Does it matter? [email removed] (Brad Vender) writes:
> The charts for the robotic brains, skills, and how to work
> building a robot in a CP based system.
> (Since book 8 is out of print, I assume and hope no laws would
> be violated by this information. :(
I recently (within the last 6 months) purchased a copy of Book 8; copies
may still be available from some of the stores that deal in old or used
games. I purchased my copy from A Wargamer's Depot, but other copies
may be locatable. Perhaps Loren Wiseman at GDW can help here?
[email removed] (Ameer) writes:
> > Steve Higginbotham writes:
> > In my TCS game, there are at least two ships, one
> > TL-10, one TL-12, that are theoretically capable of crossing the Rift.
> Two out of how many? What's their total useful tonnage?
Figure it out. At TL-10, the best we can do is Jump-1; which requires 10%
of ship tonnage as fuel; at TL-12 we can make Jump-3 at a cost of 20%. If
we assume drop tanks to make the initial jump then at TL-10 we will need
70% of the ship volume for jump fuel. At TL-12, we can do it with 35% of
the ship volume as jump fuel.
I will agree, however, that the original Sword Worlders probably didn't
cross through the rift. It makes much more sense for them to wander around
and through Corridor to get to the Marches. As to why they went coreward
and then spinward, who knows? Perhaps their only avenue of escape from
their enemies was to coreward, and they kept on running until they got to
the Vilani. Stopping long enough to ask directions, they set out in a
direction that the Vilani had not explored (through Corridor and into the
Marches). They then looked around until they found what they wanted.
Scott "2G" Kellogg writes from is multiple E-mail addresses:
> I wouldn't mind if TNE used A.I. much more extensively. It would broaden
> the base appeal of the game, and if done carefully, wouldn't change it
> too much. Let's face it. We don't want EVERYTHING to be AI.
Wouldn't change it too much? Heck, no! It would be like a return to the
"good old days". Back when I started playing Traveller, the Paranoia Press
suppliments were hot stuff (especially "Scouts and Assasins") and several
starships in the campaign had Delta Research LHeP(Or) computer systems with
the full artificial personality package. Including one Model/9-fib that
read far too much Heinlien.
> And remember, Trav is a TL 7 game after all. It needs an update: it
> had Air/Rafts & other grav transportation listed as tech level 8.
Yes, and in my opinion, the tech level chart is in serious need of
revision. Practical antimatter technology is currently no further away
than fusion power (and may be closer, depending on who you talk to). It
might make sense to introduce antimatter at the same TL as fusion; fusion
for the large power plants, and antimatter as a smaller portable power
source.
With Hard Times and the Short Nap, technology levels are likely to get even
more confused. The collapse of interstellar trade may take away some of
the capability, but not the knowledge: technology which can be produced
locally will be maintained. This will lead to strange cases where some
facet of local technology is one or more tech levels higher than everything
else.
> I could not keep that beam off of me.
> Even with that clumsy binocular/laser arrangement I just
> could not evade that beam without good cover.
> Hitting a target with a laser weapon will be VERY easy.
Did they try giving you another binocular/laser so that you could "shoot
back" every once and a while? I bet having to worry about *THAT* might
spoil someone's aim pretty quick!
> Solomani and most Imperial flight controls generally consist
> of stick, throttle, and rudder pedals.
It was quite a while ago, but when I designed the Gold of Zurrian, I was
told (and this was "official" information at the time) that most Imperial
vessels used the *VILANI* conventions, not the Solomani. I don't believe
this has changed.
> The stick is usually
> mounted in the center of the console, but is sometimes on the left
> side, while the right hand generally controls the throttle. This
> allows the co-pilot or navigator (generally seated on the right) to
> be able to reach the throttle.
Let me expand this a little bit. In the Solomani tradition, vessels that
require more than pilot use side-by-side seating, with the co-pilot on
the right. The throttles are typically placed between the pilots, and the
control stick is in the center of each console. If side-sticks are used,
they will be on the opposite side from the throttles.
If there is only one pilot, then the throttles may be on either side,
depending on the whim of the designer; I believe that a left-side placement
is more common, because most Solomani are right-handed, and will want to
use their right hands for the control stick. For the same reason, a side
mounted control stick will usually be on the right (this was certainly the
case of the F-18 cockpit mockup that I "flew" a number of years ago).
A craft with one pilot but other crewmembers (such as a navigator, weapons
systems operator, etc) may have a side-by-side arrangement, but a
fore-and-aft arrangement is at least as common.
