• 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.

The trend to Gear-headedness

I'm sorry to hear that about Star Fire. Star Fire started out as the ultimate in gearheadedness; you built a ship, then you fought with it. I still remember all those "W"s and "A"a in a row, and all the other letters comprising systems and capabilities.

I always got a sense that that's where Traveller wanted to go with it's original rules; i.e. in Starter and Basic you spent the money (or promised to pay at least) for some architect, drafted up your "dream ship", and then went adventuring. The issue with Traveller, and why our group never got heavy into drafting up deckplans, was that it was a bit heavy and vague on what a "Ton" equaled in terms of volume ... a few other rules issues, such as how many hits your hold / cargo area or general hull could take before your ship flew apart, and so forth.

But I don't see T5 as leaning towards the Travller equivalent of Home Depot DIYers. I see it addressing the need for players and Refs to make up devices and vehicles they think would have been cool to have, but weren't addressed in the rules.

Example (and I've brought this up before); the LASER pistol from Mission on Mithril. It required that you wear a Laser Carbine power pack. It's like one of those things about Traveller from the early days that I'll never forget, because part of the whole idea behind a pistol is that it's portable and concealable. Wearing a big honking power pack meant for a military grade energy weapon is kind of a giveaway ... I mean you can't really hide it under your white dinner jacket as you enter the casino or five star restaurant. I immediately came up with the 10-shot battery that fit in the hilt of the weapon, and wondered why the author didn't include something similar in the write up.

That's kind of the whole point behind T5's various "thingy makers". I don't see a huge plethora of devices flooding the website, nor a revival of the Traveller Webring (which would actually be a cool thing, in my book) with all kinds of vehicles, ships and weapons. Maybe we need that?
 
Starfire's true deth was the fleet tactical. If you don't have at least 5 on a side, you're not actually seeing the tactical side. It's all about the overlapping fields of fire and maintaining the correct ranges for your weapons.
Ah, high-school. StarFire was a fun game.
The tactical level of Starfire disappears once you reach a certain level of budget, though. Got into a bet about it in high school. A budget level of ships was determined and we built our ships. The other guy built his five dreadnoughts (super-dreadnoughts?)with multi-targeting 4 and the the whole shebang. I brought two hundred scouts each with only one weapon. It was all that could fit on such a small ship. Back arc? Ha!
First round with all the weapons on all ships he could hit 25 targets and destroyed 25 scouts. Impressive. All 200 frigates targeted one ship. It pretty much went down like this
Start
Me: 200 scouts Him: 5 dreadnoughts
End Round 1
Me: 175 scouts Him: 4 dreadnoughts
End Round 2
Me: 155 scouts Him: 3 dreadnoughts
End Round 3
Me: 140 scouts Him: 2 dreadnoughts
End Round 4
Me: 130 scouts Him: 1 dreadnoughts
End Round 5
Me: 125 scouts Him: 0 dreadnoughts

He had his his revenge. He insisted I roll all dice, every round.
 
The other guy built his five dreadnoughts (super-dreadnoughts?)with multi-targeting 4 and the the whole shebang. I brought two hundred scouts each with only one weapon.

That's a balance issue in the design system. A better balanced system should handle extremes like that, either through the design system itself, or through some other control factor (such as some mechanic that simply makes 200 small ships untenable). Escort ships in SFB were particularly powerful, but had limitations on how many per fleet.

If you try that in HG, for example, you would get a different result. You'd find that the large ships can bring more gun tubes to the fight than the smaller ships per dton.

It's also a reason the design system needs to be built with the combat system in mind.
 
That's a balance issue in the design system. A better balanced system should handle extremes like that, either through the design system itself, or through some other control factor (such as some mechanic that simply makes 200 small ships untenable). Escort ships in SFB were particularly powerful, but had limitations on how many per fleet.

If you try that in HG, for example, you would get a different result. You'd find that the large ships can bring more gun tubes to the fight than the smaller ships per dton.

It's also a reason the design system needs to be built with the combat system in mind.

The limit of 6† through a warp point in a single turn does that. A few BS2's with M3, Datalink, and lots of GML's (Code W), and right quick, the scouts cease to be. (Especially since incoming ships cannot fire on their turn of transit.)

In a warp point assault, if the 200 scouts are defending, the DN fleet loses. If the DN's are defending, anything smaller than a DD usually dies before it can fire.

Yes, there are some issues with swarm vs capital ships... but the limits on shipyards usually preclude them after the first few waves; You can only get about 15:1 ratio on yard capacity. Which would be 75 escorts, not 200. :)


----
†Noting that it's actually 1 per impulse, and the maximum speed under 1E/2E is 6, and there are only as many impulses as the fastest ship. 1E/2E with strategic expansion, max speed goes to 7 due to that. 3E goes to 8, 9 with IT. I don't recall about later editions, because I've not played them.
 
I think it was either an issue of NEXUS or Captain's Log that offered the question of Balanced Ship design being an unbalanced proposal.

SFB ships are designed to retain a certain performance ideally represented in the BPV, with the notion that 300 points of whatever ship ought to be able to fight to a stand still in the hands of a two competent captains, and consequently the player with the higher combat BPV should be able to defeat a player with a lower BPV ship/fleet.

I see that concept creeping into this conversation, and it's always been my contention that a vessel, a real navy vessel regardless of the medium in which it operates (space, sea ... ether ... anime-desert sci-fi thing, what not) is designed and built with whatever capabilities you can cram into it.

Ergo SFB ships, and I suppose Star-F ships to a lesser extent, represent a game centered build criteria, whereas Traveller ships (ACS at least) aren't restrained by game balance issues. If you can fit it on your ship, then go for it. Kind of like Car Wars. Some player may splurge a gazillion dollars on a luxury sedan, but if he didn't buy reflective/fire-proof armor, and only mounted a single 50cal in a turret, well, tough-cookies for him when that decked out pickup with gobs of armor and an HDFOJ mounted in the back crosses in front of him and lights up his world.

