Thread: Armor XXI

Dave,

I've always been a military-oriented Traveller gamer, right from the first time I picked up LBB4, and back in the day I looked with intrigue at the adverts for Armor XXI in 'Challenge'. Whatever happened to it? I always assumed it was unfinished due to the great CCG extinction event. But maybe you took it to the Army? Did it turn out to be any good?

I'm still at the military end of the Traveller spectrum, despite the sneers of some who castigate "bloodthirsty Star Vikings". Just gearing up to replay Scenario Two from TNE/Striker-II: the Dawn League hot drop onto Vezina in 1199.

I love FF&S and regularly use it to design new equipment for Striker-II. With Roger we've gone through a few of the WTF? features in FF&S trying to fix them. If you ever do get your FF&S revision out of storage, you'll have a very keen set of eyeballs here!

being an Abrams tanker I always wanted to do my own ideal mod
starting with an XM360 main gun and coaxial M134 if not a
stabilized cupola with a gau19


___
>From my Galaxy SII

-------- Original message --------
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Armor XXI
From: Jake



Dave,

I've always been a military-oriented Traveller gamer, right from
the first time I picked up LBB4, and back in the day I looked
with intrigue at the adverts for Armor XXI in 'Challenge'.
Whatever happened to it? I always assumed it was unfinished due
to the great CCG extinction event. But maybe you took it to the
Army? Did it turn out to be any good?

I'm still at the military end of the Traveller spectrum, despite
the sneers of some who castigate "bloodthirsty Star Vikings".
Just gearing up to replay Scenario Two from TNE/Striker-II: the
Dawn League hot drop onto Vezina in 1199.

I love FF&S and regularly use it to design new equipment for
Striker-II. With Roger we've gone through a few of the WTF?
features in FF&S trying to fix them. If you ever do get your
FF&S revision out of storage, you'll have a very keen set of
eyeballs here!

What would be really cool would be the chance to design your own vehicles with something like FF&S. The only thing I'd want to seriously revisit would be the computer system rules, RPV rules, and the rules for robot "brains", since real technology has developed a bit differently than they assumed. I think you'd have a tough time doing something like the remote-controlled weapons mount on the Stryker using the stock FF&S rules, for example, though I haven't tried.

-JTD

"Neil, if you had any guts you'd yell 'Oh my God, what is that thing?!', scream, and then cut your mic."

- Michael Collins on the first words to be spoken on the Moon

On Jun 11, 2012, at 5:53 PM, wrote:

> being an Abrams tanker I always wanted to do my own ideal mod starting with an XM360 main gun and coaxial M134 if not a stabilized cupola with a gau19
>
>
> ___
> From my Galaxy SII
>
> -------- Original message --------
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Armor XXI
From: Jake

>
>
>
> Dave,
>
> I've always been a military-oriented Traveller gamer, right from the first time I picked up LBB4, and back in the day I looked with intrigue at the adverts for Armor XXI in 'Challenge'. Whatever happened to it? I always assumed it was unfinished due to the great CCG extinction event. But maybe you took it to the Army? Did it turn out to be any good?
>
> I'm still at the military end of the Traveller spectrum, despite the sneers of some who castigate "bloodthirsty Star Vikings". Just gearing up to replay Scenario Two from TNE/Striker-II: the Dawn League hot drop onto Vezina in 1199.
>
> I love FF&S and regularly use it to design new equipment for Striker-II. With Roger we've gone through a few of the WTF? features in FF&S trying to fix them. If you ever do get your FF&S revision out of storage, you'll have a very keen set of eyeballs here!
>
>
>

I was actually trying to adapt book 8 to FFS design sequences
using a spreadsheet...


___
>From my Galaxy SII

-------- Original message --------
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Armor XXI
From: Jeff Dougherty



What would be really cool would be the chance to design your own
vehicles with something like FF&S. The only thing I'd want to
seriously revisit would be the computer system rules, RPV rules,
and the rules for robot "brains", since real technology has
developed a bit differently than they assumed. I think you'd
have a tough time doing something like the remote-controlled
weapons mount on the Stryker using the stock FF&S rules, for
example, though I haven't tried.

-JTD
"Neil, if you had any guts you'd yell 'Oh my God, what is that
thing?!', scream, and then cut your mic."
- Michael Collins on the first words to be spoken on the Moon


On Jun 11, 2012, at 5:53 PM,
<> wrote:

being an Abrams tanker I always wanted to do my own ideal mod
starting with an XM360 main gun and coaxial M134 if not a
stabilized cupola with a gau19


___
>From my Galaxy SII

-------- Original message --------
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Armor XXI
From: Jake




Dave,

I've always been a military-oriented Traveller gamer, right from
the first time I picked up LBB4, and back in the day I looked
with intrigue at the adverts for Armor XXI in 'Challenge'.
Whatever happened to it? I always assumed it was unfinished due
to the great CCG extinction event. But maybe you took it to the
Army? Did it turn out to be any good?

I'm still at the military end of the Traveller spectrum, despite
the sneers of some who castigate "bloodthirsty Star Vikings".
Just gearing up to replay Scenario Two from TNE/Striker-II: the
Dawn League hot drop onto Vezina in 1199.

I love FF&S and regularly use it to design new equipment for
Striker-II. With Roger we've gone through a few of the WTF?
features in FF&S trying to fix them. If you ever do get your
FF&S revision out of storage, you'll have a very keen set of
eyeballs here!

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 3:06 PM,
<>wrote:

>
>
> I was actually trying to adapt book 8 to FFS design sequences using a
> spreadsheet...
>

Down that path lies madness.
--
Evyn

Jeff,

FF&S always had design sequences for remote mounts. Its pretty simple to replicate (at least to my satisfaction) the Stryker using FF&S and then use it in Striker-II wargames. Happy to whip one up using my spreadsheet if you'd like to see.

--- In , Jeff Dougherty <dougherty.jeffrey@...> wrote:
>
> What would be really cool would be the chance to design your own vehicles with something like FF&S. The only thing I'd want to seriously revisit would be the computer system rules, RPV rules, and the rules for robot "brains", since real technology has developed a bit differently than they assumed. I think you'd have a tough time doing something like the remote-controlled weapons mount on the Stryker using the stock FF&S rules, for example, though I haven't tried.
>
> -JTD
>
> "Neil, if you had any guts you'd yell 'Oh my God, what is that thing?!', scream, and then cut your mic."
>
> - Michael Collins on the first words to be spoken on the Moon
>
>
>
> On Jun 11, 2012, at 5:53 PM, master.uxi@... wrote:
>
> > being an Abrams tanker I always wanted to do my own ideal mod starting with an XM360 main gun and coaxial M134 if not a stabilized cupola with a gau19
> >
> >
> > ___
> > From my Galaxy SII
> >
> > -------- Original message --------
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Armor XXI
From: Jake

> >
> >
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > I've always been a military-oriented Traveller gamer, right from the first time I picked up LBB4, and back in the day I looked with intrigue at the adverts for Armor XXI in 'Challenge'. Whatever happened to it? I always assumed it was unfinished due to the great CCG extinction event. But maybe you took it to the Army? Did it turn out to be any good?
> >
> > I'm still at the military end of the Traveller spectrum, despite the sneers of some who castigate "bloodthirsty Star Vikings". Just gearing up to replay Scenario Two from TNE/Striker-II: the Dawn League hot drop onto Vezina in 1199.
> >
> > I love FF&S and regularly use it to design new equipment for Striker-II. With Roger we've gone through a few of the WTF? features in FF&S trying to fix them. If you ever do get your FF&S revision out of storage, you'll have a very keen set of eyeballs here!
> >
> >
> >
>

Those castigating bastards!

Seriously, pick up a copy of Pete Townshend's "White City" album. It's all
about why the Star Vikings fought the good fight, even though everyone
castigates them. "No one remembers, not that I can see, That we were
defenders, we were the free."

Re: A21, I was going to be the designer. I even have the color proofs for
the cover somewhere. However, with the continuing drawback on our staff, I
got pulled off that to keep getting TNE product out the door, until that
stopped too.

I sent some info on A21 to Wayne at Wayne's Books, and he posted it here:

http://www.waynesbooks.com/2ndedaccessories.html

Go down to the bottom.

A lot of that stuff came out of advanced concepts work being done at Knox
during 1992-3-4, including from Pat Ritter, who is mentioned elsewhere in
my posts the past couple days.

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 20:49:27 -0000, "Jake" <>
wrote:
> Dave,
>
> I've always been a military-oriented Traveller gamer, right from the
> first time I picked up LBB4, and back in the day I looked with intrigue
> at the adverts for Armor XXI in 'Challenge'. Whatever happened to it? I
> always assumed it was unfinished due to the great CCG extinction event.
> But maybe you took it to the Army? Did it turn out to be any good?
>
> I'm still at the military end of the Traveller spectrum, despite the
> sneers of some who castigate "bloodthirsty Star Vikings". Just gearing
up
> to replay Scenario Two from TNE/Striker-

A21 was going to have modified M1s, but of course the XM360 wasn't around
back then. The big talk was the 140mm gun, but that would have been too
big.

And now there's no FCS (for all the right reasons, that program was a
disaster), and probably no new MBTs for our lifetimes.

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 14:53:24 -0700 (PDT), ""
<> wrote:
> being an Abrams tanker I always wanted to do my own ideal mod starting
> with an XM360 main gun and coaxial M134 if not a stabilized cupola with
a
> gau19
>
> ___
> From my Galaxy SII
>
> -------- Original message --------
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Armor XXI
From: Jake

>
> Dave,
>
> I've always been a military-oriented Traveller gamer, right from the
> first time I picked up LBB4, and back in the day I looked with intrigue
> at the adverts for Armor XXI in 'Challenge'. Whatever happened to it? I
> always assumed it was unfinished due to the great CCG extinction event.
> But maybe you took it to the Army? Did it turn out to be any good?
>
> I'm still at the military end of the Traveller spectrum, despite the
> sneers of some who castigate "bloodthirsty Star Vikings". Just gearing
up
> to replay Scenario Two from TNE/Striker-

I agree that FF&S would have to be fine-tuned, and it would never be able
to allow you to design a true real-world vehicle to Jane's level.

