2300 questions

In terms of fixing the AEH, the two most major fixes needed are:

1. Power

The conversion of power to MW is wrong. The true value is 40 PP = 1 MW.

2. Stutterwarp

It needs to be the physically correct cubic formula, as per the original. The FF&S formula for warp eff. works. Given 40 PP = 1 MW the formula becomes:

Warp eff = TLM * cuberoot (PP/400*D)

Where PP = power points and D = displacement. TLM is TL+4, 14 at TL-10, 15 at TL-11 and 16 at TL-12

The Kennedy, which is a 1,250 dTon vessel by the deck plans with a 40 PP (10 MW) fusion plant. The warp eff. of the Mong Kennedy is thus 0.69. This fits with the design, because the GDW original was "all engine" with about 5/8th's of the mass dedicated to powering the drive, whereas only about 2% of the Mong Kennedy is dedicated to powering the drive...
I don’t think we need to convert Mongoose’s 2300 into GDW’s. In fact I think that it would be a big mistake doing so. GDWs 2300 had serious issues as a RPG while it was a great concept but for example if 5/8 of a ship mass is drive than the only use of the ship is exploration and off world colonization would not be possible. Look at today one of the biggest issues that we are trying to fix in the various space programs is the mass to drive mass ratio because if you don’t get it down to a 1/8 or less than once you add all the other requirements you end up with only 5% of the mass being actual crew areas.

when the numbers were ran for GDWs 2300 it was found that there was no way that mankind had colonized more than possible the closest two systems and even that was doubtful. Let GDWs 2300 remain in the pass and look to fixing the few issues with the current 2300 instead of trying to recreate the mistakes of the original.
 
You can increase the mass that can be transported, it just becomes slower. Even if it takes a few weeks or months to cross from system to system it is still faster than STL methods, the original colonisation ships may have had warp efficiencies of 0.1 or worse.
 
Last edited:
You can increase the mass that can be transported, it just becomes slower. Even if it takes a few weeks or months to cross from system to system it is still faster than STL methods, the original colonisation ships may have had warp efficiencies of 0.1 or worse.
Even at best GDWs ships about a 2/3 drive mass which is impractical for colonization or even cargo hauling
 
I'm not talking about the published designs. I am talking about using Star Cruiser to build an old civilian tech level ship with a warp efficiency that is much less than we are used to seeing.
The early colony ships may have been moving at one light year per month instead of one light year per day.
 
Again it has to do with the power to mass of the original GDW system. No one said anything whatsoever about published designs. The power + drive mass requirement in the design system of GDWs 2300 is to great a percentage of the total mass of a ship to make colonization realistic.

Which is why I said we shouldn’t try to turn mongoose’s 2300 ship design system into GDWs. The truth is AEH is better than Star cruiser design system it just need some errata
 
Tell you what i will build it and post it just to show you, a warp efficiency of 0.1 takes 10 days to move 1 light year. 0.01 takes 100 days to go 1 light year. So the rate of initial colonisation was slow, but as power plants improve and stutterwarp efficiency increases the colonisation gets faster.
Run the numbers...
 
Again it has to do with the power to mass of the original GDW system. No one said anything whatsoever about published designs. The power + drive mass requirement in the design system of GDWs 2300 is to great a percentage of the total mass of a ship to make colonization realistic.

Which is why I said we shouldn’t try to turn mongoose’s 2300 ship design system into GDWs. The truth is AEH is better than Star cruiser design system it just need some errata

The Kennedy is like a wet battlecruiser - very large parts of her tonnage are used to power the drive in the pursuit of high speed. More practical, slower, ships use much smaller mass fractions for their drives. Assuming a fusion reactor, at the three tech levels the percentage of the ships mass using in powering the drive is (in the core universe):

FusionFusionFusion
WarpOCOMNM
0.5​
0.1%​
0.1%​
0.1%​
1​
1.1%​
0.7%​
0.6%​
1.5​
3.7%​
2.5%​
2.1%​
2​
8.7%​
5.9%​
5.0%​
2.5​
17.1%​
11.6%​
9.7%​
3​
29.5%​
20.0%​
16.8%​
3.5​
46.8%​
31.8%​
26.6%​
4​
69.9%​
47.4%​
39.8%​
4.5​
99.5%​
67.6%​
56.6%​
5​
NP
92.7%​
77.7%​
5.5​
NPNPNP

A fusion powered large transport could move insanely large amounts of material. However, for a warship the question is how much mass do you want to use pushing the ship, and how much for armour, guns etc. The Kennedy is a huge outlier in having a very striped down vessel which is "all engine." She has no armour, no screens and a weak armament.

I'm not talking about the published designs. I am talking about using Star Cruiser to build an old civilian tech level ship with a warp efficiency that is much less than we are used to seeing.
The early colony ships may have been moving at one light year per month instead of one light year per day.

Stutterwarp has a lower speed limit. If the mass being pushed is too great, the drive overloads. This happened to Bayern. By a note in the core set, this is warp 0.15.

However, early colony ships were actually probably faster than modern ones. The York certainly was. Given a lack of refuelling infrastructure, early long-range vessels were, by necessity, nuclear powered. Commercial vessels, with slower drives, get going later.

Colin has added that early drives were less efficient. This is not the case in the core universe, and would require a significant rewrite of history. The entire Alpha Centauri war and colonisation of Tirane is impossible until proper drives appear, and thus at least a 30 year delay in every event needs to occur, since he's pushed back the practical stutterwarp drive back 50-60 years. I note this here.

Something I discovered, which explains a lot, is GDW changed the stutterwarp discharge rules. The universe as written can't exist with 1st ed. rules, which is why things were changed. The only major upshot is the Bayern mission is impossible...
 
Do you recall where the 0.15 is mentioned? It should really be errata in Star Cruiser.
Searching the pdfs is a pain because the scans are crap and I can no longer read my original books.

I also wonder what the limits were on governments using fission and fusion power plants - would they just use a 300MW power plant and stutterwarp and then build that largest colony ship possible with a loaded mass that gives a warp efficiency of 0.2 (to allow a safety factor :))
 
The Kennedy is like a wet battlecruiser - very large parts of her tonnage are used to power the drive in the pursuit of high speed. More practical, slower, ships use much smaller mass fractions for their drives. Assuming a fusion reactor, at the three tech levels the percentage of the ships mass using in powering the drive is (in the core universe):

FusionFusionFusion
WarpOCOMNM
0.5​
0.1%​
0.1%​
0.1%​
1​
1.1%​
0.7%​
0.6%​
1.5​
3.7%​
2.5%​
2.1%​
2​
8.7%​
5.9%​
5.0%​
2.5​
17.1%​
11.6%​
9.7%​
3​
29.5%​
20.0%​
16.8%​
3.5​
46.8%​
31.8%​
26.6%​
4​
69.9%​
47.4%​
39.8%​
4.5​
99.5%​
67.6%​
56.6%​
5​
NP
92.7%​
77.7%​
5.5​
NPNPNP

A fusion powered large transport could move insanely large amounts of material. However, for a warship the question is how much mass do you want to use pushing the ship, and how much for armour, guns etc. The Kennedy is a huge outlier in having a very striped down vessel which is "all engine." She has no armour, no screens and a weak armament.



Stutterwarp has a lower speed limit. If the mass being pushed is too great, the drive overloads. This happened to Bayern. By a note in the core set, this is warp 0.15.

However, early colony ships were actually probably faster than modern ones. The York certainly was. Given a lack of refuelling infrastructure, early long-range vessels were, by necessity, nuclear powered. Commercial vessels, with slower drives, get going later.

Colin has added that early drives were less efficient. This is not the case in the core universe, and would require a significant rewrite of history. The entire Alpha Centauri war and colonisation of Tirane is impossible until proper drives appear, and thus at least a 30 year delay in every event needs to occur, since he's pushed back the practical stutterwarp drive back 50-60 years. I note this here.

Something I discovered, which explains a lot, is GDW changed the stutterwarp discharge rules. The universe as written can't exist with 1st ed. rules, which is why things were changed. The only major upshot is the Bayern mission is impossible...
It doesn’t matter we are not talking GDWs 2300 we are talking Mongoose’s. Like I said before there are good reasons why thing have changed and it would be a major mistake moving back to the GDW version of the game. You want GDWs play GDWs I’m interested in Mongoose’s 2300
 
It is only your opinion that the changes from GDW 2300 to MgT are good. As the rules have changed from Traveller 2300 to 2300AD to MgT 2300AD 1st to MgT 2300AD 2nd, with Star Cruiser and FF&S to add to the mix, are you of the opinion that the latest MgT2300 rules and the AEH are the final iteration?

Your original question shows that the current rules are not as clear as Star Cruiser.
 
It is only your opinion that the changes from GDW 2300 to MgT are good. As the rules have changed from Traveller 2300 to 2300AD to MgT 2300AD 1st to MgT 2300AD 2nd, with Star Cruiser and FF&S to add to the mix, are you of the opinion that the latest MgT2300 rules and the AEH are the final iteration?

Your original question shows that the current rules are not as clear as Star Cruiser.
And it’s only your opinion that we should scrap everything and just republish the GDW book. Or that how you sound in every thread. Just like it’s only your opinion that we need FF&S as the core of the game. I’m a realist I understand that while FF&S has a minor but vocal following most players and GMs don’t what that level of complexity in their RPGs. RPGs are a form of relaxation and must people don’t want to spend hours with complex formulas for their relaxation.

Mongoose rules are in most part a good balance. Does the AEH need work? Yes mostly a good editor pass and a few tweaks. Basically it need the 2022 treatment. But I would say the issue (other than the fore mention changes) that the bigger issue is the fact that so many of the ships that have been published don’t follow the AEH
 
And it’s only your opinion that we should scrap everything and just republish the GDW book.
Where have I said that?
I would like to see improved MgT 2300 material. Bayern is excellent, as are parts of the AEH.
You really do like making up things I have never said.
Or that how you sound in every thread.
Only to you.
Just like it’s only your opinion that we need FF&S as the core of the game.
Yes, it is my opinion, and the opinion of others, hence the quote in my signature.
I’m a realist I understand that while FF&S has a minor but vocal following most players and GMs don’t what that level of complexity in their RPGs.
I love how you claim to be able to speak for most players and Gamesmasters. Do you have any actual data or evidence to back that up?
RPGs are a form of relaxation and must people don’t want to spend hours with complex formulas for their relaxation.
Again, how do you know that is the case for most? In my experience, as in the circle of friends I game with and the people who frequent message boards like these, the majority do enjoy gearheading. Maybe it is a peculiarity of my friendship group.
Mongoose rules are in most part a good balance.
I agree.
Does the AEH need work? Yes mostly a good editor pass and a few tweaks.
I agree again.
Basically it need the 2022 treatment. But I would say the issue (other than the fore mention changes) that the bigger issue is the fact that so many of the ships that have been published don’t follow the AEH
hence the need to fix the core technology design systems and get the authors to use the rules as written rather than as they make up.
 
With an easy to follow, consistent construction method - even when extremely detailed, someone will make a program/spreadsheet to automate the process, thereby making the minutia irrelevant.
Unfortunately, the AEH is not that system.
Neither is the system for making man portable weapons.
 
