To vector, or not to vector...

[rancke]

But the free traders we deal with as Refeers arn't typical.

They're not?

The PCs scratch around in port looking for cargo and passangers, and get distracted by a Patron that sends them on an erond across the bright face while the ship sits in port doing nothing for three weeks.

Ah, I see what you mean. But if your players are playing straight according to the Traveller trade rules -- what I refer to as 'The Merchant Game' -- the Patron will have to pay them something comparable to what they could have earned by leaving as soon as they had scrounged up a cargo. Otherwise they won't be able to meet their bank payments. So PC free traders may be unusual with respect to the amount of extracurricular opportunities they get, but I see no reason to believe that their merchant activities are different from the activities of any other free traders.

Are you saying that as the PCs are so atypical that they should be bugged by law enforcment _all_ the time? much like a pirate would be?

No. I'm saying that if the PCs get a charter from a Patron to go to Venus in their starship and do a little job for him, their ship should be given a traffic slot that won't bring it them close enough to any other ship to intercept it. Also, they should expect that the local system defenses might keep an eye on them. Much like a pirate should.

Of course, this is two different situations we're talking about. One is general background, the other is gaming. If the authorities ought to be all over the PCs like a coat of paint but neither referee nor players think that it would be fun to get into all that, the referee should just ignore it for purposes of getting the game running smoothly. But if you want to do realistic world-building, you should assume that if something ought to happen then it does happen.


Hans

 

[rancke]

Sadly, generalizations have a way of quickly becoming certainties and then eventually strictures. After generalities fossilize into certainties and strictures, they spark unwarranted assumptions such as the idea that a pirate will only target a vessel with jump drives or that vessels with jump drives will never carry in-system freight so they can never be a target of piracy beyond the port-to-limit route.

In at least some of the cases it's simply the difference between occurences that are so rare that they don't warrant inclusion in a general overview. It can be the difference between:

"What are we going to do today, Captain?"

"We're going to implement the plan that we've spent months working out and pull off the robbery of the century deep into Sol's jump shadow that will earn us enough money to retire to a life of ease."​

And:

"What are we going to do today, Captain?"

"What we always do, Pinky. Hang around deep inside Sol's jump shadow hoping to snatch up a prize that'll keep us in bread and butter for a while."​

Hans

 

[Whipsnade]

Assuaging the greater public concern, no guerrilla insurgency would ever commandeer a mass-driver device and attempt to weaponize it against military and or civilian targets downrange --- that would be so unsporting as to be beyond any serious consideration.

Boomslang,

That's another thing which has happened IMTU's Grote/Glisten.

Seriously: small craft are your best bet...

Because no guerrilla insurgency would ever commandeer a small craft and attempt to weaponize it against military and or civilian targets --- that too would be so unsporting as to be beyond any serious consideration.

You'll have to excuse me now because I have dinner reservations at Windows on the World that I'm loathe to miss...


Regards,
Bill

 

[boomslang]

Because no guerrilla insurgency would ever commandeer a small craft and attempt to weaponize it against military and or civilian targets --- that too would be so unsporting as to be beyond any serious consideration.

Plus, of course, such a formidable and terrifying weapon as a hijacked small craft would be completely unstoppable by even the most robust of planetary defenses, right?

I mean what chance does a mere Dragon-class SDB have against an unarmed Book 2 shuttle? Instant win for the terrorists...

 

[boomslang]

You'll have to excuse me now because I have dinner reservations at Windows on the World that I'm loathe to miss...

Well, admittedly, I am assuming at least a minimal level of military competence in my scenarios...

 

[the angle]

I do find it amusing that an innocuous discussion about the merits of vector movement vs. range bands has turned into yet another debate about the viability of piracy in Traveller ...

Steve

 

[sabredog]

Is that what we were discussing? Wow, I just went freefall into the stream of consciousness method of discussion here and plum forgot.

Shows what happens when you try to use fictional and hypothetical examples to bolster arguments for or against a method of modeling on a 2D surface a mode of movement in a 3D medium within a fictional game. It ends up just being the same old thing.

Like the endless argument about how a samurai would dice up a fighter in D&D reborn because a katana cut through a VW on some History Channel show.

In this case, though, I vote yeah for pirates and same for vectoring. I don't think the latter can cause the exclusion of the former, nor does the inclusion of the former mean the latter can't be used.

 

[Supplement Four]

Like the endless argument about how a samurai would dice up a fighter in D&D reborn because a katana cut through a VW on some History Channel show.

LOL.

Yeah, but give the fighter a lightsaber and see what happens.

 

[sabredog]

And we're off...

OK, but more pertinent to the forum is would an Aslan with a katana beat a Marine in powered armor? Huh, huh? Yeah..here atomic samurai kitty, try and cut through superdense.

 

[sabredog]

Although really, I don't think the ASC (Atomic Samurai Cat) could get close to the Marine unless he began his attack at least 20 seconds before the Marine began reaching for his cutlass, because the ASC would only be able to accelerate at a rate slower than the Marine in powered armor.

