Thread: Death of gearheading?

All over the board it seems that gearheading has died a brutal death.
Maybe I am nostalgic, but I really found world creation and designs
one of the main strenght of TNE and Traveller in general.

Before I closed my forume a few days ago I tried to engage the few
steady users in developing rules for a few new items in Traveller,
which was briefly mentioned in CT and MT, wothout much luck.

Maybe it is me, but I really miss the old discussions of the past.
Maybe I am getting old here.=20

However, I am not going to give up my Traveller site (even though I
closed the forume), which has seen some improvements over the last few
weeks. New stuff is added all the time.

with planet creation, with all the new solar systems out there, and all the weirdness, the only system creation I have found was one that was redone for FASATrek
as for designs, well traveller did have it sewn up till gurps

________________________________
From: Roger Malmstein
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2009 2:38:10 PM
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Death of gearheading?

 
All over the board it seems that gearheading has died a brutal death.
Maybe I am nostalgic, but I really found world creation and designs
one of the main strenght of TNE and Traveller in general.

Before I closed my forume a few days ago I tried to engage the few
steady users in developing rules for a few new items in Traveller,
which was briefly mentioned in CT and MT, wothout much luck.

Maybe it is me, but I really miss the old discussions of the past.
Maybe I am getting old here.=20

However, I am not going to give up my Traveller site (even though I
closed the forume), which has seen some improvements over the last few
weeks. New stuff is added all the time.

Roger Malmstein wrote:
>
> All over the board it seems that gearheading has died a brutal
> death. Maybe I am nostalgic, but I really found world creation and
> designs one of the main strenght of TNE and Traveller in general.

IMHO Gearheading thrives on the 'crunchy bits'. The newest Traveller "kid on the block" is Mongoose Traveller (MgT), and while MgT is generating buzz among players, it is not a very 'crunchy' rules set.

Hang in there. Marc Miller will be releasing T5 (which is reported to be crunchier than MgT) and TNE CD is waiting to join the CT and MT versions as ano big lump of goodness for prople (like me) who never really saw TNE. That might give gearheading a boost.

--- In , "atpollard" <atpollard@...> wrote:
> Hang in there. Marc Miller will be releasing T5 (which is reported to be crunchier than MgT) and TNE CD is waiting to join the CT and MT versions as ano big lump of goodness for prople (like me) who never really saw TNE. That might give gearheading a boost.
>

MGT: Civilian Vehicles is coming, and Military Vehicles is supposed to be right behind it. Hopefully those will add more crunch to Mongoose Traveller.

TNE CD: Yes, it's coming. I'm reviewing some of the PDFs right now. And I'm trying to put together an errata document, but there's nothing to start with but the GDW documents, so it's been slow going (I have had to key in the TNE Upgrade Booklet by hand this week). Once I have the official errata done, I'll release a draft, and then we'll probably see the unofficial errata proposals start. I suspect some of our MT errata will impact the TNE errata (as things like Star System Generation are just warmed over versions of the MT rules).

T5: And we should see some interesting things here very shortly, for those who are eagerly awaiting the next T5 flurry.

Maybe the TLx50 fix for TNE lasers will finally become official!!!

--- In , "Donald McKinney" <don.mckinney@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "atpollard" <atpollard@> wrote:
> > Hang in there. Marc Miller will be releasing T5 (which is reported to be crunchier than MgT) and TNE CD is waiting to join the CT and MT versions as ano big lump of goodness for prople (like me) who never really saw TNE. That might give gearheading a boost.
> >
>
> MGT: Civilian Vehicles is coming, and Military Vehicles is supposed to be right behind it. Hopefully those will add more crunch to Mongoose Traveller.
>
> TNE CD: Yes, it's coming. I'm reviewing some of the PDFs right now. And I'm trying to put together an errata document, but there's nothing to start with but the GDW documents, so it's been slow going (I have had to key in the TNE Upgrade Booklet by hand this week). Once I have the official errata done, I'll release a draft, and then we'll probably see the unofficial errata proposals start. I suspect some of our MT errata will impact the TNE errata (as things like Star System Generation are just warmed over versions of the MT rules).
>
> T5: And we should see some interesting things here very shortly, for those who are eagerly awaiting the next T5 flurry.
>

Wow... A TNE CD, I picked the right time to come back didn't I?

