CT Book 2, CT Book 3, CT Book5, and Supplement 7

[infojunky]

Do you have any idea how many years I've been playing this game and reading these rules, and it never occurred to me to try a mix-n-match?

Just haven't been hanging around the right places at the right time, as certain un-named chap beat this subject to death on the TML 10 or so years ago.

Though I will point out a problem mixing and match has is it isn't bidirectionally compatible between Book 2 and Book 5, in that the letter code is part of the damage system in Book 2. (Also note the radiation damage table for Book 2 is in the Missiles Special supliment).

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning infojunky,

Thank you for dropping by and providing additional information. I won't even try looking for the probable TML archived discussion from 10 or so years ago since my archival searches of more recent material usually doesn't turn up what I'm looking for, again thanks for that bit of information.

Update 12/04/14 0745 PST:
CT Book 2 drives and power plants have two identification features:

The drive/power plant type letter and the drive/power plant potential digit.

The drive/power plant potential digit is the rating of the drive/power plant in CT Book 5 HG. Removing the drive/power plant type letter leaves the drive/power plant potential digit which is then easily dealt with on CT Book 5 HG2 combat resolution tables.
Update 12/04/14 end 0749 PST

Just haven't been hanging around the right places at the right time, as certain un-named chap beat this subject to death on the TML 10 or so years ago.

Though I will point out a problem mixing and match has is it isn't bidirectionally compatible between Book 2 and Book 5, in that the letter code is part of the damage system in Book 2. (Also note the radiation damage table for Book 2 is in the Missiles Special supplement).

True the letter type code is part of the drive and power plant combat damage rules, which in some cases provides an advantage of Book 5.

In CT Book 2 1981 for example a 5,000 ton ship operating a Power Plant-2 Type, Jump-2 Drive Type Z, and a Maneuver Drive 2-G Type Z would take four hits to each component before being destroyed.

The same 5,000 ton ship in CT Book 5 1980 rolling on the Ship Damage Tables could have the maneuver drive destroyed by one hit on surface explosion table. The power plant and jump drive can also be destroyed in one hit per the interior explosion table.

The Consolidated CT Errata for SS3 indicates the SS3 Combat Effects radiation damage does not take into account armor and refers the reader to use the Radiation Table in CT Book 5.

 

[mike wightman]

The K'kree alien module provides rules for using HG2 designed ships with LBB2 damage resolution. Each hit reduces the drive rating by 0.2.

 

[infojunky]

The K'kree alien module provides rules for using HG2 designed ships with LBB2 damage resolution. Each hit reduces the drive rating by 0.2.

Yah know i was just thinking that as I was reading Tom post just above your reply.

 

[GypsyComet]

The K'kree alien module provides rules for using HG2 designed ships with LBB2 damage resolution. Each hit reduces the drive rating by 0.2.

A useful rule of thumb for ships that size, but it would be a stretch to apply it to smaller ships. As a method to be adjusted for size, though, it has promise.

 

[infojunky]

Morning infojunky,

Thank you for dropping by and providing additional information. I won't even try looking for the probable TML archived discussion from 10 or so years ago since my archival searches of more recent material usually doesn't turn up what I'm looking for, again thanks for that bit of information.

If the urge does Hit you try looking for threads by Henry Cobb....

The Consolidated CT Errata for SS3 indicates the SS3 Combat Effects radiation damage does not take into account armor and refers the reader to use the Radiation Table in CT Book 5.

Ok, if you can find the original Missiles Supplement the Book 2 radiation table is in that. The suggestion to use Book 5's table is more than kinda broken as it has a different scale and orientation plus a Critical Hit.

But as we discussed on the TML, we have different foci on this subject with mine being to expand Book 2 combat by inclusion of items and concepts introduced in Book 5. Whereas you are trying reconcile designs.

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening infojunky, aka Evyn,

Thank you for another informative reply.

If the urge does Hit you try looking for threads by Henry Cobb....

Adding the name of a person or something does help and I know Henry Cobb's name. I think I have actually had some interaction with him over the years and I probably have material I've stashed in folders on my computer. Thank you for the help.

Ok, if you can find the original Missiles Supplement the Book 2 radiation table is in that. The suggestion to use Book 5's table is more than kinda broken as it has a different scale and orientation plus a Critical Hit.

