DaveShayne
SOC-12
Much less capable and a good deal bulkier than Traveller lasers.
I wan't laser carbines damnit.
Sci-Fi hardness and sacred handwaves
- Thread starter BluWolf
- Start date
I wan't laser carbines damnit.
Liam Devlin
SOC-14 5K
MJD posted-"Traveller is a game I play for recreation.
I can suspend my disbelief so long as it's fun.
I've been a real scientist and a real engineer; I've dealt with the intricacies of certain sectors of the economy (the arms trade), etc etc. These things are realistic, but not all that much fun.
So I'll always go for believable (ish) and fun rather than spending my life looking for fixes to something that needs tearijg down and completely redesigning if it's to be relaistic.
You can do that if you like, but it won't be Traveller any more.
--------------------------
Correction.
Not the Traveller we've played for the past 25 years."
________________________________________________
I have made changes IMTU that I felt reflected the newer discoveries in astrography(?sp?) but these were hardly earth shaking. Imposing them on the game? I'm NOT that presumptuous, contrary to popular myth in these parts. (like changing M-class Dwarf luminosities to all 0's.).
In the gamers preserve of Zarushagar, yes, I took some changes in stride based on TNE's world building matrix of the homewrold goes first rule--and that there were admitted in Challenge 77 only 17 types of worlds in the sector, 43% being X100434-Y (fill in blank starport/ tech level.).
So I altered them according to habitable zone modifiers. Published worlds (ie, canon) I tended to leave alone. The rest were fair game.
Heresy? I think not...
as it doesn't take away the flavor/ playability of the game. Others may disagree in dogmatic terms of my "canonicity", but its still, MTU, in the game's frame work!
I can suspend my disbelief so long as it's fun.
I've been a real scientist and a real engineer; I've dealt with the intricacies of certain sectors of the economy (the arms trade), etc etc. These things are realistic, but not all that much fun.
So I'll always go for believable (ish) and fun rather than spending my life looking for fixes to something that needs tearijg down and completely redesigning if it's to be relaistic.
You can do that if you like, but it won't be Traveller any more.
--------------------------
Correction.
Not the Traveller we've played for the past 25 years."
________________________________________________
I have made changes IMTU that I felt reflected the newer discoveries in astrography(?sp?) but these were hardly earth shaking. Imposing them on the game? I'm NOT that presumptuous, contrary to popular myth in these parts. (like changing M-class Dwarf luminosities to all 0's.).
In the gamers preserve of Zarushagar, yes, I took some changes in stride based on TNE's world building matrix of the homewrold goes first rule--and that there were admitted in Challenge 77 only 17 types of worlds in the sector, 43% being X100434-Y (fill in blank starport/ tech level.).
So I altered them according to habitable zone modifiers. Published worlds (ie, canon) I tended to leave alone. The rest were fair game.
Heresy? I think not...
as it doesn't take away the flavor/ playability of the game. Others may disagree in dogmatic terms of my "canonicity", but its still, MTU, in the game's frame work!PapaGolfWhiskey
SOC-13
Personally: I'll take whatever liberties I need to keep the game going.
Hang on. The chemical laser that fills a 747 is what they are deploying now. Hints are coming out through the secrecy that the next generation will be a solid state laser that a fighter plane can carry, maybe 1000 Kg. You might see laser carbines at TL8, but it will be the far-end of the TL.
PapaGolfWhiskey
SOC-13
One thing that puzzles me.
why are people hung up on the 'one parsec thick' universe?
Can you not imagine that it is somehow a 2d represtation of a 3d environment?
I mean I don't really believe that greenland is bigger than Australia or that Antartica is a big strip along the bottom of the map, just becuase Mercator projection so implies...
why are people hung up on the 'one parsec thick' universe?
Can you not imagine that it is somehow a 2d represtation of a 3d environment?
I mean I don't really believe that greenland is bigger than Australia or that Antartica is a big strip along the bottom of the map, just becuase Mercator projection so implies...
siefertma2
SOC-13
I'm willing to accept the following:
Jump Drives: Only as a plot device (I think the PCs would be a little late to reach the Emergency Galactice Conference 4 parsecs away and the only ships aviable can travel .5 c at the most.) and without the techobabble. If the game's overall background takes place in a single solar system, then we keep space drives STL.
