• 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.

Dialing Back ACS

Yah, it depends on what works for people. So I am sensitive to accessibility due to experience: I found that, for instance, those who worked on FFS2 were not sympathetic to me, who did not like it.

They did not put effort to understand what CT people liked, which may have made their process more accessible, even if it didn't -change- the details. No effort to think about the problem that I know of, even if the result was to discard the attempt with reasoned positions.

Fatally, I think, because FFS2 did not draw in most Travellers.
 
[rant mode]FFS1 and FFS2 are fairly similar in concept. Trouble is the misprinting of FFS2 made it too much effort to use - so why bother?

There are interesting things hidden within - but I can't be bothered to decipher the hieroglyphics it was written in.

Similarly GT:Starships could have been brilliant - but I would love to meet the muppet who thought power slices was a good idea.[/rant]
 
[rant mode]FFS1 and FFS2 are fairly similar in concept. Trouble is the misprinting of FFS2 made it too much effort to use - so why bother?

There are interesting things hidden within - but I can't be bothered to decipher the hieroglyphics it was written in.

Similarly GT:Starships could have been brilliant - but I would love to meet the muppet who thought power slices was a good idea.[/rant]


Complexity is like gravity: problems = complexity squared.
 
I love FF&S but the T4 version was a huge mess. I think it was an improvement, but the fact that T4 supplements from around the same time like the vehicles book were incompatible made it a bit of a joke.
 
Don't have T5, haven't seen ACS.

While I appreciate the "hunting for food" vs "hunting for sport" analogy, and the "What Marc wants combat to feel like", that doesn't mean that ships aren't designed for combat.

Perhaps the Free Trader is not, but the ever present, lovable SDB is designed for combat.

We've had a few enduring designs that have been within the Imperium for years and years, but it's not really even clear that the designs are actually good at what they're supposed to do, or viable in the large. Does a 400dT SDB make any sense in a universe of 50K ton battle cruisers?

The long running chatter in the other threads about organization, ThingRons, and how what ships do what, are all well and good. They add great color. But we don't know if the ships are necessary in actual combat, or whatever other role they play.

I've advocated for the longest time that Combat be designed first, ships designed for combat, and then organized from there. That a FF&S be used (or used as a basis) that lets the players make their designs as crunchy as they want, but then an ACS be built on top of the FF&S version, with basically pre-built modules that snap in to standard hulls. Make some assumptions, round some numbers, stack up some tables, and snap it all together to where you have a simpler to design ship that flies and fights and jumps and burns fuel just like it was designed in the more complicated system.

Maybe it doesn't fight or fly as efficiently as custom designed ship, but odds are, in the end, that efficiency isn't enough to turn the tide of a battle or the overarching narrative of the story, not in "adventure" mode.

I understand it's a tough problem. A system that needs to behave consistently at the small ship and big ship level, and ideally, have some operational attributes considered so that when fleets are loaded out there is a sense as to what these ships do, and why they are the way they are. All that for a system that's really designed to make a Free Trader lift off from a planet, fly to 100D and Jump. Tough problem indeed.

But in the end, you can't consider the design system and combat system independently of each other. Star Fleet Battles does that to some point. They never published a design system. In truth, they never published a scoring system. They had their "BPV" rating for their ships, and by not publishing the underlying mechanics of the system, they reserved the right to tweak the values to balance the ships out to try and encourage a reasonably fair fight when squadrons of similar point values fought each other. Game balance was a very important design tenet of SFB, and they knew they couldn't publish a "balanced" point system. The players are simply to clever for it, and as the players worked out the problems, SFB added rule limitations to rein in abuse.

There's no call to go that far in Traveller. But if the Imperium is flying CruRons with escorts, it would be nice if they were doing so for reasons other than color. Other than "what Marc feels a squadron would look like". If Marc feels that way, then put some effort in to the combat system that reinforces that if a player were to build such a fleet, when "Hunting for Sport", he would see that, for whatever reasons, the underlying design and combat systems make CruRons with Escorts a sound, reasonable design. They should reinforce each other.

I didn't want to suggest that was easy either.

