conanlibrarian
SOC-5
Thanks for the info! This is exactly what we get if we convert the book 8 results. Is this explicitly just for robots, or is it for all vehicles? And I wonder how it relates to the previously discussed errata?
Squaring Robots Book 8 with Mega Traveller
- Thread starter OjnoTheRed
- Start date
Thanks for the info! This is exactly what we get if we convert the book 8 results. Is this explicitly just for robots, or is it for all vehicles? And I wonder how it relates to the previously discussed errata?
E.D.Quibell
SOC-13
Specifically for Robots.
Middle page of the DGP Ref's Screen:
Vehicles: all values x10
Animals: as generated
Robots: vol in litres / 15 (inop)
vol in litres / 6 (destroyed)
Characteristics: from life force:
(table of life forces)
conanlibrarian
SOC-5
That is interesting. Weird and disturbing, but interesting... So according to the designers a robot has 100 times the hit points of a vehicle of equal size. Ok, a typical robot is compact, while a vehicle is typically somewhat hollow, but that is only a first approximation. A railroad engine is very compact, for instance.
On the other hand: a quick way to make your car much tougher is to install a robot brain in it. :devil:
On the other hand: a quick way to make your car much tougher is to install a robot brain in it. :devil:
E.D.Quibell
SOC-13
Robot brains don't alter hull config and capacity 
Regards,
Ewan
Regards,
Ewan
LOL, yeah, conanlibrarian that's true - every GM has their own take on the rules. We're never going to get complete consensus. But the aim of publishing something pretty for all to use would be to give everyone a rough baseline they can mod to their hearts' content - hence some level of consensus produced by discussion is needed to get different points of view to create something useful. As well as the discussion being interesting for its own sake. I admit my comment above could be taken as "publishing" in the sense of producing something official-looking That Will Be The Rules No Further Questions - sorry, I meant really 'publish' in the broad sense of upload something to the internet that's pretty looking and useful to others.
Hey E.D. My own view is that volume in litres / 15 and / 6 produces too many hit points. I think robots should perhaps be increased in damage to around the same as a human - bearing in mind they have built-in armour which greatly affects outcomes at the lower end of combat - maybe at the high end given that they are metal and plastic rather than flesh and blood. But comparable with humans (or other human-sized sentients). And it's not the robot brain, but the purchase of the robot configuration that gets the hit points increased.
The robot configuration prices I derived earlier in this thread by comparing Book 8 robot chassis, Mega Traveller Craft Hulls of equivalent size and armour - see above.
My solution relating to life force enables us to get smaller hull sizes a bit tougher for robots, while preventing larger vehicles (greater than around 7,000 litres or 0.5 Displacement Tons) becoming hugely indestructible.
My main problem with my proposed solution is again lack of variation - nearly all robots qualify for 6 / 10 because of the strength of their arms.
I'm thinking of excluding appendages from the strength and dexterity calculation - i.e. just use the strength calculation that derives from chassis volume, and dexterity that arises from locomotion. I'll post some figures when I've got some. At this stage I'm going to start spreadsheeting again for a variety of outcomes.
Hey E.D. My own view is that volume in litres / 15 and / 6 produces too many hit points. I think robots should perhaps be increased in damage to around the same as a human - bearing in mind they have built-in armour which greatly affects outcomes at the lower end of combat - maybe at the high end given that they are metal and plastic rather than flesh and blood. But comparable with humans (or other human-sized sentients). And it's not the robot brain, but the purchase of the robot configuration that gets the hit points increased.
The robot configuration prices I derived earlier in this thread by comparing Book 8 robot chassis, Mega Traveller Craft Hulls of equivalent size and armour - see above.
My solution relating to life force enables us to get smaller hull sizes a bit tougher for robots, while preventing larger vehicles (greater than around 7,000 litres or 0.5 Displacement Tons) becoming hugely indestructible.
My main problem with my proposed solution is again lack of variation - nearly all robots qualify for 6 / 10 because of the strength of their arms.
I'm thinking of excluding appendages from the strength and dexterity calculation - i.e. just use the strength calculation that derives from chassis volume, and dexterity that arises from locomotion. I'll post some figures when I've got some. At this stage I'm going to start spreadsheeting again for a variety of outcomes.
conanlibrarian
SOC-5
Yes, perhaps one could use the liters/15 for robots, and it is up to the GM to decide just what is a robot and what is a vehicle, and to take a value in between for border cases. Or some kind of robot configuration is needed, which can only be used for compact 'things' with primary purpose manipulation, and not transportation. But, would that then be used for a fork lift or a mining machine also? Remove the seat and add a robot brain and sensors, and you definitely have a robot...
