Towards a MgT HG/FF&S

[Sigtrygg]

Hull. Pick a hull size and displacement tons and convert to cubic metres to get hull volume.

Use this or other web calculator to determine the surface area of a sphere of chosen volume or use the approximate look up table

Area of a Sphere Calculator

How to find the area of a sphere? What's the area of a sphere formula? Use this area of a sphere calculator and quickly estimate all the necessary parameters of a sphere.

www.omnicalculator.com

Choose a hull configuration and modify the surface area using the factor in this table

Configuration	surface area modifier	cost modifier
needle/wedge standard	2.5	2.0
needle/wedge streamlined	2.7	2.2
needle/wedge airframe	2.8	2.4
flattened sphere standard	2.0	1.6
flattened sphere streamlined	2.2	1.8
flattened sphere airframe	2.3	2.0
sphere	1.0	1.0
cylinder standard	1.5	1.2
cylinder streamlined	1.7	1.4
cylinder airframe	1.8	1.6
close structure standard	1.2	1.0
close structure streamlined	1.4	1.2
close structure airframe	1.5	1.4
dispersed structure	2.0	1.0

Armour... select number of cm of armour (base is hard steel)
AV = square root of cm of hard steel
Armour thickness= cm of hard steel modified by armour material

Armour material	TL	armour modifier factor	cost modifier
steel	5	1.25
hard steel	6	1.0
titanium steel composite	7	0.44
advanced composite	9	0.35
crystaliron	10	0.30
superdense	12	0.26
bonded superdense	14	0.14
molecular bonded	16	0.10
coherent superdense	18	0.06

Armour volume... first thing to do is convert cm to m for final armour thickness, then multiply by final surface area.

Subtract armour volume from hull volume to get available hull volume,
divide by 14 to determine displacement tonnage available, rounding down.

You now have a hull of known AV, surface area, internal displacement tonnage and cost (mass can be added if you want it )

 

[MasterGwydion]

It all looks good, but what does this contribute to the game that is currently lacking? Does the game play better at the table because of a change like this?

 

[collins355]

It all looks good, but what does this contribute to the game that is currently lacking? Does the game play better at the table because of a change like this?

Agreed. There are so many problems with the starship combat and vehicle combat rules - updating the design systems is just the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.

 

[Geir]

Agreed. There are so many problems with the starship combat and vehicle combat rules - updating the design systems is just the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.

Not that I'm disagreeing, just having trouble with the analogy.
I'm assuming the ambulance drove to the bottom of the cliff to scrape up the victims, not that the ambulance went over the cliff to crash atop the victims. But I could see how either is implied.

 

[Sigtrygg]

It all looks good, but what does this contribute to the game that is currently lacking? Does the game play better at the table because of a change like this?

Yes.
I'm not insisting you use it, just showing how it can be done.

At the table you will have your stat block, but for those of us who prefer some consistency and real world science, engineering and units we can sleep soundly knowing that the square cubed law exists in the Third Imperium. Note that this hull system works for Third Imperium ships, 2300AD ships and any other universe where spacial dimensions exist in triplicate.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Agreed. There are so many problems with the starship combat and vehicle combat rules - updating the design systems is just the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.

The combat system comes after ship design

 

[MasterGwydion]

The combat system comes after ship design

Does it? Or do you design the ships and the ship design sequences for the end result you want in combat? If you don't have a combat system, how do you know what works well and what is garbage during the ship design process. For example, if the combat system makes missiles garbage, but We have dedicated 6 pages of a book to putting missiles of varying kinds on ships, then I think We are wasting Our time. So, I am of the belief that you can't design a ship design system without knowing first how you want the combat rules to work. Just My 2 cents.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Yes, it does. Once I have detailed how to build them then I can start work on how to break them...

The effectiveness of weapon systems is dependent on:
TL
universe paradigm

You may have seen the essay I started on the lessons I learned from High Guard - the nature of ships and combat changes as you go through the TL scale. Now add different technologies from different science fiction franchises. I do not consider Traveller to be The Third Imperium rpg; the shipbuilding rules, if based on real units, should be able to build for any setting.

If I have a ship building system based on real world units then it is easier for me to consider the effects of proton torpedos, turbo lasers, phasers, particle beams, missiles, drone swarms...

Not I have started with the hull.

next come drives - maneuver drive, HEPlaR, stutterwarp, slipstream, jump, foldspace, wormhole...

then weapons and defences, electronics and control systems, then environmental, and then finally power plants.

Thinking about it there is no reason the hull need be that of a starship, it could be a vehicle hull in which case I can look at transmission options...

 

[J. L. Brown]

Yes, it does. Once I have detailed how to build them then I can start work on how to break them...

The effectiveness of weapon systems is dependent on:
TL
universe paradigm

You may have seen the essay I started on the lessons I learned from High Guard - the nature of ships and combat changes as you go through the TL scale. Now add different technologies from different science fiction franchises. I do not consider Traveller to be The Third Imperium rpg; the shipbuilding rules, if based on real units, should be able to build for any setting.

