Question 1 for MM redux

[rancke]

"Why did CT retain the Bk2/Bk5 design system dichotomy?"
- Aramis

The same idea roughly applies. There’s the simpler system for the more casual players, and then the deeper system for more involved players. I think it’s a good differentiation: In Traveller5 we have the ACS Adventure Class System for ships up to 2000 tons, and then BCS Battle Class Ships for greater sizes. One is for player-oriented activity, and one is for big battles.

That doesn't answer Wil's question (if he's asking what I think he is asking). It's not why there are two different systems, a 'LITE' and a more complicated. There's no mystery there. It's a perfectly good idea. A very good idea, even. The question is why the two systems were (or rather, remained) mutually incompatible.

(Also, the difference isn't so much the sizes of ships that each system can generate. Note that there is a considerable overlap, as HG was perfectly capable of creating small ships and B2 was capable of creating ships up to 5000T. The difference is that two supposedly identical ships created by the two different systems tended to have vastly different performance specs. Not slightly, easily glossed over different, but incompatibly different.)

Once HG had been written, it would have been quite easy to do a revised B2 system that was perfectly compatible with HG yet remained as easy to use as the original B2.


Hans

 

[aramis]

I was asking what you think I was...

"Why was Bk2 not revised to be compatible with Bk5"

But, looking at T5, that same broken dichotomy appears to be retained, and it's retained in MGT, too...

 

[mike wightman]

I still maintain that someone made a cut and paste error when they did HG and the jump drive % values should have been the m-drive values and vise versa.
LBB2 - big jump drives, small m-drives, HG - big m-drives, small m-drives.

I quite agree that once the change had been made the ship construction 'standard drives' of LBB2 should have been based on the HG %s - or the HG %s could have been swapped.

The other major disconnect is how drive performance varies by TL - again easily dealt with.
The HG TL becomes the TL of discovery, the drives of LBB2 are what are achievable with the hindsight of a higher TL knowledge base.

 

[robject]

I was asking what you think I was...

"Why was Bk2 not revised to be compatible with Bk5"

But, looking at T5, that same broken dichotomy appears to be retained [...]

No Wil, it has been healed in T5. The mandate is that capital ship design re-uses the components from small ship design. That includes drives, which in the "Book 5" version uses the linear formulae which underpin "Adventure-Class Ship" tables.

 

[Spinward Scout]

Why have two systems at all? Have basic/standard ships in the basic ruleset and have ship design in the advanced set only. Then there's no chance of dichotomy.

 

[aramis]

No Wil, it has been healed in T5. The mandate is that capital ship design re-uses the components from small ship design. That includes drives, which in the "Book 5" version uses the linear formulae which underpin "Adventure-Class Ship" tables.

As long as there is rounding in the tables, ACS is a different system.

Just take a look at the differences between generating a ship under QSDS and the same ratings under FF&S... QSDS ship designs (at least using the completely errataed version from IG's website) could be done under FF&S, but there was always wasted space found when one redid them with FF&S.

 

[robject]

As long as there is rounding in the tables, ACS is a different system.

Just take a look at the differences between generating a ship under QSDS and the same ratings under FF&S... QSDS ship designs (at least using the completely errataed version from IG's website) could be done under FF&S, but there was always wasted space found when one redid them with FF&S.

I understand what you're saying, but your question to Marc was actually more subtle than that. Small starship design has a different focus than capital ship design. It's reasonable to change focus and have design systems that match intended focus, whether they use the same components or merely approximate them (like I wish Book 2 had done).

Marc only saw the more important part of your question (purpose and focus).

I personally don't care if ACS would have rounding errors. But apparently Marc does: capital ship design does not create rounding errors in ACS: ACS is the foundation.

 

[aramis]

Basically, I wanted to know why Bk2 was never updated to match Bk5 in tonnages.

 

[robject]

Basically, I wanted to know why Bk2 was never updated to match Bk5 in tonnages.

I'd like to know that, too. I'm sure many of us do, eh? I don't know if he's ever commented on that!

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Easier to just use Bk5?

 

[aramis]

Easier to just use Bk5?

The line never updated the standard Bk2 classes to Bk5....

Which, if one pays attention, have superior performance in Bk5 versions.

Bk5 scout courier TL9, tonnages only:
020 Bridge
001 Model 1/bis
001 Turret
005 MD 2G
003 JD J2
006 PP P2
004 Air Raft
016 SRx4
024 Fuel, 1 J2 and 4 weeks
020 Cargo

Or the TL13+
020 Bridge
001 Model 1/bis
001 Turret
005 MD 2G
003 JD J2
004 PP P2
004 Air Raft
016 SRx4
024 Fuel, 1 J2 and 4 weeks
022 Cargo

Or TL15+
020 Bridge
001 Model 1/bis
001 Turret
005 MD 2G
003 JD J2
002 PP P2
004 Air Raft
016 SRx4
024 Fuel, 1 J2 and 4 weeks
024 Cargo

Vs Bk2:
020 Bridge
001 Model 1/bis
001 Turret
001 MD 2G
010 JD J2
004 PP P2
004 Air Raft
016 SRx4
040 Fuel, 1J2 and 4 weeks
003 cargo

 

[far-trader]

<nitpick >

You missed the 1ton model/1bis computer in the above ships

</nitpick>

 

[aramis]

<nitpick >

You missed the 1ton model/1bis computer in the above ships

</nitpick>

So I did... too much mongoose... fixed that.

 

[mike wightman]

Or alternatively try building this under HG:

200t custom hull
020 Bridge
003 Model 3
002 Turretx2
005 MD C - 3g
020 JD C - j3
010 PP C - P3
024 SRx6
090 Fuel, 1J3 and 4 weeks
026 cargo

Forgot to mention - it's TL9

 

[aramis]

Or alternatively try building this under HG:

200t custom hull
020 Bridge
003 Model 3
002 Turretx2
005 MD C - 3g
020 JD C - j3
010 PP C - P3
024 SRx6
090 Fuel, 1J3 and 4 weeks
026 cargo

Forgot to mention - it's TL9

200t custom hull
020 Bridge
003 Model 3
002 Turretx2
016 MD 8% 3g
008 JD 4% j3
018 PP 3%x3 P3
024 SRx6
066 Fuel, 1J3 and 4 weeks
043 cargo

However, it gains 6T cargo each at TL 13 and 15...

 

[mike wightman]

And you built it how at TL9?

The true paradigm shift between LBB2/3 and HG is the way in which drives work and are discovered as TL advances.

In a CT LBB1-3 only based universe the drive progression suggests that as TL increases a way to make drives that generate bigger fields is discovered, drive performance remains in the 1-6 range at all TLs - however computer control and not being able to cram everything into the hull are the limits to performance.

In HG jump space is different. TL advances allow the access to higher jump distances, the size of the ship doesn't matter, computer advances mean that limit is removed but not being able to cram everything in is still a limit.

It's no wonder they didn't actually revise the CT version of ship design - it would have had a lot of knock on effects as the paradigm swings from LBB2/3 to HG.

 

[rancke]

The true paradigm shift between LBB2/3 and HG is the way in which drives work and are discovered as TL advances.

Very true. And it's worth noting that the two paradigms are mutually exclusive. It's not just a question of one type of jump drives for some ships and another type for other ships. One universe makes it possible to build jump-6 drives at TL9 (though as Wil pointed out to me once, you can't actually fit everything needed for jump-6 into the smaller hulls (Not until you invent drop tanks, that is)) another universe requires TL15 before you can do that.

In a CT only based universe the drive progression suggests that as TL increases a way to make drives that generate bigger fields is discovered, drive performance remains in the 1-6 range at all TLs - however computer control and not being able to cram everything into the hull are the limits to performance.

You mean 'In a B2 only based universe', don't you? HG is very much CT too.

It's no wonder they didn't actually revise the CT version of ship design - it would have had a lot of knock on effects as the paradigm swings from LBB2/3 to HG.

They did revise the B2 version of ship design... sort of... in some cases. Check out the versions of the Gazelle, Sloan, Kinunir, and Broadsword,, as well as SDB, Heavy Fighter, and gig in Fighting Ships. They're all HG designs. Of the designs that had previously been done in B", only the Scout/Courier and the X-boat remained Book 2 designs -- presumably because the authors had been unable to redo them in HG.

What they did was to grandfather Book 2 designs. Which is, as you say, no wonder, but it was still a great big mistake because some Book 2 designs weren't just inefficient by HG standards (or vice versa), they were flat out illegal -- or would have been without the grandfathering. But in any case they were incompatible because the two paradigms were incompatible.


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

You mean 'In a B2 only based universe', don't you? HG is very much CT too.

Good catch. Yes, I meant CT LBB1-3.

What they did was to grandfather Book 2 designs. Which is, as you say, no wonder, but it was still a great big mistake because some Book 2 designs weren't just inefficient by HG standards (or vice versa), they were flat out illegal -- or would have been without the grandfathering. But in any case they were incompatible because the two paradigms were incompatible.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[aramis]

In a Bk2 universe
you can get TL9 best performance of J3... due to computer limits... and it fits in both possible hulls...

TL9 J3 (2 versions, tonnages only)
100 200 hull
020 020 Bridge
003 003 Computer
001 001 Turret
004 016 Stateroom 1,4
015 020 JD B, C
003 005 MD B, C
007 010 PP B, C
030 060 F 1J3
015 030 F P3 2w, 4w
002 035 Cargo
Crew PG, PEMG

But note that the 100T J3 is in the gray areas of the rules: half-month fuel, and running drives capable of performance 4 at performance 3. If the PP and MD are run at 4, then it's 10.5d performance, not 14... a bit tight; drop a ton of cargo, and you hit 11.2 days. Which is a fairly safe margin.
TL 10, you get J4 (due to Mod/4)

The TL10 XBoat should be doable... by bending the 28 day fuel requirement.
100 Hull
020 Bridge
004 Computer
004 SR x1
015 JD B J4
007 PP B P4
040 F 1J4
016 F 11.2d
000 Cargo
But, give it a MD A, and you drop the fuel to 15T and 10.5d... much more sensible...

TL11 gives J5, and TL12 gives J6 under Bk2...

By comparison, the Xboat requires TL13 under HG.

Also, remember: under Bk2, the drive limits by TL are on the tech comparison chart... in Bk3, p16...

 

[mike wightman]

The computer limit was added for the '81 revised version of CT - 1977 version had no computer limit to jump number.