--- On Fri, 21/5/10, far_trader_mail <> wrote:
>> Also, FF&S went through two erratas without the 2m3 Jump Drive minimum
>>being corrected.
>And MT has been through how many erratas? A few or several. And there are
>still errors uncorrected. Saying it wasn't corrected does not mean it
>wasn't an error. Could it not be that this (possible) error was simply
>never noted by someone who was connected enough to get it in the errata?
>Or maybe it was noticed, but not until after the horse had left the barn
>(in the form of the Regency Sourcebook and it's Jump Boats) and it was
>felt by the powers that be that correcting it then would be worse?
Well addressing those points in the order they were raised:
* MT is notorious for errors.
* I agree, lack of correction is not proof of non-error - but it is a point to weigh, especially if the error is pretty glaring.
* On the scenarios - possible, but with a low probability of occurrence in my opinion.
>> All of the starships in the TNE rulebook are updates of previous
>>versions, so I'm afraid that is not a valid point. As mentioned above, I
>>think the authors would have been well aware of Traveller Canon - and
>>seeing as they were the arbiters of Traveller Canon at the time they >>could change it as they saw fit.
>And all were changed some in design and in the way they worked because of
>the change in maneuver drives. This was a new paradigm and noted as such
>with explanation. But not one hint or mention of the change in jump
>drives? Not one design showing the NEW jump drive design philosophy in
>use? Odd no?
Not really odd if you consider that the new lower tonnage limit was only shown in a Regency ship - which was not the primary TNE setting, and would not be sketched out for another two years. The rulebook showed starships the PCs were likely to come across - ex-Imperial vessels which (for whatever handwave you choose) were designed with a 100dT limit.
>>I disagree that it would change the nature of the default Traveller
>>setting. The 55dT Jump Boat is a very limited design by its write-up. As
>>for Jump drives working the same way as they did before - the Jump
>>Drives certainly differ between editions - MT and TNE requiring less
>>fuel than CT and T4.
>Marginally different. And none of them made sub100ton jump ships.
I'll disagree on the marginality of the differences - HEPLAR made ships more fuel dependent than other versions - no zinging around a system on reactionless drive for 4 weeks after jumping in.
>>To be honest, I'm very disturbed at this hunt through all the versions
>>of Traveller on a quest to eliminate 'error' vis-a-vis the 'one true
>>Traveller'. People discovered Traveller at different times, with
>>different rulesets. Other rulesets were appreciated, but it was
>>generally accepted that the changes that came in with different rules
>>were the new canon. If you didn't like that you could always stick with
>>your old ruleset (or argue a lot). I see nothing wrong with that.
>>However now that rulesets can be retroactively declared in error it
>>seems we're entering a more dogmatic era of Traveller, and I for one
>>don't like that.
>It's an attempt at consistency. I applaud it. I don't find it dogmatic.
>At least no more so than any other attempt to root out errors. I don't
>think we should just say "Oh well, they printed it so that's the way it
>is now." Not without some explanation anyway. Not if they intend it to be
>the same game. Different strokes and all I guess.
I guess it depends on what you think is game-changing. There's other stuff being done too that I oppose - like rigidly tying Naval Bases to A + B starports. Now that's in the gen rules of all settings (I think), but there have always been exceptions: one of the Mirriam's in the Spinward Marches has an E-port and a Naval Base. TNE, with its collapse rules has a few C-port/Naval Base combos. The errata push wants to eliminate these - but this kind of error/unexpected result makes a setting for me by eliminating the cookie-cutter feel engendered by rigidly sticking to a rule (however inappropriate the rule is, either by form or application). I'd much more prefer a push to fix a lot of the batshit insane multiple-UWPs seen in some computer generated Traveller Sectors, and some of the fan naming should be purged too...
>But ok, let's look at this particular nit from a different slant.
>Let's say we take the statement as given. What does it mean? It means we
>can build (in theory) a J1 "ship" of just 100m3. Does that make any
>sense? Can we fit even the barest minimum of required components to make
>a valid "ship"? Even a simple jump torpedo* ala Leviathan? I'm guessing
>not. I vaguely recall trying to back in the day, and not succeeding. I
>don't have the time or resources to run some numbers again. Anyone else
>care to?
I'm mostly with you here - having a theoretical limit of a 100m3 J1 ship does not mean one can be built with the resources available (or if it can be built that it is useful) - but that still does not mean that the theoretical limit does not exist. As an example - the Atlas ICBM was capable of achieving orbit on its own without staging. However its utility as a Single-Stage to Orbit vehicle was zero.
>If there's no way to make a functional design at that minimum 2m3 drive
>size then stating such a minimum is pointless. Or it was a typo/error.
>The way it is written really sounds like a last minute addition without
>due consideration to me.
I'll disagree for the reason above, and I'll note that FFS covered a wide range of tech levels - so who knows what functionality might be possible at higher tls?
Starviking