Citizens of the Imperium

Citizens of the Imperium (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/index.php)
-   Mongoose Traveller (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/forumdisplay.php?f=122)
-   -   AHL deckplans officially retconned? (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=36562)

mike wightman August 16th, 2016 05:13 AM

AHL deckplans officially retconned?
 
In the discussion forums over on the Mongoose boards it has come to light that the changes to the deckplans for the AHL were deliberate and discussed with 'people'.

Is this an official retcon?

Is the game AHL now officially decanonised since the deckplans are no longer correct for the ship class?

Condottiere August 16th, 2016 05:47 AM

I don't recall that thread, though I haven't compared the two sets either.

Could have been a subclass, or extensive refurbishment, which could keep both canon.

LeperColony August 16th, 2016 05:56 AM

If I'm remembering correctly, didn't the class receive a refit at one point?

mike wightman August 16th, 2016 06:44 AM

The old deck plans area multi deck tail sitting 'hotel floor' arrangement.

The new version has three decks and looks like a big Kinunir - that's not a refit...

Condottiere August 16th, 2016 07:43 AM

I've dug out Supplement Three, Fighting Ships.

While I can't comment on individual details, it still seems the same high rise configuration.

mike wightman August 16th, 2016 07:51 AM

The shape is right, the deck plans are wrong.

Condottiere August 16th, 2016 08:01 AM

Unless this was adjusted by a later edition or another publication, the entry clearly shows eighty four decks.

McPerth August 16th, 2016 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike wightman (Post 546830)
In the discussion forums over on the Mongoose boards it has come to light that the changes to the deckplans for the AHL were deliberate and discussed with 'people'.

Where have those plans appeared?

I hope they are not official retcon, a I like AHL game with all its deck plans...

Too many adventures are based on them to allow for that

simonh August 16th, 2016 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike wightman (Post 546830)
Is this an official retcon?

Is the game AHL now officially decanonised since the deckplans are no longer correct for the ship class?

GDW published a version of the AHL. Mongoose have published a version of the AHL.

By the power invested in me by myself I hereby officially and with all due ceremony entitle and empower you, in perpetuity, with full authority to take your pick.

Simon Hibbs

mike wightman August 16th, 2016 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McPerth (Post 546844)
Where have those plans appeared?

I hope they are not official retcon, a I like AHL game with all its deck plans...

Too many adventures are based on them to allow for that

They are in the new MgT High Guard second edition.

A couple of people on the Mongoose forums commented on them and the reply was that it is an official change and that they were always meant to be like that according to 'discussions'.

mike wightman August 16th, 2016 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Condottiere (Post 546843)
Unless this was adjusted by a later edition or another publication, the entry clearly shows eighty four decks.

In the new edition of HG, page 187/188 (186/187 in the pdf) it now has 6 decks...

simonh August 16th, 2016 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike wightman (Post 546849)
A couple of people on the Mongoose forums commented on them and the reply was that it is an official change and that they were always meant to be like that according to 'discussions'.

Hmm, thinking about it I do seem to remember reading somewhere that the high-rise orientation was a screw-up. I think it was an interview, along the lines of 'Where did the unconventional deck layout of the AHL come about? - Oh we didn't mean it to be like that, the deck plan artist did it and it was too late to change it." That's purely from memory and I can provide no reference.

It would be interesting to verify it.

Simon Hibbs

Condottiere August 16th, 2016 10:02 AM

While I wouldn't advocate this for every starship, I like it, it also gives a Star Trekkish vibe.

Xerxeskingofking August 16th, 2016 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Condottiere (Post 546853)
While I wouldn't advocate this for every starship, I like it, it also gives a Star Trekkish vibe.


*wanders back to the COTI board after months of inactivity*


not quite sure what you mean. do you mean the high deck count form the x axis deck plans feel more "star trek", or the low deck count form the z axis plans feel more star trek (bearing in mind star trek uses z axis planned ships with maybe 20 or so decks, so either could be true).


