Ask MongooseMatt ANYTHING!!!

[Terry Mixon]

Okay, not really anything, but when we post questions about the rules or potential typos in the feedback area, we often don't receive a response, so I'm creating this thread in the hopes of getting some response to questions we have, even if it is "we're looking at that" or some such.

I'll kick this off with a question I posted a few days ago. The emergency low berths in High Guard 2022 Update are listed at MC1 a pop. Seems real pricy since Mongoose 1e and all the previous versions of Traveller we checked had it being KCr100. In Mongoose 1e, it was listed as MCr.1 and we suspect a typo. Can we get some clartity on that so we can update the starship build sheet to reflect what we suspect if we're right? Thanks.

Also, allow me to suggest that adding KCr, BCr (or GCr to please @Geir), and TCr to your repertoire would be really helpful and would minimize the complaints about not having comma separation in your big numbers, too.

And sorry for all the wild AMA questions you're about to get @MongooseMatt.

 

[RogerN]

Matt, do you and the team ever come to the Swindon Wildcats ice hockey games? (I'm here atm.)

Well i learned something new today. I didn't even know ice hockey was a thing in the UK. I really need to get out more.

 

[Condottiere]

 

[MongooseMatt]

Matt, do you and the team ever come to the Swindon Wildcats ice hockey games? (I'm here atm.)

Not really my thing

 

[JupiterIndustries]

A boring bit of feedback about delivery costs, specifically in the UK (although some of it may be applicable elsewhere). It may have been discussed previously so apologies if I'm treading on old ground and I'm happy to be redirected to whatever discussion was had previously if it answers me.

I'm very happily building my Traveller collection off the back of some 1E books my dad got me a few year ago and since picking 2E up after moving in with my fiancee, who is fortunately very supportive of my hobby!

One point of bother for me is that I'd be more inclined to buy directly from Mongoose (and I almost always do for orders above the free shipping threshold, for example with my Drinax order) with all the convenience that entails with PDF's etc. as well as to support the company directly, but I can't justify paying the extra four quid when I can get the books elsewhere with the free shipping, and I don't always want to pay over 100 quid a pop just to get the free shipping.

The one I think about in particular is the TAS Journals because I want to catch up my collection, but if I had to pay four quid individually for the shipping if I bought one monthly that would obviously make quite a dent over the long run.

I just want to say as well that I entirely understand the reasoning behind the shipping costs being there, so I am not expecting this to change. I also appreciate the fact that there are affordable PDF's and digital copies are available, but as I'm building a physical collection I'd prefer to avoid just buying the PDF's.

Maybe an option here would be a loyalty scheme where if you order a certain amount of books directly with Mongoose you get free shipping moving forward, and this can reset on a year by year basis? Maybe doing the journals on subscription as well with discounted shipping at a set price?

Just some things which occurred to me, looking forward to getting Singularity and Pioneer delivered. KUTGW!

 

[Anstett]

Mongoose does participate in the Bits and Mortar program.
So if your FLGS can order the books for you (without charging you shipping) then you can get the PDF for free also.

Home Page | Bits and Mortar

bits-and-mortar.com

 

[Radwraith]

Not sure why you think anything I was saying had to do with airlocks. I am suggesting that docking clamps don't have a hatch intrinsic to them. But there's no costs I am aware of to putting an external access hatch on a ship if it is not an airlock, so you can designate one being there if you want it to be.

But many, many uses of the docking clamp do not involve access to the clamped ship, so putting a hatch there is unnecessary. So you wouldn't put one, because that's a structural and security weak point.

If a docking clamp doesn't include a hatch, Than the docked ship's personnel would be required to "Suit up" and go EVA to access the main ship's actual airlock to gain access. This is certainly possible and might even make sense in certain cases! (Perhaps like a massive Station Drydock!) Other ships, like the 400 ton "Fat Trader" are designed to operate with a dedicated small craft and so have matching hatches in the deck plans. This is really a matter of Deck plan layout rather than the actual ship design!

 

[Terry Mixon]

If a docking clamp doesn't include a hatch, Than the docked ship's personnel would be required to "Suit up" and go EVA to access the main ship's actual airlock to gain access. This is certainly possible and might even make sense in certain cases! (Perhaps like a massive Station Drydock!) Other ships, like the 400 ton "Fat Trader" are designed to operate with a dedicated small craft and so have matching hatches in the deck plans. This is really a matter of Deck plan layout rather than the actual ship design!

@MongooseChris has indicated that there can be an included docking hatch (or an airlock that is accounted for).

 

[hopsnbaer]

If a docking clamp doesn't include a hatch, Than the docked ship's personnel would be required to "Suit up" and go EVA to access the main ship's actual airlock to gain access. This is certainly possible and might even make sense in certain cases! (Perhaps like a massive Station Drydock!) Other ships, like the 400 ton "Fat Trader" are designed to operate with a dedicated small craft and so have matching hatches in the deck plans. This is really a matter of Deck plan layout rather than the actual ship design!

There was a really long thread about this. There is a canon fighter carrier that does not have airlocks on the docking clamps. It made no sense for the fighter pilot to be stuck in his ship for an extended period and have to go Eva to get into the carrier. The consensus seemed to be. You can put airlocks in, but you don't have to. IMO you don't have to. It is like a trader that has a cargo hatch but no airlock such as an A2 Trader.

I am not going to say you can't make people put in airlocks, because it is unclear.

 

[Radwraith]

I would assume that ships have compartments and air tight hatches so you don't decompress the entire ship with one breach. What distinguishes an airtight hatch from an airlock is the double door creating a separate compartment specifically for adjusting for atmospheric changes between the two sides. You would only really need internal airlocks if you have specialized atmosphere compartments (like staterooms for aquatic passengers or other non standard atmosphere) or like a cargo hold you regularly depressurize, which isn't standard practice in Traveller.