If I have a ship building system based on real world units then it is easier for me to consider the effects of proton torpedos, turbo lasers, phasers, particle beams, missiles, drone swarms...

Not I have started with the hull.

next come drives - maneuver drive, HEPlaR, stutterwarp, slipstream, jump, foldspace, wormhole...

then weapons and defences, electronics and control systems, then environmental, and then finally power plants.

Thinking about it there is no reason the hull need be that of a starship, it could be a vehicle hull in which case I can look at transmission options...

Even if we do not want to deep dive into the details of combat, it is a good idea to have a general idea how the combat system will work. The original Traveller used USP codes -- a simple extended hex number to express 'all the beam lasers on the ship' and so on. That was a simplification which carried over into the fleet-combat system. TNE handled damaging 'hits' as similar (or equivalent) to 'wear' on each affected component, rather than having a broken vs functioning paradigm. Mongoose 2e is all about 'range bands' which does really screwy stuff when trying to do reality checks.

So, I think that some work can be saved later if we have a basic idea of how combat will function when we make a first-pass at ship design.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Damage dice for weapons, damage reduction for armour. Scaled for stabbing someone with a pencil to Dr Device... system degredation and critical hits.

No D, DD or DDXXDD tags, although I do use tags like AP, AI and the like.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Yes, it does. Once I have detailed how to build them then I can start work on how to break them...

The effectiveness of weapon systems is dependent on:
TL
universe paradigm

You may have seen the essay I started on the lessons I learned from High Guard - the nature of ships and combat changes as you go through the TL scale. Now add different technologies from different science fiction franchises. I do not consider Traveller to be The Third Imperium rpg; the shipbuilding rules, if based on real units, should be able to build for any setting.

If I have a ship building system based on real world units then it is easier for me to consider the effects of proton torpedos, turbo lasers, phasers, particle beams, missiles, drone swarms...

Not I have started with the hull.

next come drives - maneuver drive, HEPlaR, stutterwarp, slipstream, jump, foldspace, wormhole...

then weapons and defences, electronics and control systems, then environmental, and then finally power plants.

Thinking about it there is no reason the hull need be that of a starship, it could be a vehicle hull in which case I can look at transmission options...

True and I agree that Traveller is not the 3I, but it has commonalities due to the rules being the same. For example, without house-ruling stuff all universes that use the Traveller rules have lasers that function the same way at the same power levels and tech levels. A TL-12 Beam Laser in the Third Imperium setting, works the exact same in every other universe using the Traveller ruleset. So combat concepts that work in the 3I will also work in the other Traveller universes unless the rules make significant changes between each universe, but the problem with that, is that then it is not a Traveller game. It is something based off Traveller. The only real options that you have for choice are what technologies to allow or disallow. That is it. 3I uses jump space and hyperspace doesn't exist. Other settings may have hyperdrive or warp drive instead of jump drive tech. That is literally the only change that can be made. None of the stats of the weapons or other such things change. Nothing that would allow for saying that while yes, in this universe, lasers exist, they are not effective combat weapons and are more of a communication tool. There for lasers do zero damage in this universe. This cannot be done and still be the Traveller RAW.

So, I get what you are aiming at and I applaud it. I just do not know how you will go about it other than just with a checklist marked with which technologies exist in that universe and which don't.

 

[Sigtrygg]

True and I agree that Traveller is not the 3I, but it has commonalities due to the rules being the same. For example, without house-ruling stuff all universes that use the Traveller rules have lasers that function the same way at the same power levels and tech levels. A TL-12 Beam Laser in the Third Imperium setting, works the exact same in every other universe using the Traveller ruleset.

That is simply not true.
Traveller laser ranges depend on magical grav focusing or other handwavioum. remove that Third Imperium setting tech and laser ranges are much reduced.

So combat concepts that work in the 3I will also work in the other Traveller universes unless the rules make significant changes between each universe, but the problem with that, is that then it is not a Traveller game.

Again, no. The Third Imperium has weapon tropes unique to the setting. You are still welded to the Third Imperium is Traveller trope.
Is T2300 Trveller, is Pioneer? Many of the weapon systems in HG work great for Star Wars but have no place in the Third Imperium.

It is something based off Traveller. The only real options that you have for choice are what technologies to allow or disallow. That is it.

Your opinion, mine differs. Traveller was originally designed and still is a rule system where you can make your own stuff up and still be playing Traveller.

3I uses jump space and hyperspace doesn't exist. Other settings may have hyperdrive or warp drive instead of jump drive tech. That is literally the only change that can be made. None of the stats of the weapons or other such things change. Nothing that would allow for saying that while yes, in this universe, lasers exist, they are not effective combat weapons and are more of a communication tool. There for lasers do zero damage in this universe. This cannot be done and still be the Traveller RAW.

Yes it can, rule xero allows it, as does the Kzinti lesson.

So, I get what you are aiming at and I applaud it. I just do not know how you will go about it other than just with a checklist marked with which technologies exist in that universe and which don't.

