Reynard said:
I was thinking in terms of Classic and MegaTraveller as well as referencing from Marc Miller's Traveller and Traveller: The New Era
MegaTraveller also had the power for the jump generated from a fusion reactor part of the engine. The jump capacitors (zuchai crystal array) are the storage for the energy from the reactors, Accumulators or Black Globes. The jump grid still operated with the jump bubble but MegaTraveller I believe decided to remove the hydrogen feature for a form fitting energy bubble. Not sure at the moment about T4 but T5 is essentially saying there are various ways to create the field and all work in the same universe. One needs hydrogen to create an actual sphere and cheaper but has its disadvanges and is inferior. That works for me.
MGT changed the issue to be the fuel itself was converted into exotic particles to create the bubble, which then took the ship and bubble into hyperspace and popped out when it degraded. So yes, there is an actual change to the background by changing fuel to generate energy to power a jump drive vs. having the hydrogen converted into particles to create a bubble. It's not a huge distinction, but it was a change, and that change broke some of the previous tech (not to mention the MGT TCS still referred to the old tech...). TheT4 CRB mentions HepLAR thrusters and gravitic thrusters and that ships are equipped with contragravity to land, but I can't find more detail on jump drives. At least on a cursory review.
Reynard said:
Mongoose has not used very much from T5 at all as you seem to have found. One jump type, one jump bubble. Was the Collector pushed on Mongoose or did they decide they liked the idea, worked the game mechanics, submitted for approval and received approval? I actually use T5 to fill in parts I like for use with MgT.
I never implied they did. I called out specific issues
Reynard said:
This is where this unreasonable and exaggerated bias against T5 and sometimes any edition under Marc's direct control make discussions less convincing for their objectivity.
What criticism of T5 is unreasonable? I'm not the only person who has said this. In fact there are far harsher reviews of T5 out there than what I've said. My bias isn't "exaggerated" - it's my opinion. I don't worship the ground that Marc walks on. I very much enjoy the Traveller universe, and I have supported it in nearly every iteration since it's publication. I would say my opinions are pretty damn objective if I keep buying the materials. What I am NOT, however, is an apologist for him or his mistakes. The artwork in T4 (the ones that weren't purchased from Cowley, or whomever owns much of the work from those books) is pretty much terrible. I was looking at the T4 starship book and the ship layouts. I'm not sure you could do a worse job of providing deckplans than T4. And again, I'm not the only person who has said this or is willing to say it. Other parts are good, but other parts are worse than terrible. If you think me calling it like I see it being unreasonable, hey, everybody is entitled to an opinion.
Reynard said:
I bought the book after the Kickstart and I also can give both positive and negative review and commentary. By the way, I will NEVER do kickstarting. That's gambling and people who do sometime refuse to realize placing a bet doesn't mean you're entitled or guaranteed to have it exactly the way you want. You say you have the Right to be critical. You also have the Right to willingly take a chance and not 'win'.
I bought it during kickstarter to support the game system. I had high hopes for it and for the hype that it was given. I was expecting something better than GURPS - and I have come to realize that's asking a whole damn lot. And what I got was 500 pages of a hot mess - without even a index. I do agree hidden within the schlock are some interesting tech gems that if one wanted they can be adapted to other game models. However to have paid for page after page of schlock like die roll tables? Again, the criticism I give here is mild compared to others out there. Whether Miller has acknowledged his mistakes I don't know - then again I haven't looked really either. There are those who defend him mightily, and those who freely excoriate him. I just call them like I see them.
Reynard said:
The one thing I love about T5 is it gives LOTS of detail and options I can and do reject or embrace. Diversity is not a bad thing. One thing I love about MgT is it is NOT complex and super detailed. I paid for both warts and all.
You make a valid point. However I don't find the diversity to be as appealing to you. In the sense that I find it doesn't actually provide a solid framework upon which to hang the many variations. To me it feels like a lot of things were thrown together and players are free to choose whatever. The problem with that concept is purchasing a game system typically means you are looking for someone else to professionally organize, collate and display a coherent set of rules that are playable from day one. I don't see T5 from that perspective. Again, that's my personal opinion. And as a customer I think it's reasonable when you pay $40 for a rulebook you have a fair and reasonable expectation that warts have been mostly removed from it. Would you not agree?
Reynard said:
You really, really interpreted the rules to mean that? I read the rule and saw a device to protect important ships in battle with the side effect they could be destroyed if too much power is absorbed, you know the ship everyone is firing at and can't fire back? It got you in close then is dropped to fight. Often the ship is now bleeding off that energy because they want to use the Globe again without blowing up.
Where was I interpreting anything? That specific concept comes from the books not me. I never stated black globes were categorically to be used as a way to power your ship. I mentioned it as a side effect and in reference to the accumulators.
