What do you feel needs to change?
- Thread starter Infojunky
- Start date
The situation regarding how many bays can be put on a ship needs serious addressing. As it stands a bay takes up one hardpoint...and by pretty much every other edition of Traveller, including CT, that is incorrect and leads to massively overpowered ship designs especially in the absence of any power limitations.
There needs to be errata for the Core Book ship building rules to cover this in addition to fixing it in High Guard.
Allen
There needs to be errata for the Core Book ship building rules to cover this in addition to fixing it in High Guard.
Allen
Allensh said:
Playing the heretic/Devil's advocate for the moment, Why note control the number of weapons a ship can carry by how many and what kinda it can power and control rather than a arbitrary limit? This is the route TNE took and ship's had far fewer weapons than their CT era counterparts.
Infojunky said:
I had finally gotten over the PTSD accquired from FF&S and now you want to bring it back?*
Seriously, MGT follws the CT lead of making ship building a lot easier. All it takes to fix that is the old "one bay per 1,000 dtons" limit..no ship under 1,000 tons gets bays, all is fine.
* I was a playtester on both editions of FF&S and they're fine books (well, the 2nd one would have been if they hadn't messed it up) but as I get older I just want plug-and-play ships...scientific calculators and spreadsheets bug me.
Allen
Allensh said:
High Guard had power requirements also, I just don't necessarily see a need for a strong rule. But I do see your point about minimizing complexity of any system.
But on a related note, there isn't any control on how much armor a vessel can have, in light of this one can build sub1000 ton ships that are immune to most fire that can be directed at them from a ship of similar size.
Rikki Tikki Traveller
Cosmic Mongoose
As you said, it could be done with the existing tables... so, if you need it, do it. The math is pretty simple.
Each Drive letter represents 200 G-tons of thrust
SO:
Acceleration (A) = THRUST/SIZE
Where SIZE is the size of your hull
Example:
1200 ton ship, M-Drive D (800 G-tons)
A = 800/1200 = 0.67g
Change it to a N drive (2600 G-tons)
A = 2600/1200 = 2.17g
EASY PEASY.
Each Drive letter represents 200 G-tons of thrust
SO:
Acceleration (A) = THRUST/SIZE
Where SIZE is the size of your hull
Example:
1200 ton ship, M-Drive D (800 G-tons)
A = 800/1200 = 0.67g
Change it to a N drive (2600 G-tons)
A = 2600/1200 = 2.17g
EASY PEASY.
Infojunky said:
Energy points for ship weapons. Sorta mend it, don't end it rules. If I can mount all beam turrets, what would be the point of even using missiles?
Weapon scaling. If I battery a turret of three beam lasers, that should count for more than three individual tubes. More important is scaling the missile bay weapons. I wouldn't use up 50 tons of space for a flight of wimpy 1/12dT missiles. I'd rather have a flight of several 1dT ship killers if I put the effort into constructing a 50dT bay.
Of course, I'd want to limit the number of bays as well.
Klaus Kipling
Mongoose
I'd just link number/type of weapons to PP rating, not messing about with power points.
Eg:
PPA = 2 pulse lasers, 1 beam laser
PPE = 1 particle beam
PPI = 1 particle beam bay
PPM = 1 fusion bay
PPQ = 1 meson bay
The number of weapons allowed double each letter increase, and it works concurrently with each weapon type.
So PPF could have 2 particle beams and 16 beam lasers.
Or some such...
Eg:
PPA = 2 pulse lasers, 1 beam laser
PPE = 1 particle beam
PPI = 1 particle beam bay
PPM = 1 fusion bay
PPQ = 1 meson bay
The number of weapons allowed double each letter increase, and it works concurrently with each weapon type.
So PPF could have 2 particle beams and 16 beam lasers.
Or some such...
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
Rikki Tikki Traveller said:
Hmmmm. Nice. Mind if I fold this into my energy workaround ?
I think the con was not saying it was too hard to do..
It was more targeted at the hex grid based movement systems. It gets fairly hard to maintain a hex grid movement and fire system if you are moving .17 hexes or some such.
Mind you, for those that desire or prefer, there are measure based movement and fire systems as well and Hex-based systems can be easily translated to measure based by making the 1g standard distance equal to the cross-hex distance of the hexes you use. then you can use full or partial g thrust(as a limitation or by "under-burning") to your hear's content without issue.
I just recognize that should be optional for those who desire it.
Building into a system(and thereby making it Canon) forces those who do not wish to use it to learn and understand it if, at the very least, for possible encounter at conventions or public play venues.
So while I, for one, would encourage you to think outside the TU(OtTU), I would also reserve it for House rules only.
Marc
It was more targeted at the hex grid based movement systems. It gets fairly hard to maintain a hex grid movement and fire system if you are moving .17 hexes or some such.
Mind you, for those that desire or prefer, there are measure based movement and fire systems as well and Hex-based systems can be easily translated to measure based by making the 1g standard distance equal to the cross-hex distance of the hexes you use. then you can use full or partial g thrust(as a limitation or by "under-burning") to your hear's content without issue.
I just recognize that should be optional for those who desire it.
Building into a system(and thereby making it Canon) forces those who do not wish to use it to learn and understand it if, at the very least, for possible encounter at conventions or public play venues.
So while I, for one, would encourage you to think outside the TU(OtTU), I would also reserve it for House rules only.
Marc
Rikki Tikki Traveller said:
