Battledress a vehicle?

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Jamus:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Um...that's clearly not true. In many versions of Traveller (TNE, T4, GT, T20), BD gives more protection than CA, and thus the version of traveller is clearly relevant.

True and I concede the point. I was thinking on that today at work actually and asked myself.. If the BD frame can support so much weight why not more armor? In CT I believe it was for simplicity that the two share the same defense but as you point out in T4 BD armor improves as TL increases.

Gravitic drive with CT BD, moving at a run without tiring indefinitely, moving at a run without thinking across a battlefield equals evading. Not one of those are in any of the LBBs I have. If they are please point them out.

G-belts are in CT</font>[/QUOTE]Yes they are and they are an additional cost of KCr100 in CT.

Noone said running indifintely I stated that the effectively unencumbered person could run faster and further than the encumbered person thus granting more battlefield mobility. common sense.

You did but that still is at the pace of walking/running. That isn't much ground covered in the grand scheme of things, nor is it much difference. Compared even to horseback troops they aren't very mobile.

I would assume.. maybe for the worse that a BD marine unit would be trained at least to current US army infantry standards. IMTU the training is much more intense but..
Firstly moving at a run is evasive second no real thinking need be given to running from one set of cover to the next. are you asserting that diving behind a sandbag or tree requires active thought and decision making? Are we to believe that trained soldiers do not automatically move in an evasive manner each and everytime they are in battlefield conditions? also not the case.

Have you ever done that? (And no, putting on pretend armor and swinging plastic swords is not equivalent.) I spent 9 years in the US Army. One of my two MOS's was 11B in a Light Infantry Unit. I have done it, in some very brutal conditions. (Fortunately never when live rounds were coming my way, but you never want to be on the losing end when the Miles gear is in use either.) I taught it. Guess what, it does require thought, observation, and especially watching your step. The ground you are moving over is never flat, it is never empty of obstructions, and the weather hardly ever cooperates to give you the vision you would like to have to move over this kind of ground. (If it was cooperating then your enemy would likely be able to see you better anyway so you have to be even more aware. You have to decide on next cover point, what cover points there are between here and there, alternate routes and making sure you are actually still going in the correct direction, at the correct pace. Now every soldier has to do that for for two guys because you have to keep aware of your partner or buddy. (Two is one, one is none.) Now, once you have your mind wrapped around that, kick it up a notch. How about keeping track of a fireteam? How about a Squad? An entire Platoon? A Company? When visibility is less than 50m? There is no mindless running in a combat zone, that is a quick ticket home in a box. Oh and unless it is a situation where you are actually in contact with the enemy, it is done at a walk, not a run.

I do stand by the opinion that CT BD includes a ton of options not specified in the books but clearly hinted at and I do stand that evading movement over the battlefield does not require conscious thought but I am only speaking from experience on that last point. If you stop to think you die. training makes certain actions instinctual<sp>

I guess if you want to bring this thread back on topic I would say that granting the vehicle class damage resist to battle armor doesnt make alot of sense. I would think that alot of that damage resist would come from vehicle mass and stability and lets be honest here.. even if the BD had the armor to stop a missle or large caliber round the trooper inside would still be sent flying or knocked down by the kenitic force IMO... unless contra grav systems were to be designed to keep the guy upright.. thats possible i guess.

Battledress having other options is one thing that makes the T20 vehicle system work. It actually allows those options. Including pricing, space required, power requirements, etc. You think of vehicles as Hummers, cars and bigger. Actually that category would also include bicycles, unicycles, and even rollerskates. Under the T20 definition of vehicles those are all vehicles. SO Servo assisted Armor would rightly be classified as a vehicle. And as my Marine "Roughneck" armor shows it can still classified as Medium or Man sized (Granted it is a very large man in size, but the rules classify it as Medium.)and you can include things like true ground mobility, and Grav drive or you can leave some of those items off and actually get really close to an average male in size. You can also have differences that are quantified and priced so you can have two different sets of Battledress that cost differently can be used at different tech levels and add or not add all of those features you think should be included.

That is a major advantage for classifying it as a vehicle. Now the frame itself will provide some protection for the trooper wearing it, in addition to the armor of the suit, hence even with the same armor plating it will offer more protection to the occupant. (So the vehicle classification works in more than one way.)

You stop and think you die? What kind of combat training have you actually received? It certainly isn't Soviet, or US Army or Marines. (The majority of my military career was actually in Human Intelligence.) I guess the Air Force believes speed is life. But there are lots of situations where stopping is exactly what you need to do in combat. Besides unlike a Tank with a stabilized main gun, an accurate shot still requires a stable firing position, and is best accomplished while you are stationary. (Even with a Stabilized tank, they are more accurate firing from a "short halt.") Defensive positions can be compromised by someone moving. (Even limited movement.) The human eye picks up movement much easier than a stationary target as do most current sensor systems.

Gyroscope systems would also help accomplish keeping a suit of BD upright, provided the armor was designed to take that kind of hit in the first place. KE transferred to a target from a typical hand held weapon will only knock a person down if they are unbalanced in the first place, YMMV. Armor of this type would probably not take the full KE of the weapon in the first place, it would more likely absorb some energy and deflect the rest. Battledress, especially the BD of T20 provides a wider stance, and larger ground surface contact so would be much less likely to be knocked down than a normal sized person. Now they do gain a higher center of Gravity in the equation, but again gyroscopic stabilization or equivalent would go quite a ways to counter a tendency to get toppled.

 

[Jamus]

Yes they are and they are an additional cost of KCr100 in CT.

Or maybe not. never really specifies what exactly is on a suit of BD.

You did but that still is at the pace of walking/running. That isn't much ground covered in the grand scheme of things, nor is it much difference. Compared even to horseback troops they aren't very mobile.

I disagree and im not really interested in the grand scheme I am interested in a guy being able to keep up the pace for more than one hour which BD clearly can while combat armor probably would not.

Have you ever done that?

Yes in 3/7th infantry 24th ID US Army in iraq.

(And no, putting on pretend armor and swinging plastic swords is not equivalent.)

SCA is full contact with solid rattan wood sticks and authentic armor.
http://www.sca.org/

I spent 9 years in the US Army. One of my two MOS's was 11B in a Light Infantry Unit. I have done it, in some very brutal conditions.

I was in a mech infantry unit, the battlefields we traversed were real.

(Fortunately never when live rounds were coming my way, but you never want to be on the losing end when the Miles gear is in use either.) I taught it. Guess what, it does require thought, observation, and especially watching your step.

You taught it I lived it and I disagree. Besides that you are argueing a totally different point than me. I said that it does not require active thought to operate a suit of BD in a battlefield condition. Answere this.. when you you play fighting did you have to think about moving your BDUs when you wanted to move?

The ground you are moving over is never flat, it is never empty of obstructions, and the weather hardly ever cooperates to give you the vision you would like to have to move over this kind of ground.

Thats funny.. most of the villages and towns we cleared were flat were relitively free from obstructions and the weather was not a factor. Again you speak from training and maybe book knowledge I am speaking from personal experience.

(If it was cooperating then your enemy would likely be able to see you better anyway so you have to be even more aware. You have to decide on next cover point, what cover points there are between here and there, alternate routes and making sure you are actually still going in the correct direction, at the correct pace.

These are things you think about before the fire fight but never during and besides as I have pointed out are not relevent to the point I made about thought not being required to move in BD.. you want to argue that I stated tactics are not required when that is not the case.

Now every soldier has to do that for for two guys because you have to keep aware of your partner or buddy. (Two is one, one is none.) Now, once you have your mind wrapped around that, kick it up a notch.

Give me some time to wrap my mind around basic squad tactics.. I mean its not like I wasnt in a dismount team in an actual combat situation taking real fire from real enemy troops on more than one occasion. I am sure your miles training gifted you with a much greater level of insight than my year in country did.

How about keeping track of a fireteam?

BD have regional range communications.
Our dismount team generally stayed close togather that we could use hand signals

How about a Squad?

same response as above.

An entire Platoon? A Company? When visibility is less than 50m?

The BDs would all be links on a secure channel and able to communicate instantly.
We used a radio mounted in the bradley.

There is no mindless running in a combat zone, that is a quick ticket home in a box. Oh and unless it is a situation where you are actually in contact with the enemy, it is done at a walk, not a run.

Spoken from experience I would suppose? we would run from cover to cover when clearing a urban area in a bounding overwatch. we did this because it is harder for a sniper to hit a running soldier than a walking one.
Your argument is now deflective. You are attempting to switch the original debate to a debate over semantics and wordage not meaning and intent. If you want to argue the reality of a combat soldier in a combat situation you are not equipped to do so.

