Book 2: Most important clarification

[rancke]

Having browsed the Book 2 (actually TTB) shipbuilding rules recently, I was going to question the point of collating errata and clarifications, since the system is broken anyway. Upon reflection, I won't; I can see the point of having such a system, provided it's internally consistent (I'm not sure it is, but I couldn't prove it without spending more time that I want to, and I may be wrong).

Instead, I'm going to suggest that it's time, and long past time, that the Book 2 system was decanonized. It's incompatible with HG, the grandfather rule in HG to the contrary notwithstanding. (Grandfathering the Book 2 designs may not have been the Worst Decision in the History of Traveller, but it has to be one of the nominees).

If people want to use Book 2 designs, I say let them. But not in the OTU. What's the point of allowing designs that are incompatible with HG? So, please include a clarification that says the Book 2 designs are invalid in the OTU and that equivalent HG designs should be used.

BTW, I could totally see the point of making a revised Book 2 system that was HG-compatible (Even better would be a revised Book 2 system that was compatible with a revised HG ).


Hans

 

[rancke]

They're compatible enough; advantages in Book 2 are more than offset by disadvantages. Grandfathering was smart, and is still smart.

That's simply not true. It's not about advantages and disadvantages, it's about a ship designed by one system being roughly the equivalent of a ship designed by the other[*]. It's about the same design not being legal by one system and illegal by the other. There are no TL9 jump-2 ships in the OTU. That's just a fact.

[*] And it would be even better if a design by one system was a subset of the other system.​

I would counter by stating that High Guard designs are not compatible with Book 2. If we simply changed the drive percentages in HG, then HG and Book 2 would be extremely close.

That's another option, of course. I think it's a much inferior solution, considering the number of canonical HG designs that you'd invalidate. And how would you replace them? Book 2 can't do anything bigger than 5000T.

What would you change the percentages to, incidentally?


Hans

 

[far-trader]

The way I've rationalized it (somewhat poorly perhaps) in my head since HG came out and grandfathered not just B2 but mixing B2 and B5 is thus:

B2 are the old Vilani tech. Tried and tested for ages, but bulkier in ways (larger jump drives, less efficient power plants, fusion torch thrusters). They are limited by TL in a different fashion (jump drives for example not being limited in production to the range but the size, lower TL small drives can be built with the resources of a lower TL). B2 drives are largely component assemblies.

B5 drives are more custom built and limited by TL to performance rather than size. The jump drives are more compact, power plants are more efficient, and the maneuver drives are the cleaner gravitic plate thrusters. B5 ships are generally more expensive even with the added economic incentive of an extra 10% off so they aren't always the best choice.

Two different methods available in the same OTU (in my OishTU anyway ). And then there's the folks who still build it the way it was done in the years between the B2 standard and the finalized B5 standard, with their stand alone ungoverned jump drives

There are some interesting differences if you do it that way. Fusion torch thrusters as weapons, able to operate at full thrust far outside gravity wells, but not welcome in all downports. Gravitic thrusters limited to operating within about 100d of a gravity source and slower at the extremes than close. Ungoverned jump drives (all jump fuel used no matter what the actual jump number). And so on.

 

[rancke]

The way I've rationalized it (somewhat poorly perhaps) in my head since HG came out and grandfathered not just B2 but mixing B2 and B5 is thus:

B2 are the old Vilani tech. Tried and tested for ages, but bulkier in ways (larger jump drives, less efficient power plants, fusion torch thrusters). They are limited by TL in a different fashion (jump drives for example not being limited in production to the range but the size, lower TL small drives can be built with the resources of a lower TL). B2 drives are largely component assemblies.

But that's not the OTU, or anywhere near it. In the OTU the Vilani learnt how to build jump-1, not how to build Jump Drives A, B, and C. The jump-1 drive spread to their neighbors, so when they invented jump-2, not Jump Drive J-K, at TL 11, they tried to keep it to themselves. And when the Terrans invented Jump-3, not Jump Drive L-N, they became able to make 3-parsec jumps and the Vilani couldn't. There's no possible way this can be reconciled with Book 2ship designs.

There's nothing wrong with your ideas per se, although I'd really like a thorough playtest to see how the two kinds of ships stacked up against eaxch other competetively before letting supposedly same businessmen employ both kinds, but there's no way the Book 2 design system applies to the OTU. The OTU has outgrown Book 2 long ago, and refusing to acknowledge that is plainly and simply a Bad Thing.


Hans

 

[robject]

That's simply not true. It's not about advantages and disadvantages, it's about a ship designed by one system being roughly the equivalent of a ship designed by the other. It's about the same design not being legal by one system and illegal by the other. There are no TL9 jump-2 ships in the OTU. That's just a fact.

I know what you mean, but the situation is different in the default milieu.

The current state of HG+B2 is all about advantages and disadvantages. It's also about setting.

HG can, perhaps, design ships used during the Ziru Sirka. With the MT add-ons, it can design craft extends thru the Rebellion, and touch on even higher tech.

But it's clear that Book 2 was not intended to work that way -- not intended to span "milieux", simply because they didn't exist at the time. Thus ships were crafted for the "present", which was a nascent setting where we didn't even know the location of Capital. But where then we saw in part, dimly, today we see clearly and fully. The conclusion is inescapable: Book 2 is implicitly for the 1105 Milieu.

So a TL9 Scout ship (for example) has a trivially simple explanation: it's a TL9 ship with a TL10 jump drive.

[in response to my suggestion to change High Guard]

That's another option, of course. I think it's a much inferior solution, considering the number of canonical HG designs that you'd invalidate. [...]

What would you change the percentages to, incidentally?

Well, it doesn't matter, because I don't want to invalidate existing HG designs. I would conform them to the formulae used in Book 2's drive potential for letters A through V.

Jump volume = (2.5% hull volume per jump number + 5 tons)
Maneuver volume = (1% hull volume per m-rating - 1 ton); minimum 1 ton
Power plant volume = (3% hull volume per p-rating + 1 ton)

The costs are also formulaic, but I don't care about them as much. They can use HG's formulae, or something as simple as:
J-drive = MCr1 per ton
M-drive = MCr2 per ton
P-plant = MCr3 per ton


Changing High Guard is not an option, and neither is changing or invalidating Book 2. The moment we begin talking about either one, we step into house rules.

 

[Vargas]

Instead, I'm going to suggest that it's time, and long past time, that the Book 2 system was decanonized.

At this remove, why bother? It's not like it's hurting sales of the game or driving players away. The time to do this would have been 25+ years ago. True, it results in a cleaner canon but I don't see a pressing need to do this.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Before you start changing the 'OTU', could you please describe for me what it is? I've heard it referred to as the 'original' TU (whatever original means, to me it would be LBB 1-3 only! since I don't own most of the CT additional resources) and 'official' TU (again, to me, this could easily be just LBB1-3 and all additional materials are simply OTU supplements).

 

[beowulf2044]

Truly, one of the things I liked about Traveller in the beginning was its 'scaleability'. If one wanted to have a more ship-intense game universe, you had High Guard. On the other hand, if ships were less of a factor and merely vessels for transport (and the occasional combat/boarding/piracy/etc) then Book 2 worked quite well. As Traveller grew, it offered options one could use to expand upon certain areas.

Why deprive someone of a less complex option?

 

[jappel]

Before you start changing the 'OTU', could you please describe for me what it is? I've heard it referred to as the 'original' TU (whatever original means, to me it would be LBB 1-3 only! since I don't own most of the CT additional resources) and 'official' TU (again, to me, this could easily be just LBB1-3 and all additional materials are simply OTU supplements).

The problem is that the term OTU is a little bit elastic. However, it's most common use refers to the Official (not Original) Traveller Universe, i.e. the Third Imperium settingm, and not the rules themselves. Where this gets tricky is that the setting began to infiltrate the rules, starting with CT Book 4, Mercenary. Still, almost all the time, someone referring to the OTU means the Third Imperium setting.

 

[rancke]

I know what you mean, but the situation is different in the default milieu.

I thought the OTU was the default milieu. That's sort of the point of having an official game setting.

The current state of HG+B2 is all about advantages and disadvantages. It's also about setting.

I don't understand what you're getting at here.

HG can, perhaps, design ships used during the Ziru Sirka. With the MT add-ons, it can design craft extends thru the Rebellion, and touch on even higher tech.

MT add-ons?

Any ship design system ought to be able to design ships for any milieu. If it can't, there's something lacking (Like information for the appropriate tech levels). Contrariwise, if the designs it produces don't fit every OTU milieu (technological limitations disregarded), it shouldn't be used for any OTU milieu. It's supposed to be the same universe!

But it's clear that Book 2 was not intended to work that way -- not intended to span "milieux", simply because they didn't exist at the time.

I agree. So why persist in using it in any milieu it doesn't fit? Which would be every OTU milieu, because they all supposedly belong to the same universe!

Thus ships were crafted for the "present", which was a nascent setting where we didn't even know the location of Capital. But where then we saw in part, dimly, today we see clearly and fully. The conclusion is inescapable: Book 2 is implicitly for the 1105 Milieu.

No, Book 2 was for the 1105 milieu, back in 1977, back when all we had was a nascent setting and we didn't even know the location of Capital. But the 1105 milieu (and every other milieu) changed into something different over the years. It's not the same 1105 it was 30 years ago, and we do know the location of Capital now. The conclusion is inescapable: Book 2 is not for any OTU milieu.

So a TL9 Scout ship (for example) has a trivially simple explanation: it's a TL9 ship with a TL10 jump drive.

According to TTB, a Scout ship is a TL9 100T ship with a Jump Drive A massing 10% of its tonnage and costing MCr10. According to HG it would be a TL11 100T ship with a jump2 drive massing 3% of its tonnage and costing MCr12. TL9, TL11, 10%, 3%... these are not trivial differences; these are not the same ships.

Well, it doesn't matter, because I don't want to invalidate existing HG designs. I would conform them to the formulae used in Book 2's drive potential for letters A through V.

Jump volume = (2.5% hull volume per jump number + 5 tons)
Maneuver volume = (1% hull volume per m-rating - 1 ton); minimum 1 ton
Power plant volume = (3% hull volume per p-rating + 1 ton)

If you don't want to invalidate existing HG designs, you shouldn't advocate changing the jump volume of, say, a jump-4 ship from 5% of volume to 20% of volume. You're trying to have it both ways, and it just won't work.

Changing High Guard is not an option, and neither is changing or invalidating Book 2. The moment we begin talking about either one, we step into house rules.

Why not? And how is cleaving to the OTU as it has developed over the years by any stretch of the imagination stepping into house rules? The big problem is that when HG came out, Book 2 became the house rules, only no one wants to admit it or acknowledge it. It's really quite infuriating.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Truly, one of the things I liked about Traveller in the beginning was its 'scaleability'. If one wanted to have a more ship-intense game universe, you had High Guard. On the other hand, if ships were less of a factor and merely vessels for transport (and the occasional combat/boarding/piracy/etc) then Book 2 worked quite well. As Traveller grew, it offered options one could use to expand upon certain areas.

Why deprive someone of a less complex option?

I'm not trying to. As I mentioned in the original post, the B2 design system may be an excellent system in and of itself. Indeed, I think I'd enjoy a TCS campaign run by B2 rules. But the OTU has moved out from under the Book 2 rules and left them behind. They no longer apply to it. If anyone wants to use the Book 2 rules for their own TU, they will have my heartiest good wishes. I just hope that when they write the history for their universe, they'll remember that Jump Drive A is capable of propelling a 100T ship two parsecs...


Hans

 

[Vargas]

The big problem is that when HG came out, Book 2 became the house rules, only no one wants to admit it or acknowledge it. It's really quite infuriating.

IMPO CT wound up with two seperate incompatible systems with which to design CT ships, inelegent as that may be. I like beowulf2044's assessment above, finding it accurately captures, whether that was Marc's intent or not, what this two track system became. Additionally, to declare a published system authored by GDW to be "house rules" seems to be a rather liberal interpretation of the term.

Having said this, it is not my intent to show Hans or anyone else the "error of their ways", I merely wish to express my personal point of view.

 

[Supplement Four]

I like Book 2 starships. Of course, I'm not really a construction grognard as I am a rules grognard. When it comes to vessels, I slap one together, quickly. And, I'm done.

Book 2 is perfect for that type of thing. It's got the right level of crunch to make you feel as if you're actually designing a starship and not just pulling it out of the air. At the same time, the systems are simple and quick to use.

Plus...I really like the Book 2 space combat system. I like it much better than the HG combat system. Book 2 space combat can be focused on roleplaying, which makes it perfect for a game. If you get rid of Book 2 ships, you'll have to get rid of the combat system...not a good idea.

 

[rancke]

I like Book 2 starships. Of course, I'm not really a construction grognard as I am a rules grognard. When it comes to vessels, I slap one together, quickly. And, I'm done.

That is indeed a nice feature of the system. Of course, if Marc Miller & His Minions (good name for a band ) revised Book 2 to to be compatible with HG, you'd be able to do that anyway.

Book 2 is perfect for that type of thing. It's got the right level of crunch to make you feel as if you're actually designing a starship and not just pulling it out of the air. At the same time, the systems are simple and quick to use.

True. And not germane to my point.

Plus...I really like the Book 2 space combat system. I like it much better than the HG combat system. Book 2 space combat can be focused on roleplaying, which makes it perfect for a game. If you get rid of Book 2 ships, you'll have to get rid of the combat system...not a good idea.

I've never used the Book 2 combat system (that I can recall), so I can't really say for sure, but I'd be surprised if something similar couldn't be devised for HG-compatible Book 2 designs.


Hans

 

[Supplement Four]

Hans,

Why do you think it's broke?

 

[sabredog]

I just have the house ruling that civilian ships are built with LBB2 unless they are bigger than 5000 tons or have some special needs. With LBB2 they are using off-the-shelf components that tend to be less expensive and easier to maintain and find. If they want PAWs and barbettes and all the higher end weapons and screens they need to use HG.

Military vessels and special needs/really big ships use HG. The parts tend to cost more, are more sensitive to supply and demand and require more maintenance. You might get higher performance, too, but is it worth the extra trouble when you are operating out in the middle of the frontier and your custom High Guard TL-15 Jump Drive just crapped out on you and all the locals carry is the "good ol' TL-13 LBB2 drive that's been used in these parts forever and can beat on with a jackhammer and it'll still get you where you wanna go"?

I have the two combat systems integrated for the small ship (5000t -) scale I run the game in and use straight HG if the need ever arises to game out some fleet action for the sake of stage dressing or determining historical events.

So I have never had any problem with using both systems in one universe.

For what it's worth here are the house rules sans the combat part:

If you are a civilian building a civilian ship you use LBB2 unless you need some super custom job for some reason. Like if you are building a research vessel that has some special requirements, or want to be able to use the more exotic weapons...

...in which case you then use HG to build your ship because if you are using other than the off-the-shelf components in LLB2 you have to take into account energy point requirements, finer tuned agility rules (one reason to custom build using HG is if you want a ship that absolutely positively has to have high agility all the time), and more flexiblity in design.

Ship hulls can be refit using either design system but again, only so long as you use the basic weapons can you use the LBB2 components. You want PAWs and/or screens you have to use HG.

Armor can be built into an LBB2 design per the HG rules. The primary sections of a ship can have armor added to them by calculating the tonnage of the section and using that to determine armor tonnage for that section alone. The sections are: Bridge (incl Computer), Fuel tankage, Engineering, Cargo, hull (everything else).

LBB2 ships can use drop tanks but the tanks do not add tonnage for the purposes of creating more hardpoints (no Gazelle Cheat allowed).

Component backups can be worked into either design system, but they are backups only - not combined for increased performance.

