The SMG has been found

[tbeard1999]

SQUATS!

Come on now, every game needs Squats! LOL..

Ok so maybe not... please no. Although Shuricats are cool in their own way. Although one Idea that would be neat would be a man portable jump generator to jump small distances on a battlefield.

<Goes off to play his 40k army>

On topic though, Although I have enjoyed what MGT has put out, I must admit that none of their products has stood by itself. Had I not had CT to use to fall back on, I would say that a lot of the new players are really not getting as decent a product as they deserve.

Is it a good game? Yes.

This must be some new definition of the word "good" that I am unacquainted with.

However it is not as good as it could be if they had just gone the (very) little extra distance to produce something that was not just 'good' but 'excellent'. This issue with the SMG and Shuricat, sorry Mag Rail Gun, are just parts of it.

Note: Yes I do understand that certain of the books are meant to be more for any sci-fi game instead of just the 3I. It still does not mean they could not have added the extra 50-100 words they needed to make the difference.

My gripe with adding shuriken catapults -- and other ridiculous science fantasy weaponry -- is that a core Traveller characteristic has been plausible weaponry. Some of it is futuristic, of course, but always plausible.

Shuriken catapults, like lightsabers, fail the plausibility test completely. Any weapon that could power a 4" spinning disk would be FAR better used to power a hail of 4mm slugs. While magic frisbees may look cool (questionable), they are not very good weapons systems (compared with the alternatives).

And if Traveller is going to be, uh, reimagined, I'd prefer that the reimaginers take the time to actually learn about weaponry, future trends, etc. You know, kinda like Marc Miller and the GDW crew did?

This is just a personal gripe, but I really find the patronizing tone of some MGT fans to be pathetically misplaced. People who actually think that a hard sci-fi, multiple Charles Roberts Award-winning RPG needs poorly disguised WH40K knock-offs seem ill-placed to patronize anyone...

 

[mike wightman]

I'd include barrel length as a significant characteristic. SMGs would be 5.5-10.5"; Carbines would be 13-18"; assault rifles would be 19-22"; and rifles would be 24"+.

And even though some fire pistol ammo, the performance would be significantly enhanced due to the much longer barrel length.

I completely agree, an smg should do more damage/have greater penetration than a pistol firing the same round.

It's just the whole carbine/smg debate is more due to historical marketing than actual military classification.

Take the tommy gun, smg or carbine? Compare it with the semi-auto M1 - which interestingly enough was required as a pistol replacement for second line troops.

 

[tbeard1999]

I completely agree, an smg should do more damage/have greater penetration than a pistol firing the same round.

Given the granularity of most RPG combat systems, dramatically increasing the effective range would be a reasonable way to portray the difference in capability. Of course, if the combat system can show it (for instance, my "Combat System C" at http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=17021 ), then the carbine should at least have better armor penetration. (Damage from firearms is a hotly debated topic and its unclear whether pistols actually do more damage because of larger bullets, compared with smaller rifle bullets with far more muzzle energy. For dramatic reasons, my combat systems tend to give pistols good damage, but very low penetration).

It's just the whole carbine/smg debate is more due to historical marketing than actual military classification.

Take the tommy gun, smg or carbine? Compare it with the semi-auto M1 - which interestingly enough was required as a pistol replacement for second line troops.

The M1921 Thompson SMG, with the 10.5" barrel firing .45ACP rounds would clearly be a SMG. The variant Thompson M1922, (designed to replace the Browning Automatic Rifle) firing a much more powerful .45 cal round from a 14 inch barrel would be a carbine at least. It was not a successful design, I suspect because the .45 cal round had poor long range performance due to its large diameter. The M1928, M1, and M1A1 Thompsons would be SMGs as well (10.5" barrel; .45 ACP ammo).

The M1/M2 carbines were much longer, had 18" barrels and fired a much more powerful round than the .45 ACP (twice the muzzle energy). Interestingly, there was an automatic version (the M2). An unsuccessful proto-assault rifle, perhaps. And the M1 Carbine turned out to be reasonably popular with combat troops.

I think that the two weapons systems (carbines and SMG) are clearly distinguishable.

I'll probably distinguish in my combat system between long barreled SMGs (8"+) and short barreled ones (7"-). The former would have a longer effective range, the latter would be much more compact.

 

[atpollard]

Yet another example of a purported game designer not bothering to educate himself on the subject, IMHO.

Probably a simple omission, unless you have heard Mongoose say something official that implies 'MGT don't need no stinking SMGs'.

The Carbine=SMG sounds like a fan idea of a fix.
A better solution would be to just stat a SMG and post it.

 

[tbeard1999]

Probably a simple omission, unless you have heard Mongoose say something official that implies 'MGT don't need no stinking SMGs'.

True, but this isn't the first time a shocking lack of knowledge about small arms has been detected with the MGT design team. The inference that they don't know <bleep> about such things is becoming more and more reasonable IMHO.