Battledress having other options is one thing that makes the T20 vehicle system work. It actually allows those options. Including pricing, space required, power requirements, etc. You think of vehicles as Hummers, cars and bigger. Actually that category would also include bicycles, unicycles, and even rollerskates. Under the T20 definition of vehicles those are all vehicles. SO Servo assisted Armor would rightly be classified as a vehicle. And as my Marine "Roughneck" armor shows it can still classified as Medium or Man sized (Granted it is a very large man in size, but the rules classify it as Medium.)and you can include things like true ground mobility, and Grav drive or you can leave some of those items off and actually get really close to an average male in size. You can also have differences that are quantified and priced so you can have two different sets of Battledress that cost differently can be used at different tech levels and add or not add all of those features you think should be included.

The issue isnt that it is designed as a vehicle. the issue is that BD should or should not recieve the vehicle damage reduction that a tank would. I think it should not and feel that doing so makes BD much tougher than it should be.

That is a major advantage for classifying it as a vehicle. Now the frame itself will provide some protection for the trooper wearing it, in addition to the armor of the suit, hence even with the same armor plating it will offer more protection to the occupant. (So the vehicle classification works in more than one way.)

Disagree. by your reasoning a person on a bike or rollerblades should get the vehicled damage reduction.

You stop and think you die? What kind of combat training have you actually received? It certainly isn't Soviet, or US Army or Marines.

US Army.

(The majority of my military career was actually in Human Intelligence.)

The majority of mine was infantry... all of it actually.

I guess the Air Force believes speed is life. But there are lots of situations where stopping is exactly what you need to do in combat.

Taking up a defensive postion is not nearly the same thing as stopping to decide your best travel path while in the middle of moving from one position to another. to clarify my point Indecision kills. That is why so much of our newer tech is designed to be simple and require little though to use in high stress situations. perfect example would be reflex sights.

Besides unlike a Tank with a stabilized main gun, an accurate shot still requires a stable firing position, and is best accomplished while you are stationary. (Even with a Stabilized tank, they are more accurate firing from a "short halt.")

True but meaning less to the topic at hane. We would run and gun on occasion that is kinda the whole point of bounding overwatch and lighter caliber weapons such as the M249

Defensive positions can be compromised by someone moving. (Even limited movement.) The human eye picks up movement much easier than a stationary target as do most current sensor systems.

And yet holding ground is an open invitation to be flanked or zeroed in by arti or morter fire. remeber the army saying Shoot - Communicate - Move. I notice many of your thoughts on tactics revolve arounf fixed defensive positions. let me be the first to clue you in on the fact that they do not work and you are not guaranteed to be on the good side of an ambush.

Gyroscope systems would also help accomplish keeping a suit of BD upright, provided the armor was designed to take that kind of hit in the first place. KE transferred to a target from a typical hand held weapon will only knock a person down if they are unbalanced in the first place, YMMV. Armor of this type would probably not take the full KE of the weapon in the first place, it would more likely absorb some energy and deflect the rest. Battledress, especially the BD of T20 provides a wider stance, and larger ground surface contact so would be much less likely to be knocked down than a normal sized person. Now they do gain a higher center of Gravity in the equation, but again gyroscopic stabilization or equivalent would go quite a ways to counter a tendency to get toppled.

Sounds more like a mech from FASAs Battletech than a suit of Battledress from Traveller. Not that I am opposed to that since I really really loved old school BT. the new collectible BT is garbage IMO though

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Jamus:
[QB] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Yes they are and they are an additional cost of KCr100 in CT.

Or maybe not. never really specifies what exactly is on a suit of BD. </font>[/QUOTE]Fine show me some implication that Gravitic drive is included in a suit of Battledress from any OTU CT rulebook. If gravitic drive were part of Battledress then Grav Vehicle would be a required skill.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You did but that still is at the pace of walking/running. That isn't much ground covered in the grand scheme of things, nor is it much difference. Compared even to horseback troops they aren't very mobile.

I disagree and im not really interested in the grand scheme I am interested in a guy being able to keep up the pace for more than one hour which BD clearly can while combat armor probably would not.</font>[/QUOTE]Based on what rule?


<Snip!> I don't know if you are being intentionally insulting, oversimplifying to attempt to start an argument or plain ignorant. Regardless, I am not going to be drawn.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />How about keeping track of a fireteam?

BD have regional range communications.</font>[/QUOTE]Show me that in the CT rules. It says communication. Sure. But show me regional range.

<SNIP!> See above.

Again you are making up rules that do not exist in the rule system you are using. So you go use your house rules in your OTU. I'll stick to the T20 rules. This conversation will not resolve anything. Have a nice day.

 

[Jamus]

Fine show me some implication that Gravitic drive is included in a suit of Battledress from any OTU CT rulebook. If gravitic drive were part of Battledress then Grav Vehicle would be a required skill.

