Changing MegaTraveller beyond errata

[robject]

Quoted because what *I* think needs fixing may not be what *you* think needs fixing or improving.

Psionics. It's not that MT's psionics are bad. It's just that T4 improved on those rules. T4's psionics rules should be back-ported into MT. (Thanks Aramis for reminding us of this).

Combat Damage. I think Classic Traveller's combat damage model worked better than MT's -- if I truly understand MT's damage model at all, and if I ignore what I suspect are a pile of wierd little rules in Classic Traveller combat.

Vehicle Design. I think vehicle design needs fixing (and maybe splitting into two systems, but that's another thread). Some simplification, some generalization. Go back to tons and EPs, and factor out energy as much as possible. List two significant digits (at the most) for all numbers. Change the stat block for ships: use a truncated USP (for example: mission - 7 digits* - TL, or some other representation) plus a string of codes for optional elements present and their quantity and/or potential**. Reduce the significance of the ship's computer in combat (!). Change the component lists into mini-build systems***. Change combat into tasks instead of tables (most of them already are, in disguise, with the exception of meson gun attacks. Fix this.).


* seven elements that all ships have, such as Size Class, Configuration, Streamlining, Landers, Maneuver Rating, Jump Rating, Power Plant Rating.

** such as "Sp PA" for Particle Accelerator spine.

*** e.g. Communicators, page 67.




Minor Nits

Skills. I think character generation is just about right. I prefer to consolidate skills, but others disagree, and I'm not ready to fight that fight.

Ranges. I think ranges need to be integrated into the task system consistently and systematically (might already be done, but if so, it's not clear to me).

Sophonts and Robots. I think the animal creation rules should be extended to cover sophont design and sophontoid robot design. This might clash with the free MT Robots book; I can live with that.

 

[aramis]

Combat Damage. I think Classic Traveller's combat damage model worked better than MT's -- if I truly understand MT's damage model at all, and if I ignore what I suspect are a pile of wierd little rules in Classic Traveller combat. I seem to think that MT requires converting stats to some other number, then buffering up damage, and at the end of combat actually back-calculating and applying the damage to characteristics. This seems bass-ackwardsly annoying, though I could be wrong.

It's not annoying in play, because in play, the damage is in whole dice to attributes. THe interim step is just noting how many dice one keeps.

You can, just as easily, apply MT damages straight to attributes. Once you find the MT damage (adjusted for hit and pen:armor ratio), it's just CT damage dice.

And, further, the Pen/Damage dichotomy allows for the combat scaling from individual to unit without having to make the units all the same size.

It was, and is, the single most brilliant change in MT. Lose it, and you lose the large scale combat mechanics whole cloth - they rely upon it to work.

 

[McPerth]

Combat Damage. I think Classic Traveller's combat damage model worked better than MT's -- if I truly understand MT's damage model at all, and if I ignore what I suspect are a pile of wierd little rules in Classic Traveller combat. I seem to think that MT requires converting stats to some other number, then buffering up damage, and at the end of combat actually back-calculating and applying the damage to characteristics. This seems bass-ackwardsly annoying, though I could be wrong.

I agree here with Aramis about the dichotomy about penetration and damage is a nice addition, as otherwise you must choose among:

• a DM armor based system (as CT) where armor does not reduce damage and you wither hit or not, but if you do the damage is the same regardless your armor
• A damage soacking armor system (as T4 or MgT), where a weapon with a good stopping power has automatically a good armor piercing power.

And I don't like either option, as I see them as irreal (but not being precisely a weapons expert, I might well be wrong)

Vehicle Design. I think vehicle design needs fixing (and maybe splitting into two systems, but that's another thread). Some simplification, some generalization. Go back to tons and EPs, and factor out energy as much as possible. List two significant digits (at the most) for all numbers. Change the stat block for ships: use a truncated USP (for example: mission - 7 digits* - TL, or some other representation) plus a string of codes for optional elements present and their quantity and/or potential**. Reduce the significance of the ship's computer in combat (!). Change the component lists into mini-build systems***. Change combat into tasks instead of tables (most of them already are, in disguise, with the exception of meson gun attacks. Fix this.).


* seven elements that all ships have, such as Size Class, Configuration, Streamlining, Landers, Maneuver Rating, Jump Rating, Power Plant Rating.

** such as "Sp PA" for Particle Accelerator spine.

*** e.g. Communicators, page 67.

That may be a matter of personal likes, but I like MT vehicle design, as cumbresome as it can be. Sure it needs some fixing (e.g. eficiency rates or power needs), though.

About making block systems, it's quite easy to make them, if you want to use standarized, but having them detailed allows you more freedom of action (e.g. in life support, you can calculate total costs in each field for full LS for a starship, but your land vehicle will not usually need artifical gravity, so you can forfeit it in your design).

