Which one is correct

[DFW]

There are two diffiernt rule for Jump calculation difficulty in the MRB:

pg. 49 - "An average task is a moderate obstacle to a trained professional.
..., plotting the jump calculations for a starship"

pg. 52 - "Plotting a standard Jump: Education, 10–60 minutes, Easy (+4)."

Which is correct? Or, did I misread?

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

There are two diffiernt rule for Jump calculation difficulty in the MRB:

pg. 49 - "An average task is a moderate obstacle to a trained professional.
..., plotting the jump calculations for a starship"

pg. 52 - "Plotting a standard Jump: Education, 10–60 minutes, Easy (+4)."

Which is correct? Or, did I misread?

The "easy" task over 10-60 minutes is repeated later on (page 141 in my copy), so have gone with that.

Of course, if this is done in a hurry then it will become more difficult ...

Egil

 

[Treebore]

Its easy if a computer is used, difficult if one is not.

 

[DFW]

Thanks guys. I'll go with Easy 10-60 minutes.

 

[phavoc]

Another thing to consider is that most ships start their jump plotting after they have left the planet and are going towards the 100D jump limit.

What do you think the time frame would be to plot a jump if you were just wanting to get within 1AU of your jump destination? Granted it would be much more effecient to plot a more accurate emergence point, but if you were under fire and you just needed to get the hell outa dodge...

 

[DFW]

What do you think the time frame would be to plot a jump if you were just wanting to get within 1AU of your jump destination? Granted it would be much more effecient to plot a more accurate emergence point, but if you were under fire and you just needed to get the hell outa dodge...

Wouldn't matter. The engineer not the astrogator determines jump accuracy:

"Roll 2d6 and add the following DMs. If the result is 0
or less, the ship misjumps (see below). If the result is 8+ the
Jump is accurate. Any other result is an inaccurate Jump (which
is only a minor setback)."

 

[Treebore]

What do you think the time frame would be to plot a jump if you were just wanting to get within 1AU of your jump destination? Granted it would be much more effecient to plot a more accurate emergence point, but if you were under fire and you just needed to get the hell outa dodge...

Wouldn't matter. The engineer not the astrogator determines jump accuracy:

"Roll 2d6 and add the following DMs. If the result is 0
or less, the ship misjumps (see below). If the result is 8+ the
Jump is accurate. Any other result is an inaccurate Jump (which
is only a minor setback)."

Yeah, but that is like saying you may as well as not even plot a jump. Just have the Engineer kick us into jump space, we'll come out close enough to where we need to.

It obviously does not work that way, and you obviously need to have good Jump computations, just with a computer it will be pretty much automatic success, as long as the program is proven.

 

[alex_greene]

It's an Easy(+4) task until the player character actually attempts it, whereupon the Ref decrees it Average(+0).

Anyone else, it goes back to being Easy(+4).

 

[phavoc]

What do you think the time frame would be to plot a jump if you were just wanting to get within 1AU of your jump destination? Granted it would be much more effecient to plot a more accurate emergence point, but if you were under fire and you just needed to get the hell outa dodge...

Wouldn't matter. The engineer not the astrogator determines jump accuracy:

"Roll 2d6 and add the following DMs. If the result is 0
or less, the ship misjumps (see below). If the result is 8+ the
Jump is accurate. Any other result is an inaccurate Jump (which
is only a minor setback)."

That makes no sense. The engineer makes sure the power plant and jump drive work, the navigator navigates, i.e. he plots the course to the destination. Or at least he pushes the blinky buttons on the console.

Otherwise why do pilots take navigation skill if they aren't gonna navigate?

 

[hdan]

That makes no sense. The engineer makes sure the power plant and jump drive work, the navigator navigates, i.e. he plots the course to the destination. Or at least he pushes the blinky buttons on the console.

Here we go again.

(There was a thread about how Navigation/Astrogation is a useless skill for characters.)

The way I see it:

Navigators determine the correct vectors and drive parameters for making a given jump.

Pilots put the ship in the right orientation and velocity.

Engineers monitor the drive readouts, adjust power transfer settings and hit the Big Red Button at the right instant (so to speak).

It would seem that automation in Traveller isn't quite up to the fuzzy logic and chaotic systems interpretation that is required to correctly control this process.

The real reason for this is of course to make the players more involved. If your players find that tedious, then just let the computer handle things. But it's fun to tease the engineer when they roll badly, etc. Don't underestimate party banter as a source of fun.

 

[BP]

Astrogator makes the 'plot' - which apparently has a built in self-check for validity (i.e. tasks takes time and either fails or not) and Jump cannot work unless it is passed...

Engineer adjusts the Jump Drive 'parameters' (apparently power related - and from data from the Jump Plot) in real-time (10-60 seconds) to activate the Jump Drive to achieve the Jump. (Failure seems to indicate not enough power channeled correctly - as effect is said to 'aid' following roll).

Pilot waits ~ one week [Or causes -8 DM to below, if he said they were past 100D limit and they weren't]

The roll for a misjump (which I handle as a referee roll) has the Engineer (Jump Drive) effect as a DM.

Single crewman ships therefore could be Jumped without Navigator or Engineer skill - but with negative skill DM that would likely delay jump and also cause a misjump or a re-attempt.

 

[BP]

...
It would seem that automation in Traveller isn't quite up to the fuzzy logic and chaotic systems interpretation that is required to correctly control this process.

Computer programs at higher TLs is more feasible (and more likely). The tradeoffs with computer program skills still make it desirable, in cases where time/mis-jump is important, for skilled characters to intervene.

[Ah - looks like I crossed posts with yours above... great minds and all that ]

 

[DFW]

That makes no sense.

Neither does having bricks glide to a safe landing, chemical batteries having higher energy density than fusion PPs, etc., etc. But, that's the rules.. :shock:

 

[phavoc]

That makes no sense.

Neither does having bricks glide to a safe landing, chemical batteries having higher energy density than fusion PPs, etc., etc. But, that's the rules.. :shock:

doh! well, you got me there.

 

[DFW]

That makes no sense.

Neither does having bricks glide to a safe landing, chemical batteries having higher energy density than fusion PPs, etc., etc. But, that's the rules.. :shock:

doh! well, you got me there.

Seriously though. I've decided to reverse the rolls (roles). The onus is on the astrogator as to accuracy, etc. The Engineer side is now the "go, no go result".

It does make a lot more sense that way.

 

[zero]

So in essense, as far as I can see, its better to have Navigation done by computer to get the co-ordinates and have players be pilots and engineers.

I have a very small group of players for a campaign (2 in a modded Scout Seeker), so I think if one PC is the pilot and the other PC is the Engineer, the Ship Computer can do Navigation.

And depending on the circumstance, a PC can run from their position to the one turret on the ship.

 

[DFW]

So in essense, as far as I can see, its better to have Navigation done by computer to get the co-ordinates and have players be pilots and engineers.

I have a very small group of players for a campaign (2 in a modded Scout Seeker), so I think if one PC is the pilot and the other PC is the Engineer, the Ship Computer can do Navigation.

And depending on the circumstance, a PC can run from their position to the one turret on the ship.

That's the way I see it. I designed my Type S Mod for 3 bridge positions. Pilot, Eng & a gunner/mission specialist.

 

[zero]

Thanks, that sorts things out a little. I can have Fire Control sort out the Laser Turret when a hasty retreat is needed, having my PC Pilot and PC Engineer on their stations without worrying about leaving post to act as a gunner.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

The use of the 1dton of Fire Control for a remote operating station (on the bridge for example) is something that I think Traveller ship deck plan designers have not taken enough advantage of.

Modern naval ships have a "Fire Control Center" where the weapons are actually fired from. They might have some people near the weapon as well (submarine torpedo rooms for example), but especially Point Defense weapons are going to be pretty automated, so there is no need to have the gunner right next to the gun.

If your turret has only energy weapons, put the gunner somewhere safe, like the bridge.

Most bridge work stations should be configurable enough to allow the "engineer" to shift over to "gunner" without even getting out of his seat. The Computer can then monitor the engineering functions and alert the human if there are any problems. Or, give the Computer Astrogation-1 and Engineer (Power Plant)-1 as Expert Programs...

Another thing not used much in MGT ship designs... Expert Programs can eliminate the need for many crew positions (I figure this is how Capital Merchant Ships actually work). A Scout Ship with Expert Astrogation, Engineering and Medic skills really could be a one-man ship. Give it Expert Pilot and the human is there to tell it what to do, not actually DO any of those things...

 

[DFW]

The use of the 1dton of Fire Control for a remote operating station (on the bridge for example) is something that I think Traveller ship deck plan designers have not taken enough advantage of.

Modern naval ships have a "Fire Control Center" where the weapons are actually fired from. They might have some people near the weapon as well (submarine torpedo rooms for example), but especially Point Defense weapons are going to be pretty automated, so there is no need to have the gunner right next to the gun.

If your turret has only energy weapons, put the gunner somewhere safe, like the bridge.

Most bridge work stations should be configurable enough to allow the "engineer" to shift over to "gunner" without even getting out of his seat. The Computer can then monitor the engineering functions and alert the human if there are any problems. Or, give the Computer Astrogation-1 and Engineer (Power Plant)-1 as Expert Programs...

Another thing not used much in MGT ship designs... Expert Programs can eliminate the need for many crew positions (I figure this is how Capital Merchant Ships actually work). A Scout Ship with Expert Astrogation, Engineering and Medic skills really could be a one-man ship. Give it Expert Pilot and the human is there to tell it what to do, not actually DO any of those things...

That's how I design em. Even my 10t craft has expert pilot so the one man "crew" can sleep on long interplanetary trips. I use auto doc's for the medic.