Battle dress (Cr200,000; TL13): The ultimate in individual protection, battle dress is an advanced and powered version of combat armor. Battle dress enhances the strength and senses of individuals wearing it with variable feedback personal controls, servo-powered limbs, and various kinds of electronic assistance. The individual wearing battle dress is effectively doubled in strength and given unlimited endurance (for lifting, carrying, and fighting purposes; not wounds recieved) and recieved a +2 for surprise. -The Traveller book pg 43

Explain exactly what various kinds of electronic assistance Is in YTU? I really didnt know until I read about battle dress in MT and T4.

So again you try to deflect to argument to your arena by your rules. the question is about battle dress in traveller not in CT MT T4 or T20. would you deny that it is canon for battle dress to have gravitics in OTU? Are denying that battle dress has sub-continental communications in OTU? T4 emperors arsenal pg91 TL13 Battle dress.

MegaTraveller mentions battle dress droptroops using gravitics im pretty sure (would have to dig my MT books out.. think it was in rebellion) and T4 mentions the fact that all Battle dress past TL 13 has built in Gravitic systems.. are these sources not part of canon or OTU? If we want to go by chronological time T4 predates CT so the assumption that 1105 - ? CT battle dress contains the same equipment and abilities as year zero T4 battle dress. Is this a fair assumption? Fact is CT never defines what is or is not on battle dress. you have to go to the rest of canon for more information.

I disagree and im not really interested in the grand scheme I am interested in a guy being able to keep up the pace for more than one hour which BD clearly can while combat armor probably would not.-Jamus

Based on what rule?

Common sense. are you argueing that a encumbered man can run as fast and far as a equally fit unencumbered man?

I don't know if you are being intentionally insulting, oversimplifying to attempt to start an argument or plain ignorant. Regardless, I am not going to be drawn.

Because the fourth option that you may be wrong and that you are not speaking from experience isnt possible. It is also not possible that you are being rude and inflammatory yourself is it? I mean in your world a combat veteran with actual on the ground combat experience is more ignorant about combat operations at the dismount squad level than a REMF?

Show me that in the CT rules. It says communication. Sure. But show me regional range.

Show me where it says what communications gear is on battle dress or what commo gear is not.

again MT and T4 both describe battle dress in much greater detail and are both to my knowledge canon. Maybe you can argue the point and intent of this debate and try being less of a rules lawyer?

Again you are making up rules that do not exist in the rule system you are using. So you go use your house rules in your OTU. I'll stick to the T20 rules.

Again you hide behind rules set because you can not debate the meat of the subject. I will prove to you what is on Traveller battle dress after you prove to me what is not.

And the original debate was should T20 Battle dress get the same damage resistance/reduction as a tank? maybe you can adress that.

This conversation will not resolve anything. Have a nice day.

This conversation has been entertaining and I wish you a great day also.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Jamus:
[QB] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Fine show me some implication that Gravitic drive is included in a suit of Battledress from any OTU CT rulebook. If gravitic drive were part of Battledress then Grav Vehicle would be a required skill.

Battle dress (Cr200,000; TL13): The ultimate in individual protection, battle dress is an advanced and powered version of combat armor. Battle dress enhances the strength and senses of individuals wearing it with variable feedback personal controls, servo-powered limbs, and various kinds of electronic assistance. The individual wearing battle dress is effectively doubled in strength and given unlimited endurance (for lifting, carrying, and fighting purposes; not wounds recieved) and recieved a +2 for surprise. -The Traveller book pg 43

Explain exactly what various kinds of electronic assistance Is in YTU? I really didnt know until I read about battle dress in MT and T4.

So again you try to deflect to argument to your arena by your rules. the question is about battle dress in traveller not in CT MT T4 or T20. would you deny that it is canon for battle dress to have gravitics in OTU? Are denying that battle dress has sub-continental communications in OTU? T4 emperors arsenal pg91 TL13 Battle dress. </font>[/QUOTE]First this is the T20 forum. But I am not deflecting anything to the T20 rules I am asking specifically about the CT rules which you stated you were using. T4 is an entirely different design paradigm and an entirely different timeframe. (Approximately 1000 years before the setting of either CT or T20.) You are the one bringing in additional rulesets because your ruleset doesn't support your claims. Electronic assistance is not Gravitic Drive. (If it was you need Grav Vehicle Skill in addition to either Vacsuit or Battledress.)

