[HG] Designing a TL12 fleet

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
Lady Harrington never let a small thing like "Nobody has ever done it before" get in her way. And after all, we're in this for our imagination.

RoS,

Great Googly Moogly! If you're going to drag Weber's dreck into this we can stop right now!

However your earlier comment about the eratta, and the double-blind set up of the Midway game, does shed a pretty bad light upon the individual who committed it.

The double-blind nature of the gamne was the kicker for me. The ruling in The General had been out for some time, but the magazine wasn't exactly on every news stand either. It was the combination of things that tripped my alarm.

Then again, I have a low and cunning mind.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Whipsnade]

Dan,

Yes indeed. The armor rules and associated examples are written rather poorly and could definitely be more clear.

That has no bearing on the sub-1000dTon bay question however. Those rules and their examples are very clear.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
Except there are canon examples of ships that bend this rule and do mount a bay weapon in less than 1,000tons

Cite? </font>[/QUOTE]Unfortunately I can't. I may have come across the designs but if so I don't remember them. I'm going by the statement in T20 that it is so. I have no reason to doubt its validity. See page 271 1st printing of The Traveller's Handbook, Bay Weapon Option note.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by far-trader:
The armor issue is a little more than that Bill and RoS. Note I always did it the way you do RoS, ignore the whole calculation if no armor is used, but when Sigg pointed it out I saw the problem. The key is the part of the rule that says (my emphasis in bold): "The armor table indicates formulae for the computation of armor tonnage and cost, based on the armor factor selected."

Except that USP 0 is not selected, ever.

USP 0 is a default that is involuntarily assigned by the choice of no armor or dispersed structure hulls.

"No armor" is a selection. But the Factor 0 USP resulting from that selection is an assignment.

I can't even believe this is a discussion. It flatly states that I have been completely imagining how to read these rules for more than twenty years.

Sorry, I'll stay in the land of denial. (Because I think I'm right. There, there's some good justification for me.)

Originally posted by far-trader:
The same kind of confusion that I had with the hardpoints issue. And both could have been so easily prevented.

I have rescanned the topic for "hardpoint" keywords, and did see you mention something about hardpoints and confusion, however that was in reference to allowing bays on sub 1000 dTon hulls. Is this what you meant by the above, or was it something else I might need to know about (like this armor factor applied for no armor used where the rules don't say it weirdness)?

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
Dan,

Yes indeed. The armor rules and associated examples are written rather poorly and could definitely be more clear.

Well to me they are very clear but the intent is wrong. Going by the strict rules (to borrow RoS' term) every ship with the choice of armor factor 0 will have to add a percentage to the tonnage and the associated cost to be within the rules, even the poor old type S is broken under a strict reading of the clearly written rule and explicit example given and made clear by actually showing the math, unlike the hardpoints rule.

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
That has no bearing on the sub-1000dTon bay question however. Those rules and their examples are very clear.

I actually find them less clear than the armor notes for not showing the math. How simply that would have cleared up that one. Just by showing the calculation as they did for armor with (20 bays x 1000tons allocated) rather than the misleading 20 (x) 100ton bays wording used. The (x) is mine but easily implied in the context. Note that my (20 bays x 1000tons allocated) works for 50ton bays and 100ton bays and is the intent of the rule. While the 20 (x) 100ton bays implies pretty strongly that it would be different for 20 (x) 50ton bays or some mix of large and small bays. But then I guess I was denser than you at the time for not wondering why it didn't add up

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by far-trader:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
Cite?

Unfortunately I can't. I may have come across the designs but if so I don't remember them. I'm going by the statement in T20 that it is so. I have no reason to doubt its validity. See page 271 1st printing of The Traveller's Handbook, Bay Weapon Option note.
</font>[/QUOTE]Are you referring to the last sentence, "Weapon bays may not normally be mounted on ships smaller than 1000 tons."?

T20 is only based on HG2. It is mostly the same, but has subtle differences.

In any event, "normally" above may be taken as, "You and me making ships by the rules stated here."

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Well to me they are very clear but the intent is wrong. Going by the strict rules (to borrow RoS' term) every ship with the choice of armor factor 0 will have to add a percentage to the tonnage and the associated cost to be within the rules, even the poor old type S is broken under a strict reading of the clearly written rule and explicit example given and made clear by actually showing the math, unlike the hardpoints rule.

I disagree. The examples do not show that.

The examples only discuss armor factor selections.

The examples do not discuss armor factor assignments (there is only one such assignment, the involuntary default, USP 0).

There is no reason to even assume that the formula is in use if there is no armor selected.

No armor = no armor formula.

USP 0 = the absence of the system. The convention is clear from the rest of the design sequence. USP 0 = nothing.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by far-trader:
But then I guess I was denser than you at the time for not wondering why it didn't add up.

Dan,

Denser? Perish the thought!