Is all that necessary to build a Free Trader? No, not really, but, it makes the Free Trader make sense. Much like the comments on the Trade system. If I have a Free Trader, and use the trade system, and can't reasonably make a go of it, then there's something wrong with the system or the ship. They're out of balance.

When you have that richness of the underlying design, then when we see SDBs patrolling the 90D limit, of the inner Gas Giant, laying in wait, then we know that the SDB design and squadron organization, whatever it may be, is a smart design. It's going to be dangerous and a deterrent to an invading fleet. The invaders are going to think twice about it.

Ships are built and designed the way they are for a reason, not just color. The combat system documents those reasons, and the design system allows ships to be manifest in performance of their roles.
 
We've had a few enduring designs that have been within the Imperium for years and years, but it's not really even clear that the designs are actually good at what they're supposed to do, or viable in the large. Does a 400dT SDB make any sense in a universe of 50K ton battle cruisers?


Most of the published non-combat designs work fine in the rulesets where they were first published.

The Type A only is a problem when you build it with High Guard, for example. Under either major version of Book 2 designs and trade, it makes a profit at 75% full on freight and mids. (60% under Bk2-77)

The Type R works under Bk2-77 - it works on subsidy only under Bk2-81, due to differences in expected available cargo.

The 10KTd megafreighters work ok under Bk5+Bk7... if on the correct route... but not under Bk5+bk2.

Absolute Best case for a single hop, under Bk-2-81 is 1242Td of freight, 5 Td of Mail, and 400Td of Spec. So 1647Td. And 18 HP, 24 MP, 36 MP, for another 186 Td in fittings. And this requires Pop A to Pop A. So, maximum possible fill is 1833 Td.

Under Bk2-77, the absolute best is 720Td of freight, 12 HP, 12 MP, 36 LP (114 Td in fittings), 5 Td of mail, and 400Td spec. And requires a non-generatable pop C. So, 1239 Td.

In either case, it's often practical to carry a couple extra spec loads, so add another 400 each for maximum fill... -77 is thus about 1640Td max reasonable load (and that to pop C), while -81 is about 2235 for maximum...

Meanwhile, under Bk7, the maximum amount of freight is equal to the maximum amount of cargo under Bk2-81. So... 2484 + 5 + 114 fittings... 2603 Td... Anything bigger MUST be making money across multiple jumps.

Only one trade system generates more available than these - GTFT.
 
[cut and paste]Ships are built and designed the way they are for a reason, not just color. The combat system documents those reasons, and the design system allows ships to be manifest in performance of their roles.
[/cut and paste]

I've advocated for the longest time that Combat be designed first, ships designed for combat, and then organized from there.

So has Don McKinney. And you're both right.

That a FF&S be used (or used as a basis) that lets the players make their designs as crunchy as they want, but then an ACS be built on top of the FF&S version, with basically pre-built modules that snap in to standard hulls. Make some assumptions, round some numbers, stack up some tables, and snap it all together to where you have a simpler to design ship that flies and fights and jumps and burns fuel just like it was designed in the more complicated system.
So has Jim Kundert, more or less. It's reasonable. The way T5 is currently, the ship design system is essentially the "crunchy details" layer.
 
Last edited:
<space> combat ought to be deadly.

elsewhere we observe a poll regarding frequency of players' use of ship-to-ship combat. the result was close to zero. I offered up a vector system for ship-to-ship combat, no-one responded in any manner positive or negative. I offered up three pbp games involving space combat, no-one responded in any manner, even to ask a question.

space combat, deadly or otherwise, seems to play no rpg role.
 
seems to me that making a distinction between the rpg and the wargame cuts the rpg in half and leaves the wargame hanging in a void. no wargamers play wargames where one side is "side a" and the other side is "side b". they want to play nazi sturm soldaten vs red army, or james bond vs spectre, or u.s. navy seals vs dog-eating terrorists, or imperial navy vs perfidious zhodani. as for the rpg, it's not often you see well-heeled travellers being transported in luxury liners from one adventure to another, they're usually hard-scrabble do-it-my-way types with their own boats with guns and gunners not as luxury displays but as necessary gear.

can't have one without the other.
 
flykiller;523282 said:
seems to me that making a distinction between the rpg and the wargame cuts the rpg in half and leaves the wargame hanging in a void.

