I've just presented arguments why this is not the case. Tell me, just what real-life phenomenon does the game rule about discounts represent?
Hans
Book 3: Scouts
- Thread starter Border Reiver
- Start date
Hans
I'm afraid it's not your opinion on the inclusion of survey pods in MgT:Scouts that I disagree with you about, Bill.
A much better example, and one I cannot find anything to quibble about
( Waah! Nothing to quibble about! Waah!).The jump-5 X-boat route (if it exists) could easily be serviced by a bog-ordinary jump-5 ship.
But as I've pointed out repeatedly, not below the resolution of "real life". Although I don't see any problem with assuming that X-boats are treated as a special case vis-a-vis ship classes and lumped together as one single class, neither do I see any problem with the notion that those who build or procure X-boats do distinguish between classes (or, more likely, sub-classes) where those built at one shipyard are labled the X134 Class X-boat and those built at the neighboring shipyard (with the ashtray located to the left instead of to the right) are labeled the X135 Class X-boat. Either possibility works for me.
But I submit that those variations will not extend to such features as different hulls, even though the TCS rules imply that they do. All the hulls will be identical. If it's not the well-known Beowulf hull, it's not a Beowulf class Free Trader. Not even if it's another 200T ship with a different needle/wedge configuration hull with jump-1 and Maneuver-1. Certainly not if it's a 200T box configuration hull or a cone configuration hull or any other 200T hull that isn't the well-known Beowulf hull.
Bill, if they're not identical then they're not identical. There's no such thing as "essentially" identical. The difference can be below the resolution of the simplified game rules we use, which would make them identical for the purposes of that specific game rule, but that doesn't mean that they're identical for any purpose except that specific game rule. Two engines can be completely identical in game terms, but if one of them is designed to fit into a 4x6 m engine room in a cone-shaped hull and the other is designed to fit into a 3x8 m engine room in a box-shaped hull, then they're not identical for some extremely practical purposes. If my players wanted to salvage a jump drive from an Akkigish class 400T jump-1 merchant and put it into a Placid Ox class 400T jump-1 merchant, they'd better be prepared for some major restructuring of their Ox.
No, what we really need is a jump-4, 1G, 100T X-boat. But that's by the way.
I disagree. There are designs I need more than a box-shaped 200T jump-1, 1G free trader design, but that's absolutely not the same as not being able to use such a design. And, of course, I wouldn't make the cargo and stateroom mix the same as that of the Beowulf.
Game companies that publish material for any setting prior to the Classic Era most certainly ought to provide different designs for those different eras.
Hans
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Obviously.
And...
Game rules = full and total game reality.
But I'm with Bill, was last night in fact, in not wanting to drag this too far off topic. I figure we've made our points and I'm leaving it at that
The specs/build for them are in High Guard (as examples of builds using the small craft system), but they are discussed (and included as a small craft for several other ships) in Scouts.
Not really.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Hans,
Wow... that's an interesting question. The answers seem so obvious to me and I've dealt with those answers so often throughout my career that I've never given any thought to explaining them to anyone else.
What do the class discounts in HG2 and TCS model? On one hand, they model the macro-economic effects of both mass production and "known" production. On the other hand they model the macro-economic effects of proven designs and operational techniques. I'll deal with the former first.
The benefits of mass production are well known, the per unit price of an item drops in direct relation to the number of those items you make. Most of that has to do with economies of scale in both materials and labor, you can buy a 1000 tons of steel for a cheaper per ton price than 1 ton of steel. There's another available route towards major savings too, if you chose to do it.
By continuously producing specific items(1) you can focus on just what is required to produce those items thus streamlining your production process and saving money. This is called many things today, like "continuous improvement", but it's really an idea that's been around since the birth of the Industrial revolution or even earlier.
There's a another savings effect associated mass production called "known" production. "Known" production is why jobs that were once thought highly specialized or technical can now be done by illiterate Third World peasants. The "leapfrog" effect is part of it, once someone has one something for the first time it's easier for others to copy their actions. There's another important part of "known" production, however, and it has to do with skills.
You see, once a production stream has been set-up, once all the flaws, bugs, goofs, gaffes, and other potential problems with the stream have been identified and corrected, once you know everything that's worth knowing about the production stream, you can "dumb" down the production stream so that unskilled or relatively unskilled people can easily do it. In other words, the "learning curve" has been either flattened or eliminated altogether.
The savings from mass and "known" production don't require an item or its production stream to fully "mature" or "refined" either. If you take the time to learn from the very start, the very first item you build will teach you things that will allow you to make the very next item faster and cheaper.
