1g Ships and Size:7 worlds...

[Grav_Moped]

That's the vector system for combat. It isn't a rule for landing on a planet.

Try using the LBB2 space combat Rules as Written to put a ship into orbit around a planet sometime. I'm sure it's possible, but it's not going to be pretty.

 

[Grav_Moped]

If they had standard anti-grav, they could just ignore gravity templates, or even add extra thrust from the anti-grav system. They can't.

Range limitations?
"LBB3 anti-grav" that's X amount above immediate local gravity effect rather than 1G+x amount? If so, adding perhaps 0.1G is below the resolution of the game system?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Range limitations?

CT anti-grav has no stated range-limitation, that was introduced with MT.

"LBB3 anti-grav" that's X amount above immediate local gravity effect rather than 1G+x amount? If so, adding perhaps 0.1G is below the resolution of the game system?

This says no:

A. Movement: The movement rate of a spaceship is determined in the same way as that for a grav vehicle; the ship's maneuver drive rating is used as its G value. A ship with a G rating equal to or less than the planetary gravity may not take part in combat actions except from orbit.

Striker deals in fractional G thrust.


If you want it, just house rule it, what's the big deal?

 

[Jame]

The movement system for spacecraft in LBB2 isn't good enough?
The movement system for spacecraft in Striker isn't good enough?
But you know for sure that spaceships work in a way that is not mentioned in any rule?

You know what I would call that? A house rule...
No problem with that, I use them all the time.



CT doesn't have contragrav at all, so it would be rather superfluous.
It also doesn't specify specifically that ships don't have pink fluffy wings, still I will go out on a limb and assume most ships don't.

The movement for spacecraft in LBB2 applies only in space. And, more importantly, Does Not Say That Spacecraft Lack And Or Do Not Have Contragrav.

And if CT doesn't have contragrav at all, then air/rafts, speeders, gcarriers or gravbelts. These exist in CT, so contragrav exists.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The movement for spacecraft in LBB2 applies only in space. And, more importantly, Does Not Say That Spacecraft Lack And Or Do Not Have Contragrav.

No, but ships specifically don't have the effects of anti-grav, or contragrav. I assume that means they don't have it.

But sure, they might have a system that doesn't do anything, what do I know?

And if CT doesn't have contragrav at all, then air/rafts, speeders, gcarriers or gravbelts. These exist in CT, so contragrav exists.

CT has anti-grav. Anti-grav produces lift and thrust:

Anti-gravity is the second major breakthrough. The postulated technology produces both neutralization of weight and lateral thrust.

TNE introduced contragrav. Contragrav produces lift, but no thrust:


TNE contragrav is usually used together with reaction drives (e.g. HEPlaR) for thrust.

 

[infojunky]

CT has anti-grav. Anti-grav produces lift and thrust:

Null-Gravity, which can be read as Contragravity. It says Lift and propulsion so one could read that as differential gravity attraction instead of Thrust.

 

[Jame]

Null-Gravity, which can be read as Contragravity. It says Lift and propulsion so one could read that as differential gravity attraction instead of Thrust.

This is how I read it. Lift, but not thrust.
Being able to float but not fly, if you will.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Are we reading the same books?

LBB3'77, p17:
Air/Raft (8) CR 6,000,000. Also known as a flier, the air/raft relies on solid state null gravity modules for lift and propulsion.

CT Striker, B3, p5:
Anti-gravity is the second major breakthrough. The postulated technology produces both neutralization of weight and lateral thrust.

CT Striker, B3, p8:
K. Grav Generators: A grav vehicle requires grav generators installed in its chassis. Each .02 m³ of grav generators produces 1 ton of thrust and requires .1 megawatts of power from the power plant. They weigh 2 tons and cost Cr100,000 per m³.

Propulsion = thrust.
Air/rafts can move forward, using the grav modules for propulsion.

FF&S, p75:
CG [Contra-Grav] lifters do not provide thrust and s...

