• 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.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

My CT+

R

RobertFisher

SOC-12
Wow. I go away for a few months, & it turns out there is actually news of progress on T5 & CT+ gets shelved.

& re-reading those CT+ threads almost sold me on the idea.


I think I'm coming around to the idea of a task-based combat system with penetration. The important thing to me is to have a dead simple base system. I don't mind having an "advanced" system like Striker or ACQ, but most of the time I want a simple system with lots of room for the ref to fudge the details.

My only concern left with CT+ as Hunter outlined it might then be ship/vehicle design. I don't want it to be significantly more complex than Book 2. Like with combat, having a more complex system available is good, but I want the option of a simple system that is compatible with the advanced system.

That, and I'd want to see some prose suggesting--nay encouraging--that refs should see the task system (specifically--as well as all the rules generally) as merely starting points & not immutable laws.

& I thought two CT fans could never agree on what CT+ should be. Ah, well...perhaps once it hit print that would still be true. Luckily, I'm happy with the CT I now have. Here's hoping that I continue to get to play it enough that I end up creating my own personal CT+.

& then there's T5. I must trust Marc & everyone else involved. Once I buy it, I must read it with an open mind. Still, something tells me I will still stubbornly stick by CT...
 
Wow. I go away for a few months, & it turns out there is actually news of progress on T5 & CT+ gets shelved.

& re-reading those CT+ threads almost sold me on the idea.


I think I'm coming around to the idea of a task-based combat system with penetration. The important thing to me is to have a dead simple base system. I don't mind having an "advanced" system like Striker or ACQ, but most of the time I want a simple system with lots of room for the ref to fudge the details.

My only concern left with CT+ as Hunter outlined it might then be ship/vehicle design. I don't want it to be significantly more complex than Book 2. Like with combat, having a more complex system available is good, but I want the option of a simple system that is compatible with the advanced system.

That, and I'd want to see some prose suggesting--nay encouraging--that refs should see the task system (specifically--as well as all the rules generally) as merely starting points & not immutable laws.

& I thought two CT fans could never agree on what CT+ should be. Ah, well...perhaps once it hit print that would still be true. Luckily, I'm happy with the CT I now have. Here's hoping that I continue to get to play it enough that I end up creating my own personal CT+.

& then there's T5. I must trust Marc & everyone else involved. Once I buy it, I must read it with an open mind. Still, something tells me I will still stubbornly stick by CT...
 
Originally posted by RobertFisher:
My only concern left with CT+ as Hunter outlined it might then be ship/vehicle design. I don't want it to be significantly more complex than Book 2.
Click to expand...
I can agree with that. I'm a Striker fan, but I would love a scaleable design system which is modular and a lot faster to use.
 
Originally posted by RobertFisher:
My only concern left with CT+ as Hunter outlined it might then be ship/vehicle design. I don't want it to be significantly more complex than Book 2.
Click to expand...
I can agree with that. I'm a Striker fan, but I would love a scaleable design system which is modular and a lot faster to use.
 
I have a notebook in my bag, in the back of which I have three, double-sided photocopies, from which I can design Book 2 or Book 5 ships, and Dirtside II vehicles. That's all I need.

Two sides of design tables, and say five or six sides of text (probably less) could cover ship design in CT+. A similar amount could cover vehicle design, although I must say that the DSII design sequences can produce very Traveller like vehicles. The problem comes with integrating them rules wise.

I'm of the opinion that we could probably produce CT+ in perhaps 64 pages (sans background).
 
I have a notebook in my bag, in the back of which I have three, double-sided photocopies, from which I can design Book 2 or Book 5 ships, and Dirtside II vehicles. That's all I need.

Two sides of design tables, and say five or six sides of text (probably less) could cover ship design in CT+. A similar amount could cover vehicle design, although I must say that the DSII design sequences can produce very Traveller like vehicles. The problem comes with integrating them rules wise.

I'm of the opinion that we could probably produce CT+ in perhaps 64 pages (sans background).
 
^ Now we are talking!

I would like to see some allowances for variations based on technology/racial preferences/etc. Maybe just a rough formula that deducts fuel or equipment tonnage based on engineering advances would suffice. That atleast allows for smaller, more advanced ships, to perform better than their older, larger cousins.

Any house rules for this out there?
 
^ Now we are talking!

I would like to see some allowances for variations based on technology/racial preferences/etc. Maybe just a rough formula that deducts fuel or equipment tonnage based on engineering advances would suffice. That atleast allows for smaller, more advanced ships, to perform better than their older, larger cousins.

