Book 3: Scouts

[Whipsnade]

That they are now ubiquitous is your assumption.

Psion,

And that it's my assumption is only your opinion.

The text in MgT:Scouts certainly infers they're ubiquitous.

They may be relatively common, but they may also be relatively new.

That I can live with.

I could also live without yet another small craft that doesn't add anything original to the IISS' ship baseline. The modular cutter already does the same job and has the same size, why duplicate that? Why not add something that is actually new?


Regards,
Bill

 

[rancke]

I happen to agree with you about the numbers of different tramp trader designs across the Third Imperium. I also happen to think that the same forces that cause most writers to use and re-use the Beowulf in a meta-game sense also cause most tramp traders to use the Beowulf in an in-game sense.

I don't understand that at all. The "force" that causes most writers to use and re-use the Beowulf is convenience (or so I conjecture). I really don't think it's at all plausible that the very same design would be used by two different shipyards in the same system, let alone two shipyards on different sides of the Imperium Yet it's convenient for GMs to be able to use the same deckplans no matter where their campaigns are located, so we ignore that little implausibility for the sake of convenience. But to jump from there to assuming that the Beowulf is proportionally as well represented in the Imperium as the extremely biased sampling implies is, IMO, to stretch the evidence beyond the breaking point.

In the case of jump1, 200dTon, tramp traders the Beowulf is the standard design ubiquitous across the Imperium and the other designs - despite occurring in large numbers - are limited in time, space, and/or utility.

Possibly. Maybe the ubiquity of the Beowulf stems from it being a class of classes rather than a single class. I don't really think that a 200T jump-1 ship built by Clan Severn on Rhylanor and a 200T jump-1 ship built by Delvani in the Solomani Rim are any more the same class than a French destroyer is the same class as an English destroyer of the same tonnage.

My Beowulf analogy wasn't analogous enough for Mongoose's 50dTon survey pods however as those survey pods are supposedly bought and operated by an imperium-wide organization which has a vital need for standardization.

I thought the flaw in the analogy was that the IISS has been described in great detail in previously published material whereas the 200T jump-1 ship types of the Imperium have not been described in similar exhaustive detail.

Because the IISS purchases and operates scout/couriers, x-boats, tenders, Donosevs, and ghu knows what else from the Rim the the Marches, it would also purchase and operate 50dTon survey pods from the Rim to the Marches. Yet we've never seen them before.

MgT says they're routinely aboard their "stretched" scout/couriers and that the IISS uses them extensively. Yet we've never seen them before now.

The pods are useful enough to replace the modular cutter aboard the Donosev and the pods are numerous enough for Donosevs to be assigned them. Yet we've never seen them before.

Does that seem plausible to you?

Nope. Whereas I wouldn't turn a hair if someone presented another 200T jump-1 ship class and implied that it was almost as unbiquitous as the Beowulf (it just hadn't been mentioned before).

Still not convinced?

Convinced of what?

Let me give you another example of a recent addition to baseline canon which we were told had existed all this time without being seen before:

Viscounts.

What was your reaction to the inclusion of viscounts in G:Humaniti?

I was annoyed and objected to it, but after I was told that it was a change mandated by Marc Miller himself, I accepted it as a deliberate retcon. So much so, in fact, that I was profoundly puzzled and annoyed when the viscount did not appear in T20 (nor in MGT, I've been told?). The viscount actually works quite well in the system. You have barons for insigninficant worlds and marquesses for significant worlds, viscounts for clusters with no significant worlds, and counts for clusters with at least one significant world. Very neat, really.


Hans

 

[rancke]

The text in MgT:Scouts certainly infers they're ubiquitous.

Implies, Bill . The speaker/text implies, the listener/reader infers. Nero Wolfe was so right about the non-interchangability of 'imply' and 'infer', no matter what the dictionary says .


Hans

 

[Whipsnade]

I don't understand that at all. The "force" that causes most writers to use and re-use the Beowulf is convenience (or so I conjecture).

Hans,

And the same desire for convenience will assure that Beowulfs across the Imperium will have essentially the same engineering performance, follow the same hatch dimensions, carry the same avionics, and use interchangeable spare parts. Isn't that what IDPs are all about?

If you use essentially the same parts to meet essentially the same goals, your ship will be essentially the same across the breadth of the Imperium. Sure, there will be fiddly bits that are different but they'll be below the resolution of the game's ship building system.

I really don't think it's at all plausible that the very same design would be used by two different shipyards in the same system, let alone two shipyards on different sides of the Imperium.

Essentially the same design and most differences will be below the resolution of the game.

Yet it's convenient for GMs to be able to use the same deckplans no matter where their campaigns are located, so we ignore that little implausibility for the sake of convenience. But to jump from there to assuming that the Beowulf is proportionally as well represented in the Imperium as the extremely biased sampling implies is, IMO, to stretch the evidence beyond the breaking point.

There are Beowulfs on the Rim, in the Marches, and everywhere else we look. SOM gives us three examples whose operating regions are separated by multiple sectors. The AHL books do the same with the cruisers of the same name. Some are on the Rim, some are in the Marches, and all use the same deckplans. Will the hatch to the captain's cabin always open to the right? No. Will the fresher in Cabin #4 always be inboard and starboard? No. Are those differences below the level of resolution for the game? Yes.

That's what we need to remember here. We look at the OTU at varying levels of resolution depending on what aspects are under examination. Given the level of resolution with which we examine jump1, 200dTon, free traders, the Beowulf-class will comprise the vast majority of those vessels. Most of the differences between different varieties of Beowulf aren't noticeable given the level of detail in the ship building system.

I don't really think that a 200T jump-1 ship built by Clan Severn on Rhylanor and a 200T jump-1 ship built by Delvani in the Solomani Rim are any more the same class than a French destroyer is the same class as an English destroyer of the same tonnage.

If they have the same performance, are built at the same TL, carry the same amount of pax and cargo, and require the same minimum number of crewmen then they're the same vessel at the level of resolution we have.

I thought the flaw in the analogy was that the IISS has been described in great detail in previously published material whereas the 200T jump-1 ship types of the Imperium have not been described in similar exhaustive detail.

Probably. I should have chosen a vessel that an imperium-wide organization uses rather than a civilian ship. A 6gee, TL15, 20dTon launch for the IN would have been a better choice. The IN would require the same level of standardization the IISS would.

Nope. Whereas I wouldn't turn a hair if someone presented another 200T jump-1 ship class and implied that it was almost as unbiquitous as the Beowulf (it just hadn't been mentioned before).

Neither would I because civilian shipping isn't as standardized. I'd think presenting yet another 200dTon, jump1,free trader would be a waste of time and ink however. We already have a 200dTon, jump1, free trader and there aren't too many different ways to build one that would also be unique. All you'll end up doing is arranging the same components within a differently shaped hull: Wow, it's shaped like a delta wing instead of a pumpkin seed and does all the exact same things! That sure is different, huh?

If you're going to add to the game's baseline why not introduce something that's actually new like SJGames did? Their far superior take on the IISS gave us deckplans for the jump6 courier we'd only seen once and a large survey cruiser design we'd never seen before.

That's my other problem with Mongoose's latest foul-up. When they concocted the 50dTon survey pod, not only did they add an allegedly ubiquitous vessel that had never even been hinted at before, but they also added nothing of any real value. The survey pod's job is already being done by a vessel of the same size, the 50dTon modular cutter.

I was annoyed and objected to it, but after I was told that it was a change mandated by Marc Miller himself, I accepted it as a deliberate retcon.

I'm annoyed at the survey pod and am objecting to it right now. Inserting the pods in the OTU will require a retcon and, because the modular cutter is already doing the same job at the same size, the survey pod isn't worth a retcon.

So much so, in fact, that I was profoundly puzzled and annoyed when the viscount did not appear in T20 (nor in MGT, I've been told?).

So much for the retcon, huh? They haven't even bothered to put viscounts in the two versions that came after G:Traveller.

The viscount actually works quite well in the system.

