sideranautae
Mongoose
dragoner said:
I could see that. But, I don't like pbp games in any fashion.
No grav tanks needed at higher TL's
- Thread starter sideranautae
- Start date
I could see that. But, I don't like pbp games in any fashion.
sideranautae said:
All valid questions. Easiest thing to power them would be hydrogen since a ship has so much of it onboard. Or maybe they are super-efficient ion-type thrusters that need very little fuel. Lots of things have no tonnage included in the design. Since they are not mentioned (nor explicitly stated they don't exist) you can power them however you choose, or leave them out.
Why can't you have two smaller powerplants linked together instead of one big one? How many thruster plates form the main propulsion system - 1, 2, 3, etc? There are lots of questions based on rule interpretations. We have the forum for people to talk in, to trade opinions, house rules, etc. That's why people post sh*t here. At least most I guess.
dragoner said:
I was there, 86-88. We did our Artep in Fulda area, where we were supposed to go if the balloon went up. I was MLRS - 1/27 FA, 41st FA Brigade, V Corps arty. I was at a little place called Babenhausen, between D-town and A-burg. We went to Heidelberg a few times, nice place to have a bier or three.
Our life expectancy wasn't too long either - MLRS rockets do leave a bit of a calling card. But at least we were hoping to tear the hell outa some Ruski arty before we got pinched. Fortunately for us we could target an entire grid square with all 12 rockets in about 60 seconds. Takes longer to stow the launcher than it does to empty it. We were death from above for anything but MBT's.
sideranautae
Mongoose
phavoc said:
No. The fuel is already spec'ed based on what the PP has to have. There is no provision for fuel for an Ion drive. Again, there is no additional drives spec'ed nor paid for in cost or equipment or tonnage.
Lex parsimoniae applies to this problem. Grav drives act like grav drives (a la Air Rafts)
sideranautae said:
How often do you think they are going to be using thrusters? They would only be used for docking or landing. So there's no reason (assuming you go with them tapping the main fuel supply) that they couldn't consume current fuel resources as listed - especially since virtually every design has additional fuel reserves built in. It's not like a ship has dry tanks upon docking/touching down.
Citing Occam's Razor in a science fiction game? Seriously? So riddle me this then, does the grav drive create it's own gravity and magically pushes against something, or does it only operate against an existing grav field? Depending on which version of Traveller you wanna cite, some do, some don't. MGT doesn't get into the specifics of exactly how it works, it just does. Vehicle (as opposed to craft) grav drives are meant to reach orbit and that's it.
phavoc said:
Nice, grid square removers are cool. I would have taken a billet with an M109 troop, even though I was mostly trained in the M60 & M1; wound up HQ detachment. I was there early 90's, right after I graduated (ME & ROTC), preparing for the big move. I never want to see a records box again. lol
I heard a rumor long ago that the army protected Heidelberg from being bombed because they had already planned to set up HQ there, I guess only Patton knows for sure.
sideranautae
Mongoose
phavoc said:
Never because they aren't part of the star ship equipment unless you put in chemical M-drives as per HG rules. You REALLY think that small craft are lighting up powerful (with the loads they carry they would have to be as powerful as large solid fuel rockets of today) chem drives into the cargo spaces where many ships put them? Come on, this isn't Comedy Central.
CosmicGamer
Mongoose
First off, the point of my mentioning space craft need to roll for landing vs a grav vehicle was to point out a difference between the two. This is the rules. The rules also allow for very safe landings - but a roll is still needed.
- Lets start with the +2 for a routine piloting task to land.
- Give the combination of pilot + characteristic modifier just a +2.
We are already at +4, just +2 more in DMs and it's a safe landing.
- If there are navigational aids, one could give a +1 for Situational Modifiers as the rules say
- Timing. Taking it slow and easy can give a +1 DM.
So, it's quite probable that even a half way decent pilot who takes their time can have no chance of failing the task.
Lots of DMs = few crashes.sideranautae said:
- Lets start with the +2 for a routine piloting task to land.
- Give the combination of pilot + characteristic modifier just a +2.
