[MT Missing] CT LBBs 4-7

[DonM]

I'm leaving Robots off because it's a special case, and because I'm waiting for a couple of gentlemen to settle a power issue related to how Robots interacts with the rest of the system.

As part of stepping through the CT corpus to make sure we have MT versions of the CT material, we now turn to Mercenary, High Guard, Scouts and Merchant Prince.

Here's the list as we come up with items:

Mercenary
Tac Missiles (defer to Striker?)

High Guard
Streamlining: Unstreamlined, Partial Streamlined, Streamlined, Airframe

Scouts
none identified yet

Merchant Prince
none identified yet

Robots
skipping for now...

 

[DonM]

Ok, now that I know my limits for HG to MT, let's open this up.

Come on folks, you were pretty eager earlier...

 

[Swiftbrook]

Ok, now that I know my limits for HG to MT, let's open this up.

Come on folks, you were pretty eager earlier...

MT removed/changed partial streamlining. The Close Escort in CT had a partial streamline hull. Azanti High Lightning had a partial streamline hull, it could scoop fuel in an emergency. In MT, there is no direct equivalent to CT partial streamlining, for example, the rules as writen allow the Azanti to land on a planet. That's a big stretch for me.

Let's look at adding a true partial streamlining option to MT. My idea for adding partial streamlining would fit in like this:

Unstreamlined - the ship can never enters a atmosphere or lands on a planet
Partial Streamlined - the ship can land on planet with atmosphere 0 or 1, and it can skim gas giants
Streamlined - the ship can land on a planet and skim gas giants
Airframe - the ship can land on a planet and skim gas giants but it can also land unpowered and perform combat maneuvers in an atmosphere

-Swiftbrook

 

[Swiftbrook]

Antimatter powered Jump Drives.

At TL 17, Antimatter power supplies are introduced, but jump drives are still powered by liquid hydrogen. Why? Yes, the amount of hydrogen goes down quickly after TL 16, but the fuel source stays the same. Shouldn't there be a antimatter option for jump drives? Is there a cannon reason why it's hydrogen?

What about changing the TL 13 & 14 Fusion power plant KL/Hr consumption to 0.0045? It fits in the table more mathematically.

Add all the variants from Traveller Digest and MegaTraveller Journal as standard. Ex. docking tubes, drop capsul launch tubes, etc.



-Swiftbrook

 

[DonM]

The DGP items are very clearly not missing from LBBs 4-7. Stay on topic, please?

On partial streamlining: There is a source for this, but it's non-canonical. But it's the most logical application of what you're proposing. Personally, I think they screwed up. They were trying to get Striker's airframe to work inside High Guard's configuration structure, but missed on the application. Anyway, consider this...

Streamlining: The form of streamlining a ship has is determined by its configuration. The forms of streamlining are defined as follows:
Unstreamlined (USL): Unstreamlined ships cannot normally operate in atmospheres 2+ (or in gas giants), cannot take off in such atmospheres and automatically suffer a roll on the Critical Hit table when landing in such an environment, unless completely prevented from the attempt due to the world’s gravity (see below). Unstreamlined ships cannot skim gas giants for fuel or refuel from oceans. Unstreamlined ships can land and take off from vacuum worlds (atmospheres 0-1), subject to gravity limitations.
Partially Streamlined (PSL): Partially streamlined ships are limited to a top speed of 300kph (regardless of maneuver factor) when operating in atmospheres 2+ and skimming gas giants, but may take off or land unless further restricted by the world’s gravity (see below). They cannot refuel from oceans. Partially streamlined hulls may be designed as streamlined for an additional cost of Cr50,000 per ton.
Streamlined (SL): Streamlined ships are limited to a top speed of 1,000kph (regardless of maneuver factor) when operating in atmospheres of 2+ or skimming gas giants, but may refuel from oceans, and take off or land unless limited by the world’s gravity (see below). They are unhampered in vacuum atmospheres (0-1), subject to gravity limits. Streamlined ships may be designed as airframes at an additional cost of Cr50,000 per ton.
Airframe (AF): Ships designed as airframes are designed for maximum performance within an atmosphere, as shown in the table [table removed]:
Speed: A craft’s streamlining affects its speed when operating in a standard atmosphere (6-7). Other atmospheres affect the craft’s speed as follows:
Vacuum Atmospheres (0-1): Uses Maneuver drive movement except for NOE.
Very Thin Atmospheres (2-3): Use standard atmosphere speed x2.
Thin Atmospheres (4-5, F): Use standard atmosphere speed x1.5.
Dense Atmosphere (8-9): Use standard atmosphere speed x0.75.
Very Dense Atmosphere (D): Use standard atmosphere speed x0.25.
The limit for nap-of-the-earth (NOE) speeds is based on the TL of the craft’s bridge (where the avionics controls are). The NOE top speed for craft with no bridge is 40 kph. For craft with bridges up to tech level 16, the NOE top speed is 40 kph plus 10 kph per TL (for example, 160 kph at TL 12). The NOE top speed craft with bridges of tech level 17 and higher is 200 kph plus 50 kph per tech level above 16 (for example, 300 kph at TL 18). If top speed is lower than NOE (such as in a Very Dense atmosphere), use the top speed instead.
Landing and Gravity: Regardless of streamlining, ships with a Maneuver factor of 0 cannot land or take off of any world. Ships with Maneuver factor-1 may be able to land or take off from worlds of size 7 or less, depending on hull configuration. Ships with Maneuver factor-2 may be able to land or take off from any world, depending on hull configuration.

Antimatter Jump Drives... No... Marc has previously stated there's a reason for hydrogen in those jump drives. I'll ask again, but I think that's a non-starter. And that's not exactly something in High Guard that's missing.

Changing the fusion power plant tables to fit -- again, that's off topic. Put that in the errata stack, not the missing stack.

 

[shaunhilburn]

In MT, there is no direct equivalent to CT partial streamlining, for example, the rules as writen allow the Azanti to land on a planet. That's a big stretch for me.
-Swiftbrook

Primitive spacecraft of the astronautics age (TL 7 or 8) must use a high-speed, ballistic atmospheric entry. At those tech levels, streamlining is required.

At TL 9, M-drives are available, with enormous deltavees and specific impulse. They can sustain 1+ gee acceleration for weeks, and have more than enough power (even at 1G) to decelerate and enter the atmosphere at very slow speeds. One could even match speeds with the rotating surface of the planet below (hovering in space), and make a perfect slow vertical descent.

The Azhanti could make a slow and stately descent, like a zeppelin, and showboat around various metropolitan neighborhoods before landing at the navy base.

At TL 9+, partial streamlining should only be required for high-speed fuel skims.

 

[far-trader]

Primitive spacecraft of the astronautics age (TL 7 or 8) must use a high-speed, ballistic atmospheric entry. At those tech levels, streamlining is required.

I would hardly call any of the historical manned mission reentry vehicles pre-Shuttle "streamlined". Nor is the reason for the Shuttle being an airframe hull to assist in the reentry phase. They all make hot reentry at high speed because it's the only way we have. The Shuttle uses it's airframe for the landing phase.

At TL 9, M-drives are available, with enormous deltavees and specific impulse. They can sustain 1+ gee acceleration for weeks, and have more than enough power (even at 1G) to decelerate and enter the atmosphere at very slow speeds. One could even match speeds with the rotating surface of the planet below (hovering in space), and make a perfect slow vertical descent.

Except that's not how it's treated in Traveller (possibly excepting GURPS iirc). A 1G drive has enough power to manage landing and liftoff on a world of less than 1G surface gravity. But you need a streamlined (or better) hull to enter atmo. Period. This implies a lot of other factors. One of them being that M-drives don't work the way you imagine. In the OTU. In YTU it's your call of course.

Just two more factors:

Shielding external elements (antennae, etc) to avoid damage (non-streamlined just have them sticking out, while streamlined hulls have them integrated).

Providing for actual landing under gravity (non-streamlined wouldn't need to be as robustly framed or have landing gear, streamlined ships would).

The Azhanti could make a slow and stately descent, like a zeppelin, and showboat around various metropolitan neighborhoods before landing at the navy base.

No, not in the OTU anyway. If an AHL class ship attempted to enter a standard atmo it would burn up, break up, and rain down in fiery debris upon those various metropolitan neighborhoods and the navy base

 

[aramis]

Missing

Merc:
tac missiles

HG:
PSL
explanation of difference between AGD and T-Plate MDrives
Subsector Fleets (appears intentional, IMO)

Scouts:
Scout Service Organizational Data.

 

[Swiftbrook]

The DGP items are very clearly not missing from LBBs 4-7. Stay on topic, please?

Sorry. I'll try to stay on topic. I just got a little over excited.

 

[Swiftbrook]

Partially Streamlined (PSL): Partially streamlined ships are limited to a top speed of 300kph (regardless of maneuver factor) when operating in atmospheres 2+ and skimming gas giants, but may take off or land unless further restricted by the world’s gravity (see below). They cannot refuel from oceans. Partially streamlined hulls may be designed as streamlined for an additional cost of Cr50,000 per ton.

(snip)

Landing and Gravity: Regardless of streamlining, ships with a Maneuver factor of 0 cannot land or take off of any world. Ships with Maneuver factor-1 may be able to land or take off from worlds of size 7 or less, depending on hull configuration. Ships with Maneuver factor-2 may be able to land or take off from any world, depending on hull configuration.

We're on the right track here. There is a significant problem with landing based on world size. The Launch, Far Trader, Free Trader, Safari Ship and Subsidized Merchant all can not land on worlds of size 8 or larger. These worlds include Mora (A), Garde-Vilis (9), and Earth (8), just to name a few.

Maybe add in partial streamlined ships can not operate in an atmosphere of 6+ (standard or thicker).

World Builder's Handbook (DGP) has formulas for calculating a planets gravety. If you want to calculate which ships can actually break orbit from a planet based on its gravety, WBH could be used ... but I don't want to go there.

-Swiftbrook

 

[DonM]

Missing

Merc:
tac missiles

HG:
PSL
explanation of difference between AGD and T-Plate MDrives
Subsector Fleets (appears intentional, IMO)

Scouts:
Scout Service Organizational Data.

Hmm... Tac Missiles are probably best left for Striker (that's a topic all for itself).

PSL we've already agreed about.

AGD/T-plate Maneuver drives -- sorry, but my HG doesn't have two separate maneuver drives. Can you point me at what I'm missing?

Subsector Fleets... I thought that breakdown for MT appears in Referee's Companion or Rebellion Sourcebook. But it isn't mechanics, and the drop might be intentional.

Scout Service Organization, no mechanics, and isn't a lot of that in WBH?

 

[aramis]

AGD/T-plate Maneuver drives -- sorry, but my HG doesn't have two separate maneuver drives. Can you point me at what I'm missing?

while HG doesn't mention the types of drives at all, MT introduces two drives with no explanation of the differences. See the drive units table, RM65

Subsector Fleets... I thought that breakdown for MT appears in Referee's Companion or Rebellion Sourcebook. But it isn't mechanics, and the drop might be intentional.

There are no Subsector fleets in MT. There are reserve fleets, but that's different.
moreover, CGen likewise changes from SS to Resv. an explantion for why the change is in order.

 

[E.D.Quibell]

The breakdown appears in FSSI.

The CT Subsector Fleet vs MT Imperial Navy Resurve Fleet is a cannon conflict that's been doing the rounds for a while, and could definatly use an explination.

Regards,

Ewan

 

[DonM]

The problem is that the CT subsector fleet undermines one of the major drives of the collapse in the Rebellion. Reserve Fleets can be ordered out of a subsector by superiors. Subsector fleets are (theoretically) owned by the worlds in the subsector, and not actually under direct Imperial authority -- meaning that the Imperium would not have been nearly as vulnerable to attack from outside during the Rebellion.

The Vargr invasion barely makes sense, and the Aslan invasion makes no sense at all, as is in the Rebellion setting. To bring back the CT subsector fleet renders both silly concepts, and also means that any faction resorting to attacks on neutral worlds would suddenly face being chewed up by subsector fleets, which they could defeat, but would drastically weaken themselves against real opponents.

Which would mean the Rebellion would have then operated much like the Civil War did -- fleets on fleets, leaving large civilian centers alone except for presenting demands for repairs, fuel, other supplies and manpower.

Sigh.

I'm going to put Subsector Fleets on the "setting" stack, not the "rules" stack.

Like I'm going to get permission to rewrite the Rebellion anytime soon.
And let's not even start that discussion... yet.

 

[DonM]

From this discussion, there appears to be two items which should be considered...

Partial Streamlining: http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showpost.php?p=329309&postcount=5

And explaining the TWO types of maneuver drive. There are two types shown on page 65, but only one is explained on page 58, and the differences or limitations of the types is NOT explained.

Were my thoughts on partial streamlining (the link above) on target, and does anyone have any thoughts on the definitions for the two types of maneuver drives (anti-grav vs. thrusters)?

 

[rancke]

The problem is that the CT subsector fleet undermines one of the major drives of the collapse in the Rebellion. Reserve Fleets can be ordered out of a subsector by superiors. Subsector fleets are (theoretically) owned by the worlds in the subsector, and not actually under direct Imperial authority -- meaning that the Imperium would not have been nearly as vulnerable to attack from outside during the Rebellion.

It's not subsector fleets, it's subsector navies. One per subsector[*]. Raised and funded by the individual duchies. But still under Imperial control, since the duke is an Imperial noble, a direct representative of the Emperor himself. The fleets that are owned by the worlds are planetary navies. How much they are under Imperial control is a matter of conjecture (as to the provisions of membership treaties, that is).

MT substituted reserve fleets for subsector navies. I don't see much practical difference. The reserve fleets (in MT) are presumably intended to fulfill the same role that subsector navies were supposed to fulfill in CT, so they're presumably of comparable size and composition. The only real difference is that in one case the Fleet Admiral decides what to do with it and in the other case the duke decides. And if the Fleet Admiral takes instructions from the local duke, the difference becomes even less.

[*] I'd very much like to promote the view that 'subsector' in this particular case is used as a synonym for 'duchy'. Most subsectors are duchies and vice versa, so in many cases it makes no difference. But when you have duchies that encompass bits of neighboring subsectors, it makes a bit of a difference.​

Hans

 

[aramis]

MT shows dual chains for all fleets (RebSB, p28), but it's all sector level...

Sector Duke and Admiralty both have authority over Named Sector Fleets
Named Sector fleets consist of numbered fleets and numbered reserve fleets
Numbered fleets consist of regular squadrons
Numbered Reserve fleets consist of Colonial Squadrons

Reb SB 27, however, notes that all imperial fleets answer to several authorities, including the subsector duke of the subsector where they are operating, the sector duke, the archduke. (It also says most admirals are nobles.)

 

[Swiftbrook]

From this discussion, there appears to be two items which should be considered...

Partial Streamlining: http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showpost.php?p=329309&postcount=5

Were my thoughts on partial streamlining (the link above) on target?

(snipped)

Sorry. I don't know how to like posts so just quoting here:

We're on the right track here. There is a significant problem with landing based on world size. The Launch, Far Trader, Free Trader, Safari Ship and Subsidized Merchant all can not land on worlds of size 8 or larger. These worlds include Mora (A), Garde-Vilis (9), and Earth (8), just to name a few.

Maybe add in partial streamlined ships can not operate in an atmosphere of 6+ (standard or thicker).

World Builder's Handbook (DGP) has formulas for calculating a planets gravety. If you want to calculate which ships can actually break orbit from a planet based on its gravety, WBH could be used ... but I don't want to go there.

My main points ...
1) I'd like to add partial streamlining. It just seems to fit.

2) Keep it simple: Partial Streamlined - the ship can land on planet with atmosphere 0 or 1, and it can skim gas giants.

3) Cost:
Configuration ... Partial Streamlining Price Mod
0 Open Frame ... NA
1 Needle/Wedge ... 0.8
2 Cone ... 0.8
3 Cylinder ... 1.1
4 Box ... 1.2
5 Sphere ... .8 (maybe should be NA)
6 Dome/Disk ... 1.6 (maybe should be NA)
7 Irregular ... NA
8 Planetoid ... NA
9 Buffered ... NA

Cost is based on about 80% of streamlining. I didn't use a straight math formula as I picked a spot the felt right between Unstreamlined and Streamlined.


-Swiftbrook

 

[DonM]

It's not subsector fleets, it's subsector navies. One per subsector
[*]. Raised and funded by the individual duchies. But still under Imperial control, since the duke is an Imperial noble, a direct representative of the Emperor himself. The fleets that are owned by the worlds are planetary navies. How much they are under Imperial control is a matter of conjecture (as to the provisions of membership treaties, that is).

MT substituted reserve fleets for subsector navies. I don't see much practical difference. The reserve fleets (in MT) are presumably intended to fulfill the same role that subsector navies were supposed to fulfill in CT, so they're presumably of comparable size and composition. The only real difference is that in one case the Fleet Admiral decides what to do with it and in the other case the duke decides. And if the Fleet Admiral takes instructions from the local duke, the difference becomes even less.

[*] I'd very much like to promote the view that 'subsector' in this particular case is used as a synonym for 'duchy'. Most subsectors are duchies and vice versa, so in many cases it makes no difference. But when you have duchies that encompass bits of neighboring subsectors, it makes a bit of a difference.
​

Hans

I'm not sure you can carry the analogy too far. The Marches, for example, appear to only have six duchies but eleven subsectors, in Imperial space. Which might be why MT switched to subsectors?

 

[aramis]

Further, the MT system shows separate numbered fleets in EVERY subsector, and further, many have 2 numbered fleets, a few have 3. And each has a matching Numbered Reserve Fleet.