I think I will try using the hull base price based method I proposed before, both for robots and vehicles:
I think I will try using the hull base price based method I proposed before, both for robots and vehicles:
- incapacitated = (hull base price) / 150
- destroyed = (hull base price) / 60
You know, conanlibrarian, that solution is growing on me. It's simple. The hull prices as I've re-tabulated them do relate to volume. Interestingly, the relationship is not linear. So on a volume for volume basis, the smaller robots get a bit tougher. For the higher volumes, we get a bit stuck with the problem of smaller craft as robots getting a lot more hit points.
I've refined my "Life Force" calculation method. We take "Strength" only, ignoring robot apparent dexterity. We ignore Strength modifications from appendages, and just use Apparent Strength = Hull Volume (in litres) / 20. Then we multiply that by 3 and consult the Life Force table on p. 66 of the Players manual, with a Life Force of 45 still being the practical maximum. I worked out the mathematical relationship between Life Force and Inoperative / Destroyed hits, then worked out on this basis the relationship between volume and hits. The formula got a bit complicated, I confess.
I've tabulated all of the results for comparison up to hull size 6750 litres (=0.50 displacement tons), and updated the spreadsheet in this thread. You can have a look at the results.
The Craft Design column is the original Mega Traveller Craft Design evaluation. Note that it gives a result of 1/1 right up to the last entry where it goes to 1/2. The Book 8 column is simply the Classic Traveller results for reference. The "conanlib" column is conanlibrarian's method based on price outlined above. The "ojno" column is my "Life Force" based one discussed earlier in this post.
My proposal would be this: the usual Mega Traveller Craft Design x 10 column would be the one normally used by craft.
Then the robot configuration is optional for all robots or craft. It provides the shock absorption and internal components to make the robot/craft hardier and is intended for robots but may be applied to any craft. If installed, the designer designates the "ojno" column hits for the robot. Note that at UCP = 0.50 displacement tons and above, the designer does not make any gain by using a robotic configuration. In pseudo-reality terms, the volume is simply getting too large for further shock-absorption and internal bracing to provide further benefit than the size of the hull itself.
Note that for tiny robots, the algorithm I have used results in a 1/0 result - i.e it's tiny enough that one hit disables and destroys the thing. So at tiny volumes, not using the robot config is better.
In my mind, the damage question raised by conanlibrarian has had the side benefit of clarifying what the robot configuration is for. Now we have a configuration to make the robot more hardy, and controlling electronics to link the robot brain to the rest of the robot, and an analysis of components already common to both the craft design process and the robot design process.
There's still a way to go on the damage question and then the rest of the devices specific to a robot, and some other evaluation questions that come to mind, but I think we're getting there.
I'd be interested in other's view of the spreadsheet analysis.
Sorry, one last thing: under my Life Force calculation, I would propose that Pseudo-biological robots at TL15 and above get a +2 to the "destroyed" hit points due to them being wet and able to withstand greater shock and still be repaired, and be supported by internal healing mechanisms. Ash and Bishop, you've arrived in Traveller.
I've refined my "Life Force" calculation method. We take "Strength" only, ignoring robot apparent dexterity. We ignore Strength modifications from appendages, and just use Apparent Strength = Hull Volume (in litres) / 20. Then we multiply that by 3 and consult the Life Force table on p. 66 of the Players manual, with a Life Force of 45 still being the practical maximum. I worked out the mathematical relationship between Life Force and Inoperative / Destroyed hits, then worked out on this basis the relationship between volume and hits. The formula got a bit complicated, I confess.
I've tabulated all of the results for comparison up to hull size 6750 litres (=0.50 displacement tons), and updated the spreadsheet in this thread. You can have a look at the results.
The Craft Design column is the original Mega Traveller Craft Design evaluation. Note that it gives a result of 1/1 right up to the last entry where it goes to 1/2. The Book 8 column is simply the Classic Traveller results for reference. The "conanlib" column is conanlibrarian's method based on price outlined above. The "ojno" column is my "Life Force" based one discussed earlier in this post.
My proposal would be this: the usual Mega Traveller Craft Design x 10 column would be the one normally used by craft.
Then the robot configuration is optional for all robots or craft. It provides the shock absorption and internal components to make the robot/craft hardier and is intended for robots but may be applied to any craft. If installed, the designer designates the "ojno" column hits for the robot. Note that at UCP = 0.50 displacement tons and above, the designer does not make any gain by using a robotic configuration. In pseudo-reality terms, the volume is simply getting too large for further shock-absorption and internal bracing to provide further benefit than the size of the hull itself.
Note that for tiny robots, the algorithm I have used results in a 1/0 result - i.e it's tiny enough that one hit disables and destroys the thing. So at tiny volumes, not using the robot config is better.
