Mongoose Traveller Pocket Edition

[aramis]

Yes and No.

Remember, even the Mechanized Infantry - which uses vehicles up to light
fighting vehicles - is an infantry formation, and most Panzergrenadiers
would have considered it an insult to be called anything but infantrymen.

In the end, infantry just means that the unit fights on foot, it says nothing
about the way the unit gets to the battlefield, whether by air (paratroopers
are infantry in most countries), by sea (many countries' marines are infantry)
or by bike or armoured fighting vehicle.

By the definitions in Merc, MechInf are Vehicles.

As I said, it fails the verisimilitude test right off.

 

[rust]

By the definitions in Merc, MechInf are Vehicles.

Oops, then someone really had a problem with definitions ... o:

 

[ThunderChilde]

Finally

Got my hot and sweaty hands on both the Digest core book and Mercenary after budgeting out everything else around Christmas.
I like the LBCB (Little Black Core Book), I like new artwork and lay out adjustments. I'm glad that the original idea of publishing it sans artwork was tossed in the circular file.

Haven't had the time yet to look at Mercenary, I will be offering an opinion soon in the proper thread for that.

Merry Christmas One and All

 

[aramis]

Oops, then someone really had a problem with definitions ... o:

• Infantry – Any basic combat unit made up of men on foot or single-driver vehicles (bikes, sleds and so one) equipped with rifles, energy weapons and other automatic firepower.
• Heavy Infantry – Any combat unit wearing Battle Dress and equipped with Heavy Weapons.
• Close Quarters – Any combat unit equipped solely with pistols, melee or natural weaponry.
• Vehicle – Any unit consisting of a small number of individual multi-crew vehicles (AFVs, hovertraks, etc.) or single larger vehicles (tanks, grav carrier, etc.)
• Artillery – Any unit of long-range weaponry used to attack the enemy from the farthest limits of the battlefield; also a unit of Artillery Battle Dress soldiers.
• Ortillery – Space based artillery, normally only available to one side in a battle. Less accurate than regular artillery, but deadly and immune to enemy fire from the ground.
• Close Air Support (CAS) – Aircraft of any sort that support land troops. These can include aeroplanes, helicopters and grav vehicles designed for this role.
• Command – The primary leadership centre of the entire force.

Judge for yourself. Grav Mech-inf may qualify as CAS, Track Mech-inf qualify as Vehicle.

 

[rust]

Judge for yourself.

Yep, I see - not exactly convincing.

Apart from what you already mentioned, the artillery description is also quite
questionable, because it ignores the light artillery that operated right on the
battlefield for most of its history, and I have no idea what the historical equi-
valent of the "close quarters" combat units with pistols and melee weapons
only could be.

It seems that these definitions were designed to fit the game system ("In our
rules X means ..."), but not to mirror any realistic armed forces.
While I can understand that approach, because it reduces the complexity the
game system has to deal with, I can also very well understand that "military
gamers" dislike it, because it is so much more schematic than realistic.

 

[aramis]

It doesn't help that Steele said something to the effect that it didn't matter, since he didn't expect military guys to play using merc...

The writing in Merc is, overall, gamist-abstractist, and going to rub any serious wargamer, current or former combat arms soldier, or military history fan or author batship.

It's like Mr. Steele decided his target audience was 14yo's...

 

[rust]

I see your point.

Before I started roleplaying, I was into (rules light) CoSims (does anyone re-
member Bloodtree Rebellion ?), and I still play tabletops like Age of Reason
now and then.
While my Traveller settings do not include any military scenarios, I can well
imagine that at least some parts of Mercenary might have been a disappoint-
ment for me if I were interested in this side of Traveller.

 

[Jamus]

The writing in Merc is, overall, gamist-abstractist, and going to rub any serious wargamer, current or former combat arms soldier, or military history fan or author batship.

I meet the above criteria and Merc doesnt bother me at all. Maybe a unit of IFVs are vehicles and counted separately from the infantry they transport? for what it is worth I play traveller because I like games not as a means to simulate real life type events.

 

[Allensh]

This argument is never going to end...and has little to do with the Pocket Edition that this thread is supposed to be about.

Allen

 

[aramis]

This argument is never going to end...and has little to do with the Pocket Edition that this thread is supposed to be about.

Allen

Thread drift is natural. When a thread drifts without divulging into two separate discussions, there is no reason to pull it to a separate thread.

 

[mike wightman]

My three rules for writing sci-fi military supplements:

1. be familiar with real world military history

2. be familiar with current military tech, terminology and extrapolated real world stuff in r&d

3. be familiar with the sci-fi military classics - Hammer's Slammers, Starship Troopers, Forever War, Dorsai etc.

Anyway, back to the pocket edition, I still haven't found it in a game shop yet =(

Ah well - new year's present to me.

