Why Book2?

[E.D.Quibell]

Unfortunately, authors often don't practice the wisdom of KISS nor understand where tweaking has limited the potential of a design system for imaginary creations.

Invariably, some of this is due to a lack of math skills to create a formula that fits their vision and a lack of input from others to point out where they are being silly...

But the oposit of that is when you get a bunch of people wo do know maths to design the design book.

You end up with FF&S2 from T4. That looks like a maths text book with all the formulars in the back.

Best regards,

Ewan

 

[BytePro]

LOL - wasn't implying that you want mathematicians to write game books!

However, the mathematicians I know (PhD's) prefer elegance and simplicity to reams of numbers presented in endless tables... that's for accountants to love!

As for FF&S - suspect the 'don't practice the wisdom of KISS' might apply!

No excuses for authors who can't do math - there are plenty of people in the world they could consult!

 

[rancke]

Yup, but they changed the m-drive and j-drive sizes around. In LBB2 the jump drive is the big component and the m-drive is smaller, in the HG tables this is reversed.

You should be able to get some interesting performances out of hybrid designs. You know, ships with Book 2 m-drives and HG jump drives.


Hans

 

[BytePro]

Or just make up your own!

I equate book designs with 'stock' parts... no reason for large variances in size and performance not to exist. Good time to make a story to explain why a particular piece of tech is unique. It also is a great opportunity for putting in counter balances to advantages, like different fuel and power requirements, spare parts issues, quirks...

 

[mike wightman]

You should be able to get some interesting performances out of hybrid designs. You know, ships with Book 2 m-drives and HG jump drives.


Hans

You can- I've done quite a few designs like this.

But it feels like I'm cheating, despite HG stating that the LBB2 drives may be used.

 

[BillDowns]

My feeling with HG, whether 1 or 2, was that they should have matched LBB2 results, just with formulae. It's not that difficult.

If one assigns a "thrust" of 200 tons per drive letter, you will match the tables up until the last column or two. Then, deriving the formula for tonnage and the one for cost is relatively simple.

 

[PFVA63]

Hi

My feeling with HG, whether 1 or 2, was that they should have matched LBB2 results, just with formulae. It's not that difficult.

If one assigns a "thrust" of 200 tons per drive letter, you will match the tables up until the last column or two. Then, deriving the formula for tonnage and the one for cost is relatively simple.

I think that's what has kind of confused me all along too. If the thought was to try and make an expanded system to cover bigger shipsthenwhy not use the existing LBB2 system as a starting point, so that differences between existing ships and the system for the bigger ships wouldn't be so dramatic.

Regards

Pat

 

[rancke]

I think that's what has kind of confused me all along too. If the thought was to try and make an expanded system to cover bigger ships then why not use the existing LBB2 system as a starting point, so that differences between existing ships and the system for the bigger ships wouldn't be so dramatic.

My guess is that they decided they wanted to change the way things work. It was a retcon. We can agree or disagree whether it was a good idea, but it was GDW's call to make. Only, if they wanted to change things, they shouldn't have said "And, BTW, we're going to pretend the old way works too".


Hans

 

[Matt123]

And HG has the look & feel of a new rules writer given a relatively free hand to create a better product. At least until the IP owner, rather late in the process, made the executive decision not to invalidate existing customers already bought material.

 

[whartung]

Is there any real need for any compatibility beyond being able to represent a B2 design using HG terms?

I'm not saying that the B2 design has to be "legal" under HG, just that the stats should be representable as B5 characteristics (what is it, a USP?).

Then you can use the ship in HG combat. If B2 ships don't have "armor", then give them some default armor (like I think ships need a minimum of 40 in MT), so just give the B2 ships that "for free".

I mean, it's not like there's a balance issue here or anything. Anything that's going credit to credit in some kind of competition (ala TCS or whatever) isn't going to use or allow B2 anyway. And if it is, the, you know, don't do that. Don't game the system that way. It's a Free Trader for crying out loud. That 10K ton cruiser is going blow it to smithereenies no matter what anyway.

So, just what glaring thing is lacking here that makes a B2 ship so square peg in a round HG hole?

 

[aramis]

My feeling with HG, whether 1 or 2, was that they should have matched LBB2 results, just with formulae. It's not that difficult.

If one assigns a "thrust" of 200 tons per drive letter, you will match the tables up until the last column or two. Then, deriving the formula for tonnage and the one for cost is relatively simple.

J breaks the pattern, but otherwise, it's A-U. W-Z are (as noted above) WAY out there... Much more efficient - but not much bigger.

Bk 2 isn't straight formulae. I think I know why, and it has absolutely nothing to do with games, only with copyright. You can't exert copyright over a formula-derived table in the US.
A non-formulaic table, however, is marginally copyrightable. If the deviations from formula are the same, then you have in fact proven copying of the table.

 

[BillDowns]

My feelings about LBB2 or LBB5, is that one should select which engineering view point to use. Take your pick, one or the other, but don't try to combine the two, IMO. Note you can use LBB2 engineering, but LBB5 weaponry and fuel usage to acheive satisfactory results.

And, despite CT's "warts" as being discussed on the board, it is all still a very excellent piece of work overall. It has been around for over 35 years!

 

[DonM]

Bk 2 isn't straight formulae. I think I know why, and it has absolutely nothing to do with games, only with copyright. You can't exert copyright over a formula-derived table in the US.
A non-formulaic table, however, is marginally copyrightable. If the deviations from formula are the same, then you have in fact proven copying of the table.

Interesting theory, especially since GDW won the Space/Space II lawsuit, based on the use of "air/raft" (among other things). Of course, Book 2 came first, but still an interesting theory...

 

[aramis]

My feelings about LBB2 or LBB5, is that one should select which engineering view point to use. Take your pick, one or the other, but don't try to combine the two, IMO. Note you can use LBB2 engineering, but LBB5 weaponry and fuel usage to acheive satisfactory results.

And, despite CT's "warts" as being discussed on the board, it is all still a very excellent piece of work overall. It has been around for over 35 years!

Mechanoids has been around for 30, Monopoly for 80, and parchisi for almost a thousand. Longevity alone doesn't make it a great game.

Part of the reason I jumped ship from CT was the lack of uniformity. As with AD&D1 or whitebox, the odds of any two groups playing it the same way were slim, as it required too much interpretation.

I like some elements of CT... Bk2 design & combat amongst them...but the rest of it, well, I was jumping to 2300 for the OTU as soon as it came out, and then on to MT when I realized Traveller:2300 wasn't really Traveller-as-I-understood-it.