Anti-grav on any starship larger than a Heavy Cruiser. ( Due to energy and equpiment demands) Otherwise the crews must bounce about in zero gee. No grav vehicles or anti-gravity belts either. If you want a hover tank, it's got to operate on a hover skirt (ala Hammer Slammers) or some kind of thrust vectoring system (ala Heavy Gear).
Weaponry: As fun as laser pistols other death rays may seem I think there is a lot to be said for dependable, easy to repair and manufacture, checmically powered, ballistic weapons. Man-portable energy-based weapons (beam, plasma, railgun, etc.) would be avavable, but they would be no smaller than a rifle and would be notorious energy hogs and have a tendency to break down.
Powered Armor: Given what we've seen in the works for body armor, a suit of Heinlein-like battlesuits is quite possible. However, if you're talking about 40-50 foot tall "mecha" then forget it! Humanoid AFV would only be acceptable if they were no larger than 10 feet tall. (e.g. Heavy Gear, Armored Trooper VOTOMS) Walking tanks would be quadrapedial, hexapedial or even octapedial for stability purposes.
No force fields. Sandcasters, ECM, anti-missiles, and some magnetic screening, yes. Meson screens, nuclear dampeners, and "Black Globe" generators are a little too much to swallow.
Note: This is from someone is fed up with "high science fiction" ala Star Drek and Star Bores (Episode VII: George Lucas's Jedi Babies) and is yearning for some real, gritty, hard sf.
Later,
Mark A. Siefert
Jump Drives: Only as a plot device (I think the PCs would be a little late to reach the Emergency Galactice Conference 4 parsecs away and the only ships aviable can travel .5 c at the most.) and without the techobabble. If the game's overall background takes place in a single solar system, then we keep space drives STL.
Anti-grav on any starship larger than a Heavy Cruiser. ( Due to energy and equpiment demands) Otherwise the crews must bounce about in zero gee. No grav vehicles or anti-gravity belts either. If you want a hover tank, it's got to operate on a hover skirt (ala Hammer Slammers) or some kind of thrust vectoring system (ala Heavy Gear).
Weaponry: As fun as laser pistols other death rays may seem I think there is a lot to be said for dependable, easy to repair and manufacture, checmically powered, ballistic weapons. Man-portable energy-based weapons (beam, plasma, railgun, etc.) would be avavable, but they would be no smaller than a rifle and would be notorious energy hogs and have a tendency to break down.
Powered Armor: Given what we've seen in the works for body armor, a suit of Heinlein-like battlesuits is quite possible. However, if you're talking about 40-50 foot tall "mecha" then forget it! Humanoid AFV would only be acceptable if they were no larger than 10 feet tall. (e.g. Heavy Gear, Armored Trooper VOTOMS) Walking tanks would be quadrapedial, hexapedial or even octapedial for stability purposes.
No force fields. Sandcasters, ECM, anti-missiles, and some magnetic screening, yes. Meson screens, nuclear dampeners, and "Black Globe" generators are a little too much to swallow.
Note: This is from someone is fed up with "high science fiction" ala Star Drek and Star Bores (Episode VII: George Lucas's Jedi Babies) and is yearning for some real, gritty, hard sf.
Later,
Mark A. Siefert
Liam Devlin
SOC-14 5K
________________________________
Agreed. "the Play's the thing".--Wm Shakespeare.
heretically yours,
Hang on. The chemical laser that fills a 747 is what they are deploying now. Hints are coming out through the secrecy that the next generation will be a solid state laser that a fighter plane can carry, maybe 1000 Kg. You might see laser carbines at TL8, but it will be the far-end of the TL.</font>[/QUOTE]I've got a laser on my keychain. There are weapons-grade lasers that fill a 747. My eye-doctor has a shoebox-sized laser that can burn a hole right through your head if misused. We've got a whole spectrum of the things. You want a laser pistol? At this point it's mostly engineering. Things will scale up, down, and sideways soon enough. I expect they'll exist within a decade or two at the outside.
The problem is that a 2d representation has much less of a frontier. Suppose you have a pocket empire 20 parsecs in diameter. Under standard Traveller, you have a border 60-70 parsecs in size. There will probably be about 120 systems in your empire. (about 300-350 hexes, or 300-350 parsecs area.)
Suppose that you use a 3d representation, a sphere as opposed to a circle. You have a surface area (frontier) of about 1250 square parsecs, and a volume of about 4200 cubic parsecs. Even with a sparser sprinkling of systems, this is probably about 1000 systems. You have a much bigger frontier to defend, and a much bigger interior to exploit.
Traveller world generation is biased against red dwarfs. (In actuallity, IIRC, over 95% of all stars are red dwarfs or smaller.) In a more realistic distribution, you could assume that about 900 of those systems are red dwarfs, and probably don't matter. The system also is biased in favor of planets surrounding multiple star systems, in reality it is unclear whether close binaries can have planets in the eco-zone.
Except that they make dandy places for pirates.
Except that there are so many of them, that if even one percent of them supported a planet with life or usable resources, there would be 10 such planets at least in your empire.
The distortion of a mercator map increases as you get to the poles, but within say 75 degrees of the equator, there is no more than a 3x distortion. The distortion of collapsing a spherical volume of space into a flat volume is enormous, on the order of a factor of 4 times the radius of the sphere. (For the empire, which is, IIRC hundreds of parsecs accross, this distortion is over a hundred times.)
PapaGolfWhiskey
SOC-13
Er fine.
Maybe part of the problem is that is that I really don't know much about intersteller cartography than that Proxima Centari is one of the nearest stars to us.
I am aware of the scales of volume change. even a simple thing like turning the cylinder of one's thigh muscles into another 3d volume (a sphere as the muscles cease to be held by the now factured femure) can cause a vaccum effect capable of killing a person as it draws several extra units of blood from their circulation system.
I honestly wonder how many players RP first aid beyond "I bandage his wounds" - Femur traction (although once taught in first aid) is probably a little advanced and detailed for many players.
By the same token, I've mostly played out in the totatlly fictional/distant from earth zone of the spinward marches. There are star systems out there. Jump drives get you to them. some times you encounter naval vessels. Jump misshaps may take you to the wrong system.
It all works. It's all I need. I can imagine that the volume of space is much smaller than I'm seeing projected. I'm in no need for maps that look like molecular model kits gone mad. Intersteller space is rarely seen outside of jump anyway. it's Interplanetary space and the planets themselves where RP happens. The rest is just Fluff.
IMO anyway.
Most players I dealt with just want to know what happens on the NEXT planet. 100 worlds or 1000 there's more than they can possibly visit.
Maybe part of the problem is that is that I really don't know much about intersteller cartography than that Proxima Centari is one of the nearest stars to us.
I am aware of the scales of volume change. even a simple thing like turning the cylinder of one's thigh muscles into another 3d volume (a sphere as the muscles cease to be held by the now factured femure) can cause a vaccum effect capable of killing a person as it draws several extra units of blood from their circulation system.
I honestly wonder how many players RP first aid beyond "I bandage his wounds" - Femur traction (although once taught in first aid) is probably a little advanced and detailed for many players.
By the same token, I've mostly played out in the totatlly fictional/distant from earth zone of the spinward marches. There are star systems out there. Jump drives get you to them. some times you encounter naval vessels. Jump misshaps may take you to the wrong system.
It all works. It's all I need. I can imagine that the volume of space is much smaller than I'm seeing projected. I'm in no need for maps that look like molecular model kits gone mad. Intersteller space is rarely seen outside of jump anyway. it's Interplanetary space and the planets themselves where RP happens. The rest is just Fluff.
IMO anyway.
Most players I dealt with just want to know what happens on the NEXT planet. 100 worlds or 1000 there's more than they can possibly visit.
Indeed, Traveller seems to me to be the *only* SF games that supports the idea that chemical firearms will still be prevalent in the future - *every* other SF game that I'm aware of (with the not-exactly-exception of 2300AD,) uses lasers or "blasters" as the primary ranged personal weapons.
My definition of 'acceptable handwave' vs 'unacceptable handwave' is a bit different.
I don't actually care if the tech involved is magic technobabble. I don't care about 3d maps. What I care about is the gameplay:
1) If there's an obvious way for PCs to abuse the tech, which is not being used in the universe, there's a problem.
A perfect example of this is the near-C rock problem. Most players don't think that much about 'let's build a perpetual motion machine from thruster plates' -- it's not like fusion power plants are that big, and most PCs aren't engineers. However, give just about any group of PCs a starship, and at some point they will think of ramming it into a planet.
