General comment and a rehash of another topic [Gunner requirements]

[snrdg082102]

Hello all,

My general comment is as follows.

I believe the consensus of the forum is that Traveller's spacecraft/starship/small craft/vehicle/equipment design sequences, regardless of rule set, are based on real concepts, that where needed have been modified, simplified, and extrapolated to fit the game's parameters. Unfortunately, almost forty years later the only real examples to be found are or were space capsules, the space shuttle, satellites, two earlier labs, and the International Space Station. None of them, in my opinion, support most of the Traveller rule sets design process requires to be used as examples.

Yes, the rehash topic of discussion is gunner requirements which in the past I have used the wrong tactic of expressing confusion and tried to use real examples which have been described as faulty analogies, a comprehension issue, and/or eccentric rule interpretations. Today the tactic to use Traveller sources to show why CT LBB 5 Small Craft gunner requirements does not make sense.

CT LBB 2e p. 16 Ship Crews (Hulls >= 100 d-tons)
1. One gunner (gunnery skill 1 or better required) may be hired per turret on the ship.
2. Armed small craft require a gunner in addition to the pilot.
3. One person can fill two crew positions provided the person has the skill to otherwise perform the work.

CT LBB 2e pp. 17-18 Small Craft/Fittings
1. Listed crew for all small craft except the fighter is two: pilot and rider.
2. The craft may be operated by one pilot.
3. If the craft is armed, but carries no gunner, the pilot may fire the weapon at -1 skill level.
4. Weaponry may be added to small craft. Each small craft may allocate one ton to weaponry and install up to three weapons.


CT LBB 5 HG 2e p. 29 Weaponry/Batteries
1. A battery may be as few as one turret or as many as ten, but all batteries of the same type of weapon must have the same weapon code (USP factor)
2. On ships 1,000 tons and under, mixed turrets (weapons of different types in the same turret) are allowed; in such cases, each weapon is a battery.

CT LBB 5 HG 2e p. 23 Crew
1. Turret weapons should have a crew of at least one per battery.

Both CT LBB 2 2e and CT LBB5 HG 2e hulls >= 100 d-tons appear to recommend that at least one character be assigned to operate the a turret or turret battery.

In my opinion CT LBB 5 HG 2e hulls >= 100 d-tons also appears to support that a CT LBB 2 2e pilot can operate all weapons installed on a small craft.

CT LBB 5 HG 2e p. 34 Small Craft/Weapons
1. Small craft may mount the equivalent of one turret/turret battery.
2. In actuality the mountings are probably rigid and not actual turret is present.
3. All computations however may assume that the craft carries one turret/turret battery.
4. The pilot is assumed to be the gunner for one type of weapon on the craft.
5. If additional types are mounted (a craft could conceivably have three different types of weapons), a gunner is required for each additional weapon.
6. Exception: no additional gunner is required for sandcasters.

CT LBB 5 HG 2e pp. 34-35 Small Craft/Crew
1. One crew member is required for the small craft - a pilot.
2. One or more gunners may be optional crew members.

CT LBB 5 HG 2e p. 34 Small Craft Weapons indicates that a small craft is assumed to have the equivalent of one turret/turret battery which under three other rules can mount up to three weapons, which in my opinion is supported by CT LBB 2 2e hulls >= 100 d-tons, CT LBB 2 2e small craft, and CT LBB 5 HG 2e hulls >= 100 d-tons.

In my opinion the crew requirement from CT LBB 2 2e, CT LBB 5 HG 2e >= 100 d-tons, and CT LBB 5 HG 2e pp. 34-35 contradict the CT LBB 5 HG 2e Weapons details.

Why does the assumed small craft equivalent of a turret/turret battery require a separate gunner for a laser or missile rack if they are installed and the pilot is not assuming the gunner position for either weapon when hulls >= 10 d-tons and CT LBB 2 2e small craft do not have the same requirement?

Why do lasers and sandcasters on small craft require separate gunners while sandcasters do not?

 

[creativehum]

In my opinion the crew requirement from CT LBB 2 2e, CT LBB 5 HG 2e >= 100 d-tons, and CT LBB 5 HG 2e pp. 34-35 contradict the CT LBB 5 HG 2e Weapons details.

Isn't it a given there are lots of contradictions between these two books? (Words to the opposite effect in Book 5 notwithstanding?)