Hehehehe...

I'd love to take a look at the 1248 stuff that MJD put together but
the vast majority seems out of print.

I found the 22 page post that Dave N put together about 5 years
back the other day while I was just sort of randomly wandering
about... Did anything ever come of his pondering about the RCES
trip into Hiver space?

DS

----- Original Message -----
From: Donald McKinney

> --- In , "atpollard"
> <atpollard@...> wrote:
> > Hang in there. Marc Miller will be releasing T5 (which is
> reported to be crunchier than MgT) and TNE CD is waiting to join
> the CT and MT versions as ano big lump of goodness for prople
> (like me) who never really saw TNE. That might give gearheading
> a boost.
> >
>
> MGT: Civilian Vehicles is coming, and Military Vehicles is
> supposed to be right behind it. Hopefully those will add more
> crunch to Mongoose Traveller.
>
> TNE CD: Yes, it's coming. I'm reviewing some of the PDFs right
> now. And I'm trying to put together an errata document, but
> there's nothing to start with but the GDW documents, so it's
> been slow going (I have had to key in the TNE Upgrade Booklet by
> hand this week). Once I have the official errata done, I'll
> release a draft, and then we'll probably see the unofficial
> errata proposals start. I suspect some of our MT errata will
> impact the TNE errata (as things like Star System Generation are
> just warmed over versions of the MT rules).
>
> T5: And we should see some interesting things here very shortly,
> for those who are eagerly awaiting the next T5 flurry.
>
>

On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:18:30 -0000, "Jake Collins"
<> wrote:

>Maybe the TLx50 fix for TNE lasers will finally become official!!!
>
Shudder, I hope not. However, the laser design needs some soret of
limiting. A TL-15 Xray laser limited at TL*15 will hardly fill a the
turret volume.

There is several unforseen effects on different design systems in TNE
when it comes to items that falls outside the norm. I think of MEson
rifles. It does 1D damage, but the radiation will kill. Plasma and
fusion guns that get redicilous recoil when they get small enough.

The designrules should have formulas for designing hull rather than
looking up tables.

Power plant size efficiency modifiers and so on.

Note that is TL*50 MegaJoules Roger, not 15. So the max. at TL15 is 750MJ.

--- In , Roger Malmstein <starwolf@...> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:18:30 -0000, "Jake Collins"
> <jake.collins@...> wrote:
>
> >Maybe the TLx50 fix for TNE lasers will finally become official!!!
> >
> Shudder, I hope not. However, the laser design needs some soret of
> limiting. A TL-15 Xray laser limited at TL*15 will hardly fill a the
> turret volume.
>
> There is several unforseen effects on different design systems in TNE
> when it comes to items that falls outside the norm. I think of MEson
> rifles. It does 1D damage, but the radiation will kill. Plasma and
> fusion guns that get redicilous recoil when they get small enough.
>
> The designrules should have formulas for designing hull rather than
> looking up tables.
>
> Power plant size efficiency modifiers and so on.
>

--- DEREK STANLEY wrote:
>
> Wow... A TNE CD, I picked the right time to come back didn't I?
>
> Hehehehe...
>
> I'd love to take a look at the 1248 stuff that MJD put together but
> the vast majority seems out of print.
>

Don,

Is the 1248 stuff going to be included in the TNE cd? I don't believe that I saw a definite answer over on the TAS boards.

> I found the 22 page post that Dave N put together about 5 years
> back the other day while I was just sort of randomly wandering
> about... Did anything ever come of his pondering about the RCES
> trip into Hiver space?
>
> DS

Was that the one over on CotI?

Good seeing you again Derek. I was wondering what happened to you. :)

\_/
DED

--- In , "Jake Collins" <jake.collins@...> wrote:
>
> Note that is TL*50 MegaJoules Roger, not 15. So the max. at TL15 is 750MJ.
>
> --- In , Roger Malmstein <starwolf@> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:18:30 -0000, "Jake Collins"
> > <jake.collins@> wrote:
> >
> > >Maybe the TLx50 fix for TNE lasers will finally become official!!!
> > >
> > Shudder, I hope not. However, the laser design needs some soret of
> > limiting. A TL-15 Xray laser limited at TL*15 will hardly fill a the
> > turret volume.
> >
> > There is several unforseen effects on different design systems in TNE
> > when it comes to items that falls outside the norm. I think of MEson
> > rifles. It does 1D damage, but the radiation will kill. Plasma and
> > fusion guns that get redicilous recoil when they get small enough.
> >
> > The designrules should have formulas for designing hull rather than
> > looking up tables.
> >
> > Power plant size efficiency modifiers and so on.