The ASC would always be a few seconds behind the Marine and would not be able close to katana distance unless banded movement were used. Or if the cat put down his flower arrangement and decided to attack the Marine yesterday. In which case the ASC is now far enough ahead of the acceleration curve that he can close with the Marine (who is moving at a far faster rate not just because of the powered armor but because and some idiot Midshipman on a dare from his mess mates glued his head to the bulkhead with nanoglue causing him to tear half his scalp off breaking loose and now he really wants to kill someone because he couldn't find the Middie before the strike klaxons went off) and by now his combat vector is waaaaaay ahead of the cat's curve in spit of the fact that cat's move so fast.

Well, Earth cats do, and sometimes space pirate amazon ninja catgirsl do (and we all love catgirls don't we?) but Aslan are so big and bulky that I really doubt that they can turn on a dime and land on all four feet, so I don't think they can match vectors with a Marine unless maybe they start the attack the day before the flower arranging and really start working up to a frenzy after loosing a battle of wits with his sister about how much the groceries cost because, dang it sis I wanted to serve Vargr to our guest!

Ok, so now the Aslan is really moving and burning calories while the Marine is only barely breaking a sweat in his armor (and that's more because the armorer didn't fix the A/C in the suit like he asked) and they begin swing at like...oh Short range, and are moving at an oblique angle to eachother's center axis....but I'm pretty sure the Marine still has the slight edge in acceleration so the ASC has to extend his swing a wee bit to match vector here....

Blam! the Marine's buddy shoots the Aslan and ends the fight proving once again that and angry cat with a katana is no match for the speed and firepower of an angry Marine.

SO what were we talking about?

 

[spinwardpirate]

I do find it amusing that an innocuous discussion about the merits of vector movement vs. range bands has turned into yet another debate about the viability of piracy in Traveller ...

Steve

I always try my best to stay out of them. Been there. Done that.

I actually found the discussion about range band combat to be very interesting. Next time I play Traveller, I think I'm going to go range band for space combat.

 

[Tellon]

I actually found the discussion about range band combat to be very interesting. Next time I play Traveller, I think I'm going to go range band for space combat.

Yeah, it does seem intertesting -- with TNE having those 30,000 km hexes -- long ranges for combat just seems a stretch .. close-in figting, timing and "alpha-strike" barrages seem to be the order of the day

 

[Whipsnade]

Plus, of course, such a formidable and terrifying weapon as a hijacked small craft would be completely unstoppable by even the most robust of planetary defenses, right?

Boomslang,

And a mass driver package is so much harder to target, isn't it? Coasting along, no changes in vector, course plotted ages ago, sounds like a damn tricky shot for those planetary defenses when compared to small craft with their maneuver drives and all.

Are mass drivers potentially dangerous? Sure.

Are they more dangerous than small craft? Hardly.

The utility of a given device can and does overcome the danger inherent in it's operation.


Regards,
Bill

 

[sabredog]

The utility of a given device can and does overcome the danger inherent in it's operation.

Absolutely.

Take, oh....automobiles for example.

 

[boomslang]

Boomslang,

And a mass driver package is so much harder to target, isn't it? Coasting along, no changes in vector, course plotted ages ago, sounds like a damn tricky shot for those planetary defenses when compared to small craft with their maneuver drives and all.

Ah, but the problem is, once weaponized, a KE mass driver payload can easily be extraordinarily stealthy; a small craft is limited in its stealth profile by the need to dump IR overboard constantly -- and indeed, the more nimble it is, the bigger its IR signature will be. Within any given Trav space combat game mechanic, an MD payload and a small craft will be roughly equivalent for targeting purposes, but not for detection purposes. The whole "gotcha" with weaponized MD payloads is that they will be traveling outside of the regularly-plotted course lanes while lacking the transponders that otherwise keep them from being hazards to navigation: they are big, dark, cold, radar-and-ladar-absorbing rocks/artifacts that are quietly hurling along where they are not expected to be. Oh sure, they are easy to hit and pulverize in combat (especially since they are unlikely to be traveling anywhere near the speed of light, <cough, cough>), but that presupposes you can see them coming early enough to effectively engage them.

The utility of a given device can and does overcome the danger inherent in it's operation.

Usually but not always, especially when the risks are scaled up or are asymmetrical. Even in the OTU, thermonuclear devices are genuinely quite useful, but the list of agencies who might have use for them is much longer than the list of agencies actually permitted by the authorities to use them. Ditto psionics in the OTU: highly useful in a wide range of applications, but (wherever possible) also highly controlled and restricted to a narrow range of applications.

Mass drivers fall into this category as well (from events that you note from canon), but small craft -- again from canon -- simply do not. This is why we are told, starting in LBB2, that small craft are generally operationally configured without computers or armaments, for example. (The obvious exception being the ill-suited-for-cargo-hauling Fighter, of course.) Small craft (and big craft, too -- but if you run the numbers on gee-dton cost-efficiency, small craft usually come out being cheaper) are the widely-available infrastructure for in-system transport, generally, while MDs are a niche technology for special applications.

 

[sabredog]

You can't wrap the universe in bubble wrap.

Post some troops at the MD launcher site that is conveniently located in the middle of a military base. And/or announce loudly that messing with it is a terrorist act of war and nuke the snot out of anyone who does try to mess with it.