The format of the Radiation Damage table in Special Supplement 3 (SS3) Missiles in Traveller does appear to be based on CT Book 2 Starships 1980 p. 30 Hit Location and Critical Hits Tables.

However, CT Book 2 Starships 1980 does not provide any information on what type of warhead is used by the turret anti-ship missiles. SS3, printed in JTAS 21 1984, has both high explosive and nuclear missile warheads which where, to my knowledge, first presented in CT Book 5 High Guard.

A further hint that SS3 is pitched towards CT Book 5 High Guard is the note that fibre-optic computers are immune to computer hits. CT book 2 does not have fibre-optics available for use, this item is a CT Book 5 component.

But as we discussed on the TML, we have different foci on this subject with mine being to expand Book 2 combat by inclusion of items and concepts introduced in Book 5. Whereas you are trying reconcile designs.

My intent was to
1. Verify that a ship built using CT Book 2 1977 design and construction rule set could be done in CT Book 2 1981 and CT Book 5 1980.

2. Recommend errata that would allow the ship to be built under the appropriate rules with a minimum of changes.

3. Use the standard CT Book 2 power plants, jump drives, and maneuver drives in ships built using the CT Book 5 rules allowing there use.

4. Verify that the updates of CT Book 2 ships into CT Book 5 ships matched.

Unfortunately, I've shelved my plans realizing I'm not up to the task and my lack of ability in stating my case for changes.

Thanks again for the reply and suggested search parameter.

 

[aramis]

Standard missiles are explosive, not nukes. SS3 specifies the standard missile.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning aramis,

Standard missiles are explosive, not nukes. SS3 specifies the standard missile.

Yes, SS3 specifies starting in 1984 that standard missile warheads are high explosive.

However, neither CT Book 2 or CT Book 5 identified a standard missile warhead. CT Book 2 1977/1981 does provide information that the small anti-ship turret missile is a fire and forget weapon that explodes causing damage. CT Book 5 1979/1980 adds the tidbit that there are two types of warhead for missiles high explosive and nuclear.

The SS3 Radiation Damage Table appears to have been geared towards CT Book 5 1980 and for some reason used the Hit Location/Critical Hit tables format from CT Book 2.

A sudden thought has just occurred that the SS3 Radiation Damage Table may have been away to integrate the use of nuclear warheads into CT Book 2 combat.

As always thank you for your input. (Yes, even the input that knocks holes in my ideas too, even though at the time I'm not as thankful;-))

 

[aramis]

Striker makes it clear the standard warhead is conventional on ship missiles, as well.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello again aramis,

Thank you aramis for providing additional sources that identified the standard warhead used by CT Book 2 Starships and CT Book 5 High Guard missiles.

Striker makes it clear the standard warhead is conventional on ship missiles, as well.

However the introduction that the SS3 Radiation Table into the discussion thread associated it as being a CT Book 2 table.

My research does not support that the SS3 Radiation Table is from CT Book 2, however the table does appear to have been imported from CT Book 2 and modified to support damage taken by nuclear warhead detonation introduced in CT Book 5.

The Consolidated CT Errata for SS3 indicates that the table does not take into account that CT Book 5 introduced armor for starships, non-starships, and small craft and recommends the use of the Radiation Damage Table in CT Book 5.

My replies are referenced to CT Book 2 and CT Book 5 since those are the sources I have on hand. I've also checked Adventure 5 TCS without, as usual, finding any supporting information that the SS3 Radiation table is an original CT Book 2 item.

 

[aramis]

Hello again aramis,

Thank you aramis for providing additional sources that identified the standard warhead used by CT Book 2 Starships and CT Book 5 High Guard missiles.



However the introduction that the SS3 Radiation Table into the discussion thread associated it as being a CT Book 2 table.

My research does not support that the SS3 Radiation Table is from CT Book 2, however the table does appear to have been imported from CT Book 2 and modified to support damage taken by nuclear warhead detonation introduced in CT Book 5.

The Consolidated CT Errata for SS3 indicates that the table does not take into account that CT Book 5 introduced armor for starships, non-starships, and small craft and recommends the use of the Radiation Damage Table in CT Book 5.

My replies are referenced to CT Book 2 and CT Book 5 since those are the sources I have on hand. I've also checked Adventure 5 TCS without, as usual, finding any supporting information that the SS3 Radiation table is an original CT Book 2 item.

