Hull Structure Options and Balance

[Qaragan]

So, I have a PROBLEM (using HG2): the basic hull types seem greatly uneven in their stats. Why have a "standard" hull type if it is inferior to all others? Why are "close structure" (-10% cost and +10%hp) and "sphere" (-20% cost) so obviously superior to standard? Why would the Traveller universe contain anything else?

Am I missing something? Or is there a typo in HG2? Or was this rushed through, and not balanced at all?

The hull types need to be trade-offs.

Hoping someone can shed some light on this...

 

[Jeraa]

So, I have a PROBLEM (using HG2): the basic hull types seem greatly uneven in their stats. Why have a "standard" hull type if it is inferior to all others? Why are "close structure" (-10% cost and +10%hp) and "sphere" (-20% cost) so obviously superior to standard? Why would the Traveller universe contain anything else?

Am I missing something? Or is there a typo in HG2? Or was this rushed through, and not balanced at all?

The hull types need to be trade-offs.

Hoping someone can shed some light on this...

In 1e High Guard, the various hull types had a rating for the maximum number of weapons that could be brought to bear on any single target. A standard hull could bring 80%, while the cheaper close and sphere hulls only 70%. Configuration had no effect on Hull or Structure ratings.

Also in 1e, configuration played a part in how hard it was for a meson weapon to hit you. Standard hulls, needle/wedge, and cone hulls were harder to hit than a close or spherical hull. So while the close and sphere hulls were cheaper, they could bearing less weapons to bear and were a little more likely to be hit by meson fire.

2e removed all that, and messed up a lot of things. It isn't a typo, it is poor design choices.

 

[Qaragan]

Okay. Thanks a lot. But it's pretty easy to make some adjusting house rule, at least. I just needed to make sure I wasn't missing something obvious.

As for Mongoose: how about you guys have a meeting, find a solution, and give an errata? The new books look great, but if they have this kind of flaws, it needs remedy. You have to remember MGT2 and HG2 are stand-alone. I shouldn't need knowledge from previous versions to make sense of it all. Cheers!

 

[MongooseMatt]

Hey Qaragan,

No, not a typo and no, not 'balanced'!

The idea is to approach High Guard (and the Core book, and the Vehicle Handbook, for that matter) as a 'toolkit', and remember that just because you can do something, it does not necessarily follow that you should.

High Guard (and Traveller overall) needs to be able to handle all science-fiction universes, not just that of the Third Imperium, so we provide as many options as we can. Not all options will work in all campaigns, and the referee should use his judgement as to what to employ rather than adopt a kitchen sink approach.

As an example, I am sure you and many others here could design a capital ship that could absolutely trash the Third Imperium warships in High Guard - they are not flawed, but instead representative of how ships in the Third Imperium universe are built.

With regards to hull types, the referee can choose to employ one or another depending on the end result he is after. He may, perhaps, choose to use one hull type for the majority of ships in his universe, and employ a more efficient one to represent a better ship yard without an increase in TL - it is just another option.

What High Guard and the Vehicle Handbook are not, however, tools to be given to players with no restrictions because someone at your table will min/max everything and produce a truly hideous warship. Remember, this is an RPG not a competitive miniatures game, and as we provide more options, the referee must exercise at least a measure of constraint.

Hope that helps!

 

[phavoc]

In that vein Matthew I see the opportunity (hint-hint) for some additional supplements. For example, a "Fleets of the Third Imperium" could describe the technologies and standards that ships of the 3I universe adhere too. For races like the Aslan and Zhodani, and offshoots like the Solomani, who occupy the same universe, individual sections could be carved out for them as well (or, if you could create enough unique content an entire supplement could be added).

I think where some of the confusion reigns is that most players, seeing the Traveller brand at the top, naturally assume that the books are meant to be used in the Traveller universe and aren't supposed to be generic for multiple settings. It's like GURPS, but without the "Traveller" added after it to let the player know it's been modified to fit a specific setting.

 

[MongooseMatt]

In that vein Matthew I see the opportunity (hint-hint) for some additional supplements. For example, a "Fleets of the Third Imperium" could describe the technologies and standards that ships of the 3I universe adhere too.

You mean something like the Naval Architect's Handbook? Can't imagine something like that already being in development

 

[phavoc]

You mean something like the Naval Architect's Handbook? Can't imagine something like that already being in development

Yes, something like that.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

You mean something like the Naval Architect's Handbook? Can't imagine something like that already being in development

Has a certain ring to it.

 

[SSWarlock]

You mean something like the Naval Architect's Handbook? Can't imagine something like that already being in development

I'm starting to drool.

 

[Qaragan]

Hi Matthew, thanks for the answer =)

I personally don't mind that the provided ship designs are not optimized. I can always redesign the Third Empire's fleet if I feel I will be a better naval engineer than them =P. I do however think that the core rules, the core ship design rules should attempt to be balanced. That is what I pay for, when buying the books. It's so that I don't have to spend 679 hours building and tweaking my own system. Players can always take your balanced system and make their own adjustments to fit their world/play-style/preference. But saying your system didn't aim to be balanced on that particular point, to allow players to make adjustments seems... I don't know... It's a weak point.

The rest of the system seems balanced, but I haven't had the opportunity to play yet. I hope it is. I'd rather I didn't have to house rule more than the hull structure part.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Hi Matthew, thanks for the answer =)

I personally don't mind that the provided ship designs are not optimized. I can always redesign the Third Empire's fleet if I feel I will be a better naval engineer than them =P. I do however think that the core rules, the core ship design rules should attempt to be balanced. That is what I pay for, when buying the books. It's so that I don't have to spend 679 hours building and tweaking my own system. Players can always take your balanced system and make their own adjustments to fit their world/play-style/preference. But saying your system didn't aim to be balanced on that particular point, to allow players to make adjustments seems... I don't know... It's a weak point.

This is why we provide all the Third Imperium ships, so you can just get into the game and start playing. However, in terms of balance, we will always rely on the referee knowing what is best for his group. For the love of all that is Holy, don't give your players High Guard and just let them use all the options - it will not end well. However, when creating your own vessels for your universe, you will find you have all the options you need.

And that is what Traveller is all about!

You don't need to tweak the system, merely 'blank off' certain options (such as hull types) according to your individual universe, world, or ship yard. Imagine, for a moment, that a certain shipyard just cannot make Close Structure ships - they do not have the knowhow, or their equipment is not set up that way or, maybe, they have not even heard of Close Structure hulls. However, their competitors in the star system yonder have cracked the secret, and are now building more efficient ships.

There is an adventure in that!

 

[Qaragan]

Ok. I appreciate the quick feedback.