And ship combat is regulated by the task system, most tables being just DMs

Ranges. I think ranges need to be integrated into the task system consistently and systematically (might already be done, but if so, it's not clear to me).

Agreed here. I don't like the ranges system, where each range is 10 times the lowest one. I guess difficulty to hit a target at 6 m is lower than at 49, and to hit a target at 51 m is easier that to hit it at 490, while in MT in both cases is the same, as they are at the same range. And I'm pretty sure not all weapons lose accuracy at the same rate.

I'd like more a range system based on the maximum range of each weapon and percentages of it (e.g. up to 25%, 25 to 50%, etc...)

 

[aramis]

If I were To write Mega 2E, I would use T20 Craft rules for design, MT Damages, AVs, & hits. I might import three TNEisms: ① HG PP fuel rate per year, not per month, for fusion. ② contacts. ③ a real initiative System.
I also advocate a change to the penetration Table:
P > 0.1 AV = D × 0.1
p>0.5 AV = D × 0.5
p>1 AV = D × 1
p>2 AV = D × 2

This fits better to Striker... Not exact but, Closer, More Memorable.

 

[jec10]

I'd advocate changing the way vehicles are handled in the mass combat system in Ref's Companion.

As written, when scaling up vehicles you are instructed to select the lowest of the three damage values (hull/loco/power) as the basis for calculating a mass combat unit damage value. The problem is that this almost always results in the power or loco damage value being selected, and for most vehicles this is the same value (1/2, or 10/20 in ground combat terms). So, more often than not, all military vehicle units end up with the same mass combat damage rating. Heavy tank platoons end up being only able to take as much damage as light tank platoons, and so on.

 

[Timerover51]

I have expressed some views on MegaTraveller in other threads, which can be checked if desired. With respect to the vehicle design sequence, what needs to be done is developing a sequence which can be used to build actual historic vehicles, and then extrapolated forward. Tank engine data can be found in several sources. The same holds true for both internal combustion and turbine aircraft engines. A couple of copies of Wilkinson's Aircraft Engines of the World should supply all of the data needed. Juptner's series on US Civil Aircraft should supply data for pretty much any civilian aircraft design through the first jets.

As for weapon damage radius, a straightforward use of existing US Army effective burst radius for various calibers of artillery and mortars would save a lot of measuring and calculation time. The same holds true for rockets and bombs. Given a basis like that, a GM should be able to extrapolate any results needed by his own campaign's weapons. For demolitions, you have plenty of copies of FM 5-25, Explosives and Demolitions, floating around, including some online copies.

Some sort of clear distinction between military and civilian spacecraft design would be nice as well. Military power plants and drives could be smaller but much more expensive than civilian units, with massive differences in sensor suites as well.

 

[McPerth]

Some sort of clear distinction between military and civilian spacecraft design would be nice as well. Military power plants and drives could be smaller but much more expensive than civilian units, with massive differences in sensor suites as well.

By keeping with the age of sailing analogy, I always assumed that military and comercial ships in Traveller were more distinguished by armament, size and crew than by design properly.

Any armed ship might function in light military role, while the purely military ships are just larger and better armed and crewed (and by no means commercialy profitable).

 

[rancke]

By keeping with the age of sailing analogy, I always assumed that military and comercial ships in Travellr were more distinguished by armament, size and crew than by design properly.

But the Age of Sail analogy is just that: an analogy. It's not a concept (at least I very much hope it isn't). The Classic Era is not 'The Age of Sail Transposed to the Far Future'. Similar problems often have similar solutions, so to the extent that the Far Future is like the Age of Sail (mostly the speed of communication is speed of transportation aspect) the Far Future will resemble the Age of Sail. A little.

Any armed ship might function in light military role, while the purely military ships are just larger and better armed and crewed (and by no means commercialy profitable).

One of the big differences between the Far Future and the Age of Sail is precisely that you can't really give a ship of a given size better weapons and bigger crew than any merchant who is planning to trade in dangerous waters can afford. Crew salaries are not nearly as significant as they were back then, and the number of sailors needed to crew a fighting vessel is not nearly as many as back then (one gunner per turret as opposed to a crew several times bigger). (That's not to say that any merchant that can manage without turrets and gunners won't do so; extra expense is extra expense).

Armor is another matter. No merchant is going to carry armor.


Hans


Hans

 

[McPerth]

One of the big differences between the Far Future and the Age of Sail is precisely that you can't really give a ship of a given size better weapons and bigger crew than any merchant who is planning to trade in dangerous waters can afford. Crew salaries are not nearly as significant as they were back then, and the number of sailors needed to crew a fighting vessel is not nearly as many as back then (one gunner per turret as opposed to a crew several times bigger). (That's not to say that any merchant that can manage without turrets and gunners won't do so; extra expense is extra expense).

