In a way this was done in spirits some of the original designs - having to power down some systems to bring another to its full potential. However, if you take it to an extreme conclusion you could have a ship that is finely honed, but unable to cope with any damage to engineering.
________________________________
From: Todd Kes
Sent: Friday, 29 June 2012, 20:12
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Power vs efficiency
I'd see the main advantage is where you design a ship so it powers what you think you'll need, not everything at once. I.e. if the enemy deploys sandcaster shots, you shift power from the lasers to Meson guns.
If the enemy starts tossing missiles like crazy, you shift power to the rapid-fire turrets rather than the heavy turrets. If they are only tossing a few, you don't have to divert as much.
By reducing the necessary power plant size, you can fit in more equipment in the same hull, whether this is fuel, personnel (for damage control/marines), ammunition, more weapons, etc.
I.e. try designing two ships, both 20,000 tons, with different types of weapons, but as much else being identical. For one ship you design the main reactor to fire everything, and the second you design the reactor to power one of the two types. I'm curious about the results now, myself.
Todd Kes
--- On Thu, 6/28/12, wrote:
> Nonetheless, your analogy is correct in the way that could
> work in
> Traveller, if you wanted to build your ship that way.
>
> Good luck selling the B5 main gun power-outage to Traveller
> designers,
> though. But it is a little like battleship main gun
> overpressure lighting
> off the float planes and starting fires on the fantail.
>
> Like you, I think it could be fun, for people who enjoy
> playing that way.
>
________________________________
From: Todd Kes
Sent: Friday, 29 June 2012, 20:12
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Power vs efficiency
I'd see the main advantage is where you design a ship so it powers what you think you'll need, not everything at once. I.e. if the enemy deploys sandcaster shots, you shift power from the lasers to Meson guns.
If the enemy starts tossing missiles like crazy, you shift power to the rapid-fire turrets rather than the heavy turrets. If they are only tossing a few, you don't have to divert as much.
By reducing the necessary power plant size, you can fit in more equipment in the same hull, whether this is fuel, personnel (for damage control/marines), ammunition, more weapons, etc.
I.e. try designing two ships, both 20,000 tons, with different types of weapons, but as much else being identical. For one ship you design the main reactor to fire everything, and the second you design the reactor to power one of the two types. I'm curious about the results now, myself.
Todd Kes
--- On Thu, 6/28/12, wrote:
> Nonetheless, your analogy is correct in the way that could
> work in
> Traveller, if you wanted to build your ship that way.
>
> Good luck selling the B5 main gun power-outage to Traveller
> designers,
> though. But it is a little like battleship main gun
> overpressure lighting
> off the float planes and starting fires on the fantail.
>
> Like you, I think it could be fun, for people who enjoy
> playing that way.
>