Vent-Rant MegaTraveller what I hate about it.

[Timerover51]

I don't have it in front of me, but I thought that MT Radar was variable and multi-frequency to resist Jamming. The TL 5 Radar is not HISTORIC Radar from TL 5, it is near future Radar built using TL 5 technology.

Radar does require an antenna, specifically shaped and sized to the frequency being used. Unless you are totally tossing out Real World physics, the laws governing radio waves are the same in MegaTraveller as the Real World. An antenna designed for the 1.5 meter wavelength is not going to work real well with a frequency of 50cm and will not work at all at a frequency of 10cm or 3cm. Trying to use an antenna designed for the 3cm frequency for a frequency of 1.5 meters is quite impossible. By the way, the MegaTraveller design sequence for Radar has nothing devoted to antennas. Take a look at long-range aircraft warning radar domes on what used to be the DEW line for an idea of the size of the antenna. The designers of the game cannot plead ignorance about the need for radar antennas.

The three jammers carried by the B-29 each covered a different frequency range. The tubes or magnetrons that produce the radio waves that are used by the radar are designed to operate at specific frequencies and wavelengths. A magnetron designed to produce 10cm radio waves cannot produce 3cm radio waves and vice versa.

Take a look at Norm Friedman's book on Naval Radar for a very good coverage of radar development up to the early 1970s.

Go here for an idea as to the different antennas required for different frequencies.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/Radar/index.html

Here is the principal U.S. Night Fighter radars, which also includes some cost data.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/NightFighterRadars/index.html

A small point, but TL 5 is probably closer to WW1. Radar in WW2 was more like a TL 6 prototype.

The MegaTraveller Referee's Companion on page 26 states that Tech Level 5 is equivalent to 1930, while Tech Level 6 is equivalent to 1950. On page 28 in the same volume, on Technology Chart 1, Radar is specifically cited as a Tech Level 5 technology.

The basic radar frequencies have not changed that much since World War 2, nor have the design of antennas, what has changed is the amount of processing done to the signal when it is received back at the radar. The primary difference is the use of phase-array radar, which uses thousands of radar tubes to produce a steerable beam, and requires a lot amount of computing power. It is also highly vulnerable to damage, and does require a lot of power.

I also have a very large problem with some of the weaponry Tech Levels, and again, the designers should have known better.

 

[atpollard]

By the way, the MegaTraveller design sequence for Radar has nothing devoted to antennas.

Which is part of what leads me to conclude that 'Radar' in the MT design sequence may be based on some alternative Science from TL 9 reverse engineered to be built on a world with a Starport and roughly 1930 TL 5 manufacturing technology. The game mechanics for how radar works is the other thing that suggests that you may not be modeling HISTORIC radar using real world physics.

Honestly, as a game there is so much hand wave done to other areas of physics in the name of playability, that a radar without a correctly sized antennae doesn't even rate a raised eyebrow. I just shrug and move on.

I acknowledge your victory on the technical point, but after discarding conservation of momentum and thermodynamics in favor of playability and fun, I just can't muster moral outrage about EM Wavelengths.

The MegaTraveller Referee's Companion on page 26 states that Tech Level 5 is equivalent to 1930, while Tech Level 6 is equivalent to 1950. On page 28 in the same volume, on Technology Chart 1, Radar is specifically cited as a Tech Level 5 technology.

Which makes my nit-picking point. The Radar equipped B29 is not a 1930 Aircraft. TL 5 is more like a Radar equipped B2 Condor. :rofl:

Try reverse engineering a modern AEW&C and building it with 1930 vacuum tubes and installing it in a biplane to defend against enemy Missiles (from a higher TL).

 

[Timerover51]

Which is part of what leads me to conclude that 'Radar' in the MT design sequence may be based on some alternative Science from TL 9 reverse engineered to be built on a world with a Starport and roughly 1930 TL 5 manufacturing technology. The game mechanics for how radar works is the other thing that suggests that you may not be modeling HISTORIC radar using real world physics.

Honestly, as a game there is so much hand wave done to other areas of physics in the name of playability, that a radar without a correctly sized antennae doesn't even rate a raised eyebrow. I just shrug and move on.

If you wish to handwavium the higher technologies, I can live with that. I do not like hand-waving historical technologies. The original poster was looking for what someone disliked in the game.

Which makes my nit-picking point. The Radar equipped B29 is not a 1930 Aircraft. TL 5 is more like a Radar equipped B2 Condor. :rofl:

I have seen the development of the Curtiss Condor cited both ways, with the transport version derived from the bomber, and the bomber derived from the transport. I need to look that up again in Juptner for which might be correct. I know that at least one was being operated on floats in South America.

Try reverse engineering a modern AEW&C and building it with 1930 vacuum tubes and installing it in a biplane to defend against enemy Missiles (from a higher TL).

Hmm, you mean Project Cadillac, that used the B-17, a plane first flown in the 1930s, and equipped with an early warning radar for use against low flying aircraft. Or maybe the slightly late TBF Avenger when equipped with an APS-20 radar and data-linking the radar return to a PPI on a carrier, used for the same purpose.