Any house rules for this out there?
 
Surely the biggest gripe with Book 2 is the drive table, because it ain't no good for larger ships. But I don't think that's a problem: How far can one get by extending the Book 2 tables to ridiculous extremes?

Book 2 lists the 24 A through Z drives for us. Why not create lists for the next 72 drives:

AA-ZZ for ships 1000 to 10,000 tons,
AAA-ZZZ for ships 10,000 to 100,000 tons, and
AAAA-ZZZZ for ships to 1 million tons?

...or some nifty kind of code like that. The last time I took a stab at it I came up with:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> Extended Drive Potential Table

1 2 3 4 5 6
2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7%
100 A B C D E F
200 C E G H J K
300 E H J K L M
400 G J K M N P
500 H K M P Q S
600 J L N Q S U
700 K M P S U W
800 K N R T V X
900 L P S V W Y

1000-9000 : KA-KZ x10 volume and cost
10,000-90,000 : TA-TZ x100 volume and cost
100k-900k : HA-HZ x1000 volume and cost
1m-9m : MA-MZ x10,000 volume and cost


Drive Volume MCr
A 2 8
B 3 12
C 4 16
D 5 20
E 6 24
F 7 28
G 8 32
H 10 40
J 12 48
K 14 56
L 18 72
M 20 80
N 24 96
P 28 112
Q 30 120
R 32 128
S 36 156
T 40 160
U 42 168
V 48 192
W 54 216
X 56 236
Y 63 252</pre>[/QUOTE]
 
Surely the biggest gripe with Book 2 is the drive table, because it ain't no good for larger ships. But I don't think that's a problem: How far can one get by extending the Book 2 tables to ridiculous extremes?

Book 2 lists the 24 A through Z drives for us. Why not create lists for the next 72 drives:

AA-ZZ for ships 1000 to 10,000 tons,
AAA-ZZZ for ships 10,000 to 100,000 tons, and
AAAA-ZZZZ for ships to 1 million tons?

...or some nifty kind of code like that. The last time I took a stab at it I came up with:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> Extended Drive Potential Table

1 2 3 4 5 6
2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7%
100 A B C D E F
200 C E G H J K
300 E H J K L M
400 G J K M N P
500 H K M P Q S
600 J L N Q S U
700 K M P S U W
800 K N R T V X
900 L P S V W Y

1000-9000 : KA-KZ x10 volume and cost
10,000-90,000 : TA-TZ x100 volume and cost
100k-900k : HA-HZ x1000 volume and cost
1m-9m : MA-MZ x10,000 volume and cost


Drive Volume MCr
A 2 8
B 3 12
C 4 16
D 5 20
E 6 24
F 7 28
G 8 32
H 10 40
J 12 48
K 14 56
L 18 72
M 20 80
N 24 96
P 28 112
Q 30 120
R 32 128
S 36 156
T 40 160
U 42 168
V 48 192
W 54 216
X 56 236
Y 63 252</pre>[/QUOTE]
 
I read that post on Freelance and liked it, although bookkeeping got to be a little scary. Amounts to the same thing as bigger drives, sort of.

I think.

Maybe.
 
I read that post on Freelance and liked it, although bookkeeping got to be a little scary. Amounts to the same thing as bigger drives, sort of.

I think.

Maybe.
 
Just rate engines by tonnage ratio, using the 1000 ton hull as exemplar. Apply damage to engine tonnage, which readily gives degradation.
 
Just rate engines by tonnage ratio, using the 1000 ton hull as exemplar. Apply damage to engine tonnage, which readily gives degradation.
 
I finally decided to do it both ways.

Drives rated by tonnage "thrust", plus smaller ships (say, up to 1000 tons) have a line of standard drives, labelled A through Z, which corresponds to the LBB2 table.

Building a design system underneath Book 2 is actually pretty fun.
 
I finally decided to do it both ways.

Drives rated by tonnage "thrust", plus smaller ships (say, up to 1000 tons) have a line of standard drives, labelled A through Z, which corresponds to the LBB2 table.

Building a design system underneath Book 2 is actually pretty fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tobias
CT Only: Robot Designations for new House Rules
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
Tobias
Tobias
M
If you could "Fix" Classic Traveller how and what would you do?
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
2K
Murph
M
C
Small craft cabin on a budget
2
Replies
23
Views
1K
warwizard
W
Hairy Jim DeGriz
Traveller Index Project – Library
Replies
3
Views
864
PVernon
P
sekalo
Wounds oppose to hit points
2
Replies
21
Views
808
Tobias
Tobias
Back
Top