Traveller Store CotI Features New Posts Mark Forums Read Register


Go Back TravellerRPG.com > Citizens of the Imperium > Other Versions of Traveller > T4 - Marc Miller's Traveller

T4 - Marc Miller's Traveller Discussion of T4 - Marc Miller's Traveller from Imperium Games and the Milieu 0 setting.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old April 7th, 2017, 08:12 PM
Whipsnade's Avatar
Whipsnade Whipsnade is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Dover, New Hampshire, USA
Posts: 5,916
Gallery : 5
Visit Whipsnade's Blog
Whipsnade Citizen+Whipsnade Citizen+Whipsnade Citizen+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Able Baker View Post
I know Games are imperfect models.

You may "know" that, but you neither understand nor accept it.

Quote:
The question regarding the imperfections is still: design for simulation or design for effect or oversight/error?
Designed to create a specific simulation within certain parameters, parameters which impose decisions which may seem to be oversights.

It's not an error because the game works without ScoutRon BFs and because, as you'll see, there's a damn good reason for them not to have BFs.

Quote:
You behave as if you knew the effect the designer wanted to design for.
I'm starting with the fact that they know what they wanted to design and what they designed works. You're starting with the assumption that they made a mistake which needs to be fixed.

I'm examining IS in and of itself, within it's own context. You're comparing IS to other Traveller war games, outside it's own context.

Quote:
Please share your insight!
I have: You are chasing your tail while ignoring why the game was designed in the way it was.

Quote:
What DO the ScoutRons in FFW model and why that way?
They model what the designers wanted them to model and in the way they wanted it modeled. They model certain groups of operational/strategic abilities and not specific ship designs. The scale of the game is far above the point where you count laser turrets and missile bays. As you'll see, ScoutRons in FFW have BFs for another good reason too.

Quote:
What DO the ScoutRons in IS model and why that way?
Again, they model what the designers wanted them to model and in the way they wanted it modeled.

IS is essentially Trillion Credit Squadron for T4. Unlike TCS which used HG2's individual ship based combat rules, IS uses a version of Pocket Empires' squadron based combat rules. IS thus allows for previously designed individual ships to be assembled into squadrons because using squadrons is the only way PE's combat system can be used.

Because a player already must use time to take individual ship designs and assemble squadrons from them, IS eases or speeds play in other ways. One of those ways is to strictly delineate just what capabilities constitute each of the game's five squadron designations.

This is the part you seemingly don't want to understand:

The specific capabilities required for each of the five squadron designations grant in turn specific abilities to each type of squadron not available to the others.

ScoutRons in IS have "buffed" movement abilities compared to all other squadrons. They need not be part of a fleet nor must their moves be plotted in advance. In order to balance this "buffed" movement ability, ScoutRons have their combat abilities "nerfed". What you mistakenly perceive as an oversight or error is actually a deliberate design choice to balance game play.

Without a restriction on ScoutRon combat abilities, people like you would game the system to build ScoutRons with BatRon combat factors.

Do you understand now?

Quote:
What DO the BFs of BatRons model and how does that relate to SDBs?
Again, apples and oranges. The SDBs you're examining are part of two completely different war games than IS. Those games model different things in different ways, those games are played differently, and those games have different combat systems.

The counters in FFW and IE are different than the USqP in IS. First, there are no individual ship designs "hiding" inside those FFW and IE counters and, second, those counters are not "built" by the player. That means there is no way a player can "game" the system by disguising a BatRon as a ScoutRon.

In IE, none of the ships move between systems, so a ScoutRon's independent movement and planning abilities don't come into play. In FFW, ScoutRons already exist, so there's no way "buff" their factors. The play balance issue IS designers' faced does not exist in either IE or FFW, so ScoutRons can have better combat factors - combat factors which include bombardment ratings.

ScoutRons in IS are limited in specific ways in order to balance play.

That is not an oversight because it was a deliberate design choice.

That is not a mistake because it works within the context of IS.

Stop comparing IS to different games which work in different way and stop assuming a mistake was made when it's clear you don't understand why the game works the way it does.

