BTRC for Traveller5

[robject]

So I've decided to check out CORPS VDS and 3G3, to see how they work with Traveller.

I don't suppose anyone here has designed vehicles and starships with CORPS VDS?

I don't suppose anyone here has designed weapons with 3G3?

 

[mike wightman]

You may want to look at Stuff too.

 

[tjoneslo]

I've done some weapon designs with 3G3. I've also done weapon designs with FF&S2, which is vrtually identical. You can adapt 3G3 to Traveller with ease, the conversions are in the back assuming an already existing set of Traveller rules.

I dislike the 3G3 rules (and the FF&S2 rules) as being too fidly with too many intermediate results that have no real effect on the outcome.

I've also looked through the VDS. Again, probably easy to adapt to Traveller. But I dislike this system as well for a similar reason to the 3G3 system. VDS also suffers from adding in abstractions at some points where I wanted details, and vice versa.

So, yes you can use VDS and 3G3 to build Traveller stuff, the conversions are relativly simple (given the complexity of the build systems). But I don't recommend using them for personal reasons.

 

[robject]

Thanks Sigg, will do.

tjoneslo,

My main thing is to see whether they're superior to FFS2. Since FFE no longer has Frank Chadwick, or any other gearhead wargamers for that matter, there is no true 'support' for FFS2. On the other hand, BTRC supports their technical design products. And since this is a technical layer, I think it possible to swap out FFS2 with BTRC, with whatever adaptation is needed.

I understand your concerns; I don't like gearhead rules for the same reasons. Moving from an FFS2 basis to a BTRC basis means there's one less thing to do. Or put another way, it can ride on a current, living product.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by tjoneslo:
I've done some weapon designs with 3G3. I've also done weapon designs with FF&S2, which is vrtually identical. You can adapt 3G3 to Traveller with ease, the conversions are in the back assuming an already existing set of Traveller rules.

[...]

I've also looked through the VDS. Again, probably easy to adapt to Traveller.

[...]

Another guy here (Scott) expressed concerns that some of the basic assumptions of these systems might not be compatible with Traveller -- for a major example, power generation. Do you know how they stack up against FFS2?

 

[robject]

Ah, EABA Stuff. Looks amazing. Is it?

 

[tjoneslo]

The VDS powerplant system is enterly abstract. Choose a type (normal, exotic, dangerous, suicidal) which determines basic power output per unit of power plant. The select a type of fuel (normal, exotic, dangerous, suicidal) which determines fuel consumption of the plant. You can map this onto FF&S more concrete power system though I've never tried.

The other thing to keep in mind about using VDS/3G3 is they are desined to use the CORPS system, and contain a great number of assumptions about the game system used for the stuff constructed using the system. For example, the ratings of the sensor systems assume the CORPS skill system is being used.

On the other hand, Greg Porter, author of both FF&S2 and VDS may, if you agree to pay him, would be more than happy to readapt the VDS back into the new version of Traveller for you.

 

[aramis]

VDS is comparable to FF&S1 in mathematical complexity, less "realistic" (sure to torque off the gearheads), and a slight bit easier.

EABA & Stuff! is far simpler, far easier, and far far more flexible.

 

[robject]

The more I look at tables with names like "drive train" and "suspension", the more I think about EABA... the difference between wheels and tracks is practically a rounding error.

Someone please tell me what is wrong with this sentiment:

The idea... is to break certain things down to only what you need, and to keep that in terms and units you should already be familiar with... There are still plenty of equations and obscure interrelationships... but they are all hidden from view in the process of distilling them into game-centric game stats.

 

[robject]

On the other hand, couldn't FFS2 be re-organized, to gather the 80% of the rules everybody would use to the front, and sticking the fiddly 20% of expanded done-it-to-death rules in the back?

 

[aramis]

FF&S is just plain over detailed for what the system will likely use.

 

[robject]

Now I'm researching how difficult it would be to derive effects-based point tables from some of the FFS2 equations. If it proves doable, I expect that either a middle layer or the SDS itself will use them.

 

[Anthony]

It's more or less impossible to transform a design system based on weight, volume, power, and money, into a point system, unless you just base the point system on one or more of the above terms.

 

[robject]

Right; I've found that aiming for the same game effects rather than equation modelling provides a lot of slack and flexibility. Not every data point needs to be encoded.

 

[Anthony]

I have nothing against effects-based design sequences. I'm just saying that you can't expect the results to closely mirror what you'd get from another design sequence.