Loaded vs. Unloaded M-ratings

[Wil Mireu]

Except rules regarding loading and performance are different.

The details of how the drives (and everything else) work - like power required, etc - may be different for each edition because they use different game mechanics and different ways to make them work within the mechanics. The difference is in the interface between the game and the players, not in the setting. Quantitatively, Thruster Plates may change in the rules between editions, but qualitatively the description for how they work (which is the only thing that matters here) has remained pretty constant throughout.

Otherwise would you have us believe that every era of the Third Imperium setting uses radically different technology that switches back and forth depending on what the rules describe? That's just ridiculous.

 

[Sigtrygg]

What you don't seem to understand is that you're just asserting that. There is no evidence to support your assertion at all.

You mean apart from the statement that gravitic maneuver drives use artificial gravity?

Whereas there is absolutely no evidence at all that the MT/TNE explanation of thruster plates is the model for MgT? TL differences, underlying technology paradigm differences, rive size differences.

T4's explanation isn't really that different to MT/TNE's in practical terms.

Are you joking here or what? We are discussing the handwavium and technobabble used to explain this stuff,

I don't know what T5's explanation is unless you'd care to quote it.

Here you go:

How Maneuver works
Elementary instruction systems explain:
Maneuver drives interact with gravity to move spaceships. Parts of the drive reach out and grab the gravity of a world or a star and push against it to make the ship move. Isn’t that neat?
Subsequent texts become increasingly more complex.

It's TL of introduction is 9 for 1g, 10 for 3g, 11 for 5g, 12 for 7g an 13 for 9g.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Your opinion on whether it's flawed or not isn't irrelevant

True

Fact is, it's the official explanation.

It is the official explanation for MT, it is a variant explanation for TNE, it was re-written for T4 and modified again for T5. Why is the MT/TNE technobabble any better than the fusion rocket of early CT or the gravity sled of T4 and T5?
Not that it matters since in MgT the manoeuvre drive uses artificial gravity to function.

Like I said, I use previous editions to fill in the gaps in current editions with official answers.

As do I when appropriate.

You just seem to want to leave the gap there and make up your own explanation

Nope, I want to be clear that the MgT m-drive is a gravitic drive that uses artificial gravity, an be clear on what the rules say about rive performance.

- which is great for you, but don't go around pretending that your explanation is the official answer,

I have repeated the official answer a few times now, it may even sink in, the gravity drive works by artificial gravity.

or that it's any more valid than using what was in previous editions.

I'm not - you are the one claiming superiority for the MT/TNE technobabble. My claim is that in MgT the maneuver drive is a gravitic drive that uses artificial gravity that can not be explained using said technobabble.

 

[Wil Mireu]

You mean apart from the statement that gravitic maneuver drives use artificial gravity?

For the thousandth time, "USING ARTIFICIAL GRAVITY" DOES NOT MEAN "PROJECTING A GRAVITY WELL IN FRONT OF THE SHIP"

Whereas there is absolutely no evidence at all that the MT/TNE explanation of thruster plates is the model for MgT?

The drives in MGT are described as being gravitic in nature and using drive plates. That sure as hell has a lot more in common with Thruster Plates than your gravity well.

If you really can't see that, you must have a basic comprehension problem. Sorry, but that's all I can say. I don't know how many times I can point out the bloody obvious and still have you completely stare past it, but I am tired of repeating myself.

How Maneuver works
Elementary instruction systems explain:
Maneuver drives interact with gravity to move spaceships. Parts of the drive reach out and grab the gravity of a world or a star and push against it to make the ship move. Isn’t that neat?
Subsequent texts become increasingly more complex.

It's TL of introduction is 9 for 1g, 10 for 3g, 11 for 5g, 12 for 7g an 13 for 9g.[/quote]

So... not really different from T4, which is slightly different from MT/TNE, which are all nothing remotely like "projecting a gravity well in front of the ship".

 

[Wil Mireu]

I have repeated the official answer a few times now, it may even sink in, the gravity drive works by artificial gravity.

Fact is, you have no idea what you're even talking about. Your basic english comprehension skills are apparently lacking, and you keep thinking that "works by artificial gravity" means "works by what every cockamamie explanation you come up with that involves gravity wells".

There's just no point in continuing this discussion. I am tired of saying the same thing over and over to people who apparently cannot understand english and basic logic. We're done here.

 

[F33D]

The drives in MGT are described as being gravitic in nature and using drive plates. That sure as hell has a lot more in common with Thruster Plates than your gravity well.

Nope, WRONG. The Thruster Plates in MT are specifically NOT Grav drives. Pretty dang simple when ya bother to read the rules.

 

[F33D]

Quantitatively, Thruster Plates may change in the rules between editions, but qualitatively the description for how they work (which is the only thing that matters here) has remained pretty constant throughout.

Nope, WRONG again. In MT load DOES effect performance. In MGT it doesn't. So qualitatively the description for how they work is DIFFERENT. Pretty simple if you read the rules of each edition...

 

[Sigtrygg]

For the thousandth time, "USING ARTIFICIAL GRAVITY" DOES NOT MEAN "PROJECTING A GRAVITY WELL IN FRONT OF THE SHIP"

Nope, it means using artificial gravity to move - no more and no less.

I have never claimed an artificial gravity well in front of the ship is official, all I have said is it is a logical deduction of how it could work based on:
1 - how gravity works in the real world, it makes things fall
2 - the game mechanics, mass does not affect maneuver drive performance.

The drives in MGT are described as being gravitic in nature and using drive plates. That sure as hell has a lot more in common with Thruster Plates than your gravity well.

Nope, they are a totally different technology paradigm. They aren't available until TL11 (one whole TL before the damper technology needed for them to work - good job DGP).

If you really can't see that, you must have a basic comprehension problem.

Nope, my comprehension skills are quite up to the task thank you.

Sorry, but that's all I can say. I don't know how many times I can point out the bloody obvious and still have you completely stare past it, but I am tired of repeating myself.

I'm not staring past it - i'm disagreeing with you.

As soon as you post something to prove your assertions and disprove mine I will happily concede.

So... not really different from T4, which is slightly different from MT/TNE, which are all nothing remotely like "projecting a gravity well in front of the ship".

Nope, a slight change from T4 and a further fuzzing over the exact nature of the technology, which is a good thing. Trying to explain this stuff in detail leads to quite a bit of conflict, so MgT and T5 have left the nature of the technology a bit vague.

Would it surprise you to learn I don't actually use an artificial gravity well the ship falls toward as an explanation IMTU? But then, I rejected the MT explanation the day I read it since it contradicts CT, uses very dodgy handwavium and technobabble and is not even consistent with the technological progression they wrote themselves.

By the way, MT was written by DGP, it was published by GDW until Hard Times when GDW took it back in house.

 

[Wil Mireu]

Nope, WRONG again. In MT load DOES effect performance.

I will just add this to demonstrate how you are talking out of your arse.

It doesn't. Weight affects it for grav vehicles, which have a thrust calculation on page 86.
For spacefaring vehicles it says:

Space-Faring Craft: For space-faring craft, list the maneuver drive thrust in Gs, the jump drive number, along with the standard atmosphere terrain following speed (NOE), cruising speed, and top speed for streamlined and airframe designs If a
spacecraft is unsteamlined, it is incapable of travelling in an atmosphere; list only its vacuum cruise speed and top speed. Compute the speed values as shown for grav vehicles. Use the spacecraft’s maneuver drive thrust in Gs directly as the maneuver thrust - skip the maneuver thrust computation

So you calculate NOE and top speed (if streamlined/airframe) and vacuum speed using the Maneuver Drive rating in Gs directly, and weight has no bearing.

But then the whole thing is silly since there's no such thing as a "top vacuum speed" that isn't the speed of light.

Do you think you can shut up now?

 

[Sigtrygg]

Fact is, you have no idea what you're even talking about.

I think I have demonstrated a fairly high level of knowledge of the subject. I have been playing Traveller for a very long time, I have all the books etc.

Your basic english comprehension skills are apparently lacking,

As I have said already, my comprehension skills are more than adequate to follow your arguments. I even have an 'o' level in english comprehension

and you keep thinking that "works by artificial gravity" means "works by what every cockamamie explanation you come up with that involves gravity wells".

Nope.

One more try.

MgT gravitic maneuver drives work by artificial gravity. Official.

Everything after that is up to the referee, but the MT thruster plate is most definitely not the MgT thruster plate.

There's just no point in continuing this discussion. I am tired of saying the same thing over and over to people who apparently cannot understand english and basic logic. We're done here.

Fair enough.

 

[F33D]

It doesn't. Weight affects it for grav vehicles, which have a thrust calculation on page 86.
For spacefaring vehicles it says:

AGILITY.........

 

[crazy_cat]

This thread is a perfect demonstration of the sad truth that the worst enemy Traveller (any and all versions) has as it tries to attract positive attention and new players is actually the existing player/fan base.

As somebody who would like to see Traveller grow in popularity I think this thread is frankly embarrassing, and tragically sad - being realistic if I was new to Traveller/this forum and read this thread, and considered it any way representative of normal debate (which it sadly is ) I'd leave and never come back.

 

[GypsyComet]

It doesn't. Weight affects it for grav vehicles, which have a thrust calculation on page 86.
For spacefaring vehicles it says:

AGILITY.........

One cite in the worst sections of what is rightfully known as MegaErrata does not an argument make, especially when the rest of the game uses volume for M Drives.

Even taking that formula at face value, Agility does not influence the actual Thrust rating, so MT ships do not change their G ratings when loaded vs empty. The only edition that hints at that would be TNE, which is a vast departure from all others before and after. Every other edition is volume, volume, volume.

The OP's question was answered on page 1. Why are we on page 7?

 

[F33D]

Even taking that formula at face value, Agility does not influence the actual Thrust rating, so MT ships do not change their G ratings when loaded vs empty.

Irrelevant. The Drives change their PERFORMANCE & how the ship MOVES based on load/mass. In MGT they do NOT. What exactly don't you understand about that?

 

[Wil Mireu]

Irrelevant. The Drives change their PERFORMANCE & how the ship MOVES based on load/mass.

I just demonstrated that it didn't and quoted the rules to prove it. A spaceship's mass in MT does not affect its speed, it's based entirely on the G-rating of the drive.

Agility is not the ship's acceleration. It's “the ability to change your craft’s orientation over time” (direct quote from MT Referee Manual, pg 87). Not acceleration, which is what we are talking about here. And what's more, it's determined by the ship's unloaded weight, and apparently isn't recalculated if the mass of the ship changes.

So either provide a cite for your ravings, or STFU.

 

[Ishmael]

Agility?
An aspect of things that MgT doesn't even seem to bother with ( based on the SRD ) ?
and is used as nothing more than a dm in combat with MT with nothing similar ( based on the SRD ) in MgT?

Actual G numbers in MT have nothing to do with mass of space/star ships.
---------------------------------

artificial gravity is anything that 'simulates' gravity
Please check out Einstein's elevator thought experiment and the priciple of equivalence
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle
-----------------------------------

for myself, I try to make/use rules that follow reasonably close to real-world physics, even if that means not using 'official' rules.
The ongoing debate here is a waste of time to me.
I'm out

 

[Wil Mireu]

for myself, I try to make/use rules that follow reasonably close to real-world physics, even if that means not using 'official' rules.
The ongoing debate here is a waste of time to me.
I'm out

Ditto. It's obvious that some people here just want to do their own thing regardless. I am pretty much the only person here who bothered to do any research on this and who wasted their time and effort tracking down relevant quotes from the rules from various editions (including MGT), and F33D and Sigtrygg are still just stubbornly going "lalala I can't hear you" despite all of the evidence before them.

Whatever. It's no skin off my nose, and I'm through wasting my time on this crap. I'm sure they'll want to get in a last word or snarky comment, but I don't give a damn anymore.

 

[F33D]

Irrelevant. The Drives change their PERFORMANCE & how the ship MOVES based on load/mass.

I just demonstrated that it didn't and quoted the rules to prove it.

No, you keep ignoring the drive performance measured by agility rating in the rules. So, either learn to read and think coherently or, STFU...

 

[Sigtrygg]

I was done with this three until you post this:

I am pretty much the only person here who bothered to do any research on this and who wasted their time and effort tracking down relevant quotes from the rules from various editions (including MGT),

Incorrect.
CT ('77 edition), High Guard 1st edition, High Guard 2n edition, CT (revise '81 edition), MT, TNE, T4, MgT, T5 - the only version I didn't use is GURPS Traveller, so don't make false claims.

and F33D and Sigtrygg are still just stubbornly going "lalala I can't hear you" despite all of the evidence before them.

You are doing the same. I completely understand your argument. I think you are wrong.

 

[GypsyComet]

Even taking that formula at face value, Agility does not influence the actual Thrust rating, so MT ships do not change their G ratings when loaded vs empty.

Irrelevant. The Drives change their PERFORMANCE & how the ship MOVES based on load/mass. In MGT they do NOT. What exactly don't you understand about that?

"What exactly"?
How you can infer that an equation that doesn't mention drive potential at all has anything to do with the drives. That equation is also a direct descendent of the Agility formula in CT High Guard, with one important change: High Guard limits Agility to Drive Rating; MT does not.

So please, explain your House Rule. Yes, that's what it is, no matter how violently you deny it. You are speaking from *your* Traveller interpretations, which have no relevance to mine, Will's, Syg's or anyone else's unless they choose to allow it. You have no power over their games, just as they have no power over yours. MegaTraveller writing botchery has little place in a game of Mongoose Traveller or on this board in any case.