2) If there's an obvious way to abuse other rules, there's a problem.
An example of this is the classic trade rules, which allow rapid, reliable, and large profits on speculative trade.
3) If it makes the players give me funny looks because it makes no sense, there's a problem.
An example of this would be low-tech worlds without a breathable atmosphere and population in the billions. Another example would be a class-A starport on a world with 30 people.
I don't actually care if the tech involved is magic technobabble. I don't care about 3d maps. What I care about is the gameplay:
1) If there's an obvious way for PCs to abuse the tech, which is not being used in the universe, there's a problem.
A perfect example of this is the near-C rock problem. Most players don't think that much about 'let's build a perpetual motion machine from thruster plates' -- it's not like fusion power plants are that big, and most PCs aren't engineers. However, give just about any group of PCs a starship, and at some point they will think of ramming it into a planet.
2) If there's an obvious way to abuse other rules, there's a problem.
An example of this is the classic trade rules, which allow rapid, reliable, and large profits on speculative trade.
3) If it makes the players give me funny looks because it makes no sense, there's a problem.
An example of this would be low-tech worlds without a breathable atmosphere and population in the billions. Another example would be a class-A starport on a world with 30 people.
I don't blame you, but I can't agree with some of your choices.
After Van den Broek modified Alcubierre a FTL drive went from "impossible but a literary convention" to "not impossible but we still need to work some things out." Sounds like hard SF to me.
Gravitics. Reading Robert Forward it looks like this is going to be a lot easier to use for propulsion, and artificial gravity will be several orders of magnitude more difficult (i.e., more energetic). When artificial gravity becomes practical, by analogy with a solenoid I would expect a large ship to be more energy efficient.
Energy weapons, lasers are dropping at least an order of magnitude (maybe two) in size the next ten years. Also we may be looking at a revolution in stable plasmas, but we are looking at another twenty years before we get fragile small arms. 10-20 years after that we should get "soldier proof" milspec.
I object to the way much of this tech is implemented, especially the way thermodynamics is ignored. *sigh*
2D vs 3D mapping.
The real problem with 2d mapping is that it distorts the number of possible destinations.
Assuming stars in this neighborhood correspond to "scatterred", so the possible number of destinations
1 parsec, 2 destinations
2 parsec, 4 destinations (6 total)
3 parsec, 6 destinations (12 total)
4 parsec, 8 destinations (20 total)
5 parsec, 10 destinations (30 total)
As opposed to the real universe around sol,
1 parsec, 1 destination
2 parsec, 2 destination (3 total)
3 parsec, 11 destinations (14 total)
4 parsec, 19 destinations (33 total)
5 parsec, 23+ destinations (53+ total)
The real problem with 2d mapping is that it distorts the number of possible destinations.
Assuming stars in this neighborhood correspond to "scatterred", so the possible number of destinations
1 parsec, 2 destinations
2 parsec, 4 destinations (6 total)
3 parsec, 6 destinations (12 total)
4 parsec, 8 destinations (20 total)
5 parsec, 10 destinations (30 total)
As opposed to the real universe around sol,
1 parsec, 1 destination
2 parsec, 2 destination (3 total)
3 parsec, 11 destinations (14 total)
4 parsec, 19 destinations (33 total)
5 parsec, 23+ destinations (53+ total)
siefertma2
SOC-13
Does he find a way around the problem of causality?
Perhaps, but I would still favor modern-style ballastic firearms over directed energy weapons due to their ease of maintinance. What good is owning a cool new Colt 2111 Plasma Pistol if you need a at least a Master's degree in electronic theory just to field-strip it (much less fire it)?
Entropy; it's not just a good idea... IT'S THE LAW!!!
Later,
Mark A. Siefert
Simon Jester
SOC-12
My take on the 2D vs. 3D space maps is based on the history of the New York City Subway Map. Back when it was just starting out, the New York City Subway system had a maps that they provided to their riders that was geographically precise; it showed which tracks physically ran next to each other, where tracks crossed each other, etc.
