Additional CPU programs for CT

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Maladominus:
"Is my bridge crew going to be running this program all the time? Do we need to constantly run this program while the ship is in flight? So will this program constantly take up precious CPU space? Or is this program something that will only be used in special situations?"

...and--is this a program that will have an inconsequential size? Or, is it a big system hog, like Library or Navigation or Generate that requires a CT "size" rating.

Because, if it doesn't require a "size" rating, then the ship can be assumed to be running it at any whim, no matter what big programs are in the CPU.

I'm thinking that the Sensor program is this way--no big system hod, thus no CT "size" rating.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Maladominus:
"Is my bridge crew going to be running this program all the time? Do we need to constantly run this program while the ship is in flight? So will this program constantly take up precious CPU space? Or is this program something that will only be used in special situations?"

...and--is this a program that will have an inconsequential size? Or, is it a big system hog, like Library or Navigation or Generate that requires a CT "size" rating.

Because, if it doesn't require a "size" rating, then the ship can be assumed to be running it at any whim, no matter what big programs are in the CPU.

I'm thinking that the Sensor program is this way--no big system hod, thus no CT "size" rating.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
The times I used LBB:2 computer rules in ship combat, my players usually enjoyed the 'game within the game' of swapping out programs to meet their current needs and future wishes.

I agree with Bill, here. In many of my CT games in the past, players have enjoyed the strategic element of choosing which program to use at which time.

"You can use this, and it will do this for you. But, if you use it, you won't be able to do this."

It's not unlike choosing a weapon and armor from a few choices in personal combat. The blunt weapon will get you this, but the sharp weapon will get you that.

It's too bad the program rules didn't make it into other versions of Traveller. I know they sure add a dimension to my current game.

We've got this running joke (because the captain of the PC ship couldn't afford anything but the basics for the PC ship) in my game. Some issue will come up, like, "Why can't I use my gunner skill as a positive DM to hit the enemy ship?"

And, the rest of the table will mimic the player of the ship's captain, "I wanted it! But, I can't afford it! It's a milllllllllllion credits!"

The table cracks up (you might have to be there to appreciate it).

The point is: the CT computer rules give players one aspect of the game where they can "soup up" their ships. They're saving and saving, hauling freight, speculative trading, taking charters, trying to get enough credits just to buy Gunner Interact.

It's a fun part of the game.

Heck, I'd like to see more stuff like that in Traveller. Different types of sensor dishes, little addons to the powerplant or M-Drive.

There was a book that came out for the Star Wars RPG that was exactly what I'm talking about here--all cool stuff so that you could be like Han Solo and spend game sessions finding, buying, and fixing up your ship.

And, once starship combat happened, players really winced when that new part they just bought was destroyed or damaged.

CT computer rules add a little taste of this.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
The times I used LBB:2 computer rules in ship combat, my players usually enjoyed the 'game within the game' of swapping out programs to meet their current needs and future wishes.

I agree with Bill, here. In many of my CT games in the past, players have enjoyed the strategic element of choosing which program to use at which time.

"You can use this, and it will do this for you. But, if you use it, you won't be able to do this."

It's not unlike choosing a weapon and armor from a few choices in personal combat. The blunt weapon will get you this, but the sharp weapon will get you that.

It's too bad the program rules didn't make it into other versions of Traveller. I know they sure add a dimension to my current game.

We've got this running joke (because the captain of the PC ship couldn't afford anything but the basics for the PC ship) in my game. Some issue will come up, like, "Why can't I use my gunner skill as a positive DM to hit the enemy ship?"

And, the rest of the table will mimic the player of the ship's captain, "I wanted it! But, I can't afford it! It's a milllllllllllion credits!"

The table cracks up (you might have to be there to appreciate it).

The point is: the CT computer rules give players one aspect of the game where they can "soup up" their ships. They're saving and saving, hauling freight, speculative trading, taking charters, trying to get enough credits just to buy Gunner Interact.

It's a fun part of the game.

Heck, I'd like to see more stuff like that in Traveller. Different types of sensor dishes, little addons to the powerplant or M-Drive.

There was a book that came out for the Star Wars RPG that was exactly what I'm talking about here--all cool stuff so that you could be like Han Solo and spend game sessions finding, buying, and fixing up your ship.

And, once starship combat happened, players really winced when that new part they just bought was destroyed or damaged.

CT computer rules add a little taste of this.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by WJP:
I'm thinking that the Sensor program is this way--no big system hod, thus no CT "size" rating.

