Why Book2?

[Mithras]

I've finally decided why I've always been a fan of Book 2 all these years, despite Book 5 being more detailed, and giving more options, despite Mongoose Core book resembling CT Book 2 with a few useful bits of Book 5 added on...

its the plain English paragraph describing the ships. I love that to bits, and hate hate hate the long complex and (to me) indeceipherable ship profile introduced in Book 5. I love creating a starship, then just writing it up in paragraph form, the rules emulate what a character in the universe would use, in a language he understands.

If High Guard had continued with that, I'd be sold

 

[far-trader]

Well, the example in the back of Book 5 (Kinunir, and Gazelle in the first print iirc), as well as the presentation in Adventure 1 (Kinunir again) and other HG ship productions, including CT Supplement 9 did all include the paragraph writeup as well. Certainly that hinted that users should do the same as was stated in LBB2. Even the excellent HG Shipyard design program provides a "Comments" field for entering a short descriptive paragraph or several.

I agree though, for PC level and RPG gaming, a little soul and descriptive goes further than the USP string alone. It was never (imo) meant as more than shorthand for large fleet battle play. A wargame feature, not a role-playing one.

 

[sabredog]

I prefer the stepped drive potentials in LBB2. They are both more interesting to try to design ships with, and more importantly - more intesresting in combat since if you design a ship a certain way even if the drive takes a hit it might still have its full potential left for at least one more chance to get away, stay in the fight, etc.

Makes for better adventuring and drama among the players other than, "Oh crap, we took a hit in the drive and we are dead in the water once again." Versus, "Dang, took a hit in the drive...one more like that and we won't make the J-2 - better go now or risk another hit and we'll be left with J-1 and might not have time to reprogram the route?"

 

[rancke]

I get why some people like Book 2 better than HG for its simplicity and ease of use. But I don't get why GDW didn't do a HG-compatible revision of Book 2. It really wouldn't have been difficult.


Hans

 

[sabredog]

Plus, the rule in LBB2 that when a component is at zero it can still be fixed, but once past that it's toast and needs replaced. That is less sterile and allows for a lot more skills use than the step damage rules in HG.

 

[Dragoner]

I loved book 2, just modded in some of the HG rules, also used book 2 for vehicle combat using the non-starship table, made for good combat rules, fast and easy to use. I had a tendency to mix and match the Bk2 and HG rules, esp if it was a player designing a ship I might be more lenient, esp. if they had the creds to spend.

 

[aramis]

Without a doubt, Mayday is my favorite ship combat mode, and mayday is essentially Bk 2 on a grid.

I'm not so much a fan of the non-formulaic table design system, and while I prefer a "medium ship" universe (Max Tonnage is around 10KTd), Bk2 effectively caps around 2KTd, and hard caps at 5KTd...

I prefer the weapons mix of Bk 5 and/or MT, and the use of Power as an additional axis of design in both.

It's easily enough done to mix-n-match, except for armor.

I was disappointed in MGT because they didn't keep the step damage to drives. They also kept the non-formulaic table... but it's closer to formula than was Bk 2... (It looks like the high-end drives skip a step in performance, so it might be formulaic.)

 

[mike wightman]

I get why some people like Book 2 better than HG for its simplicity and ease of use. But I don't get why GDW didn't do a HG-compatible revision of Book 2. It really wouldn't have been difficult.


Hans

I don't understand why they didn't notice that HG1 was incompatible with LBB2, and then continue to make the same mistakes with HG2.

They should have done one of two things:

make revised LBB2 HG compatible

or

realise their cut and paste error in HG

 

[mike wightman]

I'm not so much a fan of the non-formulaic table design system, and while I prefer a "medium ship" universe (Max Tonnage is around 10KTd), Bk2 effectively caps around 2KTd, and hard caps at 5KTd...

The hard cap is really 10k since the type Z drive give a performance of 2 for a 5kt hull.

 

[aramis]

The hard cap is really 10k since the type Z drive give a performance of 2 for a 5kt hull.

Except that the table's not actually linear increases in tonnage potential. I've run the math on both Bk2 and MGT.

 

[rancke]

I don't understand why they didn't notice that HG1 was incompatible with LBB2, and then continue to make the same mistakes with HG2.

Ha ha ha. I see what you did there.

They noticed it all right. Why else would they have grandfathered Book 2 designs (An extremly bad decision IMO)? They made a concious decision to change the design system (Drives are a set percentage of hull size, etc.) and Book 2 designs were incompatible with the new system. Without the grandfathering rule many Book 2 designs would be incompatible with HG.

