Thread: Re: TNE Crewing Requirements-->Designing big ships

In the simplified BR model, Frank did have a version of this, but perhaps not to your satisfaction? He basically said one MFD for every meson/PA gun and one MFD for every two lasers or you started getting negative effects.

(Yes, I always preferred the simple, and to my mind more playable, BR combat system than BL which reminded me too much of FASA games with its level of detail. But each to his own I say. I think BL could make a very good computer-assisted game with modern PCs).

> Yes. BUT, and I say this advisedly because I did BL and Frank did BR, and
> I haven't looked at BR in a long, long time, but the BR batteries should
> have been cross-wired back down to MFDs at the BL/ship design level,
> because it was an MFD that actually defined how turrets could be ganged
> together.
>

I had a hybrid of the two I was using. PC ship and important NPC were
always BL while "red shirts" (friendly and hostile) were BR. If the PC's
were fighting the main villain it went all BL. I didn't quite codify
everything down but it mostly worked. I didn't like how big the hex grids
were so was using an old hex map from the FLGS I had used with the old FASA
Star Trek Tactical Combat Simulator with significantly smaller hexes and
usually dice (d4) for the vector markers. Never had enough of the RAFM
miniatures to use, though.

Speaking of which, I emailed them at sales@rafm about more Clippers/modules
but never got a response back yet. Might try again here soon some of the
more unique email addresses.

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Jake <> wrote:

> **
>
>
> In the simplified BR model, Frank did have a version of this, but perhaps
> not to your satisfaction? He basically said one MFD for every meson/PA gun
> and one MFD for every two lasers or you started getting negative effects.
>
> (Yes, I always preferred the simple, and to my mind more playable, BR
> combat system than BL which reminded me too much of FASA games with its
> level of detail. But each to his own I say. I think BL could make a very
> good computer-assisted game with modern PCs).
>
>
> > Yes. BUT, and I say this advisedly because I did BL and Frank did BR, and
> > I haven't looked at BR in a long, long time, but the BR batteries should
> > have been cross-wired back down to MFDs at the BL/ship design level,
> > because it was an MFD that actually defined how turrets could be ganged
> > together.
> >
>
>
>

I been trying all the email addresses all they are doing for me is bouncing. I
might give the USA office a call tomorrow.

________________________________
From: Master Uxi
Sent: Thu, June 28, 2012 3:25:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: TNE Crewing Requirements-->Designing big ships

I had a hybrid of the two I was using. PC ship and important NPC were always BL
while "red shirts" (friendly and hostile) were BR. If the PC's were fighting
the main villain it went all BL. I didn't quite codify everything down but it
mostly worked. I didn't like how big the hex grids were so was using an old hex
map from the FLGS I had used with the old FASA Star Trek Tactical Combat
Simulator with significantly smaller hexes and usually dice (d4) for the vector
markers. Never had enough of the RAFM miniatures to use, though.

Speaking of which, I emailed them at sales@rafm about more Clippers/modules but
never got a response back yet. Might try again here soon some of the more
unique email addresses.

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Jake <> wrote:

>
>In the simplified BR model, Frank did have a version of this, but perhaps not to
>your satisfaction? He basically said one MFD for every meson/PA gun and one MFD
>for every two lasers or you started getting negative effects.
>
>(Yes, I always preferred the simple, and to my mind more playable, BR combat
>system than BL which reminded me too much of FASA games with its level of
>detail. But each to his own I say. I think BL could make a very good
>computer-assisted game with modern PCs).
>
>
>> Yes. BUT, and I say this advisedly because I did BL and Frank did BR, and
>> I haven't looked at BR in a long, long time, but the BR batteries should
>> have been cross-wired back down to MFDs at the BL/ship design level,
>> because it was an MFD that actually defined how turrets could be ganged
>> together.
>>
>
>

> In the simplified BR model, Frank did have a version of this, but perhaps
> not to your satisfaction?

I wouldn't say that, I just couldn't remember the details. My recollection
is that he scaled the rules very well, there was just a problem with a
couple of the abstracted ship designs.

> He basically said one MFD for every meson/PA
> gun and one MFD for every two lasers or you started getting negative
> effects.

One MFD for every two laser turrets? Unless I'm forgetting something
that's almost too strict. I've been away from it for too long to remember
the subtleties, however.

> (Yes, I always preferred the simple, and to my mind more playable, BR
> combat system than BL which reminded me too much of FASA games with its
> level of detail. But each to his own I say. I think BL could make a very
> good computer-assisted game with modern PCs).

The idea was that BL was an aid to the RPG and BR was the actual "game."
BL was anal-retentive because those ships were supposed to be able to be
filled with PCs who were playing out their adventure. BR was so two people
could say, "let's throw some fleets at each other." Because the abstract
range-band starship combat in the core rules was only one-dimensional, it
didn't really help players understand what space combat looked like; it
was a place-holder. Originally I had wanted the Deluxe TNE boxed set to be
the core rulebook and BL, but it was explained to me that would be too
expensive, so we went with FF&S plus custom goodies instead. Like I've
said ad nauseam, and skip ahead if you know what I'm about to say, I was
sick to death of MT adventures saying, "suddenly an enemy ship appears
from behind a nearby moon." "WHAT nearby moon?" And it was our own fault
for not giving players something to visualize space around them so that
adventures could be developed "realistically" without "nearby moons" and
the cast of Hello Dolly appearing at random.

Do you still use the resolution cards with BR? I felt like if I played it
a lot I would probably go back to just rolling dice.

Dave

You obviously had an intuitive sense of the BL/BR division of labor that I
just mentioned in another post.

You probably also realized that the BL/BR hex grid was so large in order
to permit/encourage/require/reward use of minis.
But it also did allow us to use larger counters with garish ship paint
schemes on them, which is always nice. I put the Maryland flag on as many
things as I possibly can. And the Blue Angels paint job, and Richard
Petty's colors.

> I had a hybrid of the two I was using. PC ship and important NPC were
> always BL while "red shirts" (friendly and hostile) were BR. If the PC's
> were fighting the main villain it went all BL. I didn't quite codify
> everything down but it mostly worked. I didn't like how big the hex grids
> were so was using an old hex map from the FLGS I had used with the old
> FASA
> Star Trek Tactical Combat Simulator with significantly smaller hexes and
> usually dice (d4) for the vector markers. Never had enough of the RAFM
> miniatures to use, though.
>
> Speaking of which, I emailed them at sales@rafm about more
> Clippers/modules
> but never got a response back yet. Might try again here soon some of the
> more unique email addresses.