The Carbine=SMG sounds like a fan idea of a fix.
A better solution would be to just stat a SMG and post it.

Haven't checked the MGT forum, I believe that someone here stated that the designer confirmed that the light carbine was supposed to be the same as a SMG. Anyhow, as noted, the weapons systems are profoundly different.

 

[atpollard]

If I were going to 'fudge' a SMG, I'd just use all the range and damage for Pistol and add full auto fire. Still not completely accurate, but better than the carbine in my opinion.

 

[tbeard1999]

If I were going to 'fudge' a SMG, I'd just use all the range and damage for Pistol and add full auto fire. Still not completely accurate, but better than the carbine in my opinion.

Maybe double or triple the effective range and that would do it. Because of their significantly longer barrels, SMGs have a significantly longer effective range (though still very inferior to carbines).

 

[atpollard]

Maybe double or triple the effective range and that would do it. Because of their significantly longer barrels, SMGs have a significantly longer effective range (though still very inferior to carbines).

Is the MGT combat system that granular? CT ranges weren't.

I just figure that the longer barrel (and heavier weight) offsets the barrel climb from multiple shots, so any improvement would be below the threshold of the game mechanic when comparing say a Colt 1911 to a Tommy Gun ... both were traditionally up-close-and-personal weapons, not 150+ yards.

 

[tbeard1999]

Is the MGT combat system that granular? CT ranges weren't.

No probably not. (I don't have my copy of the rules with me). I've ditched the predefined ranges in favor of effective, long and extreme ranges for each weapon (ala Striker). I guess I was thinking of that.

I just figure that the longer barrel (and heavier weight) offsets the barrel climb from multiple shots, so any improvement would be below the threshold of the game mechanic when comparing say a Colt 1911 to a Tommy Gun ... both were traditionally up-close-and-personal weapons, not 150+ yards.

It's been awhile since I researched this, but IIRC, SMG armed infantry in WWII was able to engage enemy forces effectively at ~50m. I doubt pistols would be very useful at those kinda ranges.

In Striker, FWIW, 9mm SMGs have effective/long ranges of 25m/50m. 9mm pistols have effective/long ranges of 10m/40m. 7mm carbines have effective/long ranges of 100m/180m.

 

[Jamus]

Yeah, I was just saying that Traveller really needs shuriken catapults. Not to mention Psykers, Avatars, Warp Spiders, vortex grenades, lightsabers, personal deflector shields, teleportation belts, dustbuster phasers, black hole guns and atomic napalm neutralizers. And boy, Eldar, Orks and Squats would be great additions to Traveller canon as well.

When you compare the success of warhammer 40k to any and all versions of traveller i would say that maybe traveller could use a few 40k elements.

Dark Heresy is a great system and even better setting in terms of depth and continuity. That said of all the versions of Traveller released I think it could be argued that MonTrav is the best. I know some of you guys are still hanging on to your CT + house rules and thats great, it really is but dont try to argue that a 1956 VW with a bunch of sheet metal and after market parts tacked on is a better car than the 2008 mustang. Thats just crazy talk. It like those guys over at wotc who spend all day argueing the OD&D purple box is far superior to 4ed. its ridiculous.

 

[Echo]

When you compare the success of warhammer 40k to any and all versions of traveller i would say that maybe traveller could use a few 40k elements.

Dark Heresy is a great system and even better setting in terms of depth and continuity. That said of all the versions of Traveller released I think it could be argued that MonTrav is the best. I know some of you guys are still hanging on to your CT + house rules and thats great, it really is but dont try to argue that a 1956 VW with a bunch of sheet metal and after market parts tacked on is a better car than the 2008 mustang. Thats just crazy talk. It like those guys over at wotc who spend all day argueing the OD&D purple box is far superior to 4ed. its ridiculous.

I'm not sure about the comparitive success between the two game releases this year. I know both sold out on initial print runs, but I suspect that Dark Heresy was stalled a bit, after the confusion with Black Industries being shut down. Mongoose Traveller, apparently has now sold out on three print runs however.

In terms of production standards, DH is clearly a full colour, high quality book, so on that grounds it trumps Traveller. I have to say though, that compared to the WFRP system, I found the DH system a little bland and over-conventionalised. I found the Traveller systems much more fun to play, whilst the fact that it wasn't specifically tied to a single setting meant I could get more creative use from it. Just my view, of course.

I do agree that all the factionalisation of Traveller, through various editions, is unhealthy though.

 

[danbuter]

One thing about MGT, the main writer is from Ireland and the publishers are from Britain. I doubt they have much, if any, actual experience handling a real firearm. Which is too bad.

 

[Jame]

One thing about MGT, the main writer is from Ireland and the publishers are from Britain. I doubt they have much, if any, actual experience handling a real firearm. Which is too bad.