They all are possible, you choose which exist in your setting.

 

[Vormaerin]

2300 has different weapons technologies than Charted Space. So does Mindjammer. Some things are similar. Some things are not.

 

[MasterGwydion]

2300 has different weapons technologies than Charted Space. So does Mindjammer. Some things are similar. Some things are not.

and those are in specific books for their settings. Correct? Or am I wrong?

 

[MasterGwydion]

That is simply not true.
Traveller laser ranges depend on magical grav focusing or other handwavioum. remove that Third Imperium setting tech and laser ranges are much reduced.

Again, no. The Third Imperium has weapon tropes unique to the setting. You are still welded to the Third Imperium is Traveller trope.
Is T2300 Trveller, is Pioneer? Many of the weapon systems in HG work great for Star Wars but have no place in the Third Imperium.

Your opinion, mine differs. Traveller was originally designed and still is a rule system where you can make your own stuff up and still be playing Traveller.

Yes it can, rule xero allows it, as does the Kzinti lesson.

They all are possible, you choose which exist in your setting.

Traveller is a ruleset. Show Me alternative lasers in the core Traveller books, not homebrew. Traveller is what is printed in the CORE Traveller rulebooks. 3I books are not Traveller rulebooks. They are setting books. Lasers are different in 2300. Fine, but that is a setting book and not a core rulebook. It has different things that fit that setting. All of it is Traveller, but not all of Traveller exists in every setting. What part about that is not true?

btw... If you are making rules up, you are homebrewing. If you are using the printed material, you are playing Traveller. All of My games are based on the Traveller rules, but not Traveller since I use some homebrew rules as well. It is one reason I don't share a lot of ship designs on here. My ship designs do not conform to Traveller rules. It makes sharing them difficult without disclaimers that most people won't read anyway. For example, I do not limit ship component customization to only +3 or -2 TLs. There are more deviations from the ship construction rules as well, but that one is one of the simpler ones to explain. Therefore, what I play is based on Traveller, but will never be able to be used in "convention play" because I am not following the rules. It is still a perfectly valid way to play, but it is not strictly Traveller. You can say Rule Zero, but anyone can say, "I am playing Traveller. Rule Zero. Then go play their version of Traveller, but using the Starfinder rules. It is not Traveller, but it is a perfectly valid way to play if the people playing want that kind of thing. Words matter. Their definitions matter. Without common frames of reference communication is impossible.

Kind of like saying, I am a bear because I wear a hat the looks like a bear head. Sounds like fun. Do it! It doesn't actually make Me a bear, but as long as I am having fun and don't actually believe that I am a bear, then I (hopefully) won't need any (more) professional help. lol

 

[Sigtrygg]

They are still Traveller games.

Just because a laser is limited to a few thousand km due to the lack of grav focusing or you opt to use grid energy beams doesn't mean you are not playing Traveller.

There were no laser pistols in CT, then LKW wrote a JTAS editorial on how to adapt the existing rules to make a laser pistol...

 

[Sigtrygg]

Traveller is a ruleset. Show Me alternative lasers in the core Traveller books, not homebrew.

Fire Fusion and Steel, either edition.

Traveller is what is printed in the CORE Traveller rulebooks.

FF&S is a core Traveller rulebook, Mongoose has it for sale.

3I books are not Traveller rulebooks. They are setting books.

And?

Lasers are different in 2300. Fine, but that is a setting book and not a core rulebook. It has different things that fit that setting. All of it is Traveller, but not all of Traveller exists in every setting. What part about that is not true?

I think at this point you are actually arguing against yourself.

FF&S is a core rule book, it has tech not in the Third Imperium, MgT HG is a core rulebook, it has tech not in the Third Imperium.

btw... If you are making rules up, you are homebrewing. If you are using the printed material, you are playing Traveller. All of My games are based on the Traveller rules, but not Traveller since I use some homebrew rules as well.

I'm not saying the stuff I am posting is canon, it is just one way to adapt FF&S to the MgT iteration of the game. Some may find it useful, others will not, others will already have done it.

 

[Vormaerin]

They are still Traveller games.

Just because a laser is limited to a few thousand km due to the lack of grav focusing or you opt to use grid energy beams doesn't mean you are not playing Traveller.

There were no laser pistols in CT, then LKW wrote a JTAS editorial on how to adapt the existing rules to make a laser pistol...

In a perfect world, the core rules would have a lot of different techs and assumptions and Charted Space would have its own "This is SPARTA!" book saying "Yes to this, no to that".

 

[Condottiere]

You have the Core set of rulebooks, and you have distinct setting books.

Going by Dungeons and Dragons, quite possible.

 

[-Daniel-]

I have always wished that Traveller had gone that way. Core rulebooks with no link to 3i and 3i books with the lore and pre-made ships etcetera.

I always loved the toolbox concept for the core rules. I am told it was the fans who demanded a setting, but seeing all the fighting over every point of the setting makes me wonder, was it the fans or the accountants demanding the setting blended books.