FF&S might be able to get you pretty close. I think we had a way to do
open-mount remote control, didn't we? But I always opposed those "Giraffe"
M1s from T2K because there are no stowed kills. The turret is there for a
reason: to store all those rounds. It's fine for test rigs, because they're
not going into a fight, or for a compromise "maybe it will be okay if we
only have a handful of rounds" vehicle like Stryker, but not for an MBT,
not without ballooning up hull size for all the rounds that aren't in the
turret.

Although now that I re-read your post you are talking about new Striker
rules, not just new FF&S rules, and you are correct. I tried to do a lot of
networked warfare in 2300: AD and TNE, but it was primarily space-based.

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 18:03:11 -0400, Jeff Dougherty
<> wrote:
> What would be really cool would be the chance to design your own
> vehicles with something like FF&S. The only thing I'd want to seriously
> revisit would be the computer system rules, RPV rules, and the rules for
> robot "brains", since real technology has developed a bit differently
> than they assumed. I think you'd have a tough time doing something like
> the remote-controlled weapons mount on the Stryker using the stock
> FFcolor: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family: Helvetica;font-

How did that go?

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:06:45 -0700 (PDT), ""
<> wrote:
> I was actually trying to adapt book 8 to FFS design sequences using a
> spreadsheet.

(I laughed)

What do you mean by that, Evyn?

As I recall, the Book 8 design sequence was kind of broken when it came
out as well. Like High Guard, 1st edition

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:15:37 -0700, Evyn MacDude <>
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 3:06 PM, [1] wrote:
>
> I was actually trying to adapt book 8 to FFS design sequences using a
> spreadsheet.

Yeah, that's what I thought. The 105 on the Stryker MGS is just a remote
turret without armor.

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 22:19:49 -0000, "Jake" <>
wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> FF&S always had design sequences for remote mounts. Its pretty simple
> to replicate (at least to my satisfaction) the Stryker using FF&S and
> then use it in Striker-II wargames. Happy to whip one up using my
> spreadsheet if you'd like to see.
>
> --- In [1], Jeff Dougherty wrote:
> >
> > What would be really cool would be the chance to design your own
> vehicles with something like FF&S. The only thing I'd want to seriously
> revisit would be the computer system rules, RPV rules, and the rules for
> robot "brains", since real technology has developed a bit differently
> than they assumed. I think you'd have a tough time doing something like
> the remote-controlled weapons mount on the Stryker using the stock FF&S
> rules, for example, though I haven't tried.
> >
> > -JTD
> >
> > "Neil, if you had any guts you'd yell 'Oh my God, what is that
> thing?!', scream, and then cut your mic."
> >
> > - Michael Collins on the first words to be spoken on the Moon
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jun 11, 2012, at 5:53 PM, master.uxi@.

I'd be interested in seeing that, Jake. I could never get it working right.

Ah, the Stryker MGS. Didn't recoil end up being the killer for that, or was it weight? Thing I mostly remember is the Canucks canceling their order and scrambling to buy real tanks off Ze Germans.

-JTD

It's time to punch the counters!
It's time to roll the dice!
It's time to break the system on the Muppet Show Tonight!

On Jun 11, 2012, at 6:25 PM, <> wrote:

> Those castigating bastards!
>
> Seriously, pick up a copy of Pete Townshend's "White City" album. It's all
> about why the Star Vikings fought the good fight, even though everyone
> castigates them. "No one remembers, not that I can see, That we were
> defenders, we were the free."
>
> Re: A21, I was going to be the designer. I even have the color proofs for
> the cover somewhere. However, with the continuing drawback on our staff, I
> got pulled off that to keep getting TNE product out the door, until that
> stopped too.
>
> I sent some info on A21 to Wayne at Wayne's Books, and he posted it here:
>
> http://www.waynesbooks.com/2ndedaccessories.html
>
> Go down to the bottom.
>
> A lot of that stuff came out of advanced concepts work being done at Knox
> during 1992-3-4, including from Pat Ritter, who is mentioned elsewhere in
> my posts the past couple days.
>
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 20:49:27 -0000, "Jake" <>
> wrote:
> > Dave,
> >
> > I've always been a military-oriented Traveller gamer, right from the
> > first time I picked up LBB4, and back in the day I looked with intrigue
> > at the adverts for Armor XXI in 'Challenge'. Whatever happened to it? I
> > always assumed it was unfinished due to the great CCG extinction event.
> > But maybe you took it to the Army? Did it turn out to be any good?
> >
> > I'm still at the military end of the Traveller spectrum, despite the
> > sneers of some who castigate "bloodthirsty Star Vikings". Just gearing
> up
> > to replay Scenario Two from TNE/Striker-

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 3:44 PM, <> wrote:

> (I laughed)
>
> What do you mean by that, Evyn?
>
> As I recall, the Book 8 design sequence was kind of broken when it came
> out as well. Like High Guard, 1st edition

Well you said it, Book 8 is broken in that the parts didn't mesh to
finished designs. But it didn't slow my games in the least, my gasmes where
built off of the rules, not constrained to them. And we had all the loverly
bots left over from the design system presented in jTas (which I am back to
using as the boys at Mongoose understand tech about as well as DGP).