MegaTraveller mentions battle dress droptroops using gravitics im pretty sure (would have to dig my MT books out.. think it was in rebellion) and T4 mentions the fact that all Battle dress past TL 13 has built in Gravitic systems.. are these sources not part of canon or OTU? If we want to go by chronological time T4 predates CT so the assumption that 1105 - ? CT battle dress contains the same equipment and abilities as year zero T4 battle dress. Is this a fair assumption? Fact is CT never defines what is or is not on battle dress. you have to go to the rest of canon for more information.

I disagree and im not really interested in the grand scheme I am interested in a guy being able to keep up the pace for more than one hour which BD clearly can while combat armor probably would not.-Jamus

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Based on what rule?

Common sense. are you argueing that a encumbered man can run as fast and far as a equally fit unencumbered man?</font>[/QUOTE]Again T4 different ruleset. Not the one we were comparing, or the one you were saying that the cost difference was justified. And different design system and additionally different armor protection between Combat Armor and Battledress.

And yor comparison of Unencumbered and encumbered is flawed in several ways. First you have to define a distance, second, you have to include the fact that a Battledress Trooper is assisted but that doesn't mean unencumbered. It may not have effective additional weight but it will restrict movement.

And there are no rules in MT that state that BD includes Gravitics either. (Again it isn't even implied as there is no mention of Grav Vehicle skill.)

 

[mike wightman]

If you read page 43 of LBB4 Mercenary you can get a good idea of what helmet mounted commo gear etc. is included in a suit of Battle Dress.

I would also add a lot of the electronic systems from Striker to basic Battle Dress.

The grav belt would be an optional extra IMHO.

 

[Jamus]

First this is the T20 forum. But I am not deflecting anything to the T20 rules I am asking specifically about the CT rules which you stated you were using. T4 is an entirely different design paradigm and an entirely different timeframe. (Approximately 1000 years before the setting of either CT or T20.) You are the one bringing in additional rulesets because your ruleset doesn't support your claims. Electronic assistance is not Gravitic Drive. (If it was you need Grav Vehicle Skill in addition to either Vacsuit or Battledress.)

Not different rules sets sir, additional background material. And my statement about deflective arguments was not that you are trying to focus on one rules set or the other but rather that you are attempting to focus on game mechanics and not setting background. surely you would agree that as MM releases new background information regarding traveller and the 3I that it is fair to assume that info applies to the CT background even though the rules mechanics remain unchanged.

As I asked before are you claiming that BD made 1000 years before the common CT period will not have equipment that was common to BD 1000 years previous. Stop hiding behind rules set and debate Traveller setting and background. Answer this question. Did TL13 Imperial Battledress have gravtech in the year zero according to canon material?

Yes or No

in 1978 Marc Miller wrote this

Battle dress (Cr200,000; TL13): The ultimate in individual protection, battle dress is an advanced and powered version of combat armor. Battle dress enhances the strength and senses of individuals wearing it with variable feedback personal controls, servo-powered limbs, and various kinds of electronic assistance. The individual wearing battle dress is effectively doubled in strength and given unlimited endurance (for lifting, carrying, and fighting purposes; not wounds recieved) and recieved a +2 for surprise. -The Traveller book pg 43

in 1996 Marc Miller wrote this about 3I battle dress

Known abilities include full life support, anti grav movement, tactical communications, broud-spectrum sensingcapabilities, and limited point defense versus hand-launched missiles. Normal weaponry is some form of gauss or laser weapon powered from the cold fusion unit. other capabilities are classified, although anyone with battle dress skill 2 or more would know most of them and may have served in such a unit.

Cost is estimated at KCr200

Do you believe it illogical that even a hoary old CT player would turn to later published Traveller material to fill in some of the gaps with the original CT background and fluff. try to remember that this is not a debate on rules sets/mechanics it is a debate on background material.

Again T4 different ruleset. Not the one we were comparing, or the one you were saying that the cost difference was justified. And different design system and additionally different armor protection between Combat Armor and Battledress.

Same Traveller setting different year
Same Imperium 3I
rules mechanics are different but how the effects a statement like anti grav movement is beyond me. I am not aware of any rules mechanic that claims there is no anti grav movement on CT battle dress. Since Marc Miller later wrote that anti grav movement was a common feature of 3I Battle dress I suppose it is fair to accept that anti grav movement on battle dress is Canon. also note that unaug BD (CT combat armor) costs the same in CT as T4 and that aug battle dress (CT battle dress) also costs exactly the same. maybe because they are the same?

And yor comparison of Unencumbered and encumbered is flawed in several ways. First you have to define a distance, second, you have to include the fact that a Battledress Trooper is assisted but that doesn't mean unencumbered.