In my mind, the damage question raised by conanlibrarian has had the side benefit of clarifying what the robot configuration is for. Now we have a configuration to make the robot more hardy, and controlling electronics to link the robot brain to the rest of the robot, and an analysis of components already common to both the craft design process and the robot design process.
There's still a way to go on the damage question and then the rest of the devices specific to a robot, and some other evaluation questions that come to mind, but I think we're getting there.
I'd be interested in other's view of the spreadsheet analysis.
Sorry, one last thing: under my Life Force calculation, I would propose that Pseudo-biological robots at TL15 and above get a +2 to the "destroyed" hit points due to them being wet and able to withstand greater shock and still be repaired, and be supported by internal healing mechanisms. Ash and Bishop, you've arrived in Traveller.
Last edited:
The spreadsheet in this thread has been updated again.
I have started using it to design and partly evaluate robots under Mega Traveller. There are several damage evaluations present for each robot, and I am evaluating locomotion per the Mega Traveller Design Evaluation Rules.
Components are drawn from Mega Traveller (as previously noted in this thread) versions where they clash with Robots Book 8. Where Book 8 has components that are not present in Mega Traveller, I am assuming volume in litres = weight in kilograms although for some electronics I am going volume in litres = double weight in kilograms.
Weapons are adjusted down to volumes and weights listed in the Imperial Encyclopedia not the packages in Book 8, but there is now a control "panel" requirement to interface the brain with components internally. Control points are calculated as for Mega Traveller Craft Design, with robot linked control "panels" as listed in the spreadsheet. I have decided that no further improvements to volume and weight take place after TL12 - arbitrary but I figure there has to be a lower physical limitation to miniturisation.
I hope the direction I am taking this adaptation is obvious from the spreadsheet - comments welcome, and please don't hesitate to ask questions if anything is not clear.
I will be adding robots over time - I've just found that it's a bit labour-intensive at the moment, but this will improve through the art of copying and pasting.
I have started using it to design and partly evaluate robots under Mega Traveller. There are several damage evaluations present for each robot, and I am evaluating locomotion per the Mega Traveller Design Evaluation Rules.
Components are drawn from Mega Traveller (as previously noted in this thread) versions where they clash with Robots Book 8. Where Book 8 has components that are not present in Mega Traveller, I am assuming volume in litres = weight in kilograms although for some electronics I am going volume in litres = double weight in kilograms.
Weapons are adjusted down to volumes and weights listed in the Imperial Encyclopedia not the packages in Book 8, but there is now a control "panel" requirement to interface the brain with components internally. Control points are calculated as for Mega Traveller Craft Design, with robot linked control "panels" as listed in the spreadsheet. I have decided that no further improvements to volume and weight take place after TL12 - arbitrary but I figure there has to be a lower physical limitation to miniturisation.
I hope the direction I am taking this adaptation is obvious from the spreadsheet - comments welcome, and please don't hesitate to ask questions if anything is not clear.
I will be adding robots over time - I've just found that it's a bit labour-intensive at the moment, but this will improve through the art of copying and pasting.
I am still steadily working my way through one-hundred-and-one robots and spreadsheeting every design into its components. For now I am taking weight in kg = volume in litres for all items without volume stated, and arms DO take volume per the MegaTraveller Craft Design rules. Having said this, I note that a lot of electronics in the Mega Traveller Craft Design rules go with 2 litres volume / 1 kg mass, but I will review that later. I also want to revisit hull / chassis cost and weights and damage points at a later time.
I have been totalling control points, but when I have applied my own suggestions about about robot-brain controls to represent the necessary connections between the brain and the rest of the craft, the result has been a trivial detail that doesn't add much to game play.
Typically robots in 101 robots require about 1 - 8 control points. Some require a bit more as they approach a small vehicle size. What I propose is this. Robot, like any other craft, must have control points worked out in line with the craft design rules.
But then we take the total control points, divide it by the INT rating of the robot brain, and divide further by 250. If the result is less than 0.05, then we say that the robot needs no further electro-mechanical hooziwhatsits to control the "craft". This eliminates the need for any further consideration of control except for larger vehicles or craft that combine human and robot brain operators. For the vast bulk of what are considered "robots", the existing rules remain the same. This also neatly ties together the existing note in 101 Vehicles (multiplier of 250 for CP for each point of INT) and the note in the MegaTraveller Errata that any craft with less than 0.05 CP requirement does not need any controls installed.
This leaves two areas: (1) robots that have an INT rating of zero; and (2) Robots that have no brain but are entirely a slave unit driven machine.
1. Where INT is zero
The INT rating of zero happens frequently with lower-tech robots (TL8-11) because a modifier of TL-12 is added to rated intelligence. Note that this produces the odd result of a 1 linear CPU brain at TL15 having an INT rating of 3 - but such a brain would not be able to run the compulsory command and logic programs let alone any useful skill software.
In this case, we compile a control point multiplier for this brain as follows:
Results that are greater than 250 become 250.
For example, a TL10 Robot Brain with 5 Linear and 5 Parallel CPUs would have an INT rating of zero, but 5*5 + 5*20 = 125 CP multiplier. Instead of dividing total CP required by INT and then by 250, for this brain, total CP required would be divided by 125, and if the result was less than 0.05, no further electronics is required for the brain to control the whole robot.
For such a design, the simplest way of supplementing the control requirements for the robot would be to install a more CPU. This would lead to brains being more costly and bulky at lower TL's for their processing power relative to higher TL's - an intuitive result. For most smaller-sized craft (that is, what we traditionally consider "robot sized"), there would be no change to the classic Book 8 rules - basically, install a robot brain and that's it.
Technically synaptic processors come in at TL11, but the reliable synaptic percentage at TL11 is zero - so brains at TL11 with synaptic processors are research and development only (... and had better include a power-off over ride in case of electronic psychosis!). At TL12, installing 2 synaptic processors results in an INT of 1 - and at this TL and above, 1 synaptic is often installed just to meet the minimum requirements for the Low Autonomous Fundamental Logic Program, while keeping total robot cost to a minimum (after all, each synaptic CPU is Cr50000). So while a TL11 experimental robot might have a processor or two installed, and is included here for completeness, it is unlikely a mass-produced robot at TL11 would have synaptic processors.
Where extra control points are required, and there are no human crew members, any control panels from the Mega Traveller Craft Design rules may be used, and fractions will be allowed, although for simplicities' sake we'll set an arbitrary lower volume limit of one litre. The TL9 Computer Linked give the best CP result for volume, weight power; the TL8 Electronic Linked give the best CP result for price.
2. Slaved Robots
Comparing a Slave Unit (2kg) to a Linear CPU (0.1kg), we can say that it has a control multiplier of 100 - that is, any craft that has only a slave unit and no brain divides its CP requirements by 100 - and if the result is less than 0.05, again no further control is required. If the result is more than 0.05, this could be resolved by simply installing some CPU to up the control multiplier (which effectively represents some additional electronics), or install a fractional control panel, with the Slave Unit supplying a multiplier of 100.
I have been totalling control points, but when I have applied my own suggestions about about robot-brain controls to represent the necessary connections between the brain and the rest of the craft, the result has been a trivial detail that doesn't add much to game play.
Typically robots in 101 robots require about 1 - 8 control points. Some require a bit more as they approach a small vehicle size. What I propose is this. Robot, like any other craft, must have control points worked out in line with the craft design rules.
But then we take the total control points, divide it by the INT rating of the robot brain, and divide further by 250. If the result is less than 0.05, then we say that the robot needs no further electro-mechanical hooziwhatsits to control the "craft". This eliminates the need for any further consideration of control except for larger vehicles or craft that combine human and robot brain operators. For the vast bulk of what are considered "robots", the existing rules remain the same. This also neatly ties together the existing note in 101 Vehicles (multiplier of 250 for CP for each point of INT) and the note in the MegaTraveller Errata that any craft with less than 0.05 CP requirement does not need any controls installed.
This leaves two areas: (1) robots that have an INT rating of zero; and (2) Robots that have no brain but are entirely a slave unit driven machine.
1. Where INT is zero
The INT rating of zero happens frequently with lower-tech robots (TL8-11) because a modifier of TL-12 is added to rated intelligence. Note that this produces the odd result of a 1 linear CPU brain at TL15 having an INT rating of 3 - but such a brain would not be able to run the compulsory command and logic programs let alone any useful skill software.
In this case, we compile a control point multiplier for this brain as follows:
Code:
[b]For each We add this to the
CPU of this type Multiplier[/b]
Linear 5
Parallel 20
Synaptic 50Results that are greater than 250 become 250.
For example, a TL10 Robot Brain with 5 Linear and 5 Parallel CPUs would have an INT rating of zero, but 5*5 + 5*20 = 125 CP multiplier. Instead of dividing total CP required by INT and then by 250, for this brain, total CP required would be divided by 125, and if the result was less than 0.05, no further electronics is required for the brain to control the whole robot.
For such a design, the simplest way of supplementing the control requirements for the robot would be to install a more CPU. This would lead to brains being more costly and bulky at lower TL's for their processing power relative to higher TL's - an intuitive result. For most smaller-sized craft (that is, what we traditionally consider "robot sized"), there would be no change to the classic Book 8 rules - basically, install a robot brain and that's it.
