Topics Enjoying 30 Years of Discussion

[robject]

I'd like your thoughts about which discussions we keep circling around to. Discussions and arguments we've had for 30+ years, which may or may not seem to find a resolution, but always crop up again.

I seem to think that this would be a good list to keep handy. Kind of a like a FAQ, ultimately or ideally, where at least you can read the positions. Maybe it will build an informed base for better discussions. Or maybe it'll just be a list of grievances. Either way. Kind of like my "IMTU" page, but better targeted.

Thoughts? Who wants to start? I know you guys know of at least one topic.

Frequent Topics List

• Dreadnoughts versus Battle-Riders
• Dreadnoughts versus Fighters
• Drop Tanks
• Gazelle-class Escorts - Broken
• Is Traveller the Rules or the Setting?
• Jump Torpedos - Broken
• Near-C Rocks
• Piracy - Impossible?
• Robots, AI, and Ship's Computers
• Starship Expenses are Too Expensive
• Stealth in Space - Impossible
• System Defenses are Formidable
• Xboats - Originally Broken

 

[whartung]

I honestly never thought PPPP was a thing until I saw the sig.

May as well shove Drop Tanks on that list. They're a bone of contention.

 

[robject]

I honestly never thought PPPP was a thing until I saw the sig.

I remember it flaring up here on COTI more than once, and it showed up on the TML as well (April 1997 is one example, although it's house rules).

 

[robject]

Starship Expenses are Too Expensive

The core argument is that recurring expenses would destroy a typical crew. Expenses are so high, that it seems more compelling to sell your percentage and retire comfortably.

The core defense is that Traveller is about risk and reward, and a very expensive starship is one of many risks players take to have adventures.

 

[robject]

Drop Tanks are Problematic

The core argument is that drop tanks threaten to fundamentally change the way starships are perceived to work in Traveller. If drop tanks are relatively cheap and/or recyclable, then merchant ships stand to benefit with a significant increase in carrying capacity, at least when travelling between two well-supplied starports.

The core defense is that Drop Tanks are yet another risk/reward mechanism. The reward is known -- a one-shot fuel capacity boost. The most common risk noted is some form of jump mishap. The bottom line: the risks typically make commercial use a problem. Military use appears to be more acceptable, though apparently not universal.

 

[mike wightman]

near c rocks
xboats don't have a power plant or maneuver drive
there is no stealth in space

 

[The Pakkrat]

Anything About Vargr

 

[mike wightman]

Vargr are not dogs

 

[robject]

Stealth In Space is Impossible

The core argument is about heat: starships run significantly hotter (300K IR and up) than background radiation (< 3K), thereby rendering them detectable just about anywhere. They're beacons.

The core defense is magical: spacecraft can be stealthy, which more or less means heat generation must be ignored in Traveller. An exception to this is specific heat damage inflicted into the hull of a ship.

---

Piracy In Traveller Is Impossible

There are many arguments, most of which were hashed out in the Great TML Piracy debate of 1997-8.
The productive arguments are listed here.

• It Doesn't Work. The time required, using any Traveller ship combat system, of subduing a fleeing merchant (for example), boarding it, taking its cargo and small craft, and leaving before being intercepted by system defense forces seems an impossible task.
• It's Too Expensive. Those who use Trillion Credit Squadron to determine world budgets can find plenty of cash to keep most worlds pirate-free.
• It's Too Rare (this is related to cost/benefit). It might take just a few pirates until all merchants are armed and piracy is suppressed -- and perhaps even the IN will get involved.
• It's Not Really "Piracy". Economic parasite or agent of economics? Pirate, privateer, corsair, or commerce raider?

The core defense is in the Traveller rules, starting with the CT starship encounter table:

• C, D, E, and X systems have enough traffic to be targets, but not enough to rate an effective System Defense Field.
• From there, it is a matter of opportunity costs versus reward.
• The old, successful pirate has to have good intelligence and a tactical edge. There might be corporate or government sponsorship (this goes back to definition).
• Starships are expensive, but the guy with an "SP" is a desperate character. He can only outgun the ungunned.