Agreed, and that's why viscounts are worth the retcon.

Survey pods do not work well within the system however and they're not worth a retcon. Their job is already being done by a vessel of the same size and we're going to have to handwave away over thirty years of silence about their presence to make the pods work. Look at the Donosevs for example.

If survey pods have been in use, why do the Donosevs carry a cutter and two modules instead? If the Donosev's carry a cutter and two modules because they provide more flexibility in tailoring a ship's capabilities for specific survey missions, why then would survey pods be used at all? The questions keep going on from there.

The pods simply aren't worth the effort. The pods aren't a good idea on several levels. They merely duplicate a capability already seen in the game and they'll require quite a retcon. IMHO, they're little more than another example of Mongoose "marking" their new "territory" much like the "anime artillery" found in MgT:Mercenary.

Oh, almost forgot. Because MgT:Scouts implies the pods are ubiquitous I then inferred they were.


Regards,
Bill

 

[rancke]

And the same desire for convenience will assure that Beowulfs across the Imperium will have essentially the same engineering performance, follow the same hatch dimensions, carry the same avionics, and use interchangeable spare parts. Isn't that what IDPs are all about?

I've always been under the impression that "essentially the same" wasn't enough to constitute a ship class. That even relatively small changes were enough to call for a new class designation. The wikidedia article on ship classes (which does not cite sources, and so may be in error; however, what it says correspond to what I've always gathered) says:

"In the course of building a class of ships, design changes might be implemented. In such a case, the ships of different design might not be considered of the same class; each variation would either be its own class, or a subclass of the original class (see County-class cruiser for an example). If ships are built of a class whose production had been discontinued, a similar distinction might be made. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_class]​

So variations are enough to engender a new class, or at least sub-class. Indeed, the last sentence talks about identical ships possibly being a new class if they're built in a later production run.

If you use essentially the same parts to meet essentially the same goals, your ship will be essentially the same across the breadth of the Imperium. Sure, there will be fiddly bits that are different but they'll be below the resolution of the game's ship building system.

Indeed they will, but they'll not be below the resolution of the "real world". And some of the possible variations are not even below the resolution of the game. There's the ship classes with essentially the same engineering performance, hatch dimensions, avionics, and interchangeable spare parts as the Beowulf, but based on the Needle/wedge configuration, the essentially identical design based on the cone configuration, the one based on the cylinder configuration, the box, the sphere, and the dome/disk.

I really don't think it's at all plausible that the very same design would be used by two different shipyards in the same system, let alone two shipyards on different sides of the Imperium.

Essentially the same design and most differences will be below the resolution of the game.

See above. "Essentially the same design" =/= "same class".

There are Beowulfs on the Rim, in the Marches, and everywhere else we look. SOM gives us three examples whose operating regions are separated by multiple sectors.

Nor did I claim otherwise. I claimed that it wasn't very plausible that they were a representative sample of all the 200T jump-1 ships found throughout the Imperium.

The AHL books do the same with the cruisers of the same name. Some are on the Rim, some are in the Marches, and all use the same deckplans.

And that's all right too, since they were all built at the same time, under the same construction order, according to the exact same plans. But are the 92 Azhantis that were built the only 60,000T cruisers in the Imperium?

Will the hatch to the captain's cabin always open to the right? No. Will the fresher in Cabin #4 always be inboard and starboard? No. Are those differences below the level of resolution for the game? Yes.

In the same ship class, the answer to your first questions might well be 'yes', especially the one about the hatch. The answer to your third question is 'But not below the resolution of the "real world"'.

Whereas I wouldn't turn a hair if someone presented another 200T jump-1 ship class and implied that it was almost as unbiquitous as the Beowulf (it just hadn't been mentioned before).

Neither would I because civilian shipping isn't as standardized. I'd think presenting yet another 200dTon, jump1,free trader would be a waste of time and ink however.

That's a good enough reason not to publish different deck plans. I don't agree with it (I think just the improved verisimilitude would be worth it), but it's certainly an argument where I can understand why others may feel differently. But it's not a good argument for establishing that in the OTU, all 200T jump-1 ships are configured in exactly the same way.

