High Guard: Expectations?

[rje]

Big ships.

Big weapons (Meson gun spinal mounts etc)

A ship design system that works without shedloads of maths

Expanded ChargGen

All that, and that basic chargen and shipbuilding are extended but not invalidated.

 

[aspqrz]

I don't want....

Hivers flying about in shoeboxes, a la TNE :x :x :x :x

What kind of boxes do you want them flying around in? :wink:

Can I put in a vote for Hatboxes? With several giant hat pins through each one? :twisted:

Of course, there are others who might suggest lunchboxes ...

Phil

 

[Deniable]

I don't want....

Hivers flying about in shoeboxes, a la TNE :x :x :x :x

What kind of boxes do you want them flying around in? :wink:

Daniel

Pine boxes. No wait, that's K'Kree.

 

[Flynn]

I don't want....

Hivers flying about in shoeboxes, a la TNE :x :x :x :x

What kind of boxes do you want them flying around in? :wink:

Daniel

Pine boxes. No wait, that's K'Kree.

Try mesquite, if you like a southern flavor to your smoked meats. Personally, I prefer applewood myself, along with a nice, spicy dry rub.

:lol:

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

....Good job I've got a sense of humour ...



... or have I? :twisted: ... you'll never really know ....

 

[-Daniel-]

....Good job I've got a sense of humour ...



... or have I? :twisted: ... you'll never really know ....

Um OK. Guess I will pay the guy next door to start my car for a while. :wink:

:lol:

Daniel

 

[EDG]

I would want to see more detail in the design system, and more difference in the TLs. A TL9 starship should IMO be a very different beast to a TL15 one. because the technologies involved would have changed so much.

I really liked the FF&S approach of technologies having different masses/volumes/efficiencies/outputs at different TLs. That wasn't done even remotely enough in the original HG, which means that most ships designed there look the very similar whether they're TL 9 or 15.

I'd also like to see reduced prices for lower tech ships produced by higher tech shipyards too.


I'll also second the "must be compatible with existing ship design rules", though I'd be fine with "can completely replace existing ship design rules". What I don't want to see is "actually you can use both systems concurrently but they'll produce different results", which is what we've got with Bk2 and Bk5 in CT - either add to the existing system or rewrite and expand it from scratch.

 

[Allensh]

I cringe at the thought of seeing Type S with a triple particle accelerator turret and managing to power that weapon and still get 2g's with only a Type A power plant.

I think you just described the ultimate dream ship of a certain shadowy feline we both know...

Allen

 

[simonh]

I would want to see more detail in the design system, and more difference in the TLs. A TL9 starship should IMO be a very different beast to a TL15 one. because the technologies involved would have changed so much.

I hope it doesn't go too far in the MegaTraveller/FF&S direction. Bear in mind both those systems were so complicated that both their first editions were riddled with errata, and many of the official designs created with them were full of errors as well. I'd much rather have something simpler but easier to get right.

One way might be to benchmark the engineering components from the basic rules at TL15 and give rules for lower tech variants, e.g +10% mass and -10% cost per TL for manufacture at a lower TL world.

Simon Hibbs

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

benchmark the engineering components from the basic rules at TL15 and give rules for lower tech variants, e.g +10% mass and -10% cost per TL for manufacture at a lower TL world.

Indeed. I looked at that approach off forum (for my own amusement) and it can be done.

 

[AKAramis]

Anything approaching MT or FF&S like details is a turn off for me these days.

 

[Deniable]

I hope it doesn't go too far in the MegaTraveller/FF&S direction. Bear in mind both those systems were so complicated that both their first editions were riddled with errata, and many of the official designs created with them were full of errors as well.

MT, yes, but are you talking about FF&S1 or 2? 1 was actually pretty good for errata. 2 couldn't even get the formulas printed with the right characters. As for official designs, most of the TNE designs were pretty close.

That said, I don't see MGT supporting an FF&S3. It would be nice for the gear-heads, but I don't see it fitting with the style of the system.

 

[Infojunky]

One way might be to benchmark the engineering components from the basic rules at TL15 and give rules for lower tech variants, e.g +10% mass and -10% cost per TL for manufacture at a lower TL world.

Actually that was one of the major problems with Mega-Traveller everything was bench marked at TL15, and as such the lower tech ships could not operate the way they had in the previous edition.

 

[Infojunky]

I would want to see more detail in the design system, and more difference in the TLs. A TL9 starship should IMO be a very different beast to a TL15 one. because the technologies involved would have changed so much.

As chrome I don't see this as a bad thing, as a mandatory part of ship design it's a pain. While I haven't exhaustively played with the system in the main rule book, what I have done leaves me happy with the level of detail for base construction, there is plenty of room for chrome though.

I really liked the FF&S approach of technologies having different masses/volumes/efficiencies/outputs at different TLs. That wasn't done even remotely enough in the original HG, which means that most ships designed there look the very similar whether they're TL 9 or 15.