 

[pendragonman]

It seems that you are overlooking, deliberately or not, the reason for each of the two CT design paradigms.

1) CT book 2 is a) fostering roles for characters/npcs and role play opportunities and as such is promoting b) a small ship universe.

2) CT book 5 on the other hand, while the character generation part of it in the front half of the book might be indicating otherwise, is not trying to promote a small ship universe. It is in fact creating a structure for a large ship universe, a battlewagon universe, and the potential role playing that would be available to pcs in such a universe. In fact, it is the design paradigms of book 5 that is the basis of play used in adventure 5 (Trillion Credit Squadron).

When you compare the two, you are comparing apples to oranges.

 

[kilemall]

I look at the two as different environments- LBB2 is adventure bush pilots, LBB5 are carrier pilots.

The 1977-1981 carrier plane examples would be A-6 and F-14, both of which multi-crewed for their sophisticated era missile sets. The F-18 nowadays has both gunnery and missile in the person of the pilot, but with computational support not available in the timeframe of the earlier planes.

The right answer? Make a ruling for your Traveller universe that makes sense to you and your players, and not fret over it. They are two different products servicing two different needs, make a universe choice and move on.

To the extent I feel the need to homerule this which I haven't before now, I guess I would say it requires

• no extra gunner if it has a Model/1 or greater computer on board and fixed weapons,
• does require a gunner if it just has small craft controls and there are two or more different weapon systems or it carries a true turret or you want internal reloading.

 

[aramis]

The Bk2 Bk5 difference affects all post 1979 Traveller books... right on through to MGT 2E....

The Bk2/Bk7 difference mirrors it. But Bk7 doesn't work for "adventure class" ships generated with Bk 5... (costs for shipping are higher than available profits.)

Traveller suffers as much as benefits from this dissociative identity. It allows and invites customization, but it also means the Official universe has had to change to match, and doesn't always.

 

[Timerover51]

Hello all,

My general comment is as follows.

I believe the consensus of the forum is that Traveller's spacecraft/starship/small craft/vehicle/equipment design sequences, regardless of rule set, are based on real concepts, that where needed have been modified, simplified, and extrapolated to fit the game's parameters.

I would strongly disagree with you with respect to vehicle and equipment design sequences.

With respect to spacecraft and starships, those sequences are sufficiently abstract that you can work with them a bit to get what you want. I have been going back to the 1977 LLB set for ship design. If I find something that does not feel "right", I adjust accordingly.

There does need to be a greater separation between civilian and military spacecraft/starships.

The following from 1981 Edition of LBB2, page 32. I will have to check if this appears in either Starter Traveller or The Traveller Book, as well as the 1977 Edition of the LBB.

DETECTION
Ordinary or commercial starships can detect other ships out to a range of about
one-half light-second; about 1,500 millimeters. Military and scout starships have detection ranges out to two light-seconds; 6,000 mm or 6 meters.

Ships which are maintaining complete silence cannot be detected at distances of greater than half detection range; ships in orbit around a world and also maintaining complete silence cannot be detected at distances greater than one-eighth detection range. Planetary masses and stars will completely conceal a ship from detection.

Tracking: Once a vessel has been detected, it can be tracked by anyone up to three light-seconds (about 9,000 mm, or 9 meters).

A difference of a factor of 4 in detection range should be reflected in the cost of the ship sensor suite and computer set up, but it is not.

Consider this as well. If you boost for one hour at 1G, you will be traveling at 35.28 kilometers per second. A three light-second range means that at maximum detection range, you know where the ship was 3 seconds ago, or 105 kilometers different in location, and that is at 1G for one hour. A one degree course change would result in a difference of about 1.85 kilometers from the detected course. If you are firing an energy weapon, restricted to light speed, you have to target where the ship would presumably be with a location lag of 6 seconds, 3 seconds for return location data, and then 3 seconds for the energy beam to reach the potential target. At 900,000 kilometers, a ship is a very small target.

Edit Note: The same detection ranges are given in Traveller Starter Edition on page 13 of the Charts book, and on page 75 of The Traveller Book.

 

[kilemall]

A difference of a factor of 4 in detection range should be reflected in the cost of the ship sensor suite and computer set up, but it is not.

Completely agree, which is why I IMTU'd the rule to be (computer model x 100,000)= km for detection, and (computer model + TL) x 100,000 km for tracking and active target detection, yields similar numbers to the CT values, the cheap ships get cheap ranges but a TL15 scout can still be effective against noisy targets, and it is a serious investment to build small hull SWACS.

 

[mike wightman]

The differentiation between military and civilian grade sensor system in the construction section is a glaring omission, as is the lack if costs for military drives that can use unrefined fuel.

 

[kilemall]

The differentiation between military and civilian grade sensor system in the construction section is a glaring omission, as is the lack if costs for military drives that can use unrefined fuel.

Which brought on the LBB5 fuel purification, which IMO needed to be priced and sized outside the small ship budget but yield profitable refined fuel for dealers that invest in the infrastructure. Think 100x the LBB5 size costs and output, so only huge warships, exploratory cruisers and specialized tankers would have them.

 

[creativehum]

In the 1977 Book 2 rules, scout and military vessels were not immune to M Drive failures for using unrefined fuel. And when it came to misjumps, they had better odds than civilian ships, but the unrefined fuel could still cause them to misjump.

For all jumps (in any situations) throw 12+ for a misjump to occur. DM: +5 if within 100 planetary diameters of a world or star; +3 if using unrefined fuel (except military and scout ships); –1 if using refined fuel; +2 if operating beyond the required date for annual maintenance.

The 1981 edition of Book 2 let military and scout vessels off the hook completely for using unrefined fuel. By the time Book 5 comes around, anyone can refine their own fuel with their own private purifier, rendering the once vital A and B starports moot.

With each passing year the CT product line made space travel easier and more commonplace -- boh in the rules and description of the OTU. It's part of what I call the "'Space Ain't That Hard' Creep." In 1977 A and B-Class starports are vital. They are the secure spots in a sea of space, and traveling too far beyond them is dangerous. The Book 2 mechanics really instill a sense of frontier, risk, and the word "bold" applied to adventurers from the opening words of Book 1 really makes sense.

As the game line advances, however, the technology shifts, rendering many of the limitations and dangers moot. Whereas the introduction to Book 1 promises "a large (bordering ultimately on the infinite) universe, ripe for the bold adventurer’s travels" because of slow travel and slow communication, by the time we get to The Traveller Book and Starter Traveller we are told from the start that "interstellar travel will be as common as international travel is today" and "travel from one stellar system to another is commonplace." (We are also told in the opening of these two later editions of the Basic Rules that man has "conquered" the stars -- a notion not found anywhere in the earlier edition of the rules.)

I understand that for many people these differences don't matter (or that some people want an interstellar civilization that feels just like First World 20th Century Earth). But for me, these differences are a loss, as I preferred the more rough and tumble feel promised by the rules and text of the earlier rules of the game.

I say this to point out that there are, of course, many contradictions in the rules between the game materials. The game, and its implied setting, shifted many times during the course of the game line. Any referee or group will have to pick and choose which parts of these contradictory elements will best make the kind of setting and gameplay they want.

 

[snrdg082102]

Thank you all for having replied to my topic post and my apologies for not looking at sooner I am still not being notified about replies from Citizens of the Imperium. On the other hand I am no longer being logged out every other time I access the web page.

I have some pondering to do before replying to the comments made by everyone, but I cannot say when I will be back to the forum with them.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello again all,

I have no quibbles with anyone not agreeing with my comment about Traveller design systems being based on real concepts made to fit the game.

Yes, there are apple and orange comparisons between CT LBB 2 and CT LBB 5 the major one, in my opinion, is the combat systems.

However, both CT LBB 2 and CT LBB 5 agree that ships three weapon systems and mounts in common. The weapons are laser, missile racks, and sandcasters which can be mounted in a single, double, or triple turret. Both books also recommend that a turret should be operated by one character with gunnery skills.

They both agree that a pilot of small craft can operate installed weapons. The difference is that CT LBB 2 gives the pilot a negative DM when operating all the installed weapons. CT LBB 5 on the other hand only allows the pilot to operate one weapon in an assumed turret and requires a designated gunner to operate a laser and another designated gunner to operate the missile in the same assumed turret when installed on a hull < 100 d-tons.

Heck, having a separate operator for a laser and another separate operator for a missile rack which are probably rigidly mounted does not make sense either.

Again thank you for replying to my topic post.