Why is acceleration limited to 6g?

[aramis]

No, it's saying "The abstractions, simplifications, and level of detail we use to emulate the physical laws of the universe for gaming purposes change when one or more PCs are around". Which is an eminently sensible way of doing things in a roleplaying game.


Hams

Sorry, but Peter's interpretation is more solid. You have this unpleasant idea that the games all emulate some particular singular reality, and do so poorly.

I say each is a separate universe.

To a great degree, this touches on one of the great debates in the industry...

Does system matter?

 

[Dragoner]

Sure, but it is totally abstracted, and no relative speeds, nor positions are featured, only frontline and reserve, and your acceleration capability only applies as limit for your agility. In HG, if your 6 G agility 3 ship tries to breack off from a 4 G agility 4 ship, it will catch you, even while you can have higher linial acceleration to disengage.

The abstraction holds though, space is 3d, and any engagement would be by forces seeking an engagement otherwise you could just avoid it. So breaking off, would be withdrawing from an engagement you already have made the decision to enter into. Caught in that position, you have made a very poor choice to begin with. IIRC there rules of breaking off with 4 rounds or so off fire against you, but that may have been the earlier version.

 

[Carlobrand]

The abstraction assumes a classic line-of-battle engagement, as would occur in the vicinity of a target world: one fleet already there, the other closing to engage him, both fleets at relative rest with respect to each other by the time shots are fired, maneuvering for advantage and to make themselves harder targets but otherwise intent on staying within optimal firing range of each other until one or the other decides to break off. That probably represents the majority of engagements.

However, there are other potential scenarios. For example, a raider running a "drive-by-shooting" scenario might dive on a world with good speed, hoping to shoot up the local merchantmen and dash off: he'd be committed to a few rounds of battle - perhaps under difficult odds if he wasn't aware a cruiser happened to be there as well - but he'd have enough of a momentum advantage that breaking off by acceleration is a certainty, provided he doesn't take too much drive damage.

A variant of that is one fleet running a pendulum drive-by in an effort to persuade the defending fleet to give chase (thereby leaving the world open to attack by an assault force waiting out of range of the defender's sensors). The attacker flies in with good speed, trades shots with the defenders, accelerates if the defender gives chase, decelerates and sets up for a second (and then third, and then fourth) fly-by if the defender holds position.

Another example: a fleet at a world might decide the inbound attacker is too strong to face, but the attacker came in fast and is decelerating hard in an effort to deliver his troop transports to orbit quickly. The defender might gamble on a pass-through engagement, accelerating into the attacking fleet and taking a few shots in passing before accelerating away to the outer system. In that scenario, there is no option to pursue; the attacking fleet is already doing everything it can to counter its previous momentum.

The abstract will work for these, but it involves a bit more preparation: you've got to do some math and agree on some scenario-specific rules in advance.

 

[rancke]

Sorry, but Peter's interpretation is more solid. You have this unpleasant idea that the games all emulate some particular singular reality, and do so poorly.

I say each is a separate universe.

You're mixing up two different notions. The one you refer to is my belief that the term "the OTU" actually means what it says. I don't see what's so unpleasant about that (I do think your idea that multiple universes with different physical laws can possibly have the exact same history is utterly illogical and demonstrably false).

The notion I was expressing here, though, is based on the belief that a Traveller universe -- the same for all versions or one for each version doesn't matter in this context -- is supposed (by the authors) to be every bit as intricate as the real universe. Indeed, apart from a few highly specific differences like jump drive and the Ancients, it is supposed to be exactly the same as the real universe.

If this is true then any rules set HAS to be a simplification of "reality" and only the very simplest of features can be accurately portrayed by rules simple enough to be fun playing by.


Hans

 

[Peter Newman]

No, it's saying "The abstractions, simplifications, and level of detail we use to emulate the physical laws of the universe for gaming purposes change when one or more PCs are around". Which is an eminently sensible way of doing things in a roleplaying game. Hams

I understand what you are saying. There are some games that do this. I agree that it is valid for some games. I just don't recall a canonical statement that this is true in Traveller.

More importantly the rules say that spaceship combat occurs only when one, and only one, side is PC's. Under your interpretation the rules would change when when one or both sides are PC's. Since the text says that starship combat occurs when _a_ (singular) side of adventurers encounters another ship then the rules would not apply when both sides are PC's. That seems bogus to me. Since MT already has a set of vehicle combat rules without this problem, and since spaceships are vehicles, it seems more reasonable to use the vehicle combat rules for starships.

 

[rancke]

I understand what you are saying. There are some games that do this. I agree that it is valid for some games. I just don't recall a canonical statement that this is true in Traveller.

No such statement is necessary. If a Traveller universe is similar to the real universe in complexity (which I for one takes as a given), it can't possibly not be true.


