What is the size in cubic meters of an air/raft

[Condottiere]

Dodge Ram - rather paradoxical.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Is it in LBB:2? So is it something a player can put on their ships? How much are they? Can you have a triple heavy laser turret?

Why would there be an entire design system in an article describing a single ship class?

If you want the design system, look in LBB5.

Is the design system for collector-based ships in JTAS#1? Can we use the Annic Nova without it?

No it doesn't. LBB: tells you how to build ships, this description lacks information on tonnage and cost.

LBB2 doesn't only tell you how to design ships, it also describes how to use ships; a physical model (how jump and thrust works), an economic model, and a combat system.

You can easily use the Gazelle as describes in JTAS in a LBB2-based campaign, move in space, transport people and stuff, and fight.

So where in TCS are the LBB:2 rules for special accumulators and heavy lasers?

Since TCS were after LBB5'80 there were no accumulators. The tankage described in TCS can be used with LBB2 and LBB5 equally, as e.g. done in TTB.

"Heavy lasers" have nothing to do with TCS, they are only mentioned in the Gazelle description, where it is also explained:

The barbettes, and their particle accelerator weapons are not specifically covered in Traveller Book 2. They are a variant drawn from the material in High Guard, and grafted onto Book 2. Specifically, the barbettes are 5 tons each. The particle accelerators should be treated as heavy lasers as in Traveller Book 2, subject to an advantageous DM of +2 to hit. Damage from such hits should be skewed toward crew casualties, and electronic and computer damage if there is no fibre optic back-up present.

And as a result inconsistent and often contradictory.

So, the discussion boils down to: CT isn't perfect.
Well, bohoo, no role playing game is perfect.
I would call CT very far from perfect, yet we are talking about it nearly 50 years later, so it must have done something right...
Just that we had design systems for worlds and ships at all was a revelation for an early role-playing game.

 

[coliver988]

I'll just throw this quote from CT Book 1 out there:

Creating New Skills: The experience rules of Book 2 indicate methods by which an individual can learn additional skills after he or she begins actively adventuring. Those rules also cover the requirements for creating a new skill not otherwise detailed in the Traveller rules. For example, if a new weapon is developed (perhaps a laser pistol), a new skill would be required to enable its use.

edit: just saying the rules are extensible by design. I've never worried about compatibility as I just want to have fun. (then I go down my own personal rabbit holes in the rules, but that is the fun for me)

edit 2: and for air/rafts, I've been driving my 1st car, a '91 MR-2, for 34 years now and it weighs all of 2200 pounds. As noted above - a single entry does not cover all possibilties. And no, there is cargo space for perhaps a set of golf clubs in the trunk, so not a cargo carrier!

 

[mike wightman]

Why would there be an entire design system in an article describing a single ship class?

I am a great believer that authors should use the rules as written rather than make up new stuff on a whim that requires the purchase of an adventure and supplment and then doesn't provide the needed information for players to buy those systems

If you want the design system, look in LBB5.

I must have missed the rules for heavy lasers, high capacity accumulators and the like, Will go and look again.

Is the design system for collector-based ships in JTAS#1? Can we use the Annic Nova without it?

Is it consistent with the LBB2 design sequence, is it compatible with the LBB2 design sequence?

LBB2 doesn't only tell you how to design ships, it also describes how to use ships; a physical model (how jump and thrust works), an economic model, and a combat system.

You can easily use the Gazelle as describes in JTAS in a LBB2-based campaign, move in space, transport people and stuff, and fight.

Yes you can use it, it is still inconsistent and contradictory of the rules as presented in LBB2 (and 5, a 300t ship with 4 hardpoints)

Since TCS were after LBB5'80 there were no accumulators. The tankage described in TCS can be used with LBB2 and LBB5 equally, as e.g. done in TTB.

Thus the accumulators are contradictory and not consistent.

"Heavy lasers" have nothing to do with TCS, they are only mentioned in the Gazelle description, where it is also explained:

Described, not enough information to be duplicated in a PC ship using any extant design system.

Where are the rules for improving fire control to provide a +1 bonus? Or the rules for a heavy laser with a +2 bonus? How much do they cos. How much tonnage, how many per turret.

So, the discussion boils down to: CT isn't perfect.

Sacrilege, burn the heretic... I agree, and a lot of the imperfection is due to making up stuff that is inconsistent and contradictory.

Well, bohoo, no role playing game is perfect.

Mine is

I would call CT very far from perfect, yet we are talking about it nearly 50 years later, so it must have done something right...

Totally agree, it gives me something to do while waiting for my eye operation.

Just that we had design systems for worlds and ships at all was a revelation for an early role-playing game.

And that they still work after all this time

 

[Grav_Moped]

You can do anything you want it your universe. Please tell me how a LBB:2 Gazelle explains drop tanks, particle accelerator turrets, and what a heavy laser is. Inconsistency.

I've been over this before. Ships (and by extension for this topic, grav vehicles) can be optimized for their rule systems. A Gazelle built with and for use under LBB2 rules would not be the same ship -- see my Impala-Class Close Escort as a case in point. However, it would serve similar narrative purposes in-game as the LBB5 version. (Also, there are apparently differences between the 1st and 2nd edition interpretation of the Gazelle (which explain, but in fairness don't justify) how it's a broken design in the latter version.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Dodge Ram - rather paradoxical.

But very good advice to put on the front of a truck that's pointed at you.

 

[Spinward Flow]

But very good advice to put on the front of a truck that's pointed at you.

Dodge (verb, imperative)
Ram (verb, predictive)

Fail to do the first ... and the second is the likely result.

 

[Badenov]

Dodge (verb, imperative)
Ram (verb, predictive)

Fail to do the first ... and the second is the likely result.

And now I'm hearing, "Dodge ram, or do not dodge ram. There is no 'try'."

 

[Condottiere]

There is no Dodge.