Standard drives.

[GypsyComet]

MGT HG's drive table is very specifically in the Capital Ship section. It does not replace the CRB Letter Drives, which all have efficiency slopes or curves (representing percentage of ship volume for given performance) over the 100 to 2000 dton range that end (at 2000 dtons) at or near the HG percentages.

The two books work together in this, unlike CT High Guard which replaced Book 2 completely while never explaining why the two were different. Note that CT also had the opposite relationship with regard to volume efficiency once Book 2 got above 1000 dtons. Those drives are all over the map compared to the CT HG percentages.

 

[JP42]

MGT HG's drive table is very specifically in the Capital Ship section. It does not replace the CRB Letter Drives, which all have efficiency slopes or curves (representing percentage of ship volume for given performance) over the 100 to 2000 dton range that end (at 2000 dtons) at or near the HG percentages.

The two books work together in this.

I think the real question is - should they work together in this inconsistent fashion? Even if the results (as far as TL restrictions go) are identical, why wouldn't the rules for building any ship, from 1 dTon to 1,000,000 dTons, be that different?

I've said it before, I'd like to see the two (three, including small craft?) merged into a single cohesive system, even if it did include exceptions where appropriate for the very small, the very large, or the mass-market versions of components or ships.

 

[GypsyComet]

Even if the results (as far as TL restrictions go) are identical, why wouldn't the rules for building any ship, from 1 dTon to 1,000,000 dTons, be that different? .

Part of it is perceived complexity. Book 2 and the MGT CRB are "plug and play" design systems. This is a level of design simplicity that MegaTraveller, TNE, and T20 did not have. Five-minute ships.

The next level up is CT and MGT High Guard, T20, and (once you get through the language) T5 minus a few things that are easy to ignore. T4 also had an option for this level.

Next up would be MegaTrav and TNE Brilliant Lances, and T5 with all of its bells and whistles engaged.

At the top is TNE Fire, Fusion, & Steel, and T4's book by the same name. Design the ship, design the turret, design the weapon in the turret, design the sidearm on the Gunner's hip...

The "math competent" may not see a difference between the lower levels, but it *is* there. Not everyone who plays Traveller has a science or engineering degree.

I think the real question is - should they work together in this inconsistent fashion?
...

I've said it before, I'd like to see the two (three, including small craft?) merged into a single cohesive system, even if it did include exceptions where appropriate for the very small, the very large, or the mass-market versions of components or ships.

Except that it isn't inconsistent. Or at least, not as inconsistent as CT's two books were. They actively contradicted. The two MGT books work together except in a narrow range around 2000 to 3000 dtons. Despite similarities to the CT books, the MGT books don't clash very much in the construction phase, at least for starships. I'm not convinced that small craft should be built on a standardized component system like the CRB.

Could it all be put into one book? Sure. Except that it doesn't all belong in the CRB. Could MGT High Guard stand a re-write to explain the whole continuum better? Absolutely.

Combat is a different matter, but that isn't the point of this discussion.

 

[F33D]

MGT HG's drive table is very specifically in the Capital Ship section. It does not replace the CRB Letter Drives,

Incorrect. MT Ref manual has ONE table regardless of hull size. There is no HG/capital ship section for separate design. See pg. 56 for Craft design chapter.

 

[F33D]

The "math competent" may not see a difference between the lower levels, but it *is* there. Not everyone who plays Traveller has a science or engineering degree.

The MT craft design section requires no math skill higher than that one learns by 6th grade, at the latest... :roll:

 

[GypsyComet]

MGT HG's drive table is very specifically in the Capital Ship section. It does not replace the CRB Letter Drives,

Incorrect. MT Ref manual has ONE table regardless of hull size. There is no HG/capital ship section for separate design. See pg. 56 for Craft design chapter.

MT = MegaTraveller, which does have all one system
MGT = Mongoose Traveller, which has two systems that do not overlap except as already noted.

 

[GypsyComet]

The "math competent" may not see a difference between the lower levels, but it *is* there. Not everyone who plays Traveller has a science or engineering degree.

The MT craft design section requires no math skill higher than that one learns by 6th grade, at the latest... :roll:

See, you are one of the math competent. Just as some people stop reading, others stop bothering with math. Neither of these will keep them out of RPGs, including Traveller.

Also, MegaTraveller may not requires anything more than multiplication and division, but it does require juggling a more fiddly volume number as well as power requirements, and it requires a lot of both.

 

[F33D]

MT = MegaTraveller, which does have all one system
MGT = Mongoose Traveller, which has two systems that do not overlap except as already noted.

Sorry for the confusion. My connection is going up and down. The site is scrambled for me right now. Disregard . That is if this post shows up. :?

 

[phavoc]

I think the real question is - should they work together in this inconsistent fashion?

I've said it before, I'd like to see the two (three, including small craft?) merged into a single cohesive system, even if it did include exceptions where appropriate for the very small, the very large, or the mass-market versions of components or ships.

Except that it isn't inconsistent. Or at least, not as inconsistent as CT's two books were. They actively contradicted. The two MGT books work together except in a narrow range around 2000 to 3000 dtons. Despite similarities to the CT books, the MGT books don't clash very much in the construction phase, at least for starships. I'm not convinced that small craft should be built on a standardized component system like the CRB.

Could it all be put into one book? Sure. Except that it doesn't all belong in the CRB. Could MGT High Guard stand a re-write to explain the whole continuum better? Absolutely.

Combat is a different matter, but that isn't the point of this discussion.[/quote]

The issue is that the CRB ship designs aren't consistent - which has been a general consistency since the original books put together the plug-and-play design rules. Instead of the percentages listed in High Guard, ships under 3,000 tons are quite inconsistent. Only in a 200 Dton hull can you pick a linear 1-6 performance factor. Any other hull size under 3,000 tons isn't that way. If you break down the table it's not even consistent mathematically on where the performance divisions are made.

I am aware of the design decision made to do this when the first books were published. At the time I thought it was great to have this shit. But I've gotten more sophisticated since then, as has Traveller - except that it's not universally reflected in the game mechanics. Parts of the game have never been updated, while other parts have.