Now the limitations you mention -- fixes for those have been proposed somewhere, right? And I have NOT seen the laser limit you mention in the errata I've been reviewing.

Donald McKinney wrote:
> Now the limitations you mention -- fixes for those have been proposed somewhere, right? And I have NOT seen the laser limit you mention in the errata I've been reviewing.
>
>

I'm fairly sure that was never official errata. However, without a power
limit you get laser spinal mounts, and because laser penetration scale
linearly with energy (in FF&S/TNE) while other beam weapons scale with
the root of energy this makes them vastly superior to other options.

BTW, something to consider when working on a ship design system - for a
given percentage of mass devoted to armour, thickness scales with the
cube root of volume. The discharge energy of a beam weapon of a given
percentage of volume or mass will tend to scale linearly with the ship's
volume (all else being equal). Therefore, if beam weapon penetration
does not scale with the cube root of discharge energy you will have a
regime where, depending on which scales faster, either big ships will be
invulnerable to each other (and thus anything smaller), or where large
ships cannot be effectively armoured. Not taking this into consideration
can lead to unintended consequences.

--- In , "dedtraveller" <dedly@...> wrote:
> Don,
>
> Is the 1248 stuff going to be included in the TNE cd? I don't believe that I saw a definite answer over on the TAS boards.

One of the biggest problems is that at the moment, the PDF files are HUGE.

1,081,537 TNE 0000 Understanding Traveller The New Era.pdf
8,148,852 TNE 0000 When Empires Fall.pdf
977,262 TNE 0302 Deluxe Player Aid Cards.pdf
1,710,858 TNE 0302 Deluxe RCES Briefing (Player).pdf
1,706,346 TNE 0302 Deluxe RCES Briefing (Referee).pdf
88,171,615 TNE-0300 Traveller The New Era.pdf
50,982,751 TNE-0301 Survival Margin.pdf
88,877,556 TNE-0303 Brilliant Lances.pdf
38,451,005 TNE-0304 Fire Fusion & Steel.pdf
34,373,634 TNE-0305 Smash & Grab.pdf
14,953,656 TNE-0306 Players Forms.pdf
13,692,755 TNE-0307 Referees Screen.pdf
49,121,601 TNE-0308 Battle Rider.pdf
41,522,645 TNE-0309 Path Of Tears.pdf
47,995,307 TNE-0310 Reformation Coalition Equipment Guide.pdf
32,399,650 TNE-0311 World Tamers Handbook.pdf
60,622,825 TNE-0312 Vampire Fleets.pdf
30,825,241 TNE-0313 Striker 2.pdf
28,958,346 TNE-0314 Regency Sourcebook.pdf
19,426,449 TNE-0315 Star Vikings.pdf
26,067,199 TNE-0318 Aliens of the Rim.pdf
15,542,992 TNE-0320 Regency Combat Vehicle Guide.pdf
12,632,209 TNE-0330 The Guilded Lilly.pdf

There's just not much room left. Marc wants to put 130+MB of Challenge articles on the CD, and all of that is BEFORE the 1248 material.

Anyone with suggestions on the size, drop me a note at rather than on the list.

On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:05:21 -0000, "Donald McKinney"
<> wrote:

>Now the limitations you mention -- fixes for those have been proposed somewhere, right? And I have NOT seen the laser limit you mention in the errata I've been reviewing.
>
There has not been, far as I know, any official fix for any of these
items. Most liley because most of these issues appeared after GDW
closed its doors.

The TL*50 fix was proposed after a discussion on TML about laser
efficiency vs Meson efficiency when it comes to crew. Regardless of
laser power, the crew was one. On the other hand A meson gun would
require dozens.

A laser are also more efficient than Meson guns if you compare them
towards volume and power levels. If I don't remember wrong, someone
designed a deathstar laser on the TML about then too.

Yes, lasers and mass drivers deviate from the otherwise consistent FF&S penetration rating system - and both are the source of many problems in their own ways requiring 'house rules'.