Airlocks can be different sizes depending on how many people you want to be able to send through in one cycle of the atmosphere. Generally, you want the smallest practical airlock for your needs because cycling the atmosphere is time consuming and may have costs associated with it (though none are mentioned as being significant in Traveller, but then I don't think cycle time is discussed either ).

This is incorrect. Modern submarines are about the closest thing you can get to Starship design principles and they do not have airlocks between every structural bulkhead! They do actually have "Airlocks" and have since the 40's! These are attached to the Access hatches to the main decks and are sometimes used as SEAL delivery/recovery mechanisms. But that is a whole separate discussion!

 

[Condottiere]

But they also tend to surface.

The equivalent would be landing dirtside, but the atmosphere may be somewhat inhospitable.

 

[hopsnbaer]

I would assume that ships have compartments and air tight hatches so you don't decompress the entire ship with one breach. What distinguishes an airtight hatch from an airlock is the double door creating a separate compartment specifically for adjusting for atmospheric changes between the two sides. You would only really need internal airlocks if you have specialized atmosphere compartments (like staterooms for aquatic passengers or other non standard atmosphere) or like a cargo hold you regularly depressurize, which isn't standard practice in Traveller.

Airlocks can be different sizes depending on how many people you want to be able to send through in one cycle of the atmosphere. Generally, you want the smallest practical airlock for your needs because cycling the atmosphere is time consuming and may have costs associated with it (though none are mentioned as being significant in Traveller, but then I don't think cycle time is discussed either ).

You can see the difference between Iris valves which are airtight and regular doors which are not on the deck plans.

 

[Radwraith]

But they also tend to surface.

The equivalent would be landing dirtside, but the atmosphere may be somewhat inhospitable.

Yes, but Starships also tend to land! (At least the smaller ones! ) The lockout chambers (Airlocks) on submarines are for submerged access/egress. Originally intended for emergencies, some enterprising souls (Read: Professional high speed, low drag killers! ) figured out there might be other uses for them! When the Submarine surfaces both sides of the chamber can be opened for normal access. Just like a Starship!

 

[Condottiere]

The principle would be separation between a hospitable environment, from possibly one that isn't, and neutralization of contaminants.

 

[Vormaerin]

You can see the difference between Iris valves which are airtight and regular doors which are not on the deck plans. View attachment 6891

Yes, but if you open the iris valve to leave the pressurized compartment for the unpressurized compartment, then it doesn't matter that the iris valve is air tight.

If you look at the ships, the engineering space is on one side of the cargo hold and the crew compartment and bridge on the other side, with only iris valves between each, not airlocks.

So, yes, you can depressurize the hold. As long as no one actually goes into it. Which means the engineers are presumably sleeping on the floor of the engineering compartment and eating canned food.

 

[Radwraith]

So, New question @MongooseMatt : In the Mercenary book series; What is the affect of Combat armor and or Battledress on the CBAS of the equipped unit? I have the Specialist forces book where it says to look but it is not mentioned anywhere within! This seems like a somewhat glaring oversite! I understand the potential effects on mobility and such but I would think it would significantly effect the basic combat abilities of the unit!

This would also be important if the GM needs to play out engagements on the ground in the 5th frontier war since I can only assume that mercenary's combat sytem would be the logical large scale combat system!

 

[hopsnbaer]

Yes, but if you open the iris valve to leave the pressurized compartment for the unpressurized compartment, then it doesn't matter that the iris valve is air tight.

If you look at the ships, the engineering space is on one side of the cargo hold and the crew compartment and bridge on the other side, with only iris valves between each, not airlocks.

So, yes, you can depressurize the hold. As long as no one actually goes into it. Which means the engineers are presumably sleeping on the floor of the engineering compartment and eating canned food.

I agree

 

[Radwraith]

I agree

Presumably, You could also repressurize the hold once the outer hatch is closed. That would at least allow your engineers out for a potty break!

 

[Radwraith]

Repeating in the hopes of getting back on track:
Question @MongooseMatt : In the Mercenary book series; What is the affect of Combat armor and or Battledress on the CBAS of the equipped unit? I have the Specialist forces book where it says to look but it is not mentioned anywhere within! This seems like a somewhat glaring oversite! I understand the potential effects on mobility and such but I would think it would significantly effect the basic combat abilities of the unit!

This would also be important if the GM needs to play out engagements on the ground in the 5th frontier war since I can only assume that mercenary's combat sytem would be the logical large scale combat system!



https://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/javascript:

 

[Terry Mixon]

Repeating in the hopes of getting back on track:
Question @MongooseMatt : In the Mercenary book series; What is the affect of Combat armor and or Battledress on the CBAS of the equipped unit? I have the Specialist forces book where it says to look but it is not mentioned anywhere within! This seems like a somewhat glaring oversite! I understand the potential effects on mobility and such but I would think it would significantly effect the basic combat abilities of the unit!

This would also be important if the GM needs to play out engagements on the ground in the 5th frontier war since I can only assume that mercenary's combat sytem would be the logical large scale combat system!



https://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/javascript:

Honestly, Specialist Forces is badly in need of a complete rewrite. Anything it says, even references elsewhere, are deeply suspect.

 

[ross]

Honestly, Specialist Forces is badly in need of a complete rewrite. Anything it says, even references elsewhere, are deeply suspect.

I think there is a strong case for Mercenary being rewritten as a single and better organized book. A lot of great information, organized poorly without enough examples and context.