Collapsibles and Drop Tanks

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Mike Wightman

Too many places to list them all, but here is a selection:
High Guard ('80)

Then there is MWM's definitive jumpspace article in JTAS 24:

OKay then, is there a series of quotations addressing a-typical jumps like from scooping or from worldless vicinities?

[hal]

Originally Posted by Mike Wightman

Unfortunately for those who just wish to ignore them the use of drop tanks is one of the earliest bits of setting fluff we ever got for the 3I setting.



Well either those 'senior grognards' on the GT starships discussion got it completely wrong or possibly drop tanks are being confused with demountable tanks and other forms of additional fuel stowage which do require fuel to moved to regular tanks before it can be used.

Canonically drop tanks can be used to provide all the fuel needed for a jump and then they are dropped, not carried through jump. In the destination system a new set of tanks will be needed for subsequent jumps. Hence the setting description of them being used on the high capacity trade routes of the interior sectors.

Hi Mike,

Unfortunately, if you're going to quote the material (nicely done by the way), you neglect to take into account the following issues...

1) despite being published in around 1980 give or take, Drop tank designs never really took off. In other words, you'd think that they'd have included the Jump-6 X-boat design from the news flash, using drop tanks, or even commercial ships that utilize the technology for a Traveller TL-15 hull. Yet, Traveller's publishers never did, why was that?

2) Despite the rule that a ship only has a number of hard points equal to its tonnage/100, we find that the Gazelle has four hard points. It is a 300 dton hull without drop tanks, and a 400 dton hull with. Yet, despite the fact that is basic core structure is 300 dtons, it has 4 hard points. A few people noted this and thought "Errata time".

3) Why - in the years that HIGH GUARD has been around, hasn't anyone published a Scout Ship design that utilizes a drop tank? Think about it for a second. HIGH GUARD used a 2d6 mechanism for resolving combats. A -1 penalty to hit due to size was the same as having an Agility of 1. If you had a scout ship with even as little as a 1 dton Drop tank holding fuel - Scout ships could have entered and exited jump space with a drop tank. When combat commenced, they'd drop their 1 dton fuel tank, and gain an additional -1 bonus to defense (ie going from a -1 to hit due to size to a -2 to hit due to size). To make matters worse, they could have carried spare drop tanks internally in their hold! This is a ramification that could have easily been implemented in all of the years since 1980, but never was.

So, as mentioned earlier in the thread, it was as if the idea/concept was introduced, and then totally forgotten by all of the authors who came after the book was published.

To answer another poster's comment - something as simple as arriving out of a 2 parsec jump for the Empress Marava, allows the ship to gain about .8 G's extra acceleration. So, if a .8 G matters, then yes, being able to drop a tank would gain some benefits in combat as far as acceleration goes.

Me? I'd just as soon, like another stated, eliminate the troubling item and make it go the same route as the jump torpedo or the solar powered jump drive concept. ;)

And, to touch on something not discussed in this thread (and probably deserves its own thread) is the fact that Jump Space in game play has evolved over 40 years. If you compare the CT rules for Jumps against the T5 rules, you'd have to admit that the rules regarding JUMPS in general have changed. While researching "navigation accuracy" for use with Traveller, I found that MEGATRAVELLER had rules for how accurate a jump is relative to the navigator's skill. Contrast this against CT that despite having the Navigation skill, never used it for in game play outright. Then contrast this against T5's rules for an astrogator plotting a 6 parsec jump! Even the rule that a jump preserves the original movement vector (velocity) has been changed to where it is possible for a ship to alter its vector AFTER entering jump, but before exiting jump space.

Me? I still like using the original concept that once you enter into jump space, nothing in normal space affects your ship. Only the entry point into Jump space matters (for purposes of misjumps) and the exit point (Jump precipitation). Now? It is no longer "Jump Drive" so much as "Hyperspace" drives.

And - tonight, I finally found a reference that states that time passage in Jump Space does not necessarily have to conform to time passage in Normal space. Again, we have T5 to thank for that reference. Page 340 of T5 version 5.09 has the relevant information under Jump Drive Failure lower right bottom of the page. Now we know what happens when a ship's power plant or Jump Drive is destroyed by sabotage while in Jump space... ;)

[Mike Wightman]

Originally Posted by hal

Hi Mike,
1) despite being published in around 1980 give or take, Drop tank designs never really took off. In other words, you'd think that they'd have included the Jump-6 X-boat design from the news flash, using drop tanks, or even commercial ships that utilize the technology for a Traveller TL-15 hull. Yet, Traveller's publishers never did, why was that?

They never detailed the core sectors of the Imperium. The stuff that was mentioned in early adventures and library data was swamped by the FFW kicking off.
Later authors didn't do their research and as a result the jump 6 drop tank network already in existence in the core sectors was forgotten about, the drop tank equipped merchantmen plying the trade routes of the core sectors was forgotten about.
Worse was the way the Spinward marches was changed from a recently settled frontier area of the Imperium at the very edge of Imperial control to a sector that has been settled for over a thousand years and the Imperium is everywhere - the Spinward Marches of early Traveller had the frontier, local autonomy, rebellious vibe. This was lost.