Whie the two design systems are merged, the combat systems aren't . Once you start using Bk5 designs, you need to use Bk5 combat modes, or make up your own rules for Bk2 armor, fusion guns, etc. (PA's are 4 CT damage points, according to a JTAS article. And a bonus to hit. It appears to be grounded in the Bk5-79 ratings tables)

 

[snrdg082102]

Afternoon aramis,

While the two design systems are merged, the combat systems aren't . Once you start using Bk5 designs, you need to use Bk5 combat modes, or make up your own rules for Bk2 armor, fusion guns, etc. (PA's are 4 CT damage points, according to a JTAS article. And a bonus to hit. It appears to be grounded in the Bk5-79 ratings tables)

I'm not sure that I follow you that SS3 merged the CT Book 2 and CT Book 5 design systems. From what I've figured out you are right that the two combat modes are not even close to being merged.

The SS3 Radiation Table is formatted in the same way as CT Book 2 Hit Locations and Critical Hits Tables, but the table is not part of CT Book 2 based on the note indicating that computers using fibre-optics are immune to computer hits on the SS3 radiation damage table.

My view point is that CT Book 2 allows non-naval ships to use of turret mounted weaponry which includes pulse lasers, beam lasers, missiles, and sandcasters. My guess is that CT Book 2 warheads are high explosive. Naval assets designed using CT Book 5 can select all the weapons listed as options in that book. Civilian assets in my designs are limited to lasers, missiles with non-nuclear warheads, and sandcasters in CT Book 5. Ships like a mercenary cruiser or patrol cruiser might be equipped with naval armament.

How the SS3 Radiation table with or without taking into account armor is integrated in to CT Book 2 and/or CT Book 5 is not what I'm talking about.

Thank you for the help.

 

[infojunky]

(PA's are 4 CT damage points, according to a JTAS article.

Can I get a reference on that please?

 

[Carlobrand]

... I'm not sure that I follow you that SS3 merged the CT Book 2 and CT Book 5 design systems. ...

I don't think he's saying SS3 merged the two design systems. High Guard merged the two design systems by grandfathering in Book 2 equipment.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning aramis, infojunky and Carlobrand,

aramis, like infojunky I would like the JTAS number for the article mentioning that "(PA's are 4 CT damage points, according to a JTAS article. And a bonus to hit. It appears to be grounded in the Bk5-79 ratings tables)" please.

I've used my BITS Traveller and Traveller Periodical Bibliographies to scare up a source and checked the three FFE JTAS books I have. The results are I have not, as usual, found anything.

First, on the Major Weapons Table in CT Book 5 1979 p. 24 under the PA half is a note that factor/code 9 or less are the result of bay or turret mountings. Neither the Weapons Table on p. 26 or the turret weapons rule section p. 27 show entries for a PA turret.

In CT Book 5 79 to determine the Weapon Rating Code (USP in CT Book 5 80) as best as I can figure out goes like this using the PA. Per CT Book 5 1979 a single TL 11 50-ton PA bay has a strength or point value of 4 which gives the bay a Weapon Rating Code (USP) of 3. A single TL 12 50-ton PA bay has a point value or strength of 6 which gives the TL 12 bay Weapon Rating Code (USP) of 4.

To get the strength/point value of more than one of the same bay weapon and same turret weapon is a kind of unclear.

"The USP code for bay weapons is based on the average strength (per 1,000 tons) or all weapons of that single type installed on the ship. Point values from the bay weapons table are totaled; if the ship is over 1,000 then the point total is divided by the ship tonnage in kilotons. If the tonnage is 1,000 tons or less, then the point value is not modified. The point value is then referenced to the ratings section of the table to determine the exact code for the USP. Note that the codes for all weapons installed in bays range from 0 (none to 9 (the best available)."

"The USP code for turret weapons is based on the average strength (per 1,000 tons) or all turret weapons of a single type per 1,00 tons of ship. The point values from the turret weapons section are totaled. If the ship is over 1,000 then the point total is divided by the ship tonnage in kilotons. If the tonnage is 1,000 tons or less, then the point value is not modified. The point value is then referenced to the ratings section of the table to determine the exact code for the USP. Note that the codes for all weapons installed in bays range from 0 (none to 9 (the best available)."

