Battle Riders

[AnotherDilbert]

Ok. Magic then.

As opposed to jump space?

But yes, the exact physics of jump are not necessary, we only have to know how it manifests inside the ship where our (sane) players are. But sooner or later someone will try to go outside in jump space...

 

[Sigtrygg]

Original Jump space article says this:

The drive's first function is to tear a
hole in the fabric of space. The hole is
precisely created and the ship naturally
falls into the breach on a carefully
directed vector. The drive then directs
some of its energy to sewing up that hole
again. The act of closing the hole severs
the ship's ties with normal space and
allows it to begin its jump.

 

[h1ro]

My, my, isn't this thread going round in circles...

Maybe we should organise a tournament, BR vs J1 BR?

We would need to agree victory points and set it in a subsector or several subsectors.

Agree an initial budget for fleet construction and then see how it goes...

Which would solve little as the actual argument going on now is about how drop tanks work with the jump drive.

True.

I am sure however, that you know this topic has been recycled many times and yet here we are with no clear resolution.

I had hoped that 2e MgT would be written with the intent to put this and the many similar arguments to bed, once and for all but they chose to take a different route and leave these things open for groups to decide themselves. If I am right in saying this, I can see why, they'd be damned if they did and damned if they didn't, there are many opinions out here in the Traveller community and after 40 years, it would be very difficult to satisfy everyone.

The trouble I see (and maybe I am the only one, I don't know) is there are splits in the community because no one can agree the basis on which we go forward with the 3I setting and Traveller (cos they are the same thing to me). Wasn't the idea of TAS to enable the community to contribute to the setting?

With 2e HG and it's commonality with T5, shouldn't we be discussing the next generation of ships and how they're used in the setting, because the ground rules of how they can operate are laid down? If we can't agree those ground rules what next?

 

[tytalan]

One thing I have noticed in all the warships posts is they always us tech 15 as the base. If I remember from fighting ships of the imperial and other books even the imperial fleet is only partially made up of tech 15 ships. Something like a fifth of the fleet is at that high tech level because to maintain a ship the supporting system has to equal or be higher in tech level. I seem to remember frounteer fleet being mostly tech 13 with a few tech14 special ships throw in.

Also raiders with tenders are primary used as a rapid response force because the tenders are jump 6 with the core of fleet being jump 4

Now amitling most of my Traveller information is Mega Traveller and before so I could be out of date.

Also that fifth is mostly stationed in the core of the 4I.

 

[phavoc]

No, L-Hyd Tanks (Drop tanks) were available in HG'79, and used as early as JTAS4 in the Gazelle.

Ah, you are right. Had to go back and look at these. Looking back at HG79 it seems there was another requirement that has been dropped - a special high-capacity accumulator (TL12, .5Mcr) is required as well if you plan on using drop tanks.

And on the same page, the Jump Governor, which I had forgotten about as well.

 

[baithammer]

One thing I have noticed in all the warships posts is they always us tech 15 as the base.

Which is covered by Mgt MB where The Imperium is at the upper boundaries of TL 15 where most worlds are at tTL 10-13.

shouldn't we be discussing the next generation of ships and how they're used in the setting

This discussion was about the progression of Battle Riders which has sometimes conflicting time lines, with CT-S09 Fighting Ships noting battle riders were used as front line during the start of the 4th Frontier War but after short comings of the lack of independent jump drives on the riders were moved to the strategic reserve to serve as follow on formations.

This led to experiments with adding jump 1 drives on riders and Up gunning the tender to a full battle ship in its own right.

Instead of dealing with the next generation of ships, might be better to start updating existing designs properly to Mgt 2ed rules as some designs are from the 2kdt limit era and from earlier High Guard design rules where 2kdt+ were capital ships. ( 5kdt+ now being termed capitals.)

 

[h1ro]

Instead of dealing with the next generation of ships, might be better to start updating existing designs properly to Mgt 2ed rules as some designs are from the 2kdt limit era and from earlier High Guard design rules where 2kdt+ were capital ships. ( 5kdt+ now being termed capitals.)

Which is the same thing really, pedantry aside. I'd still see designing new ships as preferable, call the ships we've had for decades legacy and move forward, maybe the old ships designed with previous rules are best left as is?

The application of drop tanks that AnotherDilbert uses is an interpretation of the rules and to me, a perfectly valid one. Were the rules written to allow this interpretation?

Maybe AndrewW could add his voice as he wrote the current edition of High Guard.

No pressure AndrewW but if you could add some insight it would be appreciated.

 

[AndrewW]

Maybe AndrewW could add his voice as he wrote the current edition of High Guard.

No pressure AndrewW but if you could add some insight it would be appreciated.

The desire was to replicate the older ships, not make new designs.

As for drop tanks, there wasn't any real change from the earlier edition.

