Do the starship design rules need reviewing?

[BP]

I find the task check mechanic and PP rating to work well for this...

The 'more' power for 'speed' equivalent I use is simple Engineering checks for boosting PP and M-Drive rating. I use 1d6 for number of combat rounds.

As rating goes below M-Drive, max G suffers as per normal, and skill can be used to 'boost' as above.

'Diverting' power for weapons is only necessary when PP is damaged or under-designed, otherwise, there is always enough power for the ship and its systems.

When PP is damaged (normally or in combat), subtract 1d6 from PP rating. If rating becomes less than 1, then all systems are effectively 'offline' and skill will be necessary to even run life support or fire a weapon (even missiles). I assume lighting has emergency backup for 5 combat rounds - and life-support will generally not be a problem till after combat (and normally, MGT PP emergency power/failure rules apply).

'Boosting' for screens could be handled by allowing Engineering skill to be added to screen damage reduction (see pg 150 in Core) - lowering PP rating by equal amount for 1 (or 1d6) round regardless of success.

With HG, MGT does have some some power point stuffs for Black Globe considerations and for maximum weapons (like spinal mount), as I recall.

 

[Dave Chase]

I grok that you have issues, or had anyway. I've been burned too (not by Hunter or CotI). I decided to forgive and move on, and I'm feeling much better.

Nice to see you too.

Is that all you have to say. Been months since we talked and the only thing you do is come defend a site that you moderate that was promoted by someone else.

I didn't report the promotion of another site, just responded that this is the site to be on. I didn't know my word was so powerful that it causes other individuals to quake in fear that I might influence and must be rebutted.

Instead of the constant ragging just make a welcoming place here if you really want to sell that line. I've seen and experienced enough hate here that it's driven me away a couple times. Only from a couple trouble makers though. I came back to give it another chance, and found more of the same in short order, but so far, mostly, I'm just ignoring it.

As found on any site on the internet.

You know, your post could have just been a PM instead of person of authority from another site, posting publicly and attempting to defend something that you personally found offensive.

Even just visiting there is supporting that website.

Hey, I'm all for supporting your right to cut off your nose to spite your face but advising others to do the same? Really?

Now you are intentionally being insulting. NOTE: I am reporting it.

Dave Chase

 

[captainjack23]

I should also note that the original rules that MGT is based upon were designed by people who crunched the economic numbers and designed playable games;

It is truly a pity that their knowledge wasn't used when it came to the ship design rules in MGT.

I'm not saying that they are infallible, just that assuming the rules are broken from the git go may be a bit broad of a premise to start with.

After 33 years of playing & play testing, including the MGT rules set, it isn't "assumption"...

Well, if you want to convince us, and are going to take that attitude, you'll need to prove it . However, if all you want is to make the point that you believe it to be so, the above should be sufficient. have fun !

Cap

 

[captainjack23]

I find the task check mechanic and PP rating to work well for this...

The 'more' power for 'speed' equivalent I use is simple Engineering checks for boosting PP and M-Drive rating. I use 1d6 for number of combat rounds.

As rating goes below M-Drive, max G suffers as per normal, and skill can be used to 'boost' as above.

'Diverting' power for weapons is only necessary when PP is damaged or under-designed, otherwise, there is always enough power for the ship and its systems.

When PP is damaged (normally or in combat), subtract 1d6 from PP rating. If rating becomes less than 1, then all systems are effectively 'offline' and skill will be necessary to even run life support or fire a weapon (even missiles). I assume lighting has emergency backup for 5 combat rounds - and life-support will generally not be a problem till after combat (and normally, MGT PP emergency power/failure rules apply).

'Boosting' for screens could be handled by allowing Engineering skill to be added to screen damage reduction (see pg 150 in Core) - lowering PP rating by equal amount for 1 (or 1d6) round regardless of success.

With HG, MGT does have some some power point stuffs for Black Globe considerations and for maximum weapons (like spinal mount), as I recall.

This is interesting ! Could you elaborate a bit ? specifically, your rule about "As rating goes below M-Drive" I'm having trouble understanding that bit.

 

[DFW]

Well, if you want to convince us, and are going to take that attitude, you'll need to prove it . However, if all you want is to make the point that you believe it to be so, the above should be sufficient. have fun !

Cap

I have no desire to try and convince anyone of the obvious (obvious for those with enough play experience and basic math skills). For those who are unconvinced that the world is round, the best evidence is to grab a boat and...

 

[captainjack23]

Well, if you want to convince us, and are going to take that attitude, you'll need to prove it . However, if all you want is to make the point that you believe it to be so, the above should be sufficient. have fun !

Cap

I have no desire to try and convince anyone of the obvious (obvious for those with enough play experience and basic math skills). For those who are unconvinced that the world is round, the best evidence is to grab a boat and...

Oh look. A hook with a worm on it attached to a line.

Sorry, not biting.

 

[far-trader]

With respect to AndrewW's very good suggestion and apologies in advance for feeling compelled to ignore it to reply I want to clear a couple points up...

Is that all you have to say. Been months since we talked and the only thing you do is come defend a site that you moderate that was promoted by someone else.

Just to be clear. That's not the only thing. In fact that's not even the point I was making. I'm not (back) here as anything more than another forum member. As a couple posts before this one will attest to.

