• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Ship building: A plethora of rules.

Okay, I'm really confused...

There are six different versions of Traveller I'm aware of:

• Classic Traveller (with LBB & High Guard)
• MegaTraveller
• Traveller: The New Era
• T4 - Marc Miller's Traveller
• GURPS Traveller
• T20 - Traveller d20

Each seems to have different rules for ship construction ranging from slight to extreme.


Could someone please explain the notable changes between versions and how much the final output differs?

Also, is one version noticably better than the rest?
 
That's actually seven, since CT used (as you note) Book 2 and High Guard. I can only speak for these, since I haven't built anything with the other systems.

Essentially, Book 2 is a quick and easy system for designing relatively small, simple spacecraft - the ideal kind for player characters to have access to, or encounter in the course of a scenario.

High Guard provides a system that is most suited to larger military vessels. These designs can still be used in the context of a role-playing session, but their ultimate expression is fleet combat.

You probably already know all of this, but there you go.

file_22.gif
 
Wow, bigger question than I'm willing to tackle. However T20 is supposed to be close to CT + High Guard.

IIRC GT is based on their other GURPS sci-fi work, and is very different in the details, but thematically the same.

MT, TNE and T4 all added their own weirdnesses. IIRC MT was the worst offender with several new types of drive appearing in an effort to be more 'realistic'. Something about reactionless drives vs HEPLAR ... or something, but I was never into shipbuilding in those systems because they were all fundamentally buggy and flawed.
 
There's actually 8 :D
if you include the discredited, unused and largely forgotten, first edition of High Guard (leper, outcast, unclean) which contained several unique and interesting concepts.

To add to what has already been listed, Book 2 ships were small and their size and performance were further limited by tech level.
Combat was map-based (miniatures, really) and weapons were limited.
High Guard blew the lid off of ship size allowing designs up to 1 million tons as opposed to the 5000 tons of Book 2.
Combat was abstracted (but it needn't be, as Mayday made provision for HG ships) and a huge variety of weapons and defenses were added.
Small craft design was added with High Guard, too. Book 2 was limited to off-the-shelf small craft.

MT is based on HG but adds more complexity in the design system and in combat options (sensors, for one). It also pushed the tech level out beyond Traveller standard and allowed for a new series of weapons and defenses.

I'll leave the other systems to those with more experience of them.

edit:
Combat system differences: A major difference between Book 2 combat and other versions is the computer rules. In Book 2, deciding which programs to run in the computer (and which programs you had available to run) is a major part of the combat system. High Guard and MT abstracted the computer to a simple die roll modifier. Missile movement and damage are quite distinct in Book 2 but, unfortunately, poorly defined. The boardgame "Mayday" clears up most of Book 2's inconsistancies and there was a Special Supplement in one of the JTAS isues that finalized the missile rules. Missile movement in HG is abstract.

Book 2 is very much a tactical game; trying to run several ships or resolving the fire of large ships, can be a headache.
HG (and MT) make dealing with larger vessels easier and make squadron/fleet actions much easier.

Trillion Credit Squadron (TCS) is a HG supplement which has a table in it that makes resolving the large numbers of die rolls easy to handle.

Design system differences: Book 2 basically uses a modular method. Most systems are taken from tables and added to the design. There is very little math involved and it's quite simple.
HG and MT are more complicated. They're still relatively easy to do by hand, but there is more calculation involved. There are spreadsheets available to handle these designs, so that might not be an issue.
 
Despite there being 6 or 8 or 10 construction systems, there appears to be only two major branches, both with Book 2 at the root, and one minor branch (GT), with no actual root.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">(Systems in parens are extinct)
[Systems in brackets are purely supplemental]

1977 Book 2
|
-------------------
| |
1979 (High Guard 1) |
| |
1980 High Guard 2 |
| |
1981 | [Striker]
| |
1986 | [Book 8]
-------------------
| | |
1987 | MegaTraveller |
| |
1993 | FFS1-TNE
| |
1997 | FFS2-T4
| |
1999 | | GT
| |
2002 T20 |
| |
2004 2320AD |
| |
-------------------
|
2007 T5? </pre>[/QUOTE]Book 2 is the simplest.

GURPS:Traveller is loosely based on High Guard.

T20 is a cleaned-up version of High Guard.

MegaTraveller is an attempt to blend High Guard and small craft design, with a very wide range of tech. The result feels bulky.

Fire, Fusion, and Steel (FFS) is highly fiddly, and not for most people.

T5 is presumably going to be High-Guard-like, but also with a FFS-like substrate for building custom devices. If it's done wrong, it will be another MegaTraveller. If it's done well, it would have the utility of FFS, and something approaching the ease of Book 2 with a MegaTraveller-wide-range of premade components to plug together.

We'll see. I'm going to do my darndest to make T5 work. Not that I have any say in the matter.
 
Okay, now I'm going to turn the tables on everyone.