 

[h1ro]

Maybe AndrewW could add his voice as he wrote the current edition of High Guard.

No pressure AndrewW but if you could add some insight it would be appreciated.

The desire was to replicate the older ships, not make new designs.

As for drop tanks, there wasn't any real change from the earlier edition.

Thanks for posting.

Can you share any discussions that were had with regard to how the older ships compare to ships designed with 2e?

Are there plans to design and publish new ships with 2e?

 

[Sigtrygg]

The trouble I see (and maybe I am the only one, I don't know) is there are splits in the community because no one can agree the basis on which we go forward with the 3I setting and Traveller (cos they are the same thing to me).

Lol. irony in parenthesis
CT was setting less and it has been stated many times by MWM no less that the rules are for referees to make up their own universe of adventure. The 3I came later and actually differs from the rules as written in significant ways.

Wasn't the idea of TAS to enable the community to contribute to the setting?

I can not think of anything worse for 3I canon than fanon being semi-legitimised by TAS.

With 2e HG and it's commonality with T5, shouldn't we be discussing the next generation of ships and how they're used in the setting, because the ground rules of how they can operate are laid down? If we can't agree those ground rules what next?

If the MgT HG2e paradigm is adapted whole cloth to the 3I then existing canon is shot out of space and a re-write is required.
If on the other hand you want to preserve the setting then MgT HG2e requires cherry picking for the setting.

 

[locarno24]

The drive's first function is to tear a hole in the fabric of space. The hole is precisely created and the ship naturally falls into the breach on a carefully
directed vector. The drive then directs some of its energy to sewing up that hole again. The act of closing the hole severs the ship's ties with normal space and allows it to begin its jump.

Is not in any way mutually exclusive with 'inflating the bubble' explanations:

~ I 'punch a hole' in space time - creating a pocket universe with a narrow 'neck' into our universe (imagine stretching a little divot into a rubber sheet).
~ I 'inflate' it by filling it full of hydrogen at suitably high energy and pressure, creating something akin to the early universe inflation (this lasted from 10^-36 to 10^-33 seconds after the big bang, so a quick process!) to create a 'universe' big enough to drive the hull of a Type S inside
~ I drive inside through the 'neck', 'breach', 'portal' or whatever you want to call it - the interface between the deformed out region and the rest of space time
~ the drive seals the 'neck'. I am now floating in a 'bubble universe' which is independent of the rest of space, and can zip off at whatever velocity the process of creating it imparted, until it falls back into contact with 'normal' space time, and opens up again somewhere (hopefully) near my destination.

 

[AndrewW]

Can you share any discussions that were had with regard to how the older ships compare to ships designed with 2e?

Wasn't really much in the way of discussion. The desire was to include a lot of the older designs into the new High Guard and closely replicate them. Of course with the new system they aren't going to be an exact match (had to reduce the amount of weapons on on ship due to not enough hardpoints for example).

Are there plans to design and publish new ships with 2e?

Various products (Pirates of Drinax, Great Rift box set) for example have some designs. There is interested in converting some of the ship books that where put out for the earlier Mongoose edition as well, but no timeline for that.

 

[phavoc]

The drive's first function is to tear a hole in the fabric of space. The hole is precisely created and the ship naturally falls into the breach on a carefully
directed vector. The drive then directs some of its energy to sewing up that hole again. The act of closing the hole severs the ship's ties with normal space and allows it to begin its jump.

Is not in any way mutually exclusive with 'inflating the bubble' explanations:

~ I 'punch a hole' in space time - creating a pocket universe with a narrow 'neck' into our universe (imagine stretching a little divot into a rubber sheet).
~ I 'inflate' it by filling it full of hydrogen at suitably high energy and pressure, creating something akin to the early universe inflation (this lasted from 10^-36 to 10^-33 seconds after the big bang, so a quick process!) to create a 'universe' big enough to drive the hull of a Type S inside
~ I drive inside through the 'neck', 'breach', 'portal' or whatever you want to call it - the interface between the deformed out region and the rest of space time
~ the drive seals the 'neck'. I am now floating in a 'bubble universe' which is independent of the rest of space, and can zip off at whatever velocity the process of creating it imparted, until it falls back into contact with 'normal' space time, and opens up again somewhere (hopefully) near my destination.

In general you are correct, the semantics of the act aren't important, just consistency. But in this case the consistency isn't there. The original idea behind drop tanks was that they were jettisoned after the fuel was used to charge the jump capacitors. Now the tanks are used to create exotic particles and create a jump bubble around the ship. And the issue there is that the tanks would potentially (or even fatally) puncture the bubble.

Prior to MGT there are a number of supplements that describe the process. It's annoying they are spread across so many books, but that's not unheard of as you see the design process unfold in front of you. But when the process abruptly changes and there is a mish-mash of the new vs. the old, then it becomes more of an issue. Like many other issues, had MGT added a few sentences to the book to better describe it, then the issue wouldn't have been as large (it would never go away, this is, after all, Traveller...)

 

[h1ro]

The trouble I see (and maybe I am the only one, I don't know) is there are splits in the community because no one can agree the basis on which we go forward with the 3I setting and Traveller (cos they are the same thing to me).

Lol. irony in parenthesis
CT was setting less and it has been stated many times by MWM no less that the rules are for referees to make up their own universe of adventure. The 3I came later and actually differs from the rules as written in significant ways.

Wasn't the idea of TAS to enable the community to contribute to the setting?

I can not think of anything worse for 3I canon than fanon being semi-legitimised by TAS.

With 2e HG and it's commonality with T5, shouldn't we be discussing the next generation of ships and how they're used in the setting, because the ground rules of how they can operate are laid down? If we can't agree those ground rules what next?

If the MgT HG2e paradigm is adapted whole cloth to the 3I then existing canon is shot out of space and a re-write is required.
If on the other hand you want to preserve the setting then MgT HG2e requires cherry picking for the setting.

CT was a long time ago. I get that it is still the yardstick by which Traveller since has been measured but there is precious little continuity across the numerous versions since and as Mongoose is the primary company actively publishing both the setting and the rules I prefer to use it as my reference point. Flawed? Yeah, I can see that but as an active ruleset it can be updated and worked on. Sure, you can do that with any of the previous versions but doing so is pretty much in isolation and is essentially house rules.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

One thing I have noticed in all the warships posts is they always us tech 15 as the base. If I remember from fighting ships of the imperial and other books even the imperial fleet is only partially made up of tech 15 ships.

In CT Fighting Ships nearly all warships were TL15. A few TL14 ships were described as obsolete. The benefits of high tech ships were immense. That set the general expectation that Imperial warships are TL15.

I would expect auxiliaries to potentially be of lesser TL.

But local and foreign fleets use lower TL and some designs reflect that. You are of course welcome to fill the void and publish the missing TLs.

 

[tytalan]

You are both right and wrong. Fighting ships 1edition was later said to be talking about battle fleet which is tech 15 because there are enough tech 15 ind worlds to both produce and maintain them in the core systems. But battle fleet is only about 1/5 of the total imperial navy. frounteer fleet was built at tech 13 so it could be maintained in the frounteer areas which do not have many tech 15 ind worlds. Also many of the sectors fleets were also built at tech 13 because of the cost to both build and maintain the higher tech ships. The domains are also a mix bag depending on the economic strength of the individual domains. If you only have the money to build 1 tech 15 ship or 5 tech 13 ships and you main concern is policing the sector the 5 ships have the advantage so most of the sector fleets end up be tech 13. All of these are a part of the imperial navy but the first edition of fighting ships only talked about battle fleet while the mega Traveller fighting ships talked about all of the fleets.

One of the things that made the rebellion so nasty was the battle fleet was split up between the various factions giving no one the strength to over power the others. In the past civil wars battle fleet mostly determined who won but with battle fleet split up and each faction controlling most of a domain and its fleet no one could win. Frounteer fleet was mostly based in the domain of Deneb with only a few mothballed ships from battle fleet it had its hands full.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Fighting ships 1edition was later said to be talking about battle fleet which is tech 15 because there are enough tech 15 ind worlds to both produce and maintain them in the core systems. But battle fleet is only about 1/5 of the total imperial navy. frounteer fleet was built at tech 13 so it could be maintained in the frounteer areas which do not have many tech 15 ind worlds. Also many of the sectors fleets were also built at tech 13 because of the cost to both build and maintain the higher tech ships.

What source are you using? I do not recognise this at all.

 

[tytalan]

From an old TAS's and from the rebellion source book as well as Mega Traveller's fighting ship source book also servile bits and pieces from here and there. If I remember right there was a great article in challenge mag about the economy of the imperiam. Basically yea tech 15 ships kick but they also cost a lot and most systems produce little by comparison and have to make do.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

MT FSotSI describes the Imperium as having a numbered Imperial (TL15) fleet in every subsector. It also has a reserve fleet consisting of older ships and, in time of war, colonial squadrons.

Colonial squadrons are built to the TL of the subsector or system keeping it.

So, I still do not recognise your description after skimming the sources.


Low tech ships are not generally cheaper to build than high tech ships, but has much less combat power (in CT&MT), hence represents much less bang-for-the-buck. It would be silly for the Imperium to build TL13 ships and give up its main advantage over its neighbours, it higher tech level.

MT is notable for building even the ubiquitous workhorses such as Scouts and Free Traders at TL15.

 

[baithammer]

It would be silly for the Imperium to build TL13 ships and give up its main advantage over its neighbours, it higher tech level.

It has advantages in wider range of systems that can build and repair those vessels, but you wouldn't use them for the main battle fleets.