 

[atpollard]

The original poster was looking for what someone disliked in the game.

... but if we don't debate minutiae, is there anything to talk about. [wink]

 

[Vargas]

The basic radar frequencies have not changed that much since World War 2, nor have the design of antennas, what has changed is the amount of processing done to the signal when it is received back at the radar. The primary difference is the use of phase-array radar, which uses thousands of radar tubes to produce a steerable beam, and requires a lot amount of computing power.

Antenna designs have changed significantly with the advent of AESA radars. Instead of a parabolic dish or a flat phased array that can perform pretty much one function at a time we now have radars that can transmit, receive, conduct EW, send messages and possibly even perform cyber attacks all at the same time. Its getting to the point where the radar and data processing systems on platforms such as the F-22 and F-35 are more significant than their low observable features.

 

[Timerover51]

... but if we don't debate minutiae, is there anything to talk about. [wink]

If we debate minutiae, a post would run longer than the rule books. I repeat, I do not like the design sequences, especially when they deal with historical technologies. As the design sequences consume a large portion of the Referee's Manual, I do not view them as insignificant.

Nor do I like the whole Rebellion concept, which I do not think can be viewed as minutiae.

 

[atpollard]

If we debate minutiae, a post would run longer than the rule books. I repeat, I do not like the design sequences, especially when they deal with historical technologies. As the design sequences consume a large portion of the Referee's Manual, I do not view them as insignificant.

Nor do I like the whole Rebellion concept, which I do not think can be viewed as minutiae.

But I never questioned you on the Rebellion.
(That is 100% personal preference stuff.)

As a gearhead, I just challenged whether the rules even attempted to model historic radar or were attempting to model some advanced future radar capabilities built with more primitive tools.

And that ran into the debate on minutiae.

Thank you for taking the time to converse.
(I agree that the rules have some issues as a historic simulation that I, too, find disappointing.)

 

[Murph]

I think that they should have kept the simpler design rules, and then added a "Striker" type book for the gearheads. As it was once you got past character generation, it lost me, the Rebellion just drove a stake in the heart of Traveller from that point on. I used the Character generation and then used classic Traveller plus the additional books for everything else.

 

[nobby-w]

I think that they should have kept the simpler design rules, and then added a "Striker" type book for the gearheads. As it was once you got past character generation, it lost me, the Rebellion just drove a stake in the heart of Traveller from that point on. I used the Character generation and then used classic Traveller plus the additional books for everything else.

That's pretty much what I did with MT - It has a basic character generation system that produces characters more in line with the balance of the extended character generation system so players can use either. That's about all of MT that I actually used. Pretty much everything else I just held over from CT/Striker with a bit of re-balancing such as frigging High Guard to work better with small ships. For a battle with individual ships I just adapted the movement rules from Mayday.

 

[robject]

SUMMARY CRITICISMS OF MT

So I'm going to try to summarize the original topic.

Executive Summary:

a. "MegaTraveller's basic concepts were sound, but the actual execution and the design of several subsystems was lacking." [Tobias]

b. Wargamers create unified tools for Traveller: simultaneously a blessing and a curse. [Rob]


Pros

1. The Task System.
2. Chargen consolidated.
3. System generation updates.
4. Reference material usefully gathered (IE, RC).
5. Good artwork (for the time).
6. Hard Times.
7. More components for starships.
8. Support for greater-than-Imperial advanced tech.
9. The flowcharts.
10. We get most of the interesting OTU characters from MT.
11. The campaigns and DGP supplements.

Cons

1. The Task Library.
2. Rules got in the way; their complexity overall was an unreasonable barrier to use.
3. Extreme measures taken with setting actually damaged playability.
4. Rebellion too "stage managed" and not well developed or differentiated until too late (contrast with the great NPC character profiles).
5. Use of sophonts as aggressors is rather unlikely (Vargr in particular, but even Aslan).
6. Pre-internet days meant the excessive errata was a big problem. (Get the final printing; it has all the corrections).
7. No robot rules.
8. The new jump fuel formula.
9. "The total lack of anything for players to do." [Mike Wightman]
10. DGP seemed to take a bit of liberty with canon (just a bit). Example: the Primordials, while interesting, appear to be a symptom of a problem in the setting. Maybe not DGP's fault, either.

 

[jcrocker]

I found Traveller through MegaTraveller, but as I learned more about the background, I couldn't believe that the Imperium would get trashed solely for the sake of a rules revision.

Turns out that my belief was completely unnecessary and that's exactly what happened.

Other than the trashing of a great setting, and a few rules we skipped, I kinda liked MegaTraveller, just don't mention the Rebellion.

 

[Major B]

Robject, great summary from what I remember. I have some perspective on some of the cons that might add to the discussion:

2. Rules got in the way; their complexity overall was an unreasonable barrier to use.

I think most referees default to a menu mindset - I'll take this part of the rules that I like and leave the others that I don't like. Maybe the problem with MT wasn't the complexity exactly but the lack of a menu or options. It was difficult to take out the parts we liked and the whole wasn't palatable to many of us.