I recently re-read it and was amused by CPU design concepts in rules that
have been through several passes in the real world since then.
--
Evyn

I think that advances in computers and telecommunications are the things
that have invalidated SF and thinking about the future more than anything
else.

I have an old Popular Science magazine that has a cover story about, "By
1965, you will have a robot that will tie your shoes." It's funny how
imagination can get stuck on the trivial, and not visualize what that robot
brain could have done if, say, hooked up to the phone system.

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:24:44 -0700, Evyn MacDude <>
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 3:44 PM, wrote:
> (I laughed)
>
> What do you mean by that, Evyn?
>
> As I recall, the Book 8 design sequence was kind of broken when it came
> out as well. Like High Guard, 1st edition
> Well you said it, Book 8 is broken in that the parts didn't mesh to
> finished designs. But it didn't slow my games in the least, my gasmes
> where built off of the rules, not constrained to them. And we had all
the
> loverly bots left over from the design system presented in jTas (which I
> am back to using as the boys at Mongoose understand tech about as well
as
> DGP).
> I recently re-read it and was amused by CPU design concepts in rules
> that have been through several passes in the real world since then. --
> Evyn
>
>

Ia! Ia! Traveller ftaghn!

Todd Kes

--- On Mon, 6/11/12, Evyn MacDude wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 3:06 PM, wrote:
> I was actually trying to adapt book 8 to FFS design sequences using a
> spreadsheet...
Down that path lies madness.--
Evyn

Two principal fixes to the FF&S1 system which came up for discussion in the past were, alter the chassis/turret design sequence so that they are separate components with a hole in each (like Striker 1 did) this reduces the mass of the vehicle significantly and allows different armour on the turret from the chassis.

The other problem was the power output of the power plants which is too low for a given mass. Fix this and again the mass of the vehicles drops.

The biggest problem with approximating real world vehicles as FF&S1 vehicles come out significantly over mass compared to a real world equivalent.

I don't know what Mongoose and MM attitude would be to an official uprated FF&S book would be but I personally would buy such a book.

Antony

Doesn't the Vampire Book for TNE also have a Robot design sequence?

Antony

Yes, it does. It’s basically FF&S plus motivation and beliefs.

From: [] On Behalf Of Antony Farrell
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 9:56 AM
To:
Subject: RE: [Traveller_TNE] Armor XXI

Doesn't the Vampire Book for TNE also have a Robot design sequence?

Antony

The main reason we didn't have rules for low-recoil guns is we didn't have
rules for recoil effects on vehicles (unless I'm forgetting something).
Obviously we had these grav vehicles flying around blasting fusion guns but
didn't talk about how that might send them lurching across the sky. Nor, in
2300, did we address how firing those big guns would affect those ACV/GEV
tanks, other than to realize later, "that probably wouldn't work."

On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 07:24:26 -0000, "Jake" <>
wrote:
> I've uploaded a pdf of the Stryker-esque infantry combat vehicle I
> designed using my FF&S spreadsheet to the yahoogroup files. Is it an
> exact match? No. But close enough for government work I wager. If there
> is demand I'll do the MGS version with the 105mm low recoil gun -
> although FF height: 0;">
>

Brings to mind a story (set in Mass Effect, but that's neither here nor there) where the thrusters go out on a grav tank while it's a couple hundred meters up. The crew solves the problem by swiveling the turret and firing the fusion gun, using the recoil as a braking thruster. Just in case you were wondering what those really, really high-level skill checks were for...

-JTD

"If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane."

-Jimmy Buffet

My thinking was that those flight control computers were doing a lot of
work on the grav tanks, compensating for movements in CG as the turret
swivelled, asymmetrical drag, and of course gun-recoil especially when
fired off-centerline.

On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:03:45 -0400, Jeff Dougherty
<> wrote:
> Brings to mind a story (set in Mass Effect, but that's neither here nor
> there) where the thrusters go out on a grav tank while it's a couple
> hundred meters up. The crew solves the problem by swiveling the turret
> and firing the fusion gun, using the recoil as a braking thruster. Just
> in case you were wondering what those really, really high-level skill
> checks were for...
>
> -JTD
>
> "If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane."
>
> -Jimmy Buffet
>
>
>

I nitced that recoil rules for vehicles was missing. I had hard to believe that it would be possible to tout a 113Mj Fusion gun to a minimal sized grav vehicle with barely enough thrust to make it going.

While we are on the matter. Why wasn’t there any movement rules for vehicles when it comes to maneuvring? And grav vehicles would realisticly move like a hockey puck on ice. How many squares would you need to use in the turn depending on the vehicle speed? And then we got those squares. Why squares in outdoor combats? Hexes are more intinuitive and easier to handle. And you don’t have to consider those pesky diagonals and how they affect range.

--
Roger Malmstein
www.travellerfreeport.com

From:
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 3:53 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Armor XXI

The main reason we didn't have rules for low-recoil guns is we didn't have
rules for recoil effects on vehicles (unless I'm forgetting something).
Obviously we had these grav vehicles flying around blasting fusion guns but
didn't talk about how that might send them lurching across the sky. Nor, in
2300, did we address how firing those big guns would affect those ACV/GEV
tanks, other than to realize later, "that probably wouldn't work."

