[Proto-Traveller] Book 2 Plus (includes smallcraft)

[dean]

The corpus of official CT adventures that use LBB2 designed ships far exceed the number of original HG designs that make it into the original CT material. Most of the HG designs are in one supplement (S9) and many of them are broken.
Some of the licenced products, e.g. FASA, got the HG rules wrong and designed illegal ships.
The rest is fan produced.

I have probably designed a lot more HG based ships than LBB2, yet for PC scale adventures I keep coming back to LBB2.

And as for the last produced rules trumping what has gone before that would make the Traveller Starter Edition the defining ruleset - guess which design system it uses

Weeeellll, I personally don't consider a re-release of Book 2 into a starter set, or even TTB, the "last produced rules", but a guess a lawyer might

It seems to me it would be more work to just say "OK, LBB5 is no longer backwards compatible" and fix what's broken in it, and keep using it as the reference set, than to fix all of what's broken with LBB2.

I suppose it's moot as T5 will (hopefully? Soon?) become the most recent official release. But it's always nice to imagine.

 

[rancke]

Weeeellll, I personally don't consider a re-release of Book 2 into a starter set, or even TTB, the "last produced rules", but a guess a lawyer might

I might too, if I thought that the re-release indicated a decision by GDW to drop HG and go back to Book 2. But I see it as GDW persisting in the (IMO wrong-headed) opinion that it's OK to simultaneously have a simple ship design system and an advanced ship design system that are incompatible. Ever since HG grandfathered Book 2 designs, Book 2 has technically been part of HG -- HG's "quick design system" as it were. So the use of B2 in the starter set and in TTB does not, IMO, supercede HG.

It seems to me it would be more work to just say "OK, LBB5 is no longer backwards compatible" and fix what's broken in it, and keep using it as the reference set, than to fix all of what's broken with LBB2.

Do you mean that it would be less work?

I suppose it's moot as T5 will (hopefully? Soon?) become the most recent official release. But it's always nice to imagine.

I took Rob's question to pertain to what to do in the next version and the subsequent debate to be about which of two paradigms (big jump drives+small maneuver drives (BJSM) vs. small jump drives+big maneuver drives (SJBM)) that next version ought to be based on.

And if that was the question, then I don't think the publishing history of Traveller's various ship design systems should come into it at all, but rather which of the two paradigms has the most desirable features. Do we want the payload of high-performance jump ships to be reduced even further (BJSM))? Do we want military ships to spend a lot of their tonnage on maneuver drives (SJBM)? Explore the ramifications and choose the version that gives the results you most desire. You might even want to explore a third option: "Small jump, small maneuver").

As an aside, I'll tell you one thing I want from the maneuver drives, be they big or small: Linear scaling with the mass of the ship. I'm fine with assuming an average mass for all ships if basing everything on hull tonnage remains the preferred way to go, but I want it acknowledged that thrust is really related to mass rather than volume, and I want maneuver drives to scale linearly.


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

But that's the crux of the problem

HG2 was released long before the revision of CT, the production of The Traveller Book, or the final iteration of CT the Starter Edition.

GDW had 3 opportunities to integrate HG into the core rules, and they didn't. Hence CT and the OTU of that era exists in a strange paradox of LBB2 and HG.

Most of the adventures use the LBB2 ships, even The Traveller Adventure, and yet that same adventure makes it obvious that HG is the big ship paradigm (well, the weapons at least).

 

[rancke]

But that's the crux of the problem.

I disagree. As I said above, the crux of the problem is "What works best?".

HG2 was released long before the revision of CT, the production of The Traveller Book, or the final iteration of CT the Starter Edition.

GDW had 3 opportunities to integrate HG into the core rules, and they didn't.

Or they had three opportunities to update the simple rules to work with the core rules but didn''t see the need.

Hence CT and the OTU of that era exists in a strange paradox of LBB2 and HG.

A historical fact, to be sure.

Most of the adventures use the LBB2 ships, even The Traveller Adventure, and yet that same adventure makes it obvious that HG is the big ship paradigm (well, the weapons at least).

And few of the the official adventures we will see written in the future will use either Book 2 or HG. In fewer still will the difference matter.


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

I disagree. As I said above, the crux of the problem is "What works best?".

Odd, because i agree with you - what we want is what's best for the setting.

Or they had three opportunities to update the simple rules to work with the core rules but didn''t see the need.

Emm, the simple rules are the core rules.

Not sure what you mean here.

Update HG to match LBB2 or update LBB2 to match HG?

A historical fact, to be sure.

And one that stimulates much debate

And few of the the official adventures we will see written in the future will use either Book 2 or HG. In fewer still will the difference matter.


Hans

I wonder how many of us old timers are still using hybrid house ruled monstrosities rather than slick new rules systems.

I have to admit I haven't even bought MgT High Guard yet.

I will put on record though that one of my favourite ship design systems is the one in GT:ISW.