For purposes of determining agility you have to use the agility system matched to the design system used to build the ship:

LBB2 designs use my house rule for determining agility; this is because the maneuver drives in this system are smaller than in HG for the same thrust. Included in this house rule is the size limit for landing ships safely. LBB2 ships tend to be slower and less agile but cheaper.

HG ships use the HG formula for agility; it creates faster, more nimble ships which is why the maneuver drives are so huge. The house rule for size limits for landing still applies. HG ships tend to be faster and more agile, but more expensive.

Player ships built with HG don’t use the battery rules for weapons; that is only for the really big ships that players swim in the shadows of.

Bays are really huge turrets in my universe so you can’t use them to store things if you take out the weapons like it mentions in HG.

 

[aramis]

I've never used the Book 2 combat system (that I can recall), so I can't really say for sure, but I'd be surprised if something similar couldn't be devised for HG-compatible Book 2 designs.

Hans

a Bk2 hit is, essentially, a certain number of tons of system
PP: 4Td
MD: 2Td
JD: 5Td *
Fuel: 10Td
Cargo: 10Td
Computer: ≤1Td**
Weapons: 1Td***

* but the first 5 Td don't count
** a computer of any size can take, essentially, 10 hits before total failure. Usually fails much earlier.
*** hit knocks out a single turret.

 

[sabredog]

I've never used the Book 2 combat system (that I can recall), so I can't really say for sure, but I'd be surprised if something similar couldn't be devised for HG-compatible Book 2 designs.

Hans

Yes it can, and I have one which I have posted in several places around here. If you want it just ask. I have been using it in one form or another for decades and it works fine.

 

[rancke]

Why do you think it's broke?

I don't (I suspected it, but what Rob wrote recently has allayed my suspicions). What I do think is that it is incompatible with HG. That two ships designed with the same specs in the two systems will be more different in cost and cargo space than a little inexactitude can explain. Sadly, I've mislaid my High Guard, so I can't work out any examples. But try working out, say, a barebones 600T jump-3 freighter[*], and see what the final cost and cargo space comes to in the two systems.

[*] Or any other ship you'd like. I mentioned a 600T freighter because I once worked out QSDS1.5 designs for a number of 600 T ships, and I'd be happy to be able to compare my freighter with its B2 and HG cousins.​

(I was going to compare the B2 version of the Scout/Courier with the HG version featured in Fighting Ships, but it turns out GDW didn't work out a HG version. They just took the Book2 specs and slapped a HG profile on top of that...)

I wonder if anyone has ever actually worked out HG versions of any of the Book 2 ships? I know there were MT and TNE and T4 versions[**], but HG?

[**] And GT, of course. ​

Hans

 

[far-trader]

...I wonder if anyone has ever actually worked out HG versions of any of the Book 2 ships?

I have, for all, or nearly, I might have missed some. Definitely all the ones in B2 and TTB and some strays from Alien modules and such. Laying hands on them, that's trickier. Some were posted about different fora over the years. The rest are on paper around here somwehere (I still hope, and hope to someday get organized and share them, but it's low priority).

And in each later iteration of the rules as well excepting GT (didn't care for it), Mongoose (have Core book, did one, no time to get into it yet), and of course T5 (not involved).

I know there were MT and TNE and T4 versions[**], but HG?

[**] And GT, of course. ​

And the reason I did my own was because all of those translations didn't feel true to me (The Type S with more than 3tons of cargo and often without fuel purifiers being a good example, the Type A being built at anything but TL9 for another.)

My conversions of the B2 ships to HG was done with an eye to maintaining as much of the hard data as possible, and filling in where needed to make it work. I found the best way to get close was to treat the drives and fuel as a single unit of volume. The B2 drives and fuel tend to come out to the same total tonnage as B5 drives, fuel and purifiers at given TLs, sometimes with a little fudging. It's not a problem for the military ships of course, in B2 parlance they have fuel purifiers. And I find it hard to begrudge a Free-Trader fuel purifiers (especially to offset the cost of the more expensive design in B5).