Side-mounted sticks are usually force-sensitive, whereas center sticks are
not. Moving a "normal" control stick causes the control surfaces to move
or the maneuvering thrusters to fire. The more you move the stick, the
more control forces are applied to the craft; centering the stick causes
the control forces to cease (the stick should center itself if the pilot
lets go). A force-sensitive stick does not actually move much (if at all).
Pushing, pulling, or pressing the stick from sided to side causes the
control surfaces to move or the maneuvering thrusters to fire. The harder
you press, the more control forces are applied to the craft; letting go
causes the control forces to cease. The "feel" of a force-sensitive stick
is very different from that of conventional controls. Since the stick
doesn't move, there is an initial tendancy to over-control and press too
hard. It is very easy to get the hang of, and is probably more sensitive
to small control inputs that a conventional stick.
> Engineers opted for a
> single design to ease training of pilots and to avoid their
> having to study their ship to understand what is going on. Thus
> the same control panel exists on a Vilani fat trader as exists
> on their air/rafts and their most sophisticated fighters.
I think this sounds like a very Vilani thing to do. Since the Vilani
design philosophy is more common in the Imperium, this would explain why
anyone with "Pilot" skill can fly anything from a Scoutship up to the
largest warship or transport. It also explains the skill cross over
between air/raft, ship's boat, and pilot skills.
> The gear is mounted on casters akin to the wheels on a
> shopping cart. However, they make high speed taxi difficult and
> hazardous as the wheels do not aide in turning the aircraft.
No, you don't let the wheels swivel freely like on a Adrian Hurt's shopping
trolley. Modern-day crosswind gear is powered (hydraulically or
electrically), so that the pilot selects the crosswind angle with a cockpit
control, and the main gear swivels to match. After you are down, you dial
it back to zero, and use a little steering wheel to steer the nosewheel.
This is the sort of system that is used on modern large transports (just
about everything since the Boeing 707). No problem with high speed taxi.
> [Droyne controls]
I'm not convinced with this one, but it makes for a good story!
> The pilot lies in a couch arrangement with his
> four hooves touching the floor. By leaning in one direction or
> another, the ship's attitude is changed.
This was tried in early human flight experiments (strapping the pilot
into a yoke and having him lean to control yaw motion). This was
abandonded as ineffective, but it would be like the K'kree to stick
with the first system they thought of.
> Whaddya think?
Pretty darn good.
References: "Jet-Age Test Pilot" (Tex Johnston's autobiography, published
by Bantam). "Smithsonian Book of Flight" (Walter Boyne, published by
the Smithsonian Press). Visit the National Air and Space Museum.
Adrian Hurt [email removed] writes:
> That's a neat trick, building a shield round the controls only so as
> to leave the pilot unshielded, but also leaving the controls open to
> the pilot. Is there just a small hole in the shield, pointed at the
> pilot? What happens when the hole is also pointed at the Shivva?
Presumably if anybody could do it, the Zhodani could. Perhaps the fighter
controls only respond to somebody sitting nearby, or maybe you have to
flick a special control when you start up the system, so that the computer
can store the pilot's mental pattern (flick-print?). From then on until
flick control is turned off, the computer only responds to inputs from
the person with the right mental pattern.
[email removed] (Michael A. Surman) writes:
> To get pure water to process for fuel what happens to all of the
> salts, especially from ocean water.
If processed by a starship fuel purifier, I presume that the salts and
other waste materials are purged overboard. On a planetside fuel
refining operation, some of the extracts may be comercially viable. Those
that aren't are probably put in a tailings pile or a landfill.
> BTW, is fuel liquid or compressed gas?
I've always assumed that it was liquid (probably under relatively high
pressure, and chilled to boot). For this reason, I install "Basic
Environment" in the fuel tanks; to provide for insulation and a power
requirement for the chiller plant.
Hans Rancke-Madsen [email removed] writes:
> Based on the assumption that it takes two MCr worth of civilian shipping
> to generate the revenue to support one MCr worth of warship ...
How did you come up with this figure (inquiring minds want to know)?
> The above suggestion reconciles the two views. Of course, if you don't
> agree with the basic assumption the whole thing falls apart.
It sounds good to me, and I will use it.
> The thing that really needs to be done about the tech levels is to get them
> divorced from Terran historical dates. Just because we have it in 1990 it
> dosen't have to be TL 8, and just because we don't have it dosen't mean it
> can't be TL 8.
The problem is that there needs to be a quick and easy "memory handle" to
explain TLs to new people. Relating a TL to a historical date fills the
bill (but it also leads to inaccuracies). The TL chart could definitely
stand to be re-thought, but whatever the end result is, players and
referees will immediately start comparing it to historical developments.
[email removed] (Alex Jeffries) writes:
> [An interesting idea involving genetic algorithms!]
> Is this really that much different from the sophont chip story?
It is at least related to current research. One possible problem is that I
personally find it difficult to believe that there is any unified computer
architecture throughout the Imperium, let alone with other interstellar
states. The virus is going to have to be able to "port" itself from
operating system to operating system, running on radically different types
of hardware.
> Does it allow for some interesting roleplaying?
Any version of the story that ends with the dawn of the "New Era" will have
approximately the same role-playing potential. The virus is a plot device
which allows us to go from Hard Times to the New Era. The more consistent
and believable the plot device, the better the connection. A good plot
device should allow other writers to extrapolate things that the creator
did not intend, but are nevertheless consistent, interesting, and playable.
> In my mind, 70 years, particularly in an
> interstellar community is diddly-squat for society to collapse. On high
> population worlds maybe but who could forget the Imperium in just 70 years?
Look
> how much we know about WWI.
WWI did not permanently damage civilization on a worldwide basis. The
"Short Nap" - the intervening 70 years - seems to me more like the time
between the fall of Rome and the rise of Charlemagne. And probably the
light of civilization brought by the Star Vikings of the New Era will be
about as permanent as the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne. Brilliant
conquerors will re-unite much of what was the old Imperium, but these new
empires will probably not last beyond their founders' lifetimes.
From: Martyn J. Wheeler [email removed]
> What I like most about MegaTraveller it is the way I can run a
> game quite well by ignoring almost all the rules. The task system
> works just fine, and with a feel for that almost anything can be
> improvised readily. With the addition of a simple vector movement
> system, the ship combat system works. The ship design system works.
> The world/system generation system (especially as in WBH) works.
> Admittedly, the man-to-man combat system is rather awkward, but with
> some hand-waving and improvising tasks it can be made to work without
> getting in the way of the game too badly ...
Just a curious question: is MegaTraveller your first exposure to Traveller?
The reason I ask is that just about everything you mention was available
for Classic Traveller. The task system was introduced by Digest Group
Publications as an add-on to Classic Traveller. A vector movement system
was included with the basic Traveller set, and another was available in the
Mayday boardgame. High Guard provided a ship combat and ship design system
that worked. World/System generation was available in the form of DGP's
Grand Survey and Grand Census in combination with the Scouts rulebook. We
created a workable personal combat system out of Striker by adding in the
task system and a few rules of our own.
The way MegaTraveller was sold to me was as a way to combine, edit, and
generally clean up a mishmash of rules that required you to have 6 or 8
rulebooks, at least 3 suppliments (the two library data, plus the sector of
your choice), an adventure (Trillion Credit Squadron), and a couple of
boardgames (Mayday and Striker), plus a bunch of third-party products.
Instead, we got something which required you to be familliar with all of
that which I just mentioned, on top of which you got a bunch of all-new
errata, a dead emperor, and we were expected to buy more stuff (like the
Referee's Companion, the Rebellion Sourcebook, and COACC) to get back to
where we started from. Plus we still had to refer to the Classic Traveller
material in order to find and fix errors.
> The task system is (IMHO) the best thing to have ever happened to
> RPGs. With a feel for it, I don't need character details for any NPC ...
I agree; the task system is the best feature in MT. The conversion to
T2k2 rules bothers me a little, because I don't feel that it is as easy
and as intuitive as the current task system in MegaTraveller. Then again,
this could just be my inexperience with the T2k2 system. This is one reason
that I would like to be able to playtest TNE, is to prove to myself that
the switch is beneficial (or if not, to get a chance to try and fix it).
> I am not thrilled at the concept of throwing out all the ship
> designs. I have a lot of personal time invested in an interactive
> starship design programme. Yes, the rules are complex. ...
One of the major problems is that most players and referees do not have a
computer available for this sort of work. Here is definitely a case where
TML members are in the minority.
I don't have as much time invested in the current system. I have a
computer spreadsheet that I use to create vessel designs; the spreadsheet
wasn't hard to create, and hides most of the problems with the system from
me, as I suspect your computer program does for you. I am willing to
discard my existing designs if the new design system is an improvement over
the old one. One of my reasons is that an improved system should make it
easier and faster to re-create the designs if need be than it was to create
them in the first place.
The current level of detail is OK, although if this level of detail
remains, then many systems should be examined for significance. In other
words, should I really have to list an item costing Cr 150 in a ship design
that costs over Cr 1,000,000,000? The major problem, however, has to do
with circular calculations. There are a number of these in the current
design sequence (where one calculation depends on the result of another
which indirectly depends on the result of the first). One that causes
frequent problems is agility, which depends on ship mass, which in turn
depends in part on the size of the power plant, which depends on the power
required to achieve the agility design goal.
> I want a fun, detailed, ship design system. Why not provide two
> levels of detail? ... Let one ship design be workable by hand, let the
> other be workable by paintaking hours of fiddling ...
I would support this idea. A "basic" design system where ships are
constructed by assembling a small number of standard "modules" into
different configurations (much like the original Classic Traveller starship
design rules), and another where the designer has complete control over
every aspect of the design (and can even generate new "modules" for the
basic design system,). I feel that if these two systems were designed and
playtested at the same time, they could be made completely compatible, so
that the designs would work together well without even the sort of
differences as was present between Book 2 and High Guard.
> I do have one very strong negative on MT: whoever insulted our
> intelligence with that space-combat movement system must have a lot of
> bad karma.
There are also problems with the sensor rules. As written, a ship with
only one battery (like a scoutship or most armed merchants) cannot fire at
a moving target. The distinction (in terms of data gathered) between
active and passive sensors is also lost. I believe I have a proposed fix
for those problems around here somewhere ...
> The
> background will not be useful to me, I fear, unless one of the
> supplements is _We Have Always Been As We Are_ (a saying attributed to
> Queen Victoria, I believe), which presents an alternate where the
> Imperium never fell. I suspect an upbeat background might sell well.
What a great idea for a title! I suspect that a good solid Third Imperium
sourcebook would be a great seller, too.
> ..but heck, what do I know? I liked _Starship Operators' Manual_...
> and _Space 1889_, come to that. I suppose I'm just weird.
Me, too. But don't tell anybody ;)
From: "Bruce Pihlamae" [email removed]
> Blake's 7 required all transportees to carry a special device with them
> which would allow the primary transporter to retrieve them.
I have successfully used this gimmic in other role-playing games. With
proper limitations, it does not become too powerful; but as a general
rule, its not a good idea.
Player characters, should they get their hands on one, can use the thing
for painless, risk-free insertions and extractions ("Beam me up, Scotty!
They're about to kill me!"). This is definitely not a good idea, unless
they need this advantage to overcome an unending horde of enemies (like on
"Avon's 5"), or if it is a strictly controlled plot device (ala Star Trek).
> The moment the first anti-atom and
> normal-atom came in contact there would be a hugh amount of energy released
> and the two objects would be flung apart.
The problem with this theory is that the separation would not be instant.
In the intervening time, many more atoms would annihilate, releasing even
more energy. More than enough to vaporize the antimatter and a good deal of
the nearby matter. As the gas clouds mix, more matter and antimatter will
annihilate, releasing more energy.
> In a total vacum in 1G gravity if you dropped an Anti-Matter
> tennis ball on a normal-matter floor it would bounce (an awful lot) and
> release hugh amounts of energy with each bounce.
Nope, just one big bang; probably worth several dozen kilotons of TNT
(maybe more; I'm not sure), and a lot of matter and antimatter atoms blown
to escape velocity. Any sort of containment at all would increase the
mixing and therefore the ultimate yeild.
> Secondly, all those pebbles just burnt up in my planetary atmosphere like
> small meteors do so Your Scout ship isn't as deadly as you thought 8-}.
That's just as bad; they still deposit the thermal energy into the
planetary atmosphere. Given the speed of the pebbles, they will probably
penetrate a respectable distance (maybe even to the surface; I don't know)
into the atmosphere; the effect will be not unlike a nuclear airburst as
the pebble dumps its energy. This was discussed in great depth a while ago
on TML; check the archives.
[email removed] (George William Herbert) writes:
> [about laser "ballistics" - good work!]
From some things I have read, I note that as the laser power increases,
damage efficency decreases. This is because the laser pulse initially
heats what it has hit until it vaporises. The light pressure from the
laser holds the vapor in; it can't expand much until the pulse ends. After
this point, additional energy in the pulse serves mainly to superheat the
vapor (if made hot enough, the vapor will expand despite the light
pressure, scattering the beam and carrying energy away from the site of the
laser strike). Double the energy at this point, and you get much less than
double the damage. You may be able to increase the area of the laser beam,
and heat the vapor more (resulting in a bigger bang), but if the beam isn't
penetrating the armor plate, then the increased energy isn't doing any
good.
However, if the energy is increased by firing a train of pulses in quick
succession (fast enough that the target does not appreciably move in the
time from the first pulse to the last) then something interesting happens.
As each pulse ends, the resultant vapor gets a chance to expand. The
following pulse starts vaporizing material at the bottom of the "pit" dug
by the previous pulse. The result is a laser that will penetrate thicker
armor plate.
> Simplicate. Try a quick character system for intro players.
> (or, alternatively, include a few pages of sample characters...)
How about character templates like the Space: 1889 or Star Wars systems? I
wouldn't want these as the only options for TNE character generation, but
it would be a good alternative to the normal character generation system
for first time players. Some guidelines for referees, so we can create our
own templates might be a good idea, too.
I suggest putting the equipment lists and the players' version of the
background data into the players' manual (kind of like the character
generation and task system portions of the MT Players' Handbook combined
with the equipment lists and some of the background data from the Imperial
Encyclopedia). The reason is so that players can actually use the players'
manual on an ongoing basis. One problem with the way that MT was organized
was that the players needed access to the Players' Manual and the Imperial
Encyclopedia (but shouldn't be allowed access to other parts of the
Imperial Encyclopedia), while the referee needed access to all three books.
> DO A GOOD SYSTEM TO CONVERT MT CHARACTERS 8-)
Definitely. Without that being available to every Traveller player that
picks up the TNE box, you may as well not call it Traveller at all. GDW
may not want to take up space in the rulebooks with this. A special
edition of "Imperial Lines" (or something similar) could talk about
character conversion and about bringing Classic or Mega Traveller
characters into the New Era. This could be included in every box of the
first printing, and bound into Challenge at some point. Such a conversion
system will probably mean importing many of the MT skills into the T2k2
system; losing skills in the conversion would be very bad; therefore, I
agree with the skill list suggestion. I also agree with George's comments
about the trade system, vehicle design, and space combat.
> Try hard to keep the quality level up
> for the materials. Help me convince more of these TML people
> to put their pens/typewriters/word processors where their mouths are
> (though that may be hard 8-).
Quality control is a must. GDW's reputation in general, and Traveller's in
particular, took a rather heavy beating from MegaTraveller. To drop the
ball again might well cost GDW the game.
Don't expect a group effort from TML; we're too much of an anarchy to do
that. On the other hand, getting individuals to contribute may not be
as difficult as you might think.
From: Mark Watson [email removed]
> Question: does this include the horrible (again, my
> opinion, maybe someone likes it) system for assigning motivation using
> playing cards?
I still chuckle about that one. Obviously, someone at GDW has studied the
Tarot. Maybe with TNE, GDW can include a "Traveller: The New Age" Tarot
deck in the game box ;)
> ... an article on NPC generation,
> which suggested a secondary character profile, 6 categories including
> loyalty, ambition, etc. (can't remember them, I'll find it and post more
> detail if there is interest).
Please do. Consider this interest.
> Wildstar's starport generator: in pre TNE days, and especially during Hard
> Times, location within the Imperium (or indeed outside) would also be a
> factor, how about plus mods for the Vilani main, Core sector, Massilia, etc?
> Also, I would suggest taking out the "referee assigned" prosperity factor
> and having it generated randomly at intervals, possibly on a subsector wide
> basis, to simulate the effect of an economic cycle ("really this is a high
> traffic world but the local economy is in a downturn").
I was just thinking about that; try this on for size:
For Hard Times: -3 in Wilds, -2 in Outlands, -1 in Frontier, +0 in Safe.
+1 if a member of a polity (in the Outlands or Wilds; this
DM does not apply to worlds in a faction's Safe).
Extra-Imperial Worlds: -2 for Non-Aligned, -1 for Client States
Extra-Imperial Polities: +0 (assumed to have their own internal economy)
The +1 for "designated trade route" can be applied to Hard Times as well as
to xboat and other trade routes in a stable interstellar state. You could
even apply it to any well known and well-travelled mains, like the Vilani
Main and the Spinward Main. It should definitely be applied to trade
"runs" like those described in the Diaspora sector.
The trading partners rule works out the DM for worlds that are on mains.
If a world is on a main it gets at least a +2 (one for each neihbor world)
and more if either of them have an A or B starport.
I preferred the referee assigned prosperity factor instead of a random one,
so that the referee could decide where and when to apply it. If you want a
world that has a depressed local economy, simply (and arbitrarily; it's OK)
apply the -4 DM (or even more, if you feel like it). Use this DM to paint
entire sectors as a heavily industrialized core, or to pick out individual
subsectors, clusters or even single worlds for deep depression or
spectacular productivity.
For extra-imperial explorations, the referee should probably look into
matters carefully; completely unexplored areas probably have no trade at
all. The referee may want to compute the trade volume anyway; this could
be the world's "potential trade value" or some such. Any independent
states out there should probably have a prosperity level assigned and local
trade generated.
[email removed]
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science-Fiction Adventure
in the Far Future