Battledress a vehicle?

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by 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.

But the flat armor enhancement doesn't make it that much different. In MT Combat Armor and Battledress was immune to most small arms fire. In T20 Combat Armor-14 is virtually immune to small arms fire. Stock Battledress is effectively only 4 points different. Yes you have to take stamina damage in Combat armor and not Battledress, but combat, usually, will be long over before the average character goes down to Stamina damage. And the required, to hit number will likely be higher for the Combat armor equipped trooper than the battledress trooper. (AC for Battledress is adjusted by agility of the armor not the Dex of the character, though I prefer to have it adjusted by the lower of the Dex Mod or agility.) Should there be a size diferential for vehicles, it can be argued either way. But I personally like the simple three tiered method, because it is quite a bit less book keeping. And if you adjust it by size for vehicles shouldn't you do the same thing for starships? Some vehicles are actually larger than starships, then what?

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
But the flat armor enhancement doesn't make it that much different.

It makes an important difference when you compare the toughness of battledress to the toughness of tanks. In Striker/MT/TNE/T4/GT a medium tank is functionally impervious to weapons that will turn battledress to scrap metal.

And yes, the damage reduction for different sizes of starship should be different.

 

[veltyen]

And if you adjust it by size for vehicles shouldn't you do the same thing for starships? Some vehicles are actually larger than starships, then what?

And yes, the damage reduction for different sizes of starship should be different.

deja vu?

(the link is to page 1 of this thread

)

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Anthony:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
But the flat armor enhancement doesn't make it that much different.

It makes an important difference when you compare the toughness of battledress to the toughness of tanks. In Striker/MT/TNE/T4/GT a medium tank is functionally impervious to weapons that will turn battledress to scrap metal.

And yes, the damage reduction for different sizes of starship should be different. </font>[/QUOTE]A Medium Tank in T20 is quite a bit tougher than stock Battledress. Well a medium high tech tank. THe TL14 Light tank in TA6 has an AR of 13. Stock BD is 7. There is also a significant SI difference. Unlike starship combat where even 1 point of damage getting in causes havoc for internal damage, vehicles are more likely to actually have to be concerned with SI damage killing them. THB Battledress has an SI of 25. The same light tank has 73. So a Light tank of equal armor will take three times the damage of a set of battledress.

 

[Jamus]

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.

The issue is that battle dress is as durable as a tank when it should not be as it is a suit of armor.. not a vehicle. ex this just read your last post.

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.

Indeed. In T4 that is the effect of being able to use super dense armor on powered units. Dont know that super dense armor your grant a bas DR of 5 but...

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.

Not at all in the same range.

What is wrong with classifying it as a vehicle?

Because it is a suit of worn armor but thats just MO second because T20 grants a base DR to vehicles that armor should not have.

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.

I disagree. In the end this boils down to neither of us being able to prove their point. As a fun test.. since I cant say what is on BD for a fact maybe you can say what isnt on BD for a fact.

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.

You are wrong. reread CT g-belt entry and reread CT battle dress skill entry. Now I could be mistaken but it seems to imply that having battle dress skill allows for full use of all battle dress capability including the nefarious G-units.

In T4 the only skill mentioned to use Battle dress is Battle dress.

Further it doesn't imply gravitics by the simple notification that Battledress and Grav Vehicle would then be related skills.

Why do you assume this?

Yet if Battledress had Gravitics there should be mention that you needed the skill or that Grav Vehicle and Battledress skills were related.

In which rules system. In CT no skill is required to operate a G-belt. Also bk 4 stated Battle Dress: The individual has been trained extensively in the use of battle dress and the weapon systems normally associated with it.

If battle dress has Gravitics it stands to reason the Battle Dress skill would include its use when in battle dress but maybe not when using a normal G-belt. You bring up a good point to be sure about the relation between battle dress skill and G-belt skill.

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.

In CT?

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.

Unless Battle dress skill includes the use of all battle dress systems.

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.

your reasoning is astounding sir.

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.