Only to you.
Funny there were many others that expressed the same feeling in the Vehicle book thread
Yes, it is my opinion, and the opinion of others, hence the quote in my signature.
Yes you and a few like in the for mention Vehicle book there were four of you pushing scrap and rewrite.
Again, how do you know that is the case for most? In my experience, as in the circle of friends I game with and the people who frequent message boards like these, the majority do enjoy gearheading. Maybe it is a peculiarity of my friendship group.
Ever here of 5ed DnD the whole reason it’s number one is for the most part it follows the KISS principle something that is the antithesis of FF&S. In fact most games these days keep the KISS principle in mind. I’m glade you like Gearheading but 5ed proves your in the minority
 
Funny there were many others that expressed the same feeling in the Vehicle book thread
I've checked the thread, there are more of us who want a comprehensive technical book than not. Yours is the minority view in that thread.
Yes you and a few like in the for mention Vehicle book there were four of you pushing scrap and rewrite.
Where did I say scrap and re-write? I know the Vehicle book is a band aid, it has to maintain compatibility with the existing book, but at some point it could be replaced by a much better book. Hopefully MgT 3ed will be based on a consistent technical architecture that the authors have to use rather than ignore in favour of their house rules becoming "canon".
Ever here of 5ed DnD the whole reason it’s number one is for the most part it follows the KISS principle something that is the antithesis of FF&S. In fact most games these days keep the KISS principle in mind. I’m glade you like Gearheading but 5ed proves your in the minority
Hear of D&D, no. What is it?
The reason it is number 1 is:
it has the D&D brand name
it is a fantasy based game which has always been the best selling genre
it has a huge company behind it
I would argue it isn't all that simple, especially when compared with B/E D&D but hey ho.

I have many contemporary games, and simplicity is not something I notice. The Modiphious 2d20 system is not simple (Infinity - eek), the YZE looks simple but has many moving parts that need mastering, even BRP is a lot more complicated than back in the RuneQuestII days.

I have never claimed gearheads are a majority of the rpg community at large, but there is a sizable minority of the Traveller community that likes the rules for building stuff and enjoy it.

Let's consider an experiment.

How well would 3ed MgT sell if there were no design rules?

No rules for system design, no rules for starship design, no rules for equipment design of any type.

Just equipment lists and published ships and published sector books.

Much simpler.

Would that be something that would interest you?
 
The people in my group find the complexity of Pathfinder 1.0 (D&D 3.5) to be far more entertaining than D&D 5E.
During COVID, I ran a 5E campaign online, and the players all preferred Pathfinder. I ran the Pathfinder too, so 5E was the variable.
5E was RP'ing with the settings on Easy and the players felt unchallenged, even when they nearly died. It is a Rubik's Cube with only four squares on a side.
But then, when you've played the version of Star Fleet Battles that strained a four inch binder, most other games seem simple.
 
Hear of D&D, no. What is it?
The reason it is number 1 is:
it has the D&D brand name
it is a fantasy based game which has always been the best selling genre
it has a huge company behind it
I would argue it isn't all that simple, especially when compared with B/E D&D but hey ho.
Funny all those things can be said about 4ed but it flopped
I have many contemporary games, and simplicity is not something I notice. The Modiphious 2d20 system is not simple (Infinity - eek), the YZE looks simple but has many moving parts that need mastering, even BRP is a lot more complicated than back in the RuneQuestII days.
none of which are top seller while the top three are PF2, Call of Cthulhu and 5ed. In fact they are well into the low end. Maybe come up with games that are at least in the top 20
Let's consider an experiment.

How well would 3ed MgT sell if there were no design rules?

No rules for system design, no rules for starship design, no rules for equipment design of any type.

Just equipment lists and published ships and published sector books.

Much simpler.

Would that be something that would interest you?
never once did I say not to have no construction rule saying this is just disingenuous. There’s a huge difference between having construction rules that forces you to either be experienced in calculus or use a spreadsheet (ie FF&S) which Mongoose is not going to invest money into and having a simple robust construction rule set that everyone (even none gear heads) can use.

Let’s try a experiment your create a third party extra complex construction rule set and price it at comparable price and see how many you sell( here’s a hint it’s been done before look up leading edge games Phoenix Command it’s didn’t last long even with some serious licenses )

Also here’s another clue FF&S wasn’t written before TNE was released.
 
Last edited:
I've checked the thread, there are more of us who want a comprehensive technical book than not. Yours is the minority view in that thread.
There a big difference between a comprehensive construction book and a ultra complex book that drives people away from the game
 
Back
Top