000 tons of fuel on the hull of a ship, which means it takes up just under a third of my 3500 ton example, and then relying on the Combat Rules not mentioning the Drop Tanks getting blown away in the first round of fire. 1st edition had the rule in, it just needs to be updated and brought forward.

I am looking at a Drop Tank only, External Cargo Mount heavy hauler in a new thread. Come over and tell me what you think.

 

[phavoc]

I said drop tanks can go with the ship. As the rule you just quoted allows. I didn't say anything about drop tanks not dropping away prior to jumping. That's been fundamental to them. But if drop tanks can go with the ship then all the options associated with that are allowable. It's not "abusing" the system as you seem to be claiming, correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, by default in normal space you'd have the tanks attached to you, and thus you can maneuver with them attached. As I understand your statement, you are saying the drop tanks would go with the ship through a jump, or is that NOT what you are saying? A ship taking empty drop tanks through a jump just to have them attached at the other end doesn't make a lot of sense. It has to burn additional fuel to do so, as the tanks still cost the same in displacement for M-drive, PP and J-drive calculations. You'd have to burn your internal fuel to do so. When you got to the other system you could re-fill your internal tanks (perhaps) with the external tankage, but they are now empty. The rules don't say if you can land with them, or skim a gas giant with them attached.

My view of the rules are that drop tanks are designed to be secondary fuel tanks, used for specific needs. You shouldn't see fleets of ships running around with them constantly. That is where I say the rules are being abused. So if you want to call it my interpretation of the rules, sure, I'm ok with that. But with one or two exceptions, all canonical ships are designed without the assumption that drop tanks would NOT be used on a regular basis.

Again I say this is a min/max design issue where a rule is being exploited beyond what it's meant to be. Drop tanks are meant to be temporary. They aren't meant to be used on a permanent basis so you can load up on more weapons in your ship because your primary fuel tanks are external. And yes, that's my personal view. But it also mirrors canonical ship designs, practicality, and thousands of years of naval warship designs. It would be akin to towing a barge behind your ship with your supplies on it so you could put more weapons inside without 'wasting' space on supplies.

I'm not saying it can't be done for very specific use vessels. There are always oddities when it comes to things like that. But it shouldn't be mainline in any way.

If I'm wrong, then please point out where in Traveller this sort of thing has been accepted as the norm in any of the versions.

 

[PsiTraveller]

Drop tanks can go through Jump space. You have to calculate the impact the extra volume has vs your Jump Drive tonnage, but you can carry Drop Tanks through Jump Space if you want to. At 25000 Credits a ton my 800 ton example the tank is worth 20 million Credits, so unless you have a collection system behind you it is not something to just throw away.

A Drop Tank Design paradigm may become the choice to design a ship with internal and external tanks (since 4 tons of space gives you the option of 1000 tons of extra fuel). Calculate your Jump Drive tonnage based on a jump with the tanks attached. This will let you cross rifts with tanks attached, saving you the 20 million replacement cost.

Another option as I mentioned, and just put a thrown together example is to get rid of internal fuel tanks altogether for Jump fuel. Using Drop Tanks for freight can increase profits for longer distance freight. a ton of space is now worth 7000 Credits as cargo space. As my example points out, an X-boat like collection system for the tanks left behind is needed, but you could pay off a 700 Million credit ship in under 4 years (700 / 16.8 = 41.6 months). Wages and support system cost and mortgage cost will increase that, but it will sure as heck be under 40 years the mortgage payments are geared for.

As for canonical ships not having collars and drop tanks, true enough. The folks on this website are just more creative and innovative. They are taking the rules from 30 years ago and actually using all of them and saying that the old designs were basic templates with room for improvement. The new designs use all the technology available. As it happens, doing that can seriously change the game and balance may need to be checked again.
Come to think of it, the X-boat network was the biggest example of the Drop Tank system. It worked for the Scouts for years, centuries even. It seems odd that the Navy never noticed it.

 

[Chas]

I don't see making drop tanks a permanent part of ships, where one typical use case function is to be dropped during actual combat anyway abusive. In fact it mirrors current aircraft design.