No thrust, no propulsion.
Air/rafts need an additional drive system for propulsion.
Here contra-grav and HEPlaR (TNE, p363):



You don't notice any difference?

 

[Jame]

An air/raft uses its grav unit for both planetary lift and planetary thrust.
A ship uses its grav drive for planetary lift/thrust but its Mdrive for interplanetary thrust.

And even if a spacecraft uses a grav drive for interplanetary thrust, does not prevent it from being affected by a planetary size mass, due to the vast difference in scale.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

An air/raft uses its grav unit for both planetary lift and planetary thrust.

So, not contra-grav, but anti-grav?
No smoking plasma rocket?

A ship uses its grav drive for planetary lift/thrust but its Mdrive for interplanetary thrust.

That the rules say it doesn't do?

The movement rate of a spaceship is determined in the same way as that for a grav vehicle; the ship's maneuver drive rating is used as its G value. A ship with a G rating equal to or less than the planetary gravity may not take part in combat actions except from orbit.

Why would it turn off the M-drive when it is close to a planet?

And even if a spacecraft uses a grav drive for interplanetary thrust, does not prevent it from being affected by a planetary size mass, due to the vast difference in scale.

So spacecraft are affected by planetary masses, but they are not affected by planetary masses in the previous statement?



Just say your ships fly because you want them to. It's a house rule. We all do it all the time, it doesn't hurt a bit.
Here, let me show you:

You could of course house rule away the worst silliness, I certainly did... Yes, my TU worked the way I wanted, because I house ruled it. It wasn't difficult at all to say.

It's not scary, and didn't hurt at all.

 

[infojunky]

Are we reading the same books?

Maybe...

I take very Piper-esqe view of Contragravity, in that plain vanilla Contragrav give some nominal amount of thrust, akin to what is indicated in book3. Reading Adventure One description of Grav Vehicles as well as the Speeder entry in Book3 indicates that further effort is required to get beyond the described performance.

Also note Floaters from T5.

This doesn't preclude that another form of grav drive is possible. Again T5.

And Frank was the principle author of Striker, he has different assumptions than Marc, so once again YMMV.

 

[Captain_Ahab]

How was this addressed and/or handled in Mega Traveller?

it was addressed in "Hard Times" in the 'One Small Step' chapter

otherwise, MT doesn't touch it except that a ship must be streamlined to land most world
unstreamlined may land on atmo-0 and atmo-1 worlds

Except in 'Hard Times', MT uses reactionless and anti-grav drives, so anything goes

 

[atpollard]

I would say that LBB2 counts as RAW?
I would even say that Striker counts as RAW?

Just for the record, the question is not “Do they count as RAW?” … because, of course they do. The question is “Do they say anything that prohibits a ship with a 1G MD from landing and taking off from a world of size 8 and larger?”

LBB2 Combat says to add vectors for planetary gravity to movement vectors when a ship passes through a “band”.

• That is not explicitly about takeoff or landing … one way or another and if applied to aircraft the way that rule is being applied to Starships, then the aircraft cannot fly (ever). However, it has been correctly stated that this rule applies to Starship movement and not Aircraft takeoff.
• I would point out that this rule applies to Starship Combat and Space movement and is not part of the official CT rules for starships taking off and landing.
• The official rules for starship takeoff and landing describe restrictions based on Atmosphere and Streamlining … not restrictions based on planetary size and gravity.

STRIKER states what Starships may participate in MINIATURES combat under the Striker rules alongside Grav Vehicles and Aircraft using the Striker rules … and which Starships must participate ”from orbit”.

• Striker are rules for combat using miniatures (like war gaming). The RAW for Striker are for Wargaming and not Roleplaying rules.
• Participating in ground combat is not Taking off and Landing, so the question of applicability is apropos.
• Striker is OFTEN incompatible with other existing CT data … Striker vehicles do not match CT vehicles.

I have taken several beatings over just what “RULES AS WRITTEN” actually means. Fortunately, the pain was not wasted. I learned the difference between what the BOOKS ACTUALLY SAY and what we INTERPRET INTO what they say. So if one is going to play the RAW card in this topic, I am going to ask them to show where that RULE is WRITTEN.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Maybe...