Finally, if you want to propose a variant in which IS ScoutRons can have BFs, please do so. Don't be surprised, however, when people use your variant to "game" the game.
__________________
"The beauty of CT LBB1-3 is that the ref is free to make such decisions for themselves." - Mike Wightman
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old April 8th, 2017, 05:34 AM
Able Baker Able Baker is offline
Citizen: SOC-10
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 66
Gallery : 0
Able Baker Citizen
Default

You did not answer the questions.

So let me add, to be more clear:

What is (within the traveller universe) modelled by the BF factors in each of the games?

You write sentences that imply YOU know what they were modelling within the/a TU. Please just share that insight!

I think I provided one explanation that seems plausible to me, within the TU as it is modelled across many games. I am not trying to convince you, or anybody else.

You only talk abstractly about game design. Just share your insight as to how each of the games modelling of BF is related to your/a/the TU. I am actually interested:-)

Please share! So far only anger and abstract, circular statements like "the modelled what they wanted to model" from you.
Share your insight into what they wanted to model!
Thx

Last edited by Able Baker; April 8th, 2017 at 05:35 AM.. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old April 8th, 2017, 06:05 AM
Able Baker Able Baker is offline
Citizen: SOC-10
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 66
Gallery : 0
Able Baker Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whipsnade View Post
Again, apples and oranges. The SDBs you're examining are part of two completely different war games than IS. Those games model different things in different ways, those games are played differently, and those games have different combat systems.
I would definitely disagree. I would even go so far as to say you are talking out of your angry arse right now.

The Squadrons against SDB combat tables & rules is exactly the same in FFW and IS. It uses BF of the XRons versus the SDBs.

So these two systems are literally the same.

The Surface Bombardment tables & effects in all three games are similar to the point of being interchangable (FFW = IS ; I:E is a superset of FFW/IS as it extends beyond 48BF and takes into account more modifiers if needed).

So, to assume that 1 BF in one game equals 1 BF in the other two is very, very, very plausible. As close as a safe assumption as one can make.

Even though I:E and and the other two work slightly different in regards to SDB vs. Ship combat, a close scrutiny of the tables show that a factor of 10 makes the I:E tables a superset of the FFW/IS ones.

In fact this informs us, that one SDB-BF in I:E is equivalent in combat effectiveness to ten Squadrons worth of SDBs in the other two games. With that relation, it would even be possible to create I:E style counters and BF values for FFW/IS.
As we logically established that 1 BF_FFW = 1 BF_IE = 1BF_I:E for the case of Surface bombardment, and all games have 1BF_surface = 1BF_ space, we have a total bijective relation (and full equality), so it is again a very, very, very safe assumpiton or extrapolation.

I see your general point, and it is as true as it is circular (in the way you frame it up to now). But right here you are being counterfactual.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old April 8th, 2017, 07:00 AM
McPerth's Avatar
McPerth McPerth is online now
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 7,725
Gallery : 0
Visit McPerth's Blog
McPerth has disabled reputation
Default

Please, both of you, moderate your tones, as your posts are begining to seem like trolling
__________________
Duke of ShaiaVland 3215 B64A998-E
Marquis of Ashtagz Tyui SR 1818C548786-8
SEH for actions in Extolay

I'm not afraid about bullets, what scares me is the speed at which they're incoming.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old April 8th, 2017, 07:24 AM
McPerth's Avatar
McPerth McPerth is online now
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 7,725
Gallery : 0
Visit McPerth's Blog
McPerth has disabled reputation
Default

From the POV of someone that only knows IS from what I've read in this board:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whipsnade View Post
ScoutRons in IS have "buffed" movement abilities compared to all other squadrons. They need not be part of a fleet nor must their moves be plotted in advance. In order to balance this "buffed" movement ability, ScoutRons have their combat abilities "nerfed". What you mistakenly perceive as an oversight or error is actually a deliberate design choice to balance game play.

Without a restriction on ScoutRon combat abilities, people like you would game the system to build ScoutRons with BatRon combat factors.