Technically synaptic processors come in at TL11, but the reliable synaptic percentage at TL11 is zero - so brains at TL11 with synaptic processors are research and development only (... and had better include a power-off over ride in case of electronic psychosis!). At TL12, installing 2 synaptic processors results in an INT of 1 - and at this TL and above, 1 synaptic is often installed just to meet the minimum requirements for the Low Autonomous Fundamental Logic Program, while keeping total robot cost to a minimum (after all, each synaptic CPU is Cr50000). So while a TL11 experimental robot might have a processor or two installed, and is included here for completeness, it is unlikely a mass-produced robot at TL11 would have synaptic processors.
Where extra control points are required, and there are no human crew members, any control panels from the Mega Traveller Craft Design rules may be used, and fractions will be allowed, although for simplicities' sake we'll set an arbitrary lower volume limit of one litre. The TL9 Computer Linked give the best CP result for volume, weight power; the TL8 Electronic Linked give the best CP result for price.
2. Slaved Robots
Comparing a Slave Unit (2kg) to a Linear CPU (0.1kg), we can say that it has a control multiplier of 100 - that is, any craft that has only a slave unit and no brain divides its CP requirements by 100 - and if the result is less than 0.05, again no further control is required. If the result is more than 0.05, this could be resolved by simply installing some CPU to up the control multiplier (which effectively represents some additional electronics), or install a fractional control panel, with the Slave Unit supplying a multiplier of 100.
E.D.Quibell
SOC-13
Hi Jonathan,
I think this is a little out of whack. A Slave unit is the unit that talks to the Master Unit to enable the master/slave relationship to work. It doesn't nessesarily have any direct computational power for CP multiplier application (although it might be one).
Also when you compaire the pricing of the Slave unit to that of a linear CPU it's half the cost and has no consideration of TL. So assigning a 100 CP multiplier to the slave unit 20 times more powerful than a linear CPU I think is excessive.
The slave unit is effectivly a specialised control panel for robots or remotly operated machines, if you need to specify it at all. A slave unit from Book 8 is just an abstract of a control panel unit. You could just drop them completly and have slaves working via a brain interface, a radio, and normal control pannels.
If you want them then IMO they should thus be added to the control panel unit table on page 81 of the MT Ref's manual, somewhere between Electronic Linked and Computer linked CPs:
TL Type Power Vol Wt Cr CP
8 Slave Unit* 0.001 0.002 0.002 200 0.8
*A Slave Unit Control Panel Unit is specialised for the use in remotly operated vehicles. Instalation of Slave unit Control Panels means that there can be no direct sophant control of the vehicle. Vehicles with Slave Unit Control pannels must have a communications device, or a brain interface, installed for the vehicle to be controlled remotly or via direct cable connections.
Master units would then be a specialised control pannel add on that does not have any CP multiplier effect on the vehical it is installed in, but allows the controll of X number of Slave Unit CPs (worked out from the master/slave rules in 101 Robots probably). Or the device that allows direct controll of the vehicle remotly. I'll need to think about Master units a bit, so I'll get back to you on them.
Best regards,
Ewan
P.S. is there any way to get a spell checker in the forum?
Yes, good one Ewan - I like your solution better. For the amounts of Control Points that have typically arisen in designs I have analysed so far, 0.8 per kg / litre of slave unit would work with only very minor adjustments to designs.
My thinking was keep-it-simple: as a measure of the amount of additional electronics that need to be installed, keep it to the existing unit but provide an equation for additional electronics that might be needed for a larger craft that was slaved.
But this solution works just as simply without, as you say, overpowering the Slave Unit.
My thinking was keep-it-simple: as a measure of the amount of additional electronics that need to be installed, keep it to the existing unit but provide an equation for additional electronics that might be needed for a larger craft that was slaved.
But this solution works just as simply without, as you say, overpowering the Slave Unit.
E.D.Quibell
SOC-13
The table I put in works out at 0.4 CP per kg/l as the volume was 0.002 and weight 0.002, going higher over powers the slave unit CP against Computer Linked ones.
Regards,
Ewan
I'm really not having a good time reading other people's posts!
Yes, of course it's 0.4/kg or litre I read the power column. Yes, I still concur with you - 0.4/kg or litre it is. I don't think it will lead to major revisions of robot-sized robot designs but will be a good balance for anyone wanting a ship with a robot brain and a "beckon call".
Yes, of course it's 0.4/kg or litre I read the power column. Yes, I still concur with you - 0.4/kg or litre it is. I don't think it will lead to major revisions of robot-sized robot designs but will be a good balance for anyone wanting a ship with a robot brain and a "beckon call".
It has been a while since I have updated this thread. My lofty ambition: to thoroughly test the design concepts we have been discussing. I got out my old 101 Robots, 101 Vehicles (which includes a vehicle with a robot brain and has informed the discussion above re: control points) and started designing, using the URP's to reconstruct them.