It may have to do with the fact I had to explain HG2 to several participants in my TCS campaigns. We were deployed and I was passing out photocopied parts of the design rules (very naughty I know) to various folks who never played anything lke this before. I'd have to teach them how to design ships first; even had a couple page example, and then check those designs afterwards. No spreadsheets for me in '83 either.

Despite all that, I still fumbled the added armor rule. I capped total armor at TL and not added armor at TL. It was wrong, but it was applied to all players so they all had the same handicap.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
Are you referring to the last sentence, "Weapon bays may not normally be mounted on ships smaller than 1000 tons."?

T20 is only based on HG2. It is mostly the same, but has subtle differences.

In any event, "normally" above may be taken as, "You and me making ships by the rules stated here."

Nope, but I see now where I have leapt to a conclusion. The statement is:

"Ships have been designed in previous versions of Traveller that squeezed weapon bays into vessels smaller than 1000 tons."

Naturally being that T20 is heavily HG derivitive I erroneously thought that one of the designs so built in a "previous versions" must have included HG. That's not neccesarily so, I can see now.

And yeah, the discussion could be seen as silly I guess. I prefer that such thoughts are discussed to highlight the need for clarity of language in rules with good examples to avoid the need for such discussions in the future

 

[RainOfSteel]

The rule from HG2 p.23 (italics mine) is "Formula indicates percentage of ship required for armor (a is desired armor factor)."

USP 0 is not a desired armor factor.

Note the "required for armor". If no armor is selected, then "required for armor" does not enter the picture and cannot be used.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by far-trader:

"Ships have been designed in previous versions of Traveller that squeezed weapon bays into vessels smaller than 1000 tons."

Naturally being that T20 is heavily HG derivitive I erroneously thought that one of the designs so built in a "previous versions" must have included HG. That's not neccesarily so, I can see now.

It was probably MT or TNE, with their more advanced construction systems.

After all, you can fit two spinal mounts in MT by canon.

Originally posted by far-trader:
And yeah, the discussion could be seen as silly I guess. I prefer that such thoughts are discussed to highlight the need for clarity of language in rules with good examples to avoid the need for such discussions.

Well, I for one certainly do not see this discussion as silly, although I thoroughly approve of your desire for clarity in rules language.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:

And yeah, the discussion could be seen as silly I guess. I prefer that such thoughts are discussed to highlight the need for clarity of language in rules with good examples to avoid the need for such discussions.

Well, I for one certainly do not see this discussion as silly, although I thoroughly approve of your desire for clarity in rules language. </font>[/QUOTE]Oops, my bad there

Apologies. I got the impression from your "I can't even believe this is a discussion." statement above. Like I prefaced the whole thing with, I'd always read it the way you do, it just made sense, until Sigg went and made me "read" it.

I still have to disagree with you on a point (semantically), it is an armor factor 0 choice and if you desire armor factor 0 you have to do the math and add the tons and cost, by the strict wording of the rule and example

Actually though, the way the dispersed hull is described it is indeed NO ARMOR and so should be free from the calculations

I just don't see this factor 0 vs USP 0 divide you do, but again let me emphasize WE WERE/ARE CORRECT! The intent is clearly that no armor (armor factor 0 by choice, desire or default) is no calculation.

It's just that meddling Sigg who wants to try to soak the shipyards for the Emporer's New Armour

I'm not with him (unless I get a cut hehehe).

Anyway, I'm feeling guilty at cluttering up this thread with our most excellent and even entertaining off topic discussion. Apologies for that Employee 2-4601 but it wouldn't be Travelling if topics didn't wander

Luckily

I sense we're nearly done, at least until Sigg shows up to make his points

 

[RainOfSteel]

I'm going to bed. I'll return tomorrow, undoubtedly.

 

[Scott Martin]

Hello

I would have posted this last night, but I try and avoid posting when I'm actively pissed off. Consider this a fair trade for the folks who went out of their way to point out that a misinterpretation could easily have been made, and as a result have put in the extra effort to make the board accessable for "newbies" in the first place.

This is now a severely off topic post. Could I request a new topic "High Guard Bays and Hardpoints" for the direction that this post has taken. I'll gladly post there more detail on why I took the position that I did, and why this is useful for future releases of Traveller.
If you consider the remainder of this post offensive, I strongly urge you to report it and/or have it moved to the "Political Pulpit".

I mention this since I am arguably crossing the line for the user agreement, specifically
"You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use the CotI Discussion Forums to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing..."

If so, I don't really have a defence, but I might encourage other members to take a look at the agreement, which can be found here:
http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=agree_review

I'm of the opinion that I am on the "safe" side of the line, but I'm apparently a particularly litigious type. That said, I'd much rather try to point out *why* I'm pissed off and try to keep it from happening again, than in going and crying to the board admins, who have better things (like trying to make a living running a business) to do than police this kind of behaviour.

Since I seem to have started a bun-fight, I should at least have the decency to define my position. This is not my "rules lawyer" position, but a more fundamental position on courtesy. I'll start by offering a perspective that most of you probably haven't been thinking in terms of, having been posting for a lot of years on this board. I will also be very blunt, since the worst that happens is that I am no longer welcome on these boards, and the best that happens is that this board becomes more accessable to new members, and we get feedback and help developing areas that *new* people want to see explored in the NEXT version of Traveller.

