Vessel Traffic Services
- Thread starter spinwardpirate
- Start date
If that had been true the OTU would have been a cartoon universe. From the start Traveller universes were supposedly fairly close to the real universe -- with some notable exceptions, true, but those exceptions (such as the flat galaxy) were noted -- and the rules used to describe them about as close as historical RPG rules are to historical settings. That is to say, very simplified, sometimes erroneous. You can't describe a whole universe in a few hundred pages. You have to simplify. If you assume that the rules are literally true, you're playing TOON, not Traveller.
That's not to say that you shouldn't assume that a rule reflects "reality" unless there's good reason to suspect that it doesn't. Like being logically inconsistent, silly, inadequate, mutually contradictory, or bad for roleplaying.
Hans
Last edited:
The OTU IS a Toon kind of universe Hans... your desperate attempts to rationalize it still don't make it a sensible place. It's always been a characature, not a truly functional place. But that characature is more fun than the drivel that I've seen pouring out of so many game designs of late... not to mention the overdetailed muck that SJG has been shovelling on to the mix.
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
Some of us like overdetailed muck...
You know that, Wil, and... actually, I don't think very many others know it. I certainly don't know it. But in that case, I suggest you stick to your cartoon universe and leave those of us who like a little depth and character to our RPG settings to our attempts, desperate or otherwise, to infuse that into the OTU. After all, it's no skin off your nose, is it? You can just ignore anything that gets too deep and realistic for your taste.
Hans
No, Hans, I won't. Just because it is a toon kind of universe doesn't mean it isn't self consistent (except when some spleeb comes along and tries to impose outside references upon it). It may ranckle you, but that's also part of the price of fandom... when you make bold assertions the source is wrong, you damned well better have some proof... and in the case of the OTU, there are so many contradictions betwixt editions, and so few within any given non-MT edition...
I take the Bk5 design system as the definition of what ships in the OTU can do. The actual CT-OTU ships by GDW (with a rare few exceptions done by GDW) adhere to either Bk2 or Bk5+Sup5, and as a clade, those two sets of rules DEFINE the OTU's ships. They accurately replicate the ships performances presented for the OTU except for price... and even then, it's close. Any ship you design with those rules can be built in the OTU.
The Exceptions being the Annic Nova, the Lab Ship, the Safari Ship. The Annic Nova is beyond the TL presented in the rules. The Lab Ship and Safari Ship both have components undefined, but those can be reverse engineered from the designs and costs.
Every design from S9 I've checked (not all of them, but about half a dozen) was exactly a match to the data presented. Therefore, those designs are, in fact, the designs of the ships in the OTU, not some abstracted "this is the game stats for it"... the game stats define the universe.
There are some calculation errors in S7. Bk2 has some failures to update to the new rules. But the Rules relased in CT are THE exact rules (social or physical) of the OTU. Not some vague approximation.
You're the one coming along and saying "You're doing it wrong by following the rules"...
I take the Bk5 design system as the definition of what ships in the OTU can do. The actual CT-OTU ships by GDW (with a rare few exceptions done by GDW) adhere to either Bk2 or Bk5+Sup5, and as a clade, those two sets of rules DEFINE the OTU's ships. They accurately replicate the ships performances presented for the OTU except for price... and even then, it's close. Any ship you design with those rules can be built in the OTU.
The Exceptions being the Annic Nova, the Lab Ship, the Safari Ship. The Annic Nova is beyond the TL presented in the rules. The Lab Ship and Safari Ship both have components undefined, but those can be reverse engineered from the designs and costs.
Every design from S9 I've checked (not all of them, but about half a dozen) was exactly a match to the data presented. Therefore, those designs are, in fact, the designs of the ships in the OTU, not some abstracted "this is the game stats for it"... the game stats define the universe.
There are some calculation errors in S7. Bk2 has some failures to update to the new rules. But the Rules relased in CT are THE exact rules (social or physical) of the OTU. Not some vague approximation.
You're the one coming along and saying "You're doing it wrong by following the rules"...
Last edited:
I do have proof, and plenty of it. It's just that you don't accept my basic premise, that the various Traveller versions supposedly apply to the same universe. [Insert standard caveat about the GTU]. I hadn't realized that you also didn't think that the rules are supposed to be as close to reality (our reality) as is feasible while still supporting good game experiences, but that's just icing on the cake.
Your premises are wrong, Wil. All the different versions (except the very first, of course) imply that over and over again, and Marc Miller says so explicitly when he labels products of different versions part of the Traveller canon.
You think it's my premises that are wrong (obviously). But regardless of which one of us that is wrong, starting from different premises makes discussion rather futile.
Too bad those two systems are incompatible.
Like the TL10 jump-6 ship that you can design with Bk2?
No, Wil. They're the rules of the LBB universe and of the HG universe (two different universes by your definition) respectively.
Depends on what rules. Building jump-6 ships at TL10? That's wrong. Fusion power plants using up tons of hydrogen in weeks? That's wrong. HePLaR drives instead of thrusters? That's wrong. Reducing effective tonnage by 20% for streamlining? That's wrong. People using the exact same amount of life support in 9 and in 14 days? That's wrong. The commander of a subsector fleet being the rank-equivalent of the commander of an army brigade? That's wrong. Norris fetching his warrant from the Kinunir instead of from Algine? That's wrong.
I may be mistaken about some of these assertations, but if I am, it's because my logic is flawed, not because "the rules says so".
Hans
Last edited:
Hans: the OTU ha ships designed under both systems, therefore both work in the OTU.
Also, the canon list I've got shows one edition at a time, not all in one big list. It's from MWM. Therefore, MT is a separate canon from CT. And TNE is on neither of those lists; it has its own.
And I've made my point of view quite clear over the years Hans, you simply can 't get it through your skull I'm unwilling to revise the basic premise that the Rules describe a universe, and the OTU is a specific case of that described universe.
And in the case of design, it's been pointed out BY MWM AND LKW that the setting was devised around the rules, not the other way around. The initial part was justiifcations for the mechanics of Imperium. But the OTU didn't get much print until 1979... when the expansions started, and for whatever reasons, MWM and LKW didn't revise CT'81 to use HG exclusively, and thus the OTU designs show this dual paradigm.
Oh, and you can't build a CT'81 J6 vessel under bk 2 until TL14... because you have to have drive T and an 600Td hull, and the T drive isn't available until TL14. If you're going to complain AT LEAST GET YOUR NUMBERS CORRECT.
Also, the canon list I've got shows one edition at a time, not all in one big list. It's from MWM. Therefore, MT is a separate canon from CT. And TNE is on neither of those lists; it has its own.
And I've made my point of view quite clear over the years Hans, you simply can 't get it through your skull I'm unwilling to revise the basic premise that the Rules describe a universe, and the OTU is a specific case of that described universe.
And in the case of design, it's been pointed out BY MWM AND LKW that the setting was devised around the rules, not the other way around. The initial part was justiifcations for the mechanics of Imperium. But the OTU didn't get much print until 1979... when the expansions started, and for whatever reasons, MWM and LKW didn't revise CT'81 to use HG exclusively, and thus the OTU designs show this dual paradigm.
Oh, and you can't build a CT'81 J6 vessel under bk 2 until TL14... because you have to have drive T and an 600Td hull, and the T drive isn't available until TL14. If you're going to complain AT LEAST GET YOUR NUMBERS CORRECT.
BlackBat242
SOC-14 1K
Despite all the emphatic statements from many on this board that CT, MT, & TNE are all the same OTU*? And that if you are doing "the OTU", you have to accept MT revisions to CT items, and TNE revisions to MT and CT?
*just at different periods
You mind pointing out where, in Book 2, this is? Because the only thing I can find in the Book 2 (1981 printing) ship design rules that mentions tech level in any way, is the TL at which certain computer models become available.
This does indeed limit TL10(A) ships to J4, with J5 coming in at TL11(B) and J6 at TL12(C).
Now, Book 3, which has no direct link to the Book 2 design sequence (and is not mentioned therein), does, on the TL chart on pages 14-15, list when the various drives are available, but again... this is not mentioned, nor referenced, in the Book 2 ship design rules!
Neither the text nor tables in Book 2 make any reference to TL affecting availability of any item of ship equipment other than computers, which it does specifically mention in both text & table!
Last edited:
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Not to mention the TL introductions for the various ship weapons therein as well, and their being different from the TLs in High Guard.
BlackBat242
SOC-14 1K
As I mentioned in my post.
That table is an integral part of the Book 2+3 ship design system... but again... this is not mentioned, nor referenced, in the Book 2 ship design rules!