Simple questions follow
1. Did MM write CT?
2. Did MM write T4?
3. Does MM state that battle dress does not have c-g in CT?
4. Does MM state that battle dress does have grav units in T4

1. yes
2. yes
3. no
4. yes

According to MM 3I battle dress has gravitcs in T4 I choose to retroactively use that information in my CT game because it seems both logical and fitting that battle dress would have gravitics and because CTs discription of battle dress was vague at best.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Though I will be honest the rules on internal damage for vehicles look like they are missing a paragraph. The way it reads it takes a Crit to score on the internal damage table for vehicles. So unlike starships SI is important to how much damage a vehicle can take in combat. That is based on size. So even with equal armor the Tank is going to stand up to more damage than the Battledress.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Jamus:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

The issue is that battle dress is as durable as a tank when it should not be as it is a suit of armor.. not a vehicle. ex this just read your last post.[/quote

But it isn't as durable as a Tank. You are only reading part of the rules not all of them. You have to take the vehicle damge rules together with the armor rules. It is quite a bit less durable than a tank. It can have as much armor but it will still get killed faster.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

Indeed. In T4 that is the effect of being able to use super dense armor on powered units. Dont know that super dense armor your grant a bas DR of 5 but...

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.

Not at all in the same range.

What is wrong with classifying it as a vehicle?

Because it is a suit of worn armor but thats just MO second because T20 grants a base DR to vehicles that armor should not have. </font>[/QUOTE]It is 5 dice, it is effectively the same as giving it an AR 5 points higher. So Combat Armor is a AR of 8 and Battledress is an effective AR of 12.

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.

I disagree. In the end this boils down to neither of us being able to prove their point. As a fun test.. since I cant say what is on BD for a fact maybe you can say what isnt on BD for a fact.

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.

You are wrong. reread CT g-belt entry and reread CT battle dress skill entry. Now I could be mistaken but it seems to imply that having battle dress skill allows for full use of all battle dress capability including the nefarious G-units.

In T4 the only skill mentioned to use Battle dress is Battle dress.

Further it doesn't imply gravitics by the simple notification that Battledress and Grav Vehicle would then be related skills.

Why do you assume this?

Yet if Battledress had Gravitics there should be mention that you needed the skill or that Grav Vehicle and Battledress skills were related.

In which rules system. In CT no skill is required to operate a G-belt. Also bk 4 stated Battle Dress: The individual has been trained extensively in the use of battle dress and the weapon systems normally associated with it.

If battle dress has Gravitics it stands to reason the Battle Dress skill would include its use when in battle dress but maybe not when using a normal G-belt. You bring up a good point to be sure about the relation between battle dress skill and G-belt skill.</font>[/QUOTE]Page 23 LBB3:

Grav Vehicles: Grav vehicles are teh main transportation of a high technology society. Beyond tech level 10, other vehicle types are rarely seenexcept in a few specialized situations. All grav vehicles are essentially similar in handling characteristics and air/raft skill allows its possessor to pilot any grav vehicle.

I added the italics. And the Grav Belt is listed as a sub class of Grav vehicle so Air/raft skill (Or as it is called in later LBBs Grav Vehicle skill) is required to operate a Grav Belt. In MT it is Grav Vehicle -1.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

In CT?

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.

Unless Battle dress skill includes the use of all battle dress systems.

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.

your reasoning is astounding sir.

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.

Simple questions follow
1. Did MM write CT?
2. Did MM write T4?
3. Does MM state that battle dress does not have c-g in CT?
4. Does MM state that battle dress does have grav units in T4

1. yes
2. yes
3. no
4. yes

</font>

And I was under the impression that he didn't actually write T4.

According to MM 3I battle dress has gravitcs in T4 I choose to retroactively use that information in my CT game because it seems both logical and fitting that battle dress would have gravitics and because CTs discription of battle dress was vague at best.