(1) no wargamers play wargames where one side is "side a" and the other side is "side b". they want to play nazi sturm soldaten vs red army, or james bond vs spectre, or u.s. navy seals vs dog-eating terrorists, or imperial navy vs perfidious zhodani.

(2) as for the rpg, it's not often you see well-heeled travellers being transported in luxury liners from one adventure to another, they're usually hard-scrabble do-it-my-way types with their own boats with guns and gunners not as luxury displays but as necessary gear.

can't have one without the other.

You're right: Traveller has spaceships and needs detailed rules for ship combat.

I am stating that those rules are seldom played. And I think the main reason for that is that ship combat is a wargame, and it appears as though space wargames are an even smaller niche than RPGs, unless you're Warhammer or Star Wars.
 
When I have space combat during a game I do not break out Mayday or decamp to a wargame table.

I use a range band system (using the circular sensor map from DGP) for plotting relative positions.

Then everything is roleplayed rather than wargamed - I have something for everyone to do so they all feel involved and dice are rolled.

The early stages resemble a sub hunt with lots of sensor rolls, twenty minute turns, play up the tension. Then there is a change of scale and a period of frantic activity during which weapons are fired - no 20 minute turns for this stage of combat.

I have come to the conclusion that ships fight at their maximum range and hope for lucky shots, because as you get closer the weapons used are capable of levelling a small city, let alone blowing a ship.

Once a ship has degraded performance it is time to run away, surrender or fight to the death.

Space combat during a rpg should feel like an extension of an rpg, it should not be a wargame requiring a player master the intricacies of a particular rulesystem.

I do not play fantasy rpgs and break out my WRG Ancients rules to resolve combat. Combat is described, dice are rolled. Space combat should feel the same.

Just MHO of course.

(And I do enjoy playing space wargames and space boardgames, but Traveller is a space role playing game so it should be about role playing)
 
The early stages resemble a sub hunt with lots of sensor rolls, twenty minute turns, play up the tension. Then there is a change of scale and a period of frantic activity during which weapons are fired - no 20 minute turns for this stage of combat.

sounds pretty good.
 
seems to me that making a distinction between the rpg and the wargame cuts the rpg in half and leaves the wargame hanging in a void. no wargamers play wargames where one side is "side a" and the other side is "side b". they want to play nazi sturm soldaten vs red army, or james bond vs spectre, or u.s. navy seals vs dog-eating terrorists, or imperial navy vs perfidious zhodani. as for the rpg, it's not often you see well-heeled travellers being transported in luxury liners from one adventure to another, they're usually hard-scrabble do-it-my-way types with their own boats with guns and gunners not as luxury displays but as necessary gear.

can't have one without the other.

Red team and Blue team. That's it:

http://www.amazon.com/Avalon-Hill-Tactics-Realistic-Military/dp/9990378223

Avalon Hill, baby.
 
So has Don McKinney. And you're both right.

So has Jim Kundert, more or less. It's reasonable. The way T5 is currently, the ship design system is essentially the "crunchy details" layer.

Note that, under T4, the less crunchy versions were so inferior that they were seldom used by people actually sharing stuff. Sure QSDS was fast - but an FF&S2 design had more optimized weapons, sensors, and didn't wind up with the rounding errors, so armor took less space...

It was actually FAR more divisive than unitive to the player base. (Or do you not recall the flame wars on the TML?)

And that's ignoring that the QSDS in the book was flat out simply WRONG! (And not in favor of the ship, either.)
 
Note that, under T4, the less crunchy versions were so inferior that they were seldom used by people actually sharing stuff. Sure QSDS was fast - but an FF&S2 design had more optimized weapons, sensors, and didn't wind up with the rounding errors, so armor took less space...

It was actually FAR more divisive than unitive to the player base. (Or do you not recall the flame wars on the TML?)

And that's ignoring that the QSDS in the book was flat out simply WRONG! (And not in favor of the ship, either.)

