Rules Only: Question on the Various Benefits & Drawbacks of Design Systems Across Versions

[Star Gazer]

Is there a good write-up of the pros and cons of the various ship & vehicle design systems across the multiple versions of Traveller?

Specifically, I'm looking for an over-all idea of how effective they are at their stated purpose, with an eye towards cross-compatibility.

 

[aramis]

Good write up? I don't know.

I'll start with a basic overview, tho'.

Bk2 77

Bk2 81

Bk5 79

Bk5 80

MT

TNE

T4

GT:S

T20

MGT1

MGT2

T5

Units

Tons, MCr

Tons, MCr

Tons, MCr, EP

Tons, MCr, EP

m³, MW, MCr, CP (mass)

m³, MW, MCr, m², tons-mass

m³, MW, MCr, m², tons-mass

Tons, MCr

Tons, MCr, EP

Tons, MCr

Tons, MCr, EP

Tons, MCr, CP

Computers

1—7, 1b—2b

1—7, 1b—2b

1—7, 1b—7b, 1f—7f

1—9, 1b—2b, 1f—9f

0—15, 0b—2b, 0f—15f

1-9, 1-9fib, 1-9flt

1-9, 1-9fib, 1-9flt

Included

4 rating build: Jump, Sens, Ship Control, Comms

1—7, 1b—2b

1—7, 1b—2b

0-9, 0b-9b

Bridge

0.02H, min 20

0.02H, min 20

0.02H, min 20

0.02H, min 20

none*

By Crew WS

By Crew WS

Cockpit (0.5), Basic (2.5), Command (5)

0.02H, min 20

0.02H, min 10

0.02H, min 10

By crew WS

Weapons

PLas, BLas, Msl

PLas, BLas, Msl

PLas, BLas, Msl, NMsl, PG, FG, MG, PA

PLas, BLas, Msl, NMsl, PG, FG, MG, PA

PLas, BLas, Msl, NMsl, PG, FG, MG, PA

PLas, BLas, Msl, NMsl, PG, FG, MG, PA

PLas, BLas, Msl, NMsl, PG, FG, MG, PA

Las, Msl, PG, FG, PA, MG

PLas, BLas, Msl, NMsl, PG, FG, MG, PA

PLas, BLas, Msl, NMsl, PA, MG

PLas, BLas, Msl, NMsl, PA, MG

PLas, BLas, MLas, PG, FG, Msl, NMsl, KKMsl, SMsl, Orty, RailG, AMsl, APA, PA, DC, CC, MG

Def

SC

SC

SC, MS, ND, BG, Rep, Armor

SC, MS, ND, BG, Rep, Armor

SC, MS, ND, BG, Armor, EW, Rep

SC, MS, ND, BG, Armor, EW, Rep

SC, MS, ND, BG, Armor, EW, Rep

SC, MS, ND, BG, Armor, Rep

SC, MS, ND, BG, Armor, EW, Rep

SC, MS, ND, BG, Armor, EW, Rep

SC, MS, ND, BG, Armor, EW, Rep

SC, DC, Armor, ND, MS, MagSc, ProSc, BG, WG, SG

Armor Volume?

n/a

n/a

Yes

Yes

no

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Drives

Table

Table

Formula

Formula

Both

Formula

Formula

Formula

both

table

formula

both

USP/UCP ratings?

No

No

Yes*

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

no

no

some

PP≥JD

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Alternate Drves

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Weapon Sizes

1T

1T

1T, 2T, 10T, 50T, 100T

1T, 2T, 5T, 50T, 100T

1T, 2T, 5T, 50T, 100T

Any

Any

(Any§) 1T, 3T, 50T, 100T

1T, 2T, 5T, 50T, 100T

1T, 50T, 100T

1T, 50T, 100T

1T, 3T, 5T, 50T, 100T, 200T

Batteries?

No

No

Yes*

Yes

Yes

Yes**

Yes**

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Max Size in tables

5000

5000

1000000

1000000

1000000

n/a

n/a

3,000,000

1000000

2000

(uncertain yet)

2400

Jump Paradigm

Letter Restricted

Letter Restricted

TL restricted

TL restricted

TL restricted

TL restricted

TL restricted

TL restricted

TL restricted

TL restricted

TL restricted

TL restricted

Comments and corrections welcome.
Letter Restricted - Bk2 (both) limit which drive sizes (by drive letter) are available by TL, but not the maximum performance, so it's possible (barely) to get J4 at TL9 under Bk2-77, and J3 under Bk2-81 (due to computer max 3)

Drives: Table, Formulae, or both: if it says table, the table is not formulaic. If it says Formulae, it's not giving tables. If it says both, it gives the formulae, and the tables match (to within rounding).

I've not included the various non-FF&S T4 alternates nor the GT ones.

In the spoiler - J4 valid designs at 200Td under Bk2 - both versions. TL10 for Bk2-81, and TL 9 for Bk2-77.

Spoiler:

TL 10 J4 Bk2-81	TL 9 J4 Bk2-77
200 Hull 020 Bridge 080 JFuel 025 JD D 016 PP D 001 MD A 003 Model 4 012 SRx3 PNEEM (1 SO, 4 DO) 040 PP Fuel x4 weeks 002 Payload	200 Hull 020 Bridge 080 JFuel 025 JD D 004 PP A 001 MD A 001 Model 1/bis 016 SRx4 PNEM 010 PP Fuel x4 weeks 043 Payload

* But not the same as Bk5:HG-80
** not the same as HG batteries - battery definition by weapon build and MFD choices.
§ GURPS vehicles and other bits of GURPS allow other sizes readily; the listed sizes are prefigured.

 

[CliffBates]

Thanks you for this. This is very interesting....

 

[tjoneslo]

For GT:Starships:

Units: Tons, MCr
Computers: Included
Bridge: Cockpit (0.5), Basic (2.5), Command (5)
Weapons: Turret: Lasers, missiles, Plasma, Fusion, PA, Sandcaster, Bays: Plasma, Fusion, Missiles, PA, Meson. Spinal mount: PS, Meson.
Defense: Turret: Sandcaster, Bay: Repulsors, Armor, ND, Meson Screen, Black Globe.
Armor Volume: No
Drives: Formula
USP/UCP ratings: No
PP > JD: No
Alternate Drives: Yes
Weapon Sizes: 1T, 3T, 50T, 100T** -> If you know GURPS Vehicles, you can build any size.
Batteries: No
Max Size in tables: 3M
Jump Paradigm: TL Restricted

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Traveller5 Weps.

Also, I noticed the T5 Weapon & Defenses boxes are missing data under T5.

Weps: PLas, BLas, MLas, PG, FG, Msl, NMsl, KKMsl, SMsl, Orty, RailG, AMsl, APA, PA, DC, CC, MG.

Maybe forgetting one or two, T5 don't skimp on the goodies.

Dfs: SC, DC, Armor, ND, MS, MagSc, ProSc, BG, WG, SG.

Again, may be missing one or two.

 

[aramis]

GT:S added, T5 updated.

 

[kilemall]

I suspect he's looking for things like 'this version is gadget wonky' 'that version is made for accountants' 'straight CT is wide open but simplistic' 'T5 will make you attractive to your preferred sex buy it all now', etc.

 

[aramis]

I suspect he's looking for things like 'this version is gadget wonky' 'that version is made for accountants' 'straight CT is wide open but simplistic' 'T5 will make you attractive to your preferred sex buy it all now', etc.

that would co well beyond comparison to "opinion" and boils down to "Many a flamewar over this"... because any comparison of the type you advocate is extremely subject to personal biases. (As in, I'd say anything other than Bk2, HG-80 and HG-2016 are definitely too [adverbial expletive deleted] wonky to use. And I'm not certain about HG-2016... as it's in playtest. And for the OTU, I wish firmly that Marc had zipyanked Bk2 out during the 2E revision and replaced it with a limited form of HG. But I digress.)

The big table at least has the advantage of being concrete data - it's not flamewar material.

 

[aramis]

So, a new line I'm thinking needs to be added...
Damage Mechanic

The problem is the terminology.

Bk2 is essentially "damage to drives as attributes"... a Type R as written needs 2 hits to knock out its' drive C - because it only needs drive B for 1G, and it's not destroyed until the A level hit.

Bk5 is "every hit attrits a function level"

MGT 1E is "Every hit disables a system"
Mayday is also "disables a system"

T20 is damage in SP to hull, plus attrit a function level.

lets collate the rest to add them to the table.

 

[kilemall]

that would co well beyond comparison to "opinion" and boils down to "Many a flamewar over this"... because any comparison of the type you advocate is extremely subject to personal biases. (As in, I'd say anything other than Bk2, HG-80 and HG-2016 are definitely too [adverbial expletive deleted] wonky to use. And I'm not certain about HG-2016... as it's in playtest. And for the OTU, I wish firmly that Marc had zipyanked Bk2 out during the 2E revision and replaced it with a limited form of HG. But I digress.)

The big table at least has the advantage of being concrete data - it's not flamewar material.

Too bad. It would probably be useful for players coming to or back to the system to find their 'habitable zone'.

 

[Takei]

I think the Drives entry for Bk 5 80 (and possibly 79?) should read "Both" as p.22 states,

"It is possible to include standard drives (at standard prices) from Book 2 if they will otherwise meet the ship's requirements; such drives use fuel as indicated by the formulas in Book 2."

 

[aramis]

I think the Drives entry for Bk 5 80 (and possibly 79?) should read "Both" as p.22 states,

"It is possible to include standard drives (at standard prices) from Book 2 if they will otherwise meet the ship's requirements; such drives use fuel as indicated by the formulas in Book 2."

The grandfather clause... It's worth a footnote, but it's not generally not actually part of HG.

 

[kilemall]

The grandfather clause... It's worth a footnote, but it's not generally not actually part of HG.

I actually do allow and encourage the two systems side by side.

The letter rated drives are more an ISO engineering spec that can be fulfilled by it's minimum TL forward, any starport TL9 and up can make an A drive for instance and it will 'plug in' to any other TL ship with 'standard' engineering.

Want something bigger or more space efficient or armor or bays, have to build 'custom' with HG, with greater reward comes greater risk/cost (for instance, the TL14 ship may not be able to be refitted/restored at the TL11 starport, only patched and sent on it's way or wait on parts).

Incidentally, this makes the smaller standard drive ships much more enticing to the pirates as the drive/plant can be dropped into another standard ship whereas the 100,000 ton bulk freighter may have power plants that cannot fit into any customer's ship.

Eliminating all traces of nanoetched component ID is a drag though.

 

[DanDare]

Too bad. It would probably be useful for players coming to or back to the system to find their 'habitable zone'.

That definitely requires factual comparative data rather than one persons opinion about their own HZ and others flaming all over it.

OTOH folks could declare they were defining their own HZ and instead of flaming one another we could lay down different preferences side by side. A newbie or returnee could then scan to find a description that resonates for them.