If we assume that gravity manipulation is at a level of vehicle sized
mastery in a setting. The laws of thermodynamics for conservation of motion
are no longer an issue. Meaning that if you can nullify inertial or
G-effect via gravity manipulation, a vehicle can make a 90 degree turn at
speed without harming the occupants. Relativistic movement is rendered
obsolete by the presumed technology level of the setting.

However if your setting only has gravity manipulation to the state of off
setting to a limited degree of inertia for a given momentum then such
vehicles would still require 'thrust' and utilize relativistic movement to
advantage.

Or if such manipulation is possible but power requirements for the gravity
manipulation are prohibitive for vehicles of such size as a tank
then relativistic movement also seems likely.

It comes down to how you want it to be and what science has accomplished in
the setting.

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Roger Malmstein <
> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I nitced that recoil rules for vehicles was missing. I had hard to
> believe that it would be possible to tout a 113Mj Fusion gun to a minimal
> sized grav vehicle with barely enough thrust to make it going.
>
> While we are on the matter. Why wasn�t there any movement rules for
> vehicles when it comes to maneuvring? And grav vehicles would realisticly
> move like a hockey puck on ice. How many squares would you need to use in
> the turn depending on the vehicle speed? And then we got those squares. Why
> squares in outdoor combats? Hexes are more intinuitive and easier to
> handle. And you don�t have to consider those pesky diagonals and how they
> affect range.
>
> --
> Roger Malmstein
> www.travellerfreeport.com
>
> *From:*
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 14, 2012 3:53 PM
> *To:*
> *Subject:* Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Armor XXI
>
>
>
> The main reason we didn't have rules for low-recoil guns is we didn't have
> rules for recoil effects on vehicles (unless I'm forgetting something).
> Obviously we had these grav vehicles flying around blasting fusion guns but
> didn't talk about how that might send them lurching across the sky. Nor, in
> 2300, did we address how firing those big guns would affect those ACV/GEV
> tanks, other than to realize later, "that probably wouldn't work."
>
>
>

--
If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
would have been deserved.

The reason the movement system, and the grid system, was the way it was
was to preserve compatability with existing systems that they were supposed
to be interchangeable with, namely the "House System," AKA Twilight 2000. I
never really liked the 2-meter grid because of the violence that it did to
Traveller ship deckplans. It was impossible, in my opinion, to move
satisfactorily from 1.5 meter deckplans to 2 meter deckplans. However, in
the pressure of all of the good reasons and bad reasons--and the big deal
was that we told people that for all intents and purposes T2K and TNE
combat would be interchangeable-

I have found this reluctance to gloss over setting points when inconvenient
also. For example book keeping tasks in other RPGs like food/water supply,
material components for spells, ect.

The only solution as a game master I have found is that player's take their
que from the Game Master. If I keep track of time so will the players. If I
keep track of X thing it signals to the player's I think its important
regardless if it ever becomes an issue.

If a GM says "The planet has a tainted atmosphere, what equipment are you
going to use to get around with?" prompts the player's to think and plan
for this. But first it takes the effort of the GM to ask about it on a
regular (maybe not always) basis to clue the player's into this aspect of
the setting.

Its a little bit of psychological training of the player's but harmless
over all and in most cases, in my opinion, make the quality of storytelling
better.

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 9:32 AM, <> wrote:

> **
>
>
> The reason the movement system, and the grid system, was the way it was
> was to preserve compatability with existing systems that they were supposed
> to be interchangeable with, namely the "House System," AKA Twilight 2000. I
> never really liked the 2-meter grid because of the violence that it did to
> Traveller ship deckplans. It was impossible, in my opinion, to move
> satisfactorily from 1.5 meter deckplans to 2 meter deckplans. However, in
> the pressure of all of the good reasons and bad reasons--and the big deal
> was that we told people that for all intents and purposes T2K and TNE
> combat would be interchangeable-

I had the idea that a corollorary of tractor and pressor beams was that while they could be used to push and pull against an object, - with Newton's 3rd Law - if the object was large enough (eg, a mountain or a moon) the reaction would be greater on the pusher/puller than the beam's target. Kind of reactionless, but what the power/volume requirements are for a vehicle to manouver well I don't know.
 
I had the idea when I came up with a scenario with an AHL cold-sleep crew waking up in the New Era and having to try an avert a collision with a planet in a ship with fried HePLAR.
 
Eamon
 

From: "" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 June 2012, 1:32
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Armor XXI

 
That is related to Frank's decree that there would be no reactionless drives in TNE. Just a
gravity negating field and reaction thrusters.

I agree with your reasoning.

So, what you're saying is that reactionless drives snuck into TNE despite
Frank's prohibition? :-) That's kind of ironic, but also kind of
inescapable, as we had already established repulsors in earlier editions,
and tractors were just a higher-tech extension of that. I don't recall if
anyone ever realized that or not.

Frank used to try to insist that any game we put out should "only violate
one law of physics per game." That sounded good, but in practice, that was
impossible in an SF game that attempted to cover SO MUCH of the existing SF
literature as Traveller did.