So, no.

I take very Piper-esqe view of Contragravity, in that plain vanilla Contragrav give some nominal amount of thrust, akin to what is indicated in book3.

OK, you use another source than CT. Good for you, it's called a house rule. Why wouldn't you?

Reading Adventure One description of Grav Vehicles as well as the Speeder entry in Book3 indicates that further effort is required to get beyond the described performance.

Sorry, further effort? They are just faster, has more thrust? Just like air/rafts, but more capable in some respects.

Maybe because I started with LBBs'81, I have never assumed that the air/raft is the only grav vehicle, it's just one of many. Some might be higher performance, just as higher performance ground cars exist, despite only one example in LBB3.

Also note Floaters from T5.

This doesn't preclude that another form of grav drive is possible. Again T5.

Sorry, this is in the CT section, so I assumed CT was the basis of discussion.

Yes, agreed, other editions work differently.

And Frank was the principle author of Striker, he has different assumptions than Marc, so once again YMMV.

MWM hasn't written everything in Traveller or CT. Chadwick was instrumental in LBB4-5, is that not applicable to Traveller either?

OK, you set the topic of the thread, so if you only want to discuss what specifically MWM said we can do that. It's a bit difficult as LBB1-3 are not directly attributed to any specific writer, so that's not obviously a source either.

So, we are to discuss CT starships, but can't use LBB1-3, LBB5, or Striker as sources? I'm left with: I don't know anything.

 

[atpollard]

Why would I exclude part of the rules?

Including Striker for Starship design gives you MT … which has different baseline paradigm assumptions than LBB2/LBB5.

 

[infojunky]

So, no.

Read the same rules, but also read a source the rules where written from.

And Book3 can be read a number of ways, just because one of my interpretations is different from yours doesn't mean either of us is wrong.

This is Traveller after all.

OK, you use another source than CT. Good for you, it's called a house rule. Why wouldn't you?

A primary inspiration for Traveller, yes.

Again Traveller was written with Golden Age SF in mind.

Sorry, further effort? They are just faster, has more thrust? Just like air/rafts, but more capable in some respects.

But the nature of the extra thrust is never defined, again YMMV.

Maybe because I started with LBBs'81, I have never assumed that the air/raft is the only grav vehicle, it's just one of many. Some might be higher performance, just as higher performance ground cars exist, despite only one example in LBB3.

Never said that, just implied that other mechanisms other straight Grav where possible under the ambiguity of the initial descriptions.

So, we are to discuss CT starships, but can't use LBB1-3, LBB5, or Striker as sources? I'm left with: I don't know anything.

I set the thread looking for a Reference of what Marc said outside of the core rules CT as released circa the late 70's. Looking towards a multiplicity of common core ship designs. No more no less.

And in the great Traveller fashion it Drifted.

I am happy that you shared your opinion, I don't think your wrong, I just have a slightly different opinion as informed my my reading of Traveller and related Material.

In the end we all play Traveller, and no two Traveller games look same.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Read the same rules, but also read a source the rules where written from.

An inspirational source, not the source. Grav vehicles and jump drives were a staple of SF long before Traveller.

And Book3 can be read a number of ways, just because one of my interpretations is different from yours doesn't mean either of us is wrong.

This is Traveller after all.

Agreed, this is Traveller, and, agreed, LBB1-3 are (deliberately) very short of detail.

But later Traveller publications added detail, especially Striker about grav vehicles, as that were the slightly more detailed rules for the use and design of them, with a bit about how starships worked in that context thrown in for good measure.

Should we discuss Traveller jump drives informed only by LBB2 and Asimov, and ignore JTAS#24? Sorry, I would go with JTAS#24, not Asimov, for the Traveller reference.

So, we invented RAW and canon to separate Traveller sources from other sources, to have a common reference. The LBBs and Striker are RAW, but Space Viking and Star Wars, however much we might like it, are not. And house rules are how we deviated from RAW, as we all do.

But the nature of the extra thrust is never defined, again YMMV.

They are defined as grav vehicles, described as essentially the same.

The addition of a jet engine or plasma rocket to some of them, without as much as a passing reference, would be a bit much to swallow, for me.

OK, later than '77, but at about the same time as the '81 edition LBB1-3, it was defined how it works, in Striker. Gauss weapons (LBB4) and meson guns (LBB5) were introduced later than '77, quite possibly by Chadwick, so are they also not really Traveller?

In the end we all play Traveller, and no two Traveller games look same.

Of course, RAW is not what we play, it's just a common reference.

I only have a problem when people use common words for other concepts, or try to sneak in undefined rules in RAW. I only see an attempt to avoid to communicate clearly.

"Vad du ej klart kan säga, vet du ej; med tanken ordet föds på mannens läppar; det dunkelt sagda är det dunkelt tänkta.", Esaias Tegnér


Every TU is different, not because the LBBs told us differently, but because we added different house rules. They are not better or worse, just different. Be intellectually honest and stand for your house rules!

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Including Striker for Starship design gives you MT … which has different baseline paradigm assumptions than LBB2/LBB5.

I don't think anyone, certainly not I, tried to design CT starships with Striker.

Striker describes how grav vehicles and aircraft move on a planetary surface, and incidentally how spaceships does too. That is Classic Traveller.

I get that you don't like it and don't agree. So, just house rule it?

 

[mike wightman]

Including Striker for Starship design gives you MT … which has different baseline paradigm assumptions than LBB2/LBB5.

And it was poorly done and broken.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Just for the record, the question is not “Do they count as RAW?” … because, of course they do. The question is “Do they say anything that prohibits a ship with a 1G MD from landing and taking off from a world of size 8 and larger?”

Do they explicitly describe how ships land and take off? No, no rule in CT does. Well LBB1'77 gives some info about smallcraft landing:

Ship’s Boats are capable of interplanetary flight within a star system, and may lift off from or descend to worlds of size 7 or less. This skill also allows the piloting of shuttles, pinnaces, etc.
...
Emergency landings must be made when landing a crippled ship, when landing on a world of size 8 or greater, or, at times, due to bad weather. Throw 10+ for the ship to be utterly destroyed in the crash. Throw 6+ for the ship to be wrecked. DM: –1 per level.

So, all smallcraft must make emergency landings on size 8+ worlds, and are more often than not wrecked, possibly even utterly destroyed.

But world size and gravity has no effect on spacecraft landing, right?

LBB2 Combat says to add vectors for planetary gravity to movement vectors when a ship passes through a “band”.

Yes, it describes how non-Tsiolkovsky spacecraft works, it's a simplified model of physics.

STRIKER states what Starships may participate in MINIATURES combat under the Striker rules alongside Grav Vehicles and Aircraft using the Striker rules … and which Starships must participate ”from orbit”.

Yes, it describes how spacecraft works on the surface of a planet, completely congruent with LBB2. Spacecraft use M-drive thrust (and only m-drive thrust) to move about, and if they don't have enough thrust they can't move about. Some spacecraft have enough thrust, and can move around on a planet.

The combat system in LBB1 is also a miniatures wargame, albeit much simpler. Does that disqualify it from Traveller?

I have taken several beatings over just what “RULES AS WRITTEN” actually means. Fortunately, the pain was not wasted. I learned the difference between what the BOOKS ACTUALLY SAY and what we INTERPRET INTO what they say. So if one is going to play the RAW card in this topic, I am going to ask them to show where that RULE is WRITTEN.

By now we have all quoted rules for 18 pages, we know what they say. The only real argument for flying ships I have seen is that the rules does not specifically and explicitly ban it. Nor do the rules specifically and explicitly ban ships (or people) from sprouting pink fluffy wing and fly by flapping them. I don't believe either is the case.


If you want your ships to fly, they fly. It just wasn't in the LBBs.