CT+?

[Random Goblin]

I've been away for awhile. I hear mention of CT+, and it has intrigued me, but I don't really know what it is. Can someone explain, or point me in the right direction, where I can get an explanation?

 

[Random Goblin]

I've been away for awhile. I hear mention of CT+, and it has intrigued me, but I don't really know what it is. Can someone explain, or point me in the right direction, where I can get an explanation?

 

[mike wightman]

To quote myself:

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
This is Hunter's original vision:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If it happens what you'd see is an updated version of the CT rules with a slightly modified MT task system that is compatible with the T20 task system on 'terms of difficulty' (ie: Easy, Hard, Average, etc.).

The personal combat system would be changed over to be compatible with the task system. Armor and Damage would likely be very similar to T20's system.

Characters would not change much as far as background goes, but the randomness would be optional meaning you could randomly generate your character pretty much like original CT or you can pick and choose everything instead. Adding optional rules like Advantages and Disadvantages is something I would also consider.

Vehicles, Starships, etc. would use the T20 systems which are already CT compatible, though these systems might get updated slightly.

New techs would also probably be added, but noted that some campaign settings may only use some of the technological concepts detailed in the rulebook. This would allow us to specify for example in the OTU, nanobots, cybernetic enhancements, FTL communications and such are not used. If a referee wanted to use them, they of course could but the referee would know that the published material for the OTU will not be written with these technologies in mind.

The main idea would be to update the more 'dated' game mechanics and streamline things a bit more, but keep it 100% compatible with the original CT and make it easy to dual stat supplementary for both the updated CT rules and T20.

I'm not looking to dump T20, but I do see a potential market for a more streamlined set of mechanics like what the original CT had to offer.

I then asked what people would have done, hypothetically, if the idea hadn't been dropped. </font>[/QUOTE]Some light reading for you:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=7

any of the threads with CT+ in the title.

 

[mike wightman]

To quote myself:

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
This is Hunter's original vision:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If it happens what you'd see is an updated version of the CT rules with a slightly modified MT task system that is compatible with the T20 task system on 'terms of difficulty' (ie: Easy, Hard, Average, etc.).

The personal combat system would be changed over to be compatible with the task system. Armor and Damage would likely be very similar to T20's system.

Characters would not change much as far as background goes, but the randomness would be optional meaning you could randomly generate your character pretty much like original CT or you can pick and choose everything instead. Adding optional rules like Advantages and Disadvantages is something I would also consider.

Vehicles, Starships, etc. would use the T20 systems which are already CT compatible, though these systems might get updated slightly.

New techs would also probably be added, but noted that some campaign settings may only use some of the technological concepts detailed in the rulebook. This would allow us to specify for example in the OTU, nanobots, cybernetic enhancements, FTL communications and such are not used. If a referee wanted to use them, they of course could but the referee would know that the published material for the OTU will not be written with these technologies in mind.

The main idea would be to update the more 'dated' game mechanics and streamline things a bit more, but keep it 100% compatible with the original CT and make it easy to dual stat supplementary for both the updated CT rules and T20.

I'm not looking to dump T20, but I do see a potential market for a more streamlined set of mechanics like what the original CT had to offer.

I then asked what people would have done, hypothetically, if the idea hadn't been dropped. </font>[/QUOTE]Some light reading for you:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=7

any of the threads with CT+ in the title.

 

[Random Goblin]

Nice! Thanks a ton.

 

[Random Goblin]

Nice! Thanks a ton.

 

[Jame]

My personal suggestion for CT+ is to figure out a way to update the computers, and possibly certain tonnages for ships.

But no-one seems to be interested...

 

[Jame]

My personal suggestion for CT+ is to figure out a way to update the computers, and possibly certain tonnages for ships.

But no-one seems to be interested...

 

[jappel]

Jame,

You might have missed it buried in the various threads, but the consensus seemed to be that the computer tonnages could be accounted for by classing the space as sensors & other electronics, rather than as a single massive mainframe. That actually seems to work out pretty reasonably.

Not sure what you mean about other tonnnages, unless you're referring to all the missing stuff like workshops, sick bays, galleys, etc. I thought that someone had addressed that but haven't looked into that thread for a week or so.

- John

 

[jappel]

Jame,

You might have missed it buried in the various threads, but the consensus seemed to be that the computer tonnages could be accounted for by classing the space as sensors & other electronics, rather than as a single massive mainframe. That actually seems to work out pretty reasonably.

Not sure what you mean about other tonnnages, unless you're referring to all the missing stuff like workshops, sick bays, galleys, etc. I thought that someone had addressed that but haven't looked into that thread for a week or so.

- John

 

[mike wightman]

And Hunter's original idea for CT+ was to use T20 ship design rules, so the CT size limits would disappear.

 

[mike wightman]

And Hunter's original idea for CT+ was to use T20 ship design rules, so the CT size limits would disappear.

 

[aramis]

Jame: it would break canon ship designs. THe T20 rules are an improvement, but not a real fix.

 

[aramis]

Jame: it would break canon ship designs. THe T20 rules are an improvement, but not a real fix.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Although using the computer tonnage to represent sensors lets you keep the cannon designs. It works with Book 5 combat, but you have to junk the preposterous Book 2 program rules.

Deck plans would have to be tweeked as most computer space is a long way from the hull, but bridge+computer masses the same as bridge+sensors.

It does break some 3rd party sensor rules. Sorry.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Although using the computer tonnage to represent sensors lets you keep the cannon designs. It works with Book 5 combat, but you have to junk the preposterous Book 2 program rules.

Deck plans would have to be tweeked as most computer space is a long way from the hull, but bridge+computer masses the same as bridge+sensors.

It does break some 3rd party sensor rules. Sorry.

 

[far-trader]

I don't see the Book 2 program rules as that preposterous or in need of junking. I'm using them as is for T20 since those rules are messed up. Oh, I do have a house rule or two, mostly to do with the price of the software and the actual format but the game plays the same. That's what the rules are for as far as I can see, a game balance issue.

And I don't think many deckplans need to be tweeked to fix the computer tonnage allocation, they usually aren't buried in the hull, they are usually adjacent to the bridge which is almost always on the hull with a nice big view port. The deckplans do need tweeking, but not for the piddly little 1-18tons of computers, that's a drop in the bucket with the real dimension errors most cannon deckplans have.

I guess it probably would break some 3rd party sensor rules, but they aren't cannon so I don't see the issue. They can no doubt be tweeked to work.

Of course I still don't see the problem some people have with the computer rules as is. I just don't. If anything they could be bigger and more expensive before they'd stretch my belief suspenders.

 

[far-trader]

I don't see the Book 2 program rules as that preposterous or in need of junking. I'm using them as is for T20 since those rules are messed up. Oh, I do have a house rule or two, mostly to do with the price of the software and the actual format but the game plays the same. That's what the rules are for as far as I can see, a game balance issue.

And I don't think many deckplans need to be tweeked to fix the computer tonnage allocation, they usually aren't buried in the hull, they are usually adjacent to the bridge which is almost always on the hull with a nice big view port. The deckplans do need tweeking, but not for the piddly little 1-18tons of computers, that's a drop in the bucket with the real dimension errors most cannon deckplans have.

I guess it probably would break some 3rd party sensor rules, but they aren't cannon so I don't see the issue. They can no doubt be tweeked to work.

Of course I still don't see the problem some people have with the computer rules as is. I just don't. If anything they could be bigger and more expensive before they'd stretch my belief suspenders.

 

[mike wightman]

I agree with everything Dan has just said there.

The LBB2 computer programs are an integral part of Mayday/LBB2 combat and are subsumed into the computer modifiers High Guard combat uses.

The original idea was that players would find/buy/write more/better programs than the basic fare in LBB2 IMHO.

Ok, so the rules for number of programs in memory at a time is in need of tweaking, but that could be handled by Jamie's complexity idea.

 

[mike wightman]

I agree with everything Dan has just said there.

The LBB2 computer programs are an integral part of Mayday/LBB2 combat and are subsumed into the computer modifiers High Guard combat uses.

The original idea was that players would find/buy/write more/better programs than the basic fare in LBB2 IMHO.

Ok, so the rules for number of programs in memory at a time is in need of tweaking, but that could be handled by Jamie's complexity idea.