• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

IMTU. A new (old) start

Timerover, my definition of "Small-ship" is 5000 dTon maximum of pre-High Guard rules, as compared to the "Large-Ship" definition of 1 000 000 dTon maximum of High Guard and later rules editions.

I do agree, 5000 dTons is a large ship, but actually tiny compared to the "small-Moon" that is the Tigress Class Dreadnought of MT (500 000 dTons.)

Compared to the 395.4m long, 54m beam, MSC Oscar, max allowed 19224 TEU, is roughly 52,000 Td of cargo capacity... a 5000Td is actually rather small.

Note that 1 TEU is also a combined measure ... 30.5 tons per TEU maximum mass, counting the maximum 2.4 tons for the container itself.

So a limit of 19224 TEU is limited to 586332 tons and 740124 cubic meters...
 
In the 77 edition the TL table at TL 9 says 'starships' while at TL the 'drives H or less' entry appears.
TL 9 being capped at D is from the 81 revision.

Indeed it does, I stand corrected! Teach me to look things up before I have had my coffee!

I think, I am going to use that break point though. It works for my purposes.

Thanks Mike!
 
Compared to the 395.4m long, 54m beam, MSC Oscar, max allowed 19224 TEU, is roughly 52,000 Td of cargo capacity... a 5000Td is actually rather small.

Note that 1 TEU is also a combined measure ... 30.5 tons per TEU maximum mass, counting the maximum 2.4 tons for the container itself.

So a limit of 19224 TEU is limited to 586332 tons and 740124 cubic meters...

But there will always be something bigger or smaller. "Big" and "small" are -- and always will be -- relative terms.

The only issue at hand is whether or not the ships and design elements in Book 2 are big enough to create the interstellar setting people want.

For many, the answer is "Yes."

At which point a 5,000 dT ship is a very large ship.
 
Last edited:
Indeed it does, I stand corrected! Teach me to look things up before I have had my coffee!

I think, I am going to use that break point though. It works for my purposes.

Thanks Mike!
No probs, but consider this.

If the F drive is available at TL9 you can build a 200t jump 6 courier at TL9 :)
 
No probs, but consider this.

If the F drive is available at TL9 you can build a 200t jump 6 courier at TL9 :)

020 bridge
120 JFuel J6
035 JDrive A = 6
001 MDrive A = M1
004 PP A= P1
010 PFuel
016 staterooms for required crew P 2E M
002 model 2
=== =======
208
total

So, no, you can't, unless you're willing to go without a power plant and maneuver drive, or EVERYONE is hot-racking. Even then it's impractical.
 
The rules as written say you can have double occupany staterooms for 'exploratory vessels, military ships, and privately owned starships', so as you say 'EVERYONE is hot-racking'

There is your eight ton saving.

So it can be done, rules as written, even including a pp and mdrive :)

Your 'impractical' is a good point though :(

Is their a situation where the crew of this vessel has to be transported at jump 6?
Alternatively each crew member could be required to fill two roles, thus freeing one whole stateroom for special passengers.



If you allow the rules fudge to dispense with the power plant and maneuver drive like the x-boat does then you have loads of room to spare, and once less crewman required.
 
The rules as written say you can have double occupany staterooms for 'exploratory vessels, military ships, and privately owned starships', so as you say 'EVERYONE is hot-racking'

There is your eight ton saving.

So it can be done, rules as written, even including a pp and mdrive :)

Your 'impractical' is a good point though :(

Is their a situation where the crew of this vessel has to be transported at jump 6?
Alternatively each crew member could be required to fill two roles, thus freeing one whole stateroom for special passengers.



If you allow the rules fudge to dispense with the power plant and maneuver drive like the x-boat does then you have loads of room to spare, and once less crewman required.

You get 18 tons back - 4 PP, 10 PPF, 4 for one SR.

As a GM, I don't allow (ever) a ship without a PP. Not even the Xboat.

I think the XBoat is better with a 4 Td PP and a 5Td short fuel - which, instead of 28 days, gives 14, plus 2 tons cargo for the priority stuff.

But it's also worth noting: Most ship designs in canon are wrong to some degree or another.
 
I have the Lost Rules Supplement, but that does not give the minimum Tech Levels for drives for the 1977 Rules. My 1977 rule set is somewhere in my garage, so is not readily available. Would if be possible for someone to post the Tech Level Chart for the 1977 Rules to use as comparison with the 1981 rules?

I forgot that the Power Plant size in the 1977 Rules was independent of the Jump and Maneuver Drive, and I like that idea. That would also allow for specialization in the Engineering force in either Jump Drives, Maneuver Drives, or Power Plant operation. Need to think about that.
 