After a while, and many expansions of the subways system later, the map had become unintelligible, so they had a non-geographically presice map created. It showed the prospective riders which stops each route made, and where the rider could change from one route to another, but it might show Coney Island and Madison Square Garden right next to each other (they're not) while two stations across a few tracks from each other might be placed on opposite ends of the map. The benefit was that the passengers could find out which trains they needed to take to get where they wanted to go.
I present the "One Parsec" star maps to my players in much the same fashion. These maps aren't an actual representation of galactic space, they're a simple depiction of jumpspace showing what is reachable from where using a jumpship. In "reality" two star nation neighbors might actually have a border zone that is several dozen lightyears across, but, due to how jumpspace allows travel, you can draw a fairly straight line between the possessions of the two on the common starmap.
That's my primary handwave, and it's been acceptable to my players so far.
Simon jester
After a while, and many expansions of the subways system later, the map had become unintelligible, so they had a non-geographically presice map created. It showed the prospective riders which stops each route made, and where the rider could change from one route to another, but it might show Coney Island and Madison Square Garden right next to each other (they're not) while two stations across a few tracks from each other might be placed on opposite ends of the map. The benefit was that the passengers could find out which trains they needed to take to get where they wanted to go.
I present the "One Parsec" star maps to my players in much the same fashion. These maps aren't an actual representation of galactic space, they're a simple depiction of jumpspace showing what is reachable from where using a jumpship. In "reality" two star nation neighbors might actually have a border zone that is several dozen lightyears across, but, due to how jumpspace allows travel, you can draw a fairly straight line between the possessions of the two on the common starmap.
That's my primary handwave, and it's been acceptable to my players so far.
Simon jester
Does he find a way around the problem of causality?
Later,
Mark A. Siefert</font>[/QUOTE]Yes - Causality is observed behaviour thus far - there is no reaosn why causality applies at all.
There are a variety of different causality breaking phenomenom which fit our current equations for the universe.
Off the top of my head:-
i) If you find a very heavy cylinder that is rotating very quickly (speed at the surface > 1/2 c, material denser than a neutron star) when you get close to the surface and orbit it, you travel backwards in time (ie go in for a slingshot pass and come out in time to watch yourself go in - possibly event shoot yourself down on the inward trip!)
ii) Find a very large worm hole, prop it open with a big gob of negative energy density. Accelerate one end up to a fast speed (relativistic) and drive it arround for a while - bring it back and slow it down and you now have a wormhole which jumps through time as well as space (ie if you go in the "old" one, you come out the other before you went in - if you go in the "young" one you jump into the future.
iii) If you have a pair of quantum particles generated by the same event, actions on one interact with the other one. This has actually been demonstrated in the lab - the biggest distance thus far has been a couple of kilometers - there is no light speed limitation.
Both the above are accepted according to our
If you tie in lightspeed, there are lab examples that show you can transmit information faster than light speed and there are many math examples that violate "common sense". But then particle physics violates common sense without having to look very far.
Causality - There is no reason to think it is always the case - in the same way that things don;t always fall down - If you look arround, everything falls. Causality is one of those "obviously correct" rules that might not apply to the universe as a whole.
MichaelL65
SOC-12
How about this one:
Fuel for starships is pure hydrogen. This could work in an atmosphere, but in the vacuum of space, what is it going to combine with to produce the chemical reaction? According to the definition of unrefined fuel, it has a better chance of burning than refined fuel.
I would also think that anti-matter would be a more acceptable fuel considering the amount of energy that is required. If a device that can create a pocket universe for FTL travel can be mass produced, a containment system for anti-matter (and a system to produce it) shouldn't be a problem (and would likely be required for the enourmous amounts of power said FTL device would need).
Fuel for starships is pure hydrogen. This could work in an atmosphere, but in the vacuum of space, what is it going to combine with to produce the chemical reaction? According to the definition of unrefined fuel, it has a better chance of burning than refined fuel.
I would also think that anti-matter would be a more acceptable fuel considering the amount of energy that is required. If a device that can create a pocket universe for FTL travel can be mass produced, a containment system for anti-matter (and a system to produce it) shouldn't be a problem (and would likely be required for the enourmous amounts of power said FTL device would need).
Originally posted by Mark A. Siefert:
Does he find a way around the problem of causality?
Causality seems a no-brainer to me, especially as it is the major criticism of wormholes. However it is my understanding that the "pocket universe" of the warp bypasses causality? Doubtful as that seems, I have never seen a scholarly criticism of Alcubierre that addresses causality.
