_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lWith the production
of miniatures & publication of SSDs for the Wichita class Refueling ships, it
confirms that the Tuffleyverse starships do indeed use fuel. But it does ask
questions that have never needed to be answered before, execpt by those
interested in FT campaign games...
1 - How long can a starship go without refueling?
& 2 - How much "mass" of fuel does a starship use?
I looked up Jane's Fighting Ships for information on real-world warships
and their cruising ranges. I found that it varies from "4500 miles at 20 kt"
for modern American frigates to "15,000 miles at 17kt" for Iowa class
battleships. I converted the speed & distance to hours of travel time and it
came out to 225 hrs & 882 hrs respectively.
> From this, I surmised that starship endurance can be calculated by two
BY HULL/SIZE/TYPE -
The simplest way is to dig out the old ship groupings from the second edition
game and assign endurance by general ship type...
Escort - 240 hrs
Cruiser - 480 hrs
Capital - 960 hrs
Merchant - 1920 hrs
The number of hours chosen is for ease in calculation since 240 hours is 10
standard days. Escorts are small and can't carry as much fuel as the capital
ships, and the design of merchant ship engines emphasizes fuel economy rather
than performance.
If you want to differentiate between classes of ships, the other convention
is...
ENDURANCE DIVIDED BY THRUST RATING
1920 hrs divided by ship MD thrust
MD 1 - 1920 hrs
MD 2 - 960 hrs
MD 4 - 480 hrs
MD 6 - 320 hrs
MD 8 - 240 hrs
As for how much fuel a starship can carry in tankage, I figure it's 5% of TMF,
since MD is 5% times thrust factor (It's a "free" 5% as tankage is part of the
hull boxes on the damage track).
On a SSD, there is a tankage box for as many crew factor boxes on a ship. On
the damage track, the hull box BEFORE a crew factor box is a tankage box. The
effects of damaged tankage boxes is only calculated after a battle, when
determining how far a damaged ship can limp its way to a repair station.
Having tankage as 5% of TMF does imply that a single Wichita class can fully
fuel 4 240TMF capital ships, and a Blackpool class could service a good sized
battle group. I could make a point that, except for gravity & inertia, space
is a frictionless enviroment, so there could conceivably be some fuel economy.
As always, I invite your comments (especially about that last thing)
> With the production of miniatures & publication of SSDs for the
I'm sure I'm just being brain damaged, but what SSD?
Usually, and I think it's quoted as such in FT, ship system display. The
display of ship's systems. Being those systems in the ship on display.
When...
Sorry, too much Monty Python recently.
The_Beast
Grant wrote on 03/14/2006 10:17:57 AM:
> >
Ship System Display = SSD = those funny drawings with circles and boxes
:)
Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn.com
[quoted original message omitted]
I think Grant means, "Where was an SSD for a Wichita class refueling ship
published? And what miniature is the Wichita?"
> -----Original Message-----
D'oh! Sorry, Grant!
The_Beast (who, at least, was not alone in his confusion.
Tom wrote on 03/14/2006 10:37:35 AM:
> I think Grant means, "Where was an SSD for a Wichita classrefueling
***snip***
Ok, I found the following SSD's. I'll assume that this refers to the new
support ships, and merely extends their own names to the mostly generic ships.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~stub/Full%20Thrust5.html
Now, the new support ships' store listings don't seem to say they are naval
support, so I'd have to say we've some spurious assumptions going on, or I'm
just not finding the same things this person is.I would also point out, when
grasping for straws, one should notice that fleet packs have no
support ships, so they aren't so necessary as to be 'organic'. ;->=
I love it when nothing is in stone, right?
By the way, I seem to have missed the original message to which Grant is
referring.
The_Beast
> Ok, I found the following SSD's. I'll assume that this refers to the
Well, that's one fellow's website and one fellow's opinions. He's put some
work into it, but we're all free to decide for ourselves if it fits the game
universe we play in.
I guess Grant can be reassured he didn't miss a major GZG posting or
publication.
Tom wrote on 03/14/2006 11:56:43 AM:
***
> Well, that's one fellow's website and one fellow's
Exactly what I intended to say, but put poorly. I meant to emphasize that even
the suppostion that fuel support, however logical, isn't even for sure by the
new ships, as they could just as easily be strictly commercial, UNLESS
someones finds something I missed. Always a possibility, and one I
want to be called on. ;->=
> I guess Grant can be reassured he didn't miss a major GZG posting or
Bothersome to me is that I obviously missed at least one posting to the list,
as I didn't see the original note. However, thank goodness for the archive!
Mr.Brewer, can you clarify 'what SSD?' and which figs are those to which you
refer?
Thanks!
The_Beast
Oh, and Mr.Brewer, I've not figured out how you've applied the numbers. If I
were Sherlock, it'd be a three pipe analysis, at the least.
However, a few items of consideration:
Space is frictionless: Some of your observation may have not entered fully
into your thoughts. A ship in the ocean has to burn full to maintain a certain
speed. A space ship doesn't have to; it merely thrusts up to the proper
velocity, then coasts.
Now, the more you burn, the faster you get there. Fastest arrival, barring
special cases like movement in and through gravity wells, which is probably
the only important non-warp movement, is +MD all the way. Of course,
that means you'll be really moving by the time you arrive, so let's say best
time to rendevous is +MD half the way there, then -MD the other half.
The gravity wells comment is not trivial; much energy is necessary to extend
out of one, and as much to enter, if you are planning on staying. And, in a
star system, you are in several overlapping wells, the effect may vary greatly
as you pass between. My extreme admiration for those, and there are some on
the list, that have to work out orbital mechanics. Great minds have been
reduced to pudding.
Finally, if you are doing cinematic movement because you are a HUGE trekkie,
such as moi, then ALL bets are off, since the MD is actually supposedly
tactical warp, and do you have good figures on the fuel
necessary to maintain a static warp bubble? ;->=
I WILL be studying your suggestions, though, as campaigns have always
fascinated me. Unfortunately, I tinker with systems, but never get anyone to
play in my worlds...
The_Beast
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Doug Evans wrote:
> Oh, and Mr. Brewer, I've not figured out how you've applied the
It is true you don't need to burn fuel to maintain velocity. However,
depending on your energy source, you may need to burn fuel to maintain ship
systems such as life support and a deflector to keep tiny particles from
puncturing your hull, etc. Also, you're assuming that navigation is 100%
accurate and you just point the ship in the direction you want to go. If you
factor in deviations from the course due to gravity or impacts or just
navigation error, then you can assume some fuel gets burn to maintain the
proper course.
All of these are minimal levels, but you can't assume that just because the
ship is following a set course, it isn't burning any fuel.
--Greg
I agree with what has been said about vector movement.
> > Ok, I found the following SSD's. I'll assume that this refers to the
Indeed. I was wondering. :-)
My personal take on "supplies" is that I think engines have to be reactionless
or nearly so. Otherwise you have to start worrying about a ship's mass
changing over time, which is a major pain. I would think that "fuel" is maybe
reactor mass or something, which isn't consumed in huge
quantities like reaction mass. I would think the major components of supply
for most SF ships would be personnel, spare parts, and consumable resources
like food and missiles.
Still, if someone wanted to worry about "engine fuel" in a campaign, more
power to them. I'd resist it being part of the standard game setup though.
grant
(ps. It would probably not be unreasonable to consider the
mass/acceleration
for small ships before and after they launched big things like missiles. Of
course, it would probably also be reasonable to allow missiles to be mounted
outside of ship as well outside of the normal mass restrictions of
construction. Then you'd have slow missile carriers that sprint away after
launch. Probably a viable "real world" tactic.)