I have for the longest time used Rupert's excellent suggested 'fix' for the Mass Driver penetration issue. Perhaps Rupert will post it again for Don's benefit.

I think most of us found the TLx50 MJ 'fix' worked satisfactorily for lasers.

--- In , Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@...> wrote:
>
> Donald McKinney wrote:
> > Now the limitations you mention -- fixes for those have been proposed somewhere, right? And I have NOT seen the laser limit you mention in the errata I've been reviewing.
> >
> >
>
> I'm fairly sure that was never official errata. However, without a power
> limit you get laser spinal mounts, and because laser penetration scale
> linearly with energy (in FF&S/TNE) while other beam weapons scale with
> the root of energy this makes them vastly superior to other options.
>
> BTW, something to consider when working on a ship design system - for a
> given percentage of mass devoted to armour, thickness scales with the
> cube root of volume. The discharge energy of a beam weapon of a given
> percentage of volume or mass will tend to scale linearly with the ship's
> volume (all else being equal). Therefore, if beam weapon penetration
> does not scale with the cube root of discharge energy you will have a
> regime where, depending on which scales faster, either big ships will be
> invulnerable to each other (and thus anything smaller), or where large
> ships cannot be effectively armoured. Not taking this into consideration
> can lead to unintended consequences.
>

--- In , "Jake Collins" <jake.collins@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, lasers and mass drivers deviate from the otherwise consistent FF&S penetration rating system - and both are the source of many problems in their own ways requiring 'house rules'.
>
> I have for the longest time used Rupert's excellent suggested 'fix' for the Mass Driver penetration issue. Perhaps Rupert will post it again for Don's benefit.
>
> I think most of us found the TLx50 MJ 'fix' worked satisfactorily for lasers.

Great, but please label your posts [TNE Errata] or something similar.
And we've probably beaten up this thread (Death of gearheading) enough...

--- In , Roger Malmstein <starwolf@...> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:05:21 -0000, "Donald McKinney"
> <don.mckinney@...> wrote:
>
>
> >Now the limitations you mention -- fixes for those have been proposed somewhere, right? And I have NOT seen the laser limit you mention in the errata I've been reviewing.
> >
> There has not been, far as I know, any official fix for any of these
> items. Most liley because most of these issues appeared after GDW
> closed its doors.
>
> The TL*50 fix was proposed after a discussion on TML about laser
> efficiency vs Meson efficiency when it comes to crew. Regardless of
> laser power, the crew was one. On the other hand A meson gun would
> require dozens.
>
> A laser are also more efficient than Meson guns if you compare them
> towards volume and power levels. If I don't remember wrong, someone
> designed a deathstar laser on the TML about then too.

We (the MT community) opened our errata up a long time ago to such unofficial inclusions, but each one has a bit of debate.

As I wrote a few minutes ago, probably time to start using [TNE Errata] and leave "Death of gearheading" to its original topic.

And for those who say Gearheading is dead...

I uploaded 13 new ship designs to my website in March, with a pile of
vehicles to come (need them before I do an assault carrier).

www.skaran.net

Have a look in the "What's new" section.

Antony

On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 01:29:01 +0800, "Antony Farrell"
<> wrote:

>And for those who say Gearheading is dead...
>
>I uploaded 13 new ship designs to my website in March, with a pile of
>vehicles to come (need them before I do an assault carrier).
>
>www.skaran.net
>
>Have a look in the "What's new" section.

I need to visit your page more often. However, what I was after was
more discussion about design and how to refine the rules and maybe add
new elements

Jake Collins wrote:
> Yes, lasers and mass drivers deviate from the otherwise consistent FF&S penetration rating system - and both are the source of many problems in their own ways requiring 'house rules'.
>
> I have for the longest time used Rupert's excellent suggested 'fix' for the Mass Driver penetration issue. Perhaps Rupert will post it again for Don's benefit.
That means I'd have to find my FF&S...

----- Original Message -----
From: dedtraveller

> Was that the one over on CotI?
>
> Good seeing you again Derek. I was wondering what happened to
> you. :)

I have a 2.5 year old now... that's where the last couple years went. Most of my original gaming group broke up years ago and moved to different parts of the world so it all kind of went to the wayside. Now it's just interesting to look at and read to see what happened and where things went.