CT Only: Rewriting and updating the LBB, Book 2

[Tobias]

LBB:5 is not a re-write or re-imagining of LBB:2 ship design. It has superficial similarities but offers a completely different paradigm.
TL dependence of jump
M-drive and J-drive size reversal
EP and pp scaling.
Turret displacement vs fire control displacement

In game terms, none of those are very relevant. I would say that the different paradigms are:
- Individual ship movement vs. fleet movement.
- Vector movement vs. abstract positioning.
- Individual weapons fire vs. battery fire.
- Throw-and-DM based resolution vs. table resolution.
- Computer program management vs. flat computer bonuses.

Book 5 is a much more abstract game than Book 2. It also attempts to work at a much large range of scales (with ships topping out at ~500,000 tons rather than ~5000) and IMNSHO fails at that quite badly.

 

[Tobias]

In any event, to harmonize Book 2 and Book 5 technical paradigms somewhat, I simply switch the tonnages for jump and maneuver drives in Book 2. These are the effects on canon designs (all ships not listed are unaffected since they have identical maneuver and jump ratings).

Subsidized Liner: Cargo +18. 147 tons
Patrol cruiser: Cargo -6. 44 tons
Lab Ship: Cargo +3. 27 tons
Far Trader: Cargo +3. 64 tons
Safari Ship: Cargo +3. 9 tons
Corsair: Cargo -6. 154 tons

Aslan trader: Cargo +9. 173 tons
Aslan courier: Cargo -3. 3 tons
Aslan researcher: Cargo +12. 62 tons

Vargr corsair: Cargo -16 4 tons
Vargr packet: Cargo +18. 51 tons

Zhodani trader: Cargo +6. 131 tons
Zhodani liner: Cargo +36. 86 tons
Zhodani escort: Cargo -8. 72 tons
Zhodani courier: Cargo +3. 14 tons

Hiver trader: Cargo +6. 151 tons
Hiver embassy ship: Cargo +12. 196 tons
Hiver research cruiser: Cargo +18. 87

 

[Tobias]

In one of the other threads in this forum, there was a mention that “has anyone rewritten classic Traveller and should it be? I have often considered this idea myself, but a lot of people seem to have very strong opinions about what should or should not be included and how it should be handled. So chime in. If I was going to rewrite book 2, what do you think would be best?

Attached is the latest version of my revised Book 2 combat rules. This is an addendum: You will need a copy of Book 2 (I prefer the version from Starter Traveller) to use them.
Most of these rules concern the integration of Book 5 designs into Book 2 combat; another major change is how offensive and defensive computer programs work, the main idea having been to give greater importance to character skills.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The differences are smaller than they may appear.
LBB2 worked by penalising small (=low TL) ships, and benefiting large (=high TL) ships.
LBB5 made the TL benefit direct and obvious, as it must be if we allow larger span of sizes of spacecraft.

It has superficial similarities but offers a completely different paradigm.
TL dependence of jump
M-drive and J-drive size reversal
EP and pp scaling.
Turret displacement vs fire control displacement

Details, except for the TL dependence on jump. That was bringing the rules in compliance with the story of the 3I.
LBB2 still have a strong link between TL and jump, but it works through the size of the ship.

In game terms, none of those are very relevant. I would say that the different paradigms are:
- Individual ship movement vs. fleet movement.
- Vector movement vs. abstract positioning.
- Individual weapons fire vs. battery fire.
- Throw-and-DM based resolution vs. table resolution.
- Computer program management vs. flat computer bonuses.

Not a difference in ships, but of perspective. Detailed vs. Abstract. Still describes the same Universe.


Effectively possible ships in LBB2'81 at J-2, J-4 and J-6:

We can easily see that larger ships are more effective, and requires higher TL drives.
The only effective J-6 ship is TL-15.
J-4 might be possible at TL-10, but only effective with TL-12 drives and a lot more effective at TL-15.

The only reason to build ships smaller than 400 Dt is rebated standard hulls, only giving us the Scout and the Free Trader and their variants.

The common theme between LBB2 and LBB5 is higher TL (=bigger in LBB2) ships are better. LBB5 is just a lot more flexible by using a more direct mechanism.


The difference between LBB2'77 and LBB2'81 (jump drive requires PP) is potentially much larger...

 

[Tobias]

The differences are smaller than they may appear.
LBB2 worked by penalising small (=low TL) ships, and benefiting large (=high TL) ships.
LBB5 made the TL benefit direct and obvious, as it must be if we allow larger span of sizes of spacecraft.

Again, this has nothing to do with the actual space combat game systems, and only to do with the design systems. This is really, really small picture thinking.
Switch the m/j tonnages for Book 2 to bring that paradigm in line if it's bugging you, and otherwise postulate it's a simplified system for standard designs; just shrug and accept the quirky results. Helps if you don't regard design systems as unbreakable laws of nature in the game universe.

