Standard drives.

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Just because the computer is powerful enough to run a set of software, doesn't mean that there is a continuity error.

You need a powerful enough drive AND the appropriate control software to make it work in the desired way.

So, Drive-C can be used on a 100-ton ship to make it go Jump-6, but without the appropriate control software, it cannot go Jump-6, it would be limited to whatever version of software was available based on the TL.

 

[F33D]

Yep, you are right. Though it appears the computer capable of running a Jump-6 is available one tech level before the software.

Correct. Which means that one cannot produce a JD at say, TL 9 that will move a ship > J1...

 

[GypsyComet]

Yep, you are right. Though it appears the computer capable of running a Jump-6 is available one tech level before the software.

Correct. Which means that one cannot produce a JD at say, TL 9 that will move a ship > J1...

Which circles around to the definition of TL. This is an old argument about discovery TL (the POV that F33D is arguing from) versus infrastructure TL (what most of us are working from). In each POV the holders of that POV are correct. A J-Drive built by an isolated TL9 culture is simply incapable of exceeding J1, while a standardized Jump Drive built locally on a TL9 world that is part of a TL15 polity that provides standard templates to member worlds probably will be able to do so if it can be used with off-world computers and software that cannot be manufactured/written locally.

The setting assumptions determine the correct answer. Since even the huge volume of information about the Imperiums setting is a bit fuzzy at this level, those assumptions are subject to local interpretation. The result is that you are right for your game, and I am right for my game. The idea that you would be inerrantly correct for any game but your own is ridiculous.

 

[F33D]

Yep, you are right. Though it appears the computer capable of running a Jump-6 is available one tech level before the software.

Correct. Which means that one cannot produce a JD at say, TL 9 that will move a ship > J1...

Which circles around to the definition of TL. This is an old argument about discovery TL (the POV that F33D is arguing from) versus infrastructure TL (what most of us are working from).

Really? In the rules it states at what TL one can build a JD capable of moving a ship x # parsecs. Where does it state otherwise? Like building a JD rated at 6 parsecs at TL 9...

 

[GypsyComet]

Which means that one cannot produce a JD at say, TL 9 that will move a ship > J1...

Which circles around to the definition of TL. This is an old argument about discovery TL (the POV that F33D is arguing from) versus infrastructure TL (what most of us are working from).

Really? In the rules it states at what TL one can build a JD capable of moving a ship x # parsecs. Where does it state otherwise? Like building a JD rated at 6 parsecs at TL 9...

Round and around we go. You are a rules literalist. Arguing with rules literalists about setting assumptions is pointless. You cannot comprehend my statements as valid, and I recognize yours as blind in one eye.

The veteran players figured this all out years ago. Maybe someday you will too.

 

[F33D]

Round and around we go. You are a rules literalist.

No. I just read a rule and communicated it & you said it wasn't correct. I simply asked for the reference you are using.

You either don't have one or, you do. SIMPLE. I don't think your house rule (if that is what it is) is bad at all.

 

[GypsyComet]

Round and around we go. You are a rules literalist.

No. I just read a rule and communicated it & you said it wasn't correct. I simply asked for the reference you are using.

You either don't have one or, you do. SIMPLE. I don't think your house rule (if that is what it is) is bad at all.

The rule is incomplete in its coverage. The High Guard drives TL table applies to the percentage drives of High Guard, while the CRB drives have no stated TL. The only time TL and drive performance are linked in the CRB is through the computers and software.

Drawing inferences (which may or may not be considered house rules) based on owning *only* the CRB gets to a conclusion that the drive hardware, at least in a large polity setting, is pretty generic. Those drive letters might not be just abstractions.

Additional evidence can be found in the results of misjumps. Bobbles in the process can result in *any* drive rating flinging a ship up to 36 parsecs away. Clearly the hardware is capable, and the ability to control it is finite.

 

[F33D]

The rule is incomplete in its coverage. The High Guard drives TL table applies to the percentage drives of High Guard, while the CRB drives have no stated TL. The only time TL and drive performance are linked in the CRB is through the computers and software.

HG directly links TL of J-drive to performance.


The CRB only mentions generally jump n by TL in the outline of TL's. Minimum S/W is listed by TL

So, yes there is a difference. CRB isn't explicit. HG is. HG follows the TL outline in the CRB and links it directly to the TL of the J-drive. So, pick your rule. Thanks for pointing out

Misjump is not relevant really.