What in your opinion would be the best thing for T5 ship construction? Say what you think would be best. Pick a context, assume anything you like about the rules. You choose. Just throw in your opinions.


Imagine this.

I mail you the T5 book that has the shipbuilding rules in it. You crack it open.

You say "oh my dear God!"
"I can't believe they did it!"
"how did they DO that??"
"now THAT's Traveller"

What do you see?
 
Let's see now.
CT - pick compoments from tables, add it all together, only two variables - cost and tonnage.
CT revised - same as the above but with a couple of major rules changes.
High Guard first edition - introduced larger weapons, hulls, armour, screens etc. and some percentage based components.
High Guard second edition - as above but adds energy points to the book keeping required.
MegaTraveller - slightly more complicated than High Guard, based partially on Striker, introduces mass as a variable as well, changes the jump fuel formula.
TNE - changed the ship maneuver drive to HEPlaR, changed the way some of the other technology works as well, and introduces surface area to the list of variables.
T4 - similar to TNE but returns the jump fuel formula to 10% per jump number, allows for CT/MT thruster plate maneuver drive and HEPlaR.
GT - a variant of GURPS vehicles, ship mass, volume, and cost are the variables you have to work with, otherwise quite similar to CT in that you pick components from tables - but there are a lot of tables ;)
T20 - a variant of High Guard sedond edition with a couple of changes that have quite an impact on small craft and high TL ships.

My favourite is the CT revised system, but with bits borrowed from everywhere else.
 
Originally posted by robject:
Okay, now I'm going to turn the tables on everyone.

What in your opinion would be the best thing for T5 ship construction? Say what you think would be best. Pick a context, assume anything you like about the rules. You choose. Just throw in your opinions.


Imagine this.

I mail you the T5 book that has the shipbuilding rules in it. You crack it open.

You say "oh my dear God!"
"I can't believe they did it!"
"how did they DO that??"
"now THAT's Traveller"

What do you see?
CT revised with the best bits taken from the other versions ;)
 
Here's the response from Ron Brown (of Downport.com fame). Warning: he's a contrarian.

<begin Ron's rant>

Stock ships are now such a convoluted mess and modifying them is even worse. So...i favor a general system, modular and similar to GURPS' design system, but with the ability to actually modify the ships without disassemblnig the whole thing and starting from scratch...

So, for instance, i want to tweak more jump performance. My engineer does so and, without having to redesign the whole ship around the new performance, we simply change the stats a bit, perhaps drawing a couple more MW from the power plant.

It's all just a matter of statistics, so why not just tweak the statistics without having to go through a major ordeal?

Same for building a ship from scratch. Maneuver drives come in such and such performance, so you get two or four, or whatever, to get the performace desired. Let's say i have a stock sulieman-class 100 dton (grr) scout/courier. I am a qualified engineer and i want to boost power output of the power plant and modify the laser so as to hit a bit harder, to send a few more joules into the opposition. I do it. it's a freakin' machine! we push the beyond their "limits" all the time...operational parameters...heh...think of overclocking a PC.

The numbers change, but we don't have to completely recalculate the entire design to do it.
The scotty engineering approach, if you will. I hate the idea of displacement tons...there is volume and there is mass...use them.

I am a roleplayer. Like marc, i like to design new stuff, but i do not stress terribly over the gearhead level of my designs. Spacemaster has a decent system for ship design along these lines.

I also do not like Gs of acceleration...i like meters per second per second, which is how acceleration works. I can accelerate the ship by a certain amount every second to obtain a particular speed of whatever meters per second. Once i stop accelerating, the ship retains velocity and vector until i apply acceleration in a different vector. But, most roleplayers don't know calculus...

And we suspend disbelief in order to have things like thruster plates... battlestar galactica incorporates some really good space combat sequences and tactics, like rotating on an axis while maintaining the original vector of travel.

<end Ron's rant>
 
Everybody has forgotten Traveller 2300....
file_28.gif


robject, I would like to see something as simple as LBB2/HG, with a nice FF&S to supplement it when you are ready to go beyond the basics. If I had to use FF&S just to design an everyday ship right off the bat, I wouldn't.
 
Fritz, I agree strongly.

Hmmm, 2300AD. Were its construction rules related at all to FFS?

Of course, 2320AD's construction rules are simply add-ons to T20's rules.
 
IMHO, T5 should be based on a cleaned-up FF&S2, but with a large number of pre-designed modules that you can plug together to build a ship with.

It should also have software available to make life easier for you.
 
Re: Ron Brown,
"G" is an unfortunately chosen shortcut to m/s^2. Because it isn't pointed out over and over what a "G" is, it's often misused.
Calculus isn't necessary with vectoring if you use some of the easier angles (30, 45 degrees, etc.) and give simple fractions (1/2, 1/3, etc.) - but it does add a layer of math.

dTons was also an unfortunate (but mostly correct) choice for ship's volume. It was correct in the sense that RL ships are measured that way: how much water does it displace? Modern ships are actually significantly heavier than their displacement tonnage. And, of course, it kept you to smaller numbers than m^3 would. But, you had a problem in that dimensions don't actually convert into volume that way (13.5m^3 v. 14m^3, anyone?). I would like to see all calculations done with m^3 (i.e., no liters, either) for simplicity of conversion. (Except for Sollie ships, which should use cubic feet...
file_22.gif
)

A simple mechanism for "tweaking" performance should be included: say 5% performance for 10% additional volume (jury-rigging), or 5% per (10%-Engineering skill).