They also introduced background information that invalidated the Book 2 (and Book 3) rules about the tech levels of ship designs. So obviously they meant it when they changed the rules.


Hans

 

[McPerth]

I don't understand why they didn't notice that HG1 was incompatible with LBB2, and then continue to make the same mistakes with HG2.

One of the things I've never understood about Bk2-HG incongruencies was the distribution of drives tonnage.

In Bk2, most your drive tonnage (assuming equal jump and maneober) was devoted to you JD, seccondly to your PP and the smallest of all was MD.

In HG, (if your performances are over 1), most of your drive tonnage will be devoted to your MD, and JD and PP will share the rest depending on the TL and performance number.

As an example, let's imagine a TL13 1000 dton J4 M4 PP4 ship. In Bk2 it needs V drives for all, using 105 dton for JD, 61 dton for PP and 39 dton for MD. In HG, it needs 110 dton for MD, 80 dton for PP and 50 dton for JD. Aside from needing some more tonnage (205 dton in bk2 vs 240 dton in HG), the distribution is very different.

 

[atpollard]

Whatever the system, drive performance needs to scale with the hull sizes.

If I build a rocket motor (in real life) capable of accelerating a 100 metric ton vessel at 2 G, then it WILL be capable of accelerating a 200 metric ton vessel at 1 G and two of the same rocket motors will be capable of accelerating a 200 metric ton vessel at 2 G. I don't mind overlooking the effects of relativity in a game, but basic Newtonian physics should still function.

In too many versions of Traveller, a certain MD will push a 1000 ton hull at 2 G and two identical ships could fly along at 2G with only 1 mm separation. However, if I go EVA and tac weld the hulls together, the 2000 ton ship suddenly slows down to only 1G.

 

[mike wightman]

Ha ha ha. I see what you did there.

They noticed it all right. Why else would they have grandfathered Book 2 designs (An extremly bad decision IMO)? They made a concious decision to change the design system (Drives are a set percentage of hull size, etc.) and Book 2 designs were incompatible with the new system. Without the grandfathering rule many Book 2 designs would be incompatible with HG.

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.

LBB2 revised could have switched this around to maintain the illusion of compatibility or even better just adopted the HG % based tables. Or they could have switched the % based tables around in HG2 to mesh with the LBB2 drives.

As it is revised CT went with the lettered drive and big jump drive paradigm and HG2 went for a small jump drive paradigm - two totally different drive paradigms for the same OTU

They also introduced background information that invalidated the Book 2 (and Book 3) rules about the tech levels of ship designs. So obviously they meant it when they changed the rules.


Hans

And yet they didn't change them in revised edition, TTB, starter edition.

So you still have a two paradigm OTU - the core rules describe one version of the OTU while HG2 describes a different OTU. Not a very happy state to be in.

 

[Vargas]

Except that the table's not actually linear increases in tonnage potential. I've run the math on both Bk2 and MGT.

This is the sticking point. It's sometimes very difficult to take a system based on what "feels right" to the author of the original system and convert it cleanly into a formula based system designed to build anything. (I tried it with the D20 ship design system and it was messy).

 

[BytePro]

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...

 

[aramis]

This is the sticking point. It's sometimes very difficult to take a system based on what "feels right" to the author of the original system and convert it cleanly into a formula based system designed to build anything. (I tried it with the D20 ship design system and it was messy).

I'll reshow the data and how I derived it - Bk 2 is almost formulaic.

Bounds, using R*T and ((1+R)*T)-1 (all 6's)
Drive _____ A ___ B ____ C ____ D ____ E ____ F ____ G ____ H ____ J ____ K ____ L ____ M ____ N ____ P ____ Q ____ R ____ S ____ T ____ U ____ V ____ W ____ X _____ Y _____ Z
LBound __ 200 _ 400 __ 600 __ 800 _ 1000 _ 1200 _ 1200 _ 1600 _ 2000 _ 2000 _ 2000 _ 2400 _ 2400 _ 2400 _ 3000 _ 3200 _ 3200 _ 3600 _ 3600 _ 4000 _ 5000 _ 6000 __ 8000 _ 12000
UBound __ 299 _ 499 __ 699 __ 999 _ 1199 _ 1399 _ 1599 _ 1799 _ 1999 _ 2399 _ 2399 _ 2799 _ 2799 _ 2999 _ 3199 _ 3599 _ 3599 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 4199 _ 4799 _ 5599 __ 5599 __ 5599

