Traveller + SG2/DS2/?

Some points to consider, though I agree with most of Allan's points.

1. Modern MBTs, accoring to OO the mighty, have about 10:2:1 (front,
sides, back) (or
something like that if I got the side number wrong) for armour. They are
not even close to
equally armoured. There is currently no way to build such a vehicle.

2. Top attack isn't the only threat. People can build side attack
missiles and other
options as well. Probably rear-attack too if they work at it. Perhaps
depending on missile
tech, the attacker should be able to pick facing to hit. 

3. GMS/P and IAVR are way underrated. when I talked with Oerjan, he made
the point that
the reason infantry carries these in the real world is to have a good
chance of destroying
a modern MBT or at least an AFV. So if we assume that an AFV is armour 3
(there's another
point - in the rules for vehicles in SG2, there is never any reason to
build a less than
heaviest-possible armoured APC/AIFV), then the IAVR and GMS/P better
have a good chance of
penetrating that. I think when Oerjan and I talked about it, it might
have been that the
impact should be 2D12* or 3D12*. At the same time, vehicle armour is
sold short by rolling
and multiplying (vs rolling NdX), so rolling NdX for attacking and
defending systems makes
them a bit (slightly) more predictable in results. 

4. At the same time as GMS/P and IAVR aren't sharp enough, vehicles
should have PDS and
decoys should be better understood as should various variant armour
types.

5. SG2 vehicle movement is wrong also on the tactical scale. A modern
MBT can probably hit
over 30 mph, maybe even faster yet. Sure, it might be that an average
speed might be 2.4
kph. But SG2 is *almost* wysiwig. If I need to drive between two
buildings or between a
hill and a copse of trees, I'm *NOT* doing it at an average speed! I'm
going hell bent for
leather to get back behind an alternate set of cover. How does a vehicle
average a slow
tactical speed? It does so by spending a lot of terms sitting, spotting,
and shooting or
just plain waiting. But when it moves, unless it is *directly* with
infantry, it will
probably be moving at least half of its maximum speed. I watched a lot
of fights in the
gulf war and in Iraq involving AFVs, and a lot of times, they moved
quite snappily. Not
2.4 kph! 

6. At the same time that that movement is wrong, and enemy anti-armour
equipment is too
weak, also I agree with Allan that a fire action for a vehicle needs to
include more
options. Perhaps you let every crew member that has a weapon and isn't
otherwise occupied
fire. And firing on the move should be feasible too. A modern MBT can
sail along at
maximum speed *across country* and the main gun rarely even quivers with
modern
stabilization. (This should be a result of TL/expense)

Note, many of these issues are visible only knowing what we know *today*
about AFV
capabilities. To simulate the GDW Travellerverse, we're talking about
*grav vehicles that
can fly* and *AFVs with more armour than starship hulls*. We're also
talking about weapon
ranges in the kilometers. 

I mean, in SG2, if I have a big table, there are ranges at which my
*HEL/5* can't fire at
a target. Pardon?!

Similarly, there are issues with damage. I fire my DFFG/5 against
infantry. Something
tells me this should be *very bad* for the infantry. 

There is also no way in the game to distinguish an RFAC/1 in its various
possible formats
- that is to say, a 25mm Bushmaster (where you can actually hear each
individual shot) or
a 20mm Vulcan ADS/PDS/CIWS weapon (where it sounds like a chainsaw). 

And Allan is also right that the representation of MMGs, HMGs and
various sustained fire
automatic weapons is inadequate. A squad SAW (say a minimi) is not the
same as an M2HB .50
nor is that the same as an AGS-17 nor a DShK nor even a water cooled
Vickers gun with a
large ammo supply. The SAW in the game is meant to be man portable, with
associated weight
and ammo limits. 

Also, when I'm listing things to ponder for any sort of revamp, I'll add
powered armour.
It should probably have armour value 1 rather than D12 armour. Why?
Because it should be
reasonably immune to personal weapons. That's what we see under
development now by DARPA
and one of the whole points of PA - the ability to survive lighter
weapon fire without
constantly having to roll to avoid dying. Sure, maybe HMGs and IAVRs and
perhaps some
other conjectural anti-PA systems, any heavy weapons, and perhaps HAMRs
should be a threat
to them, but basic small arms? Probably not. 

And then again there is the interesting rule that PA can't benefit from
cover. If someone
is shooting at me and I'm in plate steel, I can still probably benefit
by putting 75% of
my body behind 2' of concrete. 

Anyway, a lot of the issues Allan brings up are more issues of "SG3"
rather than any
Traveller conversion. Conversion issues revolve around how to represent
different tech
levels and to handle the extra vehicle capabilities, then things like
what do Zhodani get
to do with psionics, how do you represent Aslan, Vargr, K'Kree, etc. 

TomB