You're right, my fault (I've seen the wrong table, the one for JD, instead that the one for MD)
.
Why is acceleration limited to 6g?
- Thread starter LeperColony
- Start date
You're right, my fault (I've seen the wrong table, the one for JD, instead that the one for MD)
.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Last edited:
Yes, this is actual physics, which is fine. Once in combat, agility becomes important because of the 360 degree sphere of maneuver. Sort of like dogfighting, but with ships being so fast, higher agility means it is easier to lose your tail. Maybe you could give the pursuing ship a saving throw to hang on, lucky chance to have guessed the maneuver.
There is always risk, as well as the lucky throw for a good hit. Though an Admiral that risks too much might find himself without a fleet to command.
The TL differences hold true in my opinion, a TL 4-5 ship doesn't stand a chance against a TL 7 ship in the real world.
ArcaneFlash
SOC-10
I just started to read this thread and a question came to mind.
When Traveller was created, was D&D the only major game to use the multi-polyhedrals? I was curious if they were hard to come by or expensive.
--AF
EDIT: The reason I asked is if everything is based on D6 then it might make a more reasonable design decision.
When Traveller was created, was D&D the only major game to use the multi-polyhedrals? I was curious if they were hard to come by or expensive.
--AF
EDIT: The reason I asked is if everything is based on D6 then it might make a more reasonable design decision.
Last edited:
In 1977...
"Major" games
D&D: option for polyhedrals was becoming common use; d6-only play was becoming rare. New, polyhedral based, core rules option (Holmes' Basic Set) was in print.
EPT: d20 & d6 AFAICT
Met. Alpha: d20 and d6
RuneQuest: d20's (as d%) and d6, occasional d6 as d3
Tunnels and Trolls: d6 only
Boot Hill: ISTR d10 and d6, but I've not seen 1st edition.
Starfaring: d10 and d6 only - Related to T&T (I've got the reprint ed). Gives instructions for faking the d10 with cards, a digital watch or a calculator!
Monsters Monsters: d6 only - same as T&T
Bunnies and Burrows: d10 and d6.
En Garde!: d6 only
Space Patrol polyhedrals
Space Quest I can't tell.
The Fantasy Trip: d6's only. Only the combat module was released - Melee. It would later become a full fledged RPG with the addition of Wizard and In The Labyrinth.
Of these, the most important is En Garde! - it's the precursor to Traveller in many ways. (Read it - a search will find it online readily - released under license from the current holder - only the die-hard or those planning on running it online need actually buy it on dead tree)
T&T was still major at this time, tho' everything else combined probably still totaled less than D&D.
D&D had 3 modes of play at this time:
- d6 only play (Core Rules + Chainmail)
- d6 & d20 only play (Core Rules)
- d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20, d% play - Core Rules + Supplement I, or Holmes Basic.
So, GDW had mostly d6's in their games; d6's were available in the local five-and-dime, not just specialty hobby stores. Their prior RPG (tho not labeled as such) was d6 only, and D&D could be played RAW with nought but d6's.
Note tho': d10+d6 was the norm. The usual d10 was actually a d20, tho'. And many people had to mail-order d20's.
ArcaneFlash
SOC-10
Thanks Aramis,
IIRC, I started with D&D redbox around 1984 in JH. No one really played anything other than D&D then. I hit FASA ST and BT a little in the early 90's. I bought the core MT books around this time, but since no one really wanted to play it... MT space combat confused me. So SFB became the standard for that game fix.
But the second look at traveller and understanding the mechanics better has helped a lot.
--AF
IIRC, I started with D&D redbox around 1984 in JH. No one really played anything other than D&D then. I hit FASA ST and BT a little in the early 90's. I bought the core MT books around this time, but since no one really wanted to play it... MT space combat confused me. So SFB became the standard for that game fix.
But the second look at traveller and understanding the mechanics better has helped a lot.
--AF
Last edited:
Yeah, but your Engineer always dies under mysterious circumstances.
I hate when that happens!
Dialogue62
SOC-5
FF&S Fighters
Forgive me if this has already been covered. IIRC with the FF&S rules, it was possible to make 8g fighters if the whole crew were in workstations and a liquid environment.
Of course, if this thread is CT-Only, my observation is boned.
Ciao!
Forgive me if this has already been covered. IIRC with the FF&S rules, it was possible to make 8g fighters if the whole crew were in workstations and a liquid environment.
Of course, if this thread is CT-Only, my observation is boned.
Ciao!
And Mongoose Traveller has even higher (for some sizes).
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Speaking of which, what is highest sustained acceleration that a seated normal human can tolerate?
Xerxeskingofking
SOC-13
As I understand it, in short, the longer the duration, the lower the max g force you can sustain.
in a crash, a human can take over 100g for a split second, but for a duration of over a few minutes, it's only a few G. Formula 1 drivers routinely hit 6g turns and braking without major health worry, but again that's for a few seconds at a time. the space shuttle on take off had something like 3 g substianed for several minutes, and the Apollo on re-entry hit over 7g, again with no notable effect.
I think the answer is 4g or so for a few hours, assuming they spent it sat down and not being active, but the longer you want to keep the acceleration up, the closer to 1 g you need to be.
As written that particular paragraph in MT has always struck me as a complete load of dingos kidneys, WAY out of line with how space combat works in just about every other version of Traveller published.
What I think they did there was use the word "move" when they actually ment "accelerate/decelerate".
It just makes more sense that way
Last edited by a moderator:
But then the parts or it may even remain stationary and I may decide to move as few as 0, or as many as 14 on that turn, both from Aramis' quotes, have no sense.
I'm afraid the concept, not only the wording, is wrong...
Well we are talking about the Megatraveller Referee`s guide here after all.:rofl:
You should see my copy with all the areas of correcting fluid and scribbled clarifications in the margins of whats written down in the main text due to the mountains of errata!
All I would say is, in the MT space combat rules that paragraph as written is rubbish but substitute the word "move" with "apply Thrust" then the intention behind whats written becomes clearer.
You should see my copy with all the areas of correcting fluid and scribbled clarifications in the margins of whats written down in the main text due to the mountains of errata!
All I would say is, in the MT space combat rules that paragraph as written is rubbish but substitute the word "move" with "apply Thrust" then the intention behind whats written becomes clearer.
Well we are talking about the Megatraveller Referee`s guide here after all.:rofl:
You should see my copy with all the areas of correcting fluid and scribbled clarifications in the margins of whats written down in the main text due to the mountains of errata!
All I would say is, in the MT space combat rules that paragraph as written is rubbish but substitute the word "move" with "apply Thrust" then the intention behind whats written becomes clearer.
Even while I agree with your principle (the rule is quite incoherent with Traveller vector assumption), rules specify that you can even stand still in the same square, regardless of your speed, stating that you're assumed to be circling on it (quite absurd if you think in vectors).
So, only changing the word "move" for "apply thrust" as you suggest would not work, as it will be incoherent with the examples given and the rest of the rules. I'm afraid MT space combat movement rules should be rewritten in full...
Even while accepting MT si my favourite versión, I must accept errata is a major issue on it.
No argument there...
I use mayday movement and personal/vehicular combat rules for to-hit and damage.
I never liked HG as a combat system; MT was slightly better in some aspects, but the movment rules are a load of foetid dingo kidneys. Very "star Wars" like.
I think that we`re more or less on the same page, and the whole problem with the MT space combat system does seem to center on that one paragraph which even seems to be at odds with whats stated in the rules elsewhere.
After a good bit of thought back when myself and most of the others in my games circle were playing that version of Traveller extensively we kind of came to the conclusion that it SHOULD have been written like this,
Movement:Movement Velocity 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 Velocity of 1 for the turn. The unit can move a maximum of one square at a movement velocity of 1.
Each unit must specify a movement velocity to be used for the turn. The movement velocity represents the maximum number of squares the unit MUST move in that turn, it may move lateraly as well as forwards if it has a side vector but must always move its maximum. It may however remain stationary in the square if it has a velocity of zero.
A unit may change velocity each combat round by up to its maneuver drive value and may add or subtract additional side vectors provided the total value is not exceeded. Thus if a unit with a maneuver drive-6 is moving at a Velocity of 10, the next time it takes a turn, it may reduce its velocity to as low as velocity 4, it may give itself a lateral velocity up to 6 to either side or increase its velocity to as high as velocity 16 or any forward/lateral combination in between. or it may leave its speed unchanged at 10.
After a good bit of thought back when myself and most of the others in my games circle were playing that version of Traveller extensively we kind of came to the conclusion that it SHOULD have been written like this,
Movement:Movement Velocity 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 Velocity of 1 for the turn. The unit can move a maximum of one square at a movement velocity of 1.
Each unit must specify a movement velocity to be used for the turn. The movement velocity represents the maximum number of squares the unit MUST move in that turn, it may move lateraly as well as forwards if it has a side vector but must always move its maximum. It may however remain stationary in the square if it has a velocity of zero.
A unit may change velocity each combat round by up to its maneuver drive value and may add or subtract additional side vectors provided the total value is not exceeded. Thus if a unit with a maneuver drive-6 is moving at a Velocity of 10, the next time it takes a turn, it may reduce its velocity to as low as velocity 4, it may give itself a lateral velocity up to 6 to either side or increase its velocity to as high as velocity 16 or any forward/lateral combination in between. or it may leave its speed unchanged at 10.
For what's worth, better to use CT:LBB2 vector of Mayday hex movement tules, that are quite close to what you suggest, just changing the scale to match with MT one (25000 km/map unit, being a cm, an inch, a hex or whatever unit you use).
Similar threads