Civilian airplanes haven't been banned even though they have turned out to be highly useful as weapons. Small space craft (or large depending on the cargo) wouldn't be either.

Why? Commerce and common sense must prevail, so the same with mass drivers for some cargo slinging - they are cheap, effective, and reliable.

 

[sabredog]

Mass drivers fall into this category as well (from events that you note from canon), but small craft -- again from canon -- simply do not. This is why we are told, starting in LBB2, that small craft are generally operationally configured without computers or armaments, for example. (The obvious exception being the ill-suited-for-cargo-hauling Fighter, of course.) Small craft (and big craft, too -- but if you run the numbers on gee-dton cost-efficiency, small craft usually come out being cheaper) are the widely-available infrastructure for in-system transport, generally, while MDs are a niche technology for special applications.

None of the craft, large or otherwise (with the fighter exception) come "configured for combat", yet all of them are more capable of being so configured after purchase than any of today's civilian analogue. In fact, the starship have tonnage specially set aside for fire control and come with hardpoints for free. And all of the small craft can carry and fire weapons without the need for computers since (except for the fighter) they have "small craft bridges" which the rules point out allow for operations that would otherwise require a computer including use of weapons.

So what are you talking about?

 

[Whipsnade]

Ah, but the problem is, once weaponized, a KE mass driver payload can easily be extraordinarily stealthy...

Boomslang,

The real problem is your incomprehension.

Within any given Trav space combat game mechanic, an MD payload and a small craft will be roughly equivalent for targeting purposes, but not for detection purposes.

Detection purposes? Really? Why don't you fill us in on "detection" rules from HG2 then?

The whole "gotcha" with weaponized MD payloads is that they will be traveling outside of the regularly-plotted course lanes while lacking the transponders that otherwise keep them from being hazards to navigation: they are big, dark, cold, radar-and-ladar-absorbing rocks/artifacts that are quietly hurling along where they are not expected to be.

Who's targeting who? In a balkanized system the various polities will have protocols regarding mass drivers and launches from mass drivers, just we have protocols regarding ballistic missiles and launches of the same.

And where are MDs located anyway? No on the ground, gravitics trumps that use. MDs will be in space, in orbit, where anyone with a telescope can keep an eye on them and see any "unauthorized" launches. And just how long will it take an object launched from Luna to reach Earth? Or Mars? Or Ceres?

Oh sure, they are easy to hit and pulverize in combat (especially since they are unlikely to be traveling anywhere near the speed of light, <cough, cough>)...

Near-c rocks? Please don't insult our intelligence. The driver can be easily engineered to physically prevent launches above a certain velocity.

Even in the OTU, thermonuclear devices are genuinely quite useful, but the list of agencies who might have use for them is much longer than the list of agencies actually permitted by the authorities to use them.

The Imperial frowns on using nukes in combat on a planet, but doesn't exactly prohibit their use or limit the possession of the same. Nukes are owned and used by a myriad of organizations in the OTU and the Imperium judges each use on it's individual merits.

Mass drivers fall into this category as well (from events that you note from canon)...

What "events" are you talking about? Surelyt nothing I wrote about. The two times I wrote about mass drivers I took care to include the term IN MY TRAVELLER UNIVERSE in my posts. I know of no events involving mass drivers in actual canon. Do you?

Other than TNE's FF&S construction rules, the only mention of mass drivers I know of are those used as spacecraft propulsion systems in MT's "One Small Step" articles.

This is why we are told, starting in LBB2, that small craft are generally operationally configured without computers or armaments, for example.

That statement is so mind-boggling wrong, I don't even know where to begin.

...while MDs are a niche technology for special applications.

Which is precisely why they are used IMTU's labor starved Grote/Glisten.

This thread has taken a rather odd turn and several of the claims made in your posts are even odder. I can't quite make out what you're thinking or what your reservations are concerning mass drivers.


Regards,
Bill

 

[boomslang]

Commerce and common sense must prevail, so the same with mass drivers for some cargo slinging - they are cheap, effective, and reliable.

"Some" cargo slinging, indeed. "Cheap, effective, and reliable" in certain specialized applications.

For example: low-value solid-state stuff that does not need protecting against theft in transit, stuff that is explicitly not being hurled directly towards a Hi Pop world, stuff that can survive a long duration in vacuum so you can sling it at sane velocities, stuff that is not going so far that it will require nearly-impossible-to-make mid-course corrections, et cetera.

So what are you talking about?

I was going to ask you the same question.

Of course small craft can mount computers; we are explicitly told, however, that most of them do not. Furthermore, slapping weapons on them is as you mention likewise trivial -- and of course, a computer is also worth sticking in there while you are at it, since a vessel without a computer is a joke in combat under pretty much any version of Trav.

In terms of big craft and starships, it is well-established that larger spacecraft of all kinds routinely mount weaponry -- and yet, kamikaze terrorist attacks are not a large part of the OTU.

I ask you to ponder: why is that?

 

[boomslang]

Boomslang,

The real problem is your incomprehension.

Perhaps if your arguments were more logically-sound and coherent, it would help their comprehensibility.