Piracy typically boils down to a financial (and political) cost/benefit decision, inefficiencies in communication and coordination, and perhaps a lack of equipment in poor / non-technic worlds. Couple that with the Imperium's style of leaving local matters to local worlds, and you get varying levels of piracy suppression.

Jumpspace mechanics favors piracy. Courses are straight-line, and therefore predictions for arrival location can be quite good -- the probability a ship will arrive within a few range bands of a location along the 100D sphere of the mainworld makes a piracy attempt possible.

Piracy isn't easy, but it is possible.

 

[Blue Ghost]

I'd like your thoughts about which discussions we keep circling around to. Discussions and arguments we've had for 30+ years, which may or may not seem to find a resolution, but always crop up again.

I seem to think that this would be a good list to keep handy. Kind of a like a FAQ, ultimately or ideally, where at least you can read the positions. Maybe it will build an informed base for better discussions. Or maybe it'll just be a list of grievances. Either way. Kind of like my "IMTU" page, but better targeted.

Thoughts? Who wants to start? I know you guys know of at least one topic.

Frequent Topics List

• Drop Tanks are Problematic
• The Gazelle-class Escort is a Mess
• Is Traveller the Rules or the Setting?
• Per-Parsec Passenger Pricing (PPPP)
• Piracy is Not Worth It
• Starship Expenses are Too Expensive
• What is Traveller Canon?

Drop tanks have never bothered me.
The Gazelle's looks as originally published don't bother me.
Traveller was a set of rules and guidelines before fans demanded more setting; I think that's in Marc Miller's interview from years back.
Pricing is whatever you want.
Piracy is totally worth it, but is risky.
Starship Expenses are not too expensive, but are for the elite "who travel" (to quote the books).
Traveller canon; see point #3.

The game system is what it is. I see it as a primer for people going into either the services or law enforcement to consider going into a higher echelon of security or intelligence career after they've done their stint as a cop or in one of the military branches. I didn't get it as a preteen, teen, post grad, nor even a thirty-something. I do now, and where there's a part of that feels like I wasted my time with the game ... it is what it is, and it really hasn't done any harm.

Like I mentioned somewhere else on the forum Marc Miller (Avery) stated in his interview that people wanted more background material, so that's what he and his company focused on. But in so doing the background material overtook some of the original precepts of the game being a "do all" scifi RPG. Whatever.

I mean the whole thing is a law enforcement and security career primer ... adventures like The Argon Gambit, Prison Planet, Nomads of the Ocean World ... Research Station Gamma ... Mission on Mithril ... The Chamax Plague ... they've all got a security bent to them. Okay, fine. I've got no issue with that. But I am one of those people who just wanted more adventure material to game with so my friends and I could have a good time.

So, to me, the whole "rules verse setting" conundrum ... it's kind of a circular argument because of the way the system developed over the decades. Like I've stated elsewhere on this forum, whenever I pick up a book for it I don't think of all of the forms from the Charts and Tables book or the first LBBs. I think of what used to be an open ended system with a few basic rules that they themselves state that if something doesn't work, break it and rewrite it. And if you come against something like the 100dT jump capable limit that's hampering your game, then break it, toss it, re-write it, or ignore it and game on. Or, as per James Burke, "Then do so."

 

[Spinward Flow]

Stealth In Space is Impossible

The core argument is that starships, simply by their operations, cannot mask emissions which can be detected far away. "Far" in this context is typically something between three light-seconds and 1 AU. The sensor array in question is typically an orbital installation around a mainworld, rather than starship-based.

Stealth In Space IS Possible ... but in order to achieve it is pretty punishing.

There are two ways to do it:

1. Black Globe
2. Power Plant shutdown (meaning EP=0) and sustain the crew on battery power while silent running with transponder OFF

The Black Globe can conceal a jump flash upon breakout (just turn on the Black Globe before breakout).

