Register Register

Author Topic: Safe superjump?  (Read 2753 times)

wundergoat

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 301
Safe superjump?
« on: 22 July 2019, 01:08:05 »
So, we know the WoB was able to boost jumpship range by using a LF battery to jam a second charge through the jumpdrive to strengthen the jump bubble.  This had the side effect of frying the drive.  There may have been a prototype that was more limited but was safer and still had tremendous jump range.

What if instead of jamming the charge through one core you used two separate compact cores to generate a stronger field?  Using multiple cores to enhance a jump bubble isn't unprecedented.  The Ryan Cartel used fleets of coordinated jumpships extend the jump bubble around massive chunks of ice.  IIRC the ice would be plenty mangled so that technique didn't work for other applications, but I've always thought this was due to the uncertainty and loss of precision between the jumpships.  If you had two cores in one ship, conceivably run by the same drive controller, could you take out that uncertainty and have the cores enhance each other?

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 33001
  • Divided States of SMASH
Re: Safe superjump?
« Reply #1 on: 22 July 2019, 09:32:28 »
Two cores on one ship automatically results in a shredded ship and dead crew.

Having a drive core(even pieces of a dead one) anywhere near another core that is trying to jump is a catastrophic event.
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"It's just that the Hegemony had one answer to every naval problem. 'I kills it with my battleships.'" - Liam's Ghost
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"The BT universe is startlingly deficient in both wisdom and hindsight." - Cray
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
There's no shame in designing customs, so long as you keep them private and wash your hands afterwards.

wundergoat

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 301
Re: Safe superjump?
« Reply #2 on: 22 July 2019, 11:00:11 »
Of course two jump cores interfere with one another, but what is the mechanism and can that be overcome?  In the standard example of interference you have one jump drive extending its jump bubble through its core and a second nearby core interferes with this, warping the bubble and causing bad things to happen.  Presumably this is why the ice moved by ice ships gets mulched. 

However, in that example you have two separate, independent cores.  Even if you could coordinate the two, knowing their precise location and orientation to one another would not be a trivial challenge.

In a dual core ship, you could control the variables much more easily even to the point of taking into account the particular impurities in each core.  If you can precisely control the variables, you could potentially calibrate the two cores to eliminate interference and instead resonate and create a stronger jump field.

Of course, not many factions in the fiction understand K-F mechanics well enough to mess with the precision required here, to say nothing of the resources needed.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 33001
  • Divided States of SMASH
Re: Safe superjump?
« Reply #3 on: 22 July 2019, 11:03:59 »
It's the mere presence of the material the second core is made from that causes the jump to fail messily. Coordinating the two cores means that instead of everyone dying, you have a lot of calculations, absolute precision, followed by everyone dying.

It's kinda like having two people next to a nuclear bomb when it goes off, one being a layman and the other actually helped build the bomb. When you push the button, both are equally dead.
« Last Edit: 22 July 2019, 11:06:06 by Weirdo »
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"It's just that the Hegemony had one answer to every naval problem. 'I kills it with my battleships.'" - Liam's Ghost
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"The BT universe is startlingly deficient in both wisdom and hindsight." - Cray
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
There's no shame in designing customs, so long as you keep them private and wash your hands afterwards.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10180
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Safe superjump?
« Reply #4 on: 22 July 2019, 18:40:59 »
This is the kind of question that in universe would require decades and trillions of C-Bills to answer...

Liam's Ghost

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5469
  • Miss Chitty rejects your Clan rule.
Re: Safe superjump?
« Reply #5 on: 22 July 2019, 19:38:21 »
It might be worth noting that something like a safe superjump has been conducted at least once, but it was accidental and completely random.

The jumpship that founded the Alfirk colony in the deep periphery managed to misjump around seven hundred light years in a single jump back in the 22nd century, and was still in a state where it could be repaired by a rather small, low tech colony centuries later to make a voyage back to the inner sphere (it ran into an Explorer Corps ship on the way, and comstar apparently hushed the whole thing up).

It seems a more profitable endeavor to try to figure out how stuff like that happens and how to reproduce it safely and reliably.

The problem, I think, is that there are so many variables to take into account, and they grow exponentially the further you grow. The star league actually did make enough progress to produce a prototype drive with a slightly extended range, but it was a bit unstable.

And there is a tremendous amount of strategic value in having ships that could go anywhere in one jump. Enough that I imagine the Star League put ungodly amounts of money and resources into figuring it out. But they didn't really. So the only people who might have a chance of solving it will probably have to build on the Star League's research, as well as the Word of Blake's, and maybe spend enough to bankrupt a nation on top of that. Or find some lost, misjumped ship that somehow still retains the last puzzle piece somewhere in its databanks.