My results are here:
In Excel
In Open Office
These two spreadsheets do not include the design evaluations, but I am hoping that when you read the yellow shaded labels across the top of each of the 108 designs, you will have enough information.
I would very much appreciate anyone casting a critical eye over these spreadsheets.
I have used the following principles.
1. Anything that has a robot brain gets the Robot Config multipliers for hull (x2 mass, x5 price). As discussed, I had been considering this being the "price" for a better braced hull that could take more damage. I am now tending to think this is a needless complication.
2. Robot brains and software are precisely as Book 8.
3. If total Control Points required divided by 250 divided by the INT rating is less than 0.05, no further controls are required, assume the brain has all required electronics to control the rest of the robot. Only two designs required any more consideration of control.
4. Master / Slaves work exactly as indicated by E.D. Quibell. I am sure mistakes have crept in here, I would very much appreciate someone going over them.
5. Where the item was already in the Mega Traveller rules, MT volumes / mass / prices / power requirements were used over Book 8. This is true in particular of fusion power plants.
6. Where for many "electronic" items there was no volume listed, it was assumed volume in litres = mass in kg x 2 (which is true for most electronics in MT). Because I started doing them with a one-for-one instead of a two-for-one, I am not sure that I have done this consistently and I would like some sharp eyes.
7. Weapons are included at the volumes and weights listed in the Imperial Encyclopedia. To save on any research about power requirements, I have put in volume and weight for power packs for energy weapons. I am open to suggestion on this, but I figured for now including the "magazines" would work the simplest.
8. For contact based suspensions (wheels, legs, tracks), I have used the left over power only to construct the transmission. I have further calculated base speeds based on both left over and total power, but the total power is only for comparison. Even with only left over power, most robots on legs can routine walk at 80kph - 120kph - off road!
9. I have endeavoured to correct mistakes I have found in the 101 Robots designs. I found many closed-hydrogen open-oxygen fuel cell designs had not considered that the robot would routinely be operating in environments without oxygen. I appreciate the original book was done by people who had day jobs and had tight deadlines to meet and probably did not have the benefit of spreadsheets.
10. Configuration UCP value is three digits. The first digit is the MT Craft Config - with the extension being A for "robot contoured" and B for "pseudo biological". Then a two-letter code - US for Unstreamlined, SL for Streamlined, and AF for Airframe.
11. For pseudo-bio robots (configuration "B") I have gone with legs that are usually 30% (in line with normal human proportions), but half of the volume is "given back" as Volume Provided because components can be installed there.
12. Strength (STR), Dexterity (DEX), Intelligence (INT) and Education (EDU) are calculated precisely as Book 8.
Just the exercise of including all components within hull volume has lead to some interesting results. In general, robots increased in size, and fuel (and hence endurance) dropped dramatically.
This is really only a problem with the pseudo-biologicals because in general they will be too tall on a suitable BMI to be realistically able to pass as human.
I would very much enjoy constructive feedback.
My results are here:
In Excel
In Open Office
These two spreadsheets do not include the design evaluations, but I am hoping that when you read the yellow shaded labels across the top of each of the 108 designs, you will have enough information.
I would very much appreciate anyone casting a critical eye over these spreadsheets.
I have used the following principles.
1. Anything that has a robot brain gets the Robot Config multipliers for hull (x2 mass, x5 price). As discussed, I had been considering this being the "price" for a better braced hull that could take more damage. I am now tending to think this is a needless complication.
2. Robot brains and software are precisely as Book 8.
3. If total Control Points required divided by 250 divided by the INT rating is less than 0.05, no further controls are required, assume the brain has all required electronics to control the rest of the robot. Only two designs required any more consideration of control.
4. Master / Slaves work exactly as indicated by E.D. Quibell. I am sure mistakes have crept in here, I would very much appreciate someone going over them.
5. Where the item was already in the Mega Traveller rules, MT volumes / mass / prices / power requirements were used over Book 8. This is true in particular of fusion power plants.
6. Where for many "electronic" items there was no volume listed, it was assumed volume in litres = mass in kg x 2 (which is true for most electronics in MT). Because I started doing them with a one-for-one instead of a two-for-one, I am not sure that I have done this consistently and I would like some sharp eyes.
7. Weapons are included at the volumes and weights listed in the Imperial Encyclopedia. To save on any research about power requirements, I have put in volume and weight for power packs for energy weapons. I am open to suggestion on this, but I figured for now including the "magazines" would work the simplest.
8. For contact based suspensions (wheels, legs, tracks), I have used the left over power only to construct the transmission. I have further calculated base speeds based on both left over and total power, but the total power is only for comparison. Even with only left over power, most robots on legs can routine walk at 80kph - 120kph - off road!
