Did anyone manage to fix Classic Traveller: High Guard?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
Reynard said:
Actually, TL 15 fleets are not the norm but a particular elite unless your Traveller universe happens to be TL 15 exclusive.
In Classic Traveller, 15 is the norm for the Imperial Navy. All the warships in Supplement #9 are TL 15 with probably one exception, the Azhantis, as are the majorty of the published sector fleets. The fluff text states that quite a few of the TL 15 designs (e.g. the Atlantic and Kokirrack) are outdated due for some reason or other, typically due to only having agility-5.

Outside of the Imperium you are likely to see lower tech military. In the Spinward Marshes, the Zhodani are said to be 14 and Sword Worlders around 12. One of the key advantages the Imperuim has vs Zhodani is said to be Tech 15 allows jump-4 on a warship, whereas te Zhos have jump-3 (you can build the drive earlier, but the smaller TL 15 powerplant allows the ship to attain militarily-useful agility levels of 5+ with J-4).

Reynard said:
No matter because 'artificial systems' are what make modern and future combat possible.
Nah, mate. All those fancy systems get phased out at TL 9. Classic High Guard says you need 1 gunner per battery and 1 pilot per craft.
 
Interestingly, the HG book under the CREW section doesn't mention pilot requirement for ships in either the Command or Flight section. Trillion Credit Squadron describes ships of 500-20,000 tons need two pilots while larger ships need three. That's assuming watches rather than operation. Those pilots control those ships singly and that means a need for automated systems. Gunners do control batteries of linked turrets and bays are already a battery. Those weapons aren't operated individually but need automation to coordinate those weapons as one unit as well as analyze sensor information and assist in targeting. The more complex (technologically advanced) the systems, the more automated they become to assist the operator not less.
 
Reynard said:
Interestingly, the HG book under the CREW section doesn't mention pilot requirement for ships in either the Command or Flight section. Trillion Credit Squadron describes ships of 500-20,000 tons need two pilots while larger ships need three. That's assuming watches rather than operation.
Are the extra pilots for watches, or because the ship has more systems than one person can operate? Look at small craft where it's stated that the pilot can fire one weapon, and additional weapon types require a gunner. You would think the fighter pilot could just designate one target and the computer would keep all weapons aimed at it, but apparently this ability is lacking in Classic Traveller. They obviously do have some kind of automation, but it's terrible.
 
Autopilots could fly planes by themselves, except the most dangerous parts of the flight, taking off, landing, and flying over Russian SAMs.
 
Condottiere said:
Autopilots could fly planes by themselves, except the most dangerous parts of the flight, taking off, landing, and flying over Russian SAMs.
Landing is possible, safer under computer control, and has been available for some time. Most airports are equipped with auto-landing systems.

Take off is technologically possible but the ground control negotiation required for it has yet to be automated because laws etc stiill require a pilot, and the air traffic controllers union will go on strike. However when you think about it, the amount of smarts the computer needs to obey the control tower is considerably less than what a self-driving car needs (which operates without the benefit of central control and has to deal with random drunks stepping into the road).

We haven't really "needed" pilots for quite a while now, which makes people with licences like myself - I have a PPL(H) - walking anachronisms, retaining our position by virtue of laws and traditions. We are literally like Amishes, preserving the old ways of life in a rejection of technology, out of fear for some part of our lifestyles. :-)

Although rotary wing pilots will probably the last to go: landing at airfield will be easer that some random forest clearing.
 
NASA has some autonomous airliners they tinker with on a regular basis. They can take off, land and fly all without a human. And I read about a proposal to eliminate crew from ships and have them run out of a centralized control center(s) around the world.

Automation is great, but like people it can fail. Or worse, some 14yr old with a smartphone will hack it and think it's fun to fly it around till it crashes. People and automation are complimentary and can benefit from each other.

I'm all ready for the Jetsons and the grueling 4hr workdays they have to put up with.
 
If automation puts everyone but the top executives out of work, I wouldn't count on a cozy 4hr work week which supposes there's a super easy job a robot can't to... such as top executive.
 
phavoc said:
I'm all ready for the Jetsons and the grueling 4hr workdays they have to put up with.

4 hours?!

No way!

That will eat way too much into my leisure time!

And, to add something kinda related to Traveller or at least the topic we've drifted to, I see Traveller as a period SF game. If you modernise it from the viewpoint of what we know and can predict now (rather than MWM's view back in the 70s/80s) you'll be rewriting the game. I don't think that's a bad thing but it's a mammoth task that I'd like to see someone do.

Traveller's adherence to notions of an 8 hour working day and jobs for all is very very anachronistic.

Automate!
 
Reynard said:
If automation puts everyone but the top executives out of work, I wouldn't count on a cozy 4hr work week which supposes there's a super easy job a robot can't to... such as top executive.

Ha! I've met a few executives where my banana could do a better job than them. At a minimum simply decaying would cost the company less money... Just because you are a "smart and successful" executive doesn't mean you can do a good job in other places. Look at how whats-his-name came from Apple and nearly killed JCPenney with all his ideas. He didn't have a clue about retail. Moms who shop for towels and kiddie clothes are the same people as those who wait for days in line to buy an iPhone.

One the plus side... shorter work weeks = more beer drinking time! Or scotch.... pick yer poison. :P
 
Warning: May Contain Picards.

http://www.womenonbusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs.png

Star Trek did it pretty well in the episode where an investor type had been found in a frozen suspended animation cabinet, and was explained to that people now worked for self-actualization. In other words, as the idea that when basic needs are fulfilled, people move on. The Swiss are looking into creating a basic guaranteed income, also for that reason.
 
"One the plus side... shorter work weeks = more beer drinking time! Or scotch"

We do that today. It's called minimum wage, part time. Problem with the system is you aren't paid as much for the shorter hours you get far less no matter that automation of your job doesn't reduce prices. Automation is for fictional societies with declining populations and increasingly unfilled positions.

Besides, robots have lousy sense of smell and taste so they'll always **** up the beer and scotch.
 
I rather doubt that Swiss referendum will pass, not because the Swiss wouldn't be somewhat comfortable paying it out to their citizens (citizenship being very hard to get unless you already do have existing money or you have a Swiss parent), since if they want more money they'd have to go out and earn it, more because it would cause an influx of migrants.

But I do think we'll move to the four day week, since my sister was telling me how the Muslims in their office took four hours off on Friday, so I think most businesses should re-orient to doing everything between Monday till Thursday, and anyone coming in on Friday will get overtime.
 
Back
Top