I didn't report the promotion of another site, just responded that this is the site to be on. I didn't know my word was so powerful that it causes other individuals to quake in fear that I might influence and must be rebutted.

Again, hardly the case at all. I didn't see it as CotI being promoted here, simply a suggestion that there are sources of data that may be helpful to the people looking for info, there and you'll note, here on Mongoose. I'm not quaking from your words. And you didn't "just" respond that this is the site to be on or I'd have had no issue at all.

You know, your post could have just been a PM instead of person of authority from another site, posting publicly and attempting to defend something that you personally found offensive.

I reply to public posts with public posts. And to repeat, I am not here as "a person of authority from another site" and would never presume to. That's a baseless attack. I was not defending CotI here. Read my reply again. And I'm still not. I was simply questioning your open attack on it and call to deny others a source of info for Traveller because of your personal experiences.

Even just visiting there is supporting that website.

Hey, I'm all for supporting your right to cut off your nose to spite your face but advising others to do the same? Really?

Now you are intentionally being insulting. NOTE: I am reporting it.

I can only presume you took the common idiom wrongly. As explained (I hope) in my PM reply to your PM in response (though I saw that before reading much the same in this thread), an insult was NOT the intention.

And again I apologize for the off topic reply. If there is more to clear up on this issue, with Dave or anyone, by all means PM me here instead.

 

[DFW]

Oh look. A hook with a worm on it attached to a line.

Sorry, not biting.

Umm, ... sure... Whatever that means :roll:

 

[rust]

Umm, ... sure... Whatever that means :roll:

It is a prudent application of the famous First Rule of Ichthyoid Survival. :wink:

 

[DFW]

Umm, ... sure... Whatever that means :roll:

It is a prudent application of the famous First Rule of Ichthyoid Survival. :wink:

Good one! :lol:

 

[captainjack23]

Umm, ... sure... Whatever that means :roll:

It is a prudent application of the famous First Rule of Ichthyoid Survival. :wink:

Good one! :lol:

Indeed.

 

[MarkB]

I find the task check mechanic and PP rating to work well for this...

Agreed. For most purposes, the "Aiding Another Character" rules would cover this sort of activity quite easily. If you wanted to formalise it, you could add an Engineering check to the start of the Combat Phase, using the table on page 51 to check what bonus (or penalty) that check generates for other players. At the engineer's discretion, that bonus can be directed at any one other crew position, representing diversion of power to the relevant system.

If the bonus goes to the pilot, then the engineer was diverting power to the engines to give the ship an extra boost.

If it goes to the gunner, the extra power was adding a little more 'kick' to the turrets' energy systems, making them track faster or pack more punch.

If it goes to the sensors, the ship's detection systems are being boosted to allow for a better target lock.

Etc.

And if the engineer fluffs the roll and hands out a penalty instead of a bonus, then the power plant couldn't meet the current demands, or power was being diverted to systems that didn't need it.

 

[rinku]

And if the engineer fluffs the roll and hands out a penalty instead of a bonus, then the power plant couldn't meet the current demands, or power was being diverted to systems that didn't need it.

Oh, I'd be nastier than that. The obvious penalty for fluffing a power boost would be overload damage to the system they were trying to boost. Normal failure would result in the system being offline for a turn or having a use penalty per your suggestion. A critical failure would result in damage as if the system had suffered a hit from the overload.

 

[BP]

I find the task check mechanic and PP rating to work well for this...

The 'more' power for 'speed' equivalent I use is simple Engineering checks for boosting PP and M-Drive rating. I use 1d6 for number of combat rounds.

As rating goes below M-Drive, max G suffers as per normal, and skill can be used to 'boost' as above...

This is interesting ! Could you elaborate a bit ? specifically, your rule about "As rating goes below M-Drive" I'm having trouble understanding that bit.

Sure!

If the Power rating minus 1d6 is less than the Thrust, the Thrust would be reduced. A Far Trader has a Rating 2 P.P., but only a Rating 1 M-Drive (Thrust-1), so a -1 would have no impact. A Fat Trader, however would see its Thrust reduced to 0 as its P.P Rating of 1 went to zero.

Using the HG convention of stating PP 'Rating'. In Core book terms that would be the 'performance rating' from the table on pg 108, which is the same for M-Drive, P.P. and J-Drive for a given hull size (i.e. 1-6 except for small craft as handled in HG).

The power plant rating (A-Z) must be at least equal to either the manoeuvre drive or jump drive rating, whichever is higher. - Core pg 107.

Though some could, in fact, be overpowered (with a higher A-Z rating that did not result in a higher 'performance' rating). If one wants to take this into account one could subtract from A-Z rating instead of 1-6 ratings, but I find that unnecessary myself.

Hope that was a bit clearer than mud...

[The whole inconsistent terminology / overuse of table cross references is a whole other thread... ]

 

[BP]

I find the task check mechanic and PP rating to work well for this...

Agreed. For most purposes, the "Aiding Another Character" rules would cover this sort of activity quite easily. ...

Yep - I almost stated using chain tasks, but I also apply this when one character has multiple skills. IMTU, power enhancements (like most in say Star Trek) are 'soft' changes done via a computer rather than 'hard' re-wires.