Why is acceleration limited to 6g?

[Otto Harkaman]

I agree about D6 being the base of CT. I myself have questioned the details in some of the LBBs, but I think the idea of a D6 based system is elegant. I think it is in most old SPI rules that the simulation is sacrificing realism to playability.

But long trajectories is what I was thinking about when I posted on intercept calculations. There would be points of travel between bodies in a system that you would be vulnerable to attack in my opinion. You are going so fast and your vector so set or predictable based on your maneuver drive. A long range missile/torpedo shot or several to cover most possibilities would be a possible tactic. A torpedo that seeded mines in an area would be interesting.

 

[Tobias]

I agree about D6 being the base of CT.

I really don't see how this is relevant. There are no 1D6-based game mechanics which directly relate to maneuver drive numbers, are there?

 

[Otto Harkaman]

I really don't see how this is relevant. There are no 1D6-based game mechanics which directly relate to maneuver drive numbers, are there?

CT is based on using six sided dice, yes usually in pairs 2D6. I think GDW Imperium has something to the jump capabilities. The game being based on J2 and when the Terrans developed J3 they were able to constantly out maneuver the Imperium. But its still based on rolling six sided dice.

 

[Tobias]

CT is based on using six sided dice, yes usually in pairs 2D6

Yes, but how is that relevant for things which are not relevant to any dice roll mechanics? Are there exactly six, or thirty-six different skills? Six different weapons?

"The game uses six sided dice, so everything needs to be linked to the number six somehow" is just a complete non-sequitur. Why should this be so?

 

[Otto Harkaman]

It doesn't have to be so, I mean it was the first space rpg written in the 70s. You are covering everything from hand held weapons to spacecraft and galactic empires. I don't even know when 20, 12, 8, 4 sided dice became available much less I think Aramis mentioned pocket calculators. D&D was first based on D6 solely, I think it was the Greyhawk supplement that added different dice.

Of course I could be totally wrong, just my opinion.

Why do you want to go faster? Maybe if you had inertial-less drives

 

[far-trader]

I'll answer this bit first:

EDIT: Actually, I'm not interested in soulless number crunching period.

I have one word for your chosen B5 over B2 design choice re soulless number crunching...

Eurisko.

I'm not interested in... a ship design system I do not use (because I find it inelegant, limited and inconsistent with the universe it is supposed to emulate.)

That's OK of course. Others find B2 superior because it is simple (not inelegant), sufficient (not limited), and consistent (yes, with the universe it is supposed to emulate, pre B5 of course). As to not emulating the universe it was meant to, I think you have that backwards

Not that I don't like the more involved design systems as well. But B2 is nearest the ideal imo. Crunchy enough to provide options, simple enough to not bog down the game. Much like basic char gen vs the advanced char gen of B4, 5, 6, and worst of the lot 7.

As to my simple answer way back at the start, it really is probably more than simply "D6" as has been noted. I think a large part of it was to keep the game a playable one, and that succeeded. My mildly tongue-in-cheek examples of a D10 CT probably wouldn't have come to pass for they would add too much bookkeeping for very little extra gaming goodness.

And finally, someone mentioned not thinking much thought went into B2. I'd counter there was more thought put into making it a game then there was in B5 which suffered perhaps from too much thought put into "what kewl new stuff can we add" without thinking through the results or noticing some seemingly glaring issues.

 

[Tobias]

I have one word for your chosen B5 over B2 design choice re soulless number crunching...

Eurisko.

I never used HG as a competitive game, precisely because it is too much of a soulless abstraction. (And because I don't run that sort of campaign.) I use it as a design system because its simpler, more elegant and less limited than LBB2.

As to not emulating the universe it was meant to, I think you have that backwards

No, I really don't. LBB2 has been dragged into the evolving Traveller universe when it was no longer compatible with it. I'm really not interested in a mythical small ship universe that ceased to exist 33 years ago.
It may have something to do with my ability to calculate things in my head, but I could never understand why anybody would consider LBB2 simpler. It requires me to memorize the drive potential table, which is much more of a hassle than remembering a few basic formulas.

I've had this discussion several times before. I don't see what advantage using LBB2 has for any purpose, and so far nothing has convinced me otherwise.

Even if I were to limit myself to LBB2's parameters (<5000 tons, no armor or screens, only lasers, missile and sand turrets), I would still use LBB5.

 

[aramis]

Tobias: you've now dragged the thread into Bk2 Bashing, and bordered on belittling several posters. Further, you are not a mod nor admin, and not the thread's original poster, so it's not your place to decide what is and is not on topic. Public Warning.

You can bash Bk2 in the "what do you hate about CT thread."

 

[LeperColony]

Of course insulting other posters is unacceptable, but it is sort of amusing that he got into trouble on his 666th post.

 

[Carlobrand]

De debbil made 'im do it!

Now, I'd always presumed they set max accel to 6g just in case the grav field failed in combat. You can survive 6g for a fair while if you're safely seated when it happens, whereas finding your crew suddenly under 10-g while the missiles are flying is likely to have an unpleasant end. I notice most of the civilian ships are content with 1-2 g drives.

