What's wrong with COACC?

[atpollard]

As someone who has used COACC and found a great deal to like about it, I was asked to come here and 'help with errata'.

So what is wrong with COACC?

Please be brief and specific - you are entirely within your rights to hate everything about it, but I have no desire to waste time trying to change anyone's OPINIONS.

Thank you for your participation.

 

[Ishmael]

I had a strong dislike for the design sequence, but that's just me; I have my own ideas about designing vehicles for Traveller and even FFS1 falls short in many areas imho.

iirc, the quick aerial combat rules were good but I never really used them in them Traveller
because of my design-rules bias. That, and it seemed too simplistic as a wargame and over-the-top for a fast and dirty rpg game-within-a-game. I recall using it as a basis for a hex-based dogfight game a long time ago ( something part-way between AH's "Richtofen's War" and SPI's "Air War" ).

The characters creation was very good
The artwork was top-notch

overall, it was a good product, but never quite suited my own personal tastes...it seemed to fall into the cracks between rpg and wargame.

just my opinion based on 15-20 year old memory ( which I expect is not nearly as sharp as it used to be...)

 

[aramis]

Conversions between mass and volume?
Displacement tonnage of loaded aircraft?
(These were the two major issues I had)
Inability to add airframe modifiers to starships...

It's not a bad design system, it's just that it's not fully compatible with the integrated system in RM.

 

[atpollard]

Conversions between mass and volume?
Displacement tonnage of loaded aircraft?
(These were the two major issues I had)
Inability to add airframe modifiers to starships...

It's not a bad design system, it's just that it's not fully compatible with the integrated system in RM.

If this refers to the COACC design system being fully mass based with barely a nod to the Displacement Ton (or kl), I could not agree more. I wanted to add a turboprop engine to a boat to create one of those 'swamp boats' common in the Everglades, but of course, COACC lists no data on the volume of components, so I was just out of luck.

I thought once about rewriting the COACC design system using Striker and the Starship design system (for about an hour), but I came to my senses and decided that a High Guard-like Aircraft design system would be better.

That project is on hold until FFE releases the TNE Disk so I can incorporate HG, MT and TNE compatibility in one system (to whatever extent the rules will allow). Striker forms a bridge between CT and MT, but I have never seen FF&S.

 

[jfetters]

I don't think there is much technically wrong or bad in a content perspective. My only problem with it was "why did GDW publish this and not advance the Rebellion?" Props to Terry, who did a great job with the content, but IMO, it was the last thing that GDW needed to publish at the time.

 

[kaladorn]

Lots!

Now, the official errata probably patches much of the utterly unusable bits (boy did they do a bad editing job).

I'll have to haul out my copy sometime soon (next couple or three weeks) and see if I have any thoughts on things that were done badly even after the Errata.

 

[aramis]

FF&S is essentially MT derived, however...
1) different armor and penetration scales, and thus armor and weapons differently rated
2) non-striker derived/compatible weapon design system
3) addition of surface area as a constraint
4) different computer rules
5) return to CT jump fuel rates
6) per year PP fuel rates (instead of per month.)
7) structure rated for G's, and built as a component, rather than a table lookup.
8) different crewing assumptions
9) very different range assumptions integrated into the weapons designs and sensors systems
10) 3 ton turrets standard, instead of 1 ton
11) 14Td Dton instead of the 13.5Td MT Dton.

It already integrates much of the stuff; working it back into MT stats is prety easily done.

If this refers to the COACC design system being fully mass based with barely a nod to the Displacement Ton (or kl), I could not agree more. I wanted to add a turboprop engine to a boat to create one of those 'swamp boats' common in the Everglades, but of course, COACC lists no data on the volume of components, so I was just out of luck.

FF&S will in fact provide many of the needed volumes

 

[atpollard]

FF&S will in fact provide many of the needed volumes

I am probably the only person waiting for T5 to be released, just so Marc can get back to TNE CD.

 

[Vile]

I am probably the only person waiting for T5 to be released, just so Marc can get back to TNE CD.

Not to mention sorting out the MT CD-ROM scans ...

 

[aramis]

Well, Mr. Pollard, FF&S is available separately via DTRG...

 

[atpollard]

Well, Mr. Pollard, FF&S is available separately via DTRG...

There must be a touch of Scotsman in my Welsh ancestry, cause it sure rubs me the wrong way to pay for the same item twice. :nonono:

 

[aramis]

There must be a touch of Scotsman in my Welsh ancestry, cause it sure rubs me the wrong way to pay for the same item twice. :nonono:

No, lad, that's the Welshman in ya, annoyed 't being on the wrong end o' th' double chargin'!

 

[Vargas]

I don't think there is much technically wrong or bad in a content perspective. My only problem with it was "why did GDW publish this and not advance the Rebellion?" Props to Terry, who did a great job with the content, but IMO, it was the last thing that GDW needed to publish at the time.

I think this is a case where hindsight isn't necessarily 20/20. There was a good deal of pushing by the hardcore fan community, some members of HIWG being a good example, to take advantage of the fact that all of Classic Traveller had been consolidated into what was effectively a second edition of the game and to further extend the total body of work. Both COACC and Wet Navy were seen as doing for flyers and sailors what Books 6 and 7 did for scouts and merchants. There was a big interest in being the writer who helped to illuminate some corner of the OTU because there were plenty of opportunities for freelancers to get their material into print and pretty much if it saw print, the thinking was, it was cannon.

You're right of course, Terry did an outstanding job, but I think the publication of COACC is an example of the less than cohesive approach DGP and GDW took to "promoting" the Rebellion.

 

[Timerover51]

If this refers to the COACC design system being fully mass based with barely a nod to the Displacement Ton (or kl), I could not agree more. I wanted to add a turboprop engine to a boat to create one of those 'swamp boats' common in the Everglades, but of course, COACC lists no data on the volume of components, so I was just out of luck. . . . . .

I have data on the volume of some turboprops and also aircraft engine along with some tank engines, if you are still interested in this.

 

[Timerover51]

The following is extracted from the
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS AIRCRAFT CIRCULAR NO. 185
THE DEWOITINE D.332 COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE (FRENCH)*
A Three-Engine All-Metal Low-Wing Monoplane
By Maurice Victor
The report is dated December 1933, and can be found in full on archive.org

The engines are of the Hispano-Suiza 9 V radial aircooled type with nine cylinders of 155.6 mm (6.13 in..) bore, 174.7 mm (6.88 in.) stroke, and. 29.18 liters (1,780.7 cu.in.) piston displacement. Compression ratio, 5.3; rated power, 575 hp. at 1,900 r.p.m.; 650 hp. power equivalent; three Hispano-Solex carburetors; two Scintilla magnetos. Weight empty, 390 kg (860 lb.); length 1.23 in (4 ft.).; diameter with N.A.C.A. cowling, 1.4 m (4.6 ft.).

This gives some idea as to the size of a moderately-powered radial aircraft engine in the 1930s, so about Tech Level 5. Engines would be used for a long time, gradually being upgraded to more powerful types. This engine could fit into a 1.5 meter cube, or one-quarter of a Traveller dTon.

 

[Proneutron]

I wanted to add a turboprop engine to a boat to create one of those 'swamp boats' common in the Everglades, but of course, COACC lists no data on the volume of components, so I was just out of luck.

Why were you out of luck? You needed basic data on a real world item. That should have taken 30 minutes max to gather. While typing this it took me less than 3 minutes to find out the engine types used by the majority of airboats (swamp boats)

 

[Timerover51]

Then you have the Packard radial Diesel engine of 1928, with a more detailed description and write-up here: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/31023/31023-h/31023-h.htm#Page_11

The engine delivered 225 Horsepower at 1,900 rpm, weighed 510 pounds without propeller hub, and was just under 46 inches in diameter and 36 3/4 inches long. Its volume would be about 1.6 cubic meters, or about 0.12 of a Traveller dTon.

An aircraft powered by this engine set a record for unrefueled flight of over 84 hours. The Wright Whirlwind J-5 was very similar in terms of weight and dimensions, but burned 50 percent more fuel in cruising flight. The cost of the Diesel was $4025, while the Wright engine cost $3000.

 

[mega-striker]

Late to the discussion but here is my $0.02. The big takeaway for me was the accuracy. I designed many WWI, WWII and (for the time) modern planes and it worked for all. What I really wanted to do was design up various aircraft then work up some rules to incorporate them into Air Superiority, or some rescaled version which could accommodate the slower speeds and different turn rates. Got side tracked by finding my sweetie so that never was finished...