Does MM state that I can't stop an Air/raft by shooting its tires, in any ruleset? That is basically the same thing you are saying. That is a hell of a leap in logic with not only nothing to support it but the skills appear to indicate that it is a false assumption. And standard Battledress, except in T4, does not indicate gravitic drive. Though some models of Battledress in do GT have it, not all do and those that do indicate they do. So when you have one version out of 6 that do have grav drive in battledress. That one version doesn't even have battledress at the techlevel that the version you are attempting to imply it does.

The ruleset you are insisting that has Gravitics included when all indications are that it doesn't and the rules you are using are obviously quite different to the version you are attempting to apply the logic to. Like I said before, if you are playing Traveller instead of simply playing at Traveller, your Traveller Universe, play it the way you want.

Back to the original question. Where in the CT rules does it even imply that Battledress has some kind of Gravity drive?

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
So a Light tank of equal armor will take three times the damage of a set of battledress.

Three times as tough as battledress is nowhere near as tough as previous versions make armored vehicles.

In Striker, a PGMP-13 has a damage of 26. Against TL 14 battledress (AV 14 = 50mm RHA), it has 100% lethality (2d6+26-18 means a minimum roll of 10; as a high explosive weapon, it gets a kill on 7+). Firing at the frontal armor of a T55 (let alone a more modern vehicle) it has zero chance of doing any damage at all. It can't even damage the side or belly armor of a typical grav tank.

 

[veltyen]

The problem I have is that the BD has the same damage profile as the tank. The weapons that will not hurt the BD will not hurt the Tank.

Yes, the tank has more health, which does make it better at taking the hit, but both are as impervious to weapons below a certain class.

A TL15 max armour BD bounces the same weapons as a TL15 MBT.

I have no problem with BD being nearly as tough as the tank, just not as tough, hence the rules mod that I use.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Anthony:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
So a Light tank of equal armor will take three times the damage of a set of battledress.

Three times as tough as battledress is nowhere near as tough as previous versions make armored vehicles.

In Striker, a PGMP-13 has a damage of 26. Against TL 14 battledress (AV 14 = 50mm RHA), it has 100% lethality (2d6+26-18 means a minimum roll of 10; as a high explosive weapon, it gets a kill on 7+). Firing at the frontal armor of a T55 (let alone a more modern vehicle) it has zero chance of doing any damage at all. It can't even damage the side or belly armor of a typical grav tank. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually that varys greatly depending on the ruleset. For example in CT a Rifle, in the hands of a skilled marksman has the ability to take down a Marine in Battledress with one shot. (Without a critical hit, which don't even exist in Classic Traveller.) A semi-skilled rifleman can do the same with a bit of luck. In MegaTraveller, that same rifle won't damage Battledress. The PGMP-13, in MT does 50% damage to Battledress but full damage to a G-Carrier. (And that one hit will likely kill either one.) An FGMP (again MT) does equal damage (1/2) to a Darrian Yorin Light Tank and a battledress equipped Marine. In this case they are both liable to end up dead from a single hit. Now a true Tank in MT will stand up to small arms fire like it is going out of style. In fact it will stand up to most weapons short of high energy lasers, mid to high end Plasma and Fusion weapons and starship weapons. And aside from the starship weapons it is a low pen hit (Half damage). In MT it takes a Tank gun to get a full penetration hit on Battledress. (And Combat Armor for that matter.)

A T20 tank built to the same high end stats has a very difficult time killing another tank.

It does vary depending on the ruleset. But Stock Battledress in T20 is quite a bit less able to resist damage than any T20 tank.

The Battledress design I provided above is another story and is not canon, though definitely possible within the T20 rules. It still won't resist damage better than a tank but will resist small arms like a tank. It will take damage from an FGMP. And it will take quite a few less hits from an FGMP to destroy it than a tank.

I am not saying that Velyten's house rules don't have merit. I am saying that the classification of Battledress as a vehicle doesn't make as much difference as it initially appears to do.

 

[BetterThanLife]

I made a mistake in an earlier post. The stock Battledress from the T20 THB is AR 10 giving it an effective AR of 15 not 12. Or just under double the protection of Combat Armor (AR 8). Which is still consistent with the statements I made but the incorrect number. I appologize about the mistake.

