Topics Enjoying 30 Years of Discussion

[robject]

Piracy - Impossible?

The core argument is that the power projection sphere of a stable empire is enough to completely wipe out piracy. Generally, any Traveller rules for building capital warships have to establish a budget that allows a strong navy. Any economy that can build a strong navy can also build a flotilla of patrol ships which can effectively eliminate piracy.

Thus, piracy only exists in the vacuum of government.

The core defense is that piracy is a specifically stated risk of interstellar travel in Traveller, and in particular travel to certain amber and red-zoned systems, regardless of whether or not they're inside an interstellar empire. This leads to conclusions that interstellar empires aren't as strong as one might think, but that's largely an opinion based on referee preferences. This has implications with published works that deal with the Third Imperium. This also feeds into axiomatic decisions, as well: high traffic and low traffic models of Traveller, and "big ship" versus "small ship" setting assumptions.

There are often secondary discussions about what a pirate can profitably steal, but there are many potential answers (small craft is one solution among many).

 

[robject]

Dreadnoughts versus Fighters

The core argument is that fighters which attack dreadnoughts en masse, much like x-wing fighters against the Death Star, render Battle-Class Ships (e.g. a Tigress-class dreadnought) unfeasible.

The core defense is that, even if a proper fighter cloud can defeat a Battle Class Ship, it is usually not strategically viable, and therefore does not invalidate the mission of BCS. The effort is subject to technological considerations, and is mitigated by layers of defense, including cruisers, escorts, and defending fighter clouds. And so on.

 

[whulorigan]

Piracy - Impossible

The core argument is that the power projection sphere of a stable empire is enough to completely wipe out piracy. Generally, any Traveller rules for building capital warships have to establish a budget that allows a strong navy. Any economy that can build a strong navy can also build a flotilla of patrol ships which can effectively eliminate piracy.

Thus, piracy only exists in the vacuum of government.

The core defense is that piracy is a specifically stated risk of interstellar travel in Traveller, and in particular travel to certain amber and red-zoned systems, regardless of whether or not they're inside an interstellar empire. This leads to conclusions that interstellar empires aren't as strong as one might think, but that's largely an opinion based on referee preferences. This has implications with published works that deal with the Third Imperium.

And in order to be profitable, the Pirate needs to be able to fence his stolen ship or cargo at a nearby port-of-call where it cannot be identified by tracking/serial numbers, with no questions asked.

 

[robject]

Dreadnoughts versus Battle-Riders

The core argument is that battle riders, in fielding equivalent armor and weaponry for a fraction of the cost, are superior to dreadnoughts. This includes riders which may have jump-1 drives and enough fuel to flee the field of battle.

The core defense is that each has its own operational niche, and while there is overlap, one does not eclipse the other. This discussion has led to nuances of thought about both ships. The battle rider is not a dreadnought: it is a smaller form factor with a serious punch. The dreadnought is more than a battle rider: it has superior strategic power projection capability.

This discussion is also an in-game OTU argument, as noted in The Spinward Marches Campaign.

 

[robject]

Is Traveller the Rules or the Setting?

In short, the original rules kick-started the OTU setting, which in turn affected later versions of the rules. However, the OTU also has elements which still remain at odds with the rules as written. The actual points of disagreement can be fuzzy, since how the OTU works tends to clarify or influence the rules. People disagree on whether something is a clarification, an interpolation, an extrapolation, or something else.

 

[robject]

Near-C Rocks

The core argument is that you can use the rules as written to aim a small planetoid at a mainworld, then accelerate it to relativistic speeds. Planetary bombardment that is (a) devastating and (b) hard to detect and (c) hard to stop.

The core response is "yes, this is possible." How it prevents Traveller from collapsing into a singularity of unreason is an exercise left to the Traveller fan.

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.

 

[Spinward Flow]

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.

How many pixels on the sensor represent your craft at {pick your distance}?
This is why smaller objects/craft would be more difficult to detect, even with powerful sensors.

Also, Traveller has "thermal masking" technology for blending in with background environments at the man portable scale (TL=10-12 Combat Environment Suit, LBB4 p41). Pretty sure something similar can be done at the spacecraft level with that kind of technology, even if it is just a "temporary patch" that allows cooling to blend into the background on a time limited basis (such as a few hours). Some sort of cryogenic thermal management and insulation system ought to suffice for the IR heat signature.