I think we'll have to just agree to disagree Phavoc.

 

[phavoc]

This breaks the entire system of starships. Why? Because it's a paradigm shift. But one hole that people are missing is that the drop tanks have to drop off for jump. Which means you have to leave them behind in your last system. And you have to hope they don't get destroyed during the jump. It also changes the cargo paradigm as well. It's insane to think you will pay off a multi-million credit starship in 4yrs through the use of drop tanks. That defies logic, common sense and economics. If that was the case you certainly could NOT justify the Cr7,000 per ton for cargo.

It violates the common sense rule for ships being able to be self-sufficient. If we are dumping the jump fuel, why not dump the maneuver drives and maneuver fuel as well? Let's make all ships similar to x-boats, and when they arrive at their destination system they have a tug come out and pull them back to the station at the 100D limit where they get new fuel and cargo, then they get pulled away and they jump again. That saves even MORE money and MORE space.

No, this is a clear violation of the spirit of the rules. It's rules lawyering at the design level. And because people aren't putting any reality onto it, the "it's allowed in the rules" is the rule of the day.

i for one won't be using this as a defacto standard. It adds nothing to the game itself, and it takes what should be an exception and attempts to turn it into the norm.

I don't see making drop tanks a permanent part of ships, where one typical use case function is to be dropped during actual combat anyway abusive. In fact it mirrors current aircraft design.

I think we'll have to just agree to disagree Phavoc.

We are going to have to agree to disagree here. And it does NOT mirror current aircraft design by a long shot. Aircraft carry internal fuel sufficient to do their mission. Drop tanks are used to increase their combat radius (as is in-flight refueling). The difference here is that designs are being created that moves nearly ALL fuel to external tanks. Aircraft do not do that. Also, aircraft don't have to drop their external fuel pods to travel. Aircraft bring them back for COST reasons. But if the balloon were to go up you know they would be dropping their tanks. To prove that point, during WW2,when drop tanks were first introduced, they were ALWAYS dropped at the first sign of combat that the aircraft had to engage the enemy. That was a known issue and risk and in some cases bombers were forced to go on to their targets without fighter escorts because they had to drop their tanks early. And did you ever see bombers who got drop tanks? No. Why? Because the design paradigm calls for ships to be self sufficient when it comes to fuel. (NOTE - not totally true. The modern B-58 Hustler carried a centerline pod that included fuel. It's an exception though) Yes, you can refuel in the sky to extend your range from base, but all aircraft are meant to be fuel self-sufficient for the design combat radius. Special circumstances, such as ferrying or longer-ranged missions call for the use of additional fuel tanks to be added. But the normal operations do not.

And this is where actually the starship rules are unclear for jump travel. One part of the rules assumes that a starship WILL use the fuel in external tanks first to jump, and thus they drop off right before the jump is finalized. Another part of the rules says that a ship can take it's drop tanks with it through jump - though it still has to pay for the tonnage of the tanks as if it was part of the normal hull. Since these aren't starship hull materials, do they fall apart after one jump? Are they truly reusable over and over again??

The amount of jump fuel required was decreased to give ships more internal tonnage to play with. Since this is allowed within the rules, why don't we remove all cabins from ships and put in low berths? When a crew member comes off shift, they simply thaw out their replacement and climb in themselves. That's allowed within the rules too, right? There's no rule against getting in and out of a low berth every 12hrs. If you have a medic and proper medical equipment there's not even any risk of dying. Whoo-hoo! We just saved 4Dtons per pair of crew members! And the life support costs, too, because without any cabins I'm not required to pay for it. Also allowed within the rules. I could go on and find more holes in the rules to cheat at building a spacecraft. But there's no real point is there? Rules lawyering will always get a player a min-max design that has no realistic basis in the world. Paper designs always sound great on paper.

But at this point I'm pretty much argued out over the topic. I do hope the powers that be reign in this rule lawyering madness, but clearly nobody else seems to give a frak that this breaks multiple other game concepts. So more power to you guys. I, for one, won't be abusing the design system in this manner.

 

[PsiTraveller]

Drop Tanks do not have to Drop off the ship during Jump. That has already been stated in the rules from 1st edition Mongoose and going back to Classic Traveller. (Billion Credit Squadron has some good design ideas on pages 13 and 14)
A tank does not have to drop off if the Jump engine can handle the combined tonnage.
A 1000 ton ship doing Jump 4 needs 400 tons of fuel, plus a few tons of Power plant fuel. So the tonnage involved is 400 tons of fuel and 600 tons of ship. If you put the 400 tons in a removable tank and Jumped the ship (total volume 1000 tons) the Drop Tank does not have to be dropped before Jump. It is the same rule from 1st edition that nobody complained about, heck it is the same rule from Classic Traveller that nobody complained about.

The paradigm shift is the realization that hauling around an empty 400 ton fuel tank slows you down in combat because the M-Drive Thrust value is based on total tonnage being moved. So how do you reduce volume? Remove tonnage you do not need when in combat. You do not need 400 tons of fuel tank in combat. You may want the option because being able to Jump away from combat is a decision that is forced on ships at times. But if you decide to not have Jump as a tactical or strategic option, then get rid of the tonnage. Remove the volume before combat and increase the M-Drive Thrust value of the remaining ship. That's the paradigm shift, looking at what needs to be taken into combat and for what reason. If you like the doctrine of being able to Jump out of combat then build your ships with internal tanks and buy bigger M-Drives to move it at your top speed.

As for your point about dropping M-Drives that is what the X-boat does. That is exactly the point. Someone decided the ship did not need M-Drives so they got rid of it.
And I just had a thought for a new combat design that has a modular ship design. The fuel tank and Jump Drives will get dropped when going into combat. On a 1000 ton ship that will be 100 tons of Jump Drive that will increase the M-Drive thrust factor by 100 tons. More if we add in the common areas and compartments that surround the Jump Drive. Why have a Jump Drive in combat when all it does is offer another spot for a Critical Hit? okay that may be pushing it, but the idea came to me as I was typing the previous paragraph.

And as for you not liking the trade ship example I came up with, it represents the X-boat example but for cargo. It requires a tender and infrastructure and organization and all the things that Megacorps are good at. It costs money to move volume. As the Classic Traveller TAS update showed the freight idea was being looked at in Classic Traveller, so this is hardly a groundbreaking paradigm shift.

The idea of going into combat with 1000 tons of fighting ship and no fuel for Jump smacks a bit of Cortes. You are committed to the system and will need to be re-supplied with a hull in order to move on. Again, this would be a strategic decision for Naval Doctrine.

As for your statement that a ship carries fuel internally to complete its mission I totally agree. We just disagree what the mission is. In combat the mission may not be "be able to Jump 4 parsecs right now". The mission may be "Be able to move really really fast and destroy enemy ships and take control of this system." If that is the mission then you do not need 400 tons of fuel for that mission. You will need the fuel when the mission is to jump to the next system, but not for combat.

 

[Chas]

Dropping your M and J drives like in a hull break away will cost you a chunk of hard points and hull points so it may not work that well in certain ways. There are good checks and balances in place.

But you'll be interested in a build I'm about to put up in the cruisers thread shortly which has something along that line - where I was looking to make something with what would be a 'conventional' use of a break away hull.

What I've done is had the jump drives and fuel separate from the weaponry section. (not all actually but that was a tactical thing in this situation)

This would be where the jump dive section that I'm calling the rear part goes down to skim fuel from the gas giant, while the weapons section stays out of the gravity well in a high guard role. Something I think might be a prime use case for the breakaway hull. A ship that is in potentially hostile territory wants to have it weapon systems mobile and on active guard duty.

In this case I'm also including a drop tank - but a small one relatively. One of the uses could be to act as a refueling tank between the rear section and the weapons section which I've kept a (smaller) jump drive section.

Now that's a rules section for drop tanks that I would like to see clarified. Can we have drop tanks that are independently prefueled and sitting around as is, a sealed tank ready to be used to whatever drop collar they can be attached to? I think this is reasonable. That a drop tank has the equivalent of a fuel cap, heh.