Book 2 Plus
- Thread starter robject
- Start date
I like this very much! The only exception is that I would ignore the Drive Performance by TL table in favour of LBBs 2-3 style drive TLs (so you can have small fast ships at low TLs while biggers ships are slow unless the TL is high).
By the way what are the rules for using the new weapons in combat? Are they meant to be used in HG?
By the way what are the rules for using the new weapons in combat? Are they meant to be used in HG?
Thanks!
I haven't proven them yet, but general rules are:
Hit Location Chart
(1) Each ship has a hit location table with 11 entries, labelled 2 thru 12, and identified as per Classic Traveller. The generic one in CT suffices for general purposes. Or, place components like so:
* The drives are clustered around location 7 for typical ships.
* Weapons, being surface mounted, "share" locations with the other components, and are divided evenly between all locations. If you have 22 emplacements, then each hit location has 2 of them.
* All other major components (bridge, computer, crew, fuel, etc) may be placed wherever.
* Fuel requires one location per 10% of the volume. 40% volume to fuel = 4 hit locations. Fuel may also "share" a location, if need be.
Emplacement Power
(3) Similar to the Pulse Laser - Beam Laser divide, Barbettes and Bays split their benefits between a +DM to hit and extra ('strafe') damage.
'Strafe' is where a hit damages subsequent hit locations, forward of the actual hit location. Strafing "forward" means the hit location chart is skewed in probability, creating safer spots at lower values.
A 'Critical' hit is where all components at a hit location are all damaged by an attack.
Turrets get no DM. They do 1 hit per beam laser at that hit location, and 2 hits per pulse laser.
* Pulse laser turrets have a DM-1 to hit.
Single barbettes get a DM+1, do 3 hits, and strafe 2 additional hits into the next forward location.
Dual barbettes get a DM+2, do 4 hits, and strafe 3 additional hits into the next forward location.
Bays get a DM+3, do 1 critical hit, and strafe 1 additional critical hits "forward".
LBays get a DM+4, do 1 critical hit, and strafe 2 additional critical hits "forward".
Batteries
(3a) Multiple emplacements with the same weapon types can be slaved into a battery with one designated "controlling" weapon. They use the lowest DM and TL of the group, and sum together their damage ratings. Pulse lasers cannot be in batteries.
Attack
2D = Range or better to hit. The typical attack range for small starships is 7.
+ emplacement DM
+ TL difference
- [Armor/5] (I'll have to think about that)
I recommend rolling FOUR Traveller5 dice: two black, and two red. The red dice are the attack task. The black dice is the hit location.
Damage
(4) A hit at a location damages one random item at that location, with a flat probability (e.g. a 1D table with no empty slots).
Last edited:
Dude you are awesome... I am so going to digg into this...
Just a question-
the workstation metaphor is quite lovely as a way to build out bridges and sensor/gunnery suites, but aren't you going to end up with a bunch of empty chairs in most cases?
Even at all all hands on deck/battle stations the engineering guys alone are going to be in the engineering hull or damage control, some of the gunners will be reloading missiles and you don't need multiple astrogators at once.
I could buy redundancy for battle damage, but reading between the lines seems like these stations are dedicated for purposes, I would think instead the tendency would be towards swappable functions, so the ship doesn't lose maneuver just because the pilot station is blown away, etc.
Looking at small crews, the navigator or gunner is most likely to sit scanning shifts, but with times that the pilot will have to cover that too. The engineer will likely have hands full being the lone person on drives, and medics or stewards are less likely to have the skill sets involved. Configurable stations would be at a premium here too.
I'm guessing the captain and sometimes the pilot is going to have to be the computer officer on small ships, so the master computer console should also be assignable (likely by the captain and XO alone).
the workstation metaphor is quite lovely as a way to build out bridges and sensor/gunnery suites, but aren't you going to end up with a bunch of empty chairs in most cases?
Even at all all hands on deck/battle stations the engineering guys alone are going to be in the engineering hull or damage control, some of the gunners will be reloading missiles and you don't need multiple astrogators at once.
I could buy redundancy for battle damage, but reading between the lines seems like these stations are dedicated for purposes, I would think instead the tendency would be towards swappable functions, so the ship doesn't lose maneuver just because the pilot station is blown away, etc.
Looking at small crews, the navigator or gunner is most likely to sit scanning shifts, but with times that the pilot will have to cover that too. The engineer will likely have hands full being the lone person on drives, and medics or stewards are less likely to have the skill sets involved. Configurable stations would be at a premium here too.
I'm guessing the captain and sometimes the pilot is going to have to be the computer officer on small ships, so the master computer console should also be assignable (likely by the captain and XO alone).
Rob, nice mate.
However regarding the mission codes;
If A is Free Trader and A2 is Far Trader, wouldn't M be a Passenger Liner and M2 be a Subsidised Liner?
Typically in the smallest of ships, yes you will. Mandatory might be:
1 console for the sensors.
1 console for the pilot-astrogator.
1 console for the ship's computer.
2 ad hoc.
The Scout's bridge is chopped into two pieces, with the sensor station upstairs, and essentially a cockpit as the main bridge. But I didn't want to go all the way to T5's model: I wanted to keep the bridge volume choice simpler.
Of course, I figure they're not specialized, so anyone can access anything unless the captain locks them out. And the engineer will probably usually be in the engineering room, as you mention.
As for battle stations, I suggest there is a benefit (a +DM) to having the gunners on the bridge, and sometimes you might want the engineers there, too. But Mileage Does Vary.
[/QUOTE]
This was wishful thinking on my part. In order to keep compatibility with CT, I have to drop those high acceleration values.
Per T5, 9.0g Maneuver Drives are a thing, RAW.
BlackBat242
SOC-14 1K
But this is CT, not TNE or T5... so those are not applicable except as house-rules for individual campaigns.
They're not different games, just different simulation systems used to treat the same situations with varying means of managing uncertainty.
Yes, but...They're not different games, just different simulation systems used to treat the same situations with varying means of managing uncertainty.
You have to be internally consistent, and the (starship construction) rules each lead to different optimizations.
You don't get the Type S Scout/Courier as an obvious default design out of LBB5. ("Smallest hull, smallest drives -- hey, it's J2/2G but almost no payload, what can we turn this into?") In LBB5, the minimum gets you an cost-inefficient merchant of sorts, and you can (at TL-13) get the same payload as a Type S -- 4 staterooms, 3Td cargo, and an Air/Raft -- and J3/2G.
The canon Type T Patrol Cruiser is a viable combatant vessel in LBB2, but hopeless in LBB5 combat. Hence the Gazelle class, but translating those back to LBB2 (as with my Impala design) doesn't give you a significantly better LBB2 combatant since maneuver capability isn't quite as important there.
Even the changes between '77 and '81 make a big difference (compare the A2 Far Trader in Night of Conquest -- J2/1G, 50Td fuel -- to the one in Twilight's Peak -- J2/2G, 60Td fuel).
Last edited:
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 1K
This kind of problem is precisely while I prefer to extend without overturning any of the precedents set by LBB2 and LBB5 ... rather than attempting the more onerous (and ultimately futile) task of attempting to "unify" the two wildly different paradigms into a Single System To Rule Them All.
Take the precedents and extend/build upon them ... great.
Take the precedents and rewrite them ... uh, NO.
Take the precedents and extend/build upon them ... great.
Take the precedents and rewrite them ... uh, NO.
Which gets one to T5.
Edit: could I be less coherent? Standardized drive sizes, but with TL as a (softer) drive rating limitation rather than an overall capability limitation.
Last edited:
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I've posted this before, but I can't find it.
So, my LBB2+ house rules are as follows
CIC
discount for civilian drives (can't use unrefined fuel without penalty)
armour
screens
point defence RPPG/FG
PAWS, meson guns, EMP
10t, 50t, 100t bays
200t fixed mount
a 4t stateroom can actually be designated as anything in the LBB5 79 list
So, my LBB2+ house rules are as follows
CIC
discount for civilian drives (can't use unrefined fuel without penalty)
armour
screens
point defence RPPG/FG
PAWS, meson guns, EMP
10t, 50t, 100t bays
200t fixed mount
a 4t stateroom can actually be designated as anything in the LBB5 79 list
Ah, but compensation limits are part and parcel to CT as well. It's in the introduction to Starships in Book5.
