Traveller gravitic propulsion systems

[simonh]

Field effect gravitics pose a few problems. If they just create a gravity field that causes the ship to 'fall' in the desired direction, their power output should only be based on the volume of space of the field and its strength. The mass of the ship shouldn't make any difference, which is fine in principle given Traveller's volume based design system. But surely if the filed is spherical, for efficiency reasons you'd want your ship to be spherical too. Long thin designs would be appalingly inefficient, unless you can make the field form-fit the ship.

Simon Hibbs

 

[Condottiere]

Third option would be lining the hull with a gravity grid.

 

[dragoner]

Directional is more in line with the layout of traveller ships, plus you could say that part of the energy of the effect is emitted as light, thus the glow at the back from the thruster ports. Part of me, from long experience, says to just satisfy the requirements and not redesign the system.

 

[F33D]

Third option would be lining the hull with a gravity grid.

Exactly. It must be something like that in order to fulfill the inescapable fact that mass of the ship has zero effect on acceleration/agility in MGT. If the system were thrust based (a la MT) mass would figure in to agility and what not.

 

[Condottiere]

If you tie in the field to artificial gravity and inertial compensators, or at least inertial compensation, it would simplify gravitational plating installed in construction.

 

[simonh]

Exactly. It must be something like that in order to fulfill the inescapable fact that mass of the ship has zero effect on acceleration/agility in MGT. If the system were thrust based (a la MT) mass would figure in to agility and what not.

It depends on whether you take a rules first or world first stance on things. Personally I'm a world first kind of guy. I treat the game rules as a simplification and abstraction of what is happening in the setting, and if the rules don't match closely enough how I think things work in the setting I change them. For example it would be fairly trivial to construct a situation in which it was impossible for a character with a given weapon, at a given range, etc to hit or wound a target even though in principle it would be possible for the round to hit, it's just that the game system doesn't model the game world well enough to handle such low probabilities. That's cool, in many cases I'd just go with the rules as they are close enough.

Same goes for ship construction, to my mind going with dtons as the constraint on ship size is just an abstraction. It doesn't literally mean mass is not (or to put it as strongly as you seem to prefer, cannot be) a factor. As evidence for this, the reaction drives and solar sails in High Guard work off the ship's tonnage in dtons when clearly such propulsion systems should work against the vessel's mass, not it's volume. So I think that's very strong evidence for the stance that volume based dtons as a constraint on vessel size and performance are an abstraction, not a literal fact of the Traveller universe.

Some people may disagree and can go with a more complex system such as the various versions of Fire Fusion and Steel, and that's fine.

Simon Hibbs

 

[F33D]

It depends on whether you take a rules first or world first stance on things.

It is how starships work by the rules in MGT. I'm not talking about any house rules you may use. Bizarre semantic babble aside, it is RAW

 

[simonh]

It depends on whether you take a rules first or world first stance on things.

It is how starships work by the rules in MGT. I'm not talking about any house rules you may use. Bizarre semantic babble aside, it is RAW

Then how do you interpret the rules for reaction drives and solar sails? The way I interpret the rules is that there's an assumed average mass, per dton of volume, that most vessels approximate to such that it's not worth the effort to calculate mass separately from volume. So dtons act as a proxy for both volume and mass.

What's your take?

Simon Hibbs
Babbling bizarre semantics about Traveller since 1981

 

[Infojunky]

Then how do you interpret the rules for reaction drives and solar sails? The way I interpret the rules is that there's an assumed average mass, per dton of volume, that most vessels approximate to such that it's not worth the effort to calculate mass separately from volume. So dtons act as a proxy for both volume and mass.

What's your take?

Yep, the rule of thumb has been 10 metric tons to the displacement ton for starship mass.

 

[Condottiere]

Would that be with full tanks?

 

[Infojunky]

Would that be with full tanks?

Yes.....

 

[dragoner]

The way I interpret the rules is that there's an assumed average mass, per dton of volume, that most vessels approximate to such that it's not worth the effort to calculate mass separately from volume. So dtons act as a proxy for both volume and mass.

What's your take?

Simon Hibbs
Babbling bizarre semantics about Traveller since 1981

Mass calcs would be just a more elaborate hand wave. I mean what is the specific gravity of bonded superdense? That isn't including all the other materials; then there would be dead mass and live, and live would be dynamic, charging with cargo, crew, etc.. This would also lead to doing actual thrust calcs, with acceleration changing; stuff that nobody would do, just another burden for the ref without adding anything to the role playing. Dtons is good enough, esp since it is important for deck plans, which is where people really connect with ships.