Actually sounds like an interesting adventure, now that I say it.
Good news is the lab boys say the symptoms of asbestos poisoning show an immediate latency of 44.6 years. So if you're thirty or over you're laughing. Worst case scenario you miss out on a few rounds of canasta, plus you've forwarded the cause of science by three centuries. I punch those numbers into my calculator, it makes a happy face.

(indirect accessory to the) Slayer of Monitors!

Daryk

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10180
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Safe superjump?
« Reply #6 on: 22 July 2019, 19:49:49 »
Of course it sounds interesting... you said it! (Which means we might eventually see a Tribble or FanFic in that vein...)  :thumbsup:

skiltao

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1192
    • SkilTao's Gaming Blog
Re: Safe superjump?
« Reply #7 on: 22 July 2019, 20:32:54 »
What if instead of jamming the charge through one core you used two separate compact cores to generate a stronger field? 

It's hard to say how the imaginary physics would work, because KF fields are even more imaginary than the rest of BattleTech's physics, but I suspect that the second drive would merely (merely! if one can call it that) contribute to the KF field in the same way the Ryan Cartel's do; which is to say, it might allow you to move a greater mass of ship relative to however much the KF drives weigh.

I doubt it would increase the distance of the jump.
Blog: currently working on BattleMech manufacturing rates. (Faction Intros project will resume eventually.)
History of BattleTech: Handy chart for returning players. (last updated end of 2012)

Talen5000

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 450
    • Handbook: Smoke Jaguar
Re: Safe superjump?
« Reply #8 on: 22 July 2019, 20:34:06 »
It's the mere presence of the material the second core is made from that causes the jump to fail messily. Coordinating the two cores means that instead of everyone dying, you have a lot of calculations, absolute precision, followed by everyone dying.

It's kinda like having two people next to a nuclear bomb when it goes off, one being a layman and the other actually helped build the bomb. When you push the button, both are equally dead.

As an aside, the TAS Trailblazer One used a triple core arrangement though no further information is available, other than it was a WarShip class vessel that appears to have carried a HPG.

It is the only reference to a multicore ship in the entirety of BT history....although one can assume a plethora of attempts to actually make it work.
"So let me get this straight. You want to fly on a magic carpet to see the King of the Potato People and plead with him for your freedom, and you're telling me you're completely sane?" -- Uncle Arnie

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 33001
  • Divided States of SMASH
Re: Safe superjump?
« Reply #9 on: 22 July 2019, 20:35:50 »
Source on that ship? I can't place it from memory.
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"It's just that the Hegemony had one answer to every naval problem. 'I kills it with my battleships.'" - Liam's Ghost
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"The BT universe is startlingly deficient in both wisdom and hindsight." - Cray
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
There's no shame in designing customs, so long as you keep them private and wash your hands afterwards.

Talen5000

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 450
    • Handbook: Smoke Jaguar
Re: Safe superjump?
« Reply #10 on: 22 July 2019, 20:39:20 »
Source on that ship? I can't place it from memory.

1630, original Star League SB.

I would presume it is apocryphal/retconned/ignored at this stage, but I thought it worth mentioning.
"So let me get this straight. You want to fly on a magic carpet to see the King of the Potato People and plead with him for your freedom, and you're telling me you're completely sane?" -- Uncle Arnie

Daryk

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10180
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Safe superjump?
« Reply #11 on: 22 July 2019, 20:51:50 »
I just went through the Terran Alliance section of that book and didn't see mention of that ship... got a page reference?

Talen5000

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 450
    • Handbook: Smoke Jaguar
Re: Safe superjump?
« Reply #12 on: 22 July 2019, 21:26:46 »
I just went through the Terran Alliance section of that book and didn't see mention of that ship... got a page reference?

Its the sidebar on p60
"So let me get this straight. You want to fly on a magic carpet to see the King of the Potato People and plead with him for your freedom, and you're telling me you're completely sane?" -- Uncle Arnie

Daryk

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10180
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Safe superjump?
« Reply #13 on: 23 July 2019, 04:29:59 »
Ah, thanks!  I'm pretty sure Trailblazer One was a Star League ship, not a Terran Alliance one... that's what was throwing me.

Ursus Maior

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 290
  • Just here for a little mayhem.
Re: Safe superjump?
« Reply #14 on: 23 July 2019, 08:18:09 »
It says, Trail Blazer it was on a 35 year mission. The article is from the 27th century, so it's certainly not a Terran Alliance ship, but maybe a Hegemony ship.
liber et infractus

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 33001
  • Divided States of SMASH
Re: Safe superjump?
« Reply #15 on: 23 July 2019, 09:23:19 »
Yeah, I'd treat that as apocryphal. As things stand right now, multiple cores in close proximity during a jump automatically means Very Bad Things.
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"It's just that the Hegemony had one answer to every naval problem. 'I kills it with my battleships.'" - Liam's Ghost
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"The BT universe is startlingly deficient in both wisdom and hindsight." - Cray
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
There's no shame in designing customs, so long as you keep them private and wash your hands afterwards.

The_Caveman

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1246
  • A Living Fossil
Re: Safe superjump?
« Reply #16 on: 23 July 2019, 10:45:04 »
"Triple core" might just mean "one core formed out of three rods". There's next to nothing given in canon sources about the actual design constraints of K-F cores (nor should there be).
Half the fun of BattleTech is the mental gymnastics required to scientifically rationalize design choices made decades ago entirely based on the Rule of Cool.

The other half is a first-turn AC/2 shot TAC to your gyro that causes your Atlas to fall and smash its own cockpit... wait, I said fun didn't I?

grimlock1

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1392
Re: Safe superjump?
« Reply #17 on: 23 July 2019, 12:44:55 »
It's hard to say how the imaginary physics would work, because KF fields are even more imaginary than the rest of BattleTech's physics, but I suspect that the second drive would merely (merely! if one can call it that) contribute to the KF field in the same way the Ryan Cartel's do; which is to say, it might allow you to move a greater mass of ship relative to however much the KF drives weigh.

I doubt it would increase the distance of the jump.

When in doubt, blame resonance.
I'm rarely right... Except when I am.  ---  Idle question.  What is the BV2 of dread?
Apollo's Law- if it needs Clan tech to make it useable, It doesn't deserve those resources in the first place.
Sure it isn't the most practical 'mech ever designed, but it's a hundred ton axe-murderer. If loving that is wrong I don't wanna be right.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10180
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Safe superjump?
« Reply #18 on: 23 July 2019, 17:14:45 »
+1 for the physics reference!  And as a reward: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbOjxPCfaFk

glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8194
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: Safe superjump?
« Reply #19 on: 23 July 2019, 21:13:47 »
It's hard to say how the imaginary physics would work, because KF fields are even more imaginary than the rest of BattleTech's physics, but I suspect that the second drive would merely (merely! if one can call it that) contribute to the KF field in the same way the Ryan Cartel's do; which is to say, it might allow you to move a greater mass of ship relative to however much the KF drives weigh.

I doubt it would increase the distance of the jump.
except it has been established that the Ryan cartel method does nothing of the sort. they just are taking advantage of the fact that you don't have to deliver comets used for water in one piece and using the normal destructive process on items caught in a jump field but not linked to the drive itself to rip chunks free from the comets when they jump.

Talen5000

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 450
    • Handbook: Smoke Jaguar
Re: Safe superjump?
« Reply #20 on: 24 July 2019, 19:36:16 »
except it has been established that the Ryan cartel method does nothing of the sort. they just are taking advantage of the fact that you don't have to deliver comets used for water in one piece and using the normal destructive process on items caught in a jump field but not linked to the drive itself to rip chunks free from the comets when they jump.

Against which is that KF drives are mass limited, not volume and the total mass limit of a core circa 3100 is about 7 million tons.

The Ryan Iceships used 16 JumpShip working together to jump icebergs massing up to several billion tons and did so by coordinating the links and controllers.

The inference here is not only were the KF fields expanded to surround the asteroidal iceberg, but that the "harmonization" effect of linking the fields created a reinforcement effect that  greatly expanded the mass the total field could carry.

Since it seems likely an Iceship was smaller than a Monolith or Star Lord, those sixteen JumpShips probably reinforced the field by several orders of magnitude.

Although probably simpler to accept the role of the IceShip was a:overstated and b: normally relegated to new colonies which lacked the infrastructure to purify huge amounts of water cheaply and terraforming efforts.

As in....the Ryan Cartel didn't "jump" bergs at all but harnessed specially created jumpships that could "dock" with suitable bergs and boost them in system. Because the Ryan Cartel as stated doesn't really make sense.

"So let me get this straight. You want to fly on a magic carpet to see the King of the Potato People and plead with him for your freedom, and you're telling me you're completely sane?" -- Uncle Arnie

skiltao

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1192
    • SkilTao's Gaming Blog
Re: Safe superjump?
« Reply #21 on: 24 July 2019, 20:15:38 »
except it has been established that the Ryan cartel method does nothing of the sort. they just are taking advantage of the fact that you don't have to deliver comets used for water in one piece and using the normal destructive process on items caught in a jump field but not linked to the drive itself to rip chunks free from the comets when they jump.