1. 25 miles
2. what would encumber someone with unlimited endurance (for lifting, carrying, and fighting purposes; not wounds recieved)I seem to remember the rules state encumberance is based on weight carried.

It may not have effective additional weight but it will restrict movement.

According to what?

And there are no rules in MT that state that BD includes Gravitics either. (Again it isn't even implied as there is no mention of Grav Vehicle skill.)

I will have to dig out my rebellion handbook. pretty sure i read something about Battle dress using grav in one of the fluff bits there.
also though you are right about g-belt requiring vehicle skill -1 in CT and I dont disagree with you on this it also bears to say that Battle dress skill could be assumed to include grav belt use. note that the only skill required to pilot grav capable battle dress in T4 is battle dress skill.
anyone with vacc suit skill can use BD but battle dress skill is required to take full advantage of all the suits capabilities. This discussion does kinda highlight that a newer and more difined version of CT would be nice.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Jamus:
Did TL13 Imperial Battledress have gravtech in the year zero according to canon material?

Yes or No

No.

The Imperium of year zero was TL12, the TL13 stuff is all projected, R&D, or second Imperium era stuff.

And yes.

The TL12 stuff has contragrav built in, as does the army surplus TL11 Battle Dress

But CT doesn't have contragrav, it has null grav modules...

 

[Jamus]

LOL
true my point is that it is a fairly safe assumption given newer background information that battle dress would have anti grav capability.

Just a quick question but does T20 battle dress have anti grav capability or no?

But CT doesn't have contragrav, it has null grav modules...

New name for the same thing maybe?

 

[mike wightman]

Probably

And no, the T20 version doesn't have anti grav built in (but then it only costs just over 100kCr... a grav belt to fit it would be about 15-20kCr more IIRC)

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Probably

And no, the T20 version doesn't have anti grav built in (but then it only costs just over 100kCr... a grav belt to fit it would be about 15-20kCr more IIRC)

Actually stock THB Battledress is KCr71 but doesn't include Grav.
My T20 Marine Armor has Gravity modules. Scroll up.

But it also requires Vehicle Proficiency (Grav Vehicle), Armor Proficiency (Battledress) AND Pilot Skill to properly use. It costs about KCr100 more than the stock THB Battledress, KCr110 more than TLE Combat Armor. It is quite a bit more mobile with much better protection than stock Battledress or Combat Armor as well. In this case there is a definite cost benefit ratio, especially in the primary use for armor, better protection, as well as extra bells and whistles. It is almost 3 times the cost of Combat armor and has almost 3 times the protection. The ratio isn't quite the same but it is fairly close.

One of the major benefits of classifying Battledress as a vehicle is the ease of customization. It isn't a fudge, you have clear rules for it.

<Caution Rant follows!>

I'll be honest, I don't know who on these forums are actually playing Traveller and who is simply playing at Traveller.

I am playing Traveller. I have been Refereeing my weekly T20 Traveller campaign for the past 18 months.

I stick close to the books so my players know what to expect. The exceptions to the rules and borderline interpretations are laid out ahead of time, in most cases. If I have to make a borderline interpretation, then I stick to it and that is how it is from then on. (So far I have had to make 3 of those during game play and I prefer not to.) The major rule changes, and there are a couple, are clearly presented on the campaign website, which I direct people to before I let them play. The campaign setting is also laid out so they have a good idea of what is going on around them, if they choose to look. Changing rulesets in the middle of a discussion, attempting to pull things in at the last minute from a different ruleset, not in my campaign, it isn't going to happen. Referees that change the rules so things don't work as expected, tick me off. (And I wouldn't play in that campaign.)

</Rant>

The T20 rules, for the most part work. Battledress as a vehicle works. Is it perfect? No. But it works, it is consistent and it still delivers the flavor of CT.

 

[BetterThanLife]

One other point Like I said earlier rules underwent some major changes between MT and TNE. Before TNE, Battledress was unavailable below TL13. So there are obviously different assumptions between CT and T4. Personally I think Battledress was allowed below TL13 just so it could stay in the game to keep some diehard Merc gamers happy. In any case calling on T4 references to shore up an argument about CT, you have to take into account that the rules have very different assumptions.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
Actually stock THB Battledress is KCr71 but doesn't include Grav.

Oops, I quoted the price from my first edition book.
The errata for second edition does indeed give the price you quote.

And I do play Traveller. For the past few months I've had a game going that's testing the Mongoose RuneQuest rules, but I'm going to be trying out my proto-Traveller setting when it reaches its end.