We already have a 200dTon, jump1, free trader and there aren't too many different ways to build one that would also be unique.

Half a dozen different ship classes just by varying the configuration. Whereas you could get a new class just by building a new batch of a previously built design.

All you'll end up doing is arranging the same components within a differently shaped hull: Wow, it's shaped like a delta wing instead of a pumpkin seed and does all the exact same things! That sure is different, huh?

Different enough to make it a new class in "real life", yes. Different enough to warrant publishing another set of deck plans? By the same publisher, maybe yes, maybe no. By a new publisher, yes, indeed. By a new publisher with a base era different from the Classic Era, even more so.

If you're going to add to the game's baseline why not introduce something that's actually new like SJGames did? Their far superior take on the IISS gave us deckplans for the jump6 courier we'd only seen once and a large survey cruiser design we'd never seen before.

I didn't introduce a new 200T ship, but I did introduce three new 400T ones, the Oxen and Gryphons and Eagles, jump-1, -2, and -3 versions built on the same hull. The "only" practical difference between the Placid Oxen and the Akkigishes is that one is unstreamlined and the other is streamlined, but I'd say that very much above the resolution of the game, let alone the "real world". They're all built by the same small shipyard on Regina, so you won't find them in the Solomani Rim. Unless, of course, some enterprising GM grabs the deck plans, sticks a tail on them, and calls it a Weasel class, and good for him if he does.

Obviously I thought it was worthwhile, Loren thought it was worthwhile, and as it got a score of 3.80, some of the readers thought so too. (Though they (the plans, not the readers) were critizised for being too primitive (they were in the same minimalist style as CT deck plans)).

So much for the retcon, huh? They haven't even bothered to put viscounts in the two versions that came after G:Traveller.

Yeah, and I really don't understand why Marc Miller would insist on introducing such a change in one new version and then letting the two next versions ignore it. Come to that, I don't understand why the line editors of the two new versions would ignore it.

Oh, almost forgot. Because MgT:Scouts implies the pods are ubiquitous I then inferred they were.

Attaboy!


Cheers,
Hans

 

[mbrinkhues]

It is not uncommon for civilian ships from various producers to match a set of standards and come out so close to one another that they are considered a class. The "Europaschiff" and his follow-ups are examples, the british canal barges are another. Due to specific restrictions they all have the same size, tonnage and layout(1) and no one would consider them separate classes.

Their interior systems may be slightly different (say one has an MTU diesel another a Renault one) but that translates to the IDP concept of Traveller quite nicely (and makes for some nice plot hooks). Simply assume an IDP specifies "6x3x2m space for Fusion plant here" and each manufacturer then mounts whatever plant he has(2)

(1) Okay, 2 sizes for the british canal network

(2) The plant being specified in another IDP

 

[rancke]

It is not uncommon for civilian ships from various producers to match a set of standards and come out so close to one another that they are considered a class. The "Europaschiff" and his follow-ups are examples, the british canal barges are another. Due to specific restrictions they all have the same size, tonnage and layout(1) and no one would consider them separate classes.

References would have been nice. I've tried googling for an English definition of Europashiff and for British canal barges, both without any luck.

I did get a lot of hits on 'Europashiff', but all of them in German. My German is very rusty, so I don't know if it's significant, but the definition I found says it's a ship type, not a class. In English, at least, that is significant. A ship class is not the same as a ship type.

Their interior systems may be slightly different (say one has an MTU diesel another a Renault one) but that translates to the IDP concept of Traveller quite nicely (and makes for some nice plot hooks). Simply assume an IDP specifies "6x3x2m space for Fusion plant here" and each manufacturer then mounts whatever plant he has(2)

The IDP concept fits quite nicely with the definition of ship type. Each example of the same type would be a different ship class. For example, two ships can be of the same type without having the same layout. All ships of the same class has the same layout. All the Beowulfs do .


