Jump rating as a speed instead of distance.
Evyn MacDude
(21 Jun 2014 00:13 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Jump rating as a speed instead of distance.
Freelance Traveller
(21 Jun 2014 01:04 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Jump rating as a speed instead of distance. Evyn MacDude (21 Jun 2014 01:58 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Jump rating as a speed instead of distance.
Knapp
(21 Jun 2014 08:46 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Jump rating as a speed instead of distance.
Postmark
(21 Jun 2014 09:39 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Jump rating as a speed instead of distance.
Tim
(21 Jun 2014 12:59 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Jump rating as a speed instead of distance.
Evyn MacDude
(21 Jun 2014 17:37 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Jump rating as a speed instead of distance. Evyn MacDude 21 Jun 2014 01:58 UTC
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Freelance Traveller <xxxxxx@freelancetraveller.com> wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 17:13:36 -0700, Evyn MacDude > <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote: > >>How much does it change the game if you use Jump range as maximum speed? > > There isn't strictly speaking enough information about the change, so > here are my assumptions: > > 1. The speed in question is measured in parsecs per week. > 2. The fuel usage is not changed - that is, a J1 ship requires 10% of > the hull volume to be fuel. > 3. The range is not limited - that is, in theory, a J1 ship, using that > 10% fuel, can go as far as it wants in a single jump - but going 52 > parsecs will require a full year. Sorry, Was thinking more on the lines of 10% per parsec traveled as the fuel usage, keeping in line with the normal fuel use parameter. > > Given those assumptions, you will have the following effects: > > A. A ship's range will be roughly four times its Jump rating - but most > ships will probably limit to three times. This limitation is imposed > by power plant fuel, which in standard designs is sufficient for four > weeks of operation. > B. The patterns of trade routes, communications routes, and > 'backwaterism' will change, and the 'socioeconomic divide' between > 'hub' worlds, main trade route worlds, minor trade route worlds, and > backwaters will be more pronounced. A world's relative importance > will be less dependent on astrography, and more dependent on economic > factors. Rifts will not be as significant as obstacles to travel; for > example, the "J5 route" across the Great Rift could be serviced by J2 > ships, at the cost of time (2.5 weeks)rather than a J5 ship with its > higher fuel/construction costs. The inherent sociopolitical structure > of polities such as the Imperium will probably not change, because > comm lag, which is the key limitation, hasn't really changed - > although with rifts being less of an obstacle, the stellar political > geography is likely to change. > > Now: Clarify YOUR assumptions, work out the implications (or post here > for more discussion), and then write me an article for Freelance > Traveller! Oh now.... 8) I was pondering how the trade map would change, hubs would become more pronounced, I think as I haven't put much on paper other than doodling in the garden this afternoon pondering old traveller conversations. I hadn't even hit on the rifts..... -- Evyn