Dave

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:48:57 +0100 (BST), Eamon Watters
<> wrote:
> I had the idea that a corollorary of tractor and pressor beams was that
> while they could be used to push and pull against an object, - with
> Newton's 3rd Law - if the object was large enough (eg, a mountain or a
> moon) the reaction would be greater on the pusher/puller than the beam's
> target. Kind of reactionless, but what the power/volume requirements are
> for a vehicle to manouver well I don't know. I had the idea when I
came
> up with a scenario with an AHL cold-sleep crew waking up in the New Era
> and having to try an avert a collision with a planet in a ship with
fried
> HePLAR. Eamon
> ""
>
> Friday, 15 June 2012, 1:32
> Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Armor XXI
>
> That is related to Frank's decree that there would be no
> reactionless drives in TNE. Just a
> gravity negating field and reaction thrusters.
>
>
>

I didn't think the blanket prohibition made much sense and like
the idea of tplates being TL F or G

---
from my T989

wrote:


I agree with your reasoning.

So, what you're saying is that reactionless drives snuck into TNE
despite
Frank's prohibition? :-) That's kind of ironic, but also kind of
inescapable, as we had already established repulsors in earlier
editions,
and tractors were just a higher-tech extension of that. I don't
recall if
anyone ever realized that or not.

Frank used to try to insist that any game we put out should "only
violate
one law of physics per game." That sounded good, but in practice,
that was
impossible in an SF game that attempted to cover SO MUCH of the
existing SF
literature as Traveller did.

Dave

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:48:57 +0100 (BST), Eamon Watters
< <eamonwatter

Thrust plates might have made sense as alternative tech in FF&S as well.
Or maybe we did do that.

I just remember that just about the first thing Frank ever said to me
about the next edition of Traveller after MT was, "there aren't going to
be any reactionless drives." And he repeated that often.

We actually did discuss a lot of alternative anti-grav, including
something he liked from some SF book he'd read where starships take off
over water, because their "grav footprint," so to speak is projected
downwards onto the surface below, and water would absorb it nicely and not
have it crush buildings, asphalt, children. I don't remember where that
was from.

> I didn't think the blanket prohibition made much sense and like the idea
of tplates being TL F or G

> ---
> from my T989

> wrote:

>> I agree with your reasoning.
>>
>> So, what you're saying is that reactionless drives snuck into TNE despite
>> Frank's prohibition? :-) That's kind of ironic, but also kind of
>> inescapable, as we had already established repulsors in earlier editions,
>> and tractors were just a higher-tech extension of that. I don't recall if
>> anyone ever realized that or not.
>>
>> Frank used to try to insist that any game we put out should "only violate
>> one law of physics per game." That sounded good, but in practice, that was
>> impossible in an SF game that attempted to cover SO MUCH of the
existing SF
>> literature as Traveller did.
>>
>> Dave

> Return-Path:
> <>
> Delivered-To:
> Received: (qmail 14350 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2012 03:11:54 -0000
> Received: from ng16-ip10.bullet.

1972.

____________

I'm content with the way we went too.

But I think what I meant was that inertial dampers internal to a craft
must be related to reactionless drives, in terms of "where do you dump the
stuff?" But I feel no need to dig into that too hard just for the sake of
discovered contradictions that aren't already known.

And yes, starships turning on a dime is exactly the answer to the question
about MT: "How can you have a vector-based space combat system which
ignores vectors?"

> maybe more interesting, but it into the turf you was moving away from,
> reactionless thrusters. Even though I missed them at first, I felt that
> the game universe gained something by dropping thrusters all together. For
> the same reason I was beither very satisifed with Repulsors and Tractors
> (unless it was the farmer Bob kind).
>
> I could deal with inertial compensators for the interior of craftsm, but I
> have a hard time bending my brains around how they are supposed to work on
> a grav vehicle maneuvering under full thrust. If the inertial compensators
> would affect its maneuverability, it means that excess energy has to be
> dumped someplace, and the craft could turn on a dime any time it wants.
> just think about the effects on starships, which would gain a lot.
>
> ---
> Roger Malmstein
> Administrator / Webmaster
> www.travellerfreeport.com
>
>
> From:
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 6:13 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Armor XXI
>
>
> John's answer, which I just found in my spam folder, is much more
> interesting than mine.
>
> And it reminds me that we haven't talked about inertial dampers. Which is
> probably one more way that Frank's "no reactionless drives" was
> compromised by the embedded assumptions of the SF environment.
>
>> If we assume that gravity manipulation is at a level of vehicle sized
>> mastery in a setting. The laws of thermodynamics for conservation of
>> motion are no longer an issue.
>
>

In the arena of Inertia and Gravity I think its a 2 part problem.

1. Using gravity technology to 'nullify' the 'pull' of a planet's gravity
field so that any object effected would have buoyancy in proximity to the
gravity source (regardless of medium, air, methane, none, ect) doesn't
strictly remove the issue of killing the biological occupants or relieving
the craft's frame stresses when performing 90 degree turn when traveling
'at speed" even if the craft would be capable of performing such
a maneuver without simply tearing itself apart.

2. Many Scifi settings assume Inertia compensator as part of gravity
manipulation technology. Whether true or not it releases the authors having
to explain elaborate ship/vehicle design to simulate a comfortable
working/traveling environment for the characters of their setting/stories.)