Yes, which might explain the difference between gun damage in CT and in MGT. I would solve this by making handgun damage 3d6 (body pistols 2d6) and longarm damage 3d6+3.

 

[Allensh]

Yes, which might explain the difference between gun damage in CT and in MGT. I would solve this by making handgun damage 3d6 (body pistols 2d6) and longarm damage 3d6+3.

Do you have the old Judges Guild Traveller Referee Screen for CT? It is somewhat instructive to look at...as its weapon damages for many weapons are almost exactly the same as MGT's. Those damages were based on the "first edition" of CT, and were later changed in 'second edition' (around, I believe, 1981...the versions that are in the reprints). Were they changed to make the game more accurate...or more playable? I think it was the latter.

Allen

 

[far-trader]

Do you have the old Judges Guild Traveller Referee Screen for CT? It is somewhat instructive to look at...as its weapon damages for many weapons are almost exactly the same as MGT's. Those damages were based on the "first edition" of CT, and were later changed in 'second edition' (around, I believe, 1981...the versions that are in the reprints). Were they changed to make the game more accurate...or more playable? I think it was the latter.

Allen

More playable for sure.

But you're not saying MGT went with the originals because it was more accurate and less playable are you? It's clearly not more accurate in any real way. And I don't think you mean they made a deliberate move to make it less playable.

 

[tbeard1999]

When you compare the success of warhammer 40k to any and all versions of traveller i would say that maybe traveller could use a few 40k elements.

Well, we've now got shuriken catapults. Can gretchen really be that far behind?

However, I am skeptical that amateurish attempts to lift miscellaneous wargear from WH40K will net the MGT design team anything but well deserved ridicule. And maybe just a little pity.

That said of all the versions of Traveller released I think it could be argued that MonTrav is the best.

Ah, a new definition of the word "best"...

In any case, baldy stating something is *not* the same as making a coherent, well-supported argument.

I know some of you guys are still hanging on to your CT + house rules and thats great, it really is but dont try to argue that a 1956 VW with a bunch of sheet metal and after market parts tacked on is a better car than the 2008 mustang. Thats just crazy talk.

Maybe so, but what's *really* delusional is comparing MGT to a 2008 Mustang... More like a 2008 Yugo (if Yugos were still being made).

It like those guys over at wotc who spend all day argueing the OD&D purple box is far superior to 4ed. its ridiculous.

I dunno...I think you're stretching here. Are you actually saying that plagiarizing WH40K is a *good* move for MGT?

 

[tbeard1999]

Do you have the old Judges Guild Traveller Referee Screen for CT? It is somewhat instructive to look at...as its weapon damages for many weapons are almost exactly the same as MGT's. Those damages were based on the "first edition" of CT, and were later changed in 'second edition' (around, I believe, 1981...the versions that are in the reprints). Were they changed to make the game more accurate...or more playable? I think it was the latter.
Allen

The changes were first made in Snapshot in 1979. The major change was that all weapon damage was converted to a certain number of dice with no modifiers. This made the CT damage mechanic much easier to utilize.

However, it seems silly to me for a game designer to uncritically adapt CT damages. CT's combat system distinguished between penetration and damage; MGT does not. MGT damage (poorly) tries to represent both damage and penetration. Therefore uncritically adopting CT damage without reference to penetration is rather odd.

In any case, MGT's damage and armor model is (IMHO) badly conceived and poorly implemented. While the worst problems can be fixed, it's hard for me to see the point.

 

[aramis]

It's much easier to take MGT characters and drop them into other editions task/combat/damage models than to fix what's in the book for realism.

 

[Icosahedron]

One thing about MGT, the main writer is from Ireland and the publishers are from Britain. I doubt they have much, if any, actual experience handling a real firearm. Which is too bad.

IMHO, if anything Ireland and Britain have had too much experience in handling firearms, but we'll not pursue that point.

I know what you're saying, but anyone can look up figures, even if they've never seen a gun. It just seems that, by all accounts, Mongoose didn't bother. There are many people, even here in the UK, who have handled weapons and could provide advice - if they were asked.

 

[tbeard1999]

IMHO, if anything Ireland and Britain have had too much experience in handling firearms, but we'll not pursue that point.

I know what you're saying, but anyone can look up figures, even if they've never seen a gun. It just seems that, by all accounts, Mongoose didn't bother. There are many people, even here in the UK, who have handled weapons and could provide advice - if they were asked.

The galling thing is that it's never been easier or cheaper to educate oneself on such matters. I've never fired a TOW-2B antitank guided missile, but my wargames rules accurately model their real world performance. And I'm an amateur designer. I'd expect the professionals to do at least as well.

For that matter. clear and concise descriptions of weaponry can be found in past Traveller supplements. Things like "assault rifle" and "SMG" are clearly identified (and in most cases, 20th century equivalents are given). And tools like Excel make it absurdly easy to develop models for things like damage and penetration.

It just ain't that hard...