Hans

 

[Peter Newman]

Does system matter?

Of course system matters. The real question is how much does system matter?

I've had good times playing games with poor [1] rules, and bad times playing games with good [1] rules.

It seems to me that Traveller is a game in which background (canon) is more important than the rules system.

However rules systems do have some influence. I remember when I was playing in Aramis's Traveller game (almost twenty years ago). We had just switched from TNE back to MT. While the other characters were in a bank, my character, Sigrid, was relaxing on the beach. When the bank was robbed she ran over to help them, and learned how much a quadruple damage shotgun blast [12 point hit in MT terms] can hurt an unarmored character. If she hadn't had high stats, and the damage rolls hadn't been low, and she hadn't known psionic Regeneration, she would have died on the spot. [In retrospect she probably made herself a prime target when she telekinetically 'borrowed' one of the other robbers guns.]

If we'd still been playing TNE she'd have had no chance of dying from a single shotgun hit, and may not have been seriously injured (unless it had been a head hit). System matters. [2]

There are other games (Dungeons & Dragons) in which the feel of the play experience is more important than both the rules system and the background canon.

There are other games (HERO System) in which the rules system is more important than the background or the feel of play, because the rules allow you to play in many different backgrounds in which feel of play may vary, all using the same rules set, with the addition of supplemental rules for specific campaign types (knock-back for super-heroic campaigns, etc.)

[1] Arbitrary and undefined, as this is very much a YMMV situation.

[2] I'm glad we switched. PC toughness in TNE is implausibly high for me. OTOH I'm o.k with D&D characters being that tough because setting matters.

 

[aramis]

Actually, Peter, that particular game (with you playing Sigrid) was AFTER I got married, and next month makes 17 years since that happened... as it was in the downstairs apartment on 15th... so that was about 16 years ago.

Then again, my Traveller games of that era are, essentially, of the Errol-Flynn-in-Space variety.

And, as a player, I've found that I can play a bad system far easier than run a bad system as a GM.

 

[Dragoner]

The abstraction assumes a classic line-of-battle engagement, as would occur in the vicinity of a target world: one fleet already there, the other closing to engage him, both fleets at relative rest with respect to each other by the time shots are fired, maneuvering for advantage and to make themselves harder targets but otherwise intent on staying within optimal firing range of each other until one or the other decides to break off. That probably represents the majority of engagements.

It doesn't assume the fleet is at rest, but that movement is irrelevant, which it is for the most part.

 

[Carlobrand]

It doesn't assume the fleet is at rest, but that movement is irrelevant, which it is for the most part.

What part of "...both fleets at relative rest with respect to each other..." does not mean "...movement is irrelevant..."? They move back and forth with respect to each other in the course of achieving close or long range, that's about it. Whether they're at rest with respect to other features of the locality, that's an entirely different matter.

 

[McPerth]

The abstraction holds though, space is 3d, and any engagement would be by forces seeking an engagement otherwise you could just avoid it. So breaking off, would be withdrawing from an engagement you already have made the decision to enter into. Caught in that position, you have made a very poor choice to begin with. IIRC there rules of breaking off with 4 rounds or so off fire against you, but that may have been the earlier version.

In HG, if you have less agility than your enemy, you cannot break off unless you may jump away, so not all engagements will be by forces seeking engagement, only the higher agility side must seek engagement. Acceleration capability has nothing to say on this, even if you try to avoin an uninitied engagement by accelerating away, in the example I gave before, the 4 G agility 4 ship wiil catch and engage the 6 G agility 1 ship trying to run away (unless emergency agility has been declared at the begining of the turn. HG pages 39-41).

I don't see any reference to the 4 turns you talk about, but I don't know about earlier versions (my HG is the reprint published by FFE).

 

[McPerth]

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...

As I remember MT, the only chapter with High Guard in all its books was the advanced CharGen (in PM). The chapters about ships were titled Craft Design and Starship Combat (both in RM), with no explicit reference to HG

 

[Dragoner]

In HG, if you have less agility than your enemy, you cannot break off unless you may jump away, so not all engagements will be by forces seeking engagement, only the higher agility side must seek engagement. Acceleration capability has nothing to say on this, even if you try to avoin an uninitied engagement by accelerating away, in the example I gave before, the 4 G agility 4 ship wiil catch and engage the 6 G agility 1 ship trying to run away (unless emergency agility has been declared at the begining of the turn. HG pages 39-41).

I don't see any reference to the 4 turns you talk about, but I don't know about earlier versions (my HG is the reprint published by FFE).

That was most likely the earlier version then that has the 4 round rule.

A higher speed ship will always catch the lower speed, though it can always have time to jump. It depends on where one is, if you jump in near a gas giant, not the main world, the defending fleet would have days of travel before engaging if it is stationed around the main world.