 

[Original_Carl]

Pocket Editions of the Mercenary and High Guard?

I just bought my Pocket Edition of MGT and I love it. I would like to get the other rule books, but I want them all in this Pocket format. Anyone have any rumors or innuedo regarding that?

 

[vertigo25]

No. But I hope they do it. I put a request in over at the Mongoose boards under "What should we publish next?"

 

[Icosahedron]

Hmm. Returning from my Xmas break, I just waded through 14 pages of this thread to see if Pocket Edition was worth buying. I should have stopped at page 1.

To sum up, then, there are two errors; both of which are scheduled to be be corrected in the second print? Anyone know when that will be out?

Cheers.

 

[fiat_knox]

White Wolf made a joke about "Page XX" in one of their books, once. Errors are the bane of publishers everywhere, and Mongoose are not alone in suffering under their weight.

I note that the footnote at the base of the older ships table on p. 136 has disappeared. I'll probably find other missing bits, but I have too much Diplomat Skill to start listing them.

 

[Gruffty]

Anyway, back to the pocket edition, I still haven't found it in a game shop yet =(

Ah well - new year's present to me.

Mike: just order it direct from Mongoose....

 

[Peter Schutze]

>Maybe a unit of IFVs are vehicles and counted separately from the infantry they transport?

you mean the normal way things are (were ?) done under the British based system (and still are in Australia) ? What a surprise that a british based publisher used their military system rather than the US one !

To clarify, Australia (and I presume UK) has Mech Inf and Armoured Cav style units like the US army but also has specialist AFV operators that pick up leg Inf units and carry them to the battle area (and often support them once there)

I expect that (and possibly the armoured Cav) are the kind unit they are referring to.

 

[Icosahedron]

Legitimate (I hope) resurrection.

Yay! Just got back from hols to find the Mongoose pocket rules on my doorstep. Looks like Amazon waited until they had a returned copy or some such that they could send me for the £10 I'd paid back in (March?). Suits me.

So... First impressions:

Disclaimer: All opinions are personal customer feedback comments, not incendiary devices.


Font size: If I hold the book far enough away in the right light I can read it. Last year I'd have had no problems; next year who knows?
Still, no complaints, I knew what I was buying. Not Mongoose's fault I'm no longer twenty.

Artwork: Works for me <shrug>. Not an obtrusive amount and a reasonable standard for a non-artist like me. The pictures give a flavour of the Traveller concept without being too prescriptive. It made me want to play a character who looks a bit like...

The Zhodani looks comfortably PC (and I don't mean Player Character). The wrappings on his arm make his headgear wrappings look a bit less... you know what I mean.

I'm not too comfortable with the Psion pics though, they look a bit Marvel Superheroish for my liking. I prefer my psionics discreet. See the recent movie 'Push' for examples.


In more depth: Only just started reading, but here's a few starter comments.

P6 - Characteristic DMs are an interesting idea.
P34 - Life Events might be better as D66 with more options.
P37 - Real life teaches us that if a barbarian lost a limb and was unable to pay, a hospital would be unlikely to extend credit - not without rare charity sponsorship - so I think he'd be starting his career with a very basic prosthetic (at best) and a strong urge to make cash...
P38 - Group skill packages are an interesting idea - I'll have to think about that one.
P39 - Jamison looks a bit different, perhaps it's the camera angle. I'm not anally retentive enough to check all his characteristics...

Overall, looks like a decent rework of Traveller with some interesting ideas. I haven't playtested anything or generated any characters yet, but so far I reckon it's probably gonna be worth my tenner for mineable gems.

That's about as far as I've got. 40 pages in one day ain't bad. Probably more comments to follow.

 

[Jason]

Legitimate (I hope) resurrection.
P34 - Life Events might be better as D66 with more options.

That is exactly what the advanced character generations systems in Mercenary, High Guard, Scout, etc. do, while still having comparable skills to characters generated in the core book rules (a big difference from earlier editions of Traveller).

P38 - Group skill packages are an interesting idea - I'll have to think about that one.

Group skill packages are one of the character generating innovations I like the best in MgT. They make sure your players will have the skills they need to play your campaign, regardless of whether they were lucky enough to roll them during character generation.

The other new idea I like a lot is the connections rule.

 

[Icosahedron]

Are you saying there are D66 systems in the supplements, or just additional events that can be added to the core ones? Either way, it sounds like the issue has been addressed. I'll think about the possible purchase of supplements later.

I've always made sure my players have a suitable mix of skills one way or another - often via a homebrew points-buy system, but the Mongoose 'group package' seems very ad-hoc at first glance. Maybe I've misunderstood the concept but, for example, when and where in their careers did the characters gain these convenient skills?