The core argument is that the power projection sphere of a stable empire is enough to completely wipe out piracy. Generally, any Traveller rules for building capital warships have to establish a budget that allows a strong navy. Any economy that can build a strong navy can also build a flotilla of patrol ships which can effectively eliminate piracy.

Thus, piracy only exists in the vacuum of government.

I would argue that this is an incorrect approach.

Piracy "cannot exist and thrive" in the specific locations that a powerful navy actively patrols and exerts its presence.
Which then brings up the obvious rejoinder that "the navy can't be powerful everywhere all at the same time" (or words to that effect).

In other words, there are going to be "gaps" in the coverage provided by the navy (any navy) because they can't be everywhere at once simultaneously. At that point, it becomes a game of Cat vs Mouse with respect to piracy.

Piracy CAN EXIST and happen, but it won't be happening "everywhere" all the time.
Strong naval presences CAN EXIST, but they won't be present "everywhere" all the time.

Or to put it another way ... if piracy is a "disease" and a strong navy is "the cure" then some people are still going to get sick, even when "the cure" is available (they may not get sick for very long, but they can still "contract the disease of piracy" at various times for various reasons).

Piracy, like corruption in general, can never be truly eliminated in perpetuity. It can be kept at bay and/or minimized by policies, budgets and resources, but it can never be completely eliminated for all time.

Fighters versus Dreadnoughts

The primary purpose of fighters, in the larger scheme of things, is to enable a higher density of turrets than 1 hardpoint per 100 tons of ship.
3x 30 ton fighters with 1 turret each is 3 turrets for 90 tons of craft.

The problem is that as technology advances and the big ships get bigger computers, it becomes increasingly prohibitive/cost inefficient to put more powerful computers into small craft just in order to keep pace with the computer power that can be easily installed into big ships.

So there's a time when the power of fighter small craft waxes prominent before fading again as technology levels advance.

Dreadnoughts versus Battle-Riders

In this context, Battle Riders permit more spinal mounts per total tonnage than a single dreadnought of the same total aggregate tonnage. Depending on the "balance" of the Rider/Tender flotilla, this can either be a strength or a weakness, but on balance a flotilla of riders can be structured in such a way as to "punch above their weight" individually as Riders relative to Starships.

The drawback to the Rider/Tender as a matter of Fleet Tactics is that a Starship can retreat (through jump) without requiring outside assistance, while a Rider cannot (it has to rendezvous and dock with a Tender first). This means that a Rider/Tender group that is overmatched will lack the tactical capability to retreat as needed should the battle turn against them. Thus a Rider group that is fighting "at parity" with an opponent is actually fighting at a disadvantage when the complexity of a retreat maneuver is factored into things. This can potentially mean that it becomes necessary to "sacrifice one (or a few) to save the remainder" if a retreat from battle is necessary.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Give the riders Jump-1 capability. 12% of tonnage does it since they already have the power plant.

 

[whulorigan]

I remember this discussion. It was a more recent development from the discussion. My question is, what do you CALL that sort of ship? Is it still a Rider, with J1 used for escapability?

Jump-Rider

 

[Spinward Flow]

Star-Rider

 

[Condottiere]

1. Given the fact that the jump drive was two percent, and it wasn't too much of an exercise to increase the power plant fuel allocation, it was obvious add on to a battle rider, still now, at two and a half percent (plus five tonnes).

2. Imperium Navy battle rider doctrine was at fault.

3. You don't use man 'o' wars to suppress piracy, but armed cruise ships, and then send in gunboats to smoke out their nests.

 

[McPerth]

Anything About Vargr

I'd say about races in general (though the ones more discussed here, for what I've seen are Zhodani and Vargr)

I'd also say:

• Errata (for the various editions). They use to give long threads...
• Ship's designs (be it showing one (or more) or discussing about them)
• CharGen
• Robots/AI

 

[Dragoner]

Hamster? The ships that had a ton of nuclear missiles, they would scrub the defenses of fleets, allowing cheaper spinal carrying vessel to move in and finish them off.

 

[Timerover51]

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.

The problem I have with this is that you have to borrow the funs needed to buy a ship, and then pay them back. Banks and other financing agencies tend to want their money back with interest. If the economics of the purchase say that the only way to cover the mortgage is to take risks, they do not lend you the money. Either costs have to come donw, or the revenue has to go up. One or the other. As it is, the rules are seriously broken. My other problem is this minor thing called "insurance", which is never mentioned, but in the Real World is a major factor. No insurance, no cargoes.

