I didn't realize I had posted that.
there is little point to discussion
Depends on what you have to say.
Insightful discussion is always welcome.
Aramis pointed out that there was an error in his thesis and I found more evidence in canon.
Do I need to apologize for not spending HOURS and HOURS and HOURS scouring every page of CT source that included an exception to satisfy both you and aramis?
I already said there were exceptions. I even cited one.
But they are few and far between. The "exceptions to the pattern" are the overwhelming superminority of available cases.
The TREND LINE was plenty clear ... even if there are the occasional outliers from it.
Are those 6t and 8t fighters any good? In a LBB:2 universe any fighter that can launch missiles at you is a threat. In a HG universe they are utterly pointless as anything other than holding the line for one turn while the ship makes its escape, and they are not even much use for that.
Ah ... but CAN they launch missiles in an LBB2 universe?
Well, they can ... but it's going to cost extra.
Why?
LBB2.81 computer programming rules (LBB2.81, p38-41).
In LBB2 combat, in order to launch missiles you need the Target program (1 space, MCr1) and the Launch program (1 space, MCr2).
A model/1 computer has CPU
2/4 Storage spaces in it for programs ... and the basic software package can only pay for MCr1 worth of programs.
You still need to buy the Maneuver program (1 space, MCr0.1) to be able to use the maneuver drive.
In other words, a model/1 computer can barely keep up with the amount of programs it would need to run in combat, just in order to be able to attack (let alone defend itself).
As a Referee, I would argue that "buying in bulk" would mean that you can afford all of the necessary computer programs if you buy enough fighters. So MCr3.1 of programs can be purchased if you buy 4x Fighters (for example), which gives you a budget of MCr1+1+1+1=4 to buy the basic software package programming without needing to pay extra (you just copy the programs you buy to each fighter).
Note that the same principles apply to J1 Free Traders and J2 Scout/Couriers as well. It's part of the reason why so many LBB2.81 starship designs are unarmed at construction (they have hardpoints installed and fire control tonnage reserved, but no turrets or weaponry installed). That's because under LBB2.81 computer program rules, a mint condition "fresh off the line" starship with a model/1 (or 1bis) computer couldn't afford any combat related computer programs, since they only had MCr1 to spend on the Standard Software Package (LBB2.81, p41) that came with the construction cost of the computer ... and you needed that starting MCr1 to pay for things like the Maneuver, Jump-1 and Navigation programs, at which point you only had MCr0.4 remaining to buy software with, which wasn't enough for ANY combat programming (offensive or defensive).
If you're talking LBB2 combat with programming rules, you don't really have a "out of the box combatant" using the Standard Software Package until you're installing a model/4 computer (to give you a MCr4 budget to buy starting software with).
As for LBB5.80 combat ... in terms of ship-to-ship space navy warfare, the 6 and 8 ton fighters are "barely useful" as screening assets. At best, they're simply sacrificial speed bumps.
However, when used asymmetrically against targets in a permissive environment (unarmed merchants, infantry/armor formations that lack adequate defensive countermeasures, etc.) those missile armed fighters can deliver significant fire support to allied forces. So when they have "no counter" they can be useful ... but when they do have opposition capable of countering them, they're pretty darn useless in a combatant role (the term "cannon fodder" comes to mind).
Do I need to use house rules to do it? No.
Can anyone build anything using their house rules, yes.
LBB1.77, p20
Skills and the Referee: It is impossible for any table of information to cover all aspects of every potential situation, and the above listing is by no means complete in its coverage of the effects of skills. This is where the referee becomes an important part of the game process. The above listing of skills and game effects must necessarily be taken as a guide, and followed, altered, or ignored as the actual situation dictates.
This passage in RAW is often times held up (when convenient
) as the
gold standard for how "binding" RAW should be viewed by the Traveller community.
The same people who laud the foresight of the above passage then forget about it (when convenient
) when they want RAW to be a rigid straightjacket binding everything in perpetuity (mistakes, errata and all) in some sort of pursuit of
fundamentalism as an exercise in purity and virtue signaling.
So forgive me if I take what was written (in RAW) from LBB1.77, p20 and edit it slightly to apply to LBB2.81 starship design.
I'll even use bold text to highlight the changes I'm making to redirect the context while remaining true to the spirit so as to apply the notion more broadly.
It is impossible for any table of information to cover all aspects of every potential situation, and the above listing is by no means complete in its coverage of drive performances at different tonnages. This is where the referee becomes an important part of the game process. The above listing of drive performance yields must necessarily be taken as a guide, and followed, altered, or ignored as the actual situation dictates.
Point being there are two choices.
Either LBB1-3 was a stepping stone to something greater than what could be fit within the page count available at the time of publication ... or it's all there ever was or could ever be.
Choose wisely.
But canon should be discussed with canon.
There are over 460 posts in this thread by now.
I leave it as an exercise for the disinterested reader to go find how many times that
I (or anyone else) in this thread has insisted that what I'm doing in researching this topic MUST be viewed as Traveller "canon" or otherwise
demanded that my work product be accepted into the OTU, verbatim (or else).