3. Extreme measures taken with setting actually damaged playability.

I couldn't agree more. The CT era was one of constant building. With every publication the setting became richer and I grew to like it more. Seeing that great thing being broken, even figuratively, was difficult. At first I ignored the rebellion in favor of CT's Golden Age setting but later I played in the Wounded Colossus setting that IIRC was created by Don M.

8. The new jump fuel formula.

Not just the jump fuel formula, but also the enormous power plants required to build any agility into a design. Also, the tremendous amount of fuel required by the enormous power plants. These combinations made it mostly impossible to recreate CT ships unless the construction TL was bumped up to 15 and even at 15 there were problems.

Note that these rules changes would have been okay if the setting was different. But if you are going to steer the CT setting off in a new direction (off a cliff may be a better phrase) then you should make portability of CT stuff into the new rules a priority.

 

[mike wightman]

I want to expand on:

9. "The total lack of anything for players to do." [Mike Wightman]

CT had adventures, double adventures, boxed adventures, amber zones in JTAS. Plenty of stuff for PCs to get involved in - I still use a lot of them today.

MT had Knightfall - which introduces the Primordials - so the folks at GDW didn't mind them back then (I still maintain you can have the Primordials, the baddies from the core scenario of sorts and the Empress Wave).

Until Hard Times most of the setting was metaplot wars, hence my comment about nothing for players to do; Hard Times was when MT got the setting right for PCs IMHO

 

[robject]

Thanks Mike.

CT had adventures...

You're right - I noticed that as well and wondered at the lack of adventures for MT.

Thanks Major B.

I think most referees default to a menu mindset - I'll take this part of the rules that I like and leave the others that I don't like. Maybe the problem with MT wasn't the complexity exactly but the lack of a menu or options. It was difficult to take out the parts we liked and the whole wasn't palatable to many of us.

(bolding mine)

Yes. We need safe paths into a new, complex system. Many become discouraged by seeing the Wall of Complexity. Traveller5's Core Rules.

My summary was that wargamers made MT. Typically, I believe wargamers have their own terminology and shorthand, and understand one another well. But non-wargamers don't speak that language natively.

 

[aramis]

MT had adventures...
The Flaming Eye
Knightfall
Arrival Vengeance

Technically. Hard Times.

and about every third issue of challenge, and every issue of Traveller Digest.

 

[jec10]

Thanks Mike.



You're right - I noticed that as well and wondered at the lack of adventures for MT.

Thanks Major B.

(bolding mine)

Yes. We need safe paths into a new, complex system. Many become discouraged by seeing the Wall of Complexity. Traveller5's Core Rules.

My summary was that wargamers made MT. Typically, I believe wargamers have their own terminology and shorthand, and understand one another well. But non-wargamers don't speak that language natively.

Oddly I came to a completely opposite conclusion. As a wargamer, I felt that DGP had no wargaming bent at all - quite the contrary. The adventures they played weren't military-oriented Traveller at all. And when they tried (like that TD adventure where they fought over an Imperial depot it was a kludge with the wacky buzz bomb).

Now MT itself certainly had large dollops of Striker through it - but again, I think it showed that DGP weren't really wargamers because they made a hash of what they included and didn't include from Striker.

 

[robject]

Oddly I came to a completely opposite conclusion. As a wargamer, I felt that DGP had no wargaming bent at all - quite the contrary. The adventures they played weren't military-oriented Traveller at all. And when they tried (like that TD adventure where they fought over an Imperial depot it was a kludge with the wacky buzz bomb).

Now MT itself certainly had large dollops of Striker through it - but again, I think it showed that DGP weren't really wargamers because they made a hash of what they included and didn't include from Striker.

OK, now there's a data point I can use. I could replace "wargamer" with "gearhead". I had imagined that gearhead descended from wargamer. But I suspect you're right: the Keiths were wargamers, and Marc was a wargamer, but DGP were Traveller fans.

 

[mike wightman]

DGP didn't understand starships either.

They completely missed the change to jump fuel usage introduced in HG79/80 and then included in the 81 revision.
(In 77 CT and MT all jump fuel is used regardless of jump distance, so a jump 3 ship jumping 1 parsec still uses up 30% of its hull as fuel, HG79 introduced the jump governor and HG80 just changed the fuel use paradigm to 10% per parsec jump regardless of jump engine rating, so out jump 3 ship jumping 1 parsec now uses 10% of its hull as fuel, this was also used in 81 revised CT).
They also didn't understand the importance of agility and the ship combat system in MT is possibly the worse one to ever see print.

 

[aramis]

OK, now there's a data point I can use. I could replace "wargamer" with "gearhead". I had imagined that gearhead descended from wargamer. But I suspect you're right: the Keiths were wargamers, and Marc was a wargamer, but DGP were Traveller fans.

The personal combat mechanics are brilliant - mostly because, by separating Pen and Damage, they allowed conglomerate units without forcing all units to be the same size. Same for vehicles...

what the botched was ship combat, quite badly; the lack of newtonian motion...

 

[Vargas]

And when they tried (like that TD adventure where they fought over an Imperial depot it was a kludge with the wacky buzz bomb).

That adventures was written by someone with a firm grounding in wargames.