 

[Blue Ghost]

And in order to be profitable, the Pirate needs to be able to fence his stolen ship or cargo at a nearby port-of-call where it cannot be identified by tracking/serial numbers, with no questions asked.

Which is easy to do if you're a Vargr "corsair", and somewhat less easy if you're living near the apex of Zho and Imp space, but still doable. Just find a freeport and open your cargo bay ... weapons drawn of course.

The first five years I was here after I registered in 2001 it felt like every other week there was a new pirate thread. I guess people got burnt out on the topic back then, but I guess it's seeing a resurgence.

I see it as a risk proposition; if you take minimal or no damage, then you can make it work. And most of the starship combat my various groups had didn't have critical hits, so all that was needed was an arc welder, some patches, and you were good to go.

If your drives are getting perpetually hit, then yeah, it can be a bear, but you also have to think about what the expense is what you have to pay for and what you can do yourself; i.e. I may not be able to repair the power plant but I can patch the holes in the cargo bay ... life support provides air, water and probably food, so if I skim fuel from a water world, then I can cut some of that life support cost.

Anyway, that's how we worked it. Your mileage and all that.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I see it as a risk proposition; if you take minimal or no damage, then you can make it work.

NO GET HITSU !!
NO GET HURTSU !!

The former relies on having more maneuver drive and computer power than your opponent(s).
The latter relies on armor to "take the edge off" any hits you wind up taking.

At very high tech levels, when power plants and armor fractions "shrink" down into manageable amounts, it's possible to achieve both ... but you have to expend cargo capacity (relative to 1G, model/1) in order to do either.

 

[mike wightman]

There is no stealth in space without magic technology.

Learn some basic thermodynamics and you will understand why. Anyone who says "yes, but" needs to go back to the text books until they understand them.

Traveller may have a hidden magic technology - gravitic heat sinks.

 

[Blue Ghost]

The former relies on having more maneuver drive and computer power than your opponent(s).
The latter relies on armor to "take the edge off" any hits you wind up taking.

At very high tech levels, when power plants and armor fractions "shrink" down into manageable amounts, it's possible to achieve both ... but you have to expend cargo capacity (relative to 1G, model/1) in order to do either.

It's doable.

I don't want to get into the debate about it any further than I have. All I know is that a couple of times two different groups tried piracy. The benign "make like we're shooting stuff" kind of piracy "but don't hurt anyone unless they get all uppity".

So ... punching holes in starships ... creative book keeping ... running ahead of the TNS Agency, keeping ahead of arrest warrants and all that, and just not paying any mortgages, was quite an adventure. In the end you had to leave Imperial space, and if you came back you had to make up some story after ditching your multi mega-credit starship.

There was some other person who also stated that free trading was a losing proposition ... and we debated over that 100 ton "no stateroom, whip out a cot or sleep on the deck in a sleeping bag" starship whose name I forget. All I can say is that using the trade and commodities table in the starship economics' section our players were able to make a bundle. Especially if you just made a port with braethable atmosphere your home port, because then you could "skimp" on life support, and just pay berthing costs as you occasionally skimmed the ocean for free fuel and water.

I don't know, maybe we weren't using the rules right or something ... but not every cargo raked in the bucks, but it was still more than breaking even, and if a pirate came along then my guys would fight him, and nearly always won and sacked their ship ... I think there was some reward for bagging a pirate that we had to house rule (no rules that I recall for rewarding merchants who take down pirates ... that's a kettle of fish I don't want to open).

So ... I just don't know what further to say on the topic. Our groups made it work. Them Mega Traveller came along, and I started working on movies and commercials, and my buds went to places like Notre Dame, Texas A&M, Penn State, MIT, Cal Poly and what not. While I learned the craft of writing under Dean Coppola ... convinced I was going to turn Car Wars and Traveller into visual media

And a pirate scenario would have made for an interesting scene in a film or an interesting TV episode. Oh well.

Piracy and free trade are not losing propositions. Boo to whoever says otherwise

 

[Condottiere]

If we could cost account precisely the manufacture of a starship, we could probably cut the price by half, if not more, through economies of scale, with Forge Worlds.

Speculative trading reminds me of setting up shop in local swap meets, every fortnight, and then checking out the other participants, if they're selling something that I'm fairly confident of reselling at a higher price elsewhere, or at a cost that makes it worthwhile to take a chance on.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

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.

The original Gazelle was an ~240 Dt ship with two hardpoints and a 10 Dt bay, as apparently allowed by HG'79.

Later revisions just tried to come as close as possible.