*disappears off in the depths of j space*

Condottiere August 16th, 2016 10:34 AM

The elevator.

Imagine how many conversations and encounters you can have.

Xerxeskingofking August 16th, 2016 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Condottiere (Post 546857)
The elevator.

Imagine how many conversations and encounters you can have.

true, although "elevator conservations" makes me think of NCIS these days, given how often that show uses the lifts for discrete meetings.


on a more serious note, a x-axis "tower block" design makes more sense on lower tech ships, specifically ones without artificial gravity, as then you can use thrust to simulate gravity. its a common enough sci fi trope, and on ships too large to land on a planet, deck orientation is really a matter of designer reference.

GypsyComet August 16th, 2016 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simonh (Post 546847)
GDW published a version of the AHL. Mongoose have published a version of the AHL.

GDW published it twice. The second was in Arrival Vengeance, years after the AHL box. Still arranged like a skyscraper...

whartung August 16th, 2016 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simonh (Post 546851)
Hmm, thinking about it I do seem to remember reading somewhere that the high-rise orientation was a screw-up. I think it was an interview, along the lines of 'Where did the unconventional deck layout of the AHL come about? - Oh we didn't mean it to be like that, the deck plan artist did it and it was too late to change it." That's purely from memory and I can provide no reference.

It would be interesting to verify it.

Wait, what?

There's, what, 14 deck plans in the AHL box? And GDW just said "Hey Bob, make us some deck plans".

The amount of miscommunication, lack of over site, and mishandling that would suggest is legion.

Especially considering the cost of the product.

I bought this game back when it was published, and it was $40. That's $116 today. It was a classic "Dad gave me some money" kind of thing, when I was younger, and had less of an idea of value for money. Today, I would think long and hard about spending $100 on, well, most anything. Especially a board game.

So, having these deck plans "just show up", thus making the game much more expensive than perhaps it should have been (if it, say, had half the deck plan pages). That's just hard to imagine.

Next thing you know, you're going to tell me that the way Traveller spec'd out it's missiles is completely wrong and redone…oh, wait.

aramis August 16th, 2016 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike wightman (Post 546849)
They are in the new MgT High Guard second edition.

A couple of people on the Mongoose forums commented on them and the reply was that it is an official change and that they were always meant to be like that according to 'discussions'.

Then they haven't looked at Marc's notes on his original drawing... available on DTRPG.

McPerth August 16th, 2016 03:58 PM

From the purely gamer's (and probably game designer's too) POV:

The AHL is 84 deck long.

Assuming 3 m/deck, that makes it about 252 m long

At the scale the game is (1.5 m per 1/2" square), it eould need an about 84 inches (about 2.1 m) map (a litle more, as it must have some margin). And still you probably would need more than a single deck map in a game...

How many of us have a table where it could be played it at home? Not me, for sure...

mike wightman August 16th, 2016 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aramis (Post 546878)
Then they haven't looked at Marc's notes on his original drawing... available on DTRPG.

Just took a look at them - sure looks like Marc's original intent was a tail sitter, the bridge being under the dome and all.

So has Marc changed his mind or are the folks at Mongoose just making excuses about 'discussions with those in the know'?

Spartan159 August 16th, 2016 08:57 PM

/shrug Darned if I know, I for one am going to keep using my AHL/Arrival Vengeance deck plans ;)

RockyMountainNavy August 16th, 2016 10:37 PM

Just Say No (to 2E)
 
Yet another reason for me not to buy any further into the 2E line.

Nothing wrong with tail sitters. Does nobody here like Rocinante?

aramis August 16th, 2016 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockyMountainNavy (Post 546898)
Yet another reason for me not to buy any further into the 2E line.

Nothing wrong with tail sitters. Does nobody here like Rocinante?

Matthew seems to have no respect for canon.

I'm glad he didn't get Star Wars nor Star Trek.

