Maybe he means a new universe altogether. Completely different sectors.
1st Preview up for Mongoose Traveller
- Thread starter Echo
- Start date
Maybe he means a new universe altogether. Completely different sectors.
Yes, I do.
Yes, an Imperium. Yes, star spanning.
But redoing the same old stuff is not good since it annoys the old guard, and the new guard feel that they've missed something.
Keep the setting trophes, but rework from the ground up.
Only one Traveller edition did that: 2300. (Well, it didn't even keep the trophes...many, but not all, were kept.)
pendragonman
Absent Friends Margrave
You all know (by now) that I really hate to agree with Aramis, but he does have a point here. Having survived every version introduced so far, I can say it does REALLY irk me when old, familiar things are stomped on by the new settings (cough, cough, REGINA, cough). At least TNE had the decency to say it was an alternate reality waaaaay up front.
It was with this awareness of a potential thorn that I recently decided to look at the GURPS stuff. I was pleasantly surprised to find that while the introductory sector was still Spinward, the introductory subsector was 268 and not Regina.
Given that entire map is huge, and that most full sectors are not yet detailed as a campaign setting, it would be more correct if new Trav versions used "fresh" sectors as core intro regions.
3d Traveller?
I just thought I'd put the cat among the pigeons...
Given that RTT is touted as a "universal" set of sf rules, would it be right to assume that they will be providing rules to create a proper 3d starmap, rather than the "space is flat" 2d subsector and sector maps of the OTU?
Whilst the OTU is irrevocably tied to this piece of scifi unrealisticness (don't get me wrong - I love the OTU), I do thing the usability of the new ruleset would be compromised if all universes using the ruleset would be forced into its same set of rather unrealistic limitations.
Given Traveller's traditional enthusiasm for hard science and realism, this aspect of the rules has always seemed a bit of a shame, to me.
Sarah
I just thought I'd put the cat among the pigeons...
Given that RTT is touted as a "universal" set of sf rules, would it be right to assume that they will be providing rules to create a proper 3d starmap, rather than the "space is flat" 2d subsector and sector maps of the OTU?
Whilst the OTU is irrevocably tied to this piece of scifi unrealisticness (don't get me wrong - I love the OTU), I do thing the usability of the new ruleset would be compromised if all universes using the ruleset would be forced into its same set of rather unrealistic limitations.
Given Traveller's traditional enthusiasm for hard science and realism, this aspect of the rules has always seemed a bit of a shame, to me.
Sarah
daryen
SOC-14 1K
The problem with doing that is 3d space breaks the Jump drive. (It also breaks the hex map, but that isn't quite as big of a deal.)
By "breaks the Jump drive" I mean that Jump-1 cannot be limited to a single parsec, or no one gets anywhere. It has to be longer. And just where to make that cutoff will cause a non-trivial debate.
The secondary side effect is the elimination of the OTU. You would pretty much have to completely recreate the whole thing from scratch.
None of this means "don't do it". It simply means that "let's do 3d Traveller" has a whole host of implications that have to be worked through first.
I always hated that jump is limited to only whole number distances
I say that jump drives give so much 'j-thrust' for a given input energy and that, divided by loaded mass gives the distance jumped....I round to 2 places. Given that I use a 10x10x10 subsector, fractional jump distance works just fine when using 3d distances bewtween worlds. Jumps still take a week ( more or less ).
It also makes massive armor coated bb's costly in terms a fuel use and range....light fast cruisers cannot be massively armored either.
just my thoughts.
noone says the OTU must be used, and it is nice to have ways of doing different things when desired, and in a consistant fashion so people who use the same ideas are all on the same page.
besides, if people want to use otu AND 3d space, just sorta fit the main otu worlds in because so many worlds are not touched upon anyways...back history doesn't have to change very much
I say that jump drives give so much 'j-thrust' for a given input energy and that, divided by loaded mass gives the distance jumped....I round to 2 places. Given that I use a 10x10x10 subsector, fractional jump distance works just fine when using 3d distances bewtween worlds. Jumps still take a week ( more or less ).