 

[Tobias]

Of course insulting other posters is unacceptable, but it is sort of amusing that he got into trouble on his 666th post.

Where have I insulted anybody in that post?

P.S.: Or do you mean insulting me by saying you find it "amusing" I got into "trouble" was unacceptable? Because I did feel insulted by that.

 

[Tobias]

Now, I'd always presumed they set max accel to 6g just in case the grav field failed in combat. You can survive 6g for a fair while if you're safely seated when it happens, whereas finding your crew suddenly under 10-g while the missiles are flying is likely to have an unpleasant end. I notice most of the civilian ships are content with 1-2 g drives.

In this case you could just cut power to the drives in case of a loss of inertial compensators, and honestly I don't think the difference between short-term 6g and short-term 10g is going to be important. The explanation that said inertial compensators have a 6g limit themselves makes a lot more sense. Of course in that case you could still have ships which accelerated at 7g routinely and at more in exceptional situations.

 

[LeperColony]

Where have I insulted anybody in that post?

P.S.: Or do you mean insulting me by saying you find it "amusing" I got into "trouble" was unacceptable? Because I did feel insulted by that.

I just found the fact that your reprimand coincided with your 666th post amusing. You may not find that particular combination of circumstances noteworthy, but I did.

 

[Tobias]

I just found the fact that your reprimand coincided with your 666th post amusing. You may not find that particular combination of circumstances noteworthy, but I did.

That doesn't really answer either question, but whatever.

 

[far-trader]

That doesn't really answer either question, but whatever.

The first question isn't his to answer, a mod gave you a warning about your behaviour, following up on that the way you are is not helping.

And yes I believe he did answer your second question. At least it seemed obvious to me that in the first place he didn't intend insult (and I can only presume you took it as such because you were still stinging from the warning) and when asked by you he clarified that he did not intend insult.

Your best move of late is the "but whatever" you closed with. Go with that, move on, and try to mind your tone in future as at least 1 person took your recent comments badly.

 

[Tobias]

and when asked by you he clarified that he did not intend insult.

I didn't see that. But it does not matter now.

 

[Strummist]

IMTU I'd allow small fighters 11g - with 6g of compensation, and 5g uncompensated and felt by the pilot. If my players wanted ships that fast I'd probably not allow it, or charge them a great deal more for components to withstand the strain - and require special couches for all occupants. I'd probably roll for cargo damage as well.

The subject hasn't come up yet in my universe.

 

[BlackBat242]

As I only play CT, I see nothing in the rules that indicate any form of "inertial compensation".

What I do see is a general artificial gravity system for the ship.

To me, it is this system that allows for "high-G" (3-6) maneuver drives... it does compensate to some degree, but it is a slow-reacting system, much as that on the TOS Enterprise.

Fast acceleration changes (rapid course changes, weapon hits, etc) cause those bridge crewmen to fly out of their chairs, etc (where the &^%%$ are the seat belts?), but equilibrium is soon restored, and slower changes produce little effect.

In this manner we can see that the instantanious responses to vector changes are uncompensated, thus anything over a 6G drive could cause crew to black out, be injured, etc... but there is no sustained effect from those acceleration rates, as the A/G system cancels them out.


Fighters would, due to a lack of internal volume, have an even less capable A/G system, which only cancels out a part (perhaps 3-4G) of the maneuver drive on a sustained basis. The pilot/gunner feels the full effect of rapid maneuvers and acceleration changes, but only part of sustained accelerations.

 

[Dragoner]

As I only play CT, I see nothing in the rules that indicate any form of "inertial compensation".

S07, page 7:

Gravity: Most ships have grav plates built into the deck flooring. These plates provide a constant artificial gravity field of 1 G. Acceleration compensators are also usually installed, to negate the effects of high acceleration and lateral G forces while maneuvering. A ship's passengers would be unable to tell whether they were moving through space or grounded on a planet without looking out a viewscreen.

 

[Carlobrand]

Inertial compensation is implicit in the game. You've got ships built with passenger spaces at a right angle to the direction of thrust. The only question is how effective it is.

You've got grav plates, and you've got computers. Set grav plates where they can oppose the forces involved, have your computers control the grav plates to counter whatever instructions you're feeding the drives and whatever you're using for directional changes, and your own actions should be neutralized perfectly. If the grav plates are not as responsive as they need to be, the designer would limit the ship's response to the performance of the grav plates - at least in a civilian ship. Your "accelerate" command might be given a 0.001 second delay so that it was timed to match the activation of the grav plates, for example. Worst you should get are brief microsensations - might cause nausea, but shouldn't cause any falls.

The only things you should have to worry about are forces outside of your control. You know, like getting tossed about in a hurricane. Those motions might give your computer a bit of a challenge since it could not fire off a countering instruction until some detector experienced and provided feedback about the initial motion. It's still likely to be quick, but the delay might be enough to be noticeable, prompting stumbling and probably some serious dizziness. And, of course, slamming into the ground at high speed might be somewhat challenging for the computer.