Canon Problems with TNE books

[robject]

I have to ask. Are there any known canon problems in any TNE material?

Note that I'm not including HEPlaR as a canon problem. I tend to chalk that up as a difference in physics engines rather than a setting difference. I might be wrong in drawing that conclusion, but I don't think so.

 

[epicenter00]

Dredging up an old thread but...

What do you mean by canon problems? Anything in TNE that conflicts with "the rest" of Traveller? I think since 1248 came out, a lot of the "issues" of TNE were subsumed into 1248. 1248 is "canon" still, I think (?).

Most of the other potential gatchas are technological:

You've already mentioned HePlaR.

I've been told that as of T5, Meson Gun technology has been reviewed. I don't own T5 myself, so I can't say 100%, but I was told that in T5 Meson Guns cannot operate planetside or something to that effect. Both deep-site Meson Guns (for planetary defense) and Meson Sleds (tanks armed with meson guns as stand-ins for artillery) both figure pretty heavily in TNE. A few scenarios in Path of Tears feature worlds with Deep-Site Meson Guns. Meson Sleds figure in that fighting vehicles of the Regency supplement. I'm not sure if one or both of these are counter-canon now.

 

[aramis]

Dredging up an old thread but...

What do you mean by canon problems? Anything in TNE that conflicts with "the rest" of Traveller? I think since 1248 came out, a lot of the "issues" of TNE were subsumed into 1248. 1248 is "canon" still, I think (?).

Most of the other potential gatchas are technological:

You've already mentioned HePlaR.

I've been told that as of T5, Meson Gun technology has been reviewed. I don't own T5 myself, so I can't say 100%, but I was told that in T5 Meson Guns cannot operate planetside or something to that effect. Both deep-site Meson Guns (for planetary defense) and Meson Sleds (tanks armed with meson guns as stand-ins for artillery) both figure pretty heavily in TNE. A few scenarios in Path of Tears feature worlds with Deep-Site Meson Guns. Meson Sleds figure in that fighting vehicles of the Regency supplement. I'm not sure if one or both of these are counter-canon now.

Deep Meson Sites existed in CT canon, as well as one Deep Disintegrator Site (A3).

Searching on "Meson" within T5.09, I can find no limiter to space use only.

 

[whulorigan]

I've been told that as of T5, Meson Gun technology has been reviewed. I don't own T5 myself, so I can't say 100%, but I was told that in T5 Meson Guns cannot operate planetside or something to that effect. Both deep-site Meson Guns (for planetary defense) and Meson Sleds (tanks armed with meson guns as stand-ins for artillery) both figure pretty heavily in TNE. A few scenarios in Path of Tears feature worlds with Deep-Site Meson Guns. Meson Sleds figure in that fighting vehicles of the Regency supplement. I'm not sure if one or both of these are counter-canon now.

Searching on "Meson" within T5.09, I can find no limiter to space use only.

The only thing I can see is that under T5.09, the minimum emplacement size for Meson Guns for starships are 200 dton "Main Weapon" Bays at TL13. Presumably you could reduce this size somewhat by TL15 using Stage-effects. So Meson Guns take up more space under T5.09 than CT/MT (under CT/MT you could fit a starship-grade Meson Gun into a 50 dton bay).

That may or may not effect self-propelled battlefiled-size meson weapons (but Deep Sites should be unaffected). However, I cannot see any provision in GunMaker for any type of Battlefied-sized Meson Weapon (there is no designator listed for "Meson").

 

[aramis]

The only thing I can see is that under T5.09, the minimum emplacement size for Meson Guns for starships are 200 dton "Main Weapon" Bays at TL13. Presumably you could reduce this size somewhat by TL15 using Stage-effects. So Meson Guns take up more space under T5.09 than CT/MT (under CT/MT you could fit a starship-grade Meson Gun into a 50 dton bay).

That may or may not effect self-propelled battlefiled-size meson weapons (but Deep Sites should be unaffected). However, I cannot see any provision in GunMaker for any type of Battlefied-sized Meson Weapon (there is no designator listed for "Meson").

Under Striker, a TL15 Factor 1 fit in a a tank... or a turret. (Note that it would need to be a double-size turret, like a Fusion or Plasma gun)

Under TNE, I was able to fit one to a suit of heavy battledress.

Also note: MGT1 lowered the TL on Meson Bays considerable. 50T and 100T at TL 11, instead of MT's TL 15, and TL13.