Someone looking at Book 2 for the ship design rules is going to see that there is no restriction on drive availability by tech level in the ship design section!
This is something that should be addressed in the CT errata list, in my opinion.
Last edited:
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Perhaps it could be highlighted, part of DonM's latest idea (Lost Rules) maybe. It's not really errata though. At least I don't see it as such.
It's like suggesting that because the vehicles are not listed with TLs in Book 2 where they are "designed" as part of a ship that listing the TLs in Book 3 is errata. LBB1-3 are a package deal.
You can't really use any one without the support of various parts of the others. I think that was Wil's point, it is mine, and we both seem to have taken (perhaps mistakenly) your post as something else. Discussing the issue is good though, for clarity
It's like suggesting that because the vehicles are not listed with TLs in Book 2 where they are "designed" as part of a ship that listing the TLs in Book 3 is errata. LBB1-3 are a package deal.
You can't really use any one without the support of various parts of the others. I think that was Wil's point, it is mine, and we both seem to have taken (perhaps mistakenly) your post as something else. Discussing the issue is good though, for clarity
Last edited:
Yes, my unstated point was LBB2 is limited by LBB 3's rules. And I've said before that LLB's 1-3 can not be taken without eachother.
While it would have been awesome if CT 81 had adopted B5 designs, it didn't, and the OTU used both in parallel... and Bk2 (with its attendent TL limits from Bk3) is not as bad as the nay-sayers claim. It IS different in TL restrictions.
Max sized hull by TL and Jump
TL _J1_ _J2_ _J3_ _J4_ _J5_ _J6_ Drv Cmp
09 _800 _400 _200 NP-C NP-P NP-P A-D 1-3
10 1000 _800 _400 _400 NP-C NP-P A-H 1-4
11 2000 1000 _600 _400 _400 NP-P A-K 1-5
12 2000 1000 _800 _600 _400 NP-F A-N 1-6
13 3000 1000 1000 _600 _600 NP-F A-Q 1-7
14 3000 1000 1000 _800 _600 NP-F A-U 1-7
15 5000 5000 4000 3000 2000 2000 A-Z 1-7
MnH _200 _100 _200 _200 _400 _800
MnA _100 _100 _100 _100 _200 _400
MnH: minimum hull with NO dodges, interpolations, nor short PP fuel (IE, the month the rules list is required). Note that if one allows fueling a drive rated 2 for performance as a 1, or 4 as 3, then the min for J1 and J3 drops to 100 tons...
MnA: minimum with 2 weeks PP fuel (5x Pn)
NP-C: Not possible - computerinsufficient
NP-P: Not possible - can't fit available components into a hull to generate this performance, including crew at DO and double-jobs.
NP-F: Not possible fue to fit unless MD fuel reduced
Drv: Drive Letters Available at that TL
Cmp: Computer models available at that TL
The 600 for J6 issue:
360 Jfuel
_20 Bridge
_60 PPF
_95 JD
_55 PP
__7 Mod/6
598 total no room for crew... unless you prorate PP fuel.
Crew requires 150/35=4.286 Engineers=5 engineers. Only room for four. If you allow half month PP fuel...
360 Jfuel
_20 Bridge
_30 PPF 2 wk
_95 JD T
_55 PP T
__5 MD C
_28 7x SR (Med, Plt, Nav, 5x Engr)
__7 Mod/6
a J6 400 Td can' be built even if you allow prorating fuel
240 JF
_30 PF 2wk
_20 Brdg
_65 MD-M
_37 PP-M
__7 Mod/6
__8 Td 2SR for 3x Engr, Plt, Nav, Medic... 2 need to be double posters (Engr/Plt, Engr/Nav, Engr, Medic)
_-7 payload
200 Td J5 requires prorate.
100 JF
_25 PF 2wk
_20 Brdg
_30 MD E
_16 PP E
__4 1 SR (2 Engr, Plt, Medic)
__5 Mod/5
400 J5 proof
200 JF
_50 PF 4wk
_20 Brdg
_55 MD K
_31 PP K
__5 Mod/5
__8 2xSR Plt/Engr, Nav/Engr, Engr, Med
_31 payload (weapons, cargo)
The
While it would have been awesome if CT 81 had adopted B5 designs, it didn't, and the OTU used both in parallel... and Bk2 (with its attendent TL limits from Bk3) is not as bad as the nay-sayers claim. It IS different in TL restrictions.
