2022 update -- dogfight rules change?

[OrdosMalleus]

That's not Traveller ship combat.

Traveller ship combat is newtonian, vectors, momentum - not hand break turns and dropping bombs in zero g...

Mayday, Triplanetary, LBB2 - vector movement is Traveller.

Cinematic cartoon physics is not.

??

MgT2e has "inertia dampers" and artificial gravity, etc. Not very Netwtonian. And while I have not run the dogfight rules, I don't recall any use of vectors etc. in them.

 

[Sigtrygg]

You need to dig as little deeper into Traveller ship combat - first ther was Triplanetary, then there was Mayday and LBB2. Later we would get the rather excellent Brilliant Lances and Battle Rider. GURPS Traveller and GT ISW also include newtonian movement.

The grav drives and inertial compensators of Traveller craft do not affect the fact that newtonian movement is how Traveller ship combat should be done, even abstracted as was done for CT Starter edition.

Star Wars cinematic cartoon physics has no place in a Traveller setting based on the OTU.

 

[cunningrat]

That's not Traveller ship combat.

Traveller ship combat is newtonian, vectors, momentum - not hand break turns and dropping bombs in zero g...

Cinematic cartoon physics is not.

That may be what Traveller ship combat *should* look like according to the universe's lore, and perhaps original intent.
However, the current MgT2 space combat rules are pure Hollywood physics. If I spend 5 thrust for one round going in one direction, and then spend 5 thrust the next round going back the way I came, MgT2 rules tell me that will put me back where I started -- not just kill my velocity.

I hate the departure from the "hard sci fi" feel of the game. BUT, I also have to admit that Hollywood physics make the game far more playable and accessible to a wider audience.

 

[Sigtrygg]

It doesn't take much to explain an abstract version of newtonian movement just use the CT Starter Set in place of the MgT ship movement tosh.

Ships move in range bands, each about equal to 10,000
kilometres. They may move forward or back, but no side to side
movement is allowed. Ranges are determined by counting the
number of range bands between any two ships: for example, ships
in adjacent range bands are at a distance of 1.
Every ship his a velocity, either forward or backward, which
equals the number of range bands it moved in the previous turn.
(Initial velocity is determined by the referee). Each turn a ship
may change its velocity by up to its maneuver drive rating and then
moves a number of range bands equal to its new velocity. For example
suppose a ship with a maneuver drive-6 is moving forward
with a velocity of 4 range bands per turn. During its movement
phase it could speed up to 10 range bands per turn forward, change
to 2 range bands per turn backward, or anything in between.

 

[Sigtrygg]

I can't believe I am about to type this - use the above rules and you can set up a dogfight.

Ships that end their turn in the same range band with zero relative velocity may elect to engage in dogfighting (at this point change the scale of combat).

 

[Ursus Maior]

That's not Traveller ship combat.

Traveller ship combat is newtonian, vectors, momentum - not hand break turns and dropping bombs in zero g...

I think that is very debatable. First of all, none of the previous Traveller publications gave the community rules that achieved to simulate real physics in any way, shape or form. The original Traveller used range bands and "g" of thrust. Space combat was very - and I mean very - abstract. Second, simulations can only go so deep in details before a game bogs down completely. And that counts for LBB2 and others as well.

The moment one introduces vector combat, but keeps 2D and hexes, reality is out of the window. At that point, one just giving oneself into the illusion of being closer to one's subjective idea of physics. And that illusion is separate from the issue of fun for the other players. Players need visualization and immersion, it happens all in their brain anyway, so supporting that is good.

So, what is Traveller and what is not should be decided by a gaming group for themselves. Consequently, they should have options on the table to pick from. That's where future Traveller publications ideally come in. And I think Mongoose will deliver on that issue. They have in the past.

 

[Sigtrygg]

The original Traveller used vector movement not range bands, and the optional rule in 77 CT actually does model real world physics.

I disagree that Mongoose will give Traveller fans what they want, Mongoose has yet to deliver a satisfactory newtonian based ship combat system rather than wanting to turn Traveller into Star Wars. Which is odd because they have done some great games in the past that do use this.

 

[OrdosMalleus]

The original Traveller used vector movement not range bands, and the optional rule in 77 CT actually does model real world physics.

I disagree that Mongoose will give Traveller fans what they want, Mongoose has yet to deliver a satisfactory newtonian based ship combat system rather than wanting to turn Traveller into Star Wars. Which is odd because they have done some great games in the past that do use this.

I may be an outlier, but I don't want "vector-based" and like the more abstract methods. Back in the day (early 80s) we played some Traveller trying to map vectors etc. and it was an unbelievably boring slog.