 

[Jamus]

Page 23 LBB3:

quote:Grav Vehicles: Grav vehicles are teh main transportation of a high technology society. Beyond tech level 10, other vehicle types are rarely seenexcept in a few specialized situations. All grav vehicles are essentially similar in handling characteristics and air/raft skill allows its possessor to pilot any grav vehicle.

I added the italics. And the Grav Belt is listed as a sub class of Grav vehicle so Air/raft skill (Or as it is called in later LBBs Grav Vehicle skill) is required to operate a Grav Belt. In MT it is Grav Vehicle -1.

Except Grav belt is a separate skill from air raft

LBB book 1 pg 22

Vehicle the individual immediatly selects one vehicle from one of the following groups and gains one level of skill in that specific type. the groups available are: ground car, water craft, winged craft (including helicopters), hovercraft, and grav belt.

Note that not only is G-belt not considered a sub skill of air/raft it is its own skill under vehicle.

Does MM state that I can't stop an Air/raft by shooting its tires, in any ruleset? That is basically the same thing you are saying.

Again you are arguing rules and not setting. To answer MM says nothing of the sort but I suppose if one was to aim at the tires on the landing gear and blow through them into the grav unit you could stop a air raft. By your logic since MM doesnt say humans in the 3I can have tatoos or gold teeth no human in the 3i has a tatoo or gold teeth. By your logic since every animal on every planet has not been defined clearly there must be no animals on any planets.

That is a hell of a leap in logic with not only nothing to support it but the skills appear to indicate that it is a false assumption.

which skills?
CT - G-belt is not under air/raft as you wrongly claim and no skill is required for basic operation.
CT - Battle dress skill includes skill in the use of all battle dress systems. In T4 battle dress skill covers all battle dress capabilities including grav use. no Grav skill required for grav capable battle dress if the user has battle dress skill.

And standard Battledress, except in T4, does not indicate gravitic drive.

Doesnt actually indicate anything. maybe you want to take a wack at stateing specifics about CT/MT battle dress.. what comms are used? what sensors? what computer systems? Maybe instead of arguing the cants you should explain the cans. Your main fault with battle dress is its cost.. I explain that battle dress could have/ does have grav capability and you catagorically deny the claim while having shown no written evidence to support your opinion.

Would CT battle dress be a better value if it did have intigrated grav units? would it be worth the 200 KCr? I agree with you that 200 KCr for glorified combat armor is rediculous.

Though some models of Battledress in do GT have it, not all do and those that do indicate they do.

CT/MT does not indicate anything specific about battle dress.

So when you have one version out of 6 that do have grav drive in battledress. That one version doesn't even have battledress at the techlevel that the version you are attempting to imply it does.

The rules mechanics are not important to this debate. Does MM state that 3I imperial battle dress has contra grav capability? yes or no?
logically it follows that all 3I battle dress in every system would have grav capability. It is only sad that it took MM four versions to define such a iconic part of traveller.
Also the tally would be

CT/MT-doesnt say either way
TnE---no?
T4----yes
GT----sometimes
T20---no?

The ruleset you are insisting that has Gravitics included when all indications are that it doesn't and the rules you are using are obviously quite different to the version you are attempting to apply the logic to.

What do rules mechanics have to do with it? explain that.

Like I said before, if you are playing Traveller instead of simply playing at Traveller, your Traveller Universe, play it the way you want.

Ok the eight players I ref weekly thank you i guess.

Back to the original question. Where in the CT rules does it even imply that Battledress has some kind of Gravity drive?

Where does it say it doesnt? where does it say what exactly is considered standard equipment on a suit of 3I battle dress. show me in the CT books what communications and other electronic devices are on a set of battle dress.

Answer this
Did MM write CT traveller?
Did MM create the 3I
Did MM ever state catigorically that 3I battle dress has gravitics built in?

Answer that and stop trying to hide behind rules mechanics and rules sets. If MM (the creator) of traveller states that grav is common to third imperium battle dress from year zero to whenever who are you to claim otherwise? The assumtion of grav on BD brings continuity to the background of traveller.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Jamus:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Page 23 LBB3:

quote:Grav Vehicles: Grav vehicles are teh main transportation of a high technology society. Beyond tech level 10, other vehicle types are rarely seenexcept in a few specialized situations. All grav vehicles are essentially similar in handling characteristics and air/raft skill allows its possessor to pilot any grav vehicle.

I added the italics. And the Grav Belt is listed as a sub class of Grav vehicle so Air/raft skill (Or as it is called in later LBBs Grav Vehicle skill) is required to operate a Grav Belt. In MT it is Grav Vehicle -1.

Except Grav belt is a separate skill from air raft

LBB book 1 pg 22

Vehicle the individual immediatly selects one vehicle from one of the following groups and gains one level of skill in that specific type. the groups available are: ground car, water craft, winged craft (including helicopters), hovercraft, and grav belt.

Note that not only is G-belt not considered a sub skill of air/raft it is its own skill under vehicle.</font>[/QUOTE]And page 17 LBB1 states

Air/Raft: The individual has training and experience in the use and operation of the air/raft, floater, flyer, and all types of grav vehicles.

The rules mechanics are not important to this debate. Does MM state that 3I imperial battle dress has contra grav capability? yes or no? Answer that and stop trying to hide behind rules mechanics and rules sets. If MM (the creator) of traveller states that grav is common to third imperium battle dress from year zero to whenever who are you to claim otherwise? The assumtion of grav on BD brings continuity to the background of traveller.

OK lets leave the mechanics out.

In the three versions of Traveller published before T4, there is nothing, no rules, no fluff pieces, no fiction, nothing that states or implies that there is any kind of grav drive in battledress. With the sheer volume of material written before T4 and the personal hand that Mr. Miller had in writing the material, there was ample opportunity to state that it did indeed include gravitics. T4 apparently says there is. After T4 there was Grand Traveller (An admittedly Alternate Traveller Universe product, some people consider it canon some don't, neither here nor there.) states that some specialized versions of Battledress have a Gravity drive others do not and deliniates which do and which don't. Also after T4, is T20. T20 states that Battledress doesn't include gravity drive standard but gives you the rules to build it yourself. So setting wise, timeline wise, and rule wise. That is 1 vote for gravitics are standard in battledress and 5 votes against. So the setting, in general does not support your supposition that Battledress has gravitics, without going to the specific rules, of a setting and a period that even you aren't playing.

TNE says there is no Thruster Plate Maneuver drive and requires Fusion Rockets. Mr. Miller stated that he thought about it and decided that Thruster Plates were a mistake, there was enough hand waving going on elsewhere in the system, so that is why in TNE they did away with Thruster Plates. There also was a conscious decision to change endurance within a system to force the players to spend more time on the planets. Does that mean your starships also don't use thruster plates but use Fusion Rockets instead?

You have yet to show one place in any material outside of T4 that states or implies that Battledress comes equipped, standard, with Gravitics. It is obvious that you can't. If the Traveller material sold on the market was rated from most popular to least and most sold to least, I would have to guess that T4 is the least popular and least sold. Yet that is the one you insist we should all pay attention to as gospel. For me, the setting of that period, holds no interest and it is the one version of Traveller that I don't even own one book from it, nor do I have any desire to do so.

As long as you have nothing more to go on than T4, you certainly don't get my vote that YTU is the OTU. And since T4 is the only rule set and setting that supports your "logic" and it is not supported in editions both before and after T4, I would say that the T4 material, in this regard is in error.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
After T4 there was Grand Traveller (An admittedly Alternate Traveller Universe product, some people consider it canon some don't, neither here nor there.) states that some specialized versions of Battledress have a Gravity drive others do not and deliniates which do and which don't.

Do you mean GURPS Traveller? I've not heard of Grand Traveller.