So, when a yard in the Imperium wants to build a standard Beowulf, there are centuries of experience in building Beowulfs available to them. They'll know precisely what an only what they need to do to build that Beowulf, they'll know exactly what and only what they need to do to build all the parts that make up that Beowulf, and they'll know exactly what may go wrong in all of those processes.
Because fewer mistakes will (or should be) made and because less time will (or should be) be used as the Beowulf is constructed, that Beowulf will cost less. Build a one-off vessel or, given the size of the Imperium, even a hundred-off vessel and those time/mistake savings will be either far less or entirely absent.
The savings associated with proven designs and operational techniques occur after an item is manufactured and while it is being used. Just as shipyards can access centuries of manufacturing experience when they build a Beowulf, Beowulf owners can access centuries of operational experience aboard a vessel whose inherent design flaws have been detected and corrected over centuries.
If you own a standardized design like that, you already know how to train your crew, you already know what repairs will be required when, you already know what spares should be carried aboard, and you already know what breakdowns are more likely to occur and when they more likely to happen. With such experience, you can plan and thus control your operational expenses.
Also, just as "known" production helps low skilled or unskilled people correctly build advanced technical items, known operational techniques allow low skilled people to operate standardized designs as if they were the best test pilots or engineers.
Over the service life of a standardized design, the savings associated with with proven designs and operational techniques will be substantial. An owner needn't train more than they have to, buy more spares than they have to, and can hire relatively lower skilled people to operate their standard design at a seemingly higher level of competence.
I'd like to thank you for asking that question, Hans. I've never had to explain those benefits before and the process of explaining them helped me understand the benefits at a deeper level.
Regards,
Bill
1 - An item needn't be something small or simple. The price you'll pay for something as complicated as a Boeing 777 jetliner will depend both on how many 777s Boeing will be making and how many 777s Boeing has already made.
Thanks, but actually, I was interested in the cutter + module combination that whipsnade is using as an example that duplicates the surveyor - is it from GURPS ?
Quite a few of your examples seem to be in the supplement: the Stingray (militarized), the Survey rider (lab), the scout station (lab and new), Modular scout (new) a working J6 xboat (new/super) and a variant xboat packet with thrust and cargo capacity. Not trying to start a fight, or be an apologist, but your focusing on the surveyor as an exemplar of the whole supplement being a rehash seems odd. Did none of the other designs seem new and or needed ?
I'd also note that every ship that uses a surveyor in Scouts could easily use a modular cutter assuming that they are equivilent. My assumption is that the Surveyors are new, and are replacing the Mods for whatever reason the service decided on (which, in Govt Purchasing IRL often has only tenuous connection to efficiency or common sense).
As to the "wasted effort rehash" , actually I agree; way too much traveller stuff (all versions) is rehash, or minor variant presented as innovation. I'm not convinced that the surveyor fits the bill as I don't have a comparison (see below).
I'd love to. Where are the specs for the Cutter+ module combination that you note ?
Hans,
Drat and double drat. I must be losing my touch!
Yes, there is such a thing as "essentially" identical. It exists because we're dealing with game rules that only approximate the "real life" of the game setting. The rules and the real life they portray are not identical, but they can be viewed as "essentially" identical, that is that the rules and real life are only identical in those things that matter.
Take Traveller's handguns for example. The are tens of thousands of 9mm revolver designs within the "real world" of the Imperium all with differences in shape, weight, color, length, styling, etc. All those differences are below the level of resolution of the game however, thus making all those 9mm revolvers essentially identical for the game's purposes.
Whether they are essentially identical for the GM's purpose is something else entirely, as we'll see below.
Agreed, they're essentially identical for the purposes of that game rule. However, the moment when they are no essentially identical occurs when...
... the GM decides they are no longer essentially identical for the purposes of his game as in your example above.
There are tens of thousands of 9mm revolver designs in the Third Imperium. Do you seriously want a game publisher to make the effort to identify and describe each and every one because they're not literally identical? Do you seriously want a game publisher to make the effort to create a system that would allow a GM to describe each and every one because they're not literally identical? You want none of those things naturally because such efforts would be nonsense at best and a complete waste of time at worst.
The game publisher instead produces a single 9mm design that is presumed to be essentially identical with all 9mm revolvers in the setting's "real world" and a GM then tweaks that single design to produce the variations they need for their game.
I'm not suggesting that every GM must use the same design for everything. I'm stating that the published design is essentially identical to nearly all the variations of that design and just what all those variations actually are is best left in the hands of the GM alone.
Oh yes, we need that design even though the retcon would be horrendous.
I disagree of course. A game publisher making a Beowulf with a different cargo and stateroom mix is a complete waste of effort and supplement space. The publisher's efforts are best made elsewhere. Now, if a GM needs a Beowulf with a different cargo and stateroom mix for the purposes of their game they should build one immediately. We have the ship construction system for a reason. Let the publishers add to the baseline and the GMs deal with the myriad variations.
And so they have, mainly due to TL changes.
However, there's no need to duplicate the same job on the same volume at the same TL like Mongoose did with the survey pod. Mongoose wasted it's own time, wasted it's own efforts, and wasted space in it's own supplement.
Regards,
Bill
Last edited:
Captain jack,
I'm not suggesting that the entire supplement is a rehash. What I'm stating is that the survey pod was a waste of Mongoose's time and a waste of space within the supplement. They could have done something new instead.
Both 50dTons? Still use the same hatches? The cutters and pods may not fit in the same space, but they can use the same docks. What's more damning is that the 50dTon survey pod does the same job on the same volume at the same TL as the 50dTon modular cutter. And, because, the modular cutter is, well, modular, the cutter can be put to more uses. Why develop the pod then?
That's what I'll do with the pods IMTU also. However, does the supplement make that assumption too? Or does it imply something else?
Wasted effort, yes. Rehash, no. As you point out, Mongoose presented some nifty new things in Scouts. If they'd left the pods out, there would have been room for even more new stuff.
That's a result of a single shared setting coupled with several rule versions. You need to maintain some continuity so that people using other versions can more easily 'port stuff from those versions to your new rules.
The cutter dates from CT. You can find various module designs scattered through all previous versions. G:T's "Modular Cutter" supplement collect most of them and presents a few new ones.
Regards,
Bill
Last edited:
Well, I told myself I was going to walk away. I know Bill and I are not going to see eye to eye on this. But for the folks playing at home...
No, it says that the Type S is ubiquitous. It says surveyors are common, but only used by the scout service. That's not ubiquitous.
Are we talking in terms of what makes sense in the universe or what gives value to the customer?
If the former, I suggest you don't have a leg to stand on. I suggest to you that you google the term "4 door mid size sedan" and marvel at the varieties that exist.
I certainly don't think the existence of the modular cutter is any reason that any organization that needs to do a particular job enough wouldn't deploy or purchase a more specialized craft; I've seen real world organizations design purpose built designs for much less reason. The modularity costs money (that could be saved if you don't need modularity) and is limited to a subset of the tonnage. Only 30 tons of the modular cutter are modular. The modular cutter is a 4G design (and has an appropriate power plant), whereas the surveyor only has 2G, and features radiation shielding and solar panels (not available in modular option).
If the latter, I can see where you are coming from, but rather think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. I can't make you derive value from it, but I do. It's a different concept, different ship, different niche, and a whole different deckplan, things that add value for me as a traveller ref.
I'd suggest to you that the scout and the seeker are much less different.
No, it says that the Type S is ubiquitous. It says surveyors are common, but only used by the scout service. That's not ubiquitous.
Are we talking in terms of what makes sense in the universe or what gives value to the customer?
If the former, I suggest you don't have a leg to stand on. I suggest to you that you google the term "4 door mid size sedan" and marvel at the varieties that exist.
I certainly don't think the existence of the modular cutter is any reason that any organization that needs to do a particular job enough wouldn't deploy or purchase a more specialized craft; I've seen real world organizations design purpose built designs for much less reason. The modularity costs money (that could be saved if you don't need modularity) and is limited to a subset of the tonnage. Only 30 tons of the modular cutter are modular. The modular cutter is a 4G design (and has an appropriate power plant), whereas the surveyor only has 2G, and features radiation shielding and solar panels (not available in modular option).
If the latter, I can see where you are coming from, but rather think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. I can't make you derive value from it, but I do. It's a different concept, different ship, different niche, and a whole different deckplan, things that add value for me as a traveller ref.
I'd suggest to you that the scout and the seeker are much less different.
Psion,
Let me suggest in turn that you read Post #70 and pay attention when I explain the essentially identical concept.
You want value for the customer? Then give them a "4 door mid size sedan" design that is essentially identical to all the other "4 door mid size sedan" designs in the game and sedan design system that allows then them to make variations. Don't waste your time designing yet another "4 door mid size sedan" just to fill pages in a supplement.
Publish the baseline and let the GMs create variations.
I can understand that. I also think you could just as easily designed the pod on you own if your game needed it. Mongoose could have then used the effort and space the pod required to publish something that was actually new.
Different times, different companies, and different publishing environments but all the space used to describe the seeker in Traders and Gunboats was wasted too IMHO. A paragraph listing the differences would have sufficed and GDW could have then presented us with something new.
Let me assure you, I don't think only Mongoose makes mistakes. Mongoose is simply the only company currently making mistakes. I'm an equal opportunity critic, I call them as I see them no matter who publishes what or when.
As for "common" versus "ubiquitous", in a polity of 11,000 star systems "common" would still mean there are tens of thousands of survey pods. So, with that many of them flitting about, why haven't we`seen the pods before?
I'll be using the excuse or handwave you posted earlier to answer that question; the pods are relatively new, but it isn't exactly heartening to already have to come up with handwaves for published material only months old. Reminds me too much of IG and T4.
Regards,
Bill
Last edited:
Fair enough -although I should point out that they did leave out the surveyor to leave in more nifty stuff. Still, I'd like to be able to verify the similarities between the two that you point out.
Yes and yes in game terms. a hanger for a 50 ton ship is a hanger for any 50 ton (or less) vehicle; and otherwise note that the designs otherwise all use external grapples and not basic storage.
Its pretty neutral on the subject, possibly becuase there is no lab cutter available in MGT -and judging by the responses here, quite hard to locate.
Okay, yes, I am well aware of this - I still have the original JTAS I bought at the time, partly because of the cutter plans. The point is, the only one of relevance to this discussion is the cutter plus lab.
It isn't in CT, Supp 7 or 9. The writeup of the Survey scout (the flying A-frame) simply holds two cutters with a fuel skim mod, and a pass/fuel mod. No help there
So, the only one I can find with stats in in GURPS Traveller core since I don't own GURPS cutters, and it isn't in First in, either.
Comparing that one to the surveyor (which is hard as the two design systems are quite dissimilar) it looks like, relative to the cutter/lab the Surveyor is:
slower
uglier
might have similar crew accomodations (not sure on this: the CT version has crash couches, the surveyor has small craft cabins IIRC)
less flexible
Similar lab capacity
But has:
Greatly enhanced sensors,
greater computer capacity including expanded sensor proccessing
considerably extended duration
Solar panels for loitering and extended duration
So, it looks like an improvement, although not a quantum one.
There's plenty of reasons to prefer a dedicated ship to a flexible one -and in any case, a survey ship can easily carry at least one of each. And, the flexibility on deployment still requires that the extra modules be carried -which eats up more space.
If there is a more detailed writeup, let me know. But from this, I'm seeing two fairly different approaches to the same mission; which in my mind is quite far from unneccessary duplication.
I finally found one referenced in the GURPS core rules. Its not really detailed, nor is there a deckplan; and as we know they are two very different design systems abnd philosophies. My comparison is above, but my current conclusion is that its going to take more than I've seen thus far to convince me that they are redundant -and this despite the fact that I agree with Whipsnades argument for using baselines.
You are conflating my point vs. argument B with the point vs. argument A. The 4 door sedan thing was a "universe internal logic thing" (and deliberately chosen to be extreme to illustrate the ludicrousness of the standpoint that in a believable universe you'll never see 2 different designs for a similar purpose), not a "customer value thing".
Fortunately, as I have demonstrated, they haven't done that.
Ubiquity is a measure of population density, not overall population.
Are you really asking me the same question again, or do you just want to argue more? Again I accept that you have a totally different viewpoint from me on this, but for extreme completeness:
From an in milieu or out of milieu perspective? The former, I'd already covered: because other craft, that are used by more than just one organization or purpose, are much more commonly seen, and this craft that is used in out of the way places by scouts instead of well travelled starports just aren't that common a sight it's worth commenting about.
The latter: because a small set of earthly authors can't hope to accurately convey the sheer variety of craft that a character might see in a well developed industrialized star empire of 11,000 worlds, and to expect them to have exhausted every fair possibility is an unreasonable expectation.
Last edited:
Psion,
I'm not suggesting that there aren't two different designs for the same purpose. What I'm suggesting is that it is a waste of time for game publishers to create two different designs for the same purpose when there's nearly an entire setting still waiting to be described.
That's the concept behind the phrase "essentially identical". We've two small craft, both 50dTons, both operated by the IISS, both built at the same TL, and both doing the same job. They're both essentially identical, so one is a duplication of effort.
Of course there are a myriad of designs for similar purposes but, if a GM needs a different design other than the baseline, they can build one to suit their needs. That's what the various construction systems are for. Game companies shouldn't waste time on essentially identical designs when there's still so much more to do.
I'm not arguing with you because I don't even think we're discussing the same topic.
You're talking about making the pod work within the setting. I'm not. I'm questioning the idea behind designing the pod in the first place.
I'm pointing out that the survey pod isn't significantly different enough from the modular cutter to justify Mongoose spending time designing it and supplement space presenting it. As I've written repeatedly in this thread, there's nearly an entire setting to describe so why not spend time on something actually different?
I don't think you understand why my viewpoint is different. It different because we're viewing the pod from different perspectives.
You've accepted the idea of the pod without question and now presenting handwaves to make the survey pod work within the setting.
I'm stepping back from the picture even further however. I'm not interested in making it fit, that's a concern for individual GMs to solve according to their needs. Instead, I'm questioning the very idea of the pod itself. I'm questioning Mongoose's decision to design and present the survey pod in the first place. Why expend that effort on something that isn't really different when there's still so much more else to do?
I've asked the same question of previous []Traveller[/i] publishers too, like why did GDW waste time and verbiage on the seeker when a paragraph would do?
Regards,
Bill
1 - I like your handwaves and plan on using them if I use the pods.
Bill, what you've been arguing with respect to 200T jump-1 ships is analogous to arguing that because all 9mm revolvers are essentially the same for game purposes, there is only one make and mark of 9mm revolver in the Imperium -- only one shape, weight, color, length, styling, etc. Whereas I've been arguing that the reason we only hear about the Loyval&Gani is not because everybody in the Imperium use Loyval&Ganis, but because that's the one we have a nifty picture of, so that's the one all authors use.
That may not be what you think you've been arguing (I should hope not
), but go back over our exchange and tell me if I'm wrong.I submit that if a ship belongs to a specific class, then it's identical in shape to every other ship of the same class, even though other ship classes of the same type are essentially identical for game purposes.
(I'd further argue that if it has a different arrangement of staterooms and cargo space in an identical hull, then it's also a different class, or rather sub-class, but I'd be willing to back down on that bit).
Edit: And I'd also like to add that just because two ships are essentially identical for some game purposes (e.g. ship design), they're not necessarily going to be essentially identical for every game purpose (e.g. a boarding action against a ship the players don't know backwards and forwards and sideways).
The other way around, Bill. If the GM decides that a jump drive designed for a 4x6 engine room can fit with no problem into a 3x8 engine room, then the two ships become essentially identical for game purposes. But that dosn't make them identical in "reality". And if they're not identical in "reality", they wouldn't be considered to be the same class any more than the Loyval&Gani 9mm pistol would be considered identical to the Zimmer 9mm pistol, even though the two are identical for game purposes.
Of course not. But I wouldn't interpret the fact that I don't really need more than one drawing of a 9mm pistol and that the game publisher has only ever mentioned and depicted one particular 9mm pistol to mean that there only are one 9mm pistol design in the whole wide universe.
Hans
Last edited:
Ah, but I have addressed that; I just wasn't certain above what perspective you were speaking of. Back in post #72, I said "Are we talking in terms of what makes sense in the universe or what gives value to the customer?", and presented refutations for both.
It's sounds like your problem is more the "value to the customer" perspective, so we can safely move past the internal logic perspective.
Not exactly. You've made clear now that the internal logic is not your major contention, but AFAIAC, there's no need to handwave, since for reasons already stated, I don't believe the text states any sort of ubiquity that needs to be handwaved away. It can safely live in the gaps inevitably left by prior books.
But if my take (more a "natural conclusion" than a "handwave" to me) helps it work for you, more power to you.
And that I can understand. I could have lived without the seeker myself. But:
1) It's a handful of pages. If I were going to complain about pages I consider not well spent, I'd have more to complain about than that (as I stated in the other scouts thread, I found some of the fluff not to be too functional or interesting.)
2) AFAIAC, the modular cutter and surveyor are different enough in role, concept, and niche that for me at least (and others who have mentioned the ship designs were a highlight for them) is sufficiently different to be of value.
Last edited:
drnuncheon
SOC-8
Sure, they look identical, if you ignore everything including the game statistics that are different. 2g vs 4g. 4 weeks of operation vs. 1 week. Radiation shielding & solar panels vs. nothing.
Given the differences in price, performance, and capabilities, this is like saying the Beowulf and the Empress Marava are "essentially identical" simply because they're both 200-dton trading vessels.
