The neccessity of two ship-design systems

[AKAramis]

The problem with looking at CT Bk2 vs HG is that HG designs are almost universally better than Bk2 designs under CT, plus the only forum of note that supports both also supports T20, which is a HG variant.

Even if the drive tonnages were the same, HG would probably see far greater use due to its versatility - you could build a far wider range on ship types (and use a far greater array of weapons and screens) with HG in comparison to LBB2. Sure, you could graft a lot of cool stuff into LBB2 (and its fun to do so), but this is strict house-rule terrain and thus designs aren't very compatible between different referees.

Truth is, what we've seen from T5 looks like bk2 expanded, not like CTHG

The most realistic, IMO,is probably the MT approach, followed closely by the Bk2 approach. I find MoTrav the least realistic.

This is a feature of the combat system rather than of the design system; you could have a percentage-based design system and still have an MT-style or CT-HG-style damage system.

It works best when incorporated in design and rating.

Anyhow, I'd wager that MHG would be used by the majority of referees and players interested in ship design, due to its greater versatility.

If it is not open content, probably not.

If it is open, and is an extension of MoTrav basic ship design (much like FF&S was to Brilliant Lances), then it will get used a lot.

But for a space opera core rulebook, ship design is both normative and a selling point. I'm not worried about MoHG... It's not under playtest right now.

 

[EDG]

Interestingly, I spotted this paragraph on page 18 of CT High Guard:

The ship design and construction system given in Book 2 must be considered to be a standard system for providing ships using off-the-shelf components. It is not superceded by any system given in this book; instead this book presents a system for construction of very large vessels, and includes provisions for use of the system with smaller ships.

So officially, Book 5 doesn't supercede Book 2 at all - it's a totally different system geared for large ships that just happens to have overlap for no apparent reason.

I still think it's an extremely stupid idea to have two incompatible ship design systems that overlap to the extent that Book 2 and 5 do though. It'd be marginally less stupid to have two incompatible ship design systems that don't overlap, but a hell of a lot easier and more elegant to just have a single system that you can use consistently for any size or kind of ship.

 

[GamerDude]

...So officially, Book 5 doesn't supercede Book 2 at all - it's a totally different system geared for large ships that just happens to have overlap for no apparent reason.

I still think it's an extremely stupid idea to have two incompatible ship design systems that overlap to the extent that Book 2 and 5 do though. It'd be marginally less stupid to have two incompatible ship design systems that don't overlap, but a hell of a lot easier and more elegant to just have a single system that you can use consistently for any size or kind of ship.

Well, while that was in the early days of the very first Sci-Fi RPG, it's not typical of today's RPG publishers and unless it's in T5/MGT, there is no sens beating on the dead horse of "all the problems with CT from nearly 30 years ago".

 

[EDG]

Well, while that was in the early days of the very first Sci-Fi RPG, it's not typical of today's RPG publishers and unless it's in T5/MGT, there is no sens beating on the dead horse of "all the problems with CT from nearly 30 years ago".

Given that Mongoose plans to release a High Guard book a little down the line (and for all we know they plan to present another ship building system in that), and the point of this thread is to determine whether or not the ship design system in MGT should be unified or not, I think my observation is quite relevant thank you.

 

[GamerDude]

Given that Mongoose plans to release a High Guard book a little down the line (and for all we know they plan to present another ship building system in that), and the point of this thread is to determine whether or not the ship design system in MGT should be unified or not, I think my observation is quite relevant thank you.

You are most welcome... everyone is welcome to their opinion and comments no matter how inane..

Oh, and "shortly down the line" is how you describe something coming out the month after the core book, and a mere three months from now... '

Also, Gar has already said most of the main stuff is set in stone, and I guess that with High Guard coming out the following month, it's pretty near to concrete itself.

LOL!

 

[DaltonCalford]

I do not know how the values for the playtest drives have been determined.

I do know that having an incompatible system, or a system that is overly complex, does not make for a fun gaming system.

Traveller publishers and fans have been 'fixing' the bk2 and bk5 rules for years and none have come up with a system that satisfies everyone -while the fire fusion and steel system satisfied no-one.

The system as laid out in the 3.1 playtest is the first in years that made me want to design ships. It also makes me remember all the things I disliked about the bk2 design system.