Max sized hull by TL and Jump
TL _J1_ _J2_ _J3_ _J4_ _J5_ _J6_ Drv Cmp
09 _800 _400 _200 NP-C NP-P NP-P A-D 1-3
10 1000 _800 _400 _400 NP-C NP-P A-H 1-4
11 2000 1000 _600 _400 _400 NP-P A-K 1-5
12 2000 1000 _800 _600 _400 NP-F A-N 1-6
13 3000 1000 1000 _600 _600 NP-F A-Q 1-7
14 3000 1000 1000 _800 _600 NP-F A-U 1-7
15 5000 5000 4000 3000 2000 2000 A-Z 1-7
MnH _200 _100 _200 _200 _400 _800
MnA _100 _100 _100 _100 _200 _400
MnH: minimum hull with NO dodges, interpolations, nor short PP fuel (IE, the month the rules list is required). Note that if one allows fueling a drive rated 2 for performance as a 1, or 4 as 3, then the min for J1 and J3 drops to 100 tons...
MnA: minimum with 2 weeks PP fuel (5x Pn)
NP-C: Not possible - computerinsufficient
NP-P: Not possible - can't fit available components into a hull to generate this performance, including crew at DO and double-jobs.
NP-F: Not possible fue to fit unless MD fuel reduced
Drv: Drive Letters Available at that TL
Cmp: Computer models available at that TL
The 600 for J6 issue:
360 Jfuel
_20 Bridge
_60 PPF
_95 JD
_55 PP
__7 Mod/6
598 total no room for crew... unless you prorate PP fuel.
Crew requires 150/35=4.286 Engineers=5 engineers. Only room for four. If you allow half month PP fuel...
360 Jfuel
_20 Bridge
_30 PPF 2 wk
_95 JD T
_55 PP T
__5 MD C
_28 7x SR (Med, Plt, Nav, 5x Engr)
__7 Mod/6
a J6 400 Td can' be built even if you allow prorating fuel
240 JF
_30 PF 2wk
_20 Brdg
_65 MD-M
_37 PP-M
__7 Mod/6
__8 Td 2SR for 3x Engr, Plt, Nav, Medic... 2 need to be double posters (Engr/Plt, Engr/Nav, Engr, Medic)
_-7 payload
200 Td J5 requires prorate.
100 JF
_25 PF 2wk
_20 Brdg
_30 MD E
_16 PP E
__4 1 SR (2 Engr, Plt, Medic)
__5 Mod/5
400 J5 proof
200 JF
_50 PF 4wk
_20 Brdg
_55 MD K
_31 PP K
__5 Mod/5
__8 2xSR Plt/Engr, Nav/Engr, Engr, Med
_31 payload (weapons, cargo)
The
Last edited:
Wil, the two systems are mutually contradictory. Therefore they wouldn't actually both work in the same universe. You can pretend that they both exist in the same universe, but you'd be perpetuating a fallacy.
We're up against a difference of definitions it seems. You're equating the OTU with the CTU. That was the case once. It ceased to be the case when MT was published.
And you seem to think it's something you have a say in. You don't get to decide whether to revise that basic premise. GDW did that when they published MT. At that time, the CTU ceased to be the OTU.
What I really can't get through my skull is the point of insisting that the OTU is defined by the CT books alone. It seems such a bleak and sterile notion. If you're right, they stopped publishing material for the OTU 25 years ago. I don't see the benefit of throwing away 25 years' worth of material wholesale. Throwing something away for a specific reason, sure, but that's a completely different matter.
I'd much rather concern myself with the Current Traveller Universe (No, wait, that won't work -- it abbreviates to CTU -- Active Traveller Universe? Mean ingful Traveller Universe? Hmmm... this require further thought...
)I don't dispute that for a second. I just don't see the relevance. Every time GDW put out another book with additional, expanded, and/or revised rules they made it clear that the universe was intended to be much more than just the rules as they stood at any given moment. There was always something new being added.
Well, you certainly showed me up there. I was wrong, and I admit it. Let me retract my statement and substitute this:
Building jump-3 ships at TL9? That's wrong. Building jump-4 ships at TL10? That's wrong. Building jump-5 ships at TL11? That's wrong.
There. Is that better?
Hans
Last edited:
