Thread: Re: TNE Rule fixes (plus some personal thoughts!)

Actually most of what follows is not errata but I thought I'd annoy people
by posting it anyway.

Vehicles tend to come out much too heavy with the construction rules as they
are. Some of this is a direct result of workstations being much larger than
they are in real life thus requiring an increased vehicle volume (Original
Striker was better for this). If you ever get the chance have a look at the
size of the workstations inside an armoured vehicle.

Turreted vehicles also get extra mass because the hole in the chassis/turret
interface ie which the turret sits on is not there. We used the quick fix of
treating the turret and chassis as separate "open-topped" vehicles. This
also allowed the turret and chassis to have differing armour values as well
which the combat system can cope with but the construction rules did not.

Power plants appear to be too large and heavy for a given power ouput and
should also incorporate both scale efficiencies and tech level improvements
ie the engine on a modern TL8 4 cylinder car is both lighter, more fuel
efficient and generates more power than an equivelant sized engine on a TL6
car for example. Fix for this is simply add a scale efficiency and tech
level bonus system to the other engine types.

Solar panels and fuel cells need some work too, technology in these areas
seems to have advanced quite a lot recently.

Batteries, I have never been able to follow how to construct power pack
lasers since I hace never been able to work out how to calculate the battery
sizes for these devices perhaps some clarification of these rules (an
example perhaps?)

Some missing bits, what goes into a fully independent space missile? It's
not in FF&S1.

Some clarrification on battledress and how the wearers strength effects what
can be carried. Ie the suit has a total mass that it can carry but this does
not appear to include the wearer so what is and is not carried by the suit
and what by the strength of the wearer. The suit supposedly doubles the
wearers strength so does that mean the wearers enhanced/unenhaced carrying
capacity is added to the suit or not.

Missed Errata, as far as I can remember the TL9 bay lasers used the wrong
bay dimension (it should have been the short one) for the focal array size.

Lasers: the DV formula for these is already half that of both PA and Meson
guns the penetration rating formula could be changed to reduce the
penetration rating still further but this wil directly impact on some
equipment such as the laser sniper rifles from the RC equipment handbook. So
not sure what to do about this. I would increase the degradation effect of
gravitic lasers faster, X-ray lasers are especially bad for this. How was
the range factor modifier for gravitic focussed lasers derived anyway?

Plasma and Fusion guns as starship weapons in a TNE universe. Normally the
plasma will fly apart very rapidly before even a hex range is reached which
is why they are not used as space weapons in TNE the few ships that carry
them use them against ground targets. However I thought to myself if
accelerated to relativistic velocities in something akin to a PA decay is
delayed giving at least some hexes of range. Just add a lot of energy. This
would give plasma/fusion guns the best penetration and damage values but
also the worst ranges.

Effectivively the heirachy of space energy weapons, best range with worst
penetration and damage values should be lasers
Then NPAWS
The Meson guns
Then plasma/fusion guns.

Spinal Disintegrators: these never made an appearance in TNE but in theory
they are there since some Voroshilev class vessels were fitted with them.
Effectively another particle accelerator, take one standard NPAW add a
nuclear damper box holding anti-matter, accelerate to relativistic speeds
should make a very nice fire work as it hits the matter going through it. OK
then take one Meson gun add a nuclear damper box containing a source of
anti-whatever mesons and fire as a meson gun. Should give a bigger bang than
a standard meson gun but try not to get hit in your anti-matter store.

Maneuver Drives need some work as well. HePlaR is way too efficient and
perhaps should not be used on vehicles which it currently can. Perhaps a
minimum size.

Finally (phew you all say) CG lifters, perhaps some altitude and performance
limits, especially on the lower tech ones. Do you really want your teenager
with his first open topped air/raft taking it into orbit?

Antony

On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 04:20:32 +0800, "Antony Farrell"
<> wrote:

>Vehicles tend to come out much too heavy with the construction rules as they
>are. Some of this is a direct result of workstations being much larger than
>they are in real life thus requiring an increased vehicle volume (Original
>Striker was better for this). If you ever get the chance have a look at the
>size of the workstations inside an armoured vehicle.
>
I usually use cramped workstations in vehicles.

>Power plants appear to be too large and heavy for a given power ouput and
>should also incorporate both scale efficiencies and tech level improvements
>ie the engine on a modern TL8 4 cylinder car is both lighter, more fuel
>efficient and generates more power than an equivelant sized engine on a TL6
>car for example. Fix for this is simply add a scale efficiency and tech
>level bonus system to the other engine types.

I agree to this. Most low tech powerplants should have scale
efficiency tables. Maybe some of them should have max size too.

>
>Solar panels and fuel cells need some work too, technology in these areas
>seems to have advanced quite a lot recently.
>

Both of these seems to get very little use in Traveller, so I would
not prioritize this.

>Some missing bits, what goes into a fully independent space missile? It's
>not in FF&S1.

I have a proposal for this www.travellerfreeport.com First link in the
latest article section.

>
>Some clarrification on battledress and how the wearers strength effects what
>can be carried. Ie the suit has a total mass that it can carry but this does
>not appear to include the wearer so what is and is not carried by the suit
>and what by the strength of the wearer. The suit supposedly doubles the
>wearers strength so does that mean the wearers enhanced/unenhaced carrying
>capacity is added to the suit or not.

In my oppinion battledresses should have an inherent strenght based on
TL and skeleton type. Extra strength could be made available with
either increase skeleton frame and/or increase the battery drain.

>Plasma and Fusion guns as starship weapons in a TNE universe.

In TNE plasma and fusion weapons require ammunition. I am not so sure
if I would like to carry that onboard a turret.

>Spinal Disintegrators: these never made an appearance in TNE but in theory
>they are there since some Voroshilev class vessels were fitted with them.
>Effectively another particle accelerator, take one standard NPAW add a
>nuclear damper box holding anti-matter, accelerate to relativistic speeds
>should make a very nice fire work as it hits the matter going through it. OK
>then take one Meson gun add a nuclear damper box containing a source of
>anti-whatever mesons and fire as a meson gun. Should give a bigger bang than
>a standard meson gun but try not to get hit in your anti-matter store.

>Maneuver Drives need some work as well. HePlaR is way too efficient and
>perhaps should not be used on vehicles which it currently can. Perhaps a
>minimum size.

That depends on if you use ship volume or ship mass to determine the
size of the maneuverdrive and ship design.

I once did a comparizon between TNE designs where the rating was based
on craft volume and recalculated the actual G based on the actual
thrust in tonnes vs mass of the craft. Most crafts gained more than a
g, but a few (SDB among them) lostmaneuver rating. The SDB lost
actually more than 2G.

Roger Malmstein
www.travellerfreeport.com

A bit more
Tl8 and 9 MFDs cannot be built out to the range limits on the MFD chart
which allows MFDs with short ranges out to 300,000km (10 hexes)
TL8 and 9 MFDs require a pinpoint RADAR unit attached which at TL8 and 9 has
a range of 60,000km (2 hexes). Personally I also allow the use of LADAR
(which is already a point sensor system) for this sensor add on as well.

Possible fixes either remove the TL8 and 9 MFDs from beyond 60,000km for TL8
and 120,000km for TL9 (If LADAR is allowed as the sensor) or extend the
TL8/9 Radar table out to these sort of ranges. This would be for direction
of beam weapons, for missiles if the missile has its own sensors and a
working comm system then perhaps the MFD does not require the pencil-beam
active sensor so effectively semi-independent missiles can get the benefits
of MFD control when outside the MFDs own sensor range?

Then an addendum to MFDs. Currently an MFD can control missiles only up to
the TLs difficulty rating modifier, so for example a TL9 MFD can control
only 2 missiles. This is patently ridiculous. A partial fix may be to say an
MFD can control any number of missiles (or perhaps up to the Diff modifier
multiplied by some number eg 10) but that the number of simultaneous targets
is limited by the Diff Modifier (this still seems low to me, I'm sure modern
ie TL8 warships can direct and control more than one missile at a time and
direct said missiles to different targets)

For simplicity then how about an MFD can direct missiles to up to 4x its
difficulty number of targets and can control up to 10x its difficulty number
of missiles simultaneously.

Example at TL8 MFD can now direct missiles to 4 targets simultaneously and
can havce up to 10 missiles in its "basket" while doing so. A TL10 MFD with
this could direct 30 missiles to up to 12 targets.

If a target is destroyed or otherwise not a target anymore missiles can be
redirected to new targets provided they have 1. Sufficient maneuver left and
2. do not exceed the MFDs capacity.

Ship's Crews

I like the calculating of Engioneers using power plant volume rather than
power output. What about Fusion Rockets which generate power when operating?

Actually the current rules for Engineering should take in to account power
plant, jump drive and maneuver drive. So add up the volumes of all of these
and use that as the basis. If this still generates too many engineers change
the modifer from 30 to a larger number say 50.

Also I have always assumed that the crew requirements are for a post virus
universe and so have little computerisation. For craft not in such a
universe reduce the computer modifiers, perhaps a half which willl effect
crew requirement numbers through all the depertment except for your bridge
crew.

Antony

On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 16:04:39 +0800, "Antony Farrell"
<> wrote:

>Then an addendum to MFDs. Currently an MFD can control missiles only up to
>the TLs difficulty rating modifier, so for example a TL9 MFD can control
>only 2 missiles. This is patently ridiculous.

I agree with you there. Already 20 years ago the Aegis system could
engage 30+ targets simultaneuosly. And the Aegis system is primarily a
SAM system.

>A partial fix may be to say an
>MFD can control any number of missiles (or perhaps up to the Diff modifier
>multiplied by some number eg 10) but that the number of simultaneous targets
>is limited by the Diff Modifier (this still seems low to me, I'm sure modern
>ie TL8 warships can direct and control more than one missile at a time and
>direct said missiles to different targets)

Most SSM systems are fire and forget. Thus a any ship would be able to
engage several target at once. But it also depends on how many
operators that are available to process the target information prior
to launch.

>I like the calculating of Engioneers using power plant volume rather than
>power output. What about Fusion Rockets which generate power when operating?
>
>Actually the current rules for Engineering should take in to account power
>plant, jump drive and maneuver drive. So add up the volumes of all of these
>and use that as the basis. If this still generates too many engineers change
>the modifer from 30 to a larger number say 50.

I agree that Maneuver drive and Jump drive volume should be taken into
consideration.

>
>Also I have always assumed that the crew requirements are for a post virus
>universe and so have little computerisation. For craft not in such a
>universe reduce the computer modifiers, perhaps a half which willl effect
>crew requirement numbers through all the depertment except for your bridge
>crew.

If you look hard enough FF&S2 got rules for different autmation
levels. However, the information is hidden in the text and not in a
table.

Lots of good thoughts, but I thought I'd demonstrated on the old Freeport forums (late lamented) that it is actually not a completely lost cause to try to design RL vehicles (at least military ones) with FF&S unmodified and a correct interpretation of tech levels. Remember several key rules...

...vehicles and aircraft use crewstations NOT workstations (FF&S Mk1 Mod1 page 47)...

...although the turret volume rule is a little barmy, it is not as bad as often made out because a small turret/cupola only needs to allocate 1.75m3 to its crewmember (page 19 left column at point 2) if not remote-controlled and...
...the only crewmember who absolutely must be in a turret and thus occupy shedloads of volume is the vehicle commander (page 19 right column at point 10)...

...the turret efficiency rules (page 17) only really penalise low tech vehicles which should be designed like WW1 tanks anyway without turrets.

On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 16:04:39 +0800, "Antony Farrell"
<> wrote:

>Then an addendum to MFDs. Currently an MFD can control missiles only up to
>the TLs difficulty rating modifier, so for example a TL9 MFD can control
>only 2 missiles. This is patently ridiculous. A partial fix may be to say an
>MFD can control any number of missiles (or perhaps up to the Diff modifier
>multiplied by some number eg 10) but that the number of simultaneous targets
>is limited by the Diff Modifier (this still seems low to me, I'm sure modern
>ie TL8 warships can direct and control more than one missile at a time and
>direct said missiles to different targets)
>
>For simplicity then how about an MFD can direct missiles to up to 4x its
>difficulty number of targets and can control up to 10x its difficulty number
>of missiles simultaneously.
>
>Example at TL8 MFD can now direct missiles to 4 targets simultaneously and
>can havce up to 10 missiles in its "basket" while doing so. A TL10 MFD with
>this could direct 30 missiles to up to 12 targets.