So, having said all that, here are some of my concepts.

1.) The systems put forth in the playtest document are 'standard' systems - off the shelf components, while the Highguard system is for custom engineered equipment. That being said, the Highguard system should be able to generate all the drives in the playtest without any discrepancy. If the upcoming highguard product can do this, then it is only a single system, not two.

2.) Standard systems are not the best engineered products - they are the best 'average' systems. A decision may be made to put extra redundancy to allow for the systems to take a hit of damage and still be repairable - this makes the systems take up more volume and perhaps take more power - a system optimized for power and volume would give the same performance but would also cost more as it is not benefiting from mass production.
If the new highguard product allows for a percentage based system, such as old bk5, but gave generic modifiers (such as higher redundancy +10% volume or mass produced -20% cost etc) instead of the specific engineering details that so bogged down MT and FF&S (focal lengths for lasers along with detailed algorithms for power consumption - come on, this is a game), then it would be compatible, would have the ability to be customizable and would be welcomed by all.

3.) As for what is left out of the core rules - I know that with the original LBB's, I always wanted a quad manned turret, just like the ones in starwars. I also wanted more details for many standard systems. What I want and what another player wants, would soon fill ten books instead of the one core rules we are going to need.
I say that all the standard ships, published in the original Classic Traveller rules, up to 1,000 displacement tons, should be able to be built with the rules included in the core rules. Anything beyond that, would have to wait for the new high-guard rules.
That makes all the adventure class and patrol ships - the majority of vessels ever encountered by players, possible using the base rules.

Just my 2c worth.

Best regards

Dalton

 

[EDG]

while the fire fusion and steel system satisfied no-one.

You can speak for yourself there . I was very satisfied with it (the TNE version anyway) - it's a pity that nobody's ever bothered to do anything quite so ambitious since then.

But that's the thing with FF&S - I think the people that rail about it being "unusable" or "too complicated" don't get that it wasn't really ever supposed to be a "quick ship design system". Its real purpose was as a "technological architecture" system - something to let GMs design entire technologies for their own SF settings (which is exactly what I did with it, and it worked pretty well for that) based on TNE rules.

TNE certainly could have done with a "quick ship design system" outside of that context, sure. But I think a lot of people that slag off FF&S do so because they wanted it to be something that it wasn't, which strikes me as being somewhat unfair.

 

[AKAramis]

while the fire fusion and steel system satisfied no-one.

You can speak for yourself there . I was very satisfied with it (the TNE version anyway) - it's a pity that nobody's ever bothered to do anything quite so ambitious since then.

Two other companies have: BTRC and SJG.

And the biggest problem with FF&S is that it is too complex to be used without computerized spreadsheets.

Another issue is that it generates superfluous detail even for its target game. (FF&S2 adds details, and T4 reduces the amount of data used... exacerbating a minor issue.)


BTRC's VDS is of similar detail levels, but simpler to use (not much, but a little). Again, it generates superfluous details for the target system, but does so with the intent that it could be used with other systems more easily that way.

SJG's Vehicles is even more detailed (at least, last time I used it), but simpler to use than FF&S or VDS due to better layout and being more table driven, but again, a spreadsheet is almost essential, since the detail level results in 4-12 significant places.... just like FF&S!

The detail level in all three is beyond what is essential to play. In most cases (and groups), it's beyond what is useful to play.

 

[EDG]

And the biggest problem with FF&S is that it is too complex to be used without computerized spreadsheets.

Not really. I used pen and paper and a calculator and got by fine. Takes a while to do (and some rules need tweaking), but it's perfectly workable on paper.

Another issue is that it generates superfluous detail even for its target game.

I didn't find any details to be superfluous in it (that said, maybe the gun side of it had that, but I didn't make hand-held weaponry with it).

Don't get me wrong, it's not an easy system to use. But as a system for designing technologies, and presenting as huge variety of options for your setting, I think it's without rival.


Getting back to MGT, I did hope that Mongoose would give us a variety of options to use in SF games using the MGT rules, but it sounds like that's not on the cards. IMO that seriously limits the utility of the ship design system in the corebook.

 

[pasuuli]

The system as laid out in the 3.1 playtest is the first in years that made me want to design ships. It also makes me remember all the things I disliked about the bk2 design system.

