Why is acceleration limited to 6g?

[BlackBat242]

Originally Posted by BlackBat242 View Post
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.

And if you note, this is pretty much what the rest of my post described as how I do things... the general grav system does a decent job of basic compensation for "normal" acceleration and maneuver effects.

Furthermore, it says "Acceleration compensators", not "inertial compensators". And it says "usually installed", not "always installed" or "part of the maneuver drive".

To me, a full "inertial compensation" set-up is more than that "Acceleration compensator", it also compensates for the kind of rapid but transitory effects caused by combat maneuvers and weapon hits... something "Acceleration compensators" do not do.


So there are ships without these systems... and what happens if this system fails? That's why M-drives are limited to 6G... because not all ships have accel comp systems, and those systems can fail... and they will nearly always fail when under the most stress... when the ship is performing high-G maneuvers.

 

[Dragoner]

Furthermore, it says "Acceleration compensators", not "inertial compensators".

Acceleration compensation is the same as a inertial compensation, eg. newton's laws of motion:

Second law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F and inversely proportional to the mass m, i.e., F = ma.

Just showing you the section from Traders and Gunboats tho'.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

i scrap it in my game, and make it all about the hexes. Inertial compensation and g effects on people are a given, and taken care of, since grav plates are a given, so to hype up combat and make it faster and more unpredictable, everything moves simultaneously as the opposing sides plan to move, with the "G" rating equalling 1 Hex of movement on the map.

Agility is used to further propel a ship, or to trade off a hex face and make a turn in it's movement path. So a fighter, with 6g and 6 agility, has a choice of going 12 hexes in a straight vector or making a course that has up to six hex face turns in it. since these are both planned simuiltaneously by each side before the move phase starts, it allows for collisions, crashes into other moving objects, and all sorts of variables.

I got a solomani game that is a cross between 1984 and Battlestar Galactica running now, with a carrier that holds 3, 10 fighter unit squadrons, and ther have been some sick battles.

 

[far-trader]

...everything moves simultaneously as the opposing sides plan to move, with the "G" rating equaling 1 Hex of movement on the map.

So, no real acceleration, just a set speed for different drives? I can see that working. Very different from normal Traveller and physics but certainly easy to run. And a common enough sci-fi trope, at least I seem to recall a few stories with similar space drives though I can't recall specifics.

Do your ships also stop dead if not actively maneuvering? Or do they drift with the vector they last had?

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

Depends on the TL, but above 12 and ships can change vectors pretty quick, using gravitic thrusters, and you don't have to go the full move of the G and agility rating if that is the tactic. G-thrusters are like reaction control thrusters on steroids, and can pretty much with an agile ship, turn it completely around, stop it cold, whatever is necessary. It's kind of a weird tech, when you think of it, Gravity control. force o nature.

I think of it also in terms of how there are some modern fighters, like the su-27, that can pull a hi alt climb and then turnaround and head off in a different vector, and things like vectored thrust engines, and that is at g's that a human can stand. I think also the HiMAT could hit 8gs on turns, but was unmanned.

i also use a relative altitude system which you can sacrifice a point of acc or agility to climb or dive out of a relative 0 plane in the combat area, so it gets wild.

 

[aramis]

So, no real acceleration, just a set speed for different drives? I can see that working. Very different from normal Traveller and physics but certainly easy to run. And a common enough sci-fi trope, at least I seem to recall a few stories with similar space drives though I can't recall specifics.

You realize, of course, that that's actually how MT's HG plays....

 

[far-trader]

You realize, of course, that that's actually how MT's HG plays....

You mean Mogoose Traveller HG? Actually no, I hadn't. Haven't heard it as such nor gotten into the book enough to see that. Thanks for the heads-up! Interesting...

 

[BytePro]

It sounded vaguely familiar... Traveller already ignores the third dimension - so no real stretch to ignore acceleration and inertia for the sake of playability.

My TUs went 3D, initially mylar layered subsector maps, real early on - and multiple times I went to developing 3D combat (computer based) as I just couldn't get into 2D space combat. Of course, every time, ended up with scope extending to 3D deckplans and then RL popping in and putting the kibosh to that and reverting back to roleplaying everything...

