Lets see...
- Jump Shadowing
- Jump Masking
- During or only at entry/exit time
- Misjump temporal fixation
- Survivability of jump from within 10 diameters and 100 diameters
- Effects of Jump duration on economics
- Coil vs Grid vs other
- Zucchai Crystals: Y/N/M/WTF???
- Jump Duration:
- 168 hours
- 168:00±16:48 flat distribution
- 168:00±16:48 bell distribution (or quantized approximation thereof)
- Predictability of Jump duration:
- None at all
- shortly before exit only
- After entry
- Just before entry
- for a specific jump course plot
- What happens when a spare jump drive is activated aboard a ship in already in jump
If we count T5 Draft, add:
popping ships out of jump
Bead on a wire vs Quantum Wave Collapse
Misjump temporal fix-what with the zucchai quantum bead who???
Lor' help me, to thing I've been jumping all these years and never knew any of that. "Don't worry," said the navigator. "Don't give it a second thought," said the engineer. I ought to space the both of them, except they're both kinfolk.
So, is there any spot where one can read up on these many issues?
Lor' help me, to thing I've been jumping all these years and never knew any of that. "Don't worry," said the navigator. "Don't give it a second thought," said the engineer. I ought to space the both of them, except they're both kinfolk.
So, is there any spot where one can read up on these many issues?
The temporal issue: On a misjump, do you roll once for duration of the misjump, and keep the time taken the same aboard ship and in n-space, vs roll twice, once for perceived time aboard, and once for N-space time... or some other handling. (It's because of the misjump rules in MT, TNE and T4... MOST people stick with one duration roll)
Zucchai Crystals are a supposed supercapacitor mentioned in a couple of places; the CT references merely state they're part of the jump drive, while MT sources put them as the capacitors charged up in order to jump. They have other funky abilities inherent to the MT description.
Effects of jumping from 10 diameters or less vary by rules edition; sparked a few edition wars.
GTFT uses a detailed demand driven trade model, but has minimal impact on demand per jump distance, minimizing the impact of the lag in ordering as well as opportunity cost as a motivation for closer supplies. Which may or may not be viable.
Don't worry about the T5 stuff...
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
You missed the one that causes me to really get upset - jump tapes vs jump cassettes...
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
So .. no CT sources mentioning 100D jump limits for stars!
...not that I looked to check though.
Here's a thought:
In this (real) universe, 90% of stars are type-V main sequence stars. Another 9% are white dwarfs. The other types are rare, accounting collectively for 1% of the stellar population. However, in the Traveller universe, 54 of 439 stars (a bit over 12%) are subgiants or larger, with 41 of those being giants.
The giants seem to be our real problem. The game parameters were created long before Spinward Marches Campaign, and it's pretty clear the SWC stars were rolled without thought to issues like jump masking. The main sequence stars aren't a big problem - habitable worlds will generally be outside or just a short way inside their dead zones. It's the giants that are giving us weeks-to-months-long travels from the jump point.
Rather than reinventing the jump rules, why don't we simply change the problem giants? There "should" only be 4 or 5 in the sector anyway. If we decide the SWC size entry is a typo and declare the problem stars to be type-V main sequencers rather than the problematic giants - at least for those worlds where we expect space traffic - then the problem resolves itself AND we bring the giant rate down more closely to what we would expect. We can keep the giant size for a few, say the pop-0 worlds or the worlds with the type-E or X starports - in fact, that might well explain why they have such a poor starport.
No, it's not canon - but it's a lot closer to canon intent than changing the jump rules or trying to invent some fanciful explanation for why the rules don't apply to stars.
In this (real) universe, 90% of stars are type-V main sequence stars. Another 9% are white dwarfs. The other types are rare, accounting collectively for 1% of the stellar population. However, in the Traveller universe, 54 of 439 stars (a bit over 12%) are subgiants or larger, with 41 of those being giants.
The giants seem to be our real problem. The game parameters were created long before Spinward Marches Campaign, and it's pretty clear the SWC stars were rolled without thought to issues like jump masking. The main sequence stars aren't a big problem - habitable worlds will generally be outside or just a short way inside their dead zones. It's the giants that are giving us weeks-to-months-long travels from the jump point.
Rather than reinventing the jump rules, why don't we simply change the problem giants? There "should" only be 4 or 5 in the sector anyway. If we decide the SWC size entry is a typo and declare the problem stars to be type-V main sequencers rather than the problematic giants - at least for those worlds where we expect space traffic - then the problem resolves itself AND we bring the giant rate down more closely to what we would expect. We can keep the giant size for a few, say the pop-0 worlds or the worlds with the type-E or X starports - in fact, that might well explain why they have such a poor starport.
No, it's not canon - but it's a lot closer to canon intent than changing the jump rules or trying to invent some fanciful explanation for why the rules don't apply to stars.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Here's a thought...
No, it's not canon - but it's a lot closer to canon intent than changing the jump rules or trying to invent some fanciful explanation for why the rules don't apply to stars.
It's a good, nay excellent thought. And imo it is better than (questionable) canon, it's the way the rules were supposed to be applied. Thought interpreting random rolls to make sense. I like Hans' (aka Rancke) take (iirc) on oddities of random gen. If you can't come up with a good idea behind the oddity in a short think, reroll or change it to less odd.
Similar threads