 

[adzling]

The original Traveller used range bands and "g" of thrust. Space combat was very - and I mean very - abstract. ...

The moment one introduces vector combat, but keeps 2D and hexes, reality is out of the window.....

The first is a simplified vector movement system.

Re: your second comment some vector movement systems include the third dimension by using chits to indicate height above/ below the map plane.
seems to work quite well with minimal overhead & book-keeping.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Original or classic Traveller did not use range bands - 77 edition Traveller, 81 revised edition, and The Traveller Book all used vector movement. The range band system was brought in for the Traveller Starter Edition in 1983, and even it preserves momentum.

 

[MongooseMatt]

So, what is Traveller and what is not should be decided by a gaming group for themselves. Consequently, they should have options on the table to pick from.

And this is why we made sure Dogfighting was modular - you can simply skip over it and use the 'core' space combat rules at all ranges.

What we needed to do was provide a mechanism for universes other than Charted Space, so you could do your Star Wars, your Firefly and Battlestar Galactica - and, of course, have that element in Charted Space if you so chose (I do!). It also gave an easy mechanism to combine vehicles and spacecraft in the same battle.

But, like most things in Traveller, it is modular. Think of the Core Rulebook as the start of a toolkit (with High Guard, Companion, etc adding to it) to build the game you want to play, and you will not go far wrong.

I respect the desire for a full blown vector-based system, but the number of people who actually want to play that might be counted on two hands. It is just not a brilliant system if you are focussing on story rather than mechanics, which is why we have not (yet) tackled it. Maybe it could be something for Companion II, maybe it is an opportunity for a TAS publisher...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I may be an outlier, but I don't want "vector-based" and like the more abstract methods.

I strongly suspect you are far from an outlier.

 

[Sigtrygg]

I don't mind an abstract system provided it is based on prior established Traveller physics - MgT thrust spending, non-newtonian movement and especially dogfighting are not the way the OTU has ever worked, so to say that MgT grants options for Star Wars et al is a bit disingenuous. All MgT does is offer rules for Star Wars like physics, it does not offer a movement system based on Traveller's prior iterations as any sort of option in the CRB.

Look at the rules I pasted from CT SE - they preserve momentum in an abstract system, and I have even shown how the dogfighting rules could be made to fit. But at the moment MgT does not offer rules for ship movement in the OTU.

Matt - it is all well and good saying you wanted to provide options for the cinematic cartoon physics school of sci fi, but where are the rules for the classical OTU, or the Expanse, or any other harder science fiction setting than Looney Tunes?

 

[Garran]

If dogfighting is there for the benefit of those running other settings, or for someone who wants to patch that into the Traveller universe even though it isn't the default, then the section should probably say that outright, because as-is the presentation makes it look like OTU standard.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Matt - it is all well and good saying you wanted to provide options for the cinematic cartoon physics school of sci fi, but where are the rules for the classical OTU, or the Expanse, or any other harder science fiction setting than Looney Tunes?

MgT1 HG, p83 has the LBB2 vector movement system. Since MgT2 has ranges in km the alternative movement system can easily be used with MgT2 too.

 

[NOLATrav]

Matt - it is all well and good saying you wanted to provide options for the cinematic cartoon physics school of sci fi, but where are the rules for the classical OTU, or the Expanse, or any other harder science fiction setting than Looney Tunes?

MgT1 HG, p83 has the LBB2 vector movement system. Since MgT2 has ranges in km the alternative movement system can easily be used with MgT2 too.

Should be easy to add it to the 2e HG 2022 update. Best of both worlds!

 

[Condottiere]

Siriusly, astral dogfighting seems very much bound to the terrestrial variant.

 

[OrdosMalleus]

I'm not dissing anyone's idea of a fun time, but I play MgT2e and it doesn't really matter to me if the game used to have some rule or mechanic in earlier editions. To me, that's like playing 5th edition D&D and asking "Where's THACO?" YMMV of course.

 

[Condottiere]

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I don't mind an abstract system provided it is based on prior established Traveller physics - MgT thrust spending, non-newtonian movement and especially dogfighting are not the way the OTU has ever worked, ...

I'm not dissing anyone's idea of a fun time, but I play MgT2e and it doesn't really matter to me if the game used to have some rule or mechanic in earlier editions.

Physics doesn't change. The chosen simplifications of editions change.

The 2D vector system in LBB2 is already a vast simplification of relativistic physics (or whatever [simplified] model is used in the 53rd century).

The movement system in MgT2 is just an even more simplified system, presuming the characters (not players) can handle the vector physics competently.

The underlying physics is the same.