Canon's all over the bloody place on Meson Guns.

 

[LeperColony]

I just noticed that under TNE World Generation, you can have reach TL 20. You can actually get higher than 20, but the rules cap you at 20.

 

[aramis]

I just noticed that under TNE World Generation, you can have reach TL 20. You can actually get higher than 20, but the rules cap you at 20.

Only one edition has significant coverage of TL 22+.

T5. TNE's coverage in FF&S is mostly to TL 20, with several TL21 subsystems.

 

[mike wightman]

CT the maximum TL you could generate using the tables as written is TL20.

MT included technology that went as high as TL 21 - so FF&S is on par with MT.

 

[aramis]

CT the maximum TL you could generate using the tables as written is TL20.

MT included technology that went as high as TL 21 - so FF&S is on par with MT.

Lets see... Showing the math on that.

1d: 6
SP A: 6
Size 0-1 Atm 0-3 Hyd <6= +3
Alt Size 5+ Atm A+ Hyd A+ = 3
Pop A: +4
Gov 5: +1

6+6+3+2+1 = 20.

CHecking TNE core: same limits, due to same table. Expanding a bit...

You can't get the Size 0-1 and Atm A+ & Water A+ using mainworld generation. (You can when making moons in the outer zone... but then you lose the possibility of Pop A).

 

[LeperColony]

My point was more that I didn't think it was possible to have TL 20 in the TNE era (or the CT era, for that matter). I know the Darrians were TL 16, and I think there are some TL 17 worlds, but TL 20?

 

[aramis]

My point was more that I didn't think it was possible to have TL 20 in the TNE era (or the CT era, for that matter). I know the Darrians were TL 16, and I think there are some TL 17 worlds, but TL 20?

Keep in mind: one of the stated goals of the TNE ruleset was to be a multi-era. FF&S was supposed to support a whole range of play. Including Alternate Universes - hence all the alternate drives.

It also needed to have the potential surviving high TL world in the default setting. The highest I recall seeing is TL 18.

In the dieback process, most of those high tech worlds won't remain so.

 

[LeperColony]

True, but for System Generation, TNE uses the same system as MT. Right down to the part where on page 189, they reference the Player's Guide and the Referee's Manual.

Copy and Paste strikes again!

 

[McPerth]

My point was more that I didn't think it was possible to have TL 20 in the TNE era (or the CT era, for that matter). I know the Darrians were TL 16, and I think there are some TL 17 worlds, but TL 20?

Well, I've always seen those ultra-high TL rules as a way for the referee to create some Ancient relics, allowing, to give you an example, a campaign â la Blake's 7.

Of course, this would work better in an ATU (though in HT and TNE settings might be fun too), so it's curious that those rules appeared in two of the most setting tied versions of Traveller (MT and TNE).

 

[LeperColony]

That seems reasonable. I guess one of the problems I have with TNE (and I say this as a TNE fan) is that a lot of the book seems to assume a basic familiarity with the Traveller universe from the get-go.

Seeing as how TNE was supposed to make it easier for people get in to Traveller, I find design choices like assuming people will know that OTU worlds won't be TL 20 is a bit odd.

 

[TheDS]

HEPLAR is game-changing and canon-breaking.

The standard assumption for all Traveller games is that a ship spends a week in Jumpspace, a week on a world, and a trivial amount of time on transits between jump barrier and world and back (a few hours each leg). This transit time doesn't increase much for gas giants, or worlds buried deep in their parent star's hab zone, maybe growing to a day for a Subgiant star, or if you're going for free refuel after the mainworld visit.

But HEPLAR can't compete with this. Merchants can't afford to spend a lot of space on fuel, so they are much more likely to run out of fuel, meaning they have to be much more conservative with it, meaning it takes longer to do transits. One wrong calculation and you drift past the planet with no way to come back. Any player who's tried to do this on a game board will know what I'm talking about.

Throw in gas giant refueling, and forget it. It takes almost as much time to refuel as it does to Jump. Wilderness fueling becomes the realm of the desperate, not the every day, and fuel at the mainworld becomes considerably more valuable and expensive.

Military ships likewise can't afford to spend a great deal of their hull on fuel, and tankers become critical. Wilderness refueling of a fleet takes a lot longer.