A possible technobabble explanation could be motion 'experienced' but a
given object, be it organic or in-organic, can be cancelled out by a
quantum field of equal frequency in a similar way sound wave can be
canceled by a precisely opposite sound wave. This would nullify the
'experience' of motion for the effected object/person without actually
impeding the motion of the object is space/time.

The caveat being the power required to achieve complete nullification. So
at this point you can say at higher energy(Gs) levels it incredibly power
intensive to counter so its not practical to try and compensate beyond a
certain point, which has the side effect of limiting 'thruster-less' real
space acceleration. But this is only if you feel it needs a limitation.

Also to the energy dump point the compensators could simply store or
convert the motion cancellation to another from of energy. Electrical,
Magnetic, HPG motion, or just light emission from the exterior of the hull,

Either way its up to the setting designers to set a precident or a GMs
preference.

If you can't wrap your mind around how Inertial compensators 'could' work
don't worry about it as most trained scientists have difficulty grasping
Quantum Mechanics. And this is way beyond that.

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Roger Malmstein <
> wrote:

> **
>
>
> maybe more interesting, but it into the turf you was moving away from,
> reactionless thrusters. Even though I missed them at first, I felt that the
> game universe gained something by dropping thrusters all together. For the
> same reason I was beither very satisifed with Repulsors and Tractors
> (unless it was the farmer Bob kind).
>
> I could deal with inertial compensators for the interior of craftsm, but I
> have a hard time bending my brains around how they are supposed to work on
> a grav vehicle maneuvering under full thrust. If the inertial compensators
> would affect its maneuverability, it means that excess energy has to be
> dumped someplace, and the craft could turn on a dime any time it wants.
> just think about the effects on starships, which would gain a lot.
>
> ---
> Roger Malmstein
> Administrator / Webmaster
> www.travellerfreeport.com
>
> *From:*
> *Sent:* Friday, June 15, 2012 6:13 AM
> *To:*
> *Subject:* Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Armor XXI
>
>
>
> John's answer, which I just found in my spam folder, is much more
> interesting than mine.
>
> And it reminds me that we haven't talked about inertial dampers. Which is
> probably one more way that Frank's "no reactionless drives" was
> compromised by the embedded assumptions of the SF environment.
>
> > If we assume that gravity manipulation is at a level of vehicle sized
> > mastery in a setting. The laws of thermodynamics for conservation of
> > motion are no longer an issue.
>
>
>

--
If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
would have been deserved.

I want to say that somewhere we had the number of Gs that could be
accommodated by inertial compensators, that advanced by TL. Is that
correct? I think inertial compensators were assumed into the other
systems, whether it was the grav-nullifier thing or something else.

> In the arena of Inertia and Gravity I think its a 2 part problem.
>
> 1. Using gravity technology to 'nullify' the 'pull' of a planet's gravity
> field so that any object effected would have buoyancy in proximity to the
> gravity source (regardless of medium, air, methane, none, ect) doesn't
> strictly remove the issue of killing the biological occupants or relieving
> the craft's frame stresses when performing 90 degree turn when traveling
> 'at speed" even if the craft would be capable of performing such
> a maneuver without simply tearing itself apart.
>
> 2. Many Scifi settings assume Inertia compensator as part of gravity
> manipulation technology. Whether true or not it releases the authors
> having
> to explain elaborate ship/vehicle design to simulate a comfortable
> working/traveling environment for the characters of their
> setting/stories.)
>
> A possible technobabble explanation could be motion 'experienced' but a
> given object, be it organic or in-organic, can be cancelled out by a
> quantum field of equal frequency in a similar way sound wave can be
> canceled by a precisely opposite sound wave. This would nullify the
> 'experience' of motion for the effected object/person without actually
> impeding the motion of the object is space/time.
>
> The caveat being the power required to achieve complete nullification. So
> at this point you can say at higher energy(Gs) levels it incredibly power
> intensive to counter so its not practical to try and compensate beyond a
> certain point, which has the side effect of limiting 'thruster-less' real
> space acceleration. But this is only if you feel it needs a limitation.
>
> Also to the energy dump point the compensators could simply store or
> convert the motion cancellation to another from of energy. Electrical,
> Magnetic, HPG motion, or just light emission from the exterior of the
> hull,
>
> Either way its up to the setting designers to set a precident or a GMs
> preference.
>
> If you can't wrap your mind around how Inertial compensators 'could' work
> don't worry about it as most trained scientists have difficulty grasping
> Quantum Mechanics. And this is way beyond that.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Roger Malmstein <
> > wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> maybe more interesting, but it into the turf you was moving away from,
>> reactionless thrusters. Even though I missed them at first, I felt that
>> the
>> game universe gained something by dropping thrusters all together. For
>> the
>> same reason I was beither very satisifed with Repulsors and Tractors
>> (unless it was the farmer Bob kind).
>>
>> I could deal with inertial compensators for the interior of craftsm, but
>> I
>> have a hard time bending my brains around how they are supposed to work
>> on
>> a grav vehicle maneuvering under full thrust. If the inertial
>> compensators
>> would affect its maneuverability, it means that excess energy has to be
>> dumped someplace, and the craft could turn on a dime any time it wants.
>> just think about the effects on starships, which would gain a lot.
>>
>> ---
>> Roger Malmstein
>> Administrator / Webmaster
>> www.travellerfreeport.com
>>
>> *From:*
>> *Sent:* Friday, June 15, 2012 6:13 AM
>> *To:*
>> *Subject:* Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Armor XXI
>>
>>
>>
>> John's answer, which I just found in my spam folder, is much more
>> interesting than mine.
>>
>> And it reminds me that we haven't talked about inertial dampers. Which
>> is
>> probably one more way that Frank's "no reactionless drives" was
>> compromised by the embedded assumptions of the SF environment.
>>
>> > If we assume that gravity manipulation is at a level of vehicle sized
>> > mastery in a setting. The laws of thermodynamics for conservation of
>> > motion are no longer an issue.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
> would have been deserved.
>

