Are fleets too Large in Traveller

[mike wightman]

Those are two profoundly different statements.

A self-consistent OTU that works well as a game setting is a goal worth working towards, not an accomplished achievement.



And by making those changes you have changed the OTU as well. It's a different universe now, but it's still the OTU. It just means that the parts of the old material that were changed no longer applies to the OTU. But that doesn't mean that the part of the old material that wasn't changed doesn't still apply. Sure, back in the days when TNE was the current rules set, the OTU was a profoundly different place. But TNE is not the current rules any more, so what difference does it make today?

Furthermore, Marc Miller insists that the history of various Traveller versions are all still part of the OTU. To make that work one either has to imagine a setting where the Cosmic Axis shifts every once in a while to introduce new physical laws (retroactively) or you have to imagine a self-consistent setting where each of the Traveller versions are wrong about various details. (A jump-2 requires 20% of volume fuel, not 15%, it never did require 15%, not even between 1117 and 1130, and it never will require 15%. Ships use thrusters and not fusion torches or HePLaR, they always did and they always will, even in 1202. A streamlined ship has the same internal volume as an unstreamlined ship of the same volume. It always did and it always will, even in the GTU. Etc. etc.).

I know which of those two solutions I prefer.


Hans

You know - I may well be coming around to your way of thinking.

Imagine that the golden age -> 1248 are being written about from the far far future.

Perhaps the paradigm shifts can be explained by misinterpretation and best guess of historical records (this is almost Galaxy Quest stuff).

But that's not what the folks at GDW were doing, it's what we are doing to explain the mess they left us

 

[pendragonman]

And there is another thing to look at:

Is there TWO OTUs? A small ship OTU and a big ship OTU, and if so how do they intersect?

 

[Dragoner]

And there is another thing to look at:

Is there TWO OTUs? A small ship OTU and a big ship OTU, and if so how do they intersect?

No, just one, the OTU is Marc's idea of whatever he wants it to be at the time. Big ship is normal, but people go off on personal tangents that are often only relevant to themselves (which is one reason why I dislike retcons, the other is the waste of energy). As a GM/Player, I haven't run into any of these subjects much, small ships are your usual ACS - pc craft and the big ships are a dungeon crawl. Often claims of inconsistancy aren't, but of misunderstanding or cognitive dissonance by the claimant.

 

[mike wightman]

And there is another thing to look at:

Is there TWO OTUs? A small ship OTU and a big ship OTU, and if so how do they intersect?

If only there were only two lol.

When they revised CT they changed enough rules in LBB2 to make ships common throughout the OTU broken - namely the X-boat. We've been trying to fix it ever since =)

Then there were two different versions of High Guard - but they made so much of a mess of the ship construction and combat rules in first edition that they decided to replace that after 6 months.
Note that there are some real gems hidden in HG1 - fusion drives as weapons, missile alpha strikes and such like.

MT made an even bigger mess. The folks at DGP had obviously never read the new jump rules in revised edition or HG 2 so they went back to the jump fuel usage of CT original edition - a jump drive uses all fuel regardless of jump distance.
Compound that by the fact that they tried to make Striker power plants the standard for ship designs too and they had to reduce the amount of fuel a jump drive requires to make the numbers work.

TNE changed the ship paradigm yet again by introducing the HEPlaR maneuver drive - and retconning that that's the way ships had always worked.

T4 tried to bring it all together by saying HEPLaR i a lower TL solution and reaction less thrusters a higher TL drive - but that doesn't explain why TL15 golden era ships were using HEPLaR drives and always were - Bobby in the shower moment or what.

 

[mike wightman]

No, just one, the OTU is Marc's idea of whatever he wants it to be at the time. Big ship is normal, but people go off on personal tangents that are often only relevant to themselves (which is one reason why I dislike retcons, the other is the waste of energy). As a GM/Player, I haven't run into any of these subjects much, small ships are your usual ACS - pc craft and the big ships are a dungeon crawl. Often claims of inconsistancy aren't, but of misunderstanding or cognitive dissonance by the claimant.

What about the drive TL paradigm shift between LBB1-3 and HG?

 

[Dragoner]

What about the drive TL paradigm shift between LBB1-3 and HG?

Different design paths, very common.

 

[Timerover51]

And there is another thing to look at:

Is there TWO OTUs? A small ship OTU and a big ship OTU, and if so how do they intersect?

As I see it, you have a small ship OTU that is intended for role-playing, and a big shp OTU that is intended for those who like to fight space battles. For space battles, I would prefer something like Imperium, which I have.

 

[mike wightman]

Different design paths, very common.

Not quite.

In CT a ship can be built that can do jump 4 at TL10 under revised rules. You can even fudge a 200t jump6 x-boat.

In HG a TL of 13 is required to build a jump 4 ship, so the TL10 version is not allowed in that universe.

 

[mike wightman]

As I see it, you have a small ship OTU that is intended for role-playing, and a big shp OTU that is intended for those who like to fight space battles. For space battles, I would prefer something like Imperium, which I have.

If you want to run a Star Trek like campaign - a solomani rimward expedition or a zhodani core expedition for examples - then you may need to use the large ship rules.

If you want to run a nBSG like game with (the losing side during a long night conflict could be the background for the OTU) then big ships again become necessary.

Note that I don't like running such games myself, preferring the small ship universe, I can see how it could be fun for some groups.

 

[Dragoner]

Not quite.

In CT a ship can be built that can do jump 4 at TL10 under revised rules. You can even fudge a 200t jump6 x-boat.

In HG a TL of 13 is required to build a jump 4 ship, so the TL10 version is not allowed in that universe.

Then do it like reality in which in each TL you have so many different norms, standards, applications, regulations that you have over a 1000 different design paths esp after figuring your economies of scale, JIT, TQM, Six Sigma, ISO compliance management and process control before calculating in the realities of vertical integration of the supply chain and or diversification etc. ad nauseum.

...or just say 'meh' and get on with the game.

 

[Gray Pennell]

I was hoping to avoid the small big ship duality argument but I guess I failed. I am sorry everyone. My issue here is the size of fleets. One argument seems to be the Imperium has trillions of credits to toss around so why the vargr not. The other is we just want big ships to shoot at each other in a cool war game aka FFW. What we discover is that these two arguments are the bases of the big ship little ship issue. With that one you add general rules arguments.

So here I go. The big money issue is a red herring. First most players are not going around counting GDPs to determine the economics of the Imperium. In essences they are not worried about the economics of this universe. You can freely play without this issue. Now if you want to start another thread about the Imperial economy we can do that and Ill debate how the Imperium could not exist if it only spent its taxes on the military.

Now FFW as a game. I dont see how it is important to the OTU that you cant do without it. Yes, the FFW is needed, but since the narrative just gives fleet numbers and some locations/battles over 3 years, you can play in the "OTU" Traveller without playing the FFW game.

The rules question thats a gorden knot none of us can untangle because each edition tried to solve the problems of the last while also changing the setting. My simplistic answer is to pick a rule set you like and play any period you wish. That is to say play golden age OTU with T4 rules if you want. If T5 is useful I might use that as the bases of my game.

All of these issues are referee issues and it gives them plenty of room to work around them.

 

[Carlobrand]

... My issue here is the size of fleets. One argument seems to be the Imperium has trillions of credits to toss around so why the vargr not. The other is we just want big ships to shoot at each other in a cool war game aka FFW. What we discover is that these two arguments are the bases of the big ship little ship issue. With that one you add general rules arguments.

So here I go. The big money issue is a red herring. First most players are not going around counting GDPs to determine the economics of the Imperium. In essences they are not worried about the economics of this universe. You can freely play without this issue. Now if you want to start another thread about the Imperial economy we can do that and Ill debate how the Imperium could not exist if it only spent its taxes on the military.

A red herring. Really? :devil:

You don't want a big fleet in your universe. Fine, it's your universe and that's actually a fun model to play under, go for it. However, I might point out that one does not have to have a big debate about the Imperial economy, nor run around counting GDPs, to realise that the hundreds of billions of people mentioned in Supplement 3 as inhabitants of the Marches could afford quite a bit more fleet than you'd like to see, without even breaking a sweat.

Yes, you can freely play without this issue, by the simple expedient of pretending it doesn't exist. Still, It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do a quick and dirty estimate based on that book alone and come up with a sector population well over a half trillion souls. In fact, it might be advisable to do a bit of independent head-counting if you want to argue against a large fleet, 'cause Supplement 3 figures are about double what Spinward Marches Campaign offers us - and Supplement 3 is much easier for the average not-worried-about-the-economics player to stumble across and take as scripture when he looks at you and asks you why your Imperium has such a small and scattered fleet.

So, pretend the issue doesn't exist. There's a long list of issues we all pretend don't exist in order to get on with the game. (The use of sandcasters as a defense against lasers comes to mind, as does the jump-masking rule that many of us elect not to use for simplicity's sake.) However, I would counsel against simply writing the issue off as a red herring, lest you find yourself with no answer for your players - some of whom I suspect may be a good deal more inquisitive than you give them credit for. The fact that you choose to pretend it does not exist for the sake of your preferred style of play does not mean the issue isn't out there waiting for one of your more inquisitive players to add two and two and get four.

... Now FFW as a game. I dont see how it is important to the OTU that you cant do without it. Yes, the FFW is needed, but since the narrative just gives fleet numbers and some locations/battles over 3 years, you can play in the "OTU" Traveller without playing the FFW game.

No, that's not right.

Yes, you can play a rousing campaign without the FFW game, just as you can play without having some fool duke assassinate your Emperor and make a royal mess of things.

However, FFW as written only works in a big ship, big fleet universe. A small fleet universe works best when you see the sector as a big wild frontier where war is characterized more by commerce raiding and small punitive expeditions. A small fleet doesn't carry enough troops to conquer anything of significance, and if it's really a threat to the likes of Efate or Jewell or Rhylanor (or even neighboring systems those worlds might consider to be important), then you're left explaining why those well-populated relatively-high-tech worlds couldn't scrape together enough cash to build ships to protect their skies - which invites the enemy to bring more ships, which leads the systems to band together to make more ships and organize a more vigorous defense ... and then you're unhappily back in the big fleet universe. No, a small-fleet 5th FW is a very, very different beast from anything described in FFW-the-game; best is to ignore the game completely along with all reference to it, and craft a 5th FW that is more appropriate to the setting you're trying to create.

...The rules question thats a gorden knot none of us can untangle because each edition tried to solve the problems of the last while also changing the setting. My simplistic answer is to pick a rule set you like and play any period you wish. That is to say play golden age OTU with T4 rules if you want. If T5 is useful I might use that as the bases of my game.

All of these issues are referee issues and it gives them plenty of room to work around them.

In other words, it's an IMTU thing rather than being a question of what the canon universe is like, 'cause I gotta tell ya, a canon Marches of a half-trillion souls can afford a whole lotta Kinunirs, if you're preferring that small-ship thing, and that can make life a little crowded for us who work in the field of - ahem - discrete transport of goods and items.

 

[rancke]

I was hoping to avoid the small big ship duality argument but I guess I failed. I am sorry everyone. My issue here is the size of fleets. One argument seems to be the Imperium has trillions of credits to toss around so why the vargr not.

That's wrong. The argument is that the Imperium has trillions of credits to spend and several hostile and unfriendly neighbors in their own weight class who likewise have trillions of credits to spend.

True, the Imperium is the biggest of the economies in its weight class, but that's presumably why it can afford to spend as little as it canonically does (combined total of 3% of GWP).

The other is we just want big ships to shoot at each other in a cool war game aka FFW. What we discover is that these two arguments are the bases of the big ship little ship issue. With that one you add general rules arguments.

Also wrong. The big ship/little ship issue is irrelevant; the salient point is thenumber of tons of warship an economy of trillions of people can support. Big ships simply means that the total tonnage can be concentrated in fewer ships.

So here I go. The big money issue is a red herring. First most players are not going around counting GDPs to determine the economics of the Imperium. In essences they are not worried about the economics of this universe. You can freely play without this issue.

Of course you can. What you can't do is discuss if the canonical fleet numbers are too high.

The rules question thats a gorden knot none of us can untangle because each edition tried to solve the problems of the last while also changing the setting. My simplistic answer is to pick a rule set you like and play any period you wish.

My answer is to deduce the setting details from the available evidence (which include a number of rules). Once you decide what your setting is like, you can use any suitable set of rules to run adventures in it. (Not all rules sets are suitable for Traveller style adventures, but a lot are). And if others decide that their settings are pretty much the same as your setting, you can use the rules expansions and setting material they produce and they can use the rules expansions and setting material you produce. Which is the point of having an official game universe: to serve as a common frame of reference for the fans.

All of these issues are referee issues and it gives them plenty of room to work around them.

I am a referee. And an occasional writer. So I hope I can have your permission to participate in these sort of discussions. You, in turn, can have my permission to not participate in them if you don't like it.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Actually, Hans, you'r lack of rules canon knowledge blinds you here... ton for ton, Bk2 and Bk5 have dissimilar drive costs, so they produce different tonnages.

 

[rancke]

Actually, Hans, you'r lack of rules canon knowledge blinds you here... ton for ton, Bk2 and Bk5 have dissimilar drive costs, so they produce different tonnages.

That happens to be one of the things I do know about rules canon. Apparently you've never come across any of the times I've claimed Book2 and Book5 are mutually contradictory, the infamous grandfathering rule in Book 5 notwithstanding?

I admit to being unable to see (blind to) what relevance the discrepancy between the two ship design systems has to the current discussion.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Bk2 warships are, as a rule, cheaper per ton. Plus, they tend to be carriers or troopships, for lack of armor, bays, and more expensive weapon options; thus the Bk2 designs fleets are able to support higher overall tonnages.

hybrid designs at j4 with cheaper Bk5 JDrives, bk2 pp &MDrives, and bk5 weapons and armor split the difference. MgT is Bk2 drives, bk5 weapons... for up to 2kTd.

picking your rulesset determines how much too small the FFW fleets are.

 

[rancke]

Bk2 warships are, as a rule, cheaper per ton. Plus,

That's a rules issue, right enough.

Plus, they tend to be carriers or troopships, for lack of armor, bays, and more expensive weapon options;

But that's a a setting issue.

...thus the Bk2 designs fleets are able to support higher overall tonnages.

Which affects how suitable Bk2 is to support a setting according to how that setting has battleships and carriers and troopships.

...hybrid designs at j4 with cheaper Bk5 JDrives, bk2 pp &MDrives, and bk5 weapons and armor split the difference. MgT is Bk2 drives, bk5 weapons... for up to 2kTd.

If hybrid designs were legal, much of my objections to Bk2 designs would vanish like the morning dew. Add a rule about not being able to build jump-X until the appropriate tech level and I'd embrace it unreservedely (Well... almost unreservedly. I still think the power plant fuel consumption rates are unbelievably high, but since Bk5 has the same flaw, that makes no difference in choosing between the two).

...picking your rulesset determines how much too small the FFW fleets are.

The other way around. Deciding on your setting determines how suitable a rules set is to emulate that setting.

(Note that there's nothing wrong with people deciding on setting details with a view towards making a specific rules set suitable to emulate it).


Hans

 

[aramis]

That's a rules issue, right enough.



But that's a a setting issue.

Hans

wrong. When the setting postdates the rules, dead wrong.

The rules dictate what makes sense in building the setting. Since there are, under bk2, 4 options for what to do with extra space -- cargo, passengers/troops, fuel, and subcraft.

Old games, and many current ones, have setting as mostly encoded in rules; most players I've played with prefer that mode. System matters a lot to that crowd. Traveller as a ruleset encourages fighters in Bk2 design, and that was kept in setting building despite fighters being suboptimal in bk5...

Also, nothing in Bk5 that I can find bars mixed drives... and it notes even that the fuel rules are unchanged (p 22)... which, for ships of 1000-5000td, meas bk2 pp are superior in fuel rates.

 

[Carlobrand]

Are you two having fun, 'cause - with all due respect - I don't see how this is answering the OP's question.

 

[far-trader]

Are you two having fun, 'cause - with all due respect - I don't see how this is answering the OP's question.

Eighteen pages in if the original question hasn't been sufficiently answered the topic has devolved into endless unconvinced debate, a flamewar, divergent topics, or all of the above

...not that I can't appreciate a little nudge to come back on course