But imagine you've just jumped into a Subgiant system. The hab zone is not a couple days away as it is with Thruster plates, it's now WEEKS away. In a Supergiant system (roughly one per Sector, IIRC) it can be YEARS away. Tankers won't make a dent in that problem, even if your fleet is nothing BUT tankers.

Meanwhile, the residents, safe in their impregnable fortress, have lots and lots of time to send their fusion rocket fleet to harass you. Eventually you run out of fuel and can't evade.

While I applaud the idea of introducing a combat endurance factor, this was NOT the way to do it, if you intended to keep the Imperium as it was. The change to military tactics and merchant operations was huge.

 

[TheDS]

Another game changer, I think, isn't the fault of TNE. It's the change in the Jump fuel formula from CT to MT, which TNE kept. CT-based Traveller games use 10% of hull per jump number for fuel, while MT, TNE, T4, and maybe one or two others use 5%. This is HUGE.

A J6 CT ship uses 60% of its hull for just fuel, while in MT the same J6 needs only 30%. Battle Riders make a LOT of sense under CT, but not as much under MT. More, it also makes a lot of sense why the Imperium's battle fleets would be built to a J4M4 standard, whereas in MT there's more room for high-performance fleets which can do J6M6.

Both values are canon, depending on which game you're playing.

 

[GypsyComet]

Except that both MT and TNE have other limits in place. MT's limits can be overcome with creative powerplant allocation and the resulting reduction of fuel tankage. TNE's limits are much less subject to circumvention, as weapons are no longer power hogs, and you simply cannot pull room for more G-Turns of fuel out of nowhere.

 

[mike wightman]

Another game changer, I think, isn't the fault of TNE. It's the change in the Jump fuel formula from CT to MT, which TNE kept. CT-based Traveller games use 10% of hull per jump number for fuel, while MT, TNE, T4, and maybe one or two others use 5%. This is HUGE.

A J6 CT ship uses 60% of its hull for just fuel, while in MT the same J6 needs only 30%. Battle Riders make a LOT of sense under CT, but not as much under MT. More, it also makes a lot of sense why the Imperium's battle fleets would be built to a J4M4 standard, whereas in MT there's more room for high-performance fleets which can do J6M6.

Both values are canon, depending on which game you're playing.

The jump fuel formula for MT/TNE is J1 10%, J2 15%, J3 20%, J4 25%, J5 30% and jump 6 35%

MT and TNE are the only ones that use this, T4 goes back to 10% per jump number.

An interesting effect of this for warships is that they will have enough fuel for a jump and insystem maneuver post jump - this reaction mass fuel is often enough to allow a jump 1 or 2.

According to Dave Nilsen this was a deliberate change because Frank Chadwick wanted to go back to a reaction drive and wanted fuel to be something players worried about.

 

[aramis]

Another game changer, I think, isn't the fault of TNE. It's the change in the Jump fuel formula from CT to MT, which TNE kept. CT-based Traveller games use 10% of hull per jump number for fuel, while MT, TNE, T4, and maybe one or two others use 5%. This is HUGE.

Wrong.
CT, TNE, T4, T5: all use 10% of hull per Jn. Period.

MT uses 5× Jump Drive Size, not 5% of hull per Jn. (This works out to 5% per (Jn+1))

T20 uses 10% per Jn, but has an option for non-OTU use of 5% per Jn.

Note that MT uses a pretty broken fusion fuel rate, implying recapture efficiencies of 0.00001. The fuel rates are in kL per hour per kL of PP, and generally bring the fuel tonnages up to match the HG ones.

TNE changes it from kL per hour to kL per year (a multiplication of 8.76K), and implies about 0.1 recapture (as in, of the total energy produced, only 10% isn't used running the drive).

T4 uses the same fuel rates and design sequences as TNE.

T5's Jump fuel can be replaced with either a collector, or with antimatter slugs, but still, when using hydrogen, runs 10% per Jn. Hop and skip are similar.

 

[mike wightman]

Wrong.
CT, TNE, T4, T5: all use 10% of hull per Jn. Period.

Wrong. Period. Well, the TNE bit anyway

TNE uses the same jump fuel formula as MT for jump 1. It then does something unique to TNE for higher jump numbers (it works out as similar to MT numbers but not exactly).

FF&S p42:

The fuel necessary for a jump of 1 parsec is equal to the total volume of the jump drive machinery multiplied by 5 and divided by the drive's maximum jump number.

So as it says, higher jump number ships use fuel more efficiently for shorter jumps.