There is one way to circumvent the rules. TNE basically assumes a
setting with the ever present danger of virus infections. And there
may be several reasons why controlled missiles are prefered to fire
and forget missiles.

One of them is that there is actually nowhere to hide in space. No
horizon to hide behind or other "terrain" features. And the launching
platforms sensors will be far better than the sensor suite carried
onboard a missile. Missiles has a limited field of view, so if they
loose their target ther may be little chance for them to regain the
target.

so if a turret or MFD want to engage more than one target it must use
networked missiles. Missiles may attack in cluster staying in touch
with each other. One missile is the master and has direct
communication with the launching platform. A single turret or barbette
may only target one target, but a MFD may target a number of different
targets as the DM of the MFD.

Post Virus situation may alter this.

Roger Malmstein
www.travellerfreeport.com

Roger Malmstein wrote:
> One of them is that there is actually nowhere to hide in space. No
> horizon to hide behind or other "terrain" features. And the launching
> platforms sensors will be far better than the sensor suite carried
> onboard a missile. Missiles has a limited field of view, so if they
> loose their target ther may be little chance for them to regain the
> target.
>
The correct solution to this is self-guided missiles with onboard
sensors (passive, for power reasons, most likely), with long-range
guidance by the mother ship until the missile is close.

The primary reason for self-guiding is light-speed lag. Over the ranges
TNE assumes, a remote guided missile has a major problem with
communication and sensor lag.

I'd modify your missile to passive-active sensor suite ... they would be passive until certain things happened
1. they approach 'attack' range of the target
2. they lose their control link
3. they receive command to go active, either from the data link or preprogrammed
If a guided missile loses it's target it will attempt to reacquire another target within the designated target area
if the missile fails to reacquire a target and attack it, and after a preset time goes by it will self destruct to prevent capture by hostile forces
passive-active sensors use a digital array that provides 180 degrees coverage to the front of the missile (90 degrees from 000/000 or the 12 oclock position if you prefer) ... telemetry link arrays to the rear ...
Tim

________________________________
From: Rupert Boleyn
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 12:52:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] TNE Rule fixes (plus some personal thoughts!)

 
Roger Malmstein wrote:
> One of them is that there is actually nowhere to hide in space. No
> horizon to hide behind or other "terrain" features. And the launching
> platforms sensors will be far better than the sensor suite carried
> onboard a missile. Missiles has a limited field of view, so if they
> loose their target ther may be little chance for them to regain the
> target.
>
The correct solution to this is self-guided missiles with onboard
sensors (passive, for power reasons, most likely), with long-range
guidance by the mother ship until the missile is close.

The primary reason for self-guiding is light-speed lag. Over the ranges
TNE assumes, a remote guided missile has a major problem with
communication and sensor lag.

My interpretation of why there is no self guided missles in the TNE universe
is simple. Virus. if a missle has any comm potential at all it is
susceptible to virus. meaning at the least it can be controlled, and at
worst, a weapon of contagion. Thus, in the TNE virus universe, by necessity,
all missles will be controlled with auto self destruct if control is
interfered with. after all, isn't a basic flight control computer pretty
much included with a missle guidance system? Translation, missles are fire
and don't forget till they explode, and if they don't, hunt them down and
MAKE them go boom! Misssles, in a virus universe, are a simply bad choice if
other options are available. sandcasters take on additional meaning as well.
If they interfere with targetting lasers, they interfere with comm lasers
and ladar as well!
Here is a thought, a dedicated missle that controls enough "sand" to
interfere with comm / targetting lasers? at T12 I believe, sand is
gravitically controlled, so the sand missle leads a pack of warheads in to
prevent virus / comm interference.