Armor is another matter. No merchant is going to carry armor.

But canon tells us several instances of merchant ships being converted to warships, the most relevant of them (IMHO, as most of the others are for small ship operations, with little strategic importance) is that several ships of the Darrians TL 16 fleet are converted merchants¹.

This fleet is a major strategic element in the Marches, so I guess those are not converted free/far traders, but major fleet elements, and that, IMHO, hints those conversions are more than possible.

I agree that armor would be a major diference, though...

note 1: not having my books handy right now, I don't remember if I read it in the Spindward Marches Campaign or in the Darrian Alien Module​

 

[Rabbit 3]

I have expressed some views on MegaTraveller in other threads, which can be checked if desired. With respect to the vehicle design sequence, what needs to be done is developing a sequence which can be used to build actual historic vehicles, and then extrapolated forward. Tank engine data can be found in several sources. The same holds true for both internal combustion and turbine aircraft engines. A couple of copies of Wilkinson's Aircraft Engines of the World should supply all of the data needed. Juptner's series on US Civil Aircraft should supply data for pretty much any civilian aircraft design through the first jets.

As for weapon damage radius, a straightforward use of existing US Army effective burst radius for various calibers of artillery and mortars would save a lot of measuring and calculation time. The same holds true for rockets and bombs. Given a basis like that, a GM should be able to extrapolate any results needed by his own campaign's weapons. For demolitions, you have plenty of copies of FM 5-25, Explosives and Demolitions, floating around, including some online copies.

Some sort of clear distinction between military and civilian spacecraft design would be nice as well. Military power plants and drives could be smaller but much more expensive than civilian units, with massive differences in sensor suites as well.

Largely dump the MT construction system and use either version of `Fire, Fusion and Steel` then retcon a little?

 

[aramis]

Largely dump the MT construction system and use either version of `Fire, Fusion and Steel` then retcon a little?

FF&S is based upon MT.

 

[atpollard]

Personally, I love the Striker, MegaTraveller and FF&S design systems for their crunchyness and real-world units, but I recognize that I am in the "gearhead" minority.

So what about adopting the trend of the MongooseTraveller Vehicles book and T5 Makers in restructuring it more towards a result-oriented system than an assemble the components system?

It would be nice to see a 'maker' that uses real world units (kilograms, kiloliters, kilojoules).

 

[Vladika]

But canon tells us several instances of mrechant ships being converted to warships, the most relevant of them (IMHO, as most of the others are for small ship operations, with little strategic importance) is that several ships of the Darrians TL 16 fleet are converted merchants¹.

This fleet is a major strategic element in the Marches, so I guess those are not converted free/far traders, but major fleet elements, and that, IMHO, hints those conversions are more tan possible.

I agree that armor would be a major diference, though...

note 1: not having my books handy right now, I don't remember if I read it in the Spindward Marches Campaign or in the Darrian Alien Module​

Darrian Alien Module

 

[McPerth]

Personally, I love the Striker, MegaTraveller and FF&S design systems for their crunchyness and real-world units, but I recognize that I am in the "gearhead" minority.

So what about adopting the trend of the MongooseTraveller Vehicles book and T5 Makers in restructuring it more towards a result-oriented system than an assemble the components system?

It would be nice to see a 'maker' that uses real world units (kilograms, kiloliters, kilojoules).

I agree, but I still think most efficiency results must be revised, from the fuel needed to the possibility to make a Perpetual movement Power Plant:

Darrian Alien Module

TY, I forgot to look for it the dog ate my homework ...

 

[Timerover51]

With respect to some design sequences, I went back and looked at my Space:1889 stuff, and then downloaded all of the books from Drive Thru.

You have some simple design sequences for vehicles in there that could be used for basic designs for Traveller. Much simpler, but add some options so that, if desired, the players or GM can dress them up a bit.

 

[aramis]

Those are on my list as well. MT Player's Manual is *THE* reference to beat for character generation. The Referee's Companion is just a wonderful resource for all sorts of Traveller bric-a-brac. And T4 Psionics, like the MT Player's Manual, is *THE* reference to beat for psionics.

T4's core psionics are, IMO, simply THE best psionics rules in any edition. I dislike intensely so much else of T4, it can't make even honorable mention as a book. But the Psionics rules keep it off the nhappy lists.