Do you understand now?
I don't believe this to be posible if, as Able Baker suggests, only BF is allowed to them, as the main factor for BatCrons uses to be Attack Factor, not bombardment one.

After all, in FFW the tactics of stacking some ScoutDrons to move and bomb enemy planets as you say is not unheard about...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Whipsnade View Post
Again, apples and oranges. The SDBs you're examining are part of two completely different war games than IS. Those games model different things in different ways, those games are played differently, and those games have different combat systems.
And also remember than in FFW the SDB factor also represents fixed planetary defenses.

That's why a fleet can refuse combat with them just by not closing the planet on the interface phase, something that would not be posible if they were true SDB squadrons that could move along the whole system (e.g.: in FFW, those SDBs cannot avoid GG refuelling to the above said ScoutDrons stack).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whipsnade View Post

IS USqP: 1234-56-789-A

FFW counter: 6-2-4, B4, refueling code

That's the same?
Would you be so kind as to explain those of us that don't know it what each of those factors means?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Able Baker View Post
The Surface Bombardment tables & effects in all three games are similar to the point of being interchangable (FFW = IS ; I:E is a superset of FFW/IS as it extends beyond 48BF and takes into account more modifiers if needed).
In fact, there's a major diference in the bombing used in FFW and in I:E: while in FFW it affects all planetary forces (except mobile ones, that must be bombed spearately), in I:E they affect one specific unit.

In fact, the whole I:E would only take about 2-4 turns in FFW (equivalent to 1-2 turns in I:E, BTW), as the bombing will destroy all ground factors at once, and latter landing againstthose weakened defense battalions will kill them quite soon.

I guess this is one of the things Whipsnade meant when he pointed that different games use different systems to achieve diferent goals, no matter how close they are in many aspects.
__________________
Duke of ShaiaVland 3215 B64A998-E
Marquis of Ashtagz Tyui SR 1818C548786-8
SEH for actions in Extolay

I'm not afraid about bullets, what scares me is the speed at which they're incoming.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old April 8th, 2017, 09:37 AM
Able Baker Able Baker is offline
Citizen: SOC-10
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 66
Gallery : 0
Able Baker Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by McPerth View Post
In fact, the whole I:E would only take about 2-4 turns in FFW (equivalent to 1-2 turns in I:E, BTW), as the bombing will destroy all ground factors at once, and latter landing againstthose weakened defense battalions will kill them quite soon.

I guess this is one of the things Whipsnade meant when he pointed that different games use different systems to achieve diferent goals, no matter how close they are in many aspects.
Fair enough. A time-space-scale difference for sure.
From my perspective this is merely a funtion of the 'playability' aspect of not wanting to have impractically many planetary assault maps.

Also, the Greatest Military Action Evar(tm) is surely more intense then the "Cabinet War" that is the 5th FW. So much more is happening in shorter time.

But yes, in a dogmatic interpretation I:E is a different game from the other two and, dogmatically speaking, cannot ever tell us anything about nothing except how it plays as a game. I find this an unsatisfactory position. And an uneccessary one as we are talking about a shared relatively coherent RPG universe.

I also severely doubt that IS is a thoroughly playtested, etched in stone game design with a very clear idea of what it is modelling. Conjecture, sure.

But the circumstances of T4 production suggest massively that the inverted conjecture:
IS is a polished gem that does everything it does on purpose of modelling XYZ (which Mr. Larsen E. Whipsnade knows but has not shared yet)

is much more unlikely.

So I see FFW and I:E as ground truth for how the original designers imagined the TU military forces would interact with each other. And When I look at IS I see a valiant attempt of generalising FFW.

The most important questions remaining to me are:

What do other interpretations of BF yield? What are your interpretations.

Mine is clear: BF factors among all three systems are the same thing and model a peculiar mixture of myriads of small weapon hardpoints and big Ortillery guns; one BF in one system equals one BF in the other two. Numerically as well as conceptually.

Nobody needs to agree on that, but please share your interpretations of BF cause and effect in each sub-games. I am quite interested!