TNE says there is no Thruster Plate Maneuver drive and requires Fusion Rockets. Mr. Miller stated that he thought about it and decided that Thruster Plates were a mistake, there was enough hand waving going on elsewhere in the system, so that is why in TNE they did away with Thruster Plates. There also was a conscious decision to change endurance within a system to force the players to spend more time on the planets. Does that mean your starships also don't use thruster plates but use Fusion Rockets instead?

Those decissions had nothing to do with MWM. Dave Nilsen et al who designed TNE made those changes. Go and check out the "ask Dave" thread on the TNE forum
But then, it was Greg Porter who wrote Emperor's Arsenal (I'm assuming MWM had to authorise it though).

As long as you have nothing more to go on than T4, you certainly don't get my vote that YTU is the OTU. And since T4 is the only rule set and setting that supports your "logic" and it is not supported in editions both before and after T4, I would say that the T4 material, in this regard is in error.

Do you accept the T4 setting as a canonical version of the OTU history?
If you do then M0 Battledress has contragrav - period.
It is then a logical to assume that this would remain so right up to the golden era, and it does help to explain why a suit of CT Battledress costs so much

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
After T4 there was Grand Traveller (An admittedly Alternate Traveller Universe product, some people consider it canon some don't, neither here nor there.) states that some specialized versions of Battledress have a Gravity drive others do not and deliniates which do and which don't.

Do you mean GURPS Traveller? I've not heard of Grand Traveller.</font>[/QUOTE]Stand corrected. GT whatever it is.

(Never post half asleep.)

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />TNE says there is no Thruster Plate Maneuver drive and requires Fusion Rockets. Mr. Miller stated that he thought about it and decided that Thruster Plates were a mistake, there was enough hand waving going on elsewhere in the system, so that is why in TNE they did away with Thruster Plates. There also was a conscious decision to change endurance within a system to force the players to spend more time on the planets. Does that mean your starships also don't use thruster plates but use Fusion Rockets instead?

Those decissions had nothing to do with MWM. Dave Nilsen et al who designed TNE made those changes. Go and check out the "ask Dave" thread on the TNE forum
But then, it was Greg Porter who wrote Emperor's Arsenal (I'm assuming MWM had to authorise it though). </font>[/QUOTE]I knew I read it here but I thought I had read similar comments from MWM somewhere else. Thanks for pointing to the correct thread here and the Sanity check. Same effect. In the case of Fusion Rockets it was an intentional, and obviously intentional at that, canon change.

That is what I get for not being able to sleep and posting.

Thanks for the other sanity check as well. I didn't think Mr. Miller had written T4 just licensed it to Imperium games. In the case of T4 it sounds more like an unintentional change. And while MWM did authorize the version of Traveller, do we really know he did line by line editing of the material? (I doubt that he did.) I don't have a copy of any T4 material, and frankly, have no intention of buying it, it isn't a period that interests me and I have enough rulesets to choose from.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />As long as you have nothing more to go on than T4, you certainly don't get my vote that YTU is the OTU. And since T4 is the only rule set and setting that supports your "logic" and it is not supported in editions both before and after T4, I would say that the T4 material, in this regard is in error.

Do you accept the T4 setting as a canonical version of the OTU history?
If you do then M0 Battledress has contragrav - period.
It is then a logical to assume that this would remain so right up to the golden era, and it does help to explain why a suit of CT Battledress costs so much </font>[/QUOTE]I have never said that Battledress wasn't significantly overpriced. In fact it was one of my early comments in this thread. However a significant canon change like that, to account for it? No.

Do I accept T4 as legitimate canon? Not where it contradicts other versions, especially in cases, like this, where it is the only version to state so.

There are lots of conflicts in canon, I tend to take the majority, ruleset wise, view. (Jump Torpedeos anyone?) Just like most people still use thruster plates, myself included, in starship design.

Strange though, in over three years of being an active member on these forums, though at some periods more active than others, this is the first time I can ever recall seeing a member hold up T4 as a legitimate, significant, canon change. I have seen material from every other version used, on a regular basis, but this is the first time I have seen T4 used in this manner. Especially in the T20 part of the forums.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Interesting enough in the unscientific survey about who owns what ruleset and who uses what. T4 runs neck and neck with T20 for ownership but is tied for last when it comes to use of the rules. I didn't think it would show up that much, even among us Traveller Fanatics, for own.

