CT Only: Book 2 and High Guard, together again

[robject]

Some of us have burned brain cells for YEARS, thinking about robustifyng Book 2, without turning it into High Guard.

In short, there is value with both Book 2 and High Guard, because each has a different focus. How then do you introduce elements to Book 2 without changing that focus?

And by “elements” you know I mean Batteries and Armor.

First some givens.

** THE LAWS OF CT SHIP DESIGN **

1. Both systems are assumed to be entrenched; so this is not about fundamentally changing either system.

2. There is a relationship between the two, even in their differences, that’s worth keeping.

3. HG is required for most military ships — especially kilotons and up.

4. Book 2 seems suited towards lightly armored small starships.

 

[mike wightman]

Look to the Gazelle - what do you have to add to LBB2 in order for it to be a legal design.
Drop tanks
Barbettes
Particle Accelerator weapons
Nuclear dampers
Hull armour

I have added all of them to my LBB2 house rules, along with spinal and bay weapons.

 

[robject]

And I wanted to get your attention on this — and Osmanski if he still reads the forum.

It helps that JTAS back ported some HG elements to Book 2 for the original Gazelle. That article also mentions that PA weapons require radiation damage rules.

 

[mike wightman]

Radiation damage table can be found in the CT missiles special supplement.

I have a PA as +1 to hit, 2 damage on the regular table and 1 on the radiation table.

 

[McPerth]

Not sure if this is coincidential, but we were just discussing a related fact in another thread, for a point LBB2 and HG are quite less compatible:

All of this, I think, goes back to the break that High Guard made from the LBB2 paradigm.

In LBB2, any Class A starport could fix any starship, because TL wasn't a strong constraint on (Jump) performance. Even in 2nd edition, J4 was TL-10* (computer limited), J5 was TL-11 (drives and computer)**. Just based on the drives, J4 was TL-9.

Bring in drop tanks from High Guard, and you can get J6 at TL-12 (computer limited and jump-capacitor TL) from LBB2 drives.

Definitionally, any Class A starport can build them, too -- which implies that for starship technology (though in some cases, just for starships), any world with such a starport has at least TL-12 and Jump-6 technological capability.

And then High Guard comes in and caps Jump capability by tech level, without changing the defined capabilities of starports. Oops.
(Wait -- not quite. They enabled TL-constrained starship construction at any starport (or none whatsoever!) for military purposes only...)

 

[mike wightman]

The OTU began as a small ship LBB2 universe, and even after the publication of High Guard the big ship stuff is mostly background while LBB2 continues to be used for the majority of ship designs that PCs would encounter - see for example The Traveller Adventure.

 

[Spinward Flow]

The OTU began as a small ship LBB2 universe

Because, at the time, LBB2 was what was available for use.

even after the publication of High Guard the big ship stuff is mostly background

Because the big ship stuff isn't oriented towards Adventure Class Starship stuff suitable for a small number of Players (1-5).

Big ships need big crews, and even if the PCs are the "leaders" for each crew section, there's a LOT of "tethering" by responsibility to what those PCs either CAN or CAN'T do with such a big ship. Most of the time, you can't just decide to turn around and go hunting for a lost ship in an asteroid belt (Kinunir) or search for an octagonal building located in the middle of nowhere (Twilight's Peak) on a whim when you've got a crew (of NPCs) to be responsible for (and a schedule to keep?).

There's a reason why Adventure Class Starships skew towards the smaller end.
Smaller ship, smaller crew ... easier to divert and go off on an adventure!

So yes, the big ships are mostly background ... but you also need a set of construction rules to account for those big ships, rather than just hand waving them away with a Museum Rules attitude (you can look, but don't touch).

while LBB2 continues to be used for the majority of ship designs that PCs would encounter - see for example The Traveller Adventure.

Correction.
Published CT adventures tend to make use of LBB2 designed ships, because that was what was available at the time to do the job when the adventure was written ... and even then it doesn't always work out or age well (looking at you, Annic Nova!).

LBB S9 was really the first stab at broader use of LBB5 for starship design, and because LBB5 allowed for ships above 5000 tons.
LBB S9 featured 16 designs of 5000 tons or less.
LBB S9 featured 13 designs of more than 5000 tons.
So considering the fact that some of the under 5000 ton design were small craft, a relatively decent mix.
Some of the new under 5000 ton designs would even make decent Adventure Class Starships (such as the Fleet Courier, for example).

3. HG is required for most military ships — especially kilotons and up.

4. Book 2 seems suited towards lightly armored small starships.

LBB2 has a rather narrow range of workable use cases (100 to 5000 tons).
LBB5 offers far more scope in terms of possibilities and potential use cases (5 to 1,000,000 tons).

LBB2 was the first draft.
LBB5 was the paradigm shift needed to make things work more consistently across a wider range with a more interesting variety of possibilities and outcomes, lending more uniqueness and flavor to the role of starship construction.

LBB5 is extensible beyond its immediate scope with higher tech levels and other types of drives (Hop drive for starters).
LBB2 is not extensible beyond the confines of publication.

LBB2 suffers from premature optimization.
LBB5 does not.

/thread

 

[McPerth]

There are other inconsistencies among LBB2 and HG ships that make them difficult to us ein the same settin gwithout outright handwaving them and accepting as it is without questioning:

Standarization:

while one should assume LBB2 components are more standarized (and so cheaper) than HG ones, that are more custoum built, that's not the case. to build a Scout with LBB2 rules, you need a 100 dt standard hull (MCr2), a 10 dton JD (MCr 10), a 1 dt MD (MCr 4) and a 4 dt PP (MCr 8). for a total of 15 dt used and MCr 24To build it in HG, your 100 hull (config 1 ,streamlined) costs you MCr 0.24, your JD is 3 dt (MCr 12), your MD is 5dt (MCr 3.5) and your PP is (at TL 15) 2 dt (MCr 6). so costing you a total of MCr 21.74...

Drives sizes

while in LBB2 the JD uses to be larger than the MD for the same performance, in HG this is reversed.

 

[Spinward Flow]

in LBB2 the JD uses to be larger than the MD for the same performance, in HG this is reversed.

Honestly, the small jump drive/large maneuver drive mix has a better feel to it than the alternative.
Yet another reason why I prefer LBB5.80 to LBB2.81.

 

[Grav_Moped]

The OTU began as a small ship LBB2 universe, and even after the publication of High Guard the big ship stuff is mostly background while LBB2 continues to be used for the majority of ship designs that PCs would encounter - see for example The Traveller Adventure.

Except that the TL restrictions on Jump Drive capability shape the OTU history.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Honestly, the small jump drive/large maneuver drive mix has a better feel to it than the alternative.
Yet another reason why I prefer LBB5.80 to LBB2.81.

The problem with it is that it reduces the design penalty for high jump range -- which is fine, because the main penalty was the jump fuel requirement anyhow.

Then you get drop tanks and... oops.

The thing is, within the context of High Guard and its combat system (and TCS as the extended version of that), jump is a secondary consideration because the point of HG is that it's an abstracted spaceship-battle wargame. Jump specifications are something set by scenario rules as a constraint on ship design, not the ship's purpose. Jump is merely how you get the ships into place to shoot at each other, and how they might run away if possible. In a RPG, jump capability is a primary consideration for the player characters.

It's the flip side of the changes to maneuver drives. In LBB2, acceleration isn't necessarily decisive -- it might let you break off combat (or let you prevent it), and it affects range selection somewhat (initial vectors at contact can completely overwhelm it). It's not a defensive DM. In HG, agility may as well be armor, in addition to largely determining range selection.

But LBB2 '81 sort of broke the maneuver drive cost/benefit ratio as well with respect to '77 rules. In '77, your maneuver drive cost was M-Drive + Power Plant + Power Plant Fuel (which had its own issues, but it was a factor). In '81, as long as Gs were at or below Jn, increasing maneuver drive rating was relatively cheap since the power plant was already there for the jump drive. (This gave an advantage to ships that would have already been high-Jn.)

 

[robject]

Because, at the time, LBB2 was what was available for use.

Because the big ship stuff isn't oriented towards Adventure Class Starship stuff suitable for a small number of Players (1-5).

This is very true, and in fact you’ve nicely summarized the strengths and weaknesses of both systems.

So yes, the big ships are mostly background ... but you also need a set of construction rules to account for those big ships, rather than just hand waving them away with a Museum Rules attitude (you can look, but don't touch).

We know that High Guard was built to support the OTU, but also wargaming very specifically. HG is there for building squadrons with capital ships, and pitting them against others. It helps understand the Fifth Frontier War.

Big Ships may be gaming background, but they are not afterthoughts. They are the reason for HG.

LBB5 was the paradigm shift needed to make things work more consistently across a wider range with a more interesting variety of possibilities and outcomes, lending more uniqueness and flavor to the role of starship construction.

It was the next step in a process, just as each rule set tries to trade-off rules to get a better result than before. High Guard didn’t improve uniqueness, but it did get us a better picture of the OTU.

LBB5 is extensible beyond its immediate scope with higher tech levels and other types of drives (Hop drive for starters).
LBB2 is not extensible beyond the confines of publication.

Book 2 did some funny things with TL.
Similarly, HG did some funny things with drives and batteries and power.

LBB2 suffers from premature optimization.
LBB5 does not.

/thread

Each system has to make choices and balance requirements. HG is no exception.

 

[robject]

I have to say that High Guard has some very good results:

First, we put the OTU into focus. Note that nearly all child ship design systems are High Guard in disguise. Only recent versions flipped back to Book 2 (Mongoose and T5), and even so, they borrow HG tropes to get the range a ship design system needs.


Second, we were confronted with further questions about How Things Should Work in the OTU.

For basically ten years, the fledgling internet let us ruminate mightily over implications of High Guard, and MegaTraveller, and Fire, Fusion, and Steel (both versions).

This rumination period was intense on the TML and the early years of COTI, but those arguments are GOLDEN. You get a reasonably clear picture of the issues at stake. Then you can make your choice and figure out the best way to shore that up.

You get Holy War topics, in short.

 

[infojunky]

Ok, first question, Book2 and Book5 have different combat considerations. Then they both have different scales. How rectify you that?

 

[robject]

Ok, first question, Book2 and Book5 have different combat considerations. Then they both have different scales. How rectify you that?

They have to have different combat rules. The question is, are the results compatible? To the degree that they are, then you don’t have to worry so much.

The ACS/BCS divide is good enough to keep these comfortably apart, i think.

 

[Spinward Flow]

This is very true, and in fact you’ve nicely summarized the strengths and weaknesses of both systems.

For me, the advantage of LBB5 is that it can be extended down into the ACS regime and also even into small craft with remarkably little effort.
LBB2 has trouble extending either up or down outside the 100 to 5000 ton range it is limited to.

That 100 to 5000 ton range may very well sit in the "sweet spot" for ACS designs, but the fact that ACS designs are basically the ONLY thing that LBB2 can do is a limitation on its range of usefulness, not an advantage to be cherished.

Ok, first question, Book2 and Book5 have different combat considerations. Then they both have different scales. How rectify you that?

Convert LBB2 specs to LBB5 USP and proceed with LBB5 combat "as normal" using the specs. This is not difficult to do.
The reverse, however ... converting LBB5 USP to LBB2 standards ... simply does not work.

LBB5 is backwards compatible in that sense.
LBB2 is NOT forwards compatible in that same sense.

So, again ... LBB5 is the superior paradigm to be working with, because it is more "universal" (so to speak).

 

[infojunky]

I have to say that High Guard has some very good results:

Yes it does for its scale. Consider this divid the base scale by 10 and there is interesting game in there. Though you lose the Barbette but since there was only one weapon it isn’t much of a loss.

First, we put the OTU into focus. Note that nearly all child ship design systems are High Guard in disguise. Only recent versions flipped back to Book 2 (Mongoose and T5), and even so, they borrow HG tropes to get the range a ship design system needs.

The big problem with the newer versions is they where needlessly complex.

Second, we were confronted with further questions about How Things Should Work in the OTU.

For basically ten years, the fledgling internet let us ruminate mightily over implications of High Guard, and MegaTraveller, and Fire, Fusion, and Steel (both versions).

This rumination period was intense on the TML and the early years of COTI, but those arguments are GOLDEN. You get a reasonably clear picture of the issues at stake. Then you can make your choice and figure out the best way to shore that up.

You get Holy War topics, in short. That gives you targets for the next rule system.

footnote, I am not looking for official rules, but works as sorts of solutions.

 

[robject]

So this topic is about putting massed weapon fire and ship defenses into Book 2.

The answer, by the way, is not “use some other system”. This is for porting things in.



When I think of CT, I recall that personal combat uses personal armor as a -DM to hit. I also recall that there’s no mass fire rule in personal combat unless you switch to the highly abstract LBB4 system.


But... mass fire could provide a +DM to hit, and armor could do a -DM... I note that drive letters already provide a sort of damage soak mechanism, but we don’t have to keep that (?).


I am thinking that the chaos would have to be contained.... the purpose of mass fire is to reduce he number of rolls made. Trillion Credit Squadron has that table already, perhaps that could be used directly.

 

[infojunky]

.

Convert LBB2 specs to LBB5 USP and proceed with LBB5 combat "as normal" using the specs. This is not difficult to do.

Two things Book2 ships are spaced for book3 as they stand and Book5 combat doesn handle the low end very well at all. To be Clear Adventure Class ships are too fragile even amungst themselves, RPG value?

The reverse, however ... converting LBB5 USP to LBB2 standards ... simply does not work.

I wouldn’t take that as fact though. Note you need to use mayday to get Book5 fleets any movement.

A big part of this the Rules that are used for combat resolution. I personally use a flavor of Mayday for movement and Book2 for damage. As such the design system is kinda secondary.

 

[robject]

For me, the advantage of LBB5 is that it can be extended down into the ACS regime and also even into small craft with remarkably little effort.
LBB2 has trouble extending either up or down outside the 100 to 5000 ton range it is limited to.

I note that High Guard was used to redesign all smallcraft for CT, and that was a Good Thing.

So, again ... LBB5 is the superior paradigm to be working with, because it is more "universal" (so to speak).

Regardless, this thread is about porting in mass fire and armor into Book 2.

I'm currently thinking that the statistical table in Trillion Credit Squadron (pp15-16) could help quite a bit.