• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Cherry picking LBB2 versions...

I've been reexamining this thread and similar ones and came up with a tought - amazing isn't it? It is really due to my job as a computer analyst.

At some point, it becomes feasible to sacrifice backwards-compatibility or you will restrict progress. The Computer industry actually does illustrate this quite and the current "green" fuel issues do too.
 
I've been reexamining this thread and similar ones and came up with a tought - amazing isn't it? It is really due to my job as a computer analyst.

At some point, it becomes feasible to sacrifice backwards-compatibility or you will restrict progress. The Computer industry actually does illustrate this quite and the current "green" fuel issues do too.
 
BillDowns:

I agree with you... too many people are fixated on "Backwards Compatibility" rather than making things make sense...
 
BillDowns:

I agree with you... too many people are fixated on "Backwards Compatibility" rather than making things make sense...
 
Except, Aramis, that in this case, "backwards compatibility" is the same thing as making sense! ;) If it's corrected CT it should be pretty close to perfect, right?
 
Except, Aramis, that in this case, "backwards compatibility" is the same thing as making sense! ;) If it's corrected CT it should be pretty close to perfect, right?
 
Then there's the viewpoint (also prevalent amongst certain software giants) that backward compatibility is a bad thing because you want to make your customers buy all the new stuff for the new system, not continue to use what they've already got.
file_23.gif
 
Then there's the viewpoint (also prevalent amongst certain software giants) that backward compatibility is a bad thing because you want to make your customers buy all the new stuff for the new system, not continue to use what they've already got.
file_23.gif
 
Allensh - there are some LBBs on eBay right now.

Here for LBB1-3 (not the best of condition).
This one appears to be TTB and several other bits and pieces.
This auction has oodles of the LBBs and supplements (including 76 Patrons for adventure seeds!).
Traveller Starter Edition here. (Doesn't look complete - maybe somebody that owns that one could tell you if it has everything its supposed to have.)
 
Allensh - there are some LBBs on eBay right now.

Here for LBB1-3 (not the best of condition).
This one appears to be TTB and several other bits and pieces.
This auction has oodles of the LBBs and supplements (including 76 Patrons for adventure seeds!).
Traveller Starter Edition here. (Doesn't look complete - maybe somebody that owns that one could tell you if it has everything its supposed to have.)
 
CT is NOT "perfection"
MT comes closeER, but isn't there.

I'm an MT fanboy. Just one who happens to see it as CT+
 
CT is NOT "perfection"
MT comes closeER, but isn't there.

I'm an MT fanboy. Just one who happens to see it as CT+
 
I've come across another couple of differences.

The free software package in first edition is MCr2 to spend on programs, while in revised edition it is equal to computer madel number.

I would combine the two and use MCr2 or model number, whichever is higher.
 
I've come across another couple of differences.

The free software package in first edition is MCr2 to spend on programs, while in revised edition it is equal to computer madel number.

I would combine the two and use MCr2 or model number, whichever is higher.
 
Thread Resurrect

Just for grins: instead of re-hashing bay sizes, has anyone thought about a unified battery rule, which grants efficiencies and factors based on weapon type, volume, and tech level?

Or is that too mechanistic?
 
Thread Resurrect

Just for grins: instead of re-hashing bay sizes, has anyone thought about a unified battery rule, which grants efficiencies and factors based on weapon type, volume, and tech level?

Or is that too mechanistic?

Do you mean something along the lines of a table similar to those in HG, but the final weapon code grants some sort of bonus (i.e. +DM, extra hits) above what would normally be the capabilities of the same number of weapons firing at the same target?

-Fox
 
Do you mean something along the lines of a table similar to those in HG, but the final weapon code grants some sort of bonus (i.e. +DM, extra hits) above what would normally be the capabilities of the same number of weapons firing at the same target?

-Fox

I dunno. I mean, the benefits of having a bay is the increased firepower and reduced power requirement. So, I was thinking that could be extracted into general rules, then we're free to clump together however many turrets we like to get our High Guard batteries.

But, maybe it's not quite that easy.
 
If you were to clump several turrets together as one weapon/battery, it’s really no different than having them all separated (unless you’re using Multi-target). So, there would need to be some benefit to doing it.

You really couldn’t add a damage modifier, because 10 individual triple laser turrets shooting at one target will do the same damage as a battery consisting of 30 lasers.

You could say that it is more likely that the cluster of weapons will be more likely to hit a target (e.g. +1 or +2 DM to hit), but then you may want to lower the damage slightly. In other words, you’re throwing up a lot of firepower to improve your chances of inflicting a hit on the target, but you’re living with the likelihood that not all 30 lasers are going to actually hit.

Example:

For every 5 turrets in a battery, apply a +1DM to hit. Damage is by turret and weapon type:

Beam === delivers 1D-1* hits, zero counts as 1 hit
Pulse === delivers 2D-2* hits, zero counts as 1 hit
Missile === delivers 5D-5* hits, zero counts as 1 hit
Double turrets deliver two hits to each determined hit location
Triple turrets deliver three hits to each determined hit location
(* should probably be toned down)

Something similar could be done defensively for sand casters.

Maybe the crew requirement for a battery would be half as much. Maybe each battery could have its own computer…

Anyway, just some thoughts… just pulling this out of the lining of my vacc-suit. But it could be used as a design option that gives an advantage to larger ships in LBB2.

-Fox
 
Back
Top