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Tim O'Reilly <> wrote:

>
>
> I'd modify your missile to passive-active sensor suite ... they would be
> passive until certain things happened
> 1. they approach 'attack' range of the target
> 2. they lose their control link
> 3. they receive command to go active, either from the data link or
> preprogrammed
> If a guided missile loses it's target it will attempt to reacquire another
> target within the designated target area
> if the missile fails to reacquire a target and attack it, and after a
> preset time goes by it will self destruct to prevent capture by hostile
> forces
> passive-active sensors use a digital array that provides 180 degrees
> coverage to the front of the missile (90 degrees from 000/000 or the 12
> oclock position if you prefer) ... telemetry link arrays to the rear ...
> Tim
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Rupert Boleyn <>
> *To:*
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 11, 2009 12:52:47 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Traveller_TNE] TNE Rule fixes (plus some personal
> thoughts!)
>
>
>
> Roger Malmstein wrote:
> > One of them is that there is actually nowhere to hide in space. No
> > horizon to hide behind or other "terrain" features. And the launching
> > platforms sensors will be far better than the sensor suite carried
> > onboard a missile. Missiles has a limited field of view, so if they
> > loose their target ther may be little chance for them to regain the
> > target.
> >
> The correct solution to this is self-guided missiles with onboard
> sensors (passive, for power reasons, most likely), with long-range
> guidance by the mother ship until the missile is close.
>
> The primary reason for self-guiding is light-speed lag. Over the ranges
> TNE assumes, a remote guided missile has a major problem with
> communication and sensor lag.
>
>
>
>

--
"Here at Ortillery Command we have at our disposal one hundred megawatt
laser beams, mach 20 titanium rods and guided thermonuclear bombs. Some
people say we think that we're God. We're not God. We just borrowed his
SMITE button for our fire control system"

> Roger Malmstein wrote:
> > One of them is that there is actually nowhere to hide in space. No
> > horizon to hide behind or other "terrain" features. And the
> launching
> > platforms sensors will be far better than the sensor suite carried
> > onboard a missile. Missiles has a limited field of view, so if they
> > loose their target ther may be little chance for them to regain the
> > target.
> >
> The correct solution to this is self-guided missiles with onboard
> sensors (passive, for power reasons, most likely), with long-range
> guidance by the mother ship until the missile is close.
>
> The primary reason for self-guiding is light-speed lag. Over
> the ranges
> TNE assumes, a remote guided missile has a major problem with
> communication and sensor lag.
>
>
>
Maximum short range for an MFD is 10 hexes (1 light second) so extreme range
is 80 hexes (8 light seconds) this would give a maximum lag of 16 seconds
(out and back) for the active sensor attached to the MFD. I'm not sure that
given the way ND missiles supposedly work in the TNE universe that that
would make much difference to a warhead which sprays x-ray lasers out to
about a half hex.

Antony

Antony Farrell wrote:
> Maximum short range for an MFD is 10 hexes (1 light second) so extreme range
> is 80 hexes (8 light seconds) this would give a maximum lag of 16 seconds
> (out and back) for the active sensor attached to the MFD. I'm not sure that
> given the way ND missiles supposedly work in the TNE universe that that
> would make much difference to a warhead which sprays x-ray lasers out to
> about a half hex.
>
As I recall, controlled missiles suffer the range penalty of +1 DM per 3
hexes. I don't recall if guided missiles with their own sensors do (I
think not). An independent missile will have the advantage of not
suffering such penalties, and of not being limited in range by the
useful range of the mother ship's guidance systems and lag.

In TNE/FF&S the way to design them would seem to be to put robot brains
into them. This works pretty well because they make good missiles (the
brains can have skill in piloting and gunnery), but bad remote
ships/drones (robot brains can't have Tactics skill, and thus can't evade).

According to FF&S1 all ND warheads contain the following
1. Nuclear device
2. An array of x-ray generating rods
3. A short-range tracker (range and type not specified)
4. A laser comm receiver for a 300,000km Laser Comm
5. A battery pack to power the above systems

In theory at least the laser comm could allow the missile to be "virused"
but there is no onboard computer and the communicator is receive only. I
believe that the on-board tracker is used to orientate the missile so that
the maximum number of x-ray rods are pointed in the general direction of the
target. How this can do it given the likely miniscule range of this tracker
in relation to the typical detonation range of the missile (up to about half
a hex, 15,000km for missiles which detonate in the same hex as the target,
add another hex for the high tech missiles with a 1 hex range)

How much smaller are laser comm and for that matter maser and radio comms
that can only receive?

Antony