The real problem that starships have as far as stealth is concerned is that they are fusion powered and neutrino sensors exist at TL=10+ which gives every fusion powered craft a detection signature that can't be turned off without shutting down the power plant (which is usually Bad™). Since there is "no stopping neutrinos from escaping" a fusion reaction, there's no way to "stealth" a starship other than the above two options (a Black Globe 100% ON will "eat" the neutrinos so they won't escape).

So, theoretically speaking, it is possible to perform an unpowered "silent running flyby" past a sentry or other "guard" station facility/craft ... but an attacker would be incapable of maneuvering (at all) and would be limited to a EP=0 power budget (which means model/2 computers and missile launchers!).

Basically, such a maneuver presumes passive sensor detection only.
Active sensor scans will return signal from hulls (so there's no stealth in THAT sense), but if they have to rely on passive sensors those could be potentially defeated/evaded.

Depending on the Referee, hull size code could be a modifier in how difficult to detect a craft is that is actively trying not to be detected ... in which case small craft below 100 tons would have a quantifiable advantage and missile armed small craft with model/2 computers plus a bridge (so you don't have a -1DM on the computer) would become the ultimate "drift stealth fighters" for launching unpowered (read: EP=0) surprise attacks from a carrier ship outside of sensor detection range in a lightning strike bombardment tactic using the element of surprise (quite literally "flying in under the radar" so to speak).

Hmmm.
I may have just discovered something buried in the rules that no one was looking for before now.
Anyone care to take up the challenge?

 

[robject]

Gazelle-Class Escorts - Broken

The core argument is that the Gazelle-class escort is a 300 ton hull with four hardpoints. Presumably, the fourth hardpoint comes from the added drop tanks. The problem is that drop tanks can be dropped, leaving a 300 ton hull with four hardpoints. This is a clear violation and always has been.

There is no defense: the Gazelle is a broken design. It is typically left as an exercise for the referee to explain its existence. Suggested fixes include (a) dropping a hardpoint, (b) increasing the base tonnage to 400 tons, (c) positing a single 100t drop tank with one hardpoint, or (d) bring in the firmpoints and distribute them carefully.

 

[robject]

Jump Torpedos - Broken

Jump torpedos are a gee-whiz invention of early classic Traveller.

Rules Violation. Jump torpedos violate the "no jumping under 100 tons" rule, which somehow requires rigid (non-inflatable or non-collapsible) hulls which actually really do displace 100 tons' worth of starship and equipment.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Suggested fixes include (a) dropping a hardpoint,

Delete 1 particle accelerator barbette (and gunner+stateroom from the crew).
Done.

 

[robject]

Xboats - Originally Broken

The Xboat is a gee-whiz invention of early classic Traveller: a starship with no power plant. This was allowed in the earliest rules, but was quickly changed.

Clearly a grandfathered design that works by means unknown. The process for creating a ship without a power plant is not present in current rules systems.

 

[Spinward Flow]

It's possible to "fix" XBoats using LBB2.81, but one of the first things you need to break in order to do so is the fuel formula for power plants. Once you get past that hurdle, you're most of the way to a solution.

Stipulating that an XBoat has 10 days of power plant fuel instead of 28 days goes a long way towards making XBoats possible.
The "regulation loophole" enabling this would be the requirement for Express Tenders capable of rapid recovery (within 2-3 days) after breakout from jump, which isn't a whole lot of maneuvering time, all things considered. With a dedicated service though, it can be made to work, so the rule for 28 days minimum power plant fuel could be modified in this way.

Another modification would be to stipulate that XBoats only need Power Plant-4 capacity when preparing to jump, while the rest of the time they are "powered down" to Power Plant-2 (to sustain their model/4 computer) if using EP rules, or to Power Plant-0 if not using EP rules. In other words, the time spent at "full power" capacity is relatively brief rather than continuous as with most other ship classes, so a minimal (1 ton?) of power plant fuel is needed for such a short duration burst of activity (less than 1 hour per jump of full power).