On 15 Jun 2012 at 9:32, John Potter wrote:

> In the arena of Inertia and Gravity I think its a 2 part problem.

> 1. Using gravity technology to 'nullify' the 'pull' of a planet's gravity
> field so that any object effected would have buoyancy in proximity to the
> gravity source (regardless of medium, air, methane, none, ect) doesn't
> strictly remove the issue of killing the biological occupants or relieving
> the craft's frame stresses when performing 90 degree turn when traveling
> 'at speed" even if the craft would be capable of performing such
> a maneuver without simply tearing itself apart.
>
> 2. Many Scifi settings assume Inertia compensator as part of gravity
> manipulation technology. Whether true or not it releases the authors having
> to explain elaborate ship/vehicle design to simulate a comfortable
> working/traveling environment for the characters of their setting/stories.)
>
> A possible technobabble explanation could be motion 'experienced' but a
> given object, be it organic or in-organic, can be cancelled out by a
> quantum field of equal frequency in a similar way sound wave can be
> canceled by a precisely opposite sound wave. This would nullify the
> 'experience' of motion for the effected object/person without actually
> impeding the motion of the object is space/time.

Much simpler. Given "artifical gravity" (not due to spin), all you
have to do is have the "grav plates" tied in with the maneuver drive.
If the drive is accelersatibng the ship in direction +X (giving an
apparent "gravity" in the -X direction) the grav plates just exert a
equal and opposite pull in the +X direction.

That nullifies the apparent gravity due to the ship's maneuvers.

If the ship is built such that the direction of acceleration would be
perceived as "up" or "down", then you either crank the plates up a
bit more or a bit less to provide the proper amount of artifical
gravity inside the ship.

Not "inertial compensation", actually. Just playing with the gravity.

--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com

Inertia - In common usage the term "inertia" may refer to an object's
"amount of resistance to change in velocity" (which is quantified by its
mass), or sometimes to its momentum <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum>,
depending on the context

I see my usage of the word was incorrect. By artificially reducing the
object's mass you reduce its resistance velocity changes intrinsically.
Which in turn means that by use of Interface/Grav technology in Imperial
vehicles you also make vector based concerns pretty much a non-issue as
long as occupant mass is taken into account in regards to inertia but other
concerns for aerodynamic or being acted upon by other forces would still
potentially introduce acceleration above and beyond self-generated may over
power the local compensation.

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:17 PM, <> wrote:

> **
>
>
> On 15 Jun 2012 at 9:32, John Potter wrote:
>
> > In the arena of Inertia and Gravity I think its a 2 part problem.
>
> > 1. Using gravity technology to 'nullify' the 'pull' of a planet's gravity
> > field so that any object effected would have buoyancy in proximity to the
> > gravity source (regardless of medium, air, methane, none, ect) doesn't
> > strictly remove the issue of killing the biological occupants or
> relieving
> > the craft's frame stresses when performing 90 degree turn when traveling
> > 'at speed" even if the craft would be capable of performing such
> > a maneuver without simply tearing itself apart.
> >
> > 2. Many Scifi settings assume Inertia compensator as part of gravity
> > manipulation technology. Whether true or not it releases the authors
> having
> > to explain elaborate ship/vehicle design to simulate a comfortable
> > working/traveling environment for the characters of their
> setting/stories.)
> >
> > A possible technobabble explanation could be motion 'experienced' but a
> > given object, be it organic or in-organic, can be cancelled out by a
> > quantum field of equal frequency in a similar way sound wave can be
> > canceled by a precisely opposite sound wave. This would nullify the
> > 'experience' of motion for the effected object/person without actually
> > impeding the motion of the object is space/time.
>
> Much simpler. Given "artifical gravity" (not due to spin), all you
> have to do is have the "grav plates" tied in with the maneuver drive.
> If the drive is accelersatibng the ship in direction +X (giving an
> apparent "gravity" in the -X direction) the grav plates just exert a
> equal and opposite pull in the +X direction.
>
> That nullifies the apparent gravity due to the ship's maneuvers.
>
> If the ship is built such that the direction of acceleration would be
> perceived as "up" or "down", then you either crank the plates up a
> bit more or a bit less to provide the proper amount of artifical
> gravity inside the ship.
>
> Not "inertial compensation", actually. Just playing with the gravity.
>
> --
> Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
> shadow at shadowgard dot com
>
>
>

--
If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
would have been deserved.