GypsyComet August 17th, 2016 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aramis (Post 546902)
I'm glad he didn't get Star Wars nor Star Trek.

Lucas/Disney and Paramount are much less... accepting... of mavericks.

mike wightman August 17th, 2016 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aramis (Post 546902)
Matthew seems to have no respect for canon.

I'm glad he didn't get Star Wars nor Star Trek.

I think part of the problem is trying to sneak them in via the back door.

The space combat rues in MgT HG2 are the most cinematic, 'unrealistic' version I have yet seen.
Fighters are the major deciding factor of battles at any TL now, what with their special snowflake bonuses while dogfighting... dogfighting in space lol.

Weapons systems such as the ion cannon - where the scientific tern ion is misused which is a big bugbear for me - and the tachyon cannon are listed in basic ship design.

simonh August 17th, 2016 06:46 AM

I may be misremembering about the deck plans. Perhaps it was that the box art didn't match the plans? Or maybe I'm just getting old.

Simon Hibbs

whulorigan August 17th, 2016 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike wightman (Post 546906)
I think part of the problem is trying to sneak them in via the back door.
.
.
.
Weapons systems such as the ion cannon - where the scientific tern ion is misused which is a big bugbear for me - and the tachyon cannon are listed in basic ship design.

I'll keep my fingers crossed that those weapon systems are there as part of the "generic" rules, and that the forthcoming OTU Third Imperium Sourcebook will do what any good sourcebook does and spell out what systems are and are not used in the setting, as well as any modifications to existing rules.

But maybe I am just thinking wishfully . . .

simonh August 17th, 2016 12:16 PM

I don't want to make this about T5, but as I understand it T5 also provides technological and other setting options not appropriate to the OTU. How does it handle this sort of delineation, for comparison?

Traveller has always been a toolkit for creating your own setting, as well as supporting the OTU.

Simon Hibbs

robject August 17th, 2016 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whulorigan (Post 546911)
I'll keep my fingers crossed that those weapon systems are there as part of the "generic" rules, ...

And OTU material, especially sourcebooks, now have to explicitly state what's kosher and what isn't.

Upon reflection, since the core rulebook is still Traveller, the non-Traveller material should have been labelled.

When Matt finally drops the Traveller name from the core rules, then all bets are off.

mike wightman August 17th, 2016 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simonh (Post 546915)
I don't want to make this about T5, but as I understand it T5 also provides technological and other setting options not appropriate to the OTU. How does it handle this sort of delineation, for comparison?

Traveller has always been a toolkit for creating your own setting, as well as supporting the OTU.

Simon Hibbs

Quite the opposite - T5 is the definitive guide to the OTU, Marc's novel uses quite a lot of the new stuff and will probably use more as the sequels come along.

simonh August 17th, 2016 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike wightman (Post 546921)
Quite the opposite - T5 is the definitive guide to the OTU, Marc's novel uses quite a lot of the new stuff and will probably use more as the sequels come along.

Cool, thanks.


Simon Hibbs

mike wightman August 17th, 2016 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robject (Post 546916)
And OTU material, especially sourcebooks, now have to explicitly state what's kosher and what isn't.

Upon reflection, since the core rulebook is still Traveller, the non-Traveller material should have been labelled.

When Matt finally drops the Traveller name from the core rules, then all bets are off.

MgT High Guard second edition opens with a section about the Third Imperium and its navy, it then fails to mention that many of the weapon options in the ship building rules are not available in the OTU. Some that are are hidden is later chapters as high technology options.

The 1105+ era is being re-written by Mongoose.

whartung August 17th, 2016 02:10 PM

All he they had to do was not call this Azhanti High Lightning. They could have named it anything, but no. It would have been better if they had named it something else, then we'd have something new. We already have an AHL, why do we need another?

robject August 17th, 2016 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike wightman (Post 546921)
Quite the opposite - T5 is the definitive guide to the OTU, Marc's novel uses quite a lot of the new stuff and will probably use more as the sequels come along.

