On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Tim <xxxxxx@little-possums.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 05:13:36PM -0700, Evyn MacDude wrote:
>> How much does it change the game if you use Jump range as
>> maximum speed?
>
> It sounds like you're thinking of a "hyperdrive"-like system, where
> the ship travel FTL for arbitrary periods of time.  Presumably still
> using fuel at the same rate, about 10% volume per parsec.
>
> In one respect, it makes a huge difference: getting around between
> planets in a system is now trivial.  A week per parsec can now be
> thought of as little as 3 seconds per AU.  Travel in a star system
> becomes effectively just the sum of its 100D limits.

Opening up systems was part of the idea I started with, how many times
in a Standard rules Traveller game have your crews wilderness
refueled? Or visited a remote outpost, Etc. etc...

>
> A lesser one is that jump-1 and jump-2 ships become pretty much
> obsolete.  A J3 or J4 ship can now travel mains hitting quite a lot
> more planets per year with not much greater running expenses.  In my
> look at it some time ago, using local<->Imperial Credit rules so that
> higher TL planets have more valuable currency, J5 drives weren't
> generally worthwhile due to their increased TL requirement.
>
>
> A third is that the volume devoted to fuel is substantially decreased
> even for long-range trade.  In the standard rules, a J4 drives is
> pointless without 40% fuel.  In "hyperdrive" rules, a J4 ship can
> easily get away with lesser fuel tankage along any route where it can
> top up every 1 or 2 parsecs.  For infrequent longer hops it can draw
> fuel from bladders in the cargo hold.
>
> What's more, it is now always feasible to store water or other
> hydrogen-dense compounds, and extract the H2 en route.  Such compounds
> can hold up to twice as much hydrogen per unit volume as LH2 does.  So
> the 10% volume per parsec becomes 5% per parsec + a trivial cost and
> volume for a purifier, which you should just build into the cost of a
> jump drive and say they run on water/ammonia/hydrocarbon/whatever.
>
> The outcome from that is that there is basically no need to reserve
> large fractions of the ship purely for fuel tankage.  A typical
> freighter now travels at 3 or 4 parsecs per week, stops every parsec
> or two for fuel, and typically starts each hop with only about 10-15%
> of its volume in fuel.
>
>
> Since the typical intersystem time is now substantially less than a
> week, travelling to planetary surfaces for trade and fuel becomes
> comparatively much more expensive compared with docking at a farport
> outside the 100D limit.  Some starships may have hefty maneuver drives
> and streamlining, but for most it would be an irrelevancy that adds
> nothing but expense.  The general rule would be that starships travel
> between 100D limits, and cheaper spacecraft inside those limits.

Cool, all topics I had only brushed on, in my usual tank brained
fashion I pondered a few gross commercial aspects and then moved into
Navel Tactics.

That being like a lot of Traveller combats with the change the
engagement zones are within the 100 diameter limit. Though maybe more
often at the limit end of things rather than at the planetary end, in
that at the limit Reserves can readily jump in.... Though I can think
of a couple of defensive argument where you want the intruder fleet to
have to come to you. Both come down to where the assets most in need
of defense are at.

Tim Great stuff gonna grind on it awhiles (which means the family
needs attention) and I'll be back.

--
Evyn