[EDIT]: If you feel you really must, you can also harmonize fuel use with Book 5. That will leave most Book 2 ships with increased endurance and/or additional spare tonnage. The only ships which suffer (a bit) are some of the big cargo ships in TTA, and they can all take the hit.

... aaand you learn something new every day, even after decades. I just now realize the listed fuel tonnage for the TI and the TJ in TTA has been calculated with Book 5 PP fuel consumption rules. Weird.

It's one of the long-standing problems/features of the Traveller community that people think endlessly, and in detail, about the design systems, while the actual use of the results of said systems (rules-wise or in-universe) is barely thought about at all.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Switch the m/j tonnages for Book 2 to bring that paradigm in line if it's bugging you

Nah.
Switch the maneuver and jump tonnages in Book 5, instead.

Fun fact ... doing so makes jump drives a LOT more expensive under LBB5.80.
400 ton hull @ J4 = 20 tons of jump drive = MCr80 under original LBB5.80.
400 ton hull @ J4 = 44 tons of jump drive = MCr176 under m/j tonnage swapped in Book 5 rewrite.
Of course, one way to "fix" that problem would be to change the MCr cost per ton for jump drives.

Note that doing this makes high drive power starships hella uneconomical under a revision.
And that's BEFORE throwing the "low tech fusion power plants are ALSO hella uneconomical" factor into the mix ... assuming you don't patch the problem by billing power plant construction costs @ MCr3 per EP instead of @ MCr3 per ton.

 

[TamsinP]

I prefer the LBB5 reversal of J- and M-drive tonnages from LBB2 as for warship designs it means that you need to balance four competing factors:
Speed (more accurately, acceleration/agility)
Range (J-drive rating and fuel requirement)
Firepower
Protection

For SDBs and monitors, range is irrelevant leaving just the classic tank/warship triangle of Speed/Firepower/Protection to be considered - do you go for better acceleration/agility but lower armour or a smaller spinal mount? Do you accept lower agility but more armour/screens or more bay weapons? If you switch the J- and M-drive tonnages of LBB5 you'd still have that triangle/quadrilateral, but changing the agility/acceleration would have much less impact on the other elements.

 

[mike wightman]

Nah.
Switch the maneuver and jump tonnages in Book 5, instead.

Fun fact ... doing so makes jump drives a LOT more expensive under LBB5.80.
400 ton hull @ J4 = 20 tons of jump drive = MCr80 under original LBB5.80.
400 ton hull @ J4 = 44 tons of jump drive = MCr176 under m/j tonnage swapped in Book 5 rewrite.
Of course, one way to "fix" that problem would be to change the MCr cost per ton for jump drives.

Note that doing this makes high drive power starships hella uneconomical under a revision.
And that's BEFORE throwing the "low tech fusion power plants are ALSO hella uneconomical" factor into the mix ... assuming you don't patch the problem by billing power plant construction costs @ MCr3 per EP instead of @ MCr3 per ton.

I agree with you completely.

 

[Spinward Flow]

If you switch the J- and M-drive tonnages of LBB5 you'd still have that triangle/quadrilateral, but changing the agility/acceleration would have much less impact on the other elements.

I agree that the "incentives" borne out of the mathematical balancing act would ... shift ... somewhat.
What remains to be seen is whether that "shift" would be beneficial or not when looking at starship design holistically and taking EVERYTHING into account.

 

[whartung]

To maintain compatibility with the extant setting to date and not require a universe in a shower moment.

But it's not really necessary.

As long as you can describe the old ship in the new system, it's all good.

Things like price and combat stats and such like that are, quite honestly, moot.

The combat GAME is already not a balanced system, as that's not its role. It was never really used in such a manner.

HG tried that with the competitions, showing the the holes in that system.

So, having some LBB 2 design that gave an extra +1 against some mechanic that doesn't work in the new system -- not a crushing moment.

What that may mean is that a ship munchkined in the new system may have advantages over one that leveraged the old system, and the old ship won't perform as well. It's a "bad design" in the new system, in terms of combat.

But, again, it's not a combat game. Its an RPG with combat. Combat has always been about narrative.

Hands, who here has killed a party with a "ship destroyed" result after some errant encounter with a pirate. Anyone?

"oops...ouch...10...well, that's it..y'all are dead. Who wants to watch GoT?"

That's lousy gameplay.

But what about the ship costing too much or too little? Well, again, trying to balance costs against a contrived, unbalanced trade game economy, is pretty folly. Even the trading game is about narrative. Everyone knows how abjectly terrible of an actual system it is when you try to scale it in any direction. Arguably, it's an "ok" system, IF you're just flying a box stock Free Trader. Outside of that, it's off the rails.

So, what difference does it make?

Can you describe a 200 ton starship with a "Trader" sticker on the side? Can you describe a 100 ton ship with "Scout" on the side?

Look at TNE, it has Traders. It has Scouts. They're appropriately sized, and they work!

It's fair to argue that "if you can make a usable Jump 2 100 ton ship, then the design system is broken" and that's a valid benchmark.