We are already at +4, just +2 more in DMs and it's a safe landing.
- If there are navigational aids, one could give a +1 for Situational Modifiers as the rules say
- Aid from another. Maybe it is someone in flight control or someone on the bridge monitoring sensors.
- Timing. Taking it slow and easy can give a +1 DM.
So, it's quite probable that even a half way decent pilot who takes their time can have no chance of failing the task.
CosmicGamer
Mongoose
Just to freak a few people out...
I do not think there is any mention in the core rules that a ships maneuver drive is gravitic.
High guard (which btw I don't use much of) does. Not sure where else.
There are numerous references throughout the rules that identify a ships maneuver drive as producing thrust. Look at every ship spec sheet.
Thrust need not equate to chemical rocketry. Gravitic drives create an energy potential that accelerates and maneuvers a ship and this is called thrust.
As i queried earlier, and as implied by rules, a ships grav drive could require "thrusters" to help direct and control the forces the drive creates for accelerating the ship.
I do not think there is any mention in the core rules that a ships maneuver drive is gravitic.
High guard (which btw I don't use much of) does. Not sure where else.
There are numerous references throughout the rules that identify a ships maneuver drive as producing thrust. Look at every ship spec sheet.
Thrust need not equate to chemical rocketry. Gravitic drives create an energy potential that accelerates and maneuvers a ship and this is called thrust.
As i queried earlier, and as implied by rules, a ships grav drive could require "thrusters" to help direct and control the forces the drive creates for accelerating the ship.
There is also moving it down a time increment in the tasks gives another +1:
Going Faster or Slower
You can choose, before you roll, to move up or down one or two
rows on the Time Frames table. Moving up (reducing the time
increment) gives you a –1 DM for every row you move; moving
down and increasing the time taken gives you a +1 DM for every
row you move.
pg 50 TMR
Going Faster or Slower
You can choose, before you roll, to move up or down one or two
rows on the Time Frames table. Moving up (reducing the time
increment) gives you a –1 DM for every row you move; moving
down and increasing the time taken gives you a +1 DM for every
row you move.
pg 50 TMR
sideranautae
Mongoose
CosmicGamer said:
Yes, it the MRB it is called a Grav M-Drive... That's been pointed out in numerous threads. I did a search a couple weeks ago when researching it.
CosmicGamer
Mongoose
Please give a page reference in the core rules. I did a search and could not find it.sideranautae said:
Again, not saying it can't be a grav drive - it is mentioned in high guard. Just don't see the reference in the core rules.
sideranautae said:
Umm, I would hope that they put their thrusters on the OUTSIDE of the hull, and not in the cargo area. I think only on Comedy Central do they put chemical thrusters in the cargo bay.
And I don't expect thrusters of any kind to be equivalent to say an F-1 (powered the Saturn-V and provided 1.5mil lbs of thrust - each). I'd expect them to operate along the lines of the space shuttle. That has three engines types - Main, OMS and RCS. The RCS are more along the concept of thrusters that I apply to Traveller starships. Powerful enough to nudge the ship where you need it, but delicate enough that you don't have to apply full power. Naval vessels don't dock on their own using their screws, they use tugs. The exception are ships that have thruster pods which are capable of doing the delicate maneuvering required. Again, something similar that I would expect starships to have an equivalent of.
sideranautae said:
The Engineering section (starting on pg106) says non-starships need manoeuvre drives. No mention of grav is listed in the entire section.
Now, in the Technology section (pg4) under TL9, it talks about gravity manipulation, which makes space travel vastly safer and faster. One can infer they are talking about gravity drives.
There is the skill Flyer (grav).
Thruster packs (pg97) says at TL12 it's capable of 48hrs of .1g acceleration, using standard starship fuel (I guess that means thrusters could do the same then). At TL14 the thruster pack uses grav-thruster plates. It has the same capabilities of the TL12 version, but is "much smaller" - no specifics on how "much" that is.
Pg103 lists the Air/Raft as being supported by anti-gravity technology, capable of reaching orbit.