ADD
Forgot one detail:
Quote:
And also remember than in FFW the SDB factor also represents fixed planetary defenses.
For better or worse, that would be the same for IS and I:E. No?

Last edited by Able Baker; April 8th, 2017 at 09:42 AM.. Reason: emphasis
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old April 8th, 2017, 10:01 AM
McPerth's Avatar
McPerth McPerth is online now
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Barcelona
Posts: 7,725
Gallery : 0
Visit McPerth's Blog
McPerth has disabled reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Able Baker View Post

The most important questions remaining to me are:

What do other interpretations of BF yield? What are your interpretations.

Mine is clear: BF factors among all three systems are the same thing and model a peculiar mixture of myriads of small weapon hardpoints and big Ortillery guns; one BF in one system equals one BF in the other two. Numerically as well as conceptually.

Nobody needs to agree on that, but please share your interpretations of BF cause and effect in each sub-games. I am quite interested!
To me, the bombing factor represents its hability against small ships and dirtside targets. This includes mostly fighters and secondaries, but spinals can also be used for this (while mostly represented in the Attack Factor).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Able Baker View Post
ADD
Forgot one detail:
Quote:
Originally Posted by McPerth View Post
And also remember than in FFW the SDB factor also represents fixed planetary defenses.
For better or worse, that would be the same for IS and I:E. No?
Not in I:E, where planetary defenses are represented with the PD units, and SDBs can pursue the Imperial fleet should it leave the Close Orbit (incluiding SDB Overwatch) box (as long as they don't jump away, off course).
__________________
Duke of ShaiaVland 3215 B64A998-E
Marquis of Ashtagz Tyui SR 1818C548786-8
SEH for actions in Extolay

I'm not afraid about bullets, what scares me is the speed at which they're incoming.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old April 8th, 2017, 12:16 PM
Able Baker Able Baker is offline
Citizen: SOC-10
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 66
Gallery : 0
Able Baker Citizen
Default

Right, so the PD units would in effect constitute some of the SDB squadrons in the FFW-scale.
That would change my reasoning insofar, as hte relation between SDB "Wings" to others are a little lower. I will check out my copy on the PDs, thx for the pointer.

In my memory they were mobile units and did not count, but you convinced me they need to be considered.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old April 8th, 2017, 03:07 PM
Whipsnade's Avatar
Whipsnade Whipsnade is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Dover, New Hampshire, USA
Posts: 5,916
Gallery : 5
Visit Whipsnade's Blog
Whipsnade Citizen+Whipsnade Citizen+Whipsnade Citizen+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Able Baker View Post
You did not answer the questions.

I explain why play balance mean ScoutRons don't have BFs in IS, but I didn't answer your questions?

I explain how different war games have different designs for different reasons, but I didn't answer your questions?

We're done here. Enjoy your games.
__________________
"The beauty of CT LBB1-3 is that the ref is free to make such decisions for themselves." - Mike Wightman
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old April 8th, 2017, 03:32 PM
Able Baker Able Baker is offline
Citizen: SOC-10
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 66
Gallery : 0
Able Baker Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whipsnade View Post
I explain how different war games have different designs for different reasons, but I didn't answer your questions?
Which specific reasons for which specific design decision?

If you gave those already, I'd be happy with a repost of the relevant section of your post.
Maybe I am just stupid, and I am honestly curious what I missed there. Sorry if I am being dense here.

Last edited by Able Baker; April 8th, 2017 at 03:32 PM.. Reason: caps typo
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So how many Squadrons are in an SDB Factor? Commander Truestar The Fleet 41 April 27th, 2016 01:48 AM
Factor Drives Sir Brad The Fleet 3 June 8th, 2013 07:00 PM
Let The Bombardment Begin Easterner9504 The Lone Star 10 November 13th, 2009 05:55 PM
Bombardment jayouzts T20 - Traveller for the D20 System 8 February 21st, 2003 12:02 AM
The Imperial Factor's Office womble The Lone Star 5 February 9th, 2003 09:04 PM

This website and its contents are copyright ©2010- Far Future Enterprises. All rights reserved. Traveller is a registered trademark of Far Future Enterprises .
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.