 

[McPerth]

That was most likely the earlier version then that has the 4 round rule.

A higher speed ship will always catch the lower speed, though it can always have time to jump. It depends on where one is, if you jump in near a gas giant, not the main world, the defending fleet would have days of travel before engaging if it is stationed around the main world.

But for the faster ship (greater G) ship to catch the lower speed one (lower G), if the fastest ship has less agility, it need to use emergency agility, so foregoing the use of power-consuming weaponry (only missiles and sandcasters allowed).

This may give an scenario where the chasing ship is being attacked by energy weapons (including spinals, for, as said on another thread they can be uses backwards in this rules) while unable to use its own, just for lack of agility.

 

[Dragoner]

But for the faster ship (greater G) ship to catch the lower speed one (lower G), if the fastest ship has less agility, it need to use emergency agility, so foregoing the use of power-consuming weaponry (only missiles and sandcasters allowed).

This may give an scenario where the chasing ship is being attacked by energy weapons (including spinals, for, as said on another thread they can be uses backwards in this rules) while unable to use its own, just for lack of agility.

In real world physics, no, but even then it could be days for a higher G ship to run down a slower one.

If breaking off from an engagement, the reserve line has agility two levels above it's standard level, so say an agility 5 ship, in reserve line, always breaks off from an engagement. Though it really is folly to have any warship under agility 5.

 

[rancke]

But for the faster ship (greater G) ship to catch the lower speed one (lower G), if the fastest ship has less agility, it need to use emergency agility, so foregoing the use of power-consuming weaponry (only missiles and sandcasters allowed).

I don't see the sense of that rule. A ship that is running directly away from its enemies will have problems with shooting its energy weapons (such as aiming), but power should not be one of them. Traveller ships are designed to be able to go at maximum drive for four weeks while shooting its energy weapons 24/7 for the entire month (Which has always struck me as a total crock, but then, the power plant fuel consumption rules are broken anyway). And agility is based on what power is left over AFTER maneuver and weapons are accounted for.


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

Not in High Guard it isn't

If you want agility 6 from a manoeuvre drive 6 you have to dedicate the full output of a power plant 6 to it. Any EPs you use for weapons, computer and screens will reduce the agility, which is why power plants bigger than 6 are built into ships under HG2 rules.

 

[McPerth]

In real world physics, no, but even then it could be days for a higher G ship to run down a slower one.

But it will catch velocity as time goes on (and they began at long distance). Per each G difference, it will be 10 m/s quicker that its pursuer each second ( so after a 1000 sec turn, it wil be 10 km/s quicker).

If breaking off from an engagement, the reserve line has agility two levels above it's standard level, so say an agility 5 ship, in reserve line, always breaks off from an engagement.

That's why I put only one ship per side in my example, so there's no reserve possibility.

Though it really is folly to have any warship under agility 5.

I'm afraid you're used to high TL (14-15) ships only. You cannot have agility more than 4 at TL 13 (agility may not be greater than your maneover drive), and less as TL is reduced.

I don't see the sense of that rule. A ship that is running directly away from its enemies will have problems with shooting its energy weapons (such as aiming), but power should not be one of them. Traveller ships are designed to be able to go at maximum drive for four weeks while shooting its energy weapons 24/7 for the entire month (Which has always struck me as a total crock, but then, the power plant fuel consumption rules are broken anyway). And agility is based on what power is left over AFTER maneuver and weapons are accounted for.

If you mean you don't see the sense at being able to use your spinals while running at maximum G away from your enemy, I agree with you. I see spinals as forward firing weapons, and if you turn arround you may not accelerate at full G directly away.

About emergency agility, It's obvious your usual agility is based on the power left over after your power hungry systems are accounted for, but emergency agility represents diverting all your power to your drives for agility, foregoing the use of your power hungry weaponry, and I see a sense on that (after all, other Space combat games also allow for that, or give you a limited energy you must distribute among your systems).

The fact that you may as well use emergency agility in your 1100 dton ship armed with a missile bay and a sandcaster is an arguable point, though. (after all you forego the use of energy consuming weapons, but missiles and sancasters may be used, as HG page 39 specifies. You can even keep your screens on, as they are not affected, even if they consume more energy than your entire weaponry)

 

[mike wightman]

Funny - in my edition of HG2 it says manoeuvre drive 6 is TL9

 

[rancke]

Not in High Guard it isn't

If you want agility 6 from a manoeuvre drive 6 you have to dedicate the full output of a power plant 6 to it. Any EPs you use for weapons, computer and screens will reduce the agility, which is why power plants bigger than 6 are built into ships under HG2 rules.

Agility is calculated from unused energy points; the power you have over and above what you need to power your drive and your weapons. If you want agility 6, you have to have a power plant that is 6 points greater than what you need to power your drives, computer, screens, AND your weapons.


Hans