So into the rant.

I'm almost certainly the "outlyer" in the COTI spectrum, since I've been playing (and interpreting) Traveller for more than 20 years, but haven't been a poster (or visitor) to this board until quite recently.

A result, I am probably one of the few "newbies" that is familiar with the evolution of Traveller from the early days.

Jumping in and being told by "YourPseudonymHere" that my interpretation on topic "xyz" is flat out wrong, and this discussion has been ongoing on "BoardX" for years is offensive. Please remember that the vast majority of folks have absolutely no idea who the hell you are so taking the approach that you would take with a toddler "because I told you so" is only going to generate bad feelings. You should also remember that a "newbie" is unlikely to be familiar with "BoardX" so if you are going to use that discourse as part of your argument, a summary or at least a link to the relevant part of the discussion on "BoardX" is in order.

If the reason that you are telling me that my interpretation is wrong is because you were the author (or at least part of the design) then have the courtesy of telling me that, up front. This has the added advantage that folks searching through the archives in search of a question can immediately see stuff that is at least semi-official errata. It likely means that a post by "FluffyKitten23" claiming to be Marc Miller will probably be followed by at least a short string of "WTF" posts.

Calling someone names because they don't agree with your position is, at best, rude. Pointing out that you do in fact intend to be rude, and underlining the exact nature of the insult is offensive and pompus. I can easily forgive a "spur of the moment" outburst, but if you have time to detail the exact nature of the insult that you are hurling in my direction, then you should have had time to cool off and reconsider if that is appropriate action in a "public" space. I have hopes that this may cause future use of the magic "backspace" key.

Those "newbies" who come up with new ways of playing the game, and new ways of seeing problems are the best hope for the future of this franchise, whether you agree with that direction or not. It is your choice whether you embrace this talent, or turn it away, but don't whine when GURPS and "Serenity" RPGs based on a really shaky physics foundation end up absorbing all of the talent capable of actually executing because our elitist attitudes turned them away.

I'm putting my effort behind T5, both because it has the best shot at being the best Traveller, and because I'd rather build something that complain about how system "X" should work but doesn't. I can't buy enough copies of T5 to make a real difference in profitability, but I can sure as hell do my best to ensure that no Traveller book ever again goes to press with glaring typos or systems flaws that I can discover. I can get feedback to the actual authors on what I *want* to see in a game. I can test the limits of what the rules are to see where they break, and suggest options for resolving the "breakage". If that makes me a "rules lawyer" then so be it, but in my field they have a different title for people who do this kind of dirty work and limit testing.

They call them developers.

What are you doing to advance the game you've invested so much time in?

Scott Martin

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Again I mention armour factor 0

Until Chris Thrash mentioned it a while ago I never paid the tonnage cost or MCr for armour factor 0, and yet it is there, in black and white, in the rules.

Does High Guard Shipyard take it into account?

Does anyone design unarmoured ships using it?

It's only 300,000 Credits. But I think the spreadsheet I once made did charge it because of the way it was set up. Heck I don't keep to many sig figs (pun intended) anyway on a large ship. No lost tonnage, no foul I say. IMTU we take it out of the architects fee, clearly it's his error.

Glass of water obtained, back to bed.

Edit alot has been going on. Hey, all in good fun guys.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Luckily

I sense we're nearly done, at least until Sigg shows up to make his points

Funny you should say that

 

[mike wightman]

if no armour is selected, the armour factor in the USP is 0. The armour table indicates the formula for the computation of armour tonnage and cost, based on the factor selected.

Consulting the armour table follows from your choice of armour.
So, choose armour factor 0, or have a dispersed structure hull that automatically is armour factor 0, and you still consult the armour formulae table.
It does not state that armour factor zero ship designs ignore the armour formulae table, nor is there any implication that this is the case.

The kicker lines are:

"based on the factor selected"

and,

"if no armour is selected the factor in the USP is zero".

It's up to you. Interpret it as you are selecting AF:0 and you use the armour table, or assume it is implied that you don't consult the table if you don't select any armour.

Confused yet

This rule should have been clarified

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
After all, you can fit two spinal mounts in MT by canon.

no starship may have more than one spinal mount

MT RM page 59.
Doesn't say battle riders can't have more than one though - they are non-starships after all

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
After all, you can fit two spinal mounts in MT by canon.

no starship may have more than one spinal mount

MT RM page 59.
Doesn't say battle riders can't have more than one though - they are non-starships after all </font>[/QUOTE]Or maybe it means non-starships can't have any. <poof> There go all the Battle Riders

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Or maybe it means non-starships can't have any. <poof> There go all the Battle Riders

I was going to quote "Shattered Ships of the Fighting Imperium", but then thought better of it

By the way, was it FASA designed ships that had bays mounted in sub 1000t ships?