Hans

 

[mbrinkhues]

Sorry, I only did look up the german definition (Actually the Wiki Entry). Yes, it is a list of parameters that define a type of ship but the type is very closely defined with fixed dimensions, speeds, waves generated, backpressure generated etc etc. So ships have basically no variations and they look like it. Sure, a tanker is different from a bulk freighter or a container (That would be three classes) but even there the hull dimensions etc. are all the same with the differences restricted to the interior of the hull or more closely to the "cargo bay" area.

As for the British system there are some links low on the page.

 

[rancke]

Sorry, I only did look up the german definition (Actually the Wiki Entry). Yes, it is a list of parameters that define a type of ship but the type is very closely defined with fixed dimensions, speeds, waves generated, backpressure generated etc etc. So ships have basically no variations and they look like it. Sure, a tanker is different from a bulk freighter or a container (That would be three classes) but even there the hull dimensions etc. are all the same with the differences restricted to the interior of the hull or more closely to the "cargo bay" area.

As for the British system there are some links low on the page.

Any that calls them a ship class?


Hans

 

[far-trader]

I've always been under the impression that "essentially the same" wasn't enough to constitute a ship class. That even relatively small changes were enough to call for a new class designation.

I think you mistyped in one of the above. They read contradictory to me. In any case...

The wikipedia article on ship classes (which does not cite sources, and so may be in error; however, what it says correspond to what I've always gathered) says:

"In the course of building a class of ships, design changes might be implemented. In such a case, the ships of different design might not be considered of the same class; each variation would either be its own class, or a subclass of the original class (see County-class cruiser for an example). If ships are built of a class whose production had been discontinued, a similar distinction might be made. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_class]

​

So variations are enough to engender a new class, or at least sub-class. Indeed, the last sentence talks about identical ships possibly being a new class if they're built in a later production run.

Knowing the source of that would be helpful.

EDIT: Oh, now I check the link. It's not talking about Traveller at all. That darn pesky real world again BAH! Ignore it.

I've been going over this again recently in the TCS fun here on CotI and that's pretty flat out wrong per CT TCS (page 19):

2. Class Variations.

...In order to be considered part of the same class, subsequent ships may differ from the first ship in only a few limited ways. There may be no changes in power plant, maneuver drive, jump drive, armor, or hull configuration. There may be no change in number or size of bays, although their contents may be altered. The size of the spinal mount and the number and sizes of launch facilities may not be increased, although they may be decreased. Any other ship components may be changed as desired. All differences from the design of the first ship of the class must be noted on the specific supporting worksheets.

​

Seems pretty clear to me, at least for Traveller. No need to look for real world cases that may not apply for whatever reasons. Now IF the concept was changed at some point in Traveller then fine, we deal with that decision, but there's the earliest (I think) canon definiton.

 

[Jeffr0]

Seems pretty clear to me, at least for Traveller. No need to look for real world cases that may not apply for whatever reasons. Now IF the concept was changed at some point in Traveller then fine, we deal with that decision, but there's the earliest (I think) canon definiton.

Yeah, but you're talking to Mr. Hans "Logic and Reality are more important than Rules" Rancke-Madsen.

 

[rancke]

I've been going over this again recently in the TCS fun here on CotI and that's pretty flat out wrong per CT TCS (page 19):

2. Class Variations.

...In order to be considered part of the same class, subsequent ships may differ from the first ship in only a few limited ways. There may be no changes in power plant, maneuver drive, jump drive, armor, or hull configuration. There may be no change in number or size of bays, although their contents may be altered. The size of the spinal mount and the number and sizes of launch facilities may not be increased, although they may be decreased. Any other ship components may be changed as desired. All differences from the design of the first ship of the class must be noted on the specific supporting worksheets.

​

Seems pretty clear to me, at least for Traveller. No need to look for real world cases that may not apply for whatever reasons. Now IF the concept was changed at some point in Traveller then fine, we deal with that decision, but there's the earliest (I think) canon definiton.