Perhaps, but I would still favor modern-style ballastic firearms over directed energy weapons due to their ease of maintinance. What good is owning a cool new Colt 2111 Plasma Pistol if you need a at least a Master's degree in electronic theory just to field-strip it (much less fire it)?
Lasers, at least, will be solid state by the time they are small arms, so maintenance will be almost non-existant. Designing an energy weapon will take a Phd, repair will require a year's training, but a six year old can clean and operate it. OTOH, a kinetic energy projectile has a very efficient damage mechanism even if the firing mechanism is complicated and fragile.
The three laws of thermodynamics:
You Can't Win
You Can't Break Even
and
You Can't Even Get Out of the Game
(Believe it or not, remembering these three rules got me through Physics 305).
Does he find a way around the problem of causality?
Causality seems a no-brainer to me, especially as it is the major criticism of wormholes. However it is my understanding that the "pocket universe" of the warp bypasses causality? Doubtful as that seems, I have never seen a scholarly criticism of Alcubierre that addresses causality.
Perhaps, but I would still favor modern-style ballastic firearms over directed energy weapons due to their ease of maintinance. What good is owning a cool new Colt 2111 Plasma Pistol if you need a at least a Master's degree in electronic theory just to field-strip it (much less fire it)?
Lasers, at least, will be solid state by the time they are small arms, so maintenance will be almost non-existant. Designing an energy weapon will take a Phd, repair will require a year's training, but a six year old can clean and operate it. OTOH, a kinetic energy projectile has a very efficient damage mechanism even if the firing mechanism is complicated and fragile.
The three laws of thermodynamics:
You Can't Win
You Can't Break Even
and
You Can't Even Get Out of the Game
(Believe it or not, remembering these three rules got me through Physics 305).
3D vs 2D
I actually really like the effect of a 2D universe. Not just because I can map the sucker better, but the game play effects of it.
A "Pancake" universe like this has a much longer travel time to the edges than it's volumn would otherwise suggest. With the "long" travel times of jump, this results in a huge range of local diversity, the necessity for "nodal" fleets, decision making in the hands of the local nobles etc.
In actual fact it gives you much more "edge" than a real sphere would. Because edge isn;t just the interface between inside and outside, it has to be a long way from the center to matter. ie if the imperium where a sphere containing the same number of systems, it would be a huge amount smaller - so the edge would only be a 5 or 6 jumps from the center. ie would be under central control.
Alternatively if the radius were the same, the number of stars in the center would be so large that imperial fleets could be ridiculusly huge - the economic powerhouse of the protected worlds would dominate imperial thoughts.
Either way, the end results of a flat universe are good.
How do I justify it:-
i) I've once used the "Stars are much more common, only planetary systems are marked - the event that coalesced planets was a wave front from a spinning nova (ie a circular rather than spherical front). This had the advantage that planets were all formed arround the same time so species could be equally advanced.- Not a canon universe
ii) It just is (very popular arguement)
iii) It just maps like that (Used for a non-mathematical audience)
I actually really like the effect of a 2D universe. Not just because I can map the sucker better, but the game play effects of it.
A "Pancake" universe like this has a much longer travel time to the edges than it's volumn would otherwise suggest. With the "long" travel times of jump, this results in a huge range of local diversity, the necessity for "nodal" fleets, decision making in the hands of the local nobles etc.
In actual fact it gives you much more "edge" than a real sphere would. Because edge isn;t just the interface between inside and outside, it has to be a long way from the center to matter. ie if the imperium where a sphere containing the same number of systems, it would be a huge amount smaller - so the edge would only be a 5 or 6 jumps from the center. ie would be under central control.
Alternatively if the radius were the same, the number of stars in the center would be so large that imperial fleets could be ridiculusly huge - the economic powerhouse of the protected worlds would dominate imperial thoughts.
Either way, the end results of a flat universe are good.
How do I justify it:-
i) I've once used the "Stars are much more common, only planetary systems are marked - the event that coalesced planets was a wave front from a spinning nova (ie a circular rather than spherical front). This had the advantage that planets were all formed arround the same time so species could be equally advanced.- Not a canon universe
ii) It just is (very popular arguement)
iii) It just maps like that (Used for a non-mathematical audience)