Someone else mentioned that, if the drives are derivable from High Guard-like formulas, then it's really one system. I'll go one further and say if the drives are considered "standard" and the High Guard-like drives are considered "custom" (or higher TL or better quality or whatever) and are equal or smaller in volume for the same performance, then it's for all intents and purposes one system.

The only downside with that is, why use the basic system, then? Seems then that it's better just to derive the drives from formulas and be done with it. Or set limits so the custom drives start where the basic drives leave off. Then formulas can be used if a referee wants, but the official rules and products use both systems.

 

[AKAramis]

Pasuuli:

all that has to be better for the "std drives" is price, if the performance envelope is at all similar.

My preference would be for standard drives to be TL9, but able to be bought so the price is better than equal performance customs.

Since a couple tons of cargo make little difference in economic viability, but a couple of MCr make a notable difference, standard drives being, say 75% cost by comparison makes them a decent choice for low performance civil vessels.

 

[GamerDude]

The only downside with that is, why use the basic system, then? Seems then that it's better just to derive the drives from formulas and be done with it. Or set limits so the custom drives start where the basic drives leave off. Then formulas can be used if a referee wants, but the official rules and products use both systems.

Sounds like this is the system now... basic drives if you don't want to get fancy... and go to high-guard if you want to get fancy and make custom systems.

But, with the overlap that should be fixed... there should either be a full 'basic' and full 'custom' or as you said, a cut off point where one stops and the other begins...

 

[pasuuli]

Pasuuli:

all that has to be better for the "std drives" is price, if the performance envelope is at all similar.

My preference would be for standard drives to be TL9, but able to be bought so the price is better than equal performance customs.

Since a couple tons of cargo make little difference in economic viability, but a couple of MCr make a notable difference, standard drives being, say 75% cost by comparison makes them a decent choice for low performance civil vessels.

That's a good point and a great idea.

 

[pasuuli]

The only downside with that is, why use the basic system, then? Seems then that it's better just to derive the drives from formulas and be done with it. Or set limits so the custom drives start where the basic drives leave off. Then formulas can be used if a referee wants, but the official rules and products use both systems.

Sounds like this is the system now... basic drives if you don't want to get fancy... and go to high-guard if you want to get fancy and make custom systems.

But, with the overlap that should be fixed... there should either be a full 'basic' and full 'custom' or as you said, a cut off point where one stops and the other begins...

And it's obvious there can't be a "full" basic system... not with a cutoff of 2,000 tons. And there's not enough drive letters to go all the way up to 1,000,000 tons

So I can't design a Vorchan with the basic system.

Even if I could, I wouldn't. I'd want something like High Guard.

 

[AKAramis]

And it's obvious there can't be a "full" basic system... not with a cutoff of 2,000 tons. And there's not enough drive letters to go all the way up to 1,000,000 tons

So I can't design a Vorchan with the basic system.

Even if I could, I wouldn't. I'd want something like High Guard.

Don't forget, either, that the traveller displacement ton is a measurement of volume, not mass.

I've been having a laugh at the probably 10Td starfury being statted out at 50....

 

[pasuuli]

And it's obvious there can't be a "full" basic system... not with a cutoff of 2,000 tons. And there's not enough drive letters to go all the way up to 1,000,000 tons

So I can't design a Vorchan with the basic system.

Even if I could, I wouldn't. I'd want something like High Guard.

Don't forget, either, that the traveller displacement ton is a measurement of volume, not mass.

I've been having a laugh at the probably 10Td starfury being statted out at 50....

Blame the bloody power plant. I started at 20 tons, and ran out of space so fast it wasn't funny. Hm, maybe there's a better way to do afterburners. Make them truly reaction based. And then figure out how to make plasma weapons that aren't energy hungry...

 

[Border Reiver]

I said it about T5 and I'll say it about Mongoose Traveller.


Scaleable combat is viable and preferable.

Integrated design systems are possible. Start with the high end system and develop the simple system from it: modular perhaps?

It's looking awfully like a two speed system again, two ship systems and from what Chris has mentioned in his Virtual Tabletop interview we're getting expanded Chargen again as well. I don't know if this means two speed Chargen like LBB1 versus books 4,5,6 & 7 but it sounds like it.

All sounds like a done deal and no going back.