As to compensating for Gs - just ran across CT Reprint's HG pg. 17 mention of 'Tech level requirements for maneuver drives are imposed to cover the grav plates integral to most ship decks, and which allow high-G maneuvers while interior G-fields remain normal.'

 

[aramis]

You mean Mogoose Traveller HG? Actually no, I hadn't. Haven't heard it as such nor gotten into the book enough to see that. Thanks for the heads-up! Interesting...

No, MegaTraveller.

 

[far-trader]

No, MegaTraveller.

Ah, High Guard 2* then, yes? I am woefully far behind on keeping up with its development.

* or did it get a different number?

 

[aramis]

Ah, High Guard 2* then, yes? I am woefully far behind on keeping up with its development.

* or did it get a different number?

It's a chapter, not a book...

 

[far-trader]

It's a chapter, not a book...

Seriously? My memory is that off that I don't recall part of MegaTraveller called High Guard and that the rules for maneuvering were that different from CT? I knew MT quite well in the day (before this I would have said nearly perfectly) and had all the main and secondary books and most of the supplemental and adventure additions. Granted figuring it out was a pain what with all the errata etc. but I can't imagine forgetting something like that. Unless it was so bad (or so badly presented) that I figuratively tore it out and ignored it. Wiped it from my memory entirely lest it taint The Game forever.

Can you point me to which book and pages I should review to restore this lost knowledge?

 

[aramis]

Ref's manual, pages 90+. Not called High Guard, but it's the MT version of the CT Bk2 rules. See page 92, left column, especially.

 

[far-trader]

OK

Thanks for the reference aramis. I've not totally lost it, I think this has just been a bit of misinterpretation. I misunderstood your first reply to my post to mean the rules in MT used a speed (not acceleration) movement system which to me implies (and hence my question for clarification of Baron Saarthuran's game use) no accumulating vector. Just simple movement each turn of the same rate based on and up to the drive number.

Which is not what MT does of course, and not what you meant. MT does treat movement as acceleration and accumulates vectors, just as I recalled it doing. It may be that Baron Saarthuran meant his own usage in the same way but it didn't quite read that way to me.

I knew I should have used a graphic to illustrate my question when I typed that first reply, but I was too rushed to do it. It would have saved a few replies

 

[aramis]

OK

Thanks for the reference aramis. I've not totally lost it, I think this has just been a bit of misinterpretation. I misunderstood your first reply to my post to mean the rules in MT used a speed (not acceleration) movement system which to me implies (and hence my question for clarification of Baron Saarthuran's game use) no accumulating vector. Just simple movement each turn of the same rate based on and up to the drive number.

Which is not what MT does of course, and not what you meant. MT does treat movement as acceleration and accumulates vectors, just as I recalled it doing. It may be that Baron Saarthuran meant his own usage in the same way but it didn't quite read that way to me.

I knew I should have used a graphic to illustrate my question when I typed that first reply, but I was too rushed to do it. It would have saved a few replies

Actually, yes, it does do a non-accumulated vector.

Movement: Movement speed is specified based on the unit’s maneuver drive value. For example, a unit with a maneuver drive of 1 can start out from a standing start with a movement speed of 1 for the turn. The unit can move a maximum of one square at movement speed 1.
Each unit must specify a movement speed to be used for the turn. The movement speed represents the maximum number of squares the unit can move that turn; however, the unit may move any number of squares less than the maximum, or it may even remain stationary (25,000 km per square is a lot of space-in effect, the unit is circling in the square).
A unit may change speed each combat round by up to its maneuver drive value. Thus if a unit with a maneuver drive-6 is moving at speed 10, the next time it takes a turn, it may reduce its speed to as low as speed 4, or it may increase its speed to as high as speed 16 or any value in between. Or it may leave its speed unchanged at 10​

Page 92, left column. Emphasis mine, italics original.

 

[far-trader]

Actually, yes, it does do a non-accumulated vector.

Not the way I read it:

Movement:...

A unit may change speed each combat round by up to its maneuver drive value. Thus if a unit with a maneuver drive-6 is moving at speed 10, the next time it takes a turn, it may reduce its speed to as low as speed 4, or it may increase its speed to as high as speed 16 or any value in between. Or it may leave its speed unchanged at 10​

The vector is added. A M-drive 6 can keep piling the speed on 6 units a turn. In the first turn from a standstill it covers 6 spaces and has a speed of 6. In the second turn it continues to add 6 units of speed to achieve a total of 12 units of speed and will have covered a total of 18 spaces (6 in the first turn plus 12 in the second turn), etc. etc.