And I still think that if HG 1st ed had been proof read or play tested by someone familiar with the LBB2 rules as then written none of this would matter because the mistake would have been spotted

 

[aramis]

And yet the original disconnect between LBB2 drive sizes and HG drive percentages remain.

Unless you forcibly rip Bk2 away from every grog, it will remain.

 

[mike wightman]

Lol, come the heat death of the universe the meta-conscious psionic entities that remain will prise it from my cold dead hands.

 

[aramis]

But that's the crux of the problem

HG2 was released long before the revision of CT, the production of The Traveller Book, or the final iteration of CT the Starter Edition.

GDW had 3 opportunities to integrate HG into the core rules, and they didn't. Hence CT and the OTU of that era exists in a strange paradox of LBB2 and HG.

Most of the adventures use the LBB2 ships, even The Traveller Adventure, and yet that same adventure makes it obvious that HG is the big ship paradigm (well, the weapons at least).

HG 2 was 1981.
CT 2E was also 1981
TTB was 1982
Starter was 1983.

I'm not certain that HG had caught on wildly by then.
I am certain that people were still publishing Bk2 designs through the 80's.
Calling 3 years (early 81 to late 83) "long" is a stretch.

 

[mike wightman]

What's always struck me as odd is that HG1 was revised so quickly.

If they could redo the ship design and combat system between 79 and 81 for High Guard why not make sure it was compatible with LBB2?

 

[aramis]

What's always struck me as odd is that HG1 was revised so quickly.

If they could redo the ship design and combat system between 79 and 81 for High Guard why not make sure it was compatible with LBB2?

Consistency wasn't a high priority in game designs of the era. And, to a great extent, rules outside the corebox were seen far less prescriptively than they are now.

And, barring the high contact with other groups of college campuses, most people learned the games from their GM's, not from the books. If your Ref used Bk2 only, you didn't see HG design; if your Ref used HG exclusively, you didn't see Bk2 designs. The OTU retained both. Maximum compatibility.

I agree CT 2E would have been the time and place to make the switch, but it didn't happen. ACT (CT+Tasks+HG–Bk2) would have been great... but it didn't happen. Marc, Loren and Frank made a few bad calls. It happens.

 

[rancke]

I wonder how many of us old timers are still using hybrid house ruled monstrosities rather than slick new rules systems.

I'm not, alas, running any campaigns right now, and in my last couple of campaigns I used GT because I wanted to become familiar with it, but before that I used a slick house rules set that's better than any of the commercial ones.

What? Oh, yeah, sure, sure. Just in my opinion, of course.

<mutter>But it's still better than anything else.</mutter>


Hans

 

[robject]

A lot of ACT content got rolled into MgT. Not the task system, tho.

HG1 I think was revised due to Eurisko. To no avail.

I know Wil doesn't care for T5, but I like how ACS is turning out. It is regular in a way that book 2 is not. It is player-oriented in a way that HG is not. Combat with large numbers of guns is faster than both rule sets. It includes many features that MT has, but not HG or Book2. And it has only two design axes - volume and cost. The depth is in nonstandard elements. In other words, easy designs are easy, and hard designs are possible.

So building a canonical starship in T5 ACS is between Book 2 and High Guard in complexity, with a range of choices more like MegaTraveller. And it is very easy to tune designs to match the Book 2 textual descriptions in most details - fuel tankage is likely to be different, and yet the design is fundamentally the same. That means Book 2 ships can be used without modification in T5. MgT ships can as well.

Funnily enough, the tradeoffs between HG and Book 2 for small starships tends to be minor in the final analysis. What's more, ACS has the High Guard weapons represented for small ships. So that means HG smalll starships are usable as-is with T5 as well.

Some detail is missing from HG and Book 2 designs used with T5, but that's why I want to write a one page Upgrade Sheet for CT ships. Typically, any volume for extras takes up the slack from lower fuel use, a zero sum upgrade.

There is less disconnect between Book2 and High Guard than meets the eye. The problem is that both contain concepts which outstrip their own rules. But therein lies the solution: rules to represent those concepts also can serve to encompass both as parts of one set of continua.

My assumption is that sometimes you have a small maneuver drive, and sometimes you have a big one, but both should follow formulae and rationale. Similarly the jump drive, and even HG acknowledged this reality in a primitive way with power plants.

And, neither systems have a good enough grasp on the OTU to represent the basic starships faithfully without add-ons. For a would-be publisher, this is a problem. Thankfully it is easy to close most of the gaps. YMMV, but I think T5 does that.

 

[Dragoner]

I've used them side by side since 81-82: Bk2 civilian ships, HG warships. Bk 2 ships are worthless in combat anyways.

 

[mike wightman]

I'm not, alas, running any campaigns right now, and in my last couple of campaigns I used GT because I wanted to become familiar with it, but before that I used a slick house rules set that's better than any of the commercial ones.

What? Oh, yeah, sure, sure. Just in my opinion, of course.

<mutter>But it's still better than anything else.</mutter>


Hans

I know what you mean

And I bet you're right - for you and your group your house rule system will be better than anything because it is tailored to suit the referee and gaming group in a way a commercial system can't be.