Mike is quite right. There is "not yet" technology detailed further than most of the other Traveller rulebooks, but it's not adding things not intended for the OTU. There are no tachyon cannons, no transporters, no light sabers, no warp drive. There's not even stuff from other GDW games (no stutterwarp).

aramis August 17th, 2016 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whartung (Post 546929)
All he they had to do was not call this Azhanti High Lightning. They could have named it anything, but no. It would have been better if they had named it something else, then we'd have something new. We already have an AHL, why do we need another?

So true. But that's not how Mongoose operates.

McPerth August 17th, 2016 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aramis (Post 546935)
Quote:

Originally Posted by whartung (Post 546929)
All he they had to do was not call this Azhanti High Lightning. They could have named it anything, but no. It would have been better if they had named it something else, then we'd have something new. We already have an AHL, why do we need another?

So true. But that's not how Mongoose operates.

Then I don't understand their commercial strategy.

By doing so, they risk alienating a part of old die-hards, while the newbees don't care about the name...

aramis August 17th, 2016 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McPerth (Post 546937)
Then I don't understand their commercial strategy.

By doing so, they risk alienating a part of old die-hards, while the newbees don't care about the name...

There's a middle ground who don't know better, but will recognize the name from a little research.

Plus, there's the issue of, "too late to fix it now."

And, "The retailer's the one to take it in the shorts on returns." Mostly because the publisher has already been paid before the retailer ever sees product. In the games industry, there's no compulsory buyback from distribution of unsold product. Unlike the fiction and comics markets.

McPerth August 17th, 2016 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aramis (Post 546941)
There's a middle ground who don't know better, but will recognize the name from a little research.

SUre, but I guess most of them would have not cared if the name had been another one

Quote:

Originally Posted by aramis (Post 546941)
Plus, there's the issue of, "too late to fix it now."

But not too late not to make similarmistakes latter...

Quote:

Originally Posted by aramis (Post 546941)
And, "The retailer's the one to take it in the shorts on returns." Mostly because the publisher has already been paid before the retailer ever sees product. In the games industry, there's no compulsory buyback from distribution of unsold product. Unlike the fiction and comics markets.

But if a product does not sell, the retailers won't buy the next one related to it...

That's akin of what I told about T4:
Quote:

Originally Posted by McPerth (Post 546279)
My (not really educated) guess is that MT sold well in Barcelona, and when TNE appeared, shops were ready to invest on it. I guess it was a true fiasco, as most of Barcelona gaming groups and fans were in the torches and pitchforks side (yes, incluiding myself). So, again my guess, when T4 appeared, most shops showed little interest in investing on its products, and few of them reached those shops.

Such decisions are what might enlarge the torches and pithforks teams...

And I'm not sure about what percentage of its sales is on retail and what in direct electronic selling, that may well be affected by this and the oppinions given by people...

It's hard to build a good reputation and a fan base, not too hard to lose it...

robject August 17th, 2016 04:24 PM

As long as the fans like Mongoose Traveller, there won't be a "problem" for anyone ... except, potentially, grognards. So in a sense it is indeed Mongoose which is re-framing the Traveller brand.

Nathan Brazil August 17th, 2016 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McPerth (Post 546937)
Then I don't understand their commercial strategy.

By doing so, they risk alienating a part of old die-hards, while the newbees don't care about the name...

I don't work for Mongoose, but I do believe in one of Marc Miller's Traveller assumptions
Quote:

Everything Is Driven By Economics
Economics is not strictly the study of finance; it is the study of making choices between and among limited possibilities. Regardless of the pronouncements of political, moral, or cultural leaders, action in this universe takes place because it will produce some economic advantage. Economic advantage generally means rewards in a monetary sense, but it can also mean rewards in political or social power. Behind all lies some economic motive. - TRAVELLER 5 Core Rules v5.09 p.20
Everyone votes with their pocketbook. Mr. Sprange caters to the pocketbook. He has an idea "Traveller is like this" and is vindicated with more pocketbooks, perhaps younger pocketbooks, agreeing. If not, he would have to change or sell something besides Traveller, yes?