WJP,

I agree. A routine sensor program shouldn't 'show up' as part of the LBB:2 CPU 'load'. Sensor operations can be assumed to be part of other programs like Launch, Target, and even Maneuver.

However, programs like Maladominus' Survey are not simply routine sensor operations. I'd think a program that Survey would include things like extnesive data storage with multiple back-ups, limited analysis, data presentation, control of ship orientation for sensor optimization, orbital path suggestion/selection, and many other specialized functions.

The analogy is a stretch, but the difference between the routine sensor operation we assume are part of other programs and Survey is the difference beween a "Fish Finder" and synthetic apeture side scan sonar.

The same holds true for my suggest 'Comm Stream' programs. Ships don't use 'Comm Stream' to talk to the port or other ships, they use it for a very specialized task; namely dumping the contents of their message bank(s) in a rapid, controlled, and hopefully 99.99999% error-free fashion. Again, one is a routine task that doesn't show up as part of the LBB:2 CPU load and the other is an extremely specialized, "system hog" type task.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by WJP:
I'm thinking that the Sensor program is this way--no big system hod, thus no CT "size" rating.

WJP,

I agree. A routine sensor program shouldn't 'show up' as part of the LBB:2 CPU 'load'. Sensor operations can be assumed to be part of other programs like Launch, Target, and even Maneuver.

However, programs like Maladominus' Survey are not simply routine sensor operations. I'd think a program that Survey would include things like extnesive data storage with multiple back-ups, limited analysis, data presentation, control of ship orientation for sensor optimization, orbital path suggestion/selection, and many other specialized functions.

The analogy is a stretch, but the difference between the routine sensor operation we assume are part of other programs and Survey is the difference beween a "Fish Finder" and synthetic apeture side scan sonar.

The same holds true for my suggest 'Comm Stream' programs. Ships don't use 'Comm Stream' to talk to the port or other ships, they use it for a very specialized task; namely dumping the contents of their message bank(s) in a rapid, controlled, and hopefully 99.99999% error-free fashion. Again, one is a routine task that doesn't show up as part of the LBB:2 CPU load and the other is an extremely specialized, "system hog" type task.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by WJP:
It's too bad the program rules didn't make it into other versions of Traveller. I know they sure add a dimension to my current game.

WJP,

I suspect they didn't make it in because computers in the Real World advanced so quickly after 1977/78.

Face it, except for some people in the industry and a few hobbyists with soldering irons, computers to the average man on the street were cabinet sized devices with spinning tape wheels, punch cards, a huge printer with green & white track paper, and no CRT. That all changed so quickly.

By 1980, I'm putzing around with a Kaypro-II CP/M machine and laughing at the computer rules in LBB:2. The CT rules became so 'goofy' and were so outdated so rapidly, that by the time MT began to get put together there wasn't really anything in the CT computer rules that was viewed as worth saving. MT produced its own, fairly high level, computer rules instead.

The only reason I was still using them by the mid-80s was because of the "game within a game" fun they provided during combat.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by WJP:
It's too bad the program rules didn't make it into other versions of Traveller. I know they sure add a dimension to my current game.

WJP,

I suspect they didn't make it in because computers in the Real World advanced so quickly after 1977/78.

Face it, except for some people in the industry and a few hobbyists with soldering irons, computers to the average man on the street were cabinet sized devices with spinning tape wheels, punch cards, a huge printer with green & white track paper, and no CRT. That all changed so quickly.

By 1980, I'm putzing around with a Kaypro-II CP/M machine and laughing at the computer rules in LBB:2. The CT rules became so 'goofy' and were so outdated so rapidly, that by the time MT began to get put together there wasn't really anything in the CT computer rules that was viewed as worth saving. MT produced its own, fairly high level, computer rules instead.

The only reason I was still using them by the mid-80s was because of the "game within a game" fun they provided during combat.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
The same holds true for my suggest 'Comm Stream' programs. Ships don't use 'Comm Stream' to talk to the port or other ships, they use it for a very specialized task; namely dumping the contents of their message bank(s) in a rapid, controlled, and hopefully 99.99999% error-free fashion.

A specialized program for X-Boats comes to mind.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
The same holds true for my suggest 'Comm Stream' programs. Ships don't use 'Comm Stream' to talk to the port or other ships, they use it for a very specialized task; namely dumping the contents of their message bank(s) in a rapid, controlled, and hopefully 99.99999% error-free fashion.

A specialized program for X-Boats comes to mind.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by WJP:
In many of my CT games in the past, players have enjoyed the strategic element of choosing which program to use at which time.

Mine too, which is why I still use them.

"You can use this, and it will do this for you. But, if you use it, you won't be able to do this."

It's not unlike choosing a weapon and armor from a few choices in personal combat. The blunt weapon will get you this, but the sharp weapon will get you that.

I agree, the computer program upgrade could be used as one of the in-game rewards players could earn, and as it says in Book 2:

Player-characters can, and should, seek out new and different computer programs to assist them in the use and performance of their spacecraft.

It's too bad the program rules didn't make it into other versions of Traveller. I know they sure add a dimension to my current game.

T20 has computer program rules

The point is: the CT computer rules give players one aspect of the game where they can "soup up" their ships. They're saving and saving, hauling freight, speculative trading, taking charters, trying to get enough credits just to buy Gunner Interact.

It's a fun part of the game.

Heck, I'd like to see more stuff like that in Traveller. Different types of sensor dishes, little addons to the powerplant or M-Drive.

There was a book that came out for the Star Wars RPG that was exactly what I'm talking about here--all cool stuff so that you could be like Han Solo and spend game sessions finding, buying, and fixing up your ship.

And, once starship combat happened, players really winced when that new part they just bought was destroyed or damaged.

CT computer rules add a little taste of this.

I agree completely.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by WJP:
In many of my CT games in the past, players have enjoyed the strategic element of choosing which program to use at which time.

Mine too, which is why I still use them.

"You can use this, and it will do this for you. But, if you use it, you won't be able to do this."

It's not unlike choosing a weapon and armor from a few choices in personal combat. The blunt weapon will get you this, but the sharp weapon will get you that.

I agree, the computer program upgrade could be used as one of the in-game rewards players could earn, and as it says in Book 2:

Player-characters can, and should, seek out new and different computer programs to assist them in the use and performance of their spacecraft.

It's too bad the program rules didn't make it into other versions of Traveller. I know they sure add a dimension to my current game.

T20 has computer program rules

The point is: the CT computer rules give players one aspect of the game where they can "soup up" their ships. They're saving and saving, hauling freight, speculative trading, taking charters, trying to get enough credits just to buy Gunner Interact.

It's a fun part of the game.

Heck, I'd like to see more stuff like that in Traveller. Different types of sensor dishes, little addons to the powerplant or M-Drive.

There was a book that came out for the Star Wars RPG that was exactly what I'm talking about here--all cool stuff so that you could be like Han Solo and spend game sessions finding, buying, and fixing up your ship.

And, once starship combat happened, players really winced when that new part they just bought was destroyed or damaged.

CT computer rules add a little taste of this.

I agree completely.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
The CT rules became so 'goofy' and were so outdated so rapidly, that by the time MT began to get put together there wasn't really anything in the CT computer rules that was viewed as worth saving. MT produced its own, fairly high level, computer rules instead.

I know a lot of people feel that way about the CT computer/program rules, but I don't (see my earlier post).

I don't think they're goofy at all (besides being "fun"). I think they can be easily explained as systems far superior to anything we have today (mentioned in my earlier post).

I guess, in always viewing the CT computer rules that say, I never "got" why people thought the CT computer rules were outdated.

Maybe think of the ship's computer as a single, room-sized computer from golden-year SciFi TV shows and novels. I look at them as grand, integrated computer systems touching every part of the ship.

The SOM, although written for MT, does a great job of explaining the computer systems aboard Traveller vessels, and nothing that is mentioned there violates the CT rules.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
The CT rules became so 'goofy' and were so outdated so rapidly, that by the time MT began to get put together there wasn't really anything in the CT computer rules that was viewed as worth saving. MT produced its own, fairly high level, computer rules instead.

I know a lot of people feel that way about the CT computer/program rules, but I don't (see my earlier post).

I don't think they're goofy at all (besides being "fun"). I think they can be easily explained as systems far superior to anything we have today (mentioned in my earlier post).

I guess, in always viewing the CT computer rules that say, I never "got" why people thought the CT computer rules were outdated.

Maybe think of the ship's computer as a single, room-sized computer from golden-year SciFi TV shows and novels. I look at them as grand, integrated computer systems touching every part of the ship.

The SOM, although written for MT, does a great job of explaining the computer systems aboard Traveller vessels, and nothing that is mentioned there violates the CT rules.

 

[Maladominus]

The only goofy things I see with the outdated CT computer rules are:

1) the limited CPU spaces on onboard computers, which can be fixed by House Rule

2) Marc Miller's use of the word "cassette tapes", which is genuinely goofy and laughable, because it really shows just how dated CT is. This irks me so much that I am tempted to cross this word out in every GDW publication I see, and then substitute the words "holocrystal data storage" or "datadisk" instead.

Ermm... question: at what TL would holocrystals become a common medium for data storage? Is it TL12 or 13?

 

[Maladominus]

The only goofy things I see with the outdated CT computer rules are:

1) the limited CPU spaces on onboard computers, which can be fixed by House Rule

2) Marc Miller's use of the word "cassette tapes", which is genuinely goofy and laughable, because it really shows just how dated CT is. This irks me so much that I am tempted to cross this word out in every GDW publication I see, and then substitute the words "holocrystal data storage" or "datadisk" instead.

Ermm... question: at what TL would holocrystals become a common medium for data storage? Is it TL12 or 13?

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Maladominus:
1) the limited CPU spaces on onboard computers, which can be fixed by House Rule

2) Marc Miller's use of the word "cassette tapes", which is genuinely goofy and laughable, because it really shows just how dated CT is. This irks me so much that I am tempted to cross this word out in every GDW publication I see, and then substitute the words "holocrystal data storage" or "datadisk" instead.

The limited CPU spaces don't bother me at all. But, you do have a strong point with the word "cassette tapes".

We need a handwave for that--to make the phrase "cassette tapes" actually mean something high-tech.

Tapes of...tapes of what? Maybe it's holocrystal "tape" (which is actually a solid crystal that sits in a socket, spinning, to where an optical reader reads different facets on the crystal...the socket the crystal sits in is referred to as a "cassette", and because the reader arm swings around the rapidly revolving crystal, the blur sometimes gives the impression to the observer that the crystal is strung with floating, sticky tape...)

(That's the best I can do on short notice. Going to bed now .}

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Maladominus:
1) the limited CPU spaces on onboard computers, which can be fixed by House Rule

2) Marc Miller's use of the word "cassette tapes", which is genuinely goofy and laughable, because it really shows just how dated CT is. This irks me so much that I am tempted to cross this word out in every GDW publication I see, and then substitute the words "holocrystal data storage" or "datadisk" instead.

The limited CPU spaces don't bother me at all. But, you do have a strong point with the word "cassette tapes".

We need a handwave for that--to make the phrase "cassette tapes" actually mean something high-tech.

Tapes of...tapes of what? Maybe it's holocrystal "tape" (which is actually a solid crystal that sits in a socket, spinning, to where an optical reader reads different facets on the crystal...the socket the crystal sits in is referred to as a "cassette", and because the reader arm swings around the rapidly revolving crystal, the blur sometimes gives the impression to the observer that the crystal is strung with floating, sticky tape...)

(That's the best I can do on short notice. Going to bed now .}

 

[Maladominus]

Originally posted by WJP:
The limited CPU spaces don't bother me at all. But, you do have a strong point with the word "cassette tapes".

We need a handwave for that--to make the phrase "cassette tapes" actually mean something high-tech.

Welllll...... there IS a handwave for it, sorta. Right now even in the Year 2006. It's called DAT tape technology, and they are still in current use as backup systems for many offices. Many IT geeks and computer gurus still consider DAT as more reliable backup than say... crappy Zip disks or even CDRs.

But still... when MWM talks about cassette tapes, we know what he was referring to. Hell, he might as well have mentioned Kenny Rogers and Dolly Parton 8-track tapes too. Those had become obsolete by the early 1980s.

 

[Maladominus]

Originally posted by WJP:
The limited CPU spaces don't bother me at all. But, you do have a strong point with the word "cassette tapes".

We need a handwave for that--to make the phrase "cassette tapes" actually mean something high-tech.

Welllll...... there IS a handwave for it, sorta. Right now even in the Year 2006. It's called DAT tape technology, and they are still in current use as backup systems for many offices. Many IT geeks and computer gurus still consider DAT as more reliable backup than say... crappy Zip disks or even CDRs.

But still... when MWM talks about cassette tapes, we know what he was referring to. Hell, he might as well have mentioned Kenny Rogers and Dolly Parton 8-track tapes too. Those had become obsolete by the early 1980s.