While in theory this is nice, but you end up with a book filled to the brim with bits that you need to sort through just to build a simple ship. Which became one of my biggest issues with FF&S. But while I am here I will state that I would like to see life support split off from the staterooms this is one of the few bits I think needs to be separated out. How else are you gonna worry players with a Life-support hit.....

I'd also like to see reduced prices for lower tech ships produced by higher tech shipyards too.

Why? the labor still costs the same. Though if one is using lower grade material for the hull, off the shelf components for the fixtures there will a considerable cost savings in that. But the labor will still be the same.

I'll also second the "must be compatible with existing ship design rules", though I'd be fine with "can completely replace existing ship design rules". What I don't want to see is "actually you can use both systems concurrently but they'll produce different results", which is what we've got with Bk2 and Bk5 in CT - either add to the existing system or rewrite and expand it from scratch.

Ok yes and no, the difference between book 2 and HG where the styles of construction. Book 2 was using standard equipment while HG was custom. In the text in HG stated one could use book 2 equipment at that cost. Which makes sense to me as they come from different procurement systems.

 

[simonh]

Actually that was one of the major problems with Mega-Traveller everything was bench marked at TL15, and as such the lower tech ships could not operate the way they had in the previous edition.

One person's problem is another's advantage.

I liked the strong distinction MT brough for kit of different Tech Levels. It made the setting richer and more interesting.

Simon Hibbs

 

[simonh]

I'd also like to see reduced prices for lower tech ships produced by higher tech shipyards too.

Why? the labor still costs the same. Though if one is using lower grade material for the hull, off the shelf components for the fixtures there will a considerable cost savings in that. But the labor will still be the same.

Surely this is the wrong way round? Labour on a high TL world is likely to be more expensive. This is why it's cheaper to manufacture stuff in developing countries. One complication is that most developing world manufacture is done using the latest western manufacturing technology, but whichever way you cut it low tech labour is almost certainly going to be a lot cheaper.

Where do you think it would be cheapest to manufacture a replicat 1930s steam engine using period techniques - China or the USA?

Simon Hibbs

 

[Infojunky]

Actually that was one of the major problems with Mega-Traveller everything was bench marked at TL15, and as such the lower tech ships could not operate the way they had in the previous edition.

One person's problem is another's advantage.

I liked the strong distinction MT brough for kit of different Tech Levels. It made the setting richer and more interesting.

I see you never have tried to build a Scout/courier at TL9 in MT. The only way you could the performance stats to match CT was to build at TL15. Which is a problem since the average of civilian shipping was stated to be at TL12.

Oh and the coal burning fusion plants. God those things were broken.

The folks at DGP did some great things, but their rewrite of striker into MT wasn't one of them.

 

[simonh]

I see you never have tried to build a Scout/courier at TL9 in MT. The only way you could the performance stats to match CT was to build at TL15. Which is a problem since the average of civilian shipping was stated to be at TL12.

Well, I prefer a Traveller Universe where the statement that most civillian shiping is TL12 was wrong, and in which there's a clear distinction in the capabilities of ships at different TLs. Or perhaps one where the standard designs are atypical of Imperial shipping in general.

I preffer to look at what makes a more fun and interesting game setting.

Simon Hibbs

 

[captainjack23]

benchmark the engineering components from the basic rules at TL15 and give rules for lower tech variants, e.g +10% mass and -10% cost per TL for manufacture at a lower TL world.

Indeed. I looked at that approach off forum (for my own amusement) and it can be done.

The retro tech rules in the core bookl suggest how it might work, too. The question is, is the detail worth it ?

I'm not sure if the benchmark shouldn't be tech of introduction...we can build a much better IC powerplant than at tech 6, but would a really good water mill or steam engine cost less ? We've pretty much abandoned those techs, and all the parts and infrastructure to create them would need to be rebuilt or custom tooled. Tech jumps include abandonment and eliminate more and more previous techs and processes - its hard to know how far back one would need to go from a tech 15 benchmark before the cost graph would start to curve upward again, likely very steeply.

Obviously lower perfomance parts still used at tech 15 would be doable, but even then, assumuing a tech 15 jump-1 unit, would it be cheaper ? or Smaller ? Or, exactly the same ? (jump drives IIRC are described as totally different at each jump increment)

 

[captainjack23]

I'd also like to see reduced prices for lower tech ships produced by higher tech shipyards too.

Why? the labor still costs the same. Though if one is using lower grade material for the hull, off the shelf components for the fixtures there will a considerable cost savings in that. But the labor will still be the same.

Surely this is the wrong way round? Labour on a high TL world is likely to be more expensive. This is why it's cheaper to manufacture stuff in developing countries. One complication is that most developing world manufacture is done using the latest western manufacturing technology, but whichever way you cut it low tech labour is almost certainly going to be a lot cheaper.

Where do you think it would be cheapest to manufacture a replicat 1930s steam engine using period techniques - China or the USA?

Simon Hibbs

I think there was still one plant building two engines per year in china as of about 10 years ago....no idea if it is still up and running.

This trivia brought to you by "Captainjack's Big Bulk Carrier of Useless Information" !