Would if be possible for someone to post the Tech Level Chart for the 1977 Rules to use as comparison with the 1981 rules?

Here you go...

For what it's worth, my gut is telling me the Jump Drive info on the TL 9 row was an honest to goodness typo and the 1981 chart states what was supposed to be there all along. In the same alway, I suspect the Drive O in TL 13 was supposed to be a Q.

The Drive ranges are grouped a exactly as they are in the 1981 edition except for the TL 9 -- which simply has no information about Drives at all.
 
Last edited:
I have the Lost Rules Supplement, but that does not give the minimum Tech Levels for drives for the 1977 Rules. My 1977 rule set is somewhere in my garage, so is not readily available. Would if be possible for someone to post the Tech Level Chart for the 1977 Rules to use as comparison with the 1981 rules?

I forgot that the Power Plant size in the 1977 Rules was independent of the Jump and Maneuver Drive, and I like that idea. That would also allow for specialization in the Engineering force in either Jump Drives, Maneuver Drives, or Power Plant operation. Need to think about that.

This is the table from 77, simply converted to board markup.
TLPersonalArmorSpecialComputersCommunicationWaterLandAirSpacePower
0Club, cudgel,SpearRunnersCanoes Carts Muscle
1Dagger, pike,SwordJackCatapultAbacusHeliographGalley Wagons
2Halberd,BroadswordCannonWind
3Foil, cutlass,Blade, bayonetSailing ShipsHot air balloonWater wheel
4Revolver,ShotgunClothArtilleryAdding MachineTelephonesSteamships Trains Dirigibles Coal
5Carbine, Rifle,Pistol, SMGSandcasters,MortarsModel/1 RadioGround carsFixed wing aircraft Oil
6Auto Rifle Missiles,Rocket LaunchersModel/1 bisTelevisionSubmersiblesATV, AFVRotary wing aircraftFission
7Body PistolMeshPulse Laser Model/2Hovercraft Hovercraft Non-starships Solar
8Laser Carbine Auto-CannonModel/2 bisAir/Raft Fusion
9Laser Rifle Ablat Beam Laser Model/3Starships
10Reflec Model/4Drives H or less
11Model/5Drives K or less
12Model/6Grav belts Drives N or less
13Battle Dress Model/7Drives O or less
14Drives U or less
15All drives
16————Matter Transport————
17Artificial IntelligenceAnti-Matter
18

There was published errata for TL 9 being A-D only, which was later folded into the rules in '81.
 
Cryton, are you aware of this blog?

The blogger has been writing some excellent columns about what he calls "original" Traveller, that is the First Three Little Black Books. The column I linked to has a fascinating examination of likely shipping traffic in a proto-Traveller setting.

Come to think of it, are you writing that blog?

Oh, and regarding the "small" in "small ship setting/universe", it's been repeatedly explained that term "small" is only be used relative to HG2's gargantuan vessels. Hell, I myself posted an explanation of that in the few weeks I've been back.

If, given all those explanations, someone repeatedly continues to misunderstand that the term "small" is being used relative to HG2's "large", the odds are that they'll never be able to understand the concept.

We should all just stop explaining the obvious to the obtuse.
 
Cryton, are you aware of this blog?

The blogger has been writing some excellent columns about what he calls "original" Traveller, that is the First Three Little Black Books. The column I linked to has a fascinating examination of likely shipping traffic in a proto-Traveller setting.

Come to think of it, are you writing that blog?

Oh, and regarding the "small" in "small ship setting/universe", it's been repeatedly explained that term "small" is only be used relative to HG2's gargantuan vessels. Hell, I myself posted an explanation of that in the few weeks I've been back.

If, given all those explanations, someone repeatedly continues to misunderstand that the term "small" is being used relative to HG2's "large", the odds are that they'll never be able to understand the concept.

We should all just stop explaining the obvious to the obtuse.

Nope, didn't know about that blog, and no, I am not the one writing it. Thank you for pointing it out.

As for stopping explanations, naaa. It's part of the job, and sometimes it's new players doing the asking. :)
 
Nope, didn't know about that blog, and no, I am not the one writing it. Thank you for pointing it out.


Read the column I linked and think it over. I'd really like to read your take on that subject!

As for stopping explanations, naaa. It's part of the job, and sometimes it's new players doing the asking. :)

I'm all for explanations. It's repeated explanation about the same things to the same recipient that get tiresome. ;)
 
Cryton, are you aware of this blog?

The blogger has been writing some excellent columns about what he calls "original" Traveller, that is the First Three Little Black Books. The column I linked to has a fascinating examination of likely shipping traffic in a proto-Traveller setting.