I like the idea, in HG, of using percentages. This makes it much easier to get a 165dTon ship figured, than just using the 200dTon figures.

My CrImp0.02 (I'm not upping the ante over Mr. Brown ;) )
 
I suppose I could have posted that rant myself, but Rob thought it was good enough to offer up. I never considered posting it here until he mentioned it.

I truly appreciate the design system (and the whole concept) of 2300AD. It was long my favorite game. "Articifial" gravity using centripedal force! Spin operations skill! What concepts!

I've seen the artwork and very much look forward to actually seeing the whole system.

I favor actually playing the game instead of getting bogged down in statistics and "what's real" in my SCIENCE-FICTION roleplaying campaigns. Want to modify something? Sure, give it a shot. We do it in real life all the time, squeezing an extra bit of performace out of machines. If a character attempts to modify something and it goes horribly awry, so much the better for roleplaying.
 
Originally posted by robject:
Imagine this.

I mail you the T5 book that has the shipbuilding rules in it. You crack it open.

You say "oh my dear God!"
"I can't believe they did it!"
"how did they DO that??"
"now THAT's Traveller"

What do you see?
An extremely simple and elegant, maths-light, fun-heavy, points-based build system ala BESM with lots of colour pictures of cool ship designs for flavour, atmosphere and inspiration


what?

Crow
 
Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
IMHO, T5 should be based on a cleaned-up FF&S2, but with a large number of pre-designed modules that you can plug together to build a ship with.

It should also have software available to make life easier for you.
Originally posted by Scarecrow:
An extremely simple and elegant, maths-light, fun-heavy, points-based build system ala BESM with lots of colour pictures of cool ship designs for flavour, atmosphere and inspiration.
Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I liked the Traveller 2300/Star Cruiser ship building rules too ;)
Andrew: I think Fritz is on the same page as you, and I think I am, also. As in all things, the devil's in the details.

Crow: That sounds cool. I'm usually a bit bored by math. Of course, points gives you math without painful resolution, which is nice. Fun, color, and pictures would be wonderful.

Sigg: Someone has to clue me in on 2300/Star Cruiser. PM me if you have to, but I want to know the steps to build a small ship and a large ship.
 
Okay, I've been ranting to Ron a little bit about starship design. After his post, I got to vent a little bit, then got to thinking.

I'm not scared of using m^3 for volume, nor megawatts for power, nor m/s/s for acceleration. I am scared of the insane complications that a craft design system might make of it. The theory goes something like this: "we'll tend to work at the level of resolution we're given". Give us tons and EPs and we tend to design to tons and EPs. But give us kiloliters and watts and, suddenly, our numbers get messy for the trivial cases as well as all other cases.

I've ranted about it before. I don't want space wasted listing six nearly identical components, when one would do.

Having said that, I might be amenable to something like this.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Type S Scout/Courier
vol: (1500 m^3)
bridge: 300 m^3
power plant: 60 m^3 480 MW
maneuver: 30 m^3 20 m/s/s
jump: 150 m^3 2 parsecs
fuel (plant): 30 m^3
fuel (jump): 300 m^3
hardpoints: 10 m^3 (1)
staterooms: 120 m^3 (4)
air/raft: 60 m^3
cargo: (590 m^3)
Cost: MCr 15 or so</pre>[/QUOTE]...although I'd really rather use a shorthand, like "1 v = 10 m^3", where v is something generic like "standard unit of craft volume".

You know, like "ton".

And something like "1 z = 100 MW", where z is something generic like "standard unit of power".

You know, like "energy point".

Sigh.


But in the end, I still want a table from which I can match up my hull volume with the drive performance desired, with allowance for weapons I may wish to install. Quick and easy. And I want that table to perform triple-duty for power, maneuver, and jump performance.

In other words, typical drives still need an even coarser shorthand. The Type A jump drive should mean what it's always meant.

You know, like Book 2.
 
Originally posted by Fritz88:
That's along the right lines, robject. Though, we need a single keyboard character for the "m^3" and "m/s^2" bits. :D
Sure. Call them 't' and 'G', perhaps? :(

Generically, 'v' for volume and 'a' for acceleration might do. (hopefully v would not look like velocity?)

Maneuver-A (TL12,30v,3000a,MCr4)
Maneuver-B (TL12,60v,6000a,MCr8)

Scout/Courier (TL12,1500v,20a,J2,MCr15)

"20a" isn't as obvious as "2G", but...
 
Back
Top