9. I have endeavoured to correct mistakes I have found in the 101 Robots designs. I found many closed-hydrogen open-oxygen fuel cell designs had not considered that the robot would routinely be operating in environments without oxygen. I appreciate the original book was done by people who had day jobs and had tight deadlines to meet and probably did not have the benefit of spreadsheets.
10. Configuration UCP value is three digits. The first digit is the MT Craft Config - with the extension being A for "robot contoured" and B for "pseudo biological". Then a two-letter code - US for Unstreamlined, SL for Streamlined, and AF for Airframe.
11. For pseudo-bio robots (configuration "B") I have gone with legs that are usually 30% (in line with normal human proportions), but half of the volume is "given back" as Volume Provided because components can be installed there.
12. Strength (STR), Dexterity (DEX), Intelligence (INT) and Education (EDU) are calculated precisely as Book 8.
Just the exercise of including all components within hull volume has lead to some interesting results. In general, robots increased in size, and fuel (and hence endurance) dropped dramatically.
This is really only a problem with the pseudo-biologicals because in general they will be too tall on a suitable BMI to be realistically able to pass as human.
I would very much enjoy constructive feedback.
Last edited:
BardicHeart
SOC-12
First, I've enjoyed reading this thread. Thank you for starting it. I'm still catching up on all the material but do have one comment.
A) Apply the modifier, this creates a building or hull that is fully automated. There is no need for crew space, passenger space (if any) is handled normally. All functions, including maintenance and self repair are fully automated with built in equipment. The increased mass (and possibly a decreased volume ? ) would represent the additional equipment necessary for this.
B) Install a robot brain on a standard hull, no modifier. Robotic crew is required to replace crew functions, crew spaces must be included for maintenance and repair as per a normal hull. In this case the robot brain fills the functions of captain/pilot/chief engineer/navigator. Robotic crew can either be autonomous robots or slave robots directly controlled by the robot brain.
Option B would be useful particularly if someone was automating an existing building, base or ship.
I was thinking about this, particularly in the case of large automated structures (automated factories, asteroid mining ships, etc.) and I think in those cases it could be handled one of two ways.
A) Apply the modifier, this creates a building or hull that is fully automated. There is no need for crew space, passenger space (if any) is handled normally. All functions, including maintenance and self repair are fully automated with built in equipment. The increased mass (and possibly a decreased volume ? ) would represent the additional equipment necessary for this.
B) Install a robot brain on a standard hull, no modifier. Robotic crew is required to replace crew functions, crew spaces must be included for maintenance and repair as per a normal hull. In this case the robot brain fills the functions of captain/pilot/chief engineer/navigator. Robotic crew can either be autonomous robots or slave robots directly controlled by the robot brain.
Option B would be useful particularly if someone was automating an existing building, base or ship.
Thanks BardicHeart!
Yes, I had thought that the Robot Config modifier could represent the additional articulation and detailing needed for an autonomous vehicle. As discussed earlier in this thread (and yes, I appreciate it's got quite long!) any vehicle that applies the Robot Config modifier gets a better inoperative damage / destroyed damage score.
Both spreadsheets contain an experimental damage by hull volume laid out in full. Bearing in mind a human is roughly 100 litres on that scale (well, actually more like 45 - 80 typically) and on a UPP of 777 gets hits of 2/5, it seems odd that robots at that size have hits of 1/1. This was the problem raised.
But what I've realised in writing out all these spreadsheets is that if I removed the x2 mass and x5 price modifier and instead doubled the armour multiplier, this adds substantially more armour. A typical robot design has an armour level of 2 - if we used a multiplier of x1 mass / x1 price instead of the 0.5 / 0.5 we get a typical armour of 4 for a low-armoured robot. This is enough to keep out a lot of small arms fire completely. And that's on non-combat models.
When we double the armour multiplier on the combat models, it doesn't go from 10 to 20, but it does add a fair bit more.
Because the spirit of Mega Traveller rules (in my opinion) is to add sufficient detail to be fun and no more than is necessary for that, we can satisfy robots being tougher just by upping the armour a bit and removing all the worry about a new way of calculating damage points. The net effect is the same (i.e. most robots can stand up to punishment from small arms fire, will be blown away by heavy weapons).
So I've concluded - let's ditch it.
There's plenty of accounting for articulation etc. in contact based transmissions, arms and tentacles, and the various tool packages.
By the way, for a laugh, got to Telku and AB-101 near the end and scroll down a bit. I've done some analysis based on BMI and their notional weight (which is based on volume rather than actual mass). The "small and delicate" Telku would be morbidly obese at the height quoted of 1.53m in 101 Robots.