It's probably the best thing about CT, the ease with which it can be house rules and modified to suit.

 

[aramis]

I know what you mean

And I bet you're right - for you and your group your house rule system will be better than anything because it is tailored to suit the referee and gaming group in a way a commercial system can't be.

It's probably the best thing about CT, the ease with which it can be house rules and modified to suit.

It's also its biggest flaw, because CT almost requires houseruling to be playable. Certainly, most refs house-ruled it heavily.

 

[robject]

Update

This is a significant update. It adds:

1. the price for pods, unstreamlined and streamlined
2. the "1/2 A" power plant, to aid small craft design
3. drive price simplification (a rules change)
4. fuel requirements aligned with LBB2 smallcraft (a rules change)
5. updated small craft design guidelines to use pods

#1 was a deficiency.

#2 and #4 helps bridge the gap between small craft and starships.

#4 also tends to agree more with High Guard, but that's merely a side effect. Note that rules changes are always detrimental to canon LBB2 designs; please remember to take that into account if you use it in your game.

#5 simplifies the rules.

 

[robject]

I've attached my "Book 2 Plus" guidelines above on this stickied post:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?p=502861#post502861

 

[Timerover51]

I downloaded and looked at it. Your prices for small craft, like the 95 Ton Shuttle for MCr32 are a tad ridiculous, along with the rest except for the fighter. Your shuttle is about 3MCr more than a Jump-equipped Scout, and only about 5 MCr cheaper than a standard Free Trader. How are you planning to pay for this thing?

It would make more sense to start with a standard 100 ton streamlined hull, forget the Jump drive, dropping the price by 10MCr, put 10 tons of fuel in the space in the engineering section reserved for the jump drive, put 2 staterooms in the 20 tons reserved for the bridge, remove the other 4 staterooms and the air/raft, and you have a ship with about 63 tons of cargo space costing less than your 95 ton shuttle.

You are also perpetuating that same mindless cost increases as Book 2 with no economies of scale in the power plant, jump drive, or maneuver drives. X number of Tons times Y number of MCr equals the cost of the plant. Are you saying that every increase in tonnage means an equal increase in control cost?

Small craft for planet-side to orbit and back should be a LOT CHEAPER than Jump-capable craft, not costing more per dTon than a Jump-capable craft. A 200 dTon standard Free Trader costs 0.1854 MCr per dTon. A 100 dTon Scout costs 0.2943 MCr per dTon. Run a cost comparison with your small craft. Your modular cutter, WITHOUT MODULE, runs 0.56 MCr per dTon. WHY? And kindly do not say that it is a non-standard hull. It is a MODULAR CUTTER. Why would it not be a standard hull? For that matter, why are not all of the small craft STANDARD HULLS.

As for pods:

Pod cost depends on volume. Base cost is KCr 200 for unstreamlined, and KCr 500 for streamlined pods. Construction cost adds KCr 300 per 10 tons. So, for example, a 30 ton streamlined pod costs (KCr 500 + 3 x KCr 300) MCr 1.4.

So, you get exactly NOTHING for your base cost, along with a MASSIVE difference in price for streamlining? That is simply bizarre. Where are these things being built? If built planet-side, how are you getting the unstreamlined pods off-planet? As internal cargo? And if these pods are holding pressure, the optimum shape is a cylinder with rounded ends, which is streamlined.

 

[Timerover51]

The following is a quote from the Starter Traveller book, page 33, right hand column near the bottom.

Vessels under 100 tons are considered to be small craft. There are eight standard designs available; each design plan is available for Cr100. All take approximately twelve months to build. All are streamlined, and can enter atmospheres. All can operate with unrefined fuel; they have fuel scoops which allow them to skim fuel from a gas giant.

These are "standard designs". Why is there no reduction in cost for building as you have for the Scout and Free Trader, among other star ships? Why does a 20 dTon Launch take 12 months to build verses 9 months for a Jump-capable Scout? Why does a 20 dTon Launch with no jump capability cost more than half the price of a Standard Scout?

Then there are the charges for use of small craft. Kindly explain to me how the following charges for use make any economic sense whatsoever. Again, these are taken from Starter Traveller, page 31, left hand column, middle of page.

Shuttle Service: At any location with a class A, B, or C starport, shuttles routinely operate between orbit and world surface. Typical shuttle fares are Cr10 per ton of cargo and Cr20 to Cr120 per passenger.
Charters: Non-starships charter for Cr1 per ton per hour, usually with a 12-hour minimum.

The 20 dTon Launch, at the above rates, charters for an ENTIRE YEAR of 365 twenty-four hour days for a mere 17,520 Imperial Credits. The price is per Starter Traveller is 14 MCr, your price is 13MCr. At that charter price, the Launch takes a mere 742 YEARS to pay for itself at a cost of 13 MCr.

Your changes are just as broken as the original rules.

 

[BillDowns]

Timerover, I am trying to figure out what you are talking about. Robject's small craft are a tad bit cheaper than the canon small craft in LBB2.