Sad but true. And terrible, how terrible.

The designers of FFS2 seem to have been unaware of what Book 2 and High Guard and MegaTraveller users liked about their systems, and so QSDS and SSDS were churned out.

I'm sure the opposite would cause problems as well -- a Book 2 person trying to create an FFS.

Either way, the designer has to get into the heads of both types of person.
 
Either way, the designer has to get into the heads of both types of person.

NO! NO!! NO!!!! You missed the point entirely!

The process of abstracting to a simple ruleset from a detailed one is ALWAYS going to produce substandard designs. It did so with SSDS and with QSDS. It even did so with BL - because BL provided non-optimized cans for the standard turrets, and a little judicious rules oriented tweaking improved costs and performance even there.

And the MT unified design system was more curse than blessing.
 
Then we're talking past one another, because you missed my point:

People who use Book 2, for example, like something different about ship design than those who use FFS2, even though the output to both is a "starship". If you attached five decimal points of precision on Book 2 components, the system would be harmed. Abstraction has the benefit of paying attention to what's important about ship design, versus paying attention to everything.

I abandoned QSDS not because it produced substandard designs, but rather because it was as boring as hell.

In simpler design systems, loss of precision is intentional, understood, accepted (and doesn't matter anyway -- because "no one uses space combat").

Simpler systems intentionally use abstraction to weigh the game components. Math-heavy systems intentionally do not, in order to create physics-crunchiness. That's a major difference between the two, and I suspect each appeals to a completely different chunk of the brain.

The error T4 made was to "dumb down" design - not understanding that the audience changes, they instead just gave us something stupider. The implicit and unintentional assumption was that the users of QSDS are less intelligent but of the same temperament and with the same preferences of users of FFS2. We both want starships, therefore anything will do, right? Under this line of reasoning the appeal of Book 2 (and yes, even High Guard) is a complete mystery to them.

That may sound harsh, so I'll temper it by saying that creating a design system is not easy to begin with. Plainly, if Book 2 had to deal with sensors, armor, active defenses, more emplacements and weapons, battery factors, energy tracking, drop tanks, small craft, and so on, it would be rather heavier than it is. In fact it might look quite a bit like High Guard.
 
Last edited:
No, Rob, I get your point. I think it also is problematic to do it that way.

Any good game should have one, and ONLY ONE, design system for each category of items.

Keep in mind, T4 had/has many that overlap.

Shipsmall craftplanetaryVehicles
QSDSEmperor's Vehicles
SSDS
[tc=3]FF&S 2[/tc] [tc=3]FF&S 1 (TNE)[/tc]

Let's compare this to CT...
Shipsmall craftplanetary Vehicles
Bk2-77
Bk2-81
Striker
[tc=2]Bk 5-79[/tc] [tc=2]Bk 5-80[/tc]

This overlap is a problem in every bit as big as the abstraction.

Book 2 is a wholly different tech limit on interstellar travel. One not replicated in non-CT anywhere.
Bk 5 is simple, easy to use, and many of us memorized certain key tables. (I can whip up basic cargo ships in Bk5 from memory.)

Having both Bk 2 and Bk 5, different drive formulae especially, in the same rules edition was a rather frequent problem.

The ship design paradigm interacts, at least for verisimilitude, with combat, trade, and military organization. For trade, it directly impacts whether the costs are reasonable or not, given the fixed pricing.
 
The biggest problem with FF&S2 is that it came out two years after QSDS. Ideally QSDS would be designed after FF&S2 not before.

I've been toying with an idea for my collection of standard weapons and vehicles. A TL-12 generic ship class. Essentially you'd have four standard hulls and three standard drive packages. At that point you'd just have to install your turrets.

I haven't sat down with the book, but you'd have a 200, 400, 600, and 800 dTon hull designed with a version for each of the three drive packages, providing a range of 12 hulls that can be customized with whichever turrets you want.

It's not a design system and none of the ships would be perfectly optimized but from a generic modular platform outlook I think it would be sufficient for most people who don't want to sit down and design a ship.

I could probably do TL 10, 12, and 14 but that gets it up to 36 variants.
 
Back
Top