Spartan159 August 17th, 2016 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whartung (Post 546929)
All he they had to do was not call this Azhanti High Lightning. They could have named it anything, but no. It would have been better if they had named it something else, then we'd have something new. We already have an AHL, why do we need another?

I'm gonna call that deckplan the Mongoose class cruiser ;)

aramis August 17th, 2016 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan Brazil (Post 546948)
If not, he would have to change or sell something besides Traveller, yes?

He'd still owe Marc a certain chunk for the duration of the license.
Possibly more than he'd lose for producing crap.

mike wightman August 17th, 2016 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robject (Post 546947)
As long as the fans like Mongoose Traveller, there won't be a "problem" for anyone ... except Marc and us grognards. So in a sense it is indeed Mongoose which is re-framing the Traveller brand.

So is Marc ok with Mongoose completely re-writing the OTU while he writes novels that contradict it?
Or vise versa.

DickNervous August 17th, 2016 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike wightman (Post 546957)
So is Marc ok with Mongoose completely re-writing the OTU while he writes novels that contradict it?
Or vise versa.

But is he really doing that? Granted, the AHL deck plans are different and it would have avoided a lot of angst if they just did something as simple as calling it "Mark II", but that isn't a complete rewrite of the OTU.

I know that HG2 has a lot of new stuff in it for higher tech levels ranging from Anti-Matter power plants (TL20), Thrust 11 M-Drives (TL17), Jump-9 (TL18), and a variety of weapons and shields above TL16. And looking at the Tech Level tables in T5 it seems that what Mongoose has published is pretty much aligned with that. And if I recall, the original LBBs and the Core Rulebooks for MgT1, and T5 were all meant to be "setting agnostic."

Of course, he could go and realy muck things up with the 3I sourcebook, but I guess we will have to wait and see.

aramis August 17th, 2016 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DickNervous (Post 546959)
But is he really doing that? Granted, the AHL deck plans are different and it would have avoided a lot of angst if they just did something as simple as calling it "Mark II", but that isn't a complete rewrite of the OTU.

I know that HG2 has a lot of new stuff in it for higher tech levels ranging from Anti-Matter power plants (TL20), Thrust 11 M-Drives (TL17), Jump-9 (TL18), and a variety of weapons and shields above TL16. And looking at the Tech Level tables in T5 it seems that what Mongoose has published is pretty much aligned with that. And if I recall, the original LBBs and the Core Rulebooks for MgT1, and T5 were all meant to be "setting agnostic."

Of course, he could go and realy muck things up with the 3I sourcebook, but I guess we will have to wait and see.

What I saw in the draft didn't all line up with T5, FWIW.

Nightwind1 August 17th, 2016 10:42 PM

Okay, I finally saw the deckplans...


Whiskey

Tango

Foxtrot



Over?

DickNervous August 17th, 2016 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aramis (Post 546963)
What I saw in the draft didn't all line up with T5, FWIW.

I'm not saying they line up perfectly, mainly because what I saw in the T5 book is more generalized, but I don't think it is all that much out of whack as far as the tech levels go.

mike wightman August 18th, 2016 03:12 AM

'Ion' cannon TL12 - no similar weapon system exists in the OTU or in T5; and once again this weapon system has nothing to do with ions.

Tachyon cannon TL14 - WTF?

Jumpbreaker missile warhead - TL13

All presented in the book as standard components with no contra-indication for the OTU.

Then there are the ridiculous dogfighting rules...

aramis August 18th, 2016 08:03 AM

I'm starting to see non-grognard blowback on Google Plus and RPGGeek. Especially when it's mentioned that Matthew didn't get the SW license... but made a big deal about hinting at who did get it. Before FFG was even allowed to admit they had.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.