Likewise, the activation roles bits of T4 Psionics keep to Honorable Mention. But if I were to be lead for MegaTrav 2E, the T4 psionics would be dragged in as is. (I'd limit psionic skills along with normal skills, as in, total non-psionic skill levels = Int+Edu; totàl skill levels including psionics = Int + Edu+ PSR)

I have used this in the past.

 

[McPerth]

T4's core psionics are, IMO, simply THE best psionics rules in any edition. I dislike intensely so much else of T4, it can't make even honorable mention as a book. But the Psionics rules keep it off the nhappy lists.

Likewise, the activation roles bits of T4 Psionics keep to Honorable Mention. But if I were to be lead for MegaTrav 2E, the T4 psionics would be dragged in as is. (I'd limit psionic skills along with normal skills, as in, total non-psionic skill levels = Int+Edu; totàl skill levels including psionics = Int + Edu+ PSR)

I have used this in the past.

While I can agree T4 psionic rules are the best published (or at least the best I've read), so merging rules sets uses not to be a good idea.

If you wan to use T4 rules, you should use T4 skill rates and limits, and in T4 there was no skill limits. Also, skills raised levels quite easily when they were low, something not so clear in MT.

I never liked the skill limits in CT/MT, but, if you apply them to T4 psionics, you severily hinder its use, as a T4 psion carácter used to raise its skills quite quickly to (at least) level 3-4, while if you need to use MT rules to raise it, it will take quite a time...

Also, in T4 psionic training took 4 years, something usually not available on an ungoing campaign, while in MT (as in other versions) it took 4 months, something quite more easy to do in this same ongoing campaign.

 

[robject]

T4's core psionics are, IMO, simply THE best psionics rules in any edition. I dislike intensely so much else of T4, it can't make even honorable mention as a book. But the Psionics rules keep it off the nhappy lists.

Likewise, the activation roles bits of T4 Psionics keep to Honorable Mention. But if I were to be lead for MegaTrav 2E, the T4 psionics would be dragged in as is. (I'd limit psionic skills along with normal skills, as in, total non-psionic skill levels = Int+Edu; totàl skill levels including psionics = Int + Edu+ PSR)

I have used this in the past.

QFT. All of it. I'm surprised I didn't mention T4 Psionics by now.

 

[aramis]

While I can agree T4 psionic rules are the best published (or at least the best I've read), so merging rules sets uses not to be a good idea.

If you wan to use T4 rules, you should use T4 skill rates and limits, and in T4 there was no skill limits. Also, skills raised levels quite easily when they were low, something not so clear in MT.

I never liked the skill limits in CT/MT, but, if you apply them to T4 psionics, you severily hinder its use, as a T4 psion carácter used to raise its skills quite quickly to (at least) level 3-4, while if you need to use MT rules to raise it, it will take quite a time...

Also, in T4 psionic training took 4 years, something usually not available on an ungoing campaign, while in MT (as in other versions) it took 4 months, something quite more easy to do in this same ongoing campaign.

wrong in so many counts....
the only salvageable distinctive chunk of t4 is the psionics rules. T4 is overall an unenjoyable mess.
Under T4, they are WAY OVERPOWERED.Supers in the OTU. adding the skill cap brings them under control.

Mix-match is the nature of later editions of Traveller. Only GT & T5 don't simply rip chunks of prior editions' rules whole cloth.

 

[McPerth]

wrong in so many counts....
the only salvageable distinctive chunk of t4 is the psionics rules. T4 is overall an unenjoyable mess.
Under T4, they are WAY OVERPOWERED.Supers in the OTU. adding the skill cap brings them under control.

Mix-match is the nature of later editions of Traveller. Only GT & T5 don't simply rip chunks of prior editions' rules whole cloth.

Agreed about T4 characters being way overpowered (more so in high stats). See this thread for my opinion about it.

I'm always against skill caps, while I understand very high skills should be rare. IMTU this was house ruled by using the current skill level as a negative modifier to any skill learning (be it formal training or AT use) task, so that only a very bright character (high INT modifier) or under a very skilled instructor there could very high skills be achieved outside CharGen.

But making a total skill máximum limits too much the character for my liking, and I find it illogical for some skills to count. It also gave too much value to skills that had others as "included" or "serves as".

Let's imagine Rambo (have not seen most of his films, so I talk mostly about what I've heard). I guess he would have at least skill level 2 in Combat Rifleman, handgun, Melee (unarmed and short blade), heavy weapons (grande launcher), Archaic weapons (bow), tactics, Survival and at least one vehicle.

That makes 18 skill levels, so he's either quite bright (high INT) or has university education (high EDU), and, as I understand the carácter, none of those cases apply.

Again IMTU, this limit applied only to educational skills (referee´s discretion, but, as a rule of thumb, those that we felt could only be learned by studing them, not only by practice).