2) Despite the rule that a ship only has a number of hard points equal to its tonnage/100, we find that the Gazelle has four hard points. It is a 300 dton hull without drop tanks, and a 400 dton hull with. Yet, despite the fact that is basic core structure is 300 dtons, it has 4 hard points. A few people noted this and thought "Errata time".

Again it is down to people not doing their research. The original Gazelle design was done with a hybrid of HG79 and LBB2 rules, probably with some MWM house rules thrown in.
In HG79 the Gazelle is a 400t ship, the drop tanks are a feature added to the fuel tanks near the end. This changed in HG80 and later editions and as a result the gazelle became a broken design, but then again just about every LBB2 design is broken when you build it under a different ship design system.

3) Why - in the years that HIGH GUARD has been around, hasn't anyone published a Scout Ship design that utilizes a drop tank? Think about it for a second. HIGH GUARD used a 2d6 mechanism for resolving combats. A -1 penalty to hit due to size was the same as having an Agility of 1. If you had a scout ship with even as little as a 1 dton Drop tank holding fuel - Scout ships could have entered and exited jump space with a drop tank. When combat commenced, they'd drop their 1 dton fuel tank, and gain an additional -1 bonus to defense (ie going from a -1 to hit due to size to a -2 to hit due to size). To make matters worse, they could have carried spare drop tanks internally in their hold! This is a ramification that could have easily been implemented in all of the years since 1980, but never was.

TCS tournaments often had strict rules on the use of drop tanks. And if you look into the new MgT Great Rift sourcebook you will find drop tanks make a comeback in-setting.

So, as mentioned earlier in the thread, it was as if the idea/concept was introduced, and then totally forgotten by all of the authors who came after the book was published.

People didn't do their homework...

And, to touch on something not discussed in this thread (and probably deserves its own thread) is the fact that Jump Space in game play has evolved over 40 years. If you compare the CT rules for Jumps against the T5 rules, you'd have to admit that the rules regarding JUMPS in general have changed. While researching "navigation accuracy" for use with Traveller, I found that MEGATRAVELLER had rules for how accurate a jump is relative to the navigator's skill. Contrast this against CT that despite having the Navigation skill, never used it for in game play outright. Then contrast this against T5's rules for an astrogator plotting a 6 parsec jump! Even the rule that a jump preserves the original movement vector (velocity) has been changed to where it is possible for a ship to alter its vector AFTER entering jump, but before exiting jump space.

Yup, the rules have changed - not always in a good way.
Take GT, MT, GT:ISW, MgT and T5 - they all make the chance of a misjump much more likely by requiring more dice rolls for every single jump.

There is a very simple statistical rule, every roll of the dice after the first reduces your chance for success...

Me? I still like using the original concept that once you enter into jump space, nothing in normal space affects your ship. Only the entry point into Jump space matters (for purposes of misjumps) and the exit point (Jump precipitation). Now? It is no longer "Jump Drive" so much as "Hyperspace" drives.

That's the way I do it too. MWM was convinced by fandom that if you interpreted what he wrote in his jump space article in a certain way while standing on one leg that ships can be pulled out of jump space, contrary to the explicit statements that gravity in the real universe only affects the ship when it is trying to enter or trying to leave jump space. People on these very boards are responsible for this misinterpretation that has since become canonical in T5.

And - tonight, I finally found a reference that states that time passage in Jump Space does not necessarily have to conform to time passage in Normal space. Again, we have T5 to thank for that reference. Page 340 of T5 version 5.09 has the relevant information under Jump Drive Failure lower right bottom of the page. Now we know what happens when a ship's power plant or Jump Drive is destroyed by sabotage while in Jump space... ;)

That goes all the way back to MWM's definitive jump space article in JTAS 24 in 1985:

One effect of misjumps is a change in the amount of time spent in jump space. The many variables involved may make the time spent in jump space shorter or longer than normal. Ship crews can identify a jump as a misjump if it ends before the normal week is up, or if it continues longer than the week they expect.

[ak_aramis]

Mike, you're neglecting that Marc has again reiterated that dropped tanks are generally not reusable. Until TL15, they are automatically destroyed by being dropped - the issue is clarified in T5, as anything smaller than the jumping vessel is damaged by the jumping vessel.

Essentially, you're arguing a point that the designer himself responded against; you are neither advancing rules as intended nor setting as intended.

Fine grist for an ATU, but unreflective of the OTU as Marc Miller sees it.

[hal]

Originally Posted by ak_aramis

Mike, you're neglecting that Marc has again reiterated that dropped tanks are generally not reusable. Until TL15, they are automatically destroyed by being dropped - the issue is clarified in T5, as anything smaller than the jumping vessel is damaged by the jumping vessel.

Essentially, you're arguing a point that the designer himself responded against; you are neither advancing rules as intended nor setting as intended.

Fine grist for an ATU, but unreflective of the OTU as Marc Miller sees it.

It might be noted that it is possible that Mike, or others, do not have access to T5.

Also - Based on your statement, I thought I'd do a search on my T5 Core rules V5.09 for Drop tanks. None of the references that came up in the book refer to the idea that Drop tanks are destroyed (at least not that I found). Could you perhaps reference the page where that is spelled out? It would be nice to know.

Thanks.

For what it is worth, I can see where a "Globe" based jump field would potentially destroy drop tanks, but I don't know as a grid based jump field would.

If the mechanics of the drop tank is such that it is forced away quickly, and that force used to make it happen renders the tank unusuable, that would make sense. But I can't seem to find it.

:(

[Mike Wightman]

Originally Posted by ak_aramis

Mike, you're neglecting that Marc has again reiterated that dropped tanks are generally not reusable. Until TL15, they are automatically destroyed by being dropped - the issue is clarified in T5, as anything smaller than the jumping vessel is damaged by the jumping vessel.

No, I am not neglecting it, in fact it is in the news item I quoted. I'm not claiming dropped tanks can be picked up and re-used, I am saying that drop tanks have been part of the setting since JTAS2.
In point of fact the JTAS news clipping I referenced explicitly says they are destroyed when used as drop tanks and that they can not be reused.

Essentially, you're arguing a point that the designer himself responded against; you are neither advancing rules as intended nor setting as intended.

No, I am not arguing that at all. Perhaps you need to go back and read what I have posted, the cut'n'paste from JTAS actually mentions 'the remains of the tanks' and I have not posted anything to the contrary.

Fine grist for an ATU, but unreflective of the OTU as Marc Miller sees it.

JTAS News articles are as OTU as you can get, nothing in the JTAS news item contradicts or is contradicted by T5 - I really do not understand the point you are trying to score here?

Jump is executed when the remains of the tanks are a safe distance from the vessel.

L-Hyd drop tanks are not reusable, and thus increase the absolute cost per jump.

[hal]

Hi Mike,
Thanks for pointing out JTAS 2. I went back to that and read the original material on Drop Tanks and found that per the article, Drop tanks were a recent development. Specifically:

"L-Hyd drop ships have only been in service for the last dozen years in the
interior, being made possible by recent advances in the field of capacitor
engineering, a joint press release explained."

That would imply that it is a TL 15 (Traveller Tech level as opposed to GURPS TL) development. I've been combing through T5 trying to see the reference point where Drop tanks are a given TL development, as it doesn't seem to list it anywhere.

None the less, citing your reference was helpful. :)

Hal

[Mike Wightman]

Note that this is for civilian use - the military have been using drop tank technology for much longer going by what we know about the Gazelle.

The jump capacitor development that allows for drop tanks to function is listed in HG79 edition as TL12, so it could be that the Imperium has only recently allowed for the civilian use of such technology.

[thrash]

Originally Posted by Mike Wightman

That's the way I do it too. MWM was convinced by fandom that if you interpreted what he wrote in his jump space article in a certain way while standing on one leg that ships can be pulled out of jump space, contrary to the explicit statements that gravity in the real universe only affects the ship when it is trying to enter or trying to leave jump space. People on these very boards are responsible for this misinterpretation that has since become canonical in T5.

If that last part is intended to refer to me (and Loren is dead, so oughtn't to be him), I will say this once again: as the author, I needed a decision to finish what I was contracted to write. I asked the IP holder. He responded. I did it his way. There was no convincing, at least not by me or my team, and no shading the question (as I've been accused in the past). If he had ruled the other way, I would have done it that way instead. End of story.

I'll dig up Mr. Miller's response again, if that will put this to rest. Let me know.

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by hal

It might be noted that it is possible that Mike, or others, do not have access to T5.

Also - Based on your statement, I thought I'd do a search on my T5 Core rules V5.09 for Drop tanks. None of the references that came up in the book refer to the idea that Drop tanks are destroyed (at least not that I found). Could you perhaps reference the page where that is spelled out? It would be nice to know.

Thanks.

For what it is worth, I can see where a "Globe" based jump field would potentially destroy drop tanks, but I don't know as a grid based jump field would.

If the mechanics of the drop tank is such that it is forced away quickly, and that force used to make it happen renders the tank unusuable, that would make sense. But I can't seem to find it.

:(

Page 335, left col. 1st entry, last paragraph:

The Jump Bubble affects each continuous object within
it separately. A jump drive operates on the ship tonnage
contained within its jump field. The ship with its Jump Drive
almost always operates properly; other objects within the
bubble suffer Jump Mishaps.

note the last line. Drop tanks are going to have to clear the field or be effectively destroyed.

Much easier with jump grids - the field's only 3m or so, but the jump flash also causes a problem - it's bright, so creates a thermal shock.

Also, I happen to know that Mike has (or has had) T5.