 

[GypsyComet]

The CRB only mentions generally jump n by TL in the outline of TL's. Minimum S/W is listed by TL

So, yes there is a difference. CRB isn't explicit. HG is. HG follows the TL outline in the CRB and links it directly to the TL of the J-drive. So, pick your rule. Thanks for pointing out

Misjump is not relevant really.

For you. Misjump behavior is part of the whole picture, though.

You are obviously still coming from High Guard as your default reality. It works for you, and I'm sure it works for others.

The CRB *is* explicit, You need access to TL14 computers and TL15 software to make a drive do Jump 6. The CRB's picture is only incompatible with High Guard's table if you start from a High Guard assumption and look backwards. If you start from the CRB and look forward into High Guard, you see the Drive Potential table in High Guard as a summary. "I want to built a ship with J4, so it needs to be TL13." "It" being the ship and the building world.

Going the other way (HG->CRB) creates a different thought process. "This table says J3 is TL12, so all J3 drives are TL12."

 

[F33D]

For you. Misjump behavior is part of the whole picture, though.

Only in that it is possible. Not that it can be controlled. BY H/W or S/W

You are obviously still coming from High Guard as your default reality. It works for you, and I'm sure it works for others.

The CRB's picture is only incompatible with High Guard's table if you start from a High Guard assumption and look backwards.

The CRB might be compatible if you restrict Jn potential to TL drive is produced at. I can go either way. Since I will be using HG designs also I need to stick to the HG rule as outlined in the table I posted. If I was not going to use HG I'd go with the CRB s/w as a limit paradigm.

 

[phavoc]

I think this is a bit of a circular argument. There are some inconsistencies between HG and the Core rulebook.

Also the rules allow for equipment to show up one TL earlier than it's normal TL - as long as you are willing to pay through the nose to be on the bleeding edge. So that throws a spanner into the argument as well (though I'm not sure anyone has tossed that one out yet...)

 

[F33D]

Also the rules allow for equipment to show up one TL earlier than it's normal TL - as long as you are willing to pay through the nose to be on the bleeding edge. So that throws a spanner into the argument as well (though I'm not sure anyone has tossed that one out yet...)

That is assumed. We are discussing normal ship building. But, Mongoose needs more errata issued. There is a lot that is inexplicably backlogged already.

 

[phavoc]

I'm all for cleaning up the rules!

 

[F33D]

I'm all for cleaning up the rules!

I have a sinking feeling that the errata (that has been given by fans over the last few years) will not issued as such but will be charged for in a "new" edition instead.

 

[JP42]

I've been pinged in other fora by someone who claimed to be working on collecting errata for Matt, so I have some hope that it'll happen sooner rather than later.

 

[AndrewW]

I've been pinged in other fora by someone who claimed to be working on collecting errata for Matt, so I have some hope that it'll happen sooner rather than later.

There's a stickied thread here "The Great Traveller Clean-Up!".

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I am not so sure there is as much of a disconnect between HG and the CRB as some are thinking.

The CRB gives you standard drives that are built at about TL12 and are designed as "off the shelf units" so they are easy to maintain and readily available.

HG gives you drive designs that are unique to each TL. So there is likely to be very little interchangeability between a HG TL-11 drive and a HG TL-12 design. So the prices and sizes are a bit different due to this economic trade off.

 

[F33D]

I am not so sure there is as much of a disconnect between HG and the CRB as some are thinking.

Reread the thread. The TL/JD n assumptions are different. CRB is limited by the TL of the drive s/w. HG is limited by the TL of the JD itself.

 

[phavoc]

The CRB gives you standard drives that are built at about TL12 and are designed as "off the shelf units" so they are easy to maintain and readily available.

That's not quite accurate. CRB gives you multiple tech levels of equipment. Perhaps the ship designs are built at a TL12 average, but the listing for the gear and drives is not that way at all.

HG gives you drive designs that are unique to each TL. So there is likely to be very little interchangeability between a HG TL-11 drive and a HG TL-12 design. So the prices and sizes are a bit different due to this economic trade off.

HG gives you more leeway in the designs, but the TL of the drives does not change between CRB and HG. The prices and sizes are different due to no other rule other than CRB utilizes the same breakdown as the first LBB from Traveller. The game has evolved and been added to since then, though this particular area is an exception. This should have been resolved a very long time ago, and why the various versions of Traveller have never addressed this I don't understand.

 

[F33D]

This should have been resolved a very long time ago, and why the various versions of Traveller have never addressed this I don't understand.

MT resolved this. For some reason MGT went backwards from there...