Pg104 has the grav belt, which is fitted with artificial gravity modules. And the grav floater is on the same page, but it's just a platform, though you can ride it to orbit if you want.
Annddd... that's all I found (yay for electronic searches!). So no specific mention in the CRB that a M-drive is gravitic. There are lots and lots of inferences but nothing that specifically calls it out as such. At least in my version of the book.
dragoner said:
I spent my last year with the 1st Cav MLRS battery. It's nickname was Gridsmashers. We never had the ATACMS rounds they have now. Traded in six rockets for a single big one. That one is designed to take out bigger targets than we could with the standard bomblets.
Coming from armor you probably wouldn't have enjoyed a cannon cocker unit. Though as an officer you'd be equally useless in doing any of the work, so who knows? The O-club looks the same regardless of if you are red leg or not! :lol:
I don't think Heidelberg had anything worth bombing. Did you ever make it up to the castle and hear the story about that big-ass wine barrel they built to hold the wine farmers paid their taxes in? That and see what the French did to it. During the tour they told us one of the princes had filled in some of the approaches which attackers used to set up their cannon's and attack the castle with. Ah well....
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Grav Drive - I covered this in length in another thread, but basically, it seems the option was edited out of the design process for Adventure and Capital hulls. Smallcraft still retain the option.
CosmicGamer
Mongoose
And to me the grav drive for vehicles is not just onother version of the space craft grav drive, it is specifically designed for vehicles.Sigtrygg said:
If one picks through the rules, to me, it is littered with numerous pieces of information that depict the differences between small craft and grav vehicles (um, totally different design systems).
Here is yet one more example specific to maneuvering
Small craft: Grav drive is rated in thrust similar to the full sized ships their tech is based on.
Grav Vehicls: Grav drive has a maximum speed.
The fastest speced out grav vehicle I noticed was a Grav Cycle with a max speed of 12,500km/hr
A thrust 3 ship can go from a stop to 100,000 km in 61 minutes.
I know different places it mentions grav vehicles can "achieve any altitude up to orbit. Believe it or not (I looked this up) "where the space station roams, some 220 miles (354 km) up, the force of gravity is still about 90 percent what it is here on the surface". Is there any mention of grav vehicles being able to operate in the more open areas of space?
sideranautae
Mongoose
Last night I couldn't get the search function to work on here so was using Google as I wanted to find an errata on this grav drive issue and ships flitting around planets. Well I forgot the Site: tag in google and it gave a result for a site called http://www.travellerrpg.com. Never been there and I had to use the cached results as I had no login. Anyway long story short; The Mongoose Trav person who wrote these rules chimed in over there a few years ago. The editor DID accidentally screw up what went into the MRB about Grav drive ships being problematic to land and maneuver in atmosphere. There is no problem. They act like grav vehicles.
That site is now 404. Must be having server problems. But, that solves it for me. My suspicions were confirmed by the author himself.
Now, just waiting for Mongoose to issue LONG overdue errata.
That site is now 404. Must be having server problems. But, that solves it for me. My suspicions were confirmed by the author himself.
Now, just waiting for Mongoose to issue LONG overdue errata.
phavoc said:
I was an orphan, as 2ACR was deployed to Saudi, then Iraq, I did set foot there, but like I said an errand boy sent by grocery clerks to quote col kurtz. Not going to sing the mo' butterbar blues, I usually just say nothing about the army, bites a little bit being years of work then cut from the team. As an o1, no hanging around the o-club, get called for gold bricking or whatever.
I did train some with arty, suppose to train with everything, tactically and technically proficient and all that. Funny thing is that someone on coti accused me of being an arty officer, I just told them close but no cigar.
I saw Heidelberg mostly from the air, I had seen it as a kid though, my family is Austrian. I saw the castle as a kid, don't remember exactly, but I think it had the huge barrel. Mostly just living on dorals and coffee, carrying "important" documents and going to meetings so that some col could go golfing or whatever, so I couldn't wander off. Even the lowliest skeeter wings had it better than me. Loved the tanks, knox was great, always had loved them, it is why I got an ME from Purdue.