"Missile racks, fusion weapons, and plasma weapons are available as both bay weapons and turret weapons. The total points for both turret and bay weapons of a single type are totaled, divided by ship tonnage, if necessary, and then referred to the ratings table."

I'm not sure how the ship tonnage thing works.

Thanks Carlobrand for giving me the best probable answer to aramis' "While the two design systems are merged, the combat systems aren't ." is that CT Book 5 designs allows the use of CT Book 2 jump drives, maneuver drives, power plants, and crew calculations.

 

[aramis]

JTAS 4 says as Heavy laser, +2 DM to hit. Heavy laser isn't defined. The 4 DP is from elsewhere, probably a 3rd party supplement. (This is the second time I've posted this. Board ate my homework.

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy aramis,

My lost posts, miss spelled, and other since mayhem seem to caused by web gremlins messing with me.

JTAS 4 says as Heavy laser, +2 DM to hit. Heavy laser isn't defined. The 4 DP is from elsewhere, probably a 3rd party supplement. (This is the second time I've posted this. Board ate my homework.

Drat, I over looked the original Gazelle Close Escort article in JTAS 4 pp. 14-21, thank you for the reminder.

CT Book 5-79 Weapons Table p. 26 lists a TL 11 50-ton PA Bay as having a strength point value of 4.

I may have figured out how the bay and turret USPs where determined in CT Book 5-79.

A 2,000 ton hull can have two bays and/or 20 turrets.

One TL 10 100-ton PA bay has a strength point value of 3 under the TL 10 Column in the Weapons Table. Taking the point value of 3 to the Weapons Rating Chart and going down the PA column you find the number is between 2 and 4 which means that the TL 10 100-ton PA bay has a USP code of 2.

Here is where I am probably breaking the rules. The same 2,000-ton ship installs one TL 13 50-ton PA Bay (8) + one TL 13 10-ton PA bay (10) has an un-averaged point value of 18 and an averaged point value of 9. Cross referencing the averaged point value the USP for the PA Bay is 5.

According to CT Book 5-79 rules missile rack bays and turrets combine there point totals to determine the USP. Plasma guns bays and turrets and fusion gun bays and turrets also combine to determine the USP for each weapon.

 

[Frankymole]

My standard comment as to why ship designs are hard or impossible to recreate using the design and construction rules is that the authors or designers probably used different drafts and/or had to meet a deadline resulting in not going back to do a recheck of the design.

It's not necessarily a rigid TL thing anyway, because the Naval Architect may have succeeded on a Formidable task at some stage - skill has to count!

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy Frankymole,

It's not necessarily a rigid TL thing anyway, because the Naval Architect may have succeeded on a Formidable task at some stage - skill has to count!

The TL thing is not usually what has made some ship designs, like the express boat in CT Supplement 7, nearly impossible to recreate as described.

To start out, the express boat was, to the best I can determine, using CT Book 2 1977 design and construction rules. Looking at my copy of CT Book 2 1977 7th printing the express boat being a starship and per p. 11 should have been "fitted with a power plant (to provide internal power and power for the maneuver drive), a maneuver drive ( for interplanetary travel), and a jump drive (for interstellar jumps)."

Of course that was back when I first purchased Traveller, now not having the maneuver drive is okay and I do agree that the power plant using CT Book 2 77 or 81 rules must have the same type letter and potential as any installed maneuver drive.

Using the CT Book 2 1977 rules and including the power plant for internal power generation the express boat can be built. Unfortunately, CT Book 2 1981 requires the power plant to match the jump drive type and potential resulting in making an 100-ton express boat impossible to build.

Okay, the Consolidated, in my opinion, bent the CT Book 2 1981 rules by installing a smaller fuel tank to run the power plant. The problem is that the express boat is still not 100-tons, a lot closer than the one I built by about 45 tons.

In 1977 the author/designer of the express boat could have used a different draft of the CT Book 2 design and construction rules than in the copy I have which allowed only have the jump drive. Another is that the design had been submitted and no one caught the missing power plant or the reviewer had the same draft allowing only a jump drive.

Of course another reason is time constraints that didn't allow a reworking of the design before Supplement 7 came out.

There are any number of reasons why the express boat other designs are impossible to recreate using the current design and construction rules.

Thanks for the reply.