If it instead stopped applying any additional speed after the second turn it would still move 12 spaces a turn (it's last speed) until it was otherwise affected.

Unless we are misunderstanding each other again, or one of us is reading it wrong.

 

[aramis]

Not the way I read it:

Movement:...

A unit may change speed each combat round by up to its maneuver drive value. Thus if a unit with a maneuver drive-6 is moving at speed 10, the next time it takes a turn, it may reduce its speed to as low as speed 4, or it may increase its speed to as high as speed 16 or any value in between. Or it may leave its speed unchanged at 10​

The vector is added. A M-drive 6 can keep piling the speed on 6 units a turn. In the first turn from a standstill it covers 6 spaces and has a speed of 6. In the second turn it continues to add 6 units of speed to achieve a total of 12 units of speed and will have covered a total of 18 spaces (6 in the first turn plus 12 in the second turn), etc. etc.

If it instead stopped applying any additional speed after the second turn it would still move 12 spaces a turn (it's last speed) until it was otherwise affected.

Unless we are misunderstanding each other again, or one of us is reading it wrong.

You're misreading it. Reread the bolded text... You NEVER have to move on your movement. It's a magic drive from hell.

If I start the turn with speed 12, I can move any distance from 0-12 squares. My choice. Without regard for if that's a MD2 or MD6 ship.

I'll quote JUST the important line:

The movement speed represents the maximum number of squares the unit can move that turn; however, the unit may move any number of squares less than the maximum, or it may even remain stationary.​

Let's say I start with MD 2, starting speed 12. On turn one, I can move 0-12 squares...
On turn 2, I can change speed from 10 to 14, but can move from 0 to whichever I chose squares. Since there is no reason at all, given the bolded text above, to pick 10. So I pick 14. I may decide to move as few as 0, or as many as 14 on that turn.
On turn 3, I can change speed to 16, and STILL opt to change position on the map by 0 squares.

 

[Icosahedron]

Sounds like a prime candidate for errata to me. Should read that you can add or subtract any amount from 0 to X, not that you can move any amount from 0 to X.
But that's just IMO.

I like the Baron's idea of using Agility as additional thrust (maybe uncompensated and uncomfortable). It leads to a more 'realistic' limit of 12G and gives those fighters more of an edge. I'll maybe think about that...

 

[McPerth]

Sounds like a prime candidate for errata to me. Should read that you can add or subtract any amount from 0 to X, not that you can move any amount from 0 to X.
But that's just IMO.

I fully agree that that seems to be an errata. To say that you can only reduce your speed to 4 and yet remain stationary seems quite contradictory to me. To remain stationary (by definition) you need to have a 0 speed.

I like the Baron's idea of using Agility as additional thrust (maybe uncompensated and uncomfortable). It leads to a more 'realistic' limit of 12G and gives those fighters more of an edge. I'll maybe think about that...

IIRC in some Q&A on a TD (or somewhere similar) it was specified that acceleration and agility were not seen as fully related in MT. They even put the example of comparing the Queen Mary with a rowboat. The Queen Mary will surely have more acceleration capability, but it will also be less maneuverable.

Agility was defined in MT as the ability to quickly change direction, not as the ability to accelerate more. That was the acceleration given to you by maneuver drives. So, I don't see the point to use agility as additional thrust.

 

[Carlobrand]

Oooh, emergency decel! I haven't seen that since my Star Fleet Battles days. I wonder if I can throw power to - oh wait, no shields. Never mind.

add: I've never liked the Queen Mary comparison. As I recall, Queen Mary had to maneuver in a liquid water medium - a substance very unlike vacuum. A dreadnought in space, on the other hand, can pirouette in place like a giant ballerina, something the Queen has never managed. Limiting factor on the agility of the dreadnought is going to be how fast it can turn and point its drives in the direction it wants - which will in turn be governed by the 6G limit, i.e. the ability of the compensators to counteract centripetal acceleration on the end-points delivered by the rate of turn. Certainly a fighter could manage the same faster, but I'm thinking the dreadnought is still one heck of a lot more maneuverable than the Queen Mary - and possibly the rowboat, given that it was fighting water too.