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.

 

[spank]

I'm late to the party,
as usual,
But when has that ever stopped me?

I fooled around with an air raft design some time back,
The primary goal was to make it carry a useful amount of cargo based on the assumption that there is a "standard" imperial shipping container, that is maybe 5 Dtons, and "standard" crate and pallet designed to fill it, and that the PCs would want to carry those onboard.
I came up with a raft that was 2.9 meters wide and 6 meters long. filling a 4 Dton footprint.

As part of that I looked at the size of real world vehicles such a deuce and half, and a E350 van.
Hopefully this will provide some insight.
Here the frames are 1.5 x 3 x 3, or one Dton
A ford E350 and a Crown Victoria both need 4 Dtons,



You can go for something smaller, but I really think 4 people with gear are going to want something atleast as big as an E350.
You could go for something a little bigger such as a Deuce and a Half, which takes up 5 Dton or a smaller such as a Beetle, which needs 3 dTons,
or 2 if you get creative with parking.



You could try something smartcar sized, which takes up a little more than 1 dTon, or about 4 per 5 Dtons.


Moving up the scale you get an M113 which pretty well fills 4 Dtons, a BTR at 5 Dtons, and a Mk IX infantry carrier at 7 dTons.

And at the other end of the scale is the Isetta, which you can pack pretty tightly, about 4 per 3 Dton, or 8 if you get creative.

 

[aramis]

It's clear to me I have no grasp of how big an air/raft is. Always saw it with 4 seats, figured it was about the size of a Camry.

Never though it was 4000kg in mass. Mind, some of the modern electric trucks are silly heavy too. So, there's that. But I see 4000kg and think "pretty big" since vehicle are mostly "empty boxes".

The earliest images are roughly 3×6 m top view... it's the size of a Lincoln Continental Mark V from the 1970s...

 

[aramis]

Does that mean that the Gazelle, the Kinunir, and the Leviathan are not Traveller ship or CT ships?

the Gazelle, Kinunir, and Leviathan are neither Bk2 nor Bk5 designs, nor even the explicitly allowed hybrid.
They are clearly built from a prototype of Bk5... As were several designs in GW licensed materials.

They're CT, and branded as such.
Striker, until relatively recently (mid 00's), was not clearly Traveller branded; that happened when Marc put it on the CT CD. Fundamentally, it was always traveller related, but, like Imperium, Mayday, and Snapshot, they were kept as vaguely Traveller linked; to fans of Traveller, clearly part of the line, to non-fans, they stand alone just fine.... until you got to the sections of Striker, Mayday, or Snapshot about "integration with Traveller."

Line confusion worked to GDW's advantage sales wise.

MegaTraveller, designed in 1985-86, tried real hard to integrate Striker and Bk5... and then left out several key elements... bridges, for example, and put lots of detail where it didn't serve good game purpose, and was weak on a few bits. And, as released, military longarms can take down grav tanks...

 

[aramis]

I don't know how else to put it. Are their parameters for what is mean to be the same vehicle close enough? Do they generate inconsistencies in the setting as a result.

Do LBB3/Striker or LBB2/LBB5 give the same results? No.

So not compatible.

Concur. Many, many, many Traveller fans misconstrue convertible with compatible. And, hold that details they don't use are totally wasted, without considering that some might use them; on the other hand, MT, TNE, T4 all have loads of details... details that, in MT, get resolved intio a couple task difficulties...

Can I use a Gazelle with LBB2, or a Striker GCarrier with LBB1/3? Yes, of course.

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.

Just figuring out the drive letters for Bk2 combat requires an insight into the fluff text... and if you don't have that insight, a reconstruction, which often fails to match the prices and stated tonnages of cargo. But at least GW used the same method of conveying it.
But the Gazelle does have rules for using the PA's in Bk2 combat.

Can I build a 4 tonne air/raft carrying 4 people and 4 tonnes of cargo at ~100 km/h at TL-8 in Striker? Yes, of course.

I can't. I have tried but can't.

I also have tried... with standard grav vehicle design rules, nope. either has the speed, or has the cargo, not both. And costs don't match, either.

Striker is a landslide shift in approach to certain future techs. One which reverberates through MT, into TNE, and further to T4... and into GT, HT, T20, and MgT... but Gareth also revised, and the MgT2 team further so...
... and rankles some Grogs quite fiercely, since it's as fundamental a shift as the Bk5 shift.

 

[mike wightman]

"Striker
Rules for 15mm Traveller miniatures

That's on the front cover of the box.

If there is any doubt that Striker is Traveller branded look at the text on the back of the box:

"The Universe of Traveller - Communication is limited to the speed of courier ships. Remote central governments exercise only limited control over the affairs of their frontier territories.
Megacorporations struggle for control of sparsely settled mineral-rich worlds. And everywhere, there are mercenaries for hire to settle disputes.
Striker fills an important place in the Traveller universe - rules for ground combat with 15mm figures and vehicles."

Looks like Striker was Traveller branded from day 1.

 

[Condottiere]

I don't recall who came up with the concept first, I usually attribute it to Tubb or Piper.

But raft implies slow and flat, though pragmatism would add windscreen, roll bar, and a canvas top.

 

[Condottiere]

Note that the windscreen can be folded down.

You would only need the sidewalls so that no one and nothing falls out.

 

[casquilho]

Note that the windscreen can be folded down.

You would only need the sidewalls so that no one and nothing falls out.

Yep, the only thing different for me, is the four seats rather than two. But yes, this is sort of what I see in my mental movie when I play.

 

[whartung]

This is excellent! Very well done! Thanks for posting this.

Love the 2dTon VW.

 

[Condottiere]

I don't recall who came up with the concept first, I usually attribute it to Tubb or Piper.

But raft implies slow and flat, though pragmatism would add windscreen, roll bar, and a canvas top.

I want to revise that phrase:

Low and slow.

Low referring to both the sidewalls, and the preferred altitude.

It's not that there aren't faster variants, but the default would be thought of more like a flying car/pet.

 

[Rupert]

I don't recall who came up with the concept first, I usually attribute it to Tubb or Piper.

But raft implies slow and flat, though pragmatism would add windscreen, roll bar, and a canvas top.

Piper, to my recollection, tends to just talk about 'contragrav', and not be specific about the forms it takes, though he does consider the effects ubiquitous contragrav vehicles will have on settlement patterns and urban development.

Tubb, on the other hand, definitely has rafts that are very like an Air/Raft in performance and role, aside from not having the ability to just climb until they reach orbit (but then that capability would almost never be useful in his stories).

Thus I assume the Air/Raft itself is from Tubb.