Yes.
General A Starship is (NOT) a Starship is (NOT) a Starship …
- Thread starter atpollard
- Start date
I think most Traveller systems design for somewhat similar ships because, well, they're TRAVELLER. 100 dton ships are the smallest jump-capable craft, and for players to be able to (almost) afford them is part of what many starting scenarios build on. Reactionless drives make space travel affordable for the mases, so fi you want a space based society, people have to be able to get out there. Real rockets consume tons of fuel per second, not dtons per week. The Falcon 9 consumes about 1.5 tons of fuel per second; its small compared to a Saturn II. OK, dtons and tons are not equivalent, but the comparison remains. If you're building a clone of a game (and every version of Traveller has the LBBs to model after), I suspect designers want to keep the feel of the game similar. Try imagining a Traveller game without any 100 dton ships with a couple of crew... an awful lot of Traveller lore gets tossed. Who wants to do that to a game they enjoy enough to try and improve?
That's called Traveller 2300. A much harder SF regimen, where spaceflight is common the same way steamships were common. Individual access, yes. Individual control and ownership, not so much.
An assumption that, as you may recall, I don't share.
My working theory is that every new edition is an alternate universe, parallel but not identical.
The explanation that got a smiley from Marc was that they're each the work of different historical entertainment generation houses in the post official settings period... in other words, each is a poor recreation for some different audience and shaped by the in-fiction authorial biases and audience expectations...
Not actually a house rule; Bk2 hulls and drives are explicitly allowed in Bk5-80.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Really? Where does it say LBB2 hulls are allowed? I can't find it.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
With some being more alternate to others
Isn't this hinted at in the Galaxiad promo too?
My headcanon goes one step further and has reality manipulation wars being the culprit (thanks to T5)
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
I always considered CT->MT to basically be a continuum of refinement of the same universe, though MT ship design really through a wrench into that. TNE, naturally, was certainly more a parallel thing.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
That only says LBB2 isn't deprecated, both systems can be used in CT. It does not say anything about intermixing the systems.
This says specifically that you can use LBB2 drives in LBB5 ships.
There are no such rules (that I can find) that states the reverse, or that LBB5 ships can use LBB2 hulls.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
The concept in Book/Two made sense, commercial stuff tends to be off the shelf, which certainly makes maintenance and repair easier.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
At the risk of inflicting insult for the injury of restating the already beyond obvious ...
LBB5.80, p18:
LBB5.80, p21-22, p27-35:
Emphasis added for clarity (just in case...).
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
HG80 allows you to build a custom 100t hull for 10MCr, in LBB2 it would cost you 20MCr - which is correct?
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
LBB2.77 and LBB2.81 = 100 ton STANDARD hull that is 15 tons drives ONLY (non-negotiable) and 85 tons everything else.
LBB5.80 = 100 ton CUSTOM hull that is can be whatever combination of drives and everything else that you want that adds up to 100 tons.
Pick one or the other depending on the details of what you're trying to build (and how much you're willing to pay for it).
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
LBB2 custom 100t 20MCr due to minimum hull price that is missing in HG.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
So custom hulls in LBB2 and custom hulls in HG are different... see where I am going with this yet.HG80.
(That was an easy question.)
HG allows for letter drives explicitly, it only intimates that standard hulls can be used (what are the configurations of standard hulls?)
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
That engine separation is part of the hull.
So, you'd have to create a case where either one isn't needed, or that you can mass produce hulls with more variable separations.
So, you'd have to create a case where either one isn't needed, or that you can mass produce hulls with more variable separations.
Yes, they are.
In LBB2, the "Custom Hull" has a minimum price, is constructed according to the LBB2 schedule at those ports which LBB 2 says it may be constructed. The LBB2 custom hull is unstreamlined for MCr 0.1 with Streamlining being an additional cost in LBB2.
In LBB5, the "Custom Hull" has no minimum price, is constructed according to the LBB5 schedule at those ports which LBB 5 says it may be constructed and has the option to be up-armored per LBB5 Hull rules. The cost of a LBB5 hull may be higher or lower than MCr 0.1 per dTon based on the configuration of that hull.
I believe the LBB2 and LBB5 hulls also differ in Hardpoints impacting the cost of a hull. It is a referee decision whether the empty turret is part of the Hull or a distinct component, but a LBB2 hull might potentially be restricted in construction to LBB2 turrets at LBB2 costs and LBB5 hulls might be restricted to LBB5 turrets at LBB5 costs.
However, it is clear that the 100 dTon or 200 dTon "Custom Hull" of LBB2 IS DIFFERENT from the same displacement Custom Hull of LBB5. Chalk it up to different Government Regulations or Military vs Civilian ... whatever color text floats your boat. However the two hulls are different in cost AND in technical details ... so they are different.
[I still am of the opinion, given the preponderance of the evidence, that a MCr 10 surcharge that applies to only ONE HULL SIZE (100 - 199 dTons) in LBB2 and no other hull is a bad rule, breaks all other paradigms and should be treated like an error and disregarded ... making the MCr 10 of LBB5 the CORRECT base price of a 100 dTon Custom Hull in either Book - before shape/streamlining modifications.]
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Yes, I agree it's beyond obvious: system ≠ component.
Since you seem to like that style:
LBB2 is a singular ship design SYSTEM, LBB5 is a singular ship design system.
The hull is one of several COMPONENTS [plural] used by the ship design SYSTEM [singular]. The hull alone is not a SYSTEM.
As confirmed by:
The LBB2 and LBB5 ship design systems are two parallel system that can both be used to design ships for CT. The components don't intermix by RAW, except as explicitly noted:
