XCongress-Bonehead bastards
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
From: mllaneza@sfsu.edu (Michael Carter Llaneza)
Subject: FT traveller *long*

At 10:37 AM 7/9/96, kosta kalogeropoulos 956-6476 wrote:
> Wow, thanks for everyone's response to my last mssg. I apologize for
> not putting my name in (this is my first mail-list). My name is
> 'Kosta' and if anyone would like to reach me, please use the following
> address instead of the one listed:
>

Welcome aboard !

> KOSTA@texas.dseg.ti.com
>
> In regards to the Traveller setting, I have initially created starship
> designs of my own making using the FT system. In other words a
> Battleship or Hvy. Cruiser are given in 'name' only. I think the
> next step would be to make designs w/ a better or closer approx. to
> 'actual' Traveller vessels. For me, the systems used to conduct combat
> in Traveller are simply too cumbersome and unnecessary.

Right. The 'feel' of Traveller is what we're after here (I think...).
Ok everyone, 100 words or less: Space combat in Traveller is like...

For myself, I'm going to mull it over before answering.

>
> I basically want a system that allows for quick and simple combat like
> FT. I don't mind creating more detailed designs than what FT gives.
> Currently the only book I have is 'Fighting ships' from the MegaTrav.
> setting (which includes various ship designs). I know there have been
> 3 stages in the development of Traveller (w/ a 4th one coming!) so I
> don't know what starship compatability problems could arise.
>

My reference work is currently Suuplement 9: Fighting Ships. I suspect
that both the CT and MT designs need to be considered. Since Full
Thrust works with (much) less detail than Megatraveller did, I think
the Classic/High Guard designs from Supp. 9 will make the best starting
point.

> Michael Llaneza:
>      If you like, we could start w/ doing a wpn. conversion from FT
> to Traveller. We should probably stick w/ the larger wpns. (i.e. Meson
> guns, Particle accel.) For the smaller and more numerous wpns. aboard
> the larger ships, we could probably group them as (1) FT wpn.
> (Abstract example: (30) Laser = (1) 'B' battery)
> Also, since certain vessels may be too small to go toe-to-toe w/ the
> big boys (SDB vs. Superdreadnought) we could create an abstract
> situation where 1 model represents a certain number of smaller vessls
> Let me know what you think.
>

   Weapons in Traveller tend to be scalable. If a naval architect wants
a bigger spinal mount, a bigger weapon is built. The standard list of
spinal mounts in High Guard spans a _wide_ range. Some weapons are only
found in smaller sizes. These are the more specialized weapons such as
lasers, fusion guns and the like. To make things worse, 10,000 tons
worth of meson gun may be designed for short ranged, high-energy use
and another weapon the same mass might be designed for longer range and
higher rates of fire.
   When GDW created TNE, Fire Fusion&Steel and BattleRider they created
a set of design and combat rules for spacecraft that completely broke
with 'canon' Traveller. (count how many missiles a Tigress can launch
and guide from 430 50-ton missile bays) They recreated their MT designs
for BattleRider in such a fashion that the rules give every advantage
to player-created ships rather than the 'stock' ships. Unfortunately,
the stock ships are the ones that defended 11,000 worlds.
    I am going to insist on a point right here. Our designs need to
reflect the classic ships, as originally presented. A factor T meson
gun will simply be redefined as the nastiest thing you can build within
the same design parameters. Imperium Games seems to agree with	me. As
I recall from the Traveller mailing list (feel free to correct me), the
4th ed of Traveller will be essentially an updated Classic Traveller.
This includes High Guard, with some MegaTraveller influence. I say we
make the Full Thrust system maintain compatibility of spirit with High
Guard.

> Allan Goodall:
>      My initial creations for DS2 are also of a 'generic (what I
> think they should be) design'. I'm basically using the assumption
> that the Imperium uses mostly grav-tanks, GEV's and other TL-15
> vehicles, while the Solomani (Earth forces) use a more traditional
> (i.e. tracked and wheeled) army.
>

You want a copy of Striker II then. It includes TOEs and equipment
designs for the Imperium, the Zhodani, and some low tech stuff. The
Impies and the Zhos both use almost entirely grav vehicles. The
Solomani are of a similar tech level with the Zhodani. The main
differences are in missile doctrine and in tank armament.

> Everyone:
>      Sorry if this mssg. is a little long-winded.
>
> Kosta K.

S'okay, I quoted it :-)

And a note on weapon groupings:

>200,000 tons
>330 Particle accelerator turrets
>50 medium missile bays
>200 laser turrets

SF> You could always try the system I use when playing in the
SF> Robotech/Macross universe. I devide all weapon systems counts by
SF> 10, rounding up to the nearest whole number. There are some real
SF> monster ships in this genre and this was the only way I could think
SF> of doing this effectivly, and still have a ship that you could fit
SF> on paper! :)
SF>
SF> Don't worry about the mass or cost, just build it according to the
SF> true design of the ship.
SF>
SF> Stuart Ford

CT> Ok, the last traveller system I played was "classic" traveller, so
CT> forgive my ignorance if this idea is totally out of line with the
CT> source material. But what if partical accelerators were only
CT> single-arc weapons? Then you could divide your 33 batteries into 11
CT> batteries each of right arc, left arc, forward arc. That way you'd
CT> only be rolling eleven dice per attack. Still probably too many,
CT> but at least a little more manageable. And definitely intimidating.
CT> Of course drawing all 33 batteries on the ship diagram would be a
CT> pain in the -ss.
CT> Chster Ford

Ok if we divide by 10 as Stuart suggests and be restrictive about
firing arcs as Chester suggests we have a workable monster ship. And
thats about the top of the line for the Imperium and everyone else too.
Note that High Guard (and later rules) made a distinction between the
number of batteries and the number that can fire at any given target.

And a more reasonable example from Supplement 9:

Atlantic class Heavy Cruiser
75,000 tons
1 Spinal mount meson gun (factor N)
6 heavy particle accelerators
30 missile bays
210 laser turrets
misc. defenses

suggestions:
turrets: divide total by 10
any turreted beam becomes a C-battery, with lasers having the PDAF
capability from More Thrust
fusion guns are short-range weapons, with a punch. Give them 2 dice
with 12" ?
particle accelerators have a longer range, 1 die out to 18" ?

bays:
50-ton bays are B-batteries
100-ton bays are A-batteries
extend the special effects from turrets to reflect an increase in size
? Hmmm, 100-ton fusion gun bay- 6 dice out to 12", nothing beyond that.

missiles:
divide total tonnage of missiles by 500, use that many missiles in Full
Thrust. I always thought a FT missile represented a swarm anyway. Give
missiles 3 turns of fuel, but allow them to coast.

spinal mounts:
roll lots of dice.

defenses: coming soon

anyone want me to write these suggestions up as formal systems and rules
?

sorry this is such a loooong message

Michael Carter Llaneza
Madness takes its toll.  Please have exact change.
http://www.hypnotic.com/
Down, not across