Bounds, using R*T and ((1+R)*T)-1 (first 6's only)
Drive _____ A ___ B ____ C ____ D ____ E ____ F ____ G ____ H ____ J ____ K ____ L ____ M ____ N ____ P ____ Q ____ R ____ S ____ T ____ U ____ V ____ W ____ X ______ Y _____ Z
LBound __ 200 _ 400 __ 600 __ 800 _ 1000 _ 1200 _ 1200 _ 1600 _ 2000 _ 2000 _ 2000 _ 2400 _ 2400 _ 2400 _ 3000 _ 3200 _ 3200 _ 3600 _ 3600 _ 4000 _ 5000 _ 6000 ___ 8000 _ 12000
UBound __ 299 _ 499 __ 699 __ 999 _ 1199 _ 1399 _ 1599 _ 1799 _ 1999 _ 2399 _ 2399 _ 2799 _ 2999 _ 2999 _ 3199 _ 3599 _ 3599 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 4799 _ 4799 _ 5599 ___ 8999 _ 13999

Supporting tabes follow...

Note that 200 tons-rating per letter works A-H and L-V, and would work very nicely except for J, which throws off K as well.
Correcting the J-line instead gets us 200 Tons per drive letter A-V, then breaks at W-Z.

note also:
Jdrive:
Cost: (10 per letter)
Tons: 5+ (5 per letter)

MDrive:
Cost: (4 per letter)
Tons: (2 per letter) -1

PP:
Cost: (8 per letter)
Tons: 1+(3 per letter)

 

[aramis]

Minimum Rating
Drive______ A ___ B ____ C ____ D ____ E ____ F ____ G ____ H ____ J ____ K ____ L ____ M ____ N ____ P ____ Q ____ R ____ S ____ T ____ U ____ V ____ W ____ X _____ Y _____ Z
_100 ____ 200 _ 400 __ 600 __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- ___ --- ___ ---
_200 ____ 200 _ 400 __ 600 __ 800 _ 1000 _ 1200 __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- ___ --- ___ ---
_400 ____ --- _ 400 __ 400 __ 800 __ 800 _ 1200 _ 1200 _ 1600 _ 1600 _ 2000 _ 2000 _ 2400 _ 2400 __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- ___ --- ___ ---
_600 ____ --- _ --- __ 600 __ 600 __ 600 _ 1200 _ 1200 _ 1200 _ 1800 _ 1800 _ 1800 _ 2400 _ 2400 _ 2400 _ 3000 _ 3000 _ 3000 _ 3600 _ 3600 _ 3600 __ --- __ --- ___ --- ___ ---
_800 ____ --- _ --- __ --- __ 800 __ 800 __ 800 __ 800 _ 1600 _ 1600 _ 1600 _ 1600 _ 2400 _ 2400 _ 2400 _ 2400 _ 3200 _ 3200 _ 3200 _ 3200 _ 4000 _ 4000 _ 4800 __ 4800 __ 4800
1000 ____ --- _ --- __ --- __ --- _ 1000 _ 1000 _ 1000 _ 1000 _ 1000 _ 2000 _ 2000 _ 2000 _ 2000 _ 2000 _ 3000 _ 3000 _ 3000 _ 3000 _ 3000 _ 4000 _ 5000 _ 6000 __ 6000 __ 6000
2000 ____ --- _ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- _ 2000 _ 2000 _ 2000 _ 2000 _ 2000 _ 2000 _ 2000 _ 2000 _ 2000 _ 2000 _ 2000 _ 4000 _ 4000 _ 6000 __ 8000 _ 12000
3000 ____ --- _ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- _ 3000 _ 3000 _ 3000 _ 3000 _ 3000 _ 3000 _ 3000 _ 6000 __ 6000 _ 12000
4000 ____ --- _ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- _ 4000 _ 4000 _ 4000 __ 8000 _ 12000
5000 ____ --- _ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- _ 5000 _ 5000 __ 5000 _ 10000

 

[aramis]

Maximum Rating (1st 6's only)
Drive______ A ___ B ____ C ____ D ____ E ____ F ___ G _____ H ____ J ____ K ____ L ____ M ____ N ____ P ____ Q ____ R ____ S ____ T ____ U ____ V ____ W ____ X _____ Y _____ Z
_100 ____ 299 _ 499 __ 699 __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- ___ --- ___ ---
_200 ____ 399 _ 599 __ 799 __ 999 _ 1199 _ 1399 __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- ___ --- ___ ---
_400 ____ --- _ 799 __ 799 _ 1199 _ 1199 _ 1599 _ 1599 _ 1999 _ 1999 _ 2399 _ 2399 _ 2799 __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- ___ --- ___ ---
_600 ____ --- _ --- _ 1199 _ 1199 _ 1199 _ 1799 _ 1799 _ 1799 _ 2399 _ 2399 _ 2399 _ 2999 _ 2999 _ 2999 _ 3599 _ 3599 _ 3599 _ 4199 __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- ___ --- ___ ---
_800 ____ --- _ --- __ --- _ 1599 _ 1599 _ 1599 _ 1599 _ 2399 _ 2399 _ 2399 _ 2399 _ 3199 _ 3199 _ 3199 _ 3199 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 4799 _ 4799 _ 5599 ___ --- ___ ---
1000 ____ --- _ --- __ --- __ --- _ 1999 _ 1999 _ 1999 _ 1999 _ 1999 _ 2999 _ 2999 _ 2999 _ 2999 _ 2999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 4999 _ 5999 _ 6999 ___ --- ___ ---
2000 ____ --- _ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 5999 _ 5999 _ 7999 __ 9999 _ 13999
3000 ____ --- _ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- _ 5999 _ 5999 _ 5999 _ 5999 _ 5999 _ 5999 _ 5999 _ 8999 __ 8999 _ 14999
4000 ____ --- _ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- _ 7999 _ 7999 _ 7999 _ 11999 _ 15999
5000 ____ --- _ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- _ 9999 _ 9999 __ 9999 _ 14999

 

[aramis]

Maximum Rating (All 6's)
Drive _____ A ___ B ____ C ____ D ____ E ____ F ____ G ____ H ____ J ____ K ____ L ____ M ____ N ____ P ____ Q ____ R ____ S ____ T ____ U ____ V ____ W ____ X ______ Y _____ Z
_100 ____ 299 _ 499 __ 699 __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- ____ --- ___ ---
_200 ____ 399 _ 599 __ 799 __ 999 _ 1199 _ 1399 __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- ____ --- ___ ---
_400 ____ --- _ 799 __ 799 _ 1199 _ 1199 _ 1599 _ 1599 _ 1999 _ 1999 _ 2399 _ 2399 _ 2799 _ 2799 __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- ____ --- ___ ---
_600 ____ --- _ --- _ 1199 _ 1199 _ 1199 _ 1799 _ 1799 _ 1799 _ 2399 _ 2399 _ 2399 _ 2999 _ 2999 _ 2999 _ 3599 _ 3599 _ 3599 _ 4199 _ 4199 _ 4199 __ --- __ --- ____ --- ___ ---
_800 ____ --- _ --- __ --- _ 1599 _ 1599 _ 1599 _ 1599 _ 2399 _ 2399 _ 2399 _ 2399 _ 3199 _ 3199 _ 3199 _ 3199 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 4799 _ 4799 _ 5599 ___ 5599 __ 5599
1000 ____ --- _ --- __ --- __ --- _ 1999 _ 1999 _ 1999 _ 1999 _ 1999 _ 2999 _ 2999 _ 2999 _ 2999 _ 2999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 4999 _ 5999 _ 6999 ___ 6999 __ 6999
2000 ____ --- _ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 3999 _ 5999 _ 5999 _ 7999 ___ 9999 _ 13999
3000 ____ --- _ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- _ 5999 _ 5999 _ 5999 _ 5999 _ 5999 _ 5999 _ 5999 _ 8999 ___ 8999 _ 14999
4000 ____ --- _ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- _ 7999 _ 7999 _ 7999 __ 11999 _ 15999
5000 ____ --- _ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- __ --- _ 9999 _ 9999 ___ 9999 _ 14999


The top table is the lower bound and upper bound by drive letter. Lower bound is the maximum rating from the second table, while upper bound is the minimum rating from the third... using tables 3 and 6 for the data. It's badly flawed at W-Z.

The second uses table 3 and 5, and gets much more reasonable data..

The third is Rating*Tonnage
The fourth is ((1+Rating)*Tonnage)-1, but not including 2nd or later 6's.
the fifth is ((1+Rating)*Tonnage)-1, including all the 6's on the table.

Note: the post was broken into several due to length limits; the tables are rather large. They will all line up in a text editor, if you copy them out, and replace the underscores with spaces for readability...