Unfortunately, my copy of TCS is temporarily mislaid, but IIRC this has less to do with a definition of ship class for the Imperium and more of a definition for when a ship qualifies for a production discount in a TCS campaign. So I'm not really prepared to dismiss the normal, real life definition quite yet. Even sticking rigidly to the TCS definition, there's still half a dozen different configurations. But I don't think that it's reasonable to do so. Take for example hull configuration. The rule means that two ships with the same configuration but with different dimensions both belong to the same class. Even two open structures or two irregular structures that have nothing in common except tonnage.


Hans

 

[far-trader]

Unfortunately, my copy of TCS is temporarily mislaid, but IIRC this has less to do with a definition of ship class for the Imperium and more of a definition for when a ship qualifies for a production discount in a TCS campaign.

Aren't the two the same in Traveller?

Even sticking rigidly to the TCS definition, there's still half a dozen different configurations. But I don't think that it's reasonable to do so. Take for example hull configuration. The rule means that two ships with the same configuration but with different dimensions both belong to the same class. Even two open structures or two irregular structures that have nothing in common except tonnage.

Ah, I think I see what you're saying, but I think you're forgetting to apply common sense. It's at the design stage that the hard (unalterable) choices (drives, config, armor) are made that define the very dimensions and layout that make two ships of even identical choices but different applications different classes.

For example two ships built by different designers but with identical drive performance, hull configuration, armor, weapon bays, spinal mounts, and launch facilities would not be the same class. All ships built by each of those designers to those specs but with variations in other areas would be the same class. Two classes, each with variations, and they could look and be laid out very differently even within that range.

We're not it seems (in Traveller) using the same definition of the word "class" (as it refers to space craft in Traveller) as we're using today so I don't see how it applies.

 

[rancke]

Yeah, but you're talking to Mr. Hans "Logic and Reality are more important than Rules" Rancke-Madsen.

Well, they are. Most game rules represent simplifications of complex situations. Taking a game rule as the exact representation of "reality" is like taking the map for the terrain.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Aren't the two the same in Traveller?

TCS and the OTU Imperium are one and the same? How do you figure that?

Ah, I think I see what you're saying, but I think you're forgetting to apply common sense. It's at the design stage that the hard (unalterable) choices (drives, config, armor) are made that define the very dimensions and layout that make two ships of even identical choices but different applications different classes.

According to the rules you quoted, the exact shape of a ship is irrelevant; only the configuration means anything. I think that applying common sense would be to say that the shape of the hull is just asd unalterable and the configuration.

For example two ships built by different designers but with identical drive performance, hull configuration, armor, weapon bays, spinal mounts, and launch facilities would not be the same class. All ships built by each of those designers to those specs but with variations in other areas would be the same class. Two classes, each with variations, and they could look and be laid out very differently even within that range.

That's what i've been trying to argue, yes. But it's not what the rules you quoted says. Which is why I suggest that those rules are not 100% realistic.

We're not it seems (in Traveller) using the same definition of the word "class" (as it refers to space craft in Traveller) as we're using today so I don't see how it applies.

But in Traveler, every spacefaring civilization anywhere in time and space use the same definition of the word "class"?

Game rules =/= full and total reality.


Hans

 

[Jeffr0]

Well, they are. Most game rules represent simplifications of complex situations. Taking a game rule as the exact representation of "reality" is like taking the map for the terrain.

But in a game of Striker... such a map would be the terrain. By definition.

 

[far-trader]

...IIRC this has less to do with a definition of ship class for the Imperium and more of a definition for when a ship qualifies for a production discount in a TCS campaign.

Aren't the two the same in Traveller?

TCS and the OTU Imperium are one and the same?

No, that the definition of ship class for the Imperium and what qualifies for production discounts (in TCS and HG) are the same.

 

[Whipsnade]

Gents,

I'm going to step back from the "Ship = Class" discussion going on and concentrate back on the ill-advised inclusion of survey pods in MgT:Scouts. Conversations between Hans and I, either public or private, tend to go off on amazing tangents and, while those tangents are almost always worth examining, I don't want to lose the actual thread here.