It also makes massive armor coated bb's costly in terms a fuel use and range....light fast cruisers cannot be massively armored either.
just my thoughts.
noone says the OTU must be used, and it is nice to have ways of doing different things when desired, and in a consistant fashion so people who use the same ideas are all on the same page.
besides, if people want to use otu AND 3d space, just sorta fit the main otu worlds in because so many worlds are not touched upon anyways...back history doesn't have to change very much
I think 3D works fine for local areas of space (think 2300AD). Maybe less well for larger volumes...
jfetters
SOC-14 1K
Even in local space, it always seemed to be a PITA to calculate the stutterwarp times with the 3D/2D star chart that was provided in the game.
One of the nice things about Traveller was the simplicity of the jump travel system - you see the distance, pick the route, and go.
And people complain about TNE being to crunchy...
One of the nice things about Traveller was the simplicity of the jump travel system - you see the distance, pick the route, and go.
And people complain about TNE being to crunchy...
2300 was quite playable, simply because the map gave you the distances next to the lines (one of them, anyway)...
Doing the maths is VERY basic trig (Δa2+Δb2+Δc2)0.5
but it is also quite a pain to do on the fly, and to figure out without a prefigured map or a computer what is in range.
A booklet of tabular data is also useful, eg:
These types of tables are easily used, easily made, and by doing a computer run first, one can check to see which systems are in range before generation of the tables.
Appleworks made the data in about two minutes including rolling the stats; taking it from tab to space delimited took longer than making it.
formula: =((($B5-E$2)^2)+(($C5-E$3)^2)+(($D5-E$4)^2))^0.5
(should work in CW/AW, lotus, and in excel...)
Doing the maths is VERY basic trig (Δa2+Δb2+Δc2)0.5
but it is also quite a pain to do on the fly, and to figure out without a prefigured map or a computer what is in range.
A booklet of tabular data is also useful, eg:
Code:
Echos Dork Chor Bunco Ancro
X -------- 6 4 3 2 1
| Y ---- 3 8 3 3 2
| | Z 2 2 1 9 1
Ancro 1 2 1 5.20 6.78 2.24 8.12 0
Bunco 2 3 9 8.06 8.83 8.06 0
Chor 3 3 1 3.16 5.20 0
Dork 4 8 2 5.39 0
Echos 6 3 2 0These types of tables are easily used, easily made, and by doing a computer run first, one can check to see which systems are in range before generation of the tables.
Appleworks made the data in about two minutes including rolling the stats; taking it from tab to space delimited took longer than making it.
formula: =((($B5-E$2)^2)+(($C5-E$3)^2)+(($D5-E$4)^2))^0.5
(should work in CW/AW, lotus, and in excel...)
Last edited:
Maybe the reason AI is not in the Traveller universe is the old joke
A group of scientists create the ultimate computer. They feed it every bit of info known to man, give it heuristic programming to truly replicate full sentience and set it to work to ask the ultimate question: Is there a God?
Every time they try, the answer, just before they pull the plug, is "THERE IS NOW!"
A group of scientists create the ultimate computer. They feed it every bit of info known to man, give it heuristic programming to truly replicate full sentience and set it to work to ask the ultimate question: Is there a God?
Every time they try, the answer, just before they pull the plug, is "THERE IS NOW!"
Last edited:
The reason I'm asking about 3d space is not specifically to screw around with the OTU, but because Mongoose Traveller is supposed to be a "universal" set of SF rules which should be usable with other milieu - specifically Starship Troopers, currently, but doubtless tons of others.
To my knowledge, the Traveller OTU is the only one to be burdened with a 2d starmap - I would presume that at least addressing the issue of 3d space would therefore be essential in a "universal" ruleset.
I'm aware that it breaks jump drive as it currently stands. The issue is, is Mongoose's claim to universality just lip service, or are we going to see something that can cope with more complex starmaps? I'd be completely happy if Mongoose were just producing a new set of rules for the Traveller OTU - that's fine. But that's not what they're saying - so I'm curious... ;-)
To my knowledge, the Traveller OTU is the only one to be burdened with a 2d starmap - I would presume that at least addressing the issue of 3d space would therefore be essential in a "universal" ruleset.
I'm aware that it breaks jump drive as it currently stands. The issue is, is Mongoose's claim to universality just lip service, or are we going to see something that can cope with more complex starmaps? I'd be completely happy if Mongoose were just producing a new set of rules for the Traveller OTU - that's fine. But that's not what they're saying - so I'm curious... ;-)