Come to think of it, are you writing that blog?

creativehum is the author of that blog... Most of the blog posts have been worked out in discussion here...

Frank
 
Hi Bill,

Thanks for the kind words!

Note that I'm working on a long post about the relaxed, improvisatory nature of early Traveller play. I've already pulled a quote from you (yes, you!) that you made on the Steve Jackson boards a few years back. (I also referenc Marc Miller's article about the Traveller session he ran -- which you summed up amazingly well.)

I did this before I made the connection between your handle on that board and realizing you were posting here!

I started here with some posts. As I dug deeper into the original material of the books. And then I decided to go all in and do the blog posts.

Again, thanks!
 
Read the column I linked and think it over. I'd really like to read your take on that subject! )

Ok. It's a great read. I agree a with almost all of what Creativehum has written.

I entirely agree with what he has written for trade and travel. Like I mentioned above, I use the "Small-ship, Low-Trade Traffic" model. Pretty much in it's entirety as presented in the "Revenue" section of Book 2. It lends itself to both adventure (keeping the PC's willing to do side-jobs for patrons to make sure they can afford to keep travelling) and it works really well to how things are laid out on the starmaps. You have back-waters where little is going, and even when you aren't going to a back-water, there might not be enough cargo (or enough small lots) and passengers to fill you hold and cabins. Travel IS dangerous, piracy, hijackings, and mis-jumps are always a possibility. So are deaths from cold-sleep. Travellers are a big deal, fairly rare, and the arrival of a ship could very well be a HUGE local event on a back-water world. Heck, you might have to wait a while on a backwater world for a part you ordered to arrive so you can fix your ship and leave (Mission on Mithril sprigs to mind). It's just a better model for my game than GT's Free Trader with its "Regina has 100 to 500 dTons of cargo headed out to, and coming back from that E class world on a weekly basis because its within trade-range" model. Personally, I use the '81 rules over the '77 rules for this.
 
Last edited:
(I also referenc Marc Miller's article about the Traveller session he ran -- which you summed up amazingly well.)


Not that post! You better be prepared for a lot of whining in your comments section!

Did you read the collective panty bunching that took place after I wrote it? Almost nothing but repeated Fallacies of Composition in the various responses despite my taking care to use phrases like "almost", "tended to", and the like. They all bleated that their experiences weren't like that despite my never even suggesting that. Hell, one of the mods even gave me an infraction because I dared type the phrase "autism spectrum", although I can understand why GURPS players and GMs are sensitive on that subject. ;)

Of course, the actual point of the post was lost entirely on them. To whit:

That so-called "Old School Role-Playing" was just one many activities social groups of the era enjoyed and that the RPG hobby's memories of role-playing the 1970s are actually the atypical memories of those who I called "Die Hards"; gamers who picked up RPGs in the 70s or 80s and have continued to play RPGs ever since.

It was my contention that the vast majority of role-players in the 70s never played in another RPG session after the early 80s and the style of play those "social" RPGers enjoyed was markedly different from the style of play the "Die Hards" remember.

I pointed out that Hef, James Caan, Miss April, and the rest of the Bunnies were playing D&D in the Mansion in the late 70s and that they weren't exactly grousing about unrealistic fall damage. Most RPG players were playing for fun, generally on the spur of the moment, and most likely with a published adventure or very bare bones set-up - something Mr. Miller's article about running one encounter out the entire A:4 campaign during a holiday weekend night neatly illustrated.

Yes, there were very serious RPG players back then. People who made up their own detailed settings and ran campaigns in the same. I mentioned that, including the fact that running into a few of them - whom I referred to as Rainman et Fils and which really chapped the mods - and how their style of play at that time turned my gaming group off D&D.

The "Die Hards" became the market for the simple reason that they're the ones who continued to buy RPG materials while everyone else skipped off to the new fad. More importantly, the "Die Hards" memories of "old school" play became the "truth" because they're the ones who still talk about playing RPGs.

Anyway, here are the four paragraph headers that got them squealing:

More playing than prepping
More descriptions than spreadsheets
More role-ing than rolling
More talking than shooting


Sounds like fun, doesn't it? ;)
 
Ok. It's a great read. I agree a with almost all of what Creativehum has written.


It is thought provoking, isn't it?

It's just a better model for my game than GT's Free Trader...

To be fair, the groundwork for GT's trade model was laid in '82 when TTB added the phrase "... interstellar travel will be as common as international travel is today." to LBB;1's Introduction.

Before that phrase, "canonical" travelling was just as you and Creativehum describe.
 
Back
Top