 

[mike wightman]

IMHO T4 is a much maligned version of Traveller. It has some really good bits tucked away in strange places, and it does a good job in describing the early years of the Imperium.

The OTU has always had canon conflicts and retconning going on.
I suppose the sensible thing to do is to take what works for you and adapt it to how YTU works - and have fun.

But I love these discussions too, because they make me think about things in more depth than I previously have.

You could easily take the various ideas about Battledress in the various versions and supplements and say that the early versions were issued to specialised troops only, so they had all the bells and whistles on.
As the Imperium advanced its TL and industrial base Battledress becomes mass produced for TL14 and 15 troops, and it is only the specialists who warrant the grav-belt attachment or built in unit.
We definitely know that the Imperial Arsenal Battlepod projection never came to pass - the Imperium stuck to anthropomorphic.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
IMHO T4 is a much maligned version of Traveller. It has some really good bits tucked away in strange places, and it does a good job in describing the early years of the Imperium.

The OTU has always had canon conflicts and retconning going on.
I suppose the sensible thing to do is to take what works for you and adapt it to how YTU works - and have fun.

But I love these discussions too, because they make me think about things in more depth than I previously have.

You could easily take the various ideas about Battledress in the various versions and supplements and say that the early versions were issued to specialised troops only, so they had all the bells and whistles on.
As the Imperium advanced its TL and industrial base Battledress becomes mass produced for TL14 and 15 troops, and it is only the specialists who warrant the grav-belt attachment or built in unit.
We definitely know that the Imperial Arsenal Battlepod projection never came to pass - the Imperium stuck to anthropomorphic.

Doing that with the Traveller rules presents one problem. The timeline is all mesed up in terms of production. You could go from CT to MT to TNE to 1248 that way. Or CT to GT, with some MT thrown in to help bridge. But with T4 seriously predating CT yet being produced after TNE and T20 slightly predating CT yet produced after all but 1248 (which doesn't include rules) that makes evolution of things like Battledress through the various editions a bit tougher to do.

And yes this thread and many like it get me thinking. How do you think I came up with the Roughneck series of Battledress, the Harpy and much improved Harpy II, Fighters with crews of 4, the Fasa starship conversions, etc.

However one canon source mentioning something that is inconsistent with others, these days with the amount of material in print, does not IMHO, a change in canon make. After all Adventure 4 did have Jump Torpedoes in it. That was back before there was much canon to deal with. I can't even remember the next canon source to even mention Jump Torpedoes, I do know they were eventually listed as a non-working solution, but I don't remember where that was.

 

[Jamus]

I dont see how assumeing CT battle dress has gravitics would change canon as canon does not state either way.

If you could explain this to me.

Do you accept the T4 setting as a canonical version of the OTU history?
If you do then M0 Battledress has contragrav - period.
It is then a logical to assume that this would remain so right up to the golden era, and it does help to explain why a suit of CT Battledress costs so much.

I agree and this is exactly what I have been saying for the last few pages.

I have never said that Battledress wasn't significantly overpriced. In fact it was one of my early comments in this thread. However a significant canon change like that, to account for it? No.

What canon change? also as MWM wrote CT and T4 can he change canon?

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Jamus:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I have never said that Battledress wasn't significantly overpriced. In fact it was one of my early comments in this thread. However a significant canon change like that, to account for it? No.

What canon change? also as MWM wrote CT and T4 can he change canon? </font>[/QUOTE]As Sigg was so kind to point out, (And I didn't think Marc Miller did much more than license it, but I don't have a copy.) Marc Miller didn't write it.

Adding Grav drive to Battledress is a significant Canon change. Wihtout other evidence to back it up from another source, I am going to assume it is in the same class as Jump Torpedoes and Fusion Rockets. An error or canon conflict better left ignored in the future.