I made a mistake to use Beowulfs as my standardization analogy. A vessel from the Imperial Navy or another from the IISS would have been a better choice. Standardization does exist across the Imperium when there is a need for it and an organization as huge and widespread as the IISS needs standardization.

Does anyone seriously believe that there are major numbers of variations in x-boats? Or in tenders? The ubiquitous jump4, no-gee, 100dTon x-boat is the same from the Marches to the Rim. There will be variations used in some areas for specific reasons; that jump5 x-boat route in the Lunion subsector comes to mind, but the vast majority of x-boats are exactly the same at the level of resolution the game provides us.

The last part of that sentence is important. The vast majority of x-boats are identical at the level of resolution the game provides us. Rim boats may have the fresher on the left, Marches boats may have an hatch that opens to the right, but those details are well below the level of resolution the game provides us.

When you consider the level of resolution, the vast majority of Beowulfs across the Imperium are identical too. There will be regional variations and there will be yard variations, but those variations will be things we do not see because our ship building systems to not work that "low". When you have the same engineering performance, the same amount of cargo volume, the same number of staterooms, and every other component available in a ship building system the same, the vessels so built are essentially identical. Yes, you can slap all those components into different shaped hulls but all you're really doing rearranging the chairs around the dining room table.

That brings me to the point I was trying to make. MgT's survey pods are nothing more than a duplication of effort. They're a waste of time, ink, and verbiage in the Scouts supplement because they add nothing that is actually new to the IISS' inventory. Modular cutters do the same job and at the same tonnage. Pods aren't needed.

Now, pods might very well be used by the IISS, although I have my doubts about their being as ubiquitous as Scouts implies they are. Whether they're used or not, Mongoose misspent the effort required to create the pods. They should have instead come up with something that was actually new, much as SJGames did when they provided jump6 courier deckplans and a large survey cruiser design in their far superior IISS supplement.

The Imperium is vast and the setting bigger still. We can only sample what is out there and publishers can only print a fraction of that. That's why a baseline becomes important. Using a baseline allows us to avoid spending time recreating something that essentially already exists. We don't need to waste precious space in a published supplement detailing another jump4, no gee, 100dTon x-boat. That baseline design has been done before and a version shaped like a golf ball instead of an ice cream cone adds nothing and is a waste of effort. Similarly, we don't need another jump1, 1gee, X cargo, Y pax, Z staterooms, 200dTon, free trader design(1). Again, it already exists so any variation, including hull shapes, will be essentially the same at the level of resolution the game provides. GMs can and should make their own essentially identical variations, while gaming companies should not waste precious time and supplement space publishing the same.

The survey pod is a prime example of such wasted effort. It merely duplicates the job and size of a vessel that already exists, the modular cutter, and because of that, the pod adds nothing to Traveller's ship baseline. Mongoose could have added something new. Instead they chose to merely rework something that already existed and, in doing so, forced a major retcon on Our Olde Game. The IISS ship baseline still has loads of empty slots. We could use a militarized "super" scout or a mid-sized lab/survey ship or a dozen other vessels. Mongoose gave us a warmed over modular cutter instead.

Take a hard look at the survey pod. Examine it's capabilities and implied ubiquity. Then ask yourself if what is essentially a minor variation on the modular cutter is really worth the effort it would take to retcon it into the OTU.

In my opinion, the survey pod is not worth the effort. IMTU survey pods will be as Psion suggested, either something relatively new or something regional based. IMTU survey pods will not be what Mongoose states them to be, an ubiquitous piece of equipment the IISS has been using across the Imperium for a long period of time.

YMMV.


Regards,
Bill

1 - By all means, show how this baseline vessel is created using the ship construction system in you rules set, people will need to see how previous designs can 'port into you rules, but don't spend any more effort than that. Do something new instead.

 

[captainjack]

I may have missed the specifics earlier in the thread, where are the survey modules for the cutter detailed ?

 

[rancke]

But in a game of Striker... such a map would be the terrain. By definition.

For a game of Striker, the map would be the game map. For a role-playing session on a battlefield using Striker rules to adjudicate the background events, the map would be a map of the terrain.


Hans