The "standard destructive process" is exactly the same process that allows the jumpship to be jumped safely and intact. The difference is that the portion of the field encompassing the ship is shaped and controlled, while the portion reaching (weakly) out two kilometers away is not.

The Ryan Cartel would cut icebergs 2km across and then surround it with ships, using overlapping fields to cover that enclosed space the way Talen described. Strategic Operations adds the idea that the iceberg often fractures, but it's still intact enough for tugs to maneuver. The enclosed iceberg arrives essentially complete - it is not merely "chunks ripped free."

The reasons the iceberg might shatter have to do with problems mapping the desired mass and coordination between the participating cores. They would not apply to the innards of a ship purposely built with multiple cores.

Although probably simpler to accept the role of the IceShip was a:overstated and b: normally relegated to new colonies which lacked the infrastructure to purify huge amounts of water cheaply and terraforming efforts.
<snip>
the Ryan Cartel as stated doesn't really make sense.

Simpler than what?

Overlapping KF fields allows for greater field strength and control over the desired distances. It's a sufficiently esoteric body of knowledge (inside the already esoteric field of KF science) that its use has not recovered as quickly as other aspects of jumpship/warship construction and operation. What doesn't make sense?
Blog: currently working on BattleMech manufacturing rates. (Faction Intros project will resume eventually.)
History of BattleTech: Handy chart for returning players. (last updated end of 2012)

cray

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5813
  • How's it sit? Pretty cunning, don't you think?
Re: Safe superjump?
« Reply #22 on: 27 July 2019, 17:08:37 »
Although probably simpler to accept the role of the IceShip was a:overstated and b: normally relegated to new colonies which lacked the infrastructure to purify huge amounts of water cheaply and terraforming efforts.

Those billions of tons weren't "huge." Humans have voracious appetites for water, especially once they industrialize and have factories, bathrooms, and power plants to feed. So, as you said, iceships are unlikely to be able to support any sizable colony.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

**"A man walks down the street in that hat, people know he's not afraid of anything." --Wash, Firefly.
**"Well, the first class name [for pocket WarShips]: 'Ship with delusions of grandeur that is going to evaporate 3.1 seconds after coming into NPPC range' tended to cause morale problems...." --Korzon77
**"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading." --Thomas Jefferson, or not

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.

Talen5000

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 450
    • Handbook: Smoke Jaguar
Re: Safe superjump?
« Reply #23 on: 27 July 2019, 18:10:18 »
Those billions of tons weren't "huge." Humans have voracious appetites for water, especially once they industrialize and have factories, bathrooms, and power plants to feed. So, as you said, iceships are unlikely to be able to support any sizable colony.

Huge refers to the amount of water a colony needs and, as far as I can see, there is no water shortage as such that would justify an Ice Cartel as written. If a world lacks enough water to support a colony then either it would not be colonised, or the colony would obtain ice from the local sphere. The capability of merging jumpfields to jump Icebergs seems unnecessarily complex and expensive and justifiable only in the rare situations when large amounts of water needed to be transported in system.

The situation is that the iceships were added simply to create a "tone" for the universe, but it is a setup that appears to have no basis in fact, no basis in in game logic, and appears to contradict later explanations for how kf jump fields work.
"So let me get this straight. You want to fly on a magic carpet to see the King of the Potato People and plead with him for your freedom, and you're telling me you're completely sane?" -- Uncle Arnie

skiltao

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1192
    • SkilTao's Gaming Blog
Re: Safe superjump?
« Reply #24 on: 27 July 2019, 19:45:48 »
A basic tenet of the BattleTech setting is that water isn't available in economic speeds and quantities at every star system humanity wants to inhabit or exploit. Are you arguing that worlds won't vary in how economical it is to exploit them, and that new technologies won't move some worlds from uneconomical to economical? ???

The basic operation of a KF field - dragging matter through a KF jump - is exactly the same in both standard jumps and in the overlapping fields of a Ryan fleet. How do their facts and game logic seem different to you?

appears to contradict later explanations for how kf jump fields work.

The cores of a Ryan fleet aren't close enough to damage each other. What seems to be the conflict?
Blog: currently working on BattleMech manufacturing rates. (Faction Intros project will resume eventually.)
History of BattleTech: Handy chart for returning players. (last updated end of 2012)

Hellraiser

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7941
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Safe superjump?
« Reply #25 on: 29 July 2019, 19:18:18 »
Wasn't there a quote somewhere early on where KF jumps used to be less than 30LY.

I swear I read that somewhere.  That early jumps were only capable of like 10LY.

The 30LY figure is only the current max of a "safe" jump.

We also have 2 examples of 40 & 50 LY prototype drives in use with the Manassas & IU? drives that didn't burn out the core but had some other issues IIRC.

So I'd say the "Super-Jump" is a matter of "When" do we advance the KF tech to a new milestone achievement.

Like coming up with an IS produced Clan ERLL,  they just need to refine the 40/50 LY tech to get it working safely.
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Ursus Maior

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 290
  • Just here for a little mayhem.
Re: Safe superjump?
« Reply #26 on: 30 July 2019, 15:18:40 »
Wasn't there a quote somewhere early on where KF jumps used to be less than 30LY.

I swear I read that somewhere.  That early jumps were only capable of like 10LY.

The 30LY figure is only the current max of a "safe" jump.

We also have 2 examples of 40 & 50 LY prototype drives in use with the Manassas & IU? drives that didn't burn out the core but had some other issues IIRC.

So I'd say the "Super-Jump" is a matter of "When" do we advance the KF tech to a new milestone achievement.

Like coming up with an IS produced Clan ERLL,  they just need to refine the 40/50 LY tech to get it working safely.
That's true, you might be thinking of Interstellar Operations and ships like Aquilla class primitive JumpShip. However, JumpShip technology has stagnated in the BTU for centuries. Since the Age of War, the boundaries of K-F technology have not been pushed further out, the exception being HPG devices. No information has been given, as far as I know, on early HPG transmitters and the developments regarding their distances.

My theory would be that early HPGs started at a 30 ly range, since anything under 30 ly would yield no benefit to developing courier JumpShips. The question remains though, where HPG theory forked off from K-F-drive theory.

It's interesting to see, though, that in the BTU K-F-drives and HPG transmitters become more efficient at some point, i. e. they can be build much smaller, but they not more effective, meaning their range maxima stay constant. That seems rather odd, since usually being able to build something smaller means one has mastered its power, too. By analogy, that would be like microchip processors being build on ever smaller circuit boards, but not being able to build computers that can do more calculations per microsecond. These technological boundaries do exist for certain spans of time, yes, but usually they are solved within a couple of years and can temporarily be circumvented by adding processor cores and enhancing clocking speed.

For K-F technology, no such circumvention seems to exist, not even during the heydays of the Star League. That suggests a rather hard limit, probably due to the nature of hyperspace. Unless one finds a new way to look at the problem, which is WoB scientists might have done.
liber et infractus

Daryk

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10180
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Safe superjump?
« Reply #27 on: 30 July 2019, 16:46:34 »
The tech improvement in KF drives was efficiency.  The fact that "modern" JumpShips are 95% KF drive tells you they are as cheap as can be, and drop collars double down on that math.  Each collar is worth 100,000 tons for the mere cost of 1,000 for the JumpShip.

idea weenie

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1951
Re: Safe superjump?
« Reply #28 on: 31 July 2019, 20:54:32 »
My theory would be that early HPGs started at a 30 ly range, since anything under 30 ly would yield no benefit to developing courier JumpShips. The question remains though, where HPG theory forked off from K-F-drive theory.

I could see a use for an HPG that only had 10-15 ly range - it can send data from itself to several of the worlds within range (sequentially), instead of only one world like a courier Jumpship.

Courier Jumpships allow transmitting lots of data to a single location (plus passing it on to other Jumpships in-system).

Small transmission to multiple locations quickly?  HPG
Lots of data and willing to accept delays? Courier Jumpship

Both would have their use


But I would like to see a slow improvement in KF capability.  Maybe a 1 ly improvement in jump range per 10 years of research, starting only after the WoB research into their superdrive gets loose?  So if it got loose in 3090, that means in 3160 the range is 37 light-years.  Not game-breaking yet, but some worlds that were just over 30 light-years apart are rejoicing at only needing 1 jump to reach each other, instead of 2.  Other worlds that belong to different Houses are annoyed because they just wound up on the front lines.

Ursus Maior

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 290
  • Just here for a little mayhem.
Re: Safe superjump?
« Reply #29 on: 01 August 2019, 09:35:26 »
The problem with JumpShips as couriers is that even primitive JumpShips take up space and time in the very few JumpShip yards each state has. And considerung the time frames of the BTU, 1 ly increase per 10 yrs would actually be a lot. For the Star League alone that would be a 21 ly increase. And for the post-Helm era that would be another 10 ly roughly, leaving out several years for the jihad and its anticipated loss of research time.
liber et infractus