 

[agorski]

Stealth In Space is Impossible

The core argument is that starships run significantly hotter than background radiation, thereby rendering them detectable just about anywhere.

The core defense is magical: spacecraft heat generation is ignored in Traveller. An exception to this is specific heat damage inflicted into the hull of a ship.

Beyond the range of sensors, stealth may be possible, like in the outer system. T5 adds a stealth mask hull coating. What's that for?

 

[whulorigan]

Stealth In Space IS Possible ... but in order to achieve it is pretty punishing.

There are two ways to do it:
....

1. Power Plant shutdown (meaning EP=0) and sustain the crew on battery power while silent running with transponder OFF

...

The real problem that starships have as far as stealth is concerned is that they are fusion powered and neutrino sensors exist at TL=10+ which gives every fusion powered craft a detection signature that can't be turned off without shutting down the power plant (which is usually Bad™). Since there is "no stopping neutrinos from escaping" a fusion reaction, there's no way to "stealth" a starship other than the above two options (a Black Globe 100% ON will "eat" the neutrinos so they won't escape).

So, theoretically speaking, it is possible to perform an unpowered "silent running flyby" past a sentry or other "guard" station facility/craft ... but an attacker would be incapable of maneuvering (at all) and would be limited to a EP=0 power budget (which means model/2 computers and missile launchers!).

Basically, such a maneuver presumes passive sensor detection only.
Active sensor scans will return signal from hulls (so there's no stealth in THAT sense), but if they have to rely on passive sensors those could be potentially defeated/evaded.

No. Not to rehash it here, but the argument is that your room-temperature ship (i.e. a "Life Support" container) is radiating at 300 K infrared against a 2.7 K microwave background. You are a glowing infrared light-bulb in an immense dark microwave room with nothing to hide behind or in.

 

[whulorigan]

Beyond the range of sensors, stealth may be possible, like in the outer system. T5 adds a stealth mask hull coating. What's that for?

That's the argument. You need super-science of some sort to make that happen. Just look at the sensitivity of modern telescopes to see things in infrared or other wavelengths. And any "dampening technology" will itself give off waste heat while operating due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Again, let's not rehash it here in this thread.

(NOTE: I love the Stealth-in-space idea, but the "Science" part of Science-fiction confounds me as to how that might be accomplished without pure handwavium).

 

[Condottiere]

1. Vargr are too amusing not to be skylosmorphized, and by extension, then anthropomorphized.

2. Drop tanks would only be controversial as to recycling, interference during transition, and separation.

3. Canon is presumably narrated by an unreliable third party.

4. If fighters are dangerous against modern dreadnoughts, than more anti spacecraft weapon systems.

5. In theory, a drop tank is a hull, and more or less would permit one of more firm or hardpoints, subject to structural strength.

6. Much like ShadowRun is both rules and setting, so is Traveller; if the publisher didn't want that view to persist, they should have set up parallel ones that demonstrated how easy it would be to use that rules set in others, like GURPS, problem is it became rather notorious for a specific game play style in a specific future universe.

7. Jump torpedoes very dependent on minimum requirements for transition, so it's more of a case of possible or not; broken only in the sense you're unlikely to need the ecks boat network.

8. You can't really stop someone from chucking rocks at you at light speed, just a sensor network and an automatic response to destroy it.

9. Presumably, prices are fixed, within the Imperium.

A. Piracy isn't sustainable with the power projection sphere of a stable hegemon.

B. Starship expenses are comparatively cheap,

C. Stealth in space isn't impossible, you just need to come up with a plausible explanation.

D. Since this concerns the engineering involved with the ecks boat, I'd say that originally it was a requirement for jump drives to be ignited with an overclocked fusion reactor, but nowadays, you can source that power requirement from anywhere, except solar panelling.