Outside of that, pretty much anything goes.

If you want my 10 cents on a LBB2+ its percent drives, armor, and the high energy weapons (plasema, fusion, PAs) from HG.

But I really think simplifying TNE/T4 design/BL/BR is the way. It has everything everyone seems to want.

I think someone could make a drive table out of percent style drives to make the math easier.

 

[TamsinP]

I agree that the "incentives" borne out of the mathematical balancing act would ... shift ... somewhat.
What remains to be seen is whether that "shift" would be beneficial or not when looking at starship design holistically and taking EVERYTHING into account.

True, true.

It might also be interesting to consider the impact of a midway position, where both J- and M-drives increase by +2% of tonnage for ratings above 1. That would still mean that agility/acceleration still have an effect on the triangle/quadrilateral whilst the cost of J-drives would also be much higher.

 

[Spinward Flow]

It might also be interesting to consider the impact of a midway position, where both J- and M-drives increase by +2% of tonnage for ratings above 1. That would still mean that agility/acceleration still have an effect on the triangle/quadrilateral whilst the cost of J-drives would also be much higher.

You make a compelling argument.

 

[Tobias]

Nah.
Switch the maneuver and jump tonnages in Book 5, instead.

That's what Mongoose did. On of my larger gripes with it. Battleriders and non-starships in general have a lot going for them as it is, and this way, they are a complete no-brainer.

It would also make very little sense to me to change the system I like better and use more to accommodate the system that I don't and I don't than vice versa. Especially if it's much less complicated. I've layed out the amount of work you need to adapt Book 2 to a Book 5 paradigm above, and that's it. No further thinking about per ton prices and whatnot necessary.

Long story short, I've put all the work in I'll ever need to put in to adapt Book 2 designs to the Book 5 drive size paradigm, and it took me ~15 minutes total. Personally, I see no reason to put in considerably more work to adapt Book 5 to Book 2's drive paradigm, particularly since I think that's the worse of the two paradigms anyway. Let alone completely overthrow both paradigms and redo both systems and their resultant designs.

 

[Tobias]

Look at TNE, it has Traders. It has Scouts. They're appropriately sized, and they work!

Barely.

 

[Tobias]

Hands, who here has killed a party with a "ship destroyed" result after some errant encounter with a pirate. Anyone?

"oops...ouch...10...well, that's it..y'all are dead. Who wants to watch GoT?"

That's lousy gameplay.

Combat is potentially deadly, but the chance for everyone dying is remote. A "ship explodes" result happens once in every 216 hits. Normally, ships are disabled and left alone (or signal surrender) before that happens. I don't think it's happened to a PC ship in my days as a referee.

 

[casquilho]

Combat is potentially deadly, but the chance for everyone dying is remote. A "ship explodes" result happens once in every 216 hits. Normally, ships are disabled and left alone (or signal surrender) before that happens. I don't think it's happened to a PC ship in my days as a referee.

This is one of the reasons I look at theorycrafting sideways. Often it gets caught on a possibility rather than the probability. I remember a D&D thread once where they argued for days and someone asked if anyone had ever seen it happen on the table. One person said yes, I know some of us had played D&D sense the late 70s so, once in a combined gaming experience of almost 200 years. LOL

 

[kilemall]

This is one of the reasons I look at theorycrafting sideways. Often it gets caught on a possibility rather than the probability. I remember a D&D thread once where they argued for days and someone asked if anyone had ever seen it happen on the table. One person said yes, I know some of us had played D&D sense the late 70s so, once in a combined gaming experience of almost 200 years. LOL

A big giveaway on that is the bridge destroyed result which only happens on one of those rare critical combos.

Even though the bridge counts for 5-20% of the ship tonnage for the most common ACS.

Thats why I have house ruled criticals to be disabled not destroyed. Lots more drama and desperate repairs to be done, rather then a flat kablooey.

 

[Marcatlas]

A big giveaway on that is the bridge destroyed result which only happens on one of those rare critical combos.

Even though the bridge counts for 5-20% of the ship tonnage for the most common ACS.

Thats why I have house ruled criticals to be disabled not destroyed. Lots more drama and desperate repairs to be done, rather then a flat kablooey.

In my large war ships the bridge and the PP are deep inside the hull. So I change the hit location charts accordingly

 

[kilemall]

In my large war ships the bridge and the PP are deep inside the hull. So I change the hit location charts accordingly

Part of my ethos with my hybrid rules is go more RPG less wargame and use the current stuff.

The AHL bridge is no doubt impressive for TL6- delegations but otherwise stark raving mad. So I get it, but leaving it under critical and lower chance (2-12 critical suitable like HG) does fine for my rules.

But not all spare the PCs- a disabling hit of 20 tons on the smaller bridges still yields destroyed.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Details, except for the TL dependence on jump.

And -- often overlooked -- TL dependence for maneuver in LBB2!

You can't even get a maneuver drive that pushes a 5000Td hull at all, until TL-15 (it needs a Size W M-Drive for 1g).