Rikki Tikki Traveller
Cosmic Mongoose
I THINK the B2 design was used because Marc's semi-mythical T5 also uses letter designation for drives.
A question on ship design...
- Thread starter PFVA63
- Start date
simonh said:
Because Book2 produces PC level ships while HG produces Fleet game sort of ships.
But the implementation of Book two is kinda flawed in that the drive codes have no relation to combat other than performance. So the combat system is set up for unitary drives a`la High Guard but construction is book2.
Infojunky said:
On the other hand the old HG could be used to design anything from a 10 ton fighter to a 500,000 ton battle station.
The old Bk5 was intended as a complete replacement for Bk2 and once it came out, Bk2 was essentialy deprecated. Why you'd deliberately want to replicate that redundancy, which was an unfortunatele result of the evolution of the game, I don't quite get.
In fact if you have to use the basic rules to create character scale ships and have to use a completely different one for larger ships, we'll be in an even worse situation than we were in calssic Traveller.
Simon Hibbs
simonh said:
Wrong on most points: HG's upper limit is 1,000,000
10 ton fighters are poorly served under HG
Bk5 specifically states it does not depreacate Bk2, and specifically allows using Bk2 drives in HG designs.
The two different design systems issue exists in CT and T4 only; it can't be worse if it is the same.
Worse was the T4 debacle: FF&S2 was parallel development with SSDS, and later than QSDS. QSDS and SSDS were both based in FF&S1, not FF&S2. None of the three produced the same results. All three were error prone, and of them, only SSDS was useful.
Further, Bk2 designs are very playable with mayday.
AKAramis said:
Yep. Book2 is off the shelf civilian equipment, High Guard Custom Mil.Spec equipment. That is the best summation I have.
AKAramis said:
Not to mention that there was no combat system...... But to numerate the flaws that where perpetrated in T4... Well that dead cow is dust.
Yes.AKAramis said:
AKAramis said:
I bow to your infinite wisdom on these, the most crucial of points.
It would be worse if you can't use the new HG system to design character scale ships (i.e. you have to use the Bk2 system for that). At least with CT you could toss out Bk2 and just learn HG. I'm not saying this is necesserily the way it will be, but it seems to be implied.
Simon Hibbs
Did a bit of research in various Traveller ship design systems and this is what bays are supposed to be:
1.) The bays come in 50 and 100 ton sizes (MGT only has 50 ton bays)
2.) They can only be mounted on ships 1,000 tons or larger ALTHOUGH one source said you could mount them on smaller ships at the cost of five turret spaces. MGT says "they are only found on larger ships"
3.) Bays take up internal space equal to the size of the bay. (Barbettes are what we call the larger turrets mounted externally on hardpoints).
4.) I found no reference to bays in CT Book 2 at all.
Thus in my game the following house rule:
Bays can only be installed on ships 1,000 tons or larger. Every 50 tons of bay installed "uses" 5 hardpoints and uses internal space equal to the size of the bay. Bays can be mounted in "pairs" to form effectively a larger bay; thus a double bay with missle banks can fire 24 missles a turn.
Hopefully MGT's version of High Guard will correct the bay problem; in the meantime, I suggest those interested in consistency adopt this rule or one like it.
Allen
1.) The bays come in 50 and 100 ton sizes (MGT only has 50 ton bays)
2.) They can only be mounted on ships 1,000 tons or larger ALTHOUGH one source said you could mount them on smaller ships at the cost of five turret spaces. MGT says "they are only found on larger ships"
3.) Bays take up internal space equal to the size of the bay. (Barbettes are what we call the larger turrets mounted externally on hardpoints).
4.) I found no reference to bays in CT Book 2 at all.
Thus in my game the following house rule:
Bays can only be installed on ships 1,000 tons or larger. Every 50 tons of bay installed "uses" 5 hardpoints and uses internal space equal to the size of the bay. Bays can be mounted in "pairs" to form effectively a larger bay; thus a double bay with missle banks can fire 24 missles a turn.
Hopefully MGT's version of High Guard will correct the bay problem; in the meantime, I suggest those interested in consistency adopt this rule or one like it.
Allen
I would like to point out that even in the days of classic Book 2 and HG where interchangeable. Look at the Gazelle, it had equipment that wasn't available in Book 2, the Kunir was has the same.
My biggest issue is interchange High Guard was a horrible system for PC class ships. It worked well for fleet level actions, but how often do those come up in game?
My biggest issue is interchange High Guard was a horrible system for PC class ships. It worked well for fleet level actions, but how often do those come up in game?
Infojunky said:
That depends on the GM... and the campaign.
I've had a campaign where the PC's were each commanding ships in a flotilla. Nearly every combat was fleet level actions, and the PC's ship tonnage was averaging 200,000Td per player.
Then again, I've also had several "regimental" campaigns, where the PC's were cadre of a regiment on active duty... and we used MT to game out the battles.
Infojunky said:
I believe the Gazelle was a pure HG design. The (20 ton?) Gig it comes with was also custom designed using HG.
Old HG was fine for designing PC scale ships and gave you a lot more flexibility than Bk2, but it's combat system was only intended as a highly abstract system for fleet level actions.
Simon Hibbs
AKAramis said:
Cool, I knew those games did exists, most of mine have actually been agents games, where the PCs job was over when the the fleets rolled in.
In fact, we were playing cyberpunk before the movement got it's name. It was due to the nature of the books we were reading at the time. The Dummerest of Terra books by Tubbs and Piper where our golden backstop that launched adventures.