Oh, and I've played in a pretty good T20 game every month or so for the past couple of years

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
One other point Like I said earlier rules underwent some major changes between MT and TNE. Before TNE, Battledress was unavailable below TL13. So there are obviously different assumptions between CT and T4. Personally I think Battledress was allowed below TL13 just so it could stay in the game to keep some diehard Merc gamers happy. In any case calling on T4 references to shore up an argument about CT, you have to take into account that the rules have very different assumptions.

The DGP MT Journal issue 1 article on Battle Dress introduced 10 to 14 feet tall Battlesuits at TL10, and there is a heavy loader exo-skeleton available at TL11...

 

[Jamus]

I stick close to the books so my players know what to expect. The exceptions to the rules and borderline interpretations are laid out ahead of time, in most cases. If I have to make a borderline interpretation, then I stick to it and that is how it is from then on. (So far I have had to make 3 of those during game play and I prefer not to.) The major rule changes, and there are a couple, are clearly presented on the campaign website, which I direct people to before I let them play. The campaign setting is also laid out so they have a good idea of what is going on around them, if they choose to look.

all good habits to have and things I try to do as well for the most part except I tent to temper my adjudication with a bit of common sense and flexibility. However my side of the debate has to do with traveller background and setting and not any particular rules set. I see all canon traveller material (example ; library data) from any Traveller edition as good for use with any Traveller campaign regardless of rules set used as long as the info fits in the chronological time frame.
As I play in CY1100s I would not use TnE or MT specific info in my campaign though I do use T4 and some T20 info.

The only house rule I use in my campaign is the base eight task system with mods derived from stats as well as skills. Until the powers that be pull there collective heads out of the sand and release a fixed not changed version of CT many of us have to houserule certain game mechanics. MT came close but missed the mark.

Changing rulesets in the middle of a discussion, attempting to pull things in at the last minute from a different ruleset, not in my campaign, it isn't going to happen. Referees that change the rules so things don't work as expected, tick me off. (And I wouldn't play in that campaign.)

My only real problem player is the rules lawyer. people who believe the word of the rules in more important than common sense or rules intent. It is these people that kill a good game. Besides as I pointed out earlier you can not prove what is or is not on a set of CT battle dress but we can both see what Marc Miller thoughts on the evolution of battle dress are from reading T4 main book and the emperors arsenal. If a player can bring me a canon reference to support a piece of equipment I have no problem with that. Would you consider me changing CT rules by using weapons of known space and against gravity?

The T20 debate.
That said being able to design BD using vehicle rules is not new and is not what we are argueing. Granting BD the damage resistance of a vehicle is the argument.

One other point Like I said earlier rules underwent some major changes between MT and TNE. Before TNE, Battledress was unavailable below TL13. So there are obviously different assumptions between CT and T4. Personally I think Battledress was allowed below TL13 just so it could stay in the game to keep some diehard Merc gamers happy. In any case calling on T4 references to shore up an argument about CT, you have to take into account that the rules have very different assumptions.

I disagree. If 3I canon history states that imperial battle dress has grav at TL12 and in use as far back as CY 0 what has that to do with rules mechanics? nothing. I use T4 material for a couple of reasons.
1. T4 most closely captures CTs spirit, what is true in T4s 3I is true in CTs 3I
2. T4 offers more setting background information than any previous set and clarifies alot of equipment as well as adding alot of useful gear. Before T4 who knew what might be on a set of 3I Battle dress. after T4 we all know. Like it or not T4 is canon.

And to close
BTL.. Try to learn to separate Traveller background and history from rules set. I am not sure what rules mechanics lead to assumptions you think could change the traveller setting.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Yes I am going to state point blank that standard Battledress as described in CT, MT, TNE and T20 do not include Gravitics. Jamus has told us that T4 mentions it, though Sigg has stated that the Standard BD in T4 doesn't include Gravitics. Can someone with the GT ruleset tell us if it is a standard option in GT Battledress?

So far 4 out of 5 rulesets don't include Gravitics even implied in Standard Battledress.

(Though what this has to do with classifying it as a vehicle is beyond me.)

One other point, Correct me if I am wrong. While CT and MT have Combat Armor and Battledress offering the same level of protection, TNE provides about twice the level of protection. I would assume that since T4 follows fairly closely to TNE that it also improves protection over Combat Armor. Is this correct? If so how much more protection than Combat armor does it have, percentage wise? Same question for GT, please.

 

[mike wightman]

Emm, actually I confirmed that the T4 Battle Dress does have contra-grav built in from TL11 onwards

As to GT, in Starmercs the Marine commando suit has a separate flight pack, while in Ground Forces the Marine Assault suits do include grav as standard, the other two types mentioned (standard army issue and Marine light duty Battle Dress) don't.

In those books the Battle Dess varies from being 3x to 8x the protection of combat armour, going by DR only, depending on the armour type and the location struck. The combat armour has a higher PD though.

In T4 CA disappears at TLs above 11.
At TL11 the CA has an AR of 5, while BD is AR 7, at TL12 the BD AR is 8, TL13 AR is 9, at TLs 14 and 15 the BattlePod is projected to replace BD

 

[Jamus]

Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
Yes I am going to state point blank that standard Battledress as described in CT, MT, TNE and T20 do not include Gravitics. Jamus has told us that T4 mentions it, though Sigg has stated that the Standard BD in T4 doesn't include Gravitics. Can someone with the GT ruleset tell us if it is a standard option in GT Battledress?

Note also that T20 battle dress is around 100k less that CT MT and T4 battle dress. T4 doesnt just mention it but shows the evolution of battle dress from TL1 to TL16 and guess what? battledress commonly used in the 3rd Imperium from TL11 or so has gravitics built in. as sigg says at TL14 or so bd is replaced with battle pods.

So far 4 out of 5 rulesets don't include Gravitics even implied in Standard Battledress.

Thats true.
CT- simply doesnt say what is or is not on BD
MT- is also kinda vague.
TnE- never got into it. didnt like the system at all.
GT- see above.
T4- clearly states battle dress has gravitics.
T20- doesnt but BD is almost exactly the price of a G-belt cheaper.
T5- who knows atm

(Though what this has to do with classifying it as a vehicle is beyond me.)

Nothing at all. the debate over BD being classed as a vehicle has everything to do with the T20 vehicle rules regarding damage resist/absorb. Should battle dress recieve the same DR as a tank? That is the question that you have managed to avoid in 5 posts. No one is questioning that BD is created using the vehicle design rules. personally I think BD is rightly classed armor not a vehicle and should not recieve the vehicle DR but if YTU version of battle dress is actually mechs and not powered armor I can see why the unit would get the vehicle DR.

One other point, Correct me if I am wrong. While CT and MT have Combat Armor and Battledress offering the same level of protection, TNE provides about twice the level of protection.

Twice the level of protection of combat armor should not equate the ability to absorb damage like a tank. unless in YTU battle dress is a walking tank and not powered armor.

I would assume that since T4 follows fairly closely to TNE that it also improves protection over Combat Armor. Is this correct? If so how much more protection than Combat armor does it have, percentage wise? Same question for GT, please.

for T4 battle dress 9 (combat armor) is rigid protection 5
battle dress TL13 is rigid protection of 9 so almost 100% more protection. I would assume in T20 this would relate to a higher AC not a higher DR but again I havent really read T20 so I could be wrong.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Well in that case the TNE and T4 rules, the Battledress has about twice the protection of Combat Armor. I have never played using the TNE rules, but they look like that is about right.

Stock Battledress in T20 has just under twice the protection of Combat armor. So it follows the concept in TNE and T4 that BD is about twice as protective as Combat armor.

Since it is powered, with servos, and assistance to movement and lifting why wouldn't that be a vehicle? But classifying it as a vehicle or not classifying it as a vehicle, is just a name, the protection difference is in the same range as other versions of Traveller.

What is wrong with classifying it as a vehicle?

As for those systems that you claim are vague, there is nothing in there that says it is there. Adding Gravitics is something major that, if it existed would clearly would be mentioned. It isn't even implied. Specifically for CT and MT not saying it has Gravitics it goes further to show that Gravitics are not part of the armor. In CT and MT something with a contragravity drive has a required skill to use it. Further it doesn't imply gravitics by the simple notification that Battledress and Grav Vehicle would then be related skills. Yet if Battledress had Gravitics there should be mention that you needed the skill or that Grav Vehicle and Battledress skills were related. And while there are definite gaps in some of the equipment descriptions in CT and less of them in MT, there are very few gaps in the skills, especially the required and related skills. Since neither the equipment nor the skills imply the presence of Gravitics, I think I can state that it clearly isn't even implied in those.

So while it specifically doesn't say that Battledress doesn't have a antigravity drive it also doesn't say that air|rafts can't be disabled by shooting out their tires. So I guess by the same logic that Battledress has Antigravity drive, Air|Rafts and G-Carriers can be disabled by shooting out their tires.

 

[Anthony]

The problem isn't actually with classifying battledress as a vehicle. The problem is that 'vehicle' status gives a flat protection enhancement, rather than varying by the size of the vehicle.