• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

1g Ships and Size:7 worlds...

Status
Not open for further replies.
And by those rules a 6g smallcraft can not take off from a size 7 or less world. Or a 3g smallcraft - with wings. So the shuttle interface surface can not work as described. Notice a problem yet?

Therefore either something else is going on or the rules as written do not make sense and are broken.
 
The rules in Striker do not want any ship involved since it would be the equivalent of putting mechagodzilla on the battlefield. Striker has no ship construction rules, no acceleration compensation and no artificial gravity.

I take it when you tried to design a starship using Striker you used the Vehicle rules. Ever try putting grav thrust in an aircraft? It doesn't say you can't :)
 
And by those rules a 6g smallcraft can not take off from a size 7 or less world. Or a 3g smallcraft - with wings. So the shuttle interface surface can not work as described. Notice a problem yet?

Therefore either something else is going on or the rules as written do not make sense and are broken.
I agree that rule is broken, and I would house rule it away immediately, except possibly for 1 G life boats. Notice I said house rule? Fortunately it was gone in LBB1'81.

Doesn't mean all the rules are "broken". It does hint that gravity has something to do with landing spacecraft.
 
The rules in Striker do not want any ship involved since it would be the equivalent of putting mechagodzilla on the battlefield.
And yet they have rules for it, up to and including spinal meson guns.

I take it when you tried to design a starship using Striker you used the Vehicle rules.
Why would you believe I would do such a silly thing? Striker is much more than a vehicle design system.

IIRC I did house rule in tactical meson guns into smallcraft as a convenient drop capable SPArt unit. Notice I said house rule?

Ever try putting grav thrust in an aircraft? It doesn't say you can't :)
It describes how to make aircraft, but not with grav thrust. Doing it would be fairly obvious, but still, a house rule.

I did house rule part grav powered ground vehicles for reduced ground pressure, the first step towards grav tanks if you will. Notice I said house rule?
 
Last edited:
Nor was your house ruled prohibition on any Streamlined ship landing on a size 8+ world in the LBBs.
(my only point).
Sure, if you want me to disregard LBB1, the spacecraft movement rules in LBB2, and other sources, I can call that a house rule if it makes you happier.

But you would also have to call any ruling about landing ships, including your own, a house rule, by the same logic?
 
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?
I tried. I stopped very quickly.
 
Let's talk RULES AS WRITTEN and quote an actual RULE that was actually WRITTEN and is actually about STARSHIP MOVEMENT from the surface to the orbit.

If my fellow gentle-readers will turn your attention to LBB2:81, page 4 you will read the following:

"Travellers travel. They move between worlds as well as on their surfaces. The distances such travel covers may be interplanetary or interstellar in scale. Interplanetary Travel: Worlds orbiting the same star are accessible by interplanetary travel, on ships operated by local entrepreneurs, or with a variety of small craft. But, interplanetary travel takes long periods of time; since most stellar systems have only one major world, interplanetary travel is infrequent. lnterplanetary travel takes time. The travel formulae and diagram on page 10 show a typical interplanetary journey, and equations which can determine time required (if distance and acceleration are known), acceleration required (if distance and time are known), and distance travelled (if time and acceleration are known). All of the formulae use the MKS (meters, kilograms, seconds) unit system, and assume that the ship is undertaking a journey from rest, that it accelerates continuously to midpoint of the trip, and then decelerates to rest again. In addition, several travel times and travel distances have been calculated out for ready reference."​

There can be no question that this discusses travel by spaceship and discusses movement in "They move between worlds as well as on their surfaces" with a reference to a formula on "page 10" and "several travel times and travel distances have been calculated out for ready reference." Traveller players are very familiar with the formula on Page 10:

Time = 2 x sqrt (Distance / acceleration)

"The three travel formulae assume constant acceleration to midpoint, turnaround, and constant deceleration to arrive at the 'destination at rest, as shown in the diagram above. There are three variables; if any two are known, the third can be determined using one of the formulae above."​
"Below are listed a number of typical travel times for various distances and accelerations. Times are in the most convenient unit: s=seconds, m=minutes, h-hours, and d=days."​

Within the chart, please note the first two entries under 1G: 1000 km at 1G = 633 seconds and 10,000 km at 1G = 2000 seconds.

Indulge me one final piece of text before I make my point and cast your eyes upon LBB2:81 page 11 and note the heading "Typical Distances" and the value of 10,000 km for "World Surface to Orbit". From this one MUST conclude that the values in the table for 1000 km and 10,000 km are intended for "surface to orbit" trips rather than some unimaginably short burn-turn-decel trip between a world and moon orbiting at a mere 1000 km. Thus the actual RAW for ship flight to orbit make no allowance for local gravity being subtracted from the performance of the MD. Just the opposite, they explicitly indicate that a trip to orbit in a 1G ship employs a full 1G irrespective of the size of the world. NO WORLD would have ZERO GRAVITY, so no 1G drive would get 1G performance from surface to orbit.

The MD generates 1G of thrust irrespective of local gravity. On a 7G planet, the MD would accelerate the craft at 1G. On a 0.1G planet, the MD would accelerate the ship at 1G. It is NON-NEWTONIAN physics.

The rules on SPACE MOVEMENT inform us that the vector for local gravity will bend the trajectory of a ship's path, but the rules on TRANSPORTATION just as clearly indicate that local gravity is not subtracted from MD performance from surface to orbit.

For STRIKER MINIATURES COMBAT, Striker rules take precedence and the 1G ship may not participate. For COMBAT MOVEMENT, the planetary gravity bands alter the ship's vector. For SURFACE TO ORBIT, LBB2:81 pages 10-11 tells you it takes 2000 seconds or use the equations to calculate it for yourself. Those are the Rules as Written for a ship to fly to orbit.
 
Last edited:
This has been one of the most fun threads I've read in awhile. I'd like to thank all posters for their thoughtful and insightful contributions.

Although I don't use CT, Spinwardflow's posts changed my mind to not allow M1 drive ships to land or take off on size 8+ worlds, even though I was against this thinking from a few of his other posts in another thread.

On the other hand, atpollard's post has sent me back to the idea that M1 drive ships can land and take off of size 8+ worlds (I have the same M1 drive travel times in the Traveller system I'm using).

It looks like, if you don't want your M1 drive ship to land or take off from size 8+ worlds, use CT '77, and if you do, use CT '81.
 
note the heading "Typical Distances" and the value of 10,000 km for "World Surface to Orbit"
/slow clap

You have made the first order mistake of assuming that all distances everywhere are exactly the same because GRAVITY DOESN'T EXIST nearby to planets. Why do I say that is the inevitable thrust of the argument you are making? Well, because ...
The MD generates 1G of thrust irrespective of local gravity. On a 7G planet, the MD would accelerate the craft at 1G. On a 0.1G planet, the MD would accelerate the ship at 1G. It is NON-NEWTONIAN physics.
The copium required to come to this conclusion is ... of an embarrassing quantity and frightening purity.

After detailing expressly and obviously Newtonian Physics formulas for acceleration, distance and time ... you have come to the inevitable conclusion that gravity wells are EXEMPT from the exact same Newtonian Physics because ... Gravity Doesn't Exist ... because it isn't mentioned on the same pages in the same paragraphs as a complicating factor.

There is also a pretty desperate "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" factor regarding the fact that a Simplified Physics system for handling vector deflection in a gravity well is very explicitly laid out in LBB2.81, p36-37 which I have quoted from previously (and can again for anyone who doesn't have easy access to the text).



The direction of the argument that you are making is akin to believing that if there are no obstruction rules provided for combat, that firearm projectiles can "teleport" through obstacles between attacker and target (because the "rules" don't say otherwise in the cherry picked quotations I'm citing!).

I have trouble taking such arguments seriously ... mainly because they fail to pass the laugh test (let alone the roll on the floor test).
 
Let's talk RULES AS WRITTEN and quote an actual RULE that was actually WRITTEN and is actually about STARSHIP MOVEMENT from the surface to the orbit.

If my fellow gentle-readers will turn your attention to LBB2:81, page 4 you will read the following:

"Travellers travel. They move between worlds as well as on their surfaces. The distances such travel covers may be interplanetary or interstellar in scale. Interplanetary Travel: Worlds orbiting the same star are accessible by interplanetary travel, ...
Grasping at straws...

You changed the quote, which changes the meaning:
Travelling
_ _ Travellers travel. They move between worlds as well as on their surfaces. The distances such travel covers may be interplanetary or interstellar in scale.
_ _ Interplanetary Travel: Worlds orbiting the same star are accessible by interplanetary travel, on ships operated by local entrepreneurs, or with a variety of small craft. But, interplanetary travel takes long periods of time; since most stellar systems have only one major world, interplanetary travel is infrequent.
_ _ lnterplanetary travel takes time. The travel formulae and diagram on page 10 show a typical interplanetary journey,
...
_ _ Interstellar Travel: Worlds orbiting different stars are reached by interstellar travel, which makes use of the jump drive.
The travel formulae applies to interplanetary travel as opposed to interstellar travel, not surface take offs mentioned in another paragraph:
Skärmavbild 2023-03-24 kl. 23.02.png


Gravity is not optional: it either applies to ships, or not. P28 of the same book states very explicitly that gravity applies to ships.
 
Apparently, gravity is only a factor for jump drives.
Maneuver drives ignore gravity ... because ... something something (excuses to follow) ... LOOK OVER THERE! :oops:
Look. They're already handwaving relative orbital positions of planets. Gravity is a minor factor compared to that.

As I said, the way around this is to assume antigravity that isn't a fixed amount of acceleration, but a fixed amount of "buoyancy" above (and perhaps proportional to) effective local gravity -- in an amount that falls below the resolution of LBB2 space combat rules.
 
As I said, the way around this is to assume antigravity that isn't a fixed amount of acceleration, but a fixed amount of "buoyancy" above (and perhaps proportional to) effective local gravity -- in an amount that falls below the resolution of LBB2 space combat rules.
Or not handwaving it at all, just follow the descriptions.

The only reason to handwave is that you don't like the results.


If you want your ships to fly, they fly. It just wasn't the LBBs that said it...
 
the way around this is to assume antigravity that isn't a fixed amount of acceleration, but a fixed amount of "buoyancy" above (and perhaps proportional to) effective local gravity
Taken to its logical conclusion, you can use a 1G ship to maneuver inside the gravity well of a Large Gas Giant (such as Jupiter) with impunity ... or within "contact range" of stellar photospheres ... because the 1G is "proportional" to the gravity well, rather than any kind of absolute value, regardless of local conditions.

You can make such an argument ... but it passes neither the laugh test nor the roll on the floor screaming and howling test for intellectual rigor.



I'll just leave this little reminder here in case anyone is unclear on the concept (still) ...

 
Taken to its logical conclusion, you can use a 1G ship to maneuver inside the gravity well of a Large Gas Giant (such as Jupiter) with impunity ... or within "contact range" of stellar photospheres ... because the 1G is "proportional" to the gravity well, rather than any kind of absolute value, regardless of local conditions.
Not necessarily.

A key point in my proposal is that the upper constraint is that it's never enough to affect LBB2 space combat maneuvering around planets (otherwise, it would be reflected in the rules -- and it isn't). So, it wouldn't affect operations in very high gravity fields, because doing so would require enough effect to affect movement in those conditions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top