SFB's criteria is to make the battles fun, because that's what the game is all about. Traveller is an RPG, and the design criteria is to make the vessels capable of whatever the players need and can afford within the rules.

Getting back to Gearheadedness; I think a caveat like this in either the designer's/author's notes in the back of a new T5, or perhaps as a caveat in front of the vehicle and starship design rules something to this effect might be in order.

In all honesty, I don't see people wanting to make stuff for their groups/games or to post it here or to sell it on Drivethru as an issue. I am curious why this topic came up at all. Isn't making stuff part of the fun of the new version of the rules?
 
My favorite tactical is still, of all things, Full Thrust. But unless you tweak massively (as I did) it suffers from the same SSU vs. BSU issues as Bk2 vs. Bk5 does. I liked it because you could teach someone starship combat in a couple of moments and after about ten minutes you could have them running a small fleet.

D.
 
My favorite tactical is still, of all things, Full Thrust. But unless you tweak massively (as I did) it suffers from the same SSU vs. BSU issues as Bk2 vs. Bk5 does. I liked it because you could teach someone starship combat in a couple of moments and after about ten minutes you could have them running a small fleet.

D.

The good: FT 2e is available at no charge.
The bad: FT2.5 emerges in the supplements
The Good: The supplements are still free, too
The Bad: it's intended for use with minis
The Good: Jon keeps the minis in production & stock
The Bad: the US distributor doesn't.
The Good: Chameleon Ecclectic used FT for their ship combat system for The Babylon Project
The Bad: CE went out of business, and so thier game is thus long OOP.
 
That's a balance issue in the design system. A better balanced system should handle extremes like that, either through the design system itself, or through some other control factor (such as some mechanic that simply makes 200 small ships untenable). Escort ships in SFB were particularly powerful, but had limitations on how many per fleet.

If you try that in HG, for example, you would get a different result. You'd find that the large ships can bring more gun tubes to the fight than the smaller ships per dton.

It's also a reason the design system needs to be built with the combat system in mind.

I disagree. The balance issue was in building the 5 DN force instead of a well-balanced mix of escorts and large ships vs. maneuver.

The 'right' big ship force against a small CT/FF force in SF is BC mixed with DD, in comparing my BC fleet vs. competing same cost build fleets I had 30% more tonnage and about 80% the same survival range at bombardment. And more importantly those BCs can light up the small ships at range and maintain distance for many turns more then BB/DN/MTs.

Carriers are a good choice too against that opponent, but a mite fragile and doubtful that they can get enough fighter sortie turnaround before the light ships eventually close.

BBs, DNs and MTs are about warp point assault, not good general purpose builds.
 
No love for power projection?

Power Projection is Full Thrust 2 point sideways.

As for Aramis' points on that, unless it has changed recently there hasn't been an approved US distributor for Ground Zero Games since GeoHex self destructed, but Jon has a tame wormhole he uses for shipping. Prior to last year's trans-Atlantic infusion of molasses into shipping, I could order from GZG on a Sunday night and have my order by that Friday. In California.
 
Last edited:
Power Projection is Full Thrust 2 point sideways.

A curious descriptor there...
I'll note that FT itself is a relatively small ship universe (1 Mass = 100 Metric tons)... biggest ships around 150 Mass... 1 Td ranges from a low range of 2.5 to a high of 10 metric tons per Td.

Which would mean, in traveller terms, between 1500 Td and 3000 Td...

IIRC, they used 100Td per Mass for PP...

And by the time they got done, it barely looked like PP anymore. It had PP movement, and PP's threshold check system... and everything else went sideways.
 
I think the trend towards being a Gear Head, and requiring a computer or a very powerful hand calculator to design ships and vehicles started with High Guard. Striker made it worse, a lot worse, and Fire, Fusion and Steel was the ultimate masturbatory fantasy of the Gear Head crowd. I think that the vast majority of players did not wish to use the rules to design starships and vehicles to that degree. I think most ended at the Car Wars stage of design.

Comment?
I'll ask again; is this really an issue with Traveller? I mean now? When the Webring was a live and vibrant, and we had more colorful posters here, it seemed like all kinds of devices were being cranked out and posted.

But Traveller, now, seems to be in a bit of a trough.
 
I'll ask again; is this really an issue with Traveller? I mean now? When the Webring was a live and vibrant, and we had more colorful posters here, it seemed like all kinds of devices were being cranked out and posted.

But Traveller, now, seems to be in a bit of a trough.

Part of that is that Mongoose has drawn a lot of Traveller fans over to their forums; there's a lot of vibrant discussion there.

SJG likewise pulled a lot of Traveller discussion to their Forums.

A game world that has 3 official boards is undoubtedly going to have less vibrant discussion on any one of them than when there was one official board. It does, however, lead to less heated discussion, as well.
 
But what is the issue you're trying to address? Are there too many starships and vehicles being uploaded to the gallery or some other website? Are people really getting into making ships and vehicles as opposed to actually generating characters and playing the game?

That's my question.
 
I would think there is plenty of space on the internet to post just about anything or is it about to run out :eek:

I liked your post about modifying the laser pistol to a 10 shot battery, but for me I don't need to consult some convoluted system of esoteric tables to justify the thing.
 
Last edited:
I would think there is plenty of space on the internet to post just about anything or is it about to run out :eek:

I liked your post about modifying the laser pistol to a 10 shot battery, but for me I don't need to consult some convoluted system of esoteric tables to justify the thing.

There you go :)
 
Back
Top