MT Only: DGP Material Status / Updates

[Redcap]

If it doesn't happen soon then the new stuff will have overwritten the old so much that it is worthless.

Not that much; a great deal of the old DGP Traveller's Digest was written for before MT came out, so it's going to work in most cases.

A persistent disagreement of orders of magnitude (note the plural). something about wanting high 6 digits cash up front, last I hear him state it.

That was my last understanding of the situation, yes.

 

[aramis]

Not that much; a great deal of the old DGP Traveller's Digest was written for before MT came out, so it's going to work in most cases.

Most authors have already re-canonized in other sources the fluff, and most of the crunch is MT specific. (Note that MT starts about issue 12, but most of the rules crunch in the TD run is in issues 10+)

 

[GypsyComet]

Most authors have already re-canonized in other sources the fluff, and most of the crunch is MT specific. (Note that MT starts about issue 12, but most of the rules crunch in the TD run is in issues 10+)

Was it that late? TD went dual timeline as of issue 9, the Capital issue, which included both an interview and biography of Strephon and news of his assassination.

 

[Redcap]

From what I recall of TD (the copies I have are in storage), it was mainly concerned in the first 12 or so issues with the journey of the party from the Spinward Marches to Capital:Core for their investiture ceremonies, and material surrounding that journey. It also introduced the Task System as we grew to know it that was used in MT. Thus, must of the material, whether or not re-canonised later, is still very much usable in CT.

 

[mike wightman]

The early DGP digest were pure fanon

nice stuff but nothing anyone else couldn't have come up with

They also made certain assumptions based on their version of the Imperium...

not to mention the stuff they got just plain wrong.

 

[aramis]

The early DGP digest were pure fanon

nice stuff but nothing anyone else couldn't have come up with

They also made certain assumptions based on their version of the Imperium...

not to mention the stuff they got just plain wrong.

It can be more convincingly argued that anyone who disagreed with them got it wrong, instead... they did, after all, write the 3rd edition of Traveller (MegaTraveller).

Their view was, starting in fall 1987, the correct view. Until 1992.

 

[Redcap]

I'll add that from what I understand, to get the 'approved for use' notes on the cover of TD, they would have had to get each issue approved by GDW in advance. So, whether of not it was fanon or not, it was 'approved'. How you view that is, of course, up to you

 

[mike wightman]

It can be more convincingly argued that anyone who disagreed with them got it wrong, instead... they did, after all, write the 3rd edition of Traveller (MegaTraveller).

Their view was, starting in fall 1987, the correct view. Until 1992.

They based many MT tech paradigms on 77 edition CT rather than 81/HG

 

[Redcap]

Well, there you have it, then: Conclusive proof for the existence of IMTU

 

[GypsyComet]

They based many MT tech paradigms on 77 edition CT rather than 81/HG

And yet many of the nuts and bolts were straight from Striker.

 

[Redcap]

I've not looked at my copy of Striker in well over a decade (It's in storage). What bits were you referring to?

 

[GypsyComet]

I've not looked at my copy of Striker in well over a decade (It's in storage). What bits were you referring to?

The armor scale, the powerplant scale, many of the weapons, sensors, and comms as expressed for vehicle scale combat.

If you want to fill out nearly any of the vehicular weapon tables, Striker is the tool to do it.

 

[aramis]

The armor scale, the powerplant scale, many of the weapons, sensors, and comms as expressed for vehicle scale combat.

If you want to fill out nearly any of the vehicular weapon tables, Striker is the tool to do it.

Actually, almost all the striker tables are already ported over - but are in the vehicle design tables.

 

[mike wightman]

And yet many of the nuts and bolts were straight from Striker.

And because of this they killed the holy cow - they screwed up ship design to make it (in)compatible with Striker.

 

[aramis]

And because of this they killed the holy cow - they screwed up ship design to make it (in)compatible with Striker.

Actually, the designs are ratings compatible with Striker right down the line... it simplifies from striker by only having one armor value, and not figuring width of treads and wheels...

And HG designs can be used almost as is in MT - just convert the AV. No Issues at all. Note that the AV effect is VERY different from the one in striker - with or without errata - MT uses 40+(3 x HG AV)... this is grounded in the table effects of armor in the MT HG combat rules.

 

[Garnfellow]

A persistent disagreement of orders of magnitude (note the plural). something about wanting high 6 digits cash up front, last I heard him state it.

There are disagreements, and then there are delusions.

 

[GypsyComet]

And HG designs can be used almost as is in MT - just convert the AV. No Issues at all.

Not sure I'd go that far. There are significantly differing fuel use models. Conversion is possible, but only quick at the fleet level where the user of the design really doesn't care about logistics. At the adventure class end of things, the balancing act with fuel and power is much more important.

 

[McPerth]

And HG designs can be used almost as is in MT - just convert the AV.

MT and HG designs are quite different. I don't believe they can be so easily converted. Asside from AV:

1. Power needs are quite different (MT needs power for the MD, Life support, etc...)
2. In HG mass and tonnage are the same, while in MT are discriminated
3. Due to 1 and 2, MT ships are usually very short in agility (if they have any at all)
4. MT designs allow for several kind of the same weapon, while HG don't (e,g, in MT you can have PA spinal, bays and turrets in the same ship, while in HG you cannot)
5. Fuel needs are quite different
6. Due to 1 and 5, MT hsips use to have shorter endurance (in days) than those in HG
7. HG doesn't have sensors, while they are quite important in MT

And sure I forget some more...

 

[whartung]

1. MT designs allow for several kind of the same weapon, while HG don't (e,g, in MT you can have PA spinal, bays and turrets in the same ship, while in HG you cannot)

Nonsense. The Ship Listing is what describes a ship, the USP is simply a component of that listing as the USP string is not rich enough to describe the ship. You can't fight the ship with the USP alone. The USP is a summary of the ship. There's nothing to stop you from having multiple types of the same weapon, just notate them on the ship listing, and put the largest factor in the USP string.

 

[GypsyComet]

CT High Guard is, aside from the character generation chapter, a fleet combat sim. The limitation on weapons, which is explicitly stated in the construction rules by the way, is an artifact of that. DGP recognized that and, by removing the sim's limiting USP, removed the constraint as well.