Yes, I had thought that the Robot Config modifier could represent the additional articulation and detailing needed for an autonomous vehicle. As discussed earlier in this thread (and yes, I appreciate it's got quite long!) any vehicle that applies the Robot Config modifier gets a better inoperative damage / destroyed damage score.
Both spreadsheets contain an experimental damage by hull volume laid out in full. Bearing in mind a human is roughly 100 litres on that scale (well, actually more like 45 - 80 typically) and on a UPP of 777 gets hits of 2/5, it seems odd that robots at that size have hits of 1/1. This was the problem raised.
But what I've realised in writing out all these spreadsheets is that if I removed the x2 mass and x5 price modifier and instead doubled the armour multiplier, this adds substantially more armour. A typical robot design has an armour level of 2 - if we used a multiplier of x1 mass / x1 price instead of the 0.5 / 0.5 we get a typical armour of 4 for a low-armoured robot. This is enough to keep out a lot of small arms fire completely. And that's on non-combat models.
When we double the armour multiplier on the combat models, it doesn't go from 10 to 20, but it does add a fair bit more.
Because the spirit of Mega Traveller rules (in my opinion) is to add sufficient detail to be fun and no more than is necessary for that, we can satisfy robots being tougher just by upping the armour a bit and removing all the worry about a new way of calculating damage points. The net effect is the same (i.e. most robots can stand up to punishment from small arms fire, will be blown away by heavy weapons).
So I've concluded - let's ditch it.
There's plenty of accounting for articulation etc. in contact based transmissions, arms and tentacles, and the various tool packages.
By the way, for a laugh, got to Telku and AB-101 near the end and scroll down a bit. I've done some analysis based on BMI and their notional weight (which is based on volume rather than actual mass). The "small and delicate" Telku would be morbidly obese at the height quoted of 1.53m in 101 Robots.
BardicHeart
SOC-12
That would make building combat robots a tad hard wouldn't it.
Hmm... but that means at its core the bot is still pretty fragile, just has better armor, correct? Is this necessarily the way to go or does it make robots too easy to kill with a lucky shot?
I'm all for applying Ocam's Razor to rules whenever possible. But its good to be careful about over simplifing too. I'll give this some thought, I'm tempted to suggest a separate robot hull table as a solution but I'm not sure that's the way to go either. Need to mull it over.
:rofl:
BTW, know where I can buy a PDF of 101 robots, couldn't find one on DriveThruRPG? I swear, every time I turn around I hear of yet another book for Traveller I don't have. Its amazing how much stuff has been published for this game over the last 30 years.
Oh, forgot to add. Was looking at the Robot rules for TNE in the Vampire Fleets book, think any of that might be helpful?
Last edited:
101 Robots and 101 Vehicles are DGP publications, and aren't published anywhere, not even on the 'net anymore. Along with Travellers Digest (I only have a couple of issues!) World Builders Handbook (I loved it so much I didn't throw out Grand Census or Grand Survey either!) and other goodies.
Why? Well, I don't know, but there's one view on the Traveller Wiki. This entry gives a hint as to the legal complications. Such a shame.
I totally agree with you about the multiplication of Traveller publications! I came back to the game only a year ago or so after leaving it ... in 1988! I had vaguely heard of TNE, but T4, T20 and the recent Mongoose were complete revelations. I had even missed out on a lot of Mega Traveller material (still my favourite version of the game, although I would probably be hard pressed to justify it - probably sentiment).
Why? Well, I don't know, but there's one view on the Traveller Wiki. This entry gives a hint as to the legal complications. Such a shame.
I totally agree with you about the multiplication of Traveller publications! I came back to the game only a year ago or so after leaving it ... in 1988! I had vaguely heard of TNE, but T4, T20 and the recent Mongoose were complete revelations. I had even missed out on a lot of Mega Traveller material (still my favourite version of the game, although I would probably be hard pressed to justify it - probably sentiment).
BardicHeart
SOC-12
Still pondering the damage points for the chasis. It just doesn't seem right to me that a human sized robot can't soak a similar amount of damage as a person of similar size. Problem is if we adjust the formulas we end up "breaking" the continuity of the craft design system. So far I can't think of any workable solution unless maybe we include a "reinforcing option"... increase the mass, reduce available volume and this gives you a x% increase to damage points for inop/destroyed for the main chasis (representing a heavier / stronger chasis).
Possibly the rules from T4 for internal structure volume could work well as a basis for this.
Also, found this in the TNE section on robots (Vampire Fleets, p72) and thought it might be a useful thought.
Possibly the rules from T4 for internal structure volume could work well as a basis for this.
Also, found this in the TNE section